I've been here longer than you have
I do think that attacking my opposition with intelligent responses instead of mandatory flames is somewhat more constructive. It does help those viewing the thread to see who the idiot really is
I've been here longer than you have
I do think that attacking my opposition with intelligent responses instead of mandatory flames is somewhat more constructive. It does help those viewing the thread to see who the idiot really is
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
There was never anything "right" or "wrong" concerning your legitimate gripes with our current system. You only went wrong when you started believing that a single party system would be better... when, in fact, a single-party government is quite possibly the worst possible solution to the problem.
Diversity of opinions, passionate debate, and multiple options/choices are the very foundation of what makes this country great. Real improvement would come from an expansion of the spectrum -- more choices and more diverse ideas -- rather than the decrease you suggest.
Forced "narrowing of the political spectrum" is a disgusting thought...
Thank you for that well thought out response. See? Doesn't that feel better than calling me an emotional enemy of the state stupid kid?
As for this one party idea, I'll state again for the 3rd time:
It was never my belief that a one party system would be better than our current two party system. It was only to demonstrate a system where the problems I mentioned earlier would be minimized.
As for the notion that more choice is better than less, I would agree except I see the huge contrasts in terms of political views within our society and I can't help but think that things would run a bit smoother if people were more in agreeance with one another. And before you start talking about freedom of choice... do note that we only have these vastly different views within our society because the two party system of politics put us there. I personally think moving forward as a nation, we should be better served if we were more united in our views.... as opposed to being divided.
As for:
Please forgive me if I mistook your calling me a "clueless son" as an attack on my post as a whole, instead of just the part about a one party system.
The two parties we have are nowhere close to at opposite ends of a long political spectrum. Opposite ends of the spectrum would mean something of an authoritarian communist party and a libertarian free market party (or some mixture of the 4 attributes). You only think that the two parties are on the opposite sides because those are the only two parties that you've ever known. As I said before, both parties are authoritarian, big government, capitalistic parties. They just vary according to the degree of this.
On your other notes, why do you think that bickering is bad? And also, what important bills are not being passed that you wish to be passed in our current system?
I do believe a correction on my part is needed. Why I say political spectrum, I do not mean on a political systems scale, but more on a scale that we're familiar with... with hard line conservatives on one side and liberals on the other.
As for bickering... I wouldn't say that it's bad. In fact it's a necessary component of democracy. However, I think there is too much bickering going on right now, especially in congress. And when I say bickering, I do mean to include such things as political posturing.
As for important bills.... I'll give one example: Nationalized health care. Now I know this is a polarizing issue, and we can debate the merits of this some other time. I personally believe it is something that is critical to the future of our nation. I also believe that Obama, despite the fact that he wants nationalized healthcare, will not be able to achieve such a monumental reform due to opposition from the other side.
Now before you cry out liberal scum, do note that it also works for the other side. Think of an important and large initiative you'd like to see passed, and then think of how much of that you'd actually get in reality due to the vast difference of opinion within out two parties. I'll throw another example out there: Ron Paul's idea of eliminating the Federal Reserve. Even as a left winger, this is something I support. But realistically such a big change to the system will never happen, even if Ron Paul were president, because again of the vast philisophical differences between our two parties.
Addendum: This isn't helping my argument, but I can see taking small steps towards the goal of big reform as a solution. I would prefer to see change come about faster, as with some things time is of the essence, but then again not all things require speed.
Not disagreeing with you. It's just that by being surprised or indignant, you look like a newbie.Originally posted by: JSFLY
I've been here longer than you have
I do think that attacking my opposition with intelligent responses instead of mandatory flames is somewhat more constructive. It does help those viewing the thread to see who the idiot really is
What does
signify?So you mean they are at opposite ends of the spectrum that you have arbitrarily created? If you're confining the spectrum to what is allowed by a two party system, then any two parties would be at opposite ends of the spectrum, because the spectrum is defined by their positions. In other words, defining the political spectrum in the way you are doing it destroys the entire purpose of having a spectrum to begin with. Our two parties are shockingly similar to one another, they represent factionalism within a single party far more than they represent two ideas at the opposite ends of the spectrum.
