Do you admit you're a partisan?

[Infohawk]

Are you always on the same side of the debate as your party? Is the other party always wrong?

Do you think P&N is made up primarily of partisan "hacks" as some people call them?

I'll start:

I'm not a partisan. I like certain policies of both parties. I think about 50% of P&N posters are pretty much toeing one of the party lines.

 

[JS80]

Yes, 100%

By not being partisan you're giving away your vote to the other team.

 

[Craig234]

There's a big problem with the question, the ambiguous definition of the word.

Are you a 'partisan' in the debate whether the world is round or flat, because you are firmly convinced it's round?

In that case, if you reach firm conclusions that the left center middle or whatever is right on an issue, does that make you partisan?

The term has two main meanings to pick from:

One is simply having chosen a side - perhaps for excellent reasons, as with the round world example.

The second is when it implies taking one side because of an excessive blind loyalty to that side, so that the facts are trampled on in order to support the preferred side.

It's pretty important to know which you mean, and not that many people who are guilty of the second realize it, much less admit it.

You seem to be implying a third meaning, that simplly agreeing mostly with one 'side' is by definition 'partisan' and somehow wrong from your tone.

Ironically, you sound like a 'middle partisan', someone whose main concern is not aligning with either 'side', regardless of the facts.

 

[OCGuy]

I think ~ 60% of posters will pretty much argue the party line no matter what it is. You can basically predict what their stance will be on any given issue.


The rest of us have leanings towards one way or another, but can still analyze each issue on its own accord.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234
There's a big problem with the question, the ambiguous definition of the word.

Are you a 'partisan' in the debate whether the world is round or flat, because you are firmly convinced it's round?

In that case, if you reach firm conclusions that the left center middle or whatever is right on an issue, does that make you partisan?

The term has two main meanings to pick from:

One is simply having chosen a side - perhaps for excellent reasons, as with the round world example.

The second is when it implies taking one side because of an excessive blind loyalty to that side, so that the facts are trampled on in order to support the preferred side.

It's pretty important to know which you mean, and not that many people who are guilty of the second realize it, much less admit it.

If you truly think that one particular world viewpoint is "right" for every single issue, you are one of the worst. Oh wait, I already knew that.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Yeah, i'm a UK Tory all the way...

I'd go with the Lib Dem but they are fucking nuts now.

 

[Red Dawn]

I'm almost always against the Republicans as they are Social Conservatives and IMO real Douche bags. I tolerate the Democrats.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The second is when it implies taking one side because of an excessive blind loyalty to that side, so that the facts are trampled on in order to support the preferred side.

It's pretty important to know which you mean, and not that many people who are guilty of the second realize it, much less admit it.

You seem to be implying a third meaning, that simplly agreeing mostly with one 'side' is by definition 'partisan' and somehow wrong from your tone.

IMO if you consistently choose one side 100% of the time there is likely to be close-mindedness there too. That's not always the case though and I don't want to imply any negativity. (For example, abolitionists were 100% right in the 19th century. Moderates on that issue were simply wrong.) But _sometimes_ posters are less interesting when they are always toeing the party line IMO.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Craig234
The second is when it implies taking one side because of an excessive blind loyalty to that side, so that the facts are trampled on in order to support the preferred side.

It's pretty important to know which you mean, and not that many people who are guilty of the second realize it, much less admit it.

You seem to be implying a third meaning, that simplly agreeing mostly with one 'side' is by definition 'partisan' and somehow wrong from your tone.

IMO if you consistently choose one side 100% of the time there is likely to be close-mindedness there too. That's not always the case though and I don't want to imply any negativity. (For example, abolitionists were 100% right in the 19th century. Moderates on that issue were simply wrong.) But _sometimes_ posters are less interesting when they are always toeing the party line IMO.

Psssttt... there is "always" some grey area. "nothing" is black and white...

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Are you always on the same side of the debate as your party? Is the other party always wrong?

Do you think P&N is made up primarily of partisan "hacks" as some people call them?

I dislike both parties. I will cross them to do what I consider right.

I?ve read enough posts in P&N to believe we are very much partisan.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm almost always against the Republicans as they are Social Conservatives and IMO real Douche bags. I tolerate the Democrats.

Isn't it fucking sad though, that people in both the US and the UK have gone from people we trust to people who's ideas we can tolerate? (mostly)

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Isn't it fucking sad though, that people in both the US and the UK have gone from people we trust to people who's ideas we can tolerate? (mostly)

I only tolerated it in 2004 and I learned better since then. Yes it's f'ing sad.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Are you always on the same side of the debate as your party? Is the other party always wrong?

Do you think P&N is made up primarily of partisan "hacks" as some people call them?

I dislike both parties. I will cross them to do what I consider right.

I?ve read enough posts in P&N to believe we are very much partisan.

Well, your version of insane has no party limits, you just go with the most insane idea and try to increase the insanity.

At least that is how i read your posts, like "Obama does not trust Iran" and your reply to that would be "Of course we shouldn't trust them, we must kill them all now to ensure our safety".

