Honest question....about a lot of the rhetoric

[Codewiz]

I don't participate in the P&N often. The attacks and outright aggression serves very little purpose so I choose to avoid it.

So I just want to see what the general opinion is.

Do you believe people of the opposite political ideology genuinely want what is best for the US?

For instance, I am a limited federal government guy. I believe that states are the best place to pass and implement most laws. I believe a one size fits all solution is rarely efficient or the ideal solution. Therefore a smaller limited federal government and bigger state government is more efficient and allows for a better representation of the people.

However, I do not think that people like Obama or liberals in general want the US to fail because I don't see eye to eye with them on everything. Nor do I think they want bad things to happen in the US.

I live by the assumption that while I may not agree politically, we all want the same ultimate goals. However, reading the P&N forum and reading the news over the past 10 years, I am not sure people ever remember that concept. The attitude I see is, if you don't agree then you are the enemy and we must destroy you to silence your opinion.

So what does everyone say?

 

[miketheidiot]

depends on the person. There are lots of people here who are only self interested, care nothing for others and are fine with that and come to a range of ideological conclusions based on their circumstances, and others who care and come to very different opinions based on what they feal are the best methods to reach the greater social good. I like the second group, regardless of ideology, dislike the first group, regardless of ideology.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
I don't participate in the P&N often. The attacks and outright aggression serves very little purpose so I choose to avoid it.

So I just want to see what the general opinion is.

Do you believe people of the opposite political ideology genuinely want what is best for the US?

For instance, I am a limited federal government guy. I believe that states are the best place to pass and implement most laws. I believe a one size fits all solution is rarely efficient or the ideal solution. Therefore a smaller limited federal government and bigger state government is more efficient and allows for a better representation of the people.

However, I do not think that people like Obama or liberals in general want the US to fail because I don't see eye to eye with them on everything. Nor do I think they want bad things to happen in the US.

I live by the assumption that while I may not agree politically, we all want the same ultimate goals. However, reading the P&N forum and reading the news over the past 10 years, I am not sure people ever remember that concept. The attitude I see is, if you don't agree then you are the enemy and we must destroy you to silence your opinion.

So what does everyone say?

There is no 'opposite political ideology'. There is no left/right, no conservative/liberal, no rep/dem. That's the lie that causes the problems.

 

[DealMonkey]

My feeling is that at a basic level, the opposition party feels that their ideas are what's best for the country, however where it goes horribly wrong is when they start hoping for the majority party to fail. The Dems did it with Iraq, and now the Republicans are doing it with pretty much everything Obama is trying to do.

 

[Codewiz]

Sure there is....

For people that are big government, pro-life, anti-science, pro-religion. They are opposite of me from a political ideology.

But if you want to take it to an issue by issue basis that is fine.

You can be a big government person and i can discuss the issues with you.

As for the people who are only looking out for themselves.....do you really believe a lot of the people on this forum fall into that category?

 

[dullard]

I see politics being formed into two groups (and they aren't conservative vs liberal groups in my view). I see people who truely want what is best for the US. I also see people who truely want what is best for themselves. Sure, sometimes what is best for you is also what is best for the US. But in general, these are two completely different goals that often are at polar opposites. I tend to meet more people who truely want what is best for themselves, although my personal experience may not reflect the whole country.

So, to answer your question, NO.

 

[jonks]

1. yes, the vast overwhelming majority of the country want what is best for the country regardless of their party/leanings.

2. we had this thread and poll not too long ago. good luck finding it with the search function tho.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Sure there is....

For people that are big government, pro-life, anti-science, pro-religion. They are opposite of me from a political ideology.

But if you want to take it to an issue by issue basis that is fine.

You can be a big government person and i can discuss the issues with you.

As for the people who are only looking out for themselves.....do you really believe a lot of the people on this forum fall into that category?

My point was merely that the question you ask 'almost' presumes the dem/rep paradigm, while in truth there is endless variation in political ideology which prevents existence of exact opposites.

For instance, one person may be small government because they want business and the market to be in charge of things, while another person might want small federal government so the states can run things, and another still wants people to run their own lives. Those people have inherently conflicting political ideologies, but none are 'opposites'.

This is true in every voting issue. It's not black or white, left or right, and there isn't inherently an opposite view.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
For instance, I am a limited federal government guy. I believe that states are the best place to pass and implement most laws. I believe a one size fits all solution is rarely efficient or the ideal solution. Therefore a smaller limited federal government and bigger state government is more efficient and allows for a better representation of the people.

Lets look at that in more detail. There are aspects of you trying to get what is best for the US and what is best for yourself in that argument.

