Politics

[Dre_7]

Okay, I think I have finally come to a conclusion on politics. After years of wavering back and forth (first I was a liberal, than a conservative, than a liberal again, than a conservative again, etc etc you get the point) I have finally realized, that both the Left Wing and the Right Wing are idiots. I cant stand it when people fully support their parties blindly (ie. NBADan and TRO, or whatever his name is now) without question. What about being in the middle?

I agree with the left at times and I disagree with them at other times. I agree with the right at times and I disagree with them at other times. I guess that would make me an idependant, or whatever you want to label it.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I think people need to examine their own personal conscience and beliefs and not just buy into whatever the right or left is telling them.

Okay, thats all, just felt like ranting today. Thank you very much. :)

[exstatic]

Libertarian Party. Check it.

[FromWayDowntown]

Libertarian Party. Check it.

I don't think that being a centrist or a non-partisan or a moderate or whatever you call it equates with libertarian principles or an agreement with the politics of the Libertarian Party. I understand the point of exstatic's post, but I don't necessarily agree that the Libertarian Party is a haven for those who feel disenfranchised by the extremism of the mainstream parties.

But I certainly agree with Dre's post. Partisanship for the sake of partisanship is ridiculous; politics should be inherently idiosyncratic and the willingness to buy into every principle espoused by a particular party strikes me as either an amazing coincidence or a lack of genuine thought about many issues.

Finally, I hate the fact that the rampant partisanship has created a situation where the parties (and their supporters) don't talk respectfully to each other. Many on the two sides devote more time to name-calling than they do to an actual discussion of the issues and attempting to understand the reasoning used by each side. If you disagree with the reasoning, that's one thing, but to be disrespectful simply because the other side has a different idea strikes me as the paragon of counterproductivity.

[Dre_7]

Finally, I hate the fact that the rampant partisanship has created a situation where the parties (and their supporters) don't talk respectfully to each other. Many on the two sides devote more time to name-calling than they do to an actual discussion of the issues and attempting to understand the reasoning used by each side. If you disagree with the reasoning, that's one thing, but to be disrespectful simply because the other side has a different idea strikes me as the paragon of counterproductivity.

BINGO!! Right on, FWD.

[Vashner]

Dude Yin Yang... Evil Vs Good .. .it's old. .you didn't figure anything new out..

This is exactly the tone Set by Demcratic Senior Senator Zell Miller when he
gave GW's KEYnote last year.

He wanted the parties to work together so he said his party that had worked together
in the past for America was not the same party...

In other words... Democrats fucking suck about 911 and Michael Moore purchased Haliburton stock at the same time he was making the movie..

So either you life in NBA dan and Boutons world where Bush is Nazi and USA army napalms kids and Al Queda is right and honerable and you suck Osamas dick..

Or my world where US Marine core is the freedom maker and hero. Where San Antonio has a legacy of honor in battle here and abroad for general freedom..

No SIR.. one side fucking sucks like Clippers. .(DNC) and other is good guys (BUSH camp).

[FromWayDowntown]

So, when your fellow countrymen disagree with you, regardless of the reasons for their disagreement, they are the equivalent of your mortal enemy?

[Swishy McJackass]

Dude Yin Yang... Evil Vs Good .. .it's old. .you didn't figure anything new out..

This is exactly the tone Set by Demcratic Senior Senator Zell Miller when he
gave GW's KEYnote last year.

He wanted the parties to work together so he said his party that had worked together
in the past for America was not the same party...

In other words... Democrats fucking suck about 911 and Michael Moore purchased Haliburton stock at the same time he was making the movie..

So either you life in NBA dan and Boutons world where Bush is Nazi and USA army napalms kids and Al Queda is right and honerable and you suck Osamas dick..

Or my world where US Marine core is the freedom maker and hero. Where San Antonio has a legacy of honor in battle here and abroad for general freedom..

No SIR.. one side fucking sucks like Clippers. .(DNC) and other is good guys (BUSH camp).

Trying to comprehend that post made my head hurt.