If you believe that too much bickering is taking place in Congress, I don't know what to tell you. That's how laws are made. Limiting the Congress to a single party would not diminish the bickering, it would just change what the bickering is about. What I think you aren't understanding is that the arguing comes from the structure of government itself, not the ideology present.
Your argument about nationalized health care doesn't make any sense either. You consider his goal to pass this legislation important, but lots of other people don't. So, in the minds of many, many people, important legislation is not being held up in any way, shape, or form. Basically you're arguing for the ability to pass legislation that lots of people think is a bad idea based on the principle that the passage of legislation is a good thing. This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of government, which is not to pass legislation, but to govern effectively. Writing more laws does not necessarily do this, and so simply facilitating the quicker passage of laws does not create better governance.
This is coming from someone who is probably significantly more liberal than you are, and is one of the largest supporters of national health care on this forum.
I agree 1000% percent. Being an American, I have the luxury of witnessing the mass amounts of stupidity on a daily basis. I thought we were better than that.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
The US form of government was designed to be slow and inefficient to avoid the excesses and tyranny of dictatorships and monarchies. A strong executive branch is a modification to this design to allow the country to response more quickly in emergencies.
Originally posted by: JSFLY
Thank you for that well thought out response. See? Doesn't that feel better than calling me an emotional enemy of the state stupid kid?
As for this one party idea, I'll state again for the 3rd time:
It was never my belief that a one party system would be better than our current two party system. It was only to demonstrate a system where the problems I mentioned earlier would be minimized.
As for the notion that more choice is better than less, I would agree except I see the huge contrasts in terms of political views within our society and I can't help but think that things would run a bit smoother if people were more in agreeance with one another. And before you start talking about freedom of choice... do note that we only have these vastly different views within our society because the two party system of politics put us there. I personally think moving forward as a nation, we should be better served if we were more united in our views.... as opposed to being divided.
As for:
Please forgive me if I mistook your calling me a "clueless son" as an attack on my post as a whole, instead of just the part about a one party system.
Per the bolded above i dont think that will ever happen as long as we allow immigrants into this country that have no inclination to assimilate into our culture, but only want to change it to fit their beliefs. No matter how nice/good the idea of a melting pot sounds, its not all its cracked up to be. We will forever be a Nation Divided.
Immigration isn't the issue. Your views are skewed by possible racism and ignorance. Please /life.
Your ignorance is bliss isnt it? Im trying to draw a corrilation between your remark of me being racist and assimilating to a new country. Not finding it.
Im not racist at all. Dont move to a new country and expect the country to change to you. Just as i would never move to Spain and not learn spanish and try to fit in. I wouldnt move there and expect Spain to cater to my needs. As long as America has this happening we will never be united or even close to it. Also religion plays a huge roll in it as well.
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,137
- 225
- 106
Well, let's get rid of MONEY and then you'll have no GREED and No Agenda for people to try to screw other because they wanted "MORE" of it!
That's the problem right there! GREED and CASH. People go crazy and get greedy. How can you stop corruption? Get rid of the money system.
For all the money the tax payers shelled out to every auto industry... Any American should just be able to walk up and say... I want this car to drive and they should be giving that car. Anyone should be able to walk into a hospital, college or grocery store and get free services. We are giving it away to the rich and poor anyway. Why not give it away to everyone ...? Take money out of the equation and we won't have to pay collection agencies, people that take money, sales people, cashiers, etc...etc...etc... Just think how much MONEY it Costs to have BANKS, Brokers, Stocks, you know all the people that deal with money... The government printing it and minting it, taxing it and borrowing it. Billions are wasted in the process of just DEALING with it to keep track of it. Money it's a waste of time and we need a new system. Once that happens then the human race might...Just MIGHT start getting ahead.