First, your argument is only half complete. A one size fits all solution is rarely efficient or the ideal solution. But, you go on to say a one size fits all solution is the right solution on the state level. Why should people in Columbia, SC have a say over what you do in Charleston, SC? Following that logic to its full extent means we should have a limited state goverment and a strong local goverment. Local down to the homeowner's association having the most power of all. ~33% of your income should be go there (instead of the state and federal goverments) to give them the funds to do what is best!

But, no one wants that. There are too many examples of homeowner's associations going power hungry and making life miserable. Every block you walk, you'd run into a new set of laws, regulations, etc. You might be perfectly fine walking and chewing gum, but you walk 5 blocks over and now you are arrested since that local goverment decided that gum is illegal. At some point, following the "one size fits all solution is bad" logic goes askew. At some point, one size is a damn good idea. You personally would suffer horribly if that logic was extended all the way down. Could you possibly even begin to comply with the millions of different variations in each law in each different local government?

You must have at some point decided that it is beneficial to the US to move power from the federal goverment to the state goverment. But, you also must have decided that moving power from the state to the county or city or even smaller levels is wrong for yourself. So, you came up with your ideal solution of states having the biggest power.

Just because I might have placed the ideal solution in a different location, doesn't mean that I'm anti-US. It just means that I have a different cutoff for where "one size fits all" doesn't apply any more. I'd really hate for one strong world-wide goverment. I'd also hate to have thousands of strong state goverments, or millions of strong local goverments. Having ~200 strong national goverments is the best fit for me. I travel the world a lot, and 200 is about the limit of major law changes that I could keep straight. That doesn't make me anti-US. It just means that my best for the US vs best for me balance point is different from yours.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Sure there is....

For people that are big government, pro-life, anti-science, pro-religion. They are opposite of me from a political ideology.

But if you want to take it to an issue by issue basis that is fine.

You can be a big government person and i can discuss the issues with you.

As for the people who are only looking out for themselves.....do you really believe a lot of the people on this forum fall into that category?

My point was merely that the question you ask 'almost' presumes the dem/rep paradigm, while in truth there is endless variation in political ideology which prevents existence of exact opposites.

For instance, one person may be small government because they want business and the market to be in charge of things, while another person might want small federal government so the states can run things, and another still wants people to run their own lives. Those people have inherently conflicting political ideologies, but none are 'opposites'.

This is true in every voting issue. It's not black or white, left or right, and there isn't inherently an opposite view.

there are not only different many conclusions that can be reached but also many reasons for many different people to reach them without conflicting internally. for instance, its pretty easy to imagine an interventionistic nationalist coming to similar conclusions on things like healthcare, foreign wars, and domestic economic policy with a humanist, if they respectively believe that invading iraq was a net positive for america and iraqi's, that socialized medicine is best for america's power and prestige and its people, and that a strong yet well regulated market system leads to optimal economic output and best outcomes for individuals, even though philosophically these two might be bitter rivals.

depending on how they view the facts of the world, these two people could come to a wide range of common policy agreements for very different reasons. On the other hand, two humanists can come to very different views on what policies are best, for instance on education you coudl be in favor of the current model, a more federal model, voucher programs, semi privatized variants, or a partial or full dismantling of the concept of a public system, and numerous other possibilities.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: dullard
First, your argument is only half complete. A one size fits all solution is rarely efficient or the ideal solution. But, you go on to say a one size fits all solution is the right solution on the state level. Why should people in Columbia, SC have a say over what you do in Charleston, SC? Following that logic to its full extent means we should have a limited state goverment and a strong local goverment. Local down to the homeowner's association having the most power of all. ~33% of your income should be go there (instead of the state and federal goverments) to give them the funds to do what is best!

this is something that i strongly agree with, i find myself very poorly represented at the state level and find it to be even more retarded than the disaster that is congress, and need the federal government to keep my state government in line and performing on a functional level, and i'm not talking money.

 

[nageov3t]

mostly. I think people vastly overestimate the amount of influence that the political fringe has... as much as the left likes to demonize Rush and Hannity and Beck and all those other people whose existence I wouldn't know about if not for people on the left demonizing them, they had 0 significant impact in the GOP primaries despite being staunchly opposed to McCain. I'm sure the same goes for their counterparts on the left; I don't see any of the truly left candidates gaining any significant ground in democratic elections.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: loki8481
mostly. I think people vastly overestimate the amount of influence that the political fringe has... as much as the left likes to demonize Rush and Hannity and Beck and all those other people whose existence I wouldn't know about if not for people on the left demonizing them, they had 0 significant impact in the GOP primaries despite being staunchly opposed to McCain. I'm sure the same goes for their counterparts on the left; I don't see any of the truly left candidates gaining any significant ground in democratic elections.

edwards was pretty close to a true generic stereotypical liberal and he did pretty well iirc, ofc that was in 2004 and the base was pretty radicalized by the war. In general the talking head are pretty much irrelevant

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Codewiz
For instance, I am a limited federal government guy. I believe that states are the best place to pass and implement most laws. I believe a one size fits all solution is rarely efficient or the ideal solution. Therefore a smaller limited federal government and bigger state government is more efficient and allows for a better representation of the people.