[boutons]

"Demcratic Senior Senator Zell Miller"

The hate and anger and spittle he spewed over the grateful, inhaling REPUG convention was sick. Can't pin that jerk on the Democratic party. He's playing to the red-state/KKK/hate-mongers in GA.

[xrayzebra]

"Demcratic Senior Senator Zell Miller"

The hate and anger and spittle he spewed over the grateful, inhaling REPUG convention was sick. Can't pin that jerk on the Democratic party. He's playing to the red-state/KKK/hate-mongers in GA.

KKK=Kennedy/Kerry/Klan

[Mr. Ash]

So, when your fellow countrymen disagree with you, regardless of the reasons for their disagreement, they are the equivalent of your mortal enemy?
Easier that way. Thinking is hard.

[jochhejaam]

"Demcratic Senior Senator Zell Miller"

The hate and anger and spittle he spewed...

Bouts, that's you in a nutshell ("dubya, dickhead, darth, repugs, shrub"), . Zell was in complete control and gave one of the most inspiring speeches heard in a long time.
I'd call it refreshing!

http://www.760kfmb.com/newsletters/rick_roberts/images/democrat_women.jpg

^^^^pic of boutons at the top makes this pyramid complete

[Hook Dem]

I don't think that being a centrist or a non-partisan or a moderate or whatever you call it equates with libertarian principles or an agreement with the politics of the Libertarian Party. I understand the point of exstatic's post, but I don't necessarily agree that the Libertarian Party is a haven for those who feel disenfranchised by the extremism of the mainstream parties.

But I certainly agree with Dre's post. Partisanship for the sake of partisanship is ridiculous; politics should be inherently idiosyncratic and the willingness to buy into every principle espoused by a particular party strikes me as either an amazing coincidence or a lack of genuine thought about many issues.

Finally, I hate the fact that the rampant partisanship has created a situation where the parties (and their supporters) don't talk respectfully to each other. Many on the two sides devote more time to name-calling than they do to an actual discussion of the issues and attempting to understand the reasoning used by each side. If you disagree with the reasoning, that's one thing, but to be disrespectful simply because the other side has a different idea strikes me as the paragon of counterproductivity.
Very good post FWD !

[FromWayDowntown]

I have to say it is rather illuminating that we can't even get past name-calling and disrespect, even in a thread attempting to discuss those features of contemporary American politics . . . from both sides:


In other words... Democrats fucking suck about 911 and Michael Moore purchased Haliburton stock at the same time he was making the movie..

So either you life in NBA dan and Boutons world where Bush is Nazi and USA army napalms kids and Al Queda is right and honerable and you suck Osamas dick..


The hate and anger and spittle he spewed over the grateful, inhaling REPUG convention was sick. Can't pin that jerk on the Democratic party. He's playing to the red-state/KKK/hate-mongers in GA.


KKK=Kennedy/Kerry/Klan

I mean, is it THAT hard to really talk about why politics is so venomous while passing up an opportunity to speak disrespectfully of the other side?

[jochhejaam]

I mean, is it THAT hard to really talk about why politics is so venomous while passing up an opportunity to speak disrespectfully of the other side?
Power (control,ego) and the quest for power is an extreme motivator. Throw moral and religious views into the mix and you end up with a potent and volatile brew. There's nothing wrong with passion but I agree that the name calling, and personal attacks do nothing to further the position of either side.

I think Kerry's think-tank must have been made up entirely of extremists because instead of coming up with workable solutions to the issues that concern American citizens, he instead chose to engage in a policy of "elect me because President Bush's policies have failed" campaign. You mean to tell me that the Dems couldn't have come up with sensible alternatives to the so called failures of the President instead of nonstop attacks on them?

If that venomous rhetoric (VR) you speak of is modeled by the leaders of the Political Parties (I believe the Dems lead the way in VR) what more can be expected of their constituents?
Monkey see- monkey do.

[FromWayDowntown]

If that venomous rhetoric (VR) you speak of is modeled by the leaders of the Political Parties (I believe the Dems lead the way in VR) what more can be expected of their constituents?
Monkey see- monkey do.

But see, you prove the point. Who cares who's to blame -- if you want to raise the level of the discourse, you do a disservice to that effort by trying to point fingers at who is to blame for the degradation.

Political discourse was once about the exchange of ideas and a discussion of the validity of those ideas. Today, neither of the mainstream parties (and fewer of their partisan supporters) are truly interested in discussing policies or the justifications for policies. It's much easier (and, I guess, more satisfying) for some to just say that my side is right and the other side is wrong without any real intellectual effort. It's true on both sides.

Sadly, many people don't take positions on issues until a party has taken a position.

What befuddles me is why non-politicians (those of us in this forum, for example) are so willing to just buy into the position taken by a particular party and defend without question, simply because it is the position of his or her favored party. When questioned about the hows and whys of that position, the defender is more likely to resort to attacking the other side, rather than truly discussing the issue at hand and the various policy alternatives that might exist.

[jochhejaam]

But see, you prove the point. Who cares who's to blame -- if you want to raise the level of the discourse, you do a disservice to that effort by trying to point fingers at who is to blame for the degradation.

Political discourse was once about the exchange of ideas and a discussion of the validity of those ideas. Today, neither of the mainstream parties (and fewer of their partisan supporters) are truly interested in discussing policies or the justifications for policies. It's much easier (and, I guess, more satisfying) for some to just say that my side is right and the other side is wrong without any real intellectual effort. It's true on both sides.

Sadly, many people don't take positions on issues until a party has taken a position.

What befuddles me is why non-politicians (those of us in this forum, for example) are so willing to just buy into the position taken by a particular party and defend without question, simply because it is the position of his or her favored party. When questioned about the hows and whys of that position, the defender is more likely to resort to attacking the other side, rather than truly discussing the issue at hand and the various policy alternatives that might exist.
Newton's third law is that every action has an opposite and equal reaction but the laws of nature have no jurisdiction or control of the way we respond to each others opposition. So what is it that doesn't allow for constructive exchange of ideas among opposing philosophies?
What is the main obstacle to discourse without the injection of negativism or cynicism?
Could there be a spiritual barrier that does not allow for compromise?
(There is but I don't know how large a part it plays in the incessant acrimony in the political realm)

[Dre_7]

Vashner and boutons proving my point. That is what I mean. I cant stand it when people blindly follow checking their brains at the door!

[jochhejaam]

I'll take it a step further and state that someone with a powerful grasp of religious principles and/or moral absolutes, inextircably interwoven with a solid secular education that strengthens but does not compromise these moral values would be one that would most accurately and purposefully address all issues of the day.
Who in either party can lay claim to this mix of spiritual/political savvy?

At the risk of alienating the anti-religious sector in this forum I will state that Christ was questioned by the most intelligent of his time (saducees and pharisees) and answered each of their questions so completely and thoroughly that they ended up (according to scripture) asking him no more questions.

[Spurminator]

But, but, THEY STARTED IT!!!

(Part MCXVIII)

[FromWayDowntown]

I'll take it a step further and state that someone with a powerful grasp of religious principles and/or moral absolutes, inextircably interwoven with a solid secular education that strengthens but does not compromise these moral values would be one that would most accurately and purposefully address all issues of the day.
Who in either party can lay claim to this mix of spiritual/political savvy?

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here, joch. The thrust of the topic isn't a lament that neither side has THE answer to any particular question; the concern that Dre brought to the table (as I understand it) is that in our inherently flawed world, neither side is willing to admit that its policies might not be perfect.

In other words, building from your point leads me to dre's, which is that politics isn't efficient or productive right now, because neither side has perfect ideas but each refuses to engage the other in meaningful debate -- instead of having a productive discourse about policy, our discussions devolve into finger-pointing and name calling in an effort to stake out some position of perceived superiority.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here, joch. The thrust of the topic isn't a lament that neither side has THE answer to any particular question; the concern that Dre brought to the table (as I understand it) is that in our inherently flawed world, neither side is willing to admit that its policies might not be perfect.
Not being willing to relent to an opposing view doesn't equate to having a problem. Who's the arbiter of which side has the most compelling reasoning in handling an issue?

I was suggesting that their can be someone out there who's reasoning and arguements are so compelling that it would cause the opposition to effectively be muted by them and would be made to look totally foolish in digressing from that reasoning.

[jochhejaam]

In other words, building from your point leads me to dre's, which is that politics isn't efficient or productive right now, because neither side has perfect ideas but each refuses to engage the other in meaningful debate -- instead of having a productive discourse about policy, our discussions devolve into finger-pointing and name calling in an effort to stake out some position of perceived superiority.

Which bring us back to mans devotion to power and control by whatever means possible over reasoning.

If everyone isn't willing to play by the rule that sound logical reasoning (both sides claim the high ground on this one) wins out over brute force or sheer numbers then we end up with what on many occasions in this forum reveals itself in the form of name callling to the point of absurdity, putdowns, tiresome cliches, cynicism, negativity and the like.

The arguements that take place in this forum aren't any different then those that take place in any number of political forums aired or reported by news mediums from coast to coast. The lack of civility has infiltrated every level of intelligence, the difference being evidenced only in the size of the combatants vocabulary not in substance.

[Nbadan]

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here, joch. The thrust of the topic isn't a lament that neither side has THE answer to any particular question; the concern that Dre brought to the table (as I understand it) is that in our inherently flawed world, neither side is willing to admit that its policies might not be perfect.

In other words, building from your point leads me to dre's, which is that politics isn't efficient or productive right now, because neither side has perfect ideas but each refuses to engage the other in meaningful debate -- instead of having a productive discourse about policy, our discussions devolve into finger-pointing and name calling in an effort to stake out some position of perceived superiority.

I think the administration in the WH and the media set the tone for public political discourse in this country. After all, we live in a black or white, with us-or-against us world. Speak out against the reasoning for the Iraq war, and you’re against the troops and freedom. Support the UN, and you’re a French sympathizer. Support Social Security, and you’re a socialist. It’s wasn’t easy being a dissenter and now it's not easy being a W supporter, and it’s not just a problem on this forum either.

Despite my and Yonivore’s perceived political leanings in this forum, due mostly to our staunch defense of our opinions, I think if you look more closely at our under-lying political philosophies, you’d soon realize that most of the time neither he nor I fall clearly in the far-left or far-right conspiratorial columns. After all, Yonivore maybe a closet conservative and a religous one at that, but he is clearly also a closet Federalist, supporting the continuation and expansion of the Patriot Act, and the opinions of the Supreme Court over States-rights. I don't think Yonivore supported W's health-care reform plan, but he did support the corporate welfare-plan known as the WH Energy bill.

I, on other the other hand, stood against mis-informed Democrats who supported the war in Iraq three years ago, and I am a stead-fast critic of Hillary Clinton and the Clintonistas. I don't trust John Kerry for surrendering the 04 election so easily, and I sure as hell don't want to see John Edwards on another ballot that doesn't have the words 'county commissioner' proceeding it. I think the Democratic Party made a mistake not coming up with an alternative to W's proposal to privatize SS (which went down in flames), and I won't support Democrats who refuse to call for a time-line for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and an investigation into the circumstances which lead to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Not exactly following the set party phylosophies are we?

[SWC Bonfire]

Well, democracy needs people like Nbadan and TRO to be healthy. The advent of the internet allows anyone to post crazy shit, though. For checks and balances in government to work you have to have differing viewpoints. Lack of diametrically opposing views leads to totalitarianism.

[Extra Stout]

What happens in this vitriolic climate is that defeating the other side becomes more important than putting forth an agenda.

So Congress doesn't have any coherent agenda whatsoever, and the electorate is noticing.

The problem appears to be systemic, i.e. that the American system of politics is broken, rather than the problem being partisan.

And all those who would argue that one party or the other is at fault for the current impasse are just sympomatic of the problem.

