Re: [RETIREMENT] Nick Demola

On 2 Dec 2003 12:48:04 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruiser Brody)
wrote:

>> Got me to thinking it's about time we set aside this whole "My team,
>> your team" mentality, because it's obviously not cutting it... For
>> example, I'm an athiest, and believe that morality is relative,
>> putting me on the liberal side, but I believe that people should be
>> free to try to own firearms, putting me on the conservative side...
>> There's obviously more than one team out there, and the two party
>> system - the act of assuming that whoever doesn't agree with you on an
>> issue is on the other team - just doesn't work any more.
>
>Here's the problem, Mat. What you're asking for is, basically, a
>moderate and centrist party. The Compromise Party. That doesn't work
>for me. Moderates aren't classically willing to fight for what they
>believe in. That's why they're moderates. Some examples...

I'll refrain from pointing out that I do, in fact, fight for what I
believe in for now... Wait... Too late. Damn.

>Moderate Repulicans are pro-2nd Amendment and don't want guns banned,
>but they're willing to accept incremental legislation like licensing,
>ballistic fingerprinting, limits to how many guns can be owned, etc.
>Essentially, they won't accept an outright ban but they'll accept a
>de-facto ban for many people by virtue of "common-sense" legislation.
>
>Moderate Democrats don't want Roe v Wade overturned, but they're
>willing to accept incremental legislation like the partial-birth
>abortion ban, parental advisement laws, etc. Essentially, they won't
>accept an outright ban of abortion but they'll accept a de-facto ban
>for many people by virtue of "common-sense" legislation.
>
>I want legislators that are willing to fight for what they believe in,
>i.e. the things that I believe in. I don't want legislators going in
>willing and ready to compromise and give away, bit by bit, the
>liberties with which I've entrusted them.
>
>Get my drift?

I think so, but let me summarize to make sure... You want people to
stand their ground on issues, blindly holding to what the party line
says, no matter how ridiculous the circumstances? 

For example, if a crackhead that just spent time in prison for
shooting a 12 year old boy in the face in order to steal his bike so
he could sell it to get rock, you'd want your ideal representative to
fight tooth and nail for his right to obtain that gun?

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no cut and dry solution
to this as the 2 party system suggests. Like I said before, some may
consider me a conservative. However, your ideal representative and my
ideal representative are two totally different things. In fact, there
are probably some people out there that think that you make a poor
Republican for whatever reason. Every person is different. Due to
that, legislators probably _are_ fighting for what they believe in (In
a perfect world, anyway). Perhaps they _do_ believe that the right to
bear arms is still valid, but there should be certain restrictions put
on that right for the possibility of fulfilling the other rights
granted in the constitution for other people. I think it would be a
greater victory to sacrifice a portion of one right - that, to be
honest, is written in the spirit of a very different time than we live
in now - in order to preserve two or more rights that are more
significant, as opposed to vice versa.

Quite simply, taken to the extreme, neither side makes any sense
whatsoever. However, each side has its good points... As of this point
right now, there's no classical definition that allows me to believe
in the right to bear arms and the right to choose. That is retarded.
Put on top of that what I said earlier... That the closer you get to
the tips of _either_ wing, the more prominent is the tendency to force
beliefs down people's throats and censor anyone who doesn't agree with
you. That, also, is retarded.

I'd like to think that eventually, humans will evolve to a point where
the majority of the population will believe, "Hey, do whatever you
want, but if it's going to hurt someone, forget about it." I know this
will never be the case, though, since it's not in our nature.
_Everyone_ is guilty of forcing their views on other people from time
to time... That's why I find it so funny that The Young Republicans
are sitting there whining because someone else got the chance to do it
to them first.