Lets look at that in more detail. There are aspects of you trying to get what is best for the US and what is best for yourself in that argument.

First, your argument is only half complete. A one size fits all solution is rarely efficient or the ideal solution. But, you go on to say a one size fits all solution is the right solution on the state level. Why should people in Columbia, SC have a say over what you do in Charleston, SC? Following that logic to its full extent means we should have a limited state goverment and a strong local goverment. Local down to the homeowner's association having the most power of all. ~33% of your income should be go there (instead of the state and federal goverments) to give them the funds to do what is best!

But, no one wants that. There are too many examples of homeowner's associations going power hungry and making life miserable. Every block you walk, you'd run into a new set of laws, regulations, etc. You might be perfectly fine walking and chewing gum, but you walk 5 blocks over and now you are arrested since that local goverment decided that gum is illegal. At some point, following the "one size fits all solution is bad" logic goes askew. At some point, one size is a damn good idea. You personally would suffer horribly if that logic was extended all the way down. Could you possibly even begin to comply with the millions of different variations in each law in each different local government?

You must have at some point decided that it is beneficial to the US to move power from the federal goverment to the state goverment. But, you also must have decided that moving power from the state to the county or city or even smaller levels is wrong for yourself. So, you came up with your ideal solution of states having the biggest power.

Just because I might have placed the ideal solution in a different location, doesn't mean that I'm anti-US. It just means that I have a different cutoff for where "one size fits all" doesn't apply any more. I'd really hate for one strong world-wide goverment. I'd also hate to have thousands of strong state goverments, or millions of strong local goverments. Having ~200 strong national goverments is the best fit for me. I travel the world a lot, and 200 is about the limit of major law changes that I could keep straight. That doesn't make me anti-US. It just means that my best for the US vs best for me balance point is different from yours.

And I would argue on the US perspective, we work within the system we have.

Primarily this country was setup where the states have a certain level of power and the federal government was there to unite the states and protect the entire interests of all the states.

That is what it was founded on. We can change it, modify it little by little and all that is fine. But what you are suggesting isn't what our founding fathers setup. They didn't see HOAs as governing bodies. Nor did they view the lowest level of government being all powerful. They primarily setup states and a limited federal government with power. Right or wrong. They also made the system so it can change over time and that is what has happened. Good and bad.

The question becomes how much power should the federal government have. That is where people differ. Your question goes completely theoretical because that isn't how our system was setup.

Now when you get into completely theoretical discussion, we are moving away from current politics. I mean if you could redo how the US was founded, what would you change. That is a totally different question.

And let me add, that I don't think that someone who is big government wants the US to collapse. I don't think they want ill things to happen to the US. I just believe they have a different perspective than I do. They have difference experience but that doesn't mean I need to destroy them because they disagree. Nor do I need to demonize them and their beliefs. Just as with work, sometimes people have to agree to disagree. There is no shame in that. However, ad hominem attacks are pretty pathetic and I see that all the time on P&N(yeah I read but I rarely post).

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Primarily this country was setup where the states have a certain level of power and the federal government was there to unite the states and protect the entire interests of all the states.

and why was it setup this way?

That is what it was founded on. We can change it, modify it little by little and all that is fine. But what you are suggesting isn't what our founding fathers setup. They didn't see HOAs as governing bodies. Nor did they view the lowest level of government being all powerful. They primarily setup states and a limited federal government with power. Right or wrong. They also made the system so it can change over time and that is what has happened. Good and bad.

the states were already around, and the states setup the federal government and their didn't want to give up their own power over the locals, for better or worse. Otherwise were would probably have had popular elections for president and senate, not the state governments voting for it.

If you take the logic that local government is better since it directly represents its constituents, they you have to take that logic to its end, since clearly the local municipalities represent their citizens interests better than the state.

regardless of this, i doubt the the 'founding fathers' meant for the constitution to be a permanent impediment to governence, and certainly didn't expect it to be religiously adhered to 220 years laters

 

[Jaskalas]

Do they? Of course they think so, and Hitler was doing his best for Germany as well.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Do they? Of course they think so, and Hitler was doing his best for Germany as well.

in this analogy, are you hitler?

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Primarily this country was setup where the states have a certain level of power and the federal government was there to unite the states and protect the entire interests of all the states.

and why was it setup this way?

That is what it was founded on. We can change it, modify it little by little and all that is fine. But what you are suggesting isn't what our founding fathers setup. They didn't see HOAs as governing bodies. Nor did they view the lowest level of government being all powerful. They primarily setup states and a limited federal government with power. Right or wrong. They also made the system so it can change over time and that is what has happened. Good and bad.

the states were already around, and the states setup the federal government and their didn't want to give up their own power over the locals, for better or worse. Otherwise were would probably have had popular elections for president and senate, not the state governments voting for it.

If you take the logic that local government is better since it directly represents its constituents, they you have to take that logic to its end, since clearly the local municipalities represent their citizens interests better than the state.

regardless of this, i doubt the the 'founding fathers' meant for the constitution to be a permanent impediment to governence, and certainly didn't expect it to be religiously adhered to 220 years laters

The created the constitution so it could change with the times. They were very smart men. However, we have done little to follow the procedures they required to make changes. That is another story.

Whether a person is big government or small, it is just my point that there is no need to demonize others just because they don't agree with your worldview.

That is the main question. There are people here who thread after thread just demonize Bush, Obama, other forum members, all because they don't agree with those people's viewpoints. They attack the poster instead of the message. It is rampant in politics today and it does not serve the needs of any of us.

I am not an Obama supporter but I don't think the man is evil. I don't think he is trying to cause america to fail. I believe he is doing what is in the best interest of this country. I just don't agree with a lot of his policies.

 

[manowar821]

Yes, because I don't want what's best for the USA. I want what's best for the human race.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Do you believe people of the opposite political ideology genuinely want what is best for the US?

So what does everyone say?

Polls usually show a majority of people take the same views on key issues. Most people want borders fixed and illegal immigration clamped; most people respect the military more than any other institution; most people are against homosexual marriage which is why its always gone down in a any vote; most people are for lower taxes - even choosing lower taxes over things like health-care reform.

The problem is we have a MSM and political class that often obfuscates issues and/or ignore them outright.

While both parties are broken th Dems are more so - even with regard to polls. They attacked troops in 05-06 to pull rug out from under Bush and they actively hoped for defeats in order to defame Bush. You could tell this was not the usual Dem party after that. Now they want to FORCE higher energy prices and taxes for the cap and trade scheme they want and to use to funds for their other destructive programs.

Health-care need fixing and most people know it but Dems are trying to steal it for sake of more power for gov and unions. Of course our national defense is being gutted as we speak and that's a Dem trademark. They will also teach sex ed to kiddies even though most people really don't want it.

Many in GOP will sell their grannies to make a buck . Dems will do the same - and perv your kid, ruin defense, health-care etc while they are at it - and then they will send you a huge bill for it (which you cant pay for because they killed off jobs).

Individual voters can wake up but not the leadership we have now. They are the maniacs the founders worried about. I see the GOP and a party that's ill but curable. The Dems aren't even American anymore (hence the global apologizing and leaving US defenseless) and function like an auto-immune disorder on America. They support whatever is wrong and attack anyone trying to do anything about it.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Do you believe people of the opposite political ideology genuinely want what is best for the US?

So what does everyone say?

Polls usually show a majority of people take the same views on key issues. Most people want borders fixed and illegal immigration clamped; most people respect the military more than any other institution; most people are against homosexual marriage which is why its always gone down in a any vote; most people are for lower taxes - even choosing lower taxes over things like health-care reform.

The problem is we have a MSM and political class that often obfuscates issues and/or ignore them outright.

While both parties are broken th Dems are more so - even with regard to polls. They attacked troops in 05-06 to pull rug out from under Bush and they actively hoped for defeats in order to defame Bush. You could tell this was not the usual Dem party after that. Now they want to FORCE higher energy prices and taxes for the cap and trade scheme they want and to use to funds for their other destructive programs.

Health-care need fixing and most people know it but Dems are trying to steal it for sake of more power for gov and unions. Of course our national defense is being gutted as we speak and that's a Dem trademark. They will also teach sex ed to kiddies even though most people really don't want it.

Many in GOP will sell their grannies to make a buck . Dems will do the same - and perv your kid, ruin defense, health-care etc while they are at it - and then they will send you a huge bill for it (which you cant pay for because they killed off jobs).

Individual voters can wake up but not the leadership we have now. They are the maniacs the founders worried about. I see the GOP and a party that's ill but curable. The Dems aren't even American anymore (hence the global apologizing and leaving US defenseless) and function like an auto-immune disorder on America. They support whatever is wrong and attack anyone trying to do anything about it.

this is an example of a mindless partisan who doesn't give a damn other than to score political points

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Do you believe people of the opposite political ideology genuinely want what is best for the US?

So what does everyone say?

Polls usually show a majority of people take the same views on key issues. Most people want borders fixed and illegal immigration clamped; most