It doesn't matter "who started it" anymore. It matters that somebody come up with an agenda for governance.

Or is it already too late?

[xrayzebra]

.

Or is it already too late?

Look at the link below. And draw your own conclusions.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051114-015140-6451r.htm

[gtownspur]

I think the administration in the WH and the media set the tone for public political discourse in this country. After all, we live in a black or white, with us-or-against us world. Speak out against the reasoning for the Iraq war, and you’re against the troops and freedom. Support the UN, and you’re a French sympathizer. Support Social Security, and you’re a socialist. It’s wasn’t easy being a dissenter and now it's not easy being a W supporter, and it’s not just a problem on this forum either.

Despite my and Yonivore’s perceived political leanings in this forum, due mostly to our staunch defense of our opinions, I think if you look more closely at our under-lying political philosophies, you’d soon realize that most of the time neither he nor I fall clearly in the far-left or far-right conspiratorial columns. After all, Yonivore maybe a closet conservative and a religous one at that, but he is clearly also a closet Federalist, supporting the continuation and expansion of the Patriot Act, and the opinions of the Supreme Court over States-rights. I don't think Yonivore supported W's health-care reform plan, but he did support the corporate welfare-plan known as the WH Energy bill.

I, on other the other hand, stood against mis-informed Democrats who supported the war in Iraq three years ago, and I am a stead-fast critic of Hillary Clinton and the Clintonistas. I don't trust John Kerry for surrendering the 04 election so easily, and I sure as hell don't want to see John Edwards on another ballot that doesn't have the words 'county commissioner' proceeding it. I think the Democratic Party made a mistake not coming up with an alternative to W's proposal to privatize SS (which went down in flames), and I won't support Democrats who refuse to call for a time-line for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and an investigation into the circumstances which lead to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Not exactly following the set party phylosophies are we?



^^I remember when Bush won-i mean stole- the election :elephant , and many liberal pundits said that it would usher an era of machivalean politics. When you hear liberals say that about anything, you know the general public will immediately think, "Thank GOd, no more bending over and grabbing our ankles appeasement from holier than though elitist."


As for FWD putting a halt to oxymoron anti-capitalist self proclaimed Libertarians calling themselves Libertarians, I was the first to call bullshit on the likes of so many like MIG, and CBF who claimed they were. Some people are so far left that the Libertarian name next to theirs would be contradictory.

One either Leans to the Left or to the Right on principle. Choosing parties is a whole other thing. Hell, Buchanan is farther right than Manny is God and Exstatic, but he considers himself an Independent too.

Republican goals and Democrat goals shift from spectrum to spectrum, but many a times people are dissatisfied with both parties means to express those ideas. Doesn't mean that they are "Middle of Da' Road, :angel Moderate, No red state blue state here! :lol ", just means that their views are not articulated anywhere or they feel displaced.

[DarkReign]

Unfortunately, I dont believe there are any teaching sociologists onboard to properly explain the key differences between a person who identifies with one of the 2 major parties.

But there is certainly a glaring difference.

I tend to liken political agenda and political overview more simplistic then most. Sometimes, I think the scope of some decsions/situations overwhelms people thereby making them feel uncomfortable. When so, there are always open arms of partisans for that person.

Some just plain agree.

It isnt so much a stretch of your imagination to encompass the thought process of a devout Christian/Republican/Democrat. Usually, these people tend to be very narrow-minded and unwilling to listen. My simplification: The loud mouth at work who is always right (even when wrong).

Political life isnt a testament to the people or the enrichment of values as sooooo many politicians portray. Its allllllll about CYA: Cover Your Ass. Dont be tied to the sinking ship. Dont offer opinion on sensitive, devisive issues. Play the game correctly and you might have a career.

The life of a politician WITHOUT the moniker President is a very cushy job. Very cushy indeed. It is the ultimate good life. Not only are you well-compensated for your duties, your duties are (80% of the time) optional! Look at John Kerry's voting record in the Senate. He didnt participate in how many votes? How about Kennedy? You get the point.

