Reply With Quote
Libertarian Party. Check it.
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.
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.
BINGO!! Right on, FWD.
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 ing 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 ..
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 ing sucks like Clippers. .(DNC) and other is good guys (BUSH camp).
So, when your fellow countrymen disagree with you, regardless of the reasons for their disagreement, they are the equivalent of your mortal enemy?
Trying to comprehend that post made my head hurt.
"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
Easier that way. Thinking is hard.
Bouts, that's you in a nuts ("dubya, head, 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!
^^^^pic of boutons at the top makes this pyramid complete
Very good post FWD !
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:
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 cons uents?
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.
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)
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!
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.
But, but, THEY STARTED IT!!!
(Part MCXVIII)
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.
[QUOTE]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.
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.
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 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 cir stances which lead to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Not exactly following the set party phylosophies are we?
Well, democracy needs people like Nbadan and TRO to be healthy. The advent of the internet allows anyone to post crazy , though. For checks and balances in government to work you have to have differing viewpoints. Lack of diametrically opposing views leads to totalitarianism.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