In fact, you are the school example of what i am saying when i talk about Americans being scared of their own shadow.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I'd have to say that roughly 85% of regular P&N posters are fiercely partisan, which is part of the reason I don't come in here as often as I used to. In my mind, someone who is fiercely partisan is pointless to debate with because they will not change their stance no matter what arguments are put in front of them. This also has the effect of making their own arguments weaker, since they do not have to use a logical debate within themselves to come up with their stance, they merely toe the party line because it is what they're told to do (even if they don't realize it). JS80's comment speaks volumes about the typical level of debate here: "By not being partisan you're giving away your vote to the other team." You can't have a reasonable discussion with someone who thinks this way about issues the two of you don't agree on (which is what politics inherently is).

As for myself, I consider myself somewhat partisan. I'm liberal, but I think that some conservative points are valid and deserve consideration (on issues like gun control I side more with Rs than Ds for example). However, on social issues, I find social conservatives to be among the most vile people in the world, and my partisanship in this regard I wear with pride. People who oppose gay marriage or gay adoption, for example, I cannot have a civilized debate with (try as I might). I simply can't fathom social conservativism or the need to force other people to agree to your world view (especially when it's crafted in the dogma of religion).

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Isn't it fucking sad though, that people in both the US and the UK have gone from people we trust to people who's ideas we can tolerate? (mostly)

I only tolerated it in 2004 and I learned better since then. Yes it's f'ing sad.

No, son, crazy doesn't equal sad, i know your extremist views were given up on when the US stopped invading nations but don't feel so bad about it, you can always join the Taliban, you'd fit right in.

 

[alchemize]

I'm not partisan, but I definitely like to argue with leftie partisans (the bigger the hack, the better) which probably makes me look partisan.

 

[AAjax]

Im an independent, and on that Im fiercely partisan

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm almost always against the Republicans as they are Social Conservatives and IMO real Douche bags. I tolerate the Democrats.

I would say the Republicans tend to be more social conservative than Democrats, but the difference is not as significant as you imply.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm almost always against the Republicans as they are Social Conservatives and IMO real Douche bags. I tolerate the Democrats.

I would say the Republicans tend to be more social conservative than Democrats, but the difference is not as significant as you imply.

When it comes to law making, they are about equal, when it comes to rallying up the insanity that is 12'th century religion, the Republicans wins hands down.

Every single time.

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm almost always against the Republicans as they are Social Conservatives and IMO real Douche bags. I tolerate the Democrats.

I would say the Republicans tend to be more social conservative than Democrats, but the difference is not as significant as you imply.

When it comes to law making, they are about equal, when it comes to rallying up the insanity that is 12'th century religion, the Republicans wins hands down.

Every single time.

Permitting Sharia courts in Britain was a quantum leap forward, then?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...rating-in-Britain.html

And for you to suggest that another individual would fit right in with the Taliban is pretty low and unwarranted.

 

[rudder]

I tend to be partisan only because it is fun to piss off the partisan hacks around here. People should realize politicians don't care about the peons... look how many of our politicians portfolios increase from their time in their respective offices. There are genuine politicians... but they are a rare breed and end up selling their soul to get something done while in office.

 

[0marTheZealot]

This forum is so partisan it's almost useless having a debate.

In every thread, you can predict with near certainty who will be on what side.

I lean left and 4 years ago, I would have said I'm not partisan, but not since the Republicans stopped being adults.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm almost always against the Republicans as they are Social Conservatives and IMO real Douche bags. I tolerate the Democrats.

I would say the Republicans tend to be more social conservative than Democrats, but the difference is not as significant as you imply.

When it comes to law making, they are about equal, when it comes to rallying up the insanity that is 12'th century religion, the Republicans wins hands down.

Every single time.

Permitting Sharia courts in Britain was a quantum leap forward, then?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...rating-in-Britain.html

And for you to suggest that another individual would fit right in with the Taliban is pretty low and unwarranted.

I honestly do not know what this has to do with Britain but you do have the same courts among Jehovas Witnesses courts in the US, they are not to enforce laws, the are simply there to guide people of the faith.

I think i have the right to say whatever the FUCK i want on that matter considering that my team was first on the ground and pulled away when the US decided that the Taliban and Al Quaida wasn't a problem at all.

And yeah, anyone who actually thinks the way he does would fit right in.

You see, extremism is extremism, it doesn't matter what reason you have, it's still fucked up.

 

[cwjerome]

I say I'm somewhat, in the sense that I'm fairly conservative and therefore lean Republican 65% of the time on issues. Of course "lean" is often a very very far cry of "match." Personally I have no connection or real use for the party other than it sometimes being a helpful counterweight to the extreme Left.

I say at least 50% of the people on P&N are strict partisans in that they base opinions more off of party than real ideals. They may say -and even believe- they think for themselves... but they don't.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I say I'm somewhat, in the sense that I'm fairly conservative and therefore lean Republican 65% of the time on issues. Of course "lean" is often a very very far cry of "match." Personally I have no connection or real use for the party other than it sometimes being a helpful counterweight to the extreme Left.

I say at least 50% of the people on P&N are strict partisans in that they base opinions more off of party than real ideals. They may say -and even believe- they think for themselves... but they don't.

Unfortunantly this is universal, they trust in what the talking heads say and that is it.

I wonder what would happen if people were forced to go without anything but direct reports for a year, no opnion pieces, no nothing but information.

Would they know what to think at all? (and yeah, that goes for ... no actually, that only goes for the US)