Not including some of the perks of being a public figure. Kick-backs, regional construction deals, business import/export monies...the list is long. You alone can NOT be the deciding factor on whether this country goes to war or not, but you can certainly influence your peers on which company should get the government contract for the roads / services / etc. When youre talking about BILLIONS of dollars, wouldnt you think that politician deserves a little "feed money" for hooking up the contractor? Whether you agree or dont doesnt matter, that is exactly what these people do.

They spend very little time in their term with the concerns of their constituents (fancy term for the people that elected him, ie the city/county/state citizens that elected them). Out of a 4 year term, the typical politician will spend about 1/4 of that time addressing the issues affecting the people they represent. By "addressing those issues", I mean campaigning. It seems all one must do to be elected is to pay a great deal of lip service to very bland, non-sensitive issues concerning very small amounts of people. The usuals; unemployment, agriculture, economy.

If you simplify the things you see on TV or read in the newspaper, scaling the events and happenings back to their most basic functions, you start to see the age-old of tendencies of tribal man and the inherent deficencies of being human. To be celebrated or ridiculed? I dont know.

My only appeal to people is to please, PLEASE...

Stop looking at your government and its actions, at all levels, as too much for you to understand. (i realize this doesnt apply to anyone who posts here, more of a calling to people without an opinion, which is my biggest pet peeve)

and...

Keep an open mind.

The political spectrum spans a wiiiiiiiide range. I am sure the "Political Cross" has been posted here many times. Just because you fall a certain 'somewhere' on that cross, does not make you a Republican/Democrat/Nazi/Fascist. You are what you desire to be. Accepting the limitations of one side or the other should be beyond you and those you love. Pigeon-holing yourself to such humanly-defunct socio-mechanisms should be beneath any free-thinking citizen of this world.

Berate me as you wish. None of it truly matters. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican (though most on one side or the other will inevitably try and tag me with such trivial labels. I believe that those who fall so one-sided believe that EVERYONE must be one or the other, because THEY do. Ignorance perpetuated by their own limitations of rationale. Pitiable). I can not single-handedly change anything I would like to in this world. But...

What I can do is maintain my family's well-being. I can make sure my children stay as open-minded and free-thinking as I am. I can state my opinion without name-calling and vitriol. I can listen to the dissenting opinion of others with an open-mind and agree with them if I believe I may be wrong or mis-guided.

As long as I do these things, the most spiritually/polictically-charged topics will take care of themselves within the family unit.

This post was never meant to go this long and I have re-read to discover so many topics left open-ended and incomplete. Oh well, I say. Wasnt like anyone here was actually listening anyway.

[FromWayDowntown]

As for FWD putting a halt to oxymoron anti-capitalist self proclaimed Libertarians calling themselves Libertarians, I was the first to call bullshit on the likes of so many like MIG, and CBF who claimed they were. Some people are so far left that the Libertarian name next to theirs would be contradictory.

I don't think I was trying to put a halt to anything, gtown. I was just noting that one's aversion to either party does not mean he is either a centrist or a libertarian. My point, more explicitly made, is that one could be fairly liberal on some issues and fairly conservative on others, and find problems with each of the mainstream parties as a result, but not correctly identify as a libertarian.

My bigger point here has nothing to do with that, but everything to do with the lack of respectful discourse from both sides on political issues, as virtually every thread in this Political Forum evidences.

[Marcus Bryant]

...as if politics in this country has ever been that civil...

[FromWayDowntown]

...as if politics in this country has ever been that civil...

Perhaps not, but I don't recall politics in this country often being this devisive, polarized, and (more to the point) antagonistic.

[mookie2001]

Well, democracy needs people like Nbadan and TRO to be healthy. The advent of the internet allows anyone to post crazy shit, though. For checks and balances in government to work you have to have differing viewpoints. Lack of diametrically opposing views leads to totalitarianism.
Very good point bonfire








and all democratic women are HIDEOUS as shit
they all need plastic surgery
its from having all those abortions

[JoeChalupa]

I'm a conservative liberal.