That's the problem right there! GREED and CASH. People go crazy and get greedy. How can you stop corruption? Get rid of the money system.
For all the money the tax payers shelled out to every auto industry... Any American should just be able to walk up and say... I want this car to drive and they should be giving that car. Anyone should be able to walk into a hospital, college or grocery store and get free services. We are giving it away to the rich and poor anyway. Why not give it away to everyone ...? Take money out of the equation and we won't have to pay collection agencies, people that take money, sales people, cashiers, etc...etc...etc... Just think how much MONEY it Costs to have BANKS, Brokers, Stocks, you know all the people that deal with money... The government printing it and minting it, taxing it and borrowing it. Billions are wasted in the process of just DEALING with it to keep track of it. Money it's a waste of time and we need a new system. Once that happens then the human race might...Just MIGHT start getting ahead.
I don't think the discussion of whether democracy is good or bad is useful.
What's useful is how to IMPROVE our democracy, e.g., reduce corrupting money, increase transparency, reduce media consolodation, etc.
We have plenty to improve, and democracy isn't going anywhere, and it shoudn't.
IMO, many of the benefits of democracy are 'invisible' and we need to educate people to value it, in spite of the imperfections, lest they be talked into weakening it.
What's useful is how to IMPROVE our democracy, e.g., reduce corrupting money, increase transparency, reduce media consolodation, etc.
We have plenty to improve, and democracy isn't going anywhere, and it shoudn't.
IMO, many of the benefits of democracy are 'invisible' and we need to educate people to value it, in spite of the imperfections, lest they be talked into weakening it.
Yeah but the problem is that "benevolent" is not an absolute definition. What helps one person or particular demographic of people might well be detrimental to another person or segment of society. You can't please all the people all the time. No matter what you do, no matter how well intended, if your decisions and actions impact a broad enough audience some people will hate you for them because they will affect some people in an adverse way. Benevolence to one man is tyranny to another. No matter how well intended you are to start off with, you'll find as time passes you'll have to find ways to silence, marginalize, or pacify your opposition in order to maintain peace. And there will always be opposition.
The political spectrum, defined as: the differences in ideology between the major political parties in the United States. As you pointed out, they function quite similarly, but in terms of ideology they are vastly different. Look no further than the liberals who adore Obama contrasted with the conservatives who want to see him fail as evidence of this ideological gap.
In addition, if we were to define political party correctly: (according to wikipedia)
"A political party is a political organization that seeks to attain and maintain political power within government, usually by participating in electoral campaigns. Parties often espouse an expressed ideology or vision bolstered by a written platform with specific goals, coalition among disparate interests."
I think it can be easily seen that our two parties do NOT represent factionalism within a single party as you stated. The democrats and the republicans are defined by their political ideologies, not by how they function.
Your absolutely correct on this front, except I'd disagree with your statement that arguing does not come from differing ideologies. If everyone in congress were in congruence with one another with respect their views I do think the political infighting would die down.
I agree with this analysis as well. I can see where my logic in the previous post is at fault. I guess from my liberal perspective, we would be in much better shape if Obama could just have his way with what he wants to do. But then I guess the same could be said about Bush from a neo conservative, and if it were true we'd be in more shit now than we already are. In the end, who's to say my views are any more correct than those coming from the opposite side.
Anybody born within the shores of the American continent would be a Native American then. Like me. I was born here and that makes me indigenous to this land. Therefore I am a Native American. Though you wouldn't know it to look at me going by the definition you probably intended. . .
However, my ancestors going back 4 or 5 generations. . .yes they were probably immigrants.
I'm sorry, but you are still working with an unusable definition of 'political spectrum'. Under your definition the two parties must be 100% polarized, because they are by definition the two poles. This doesn't serve to illustrate any meaningful point, it's just a political accounting trick.
I think from a correct contextual perspective you would see that the ideology between the Democrats and Republicans agrees on an awful lot more than it disagrees on.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 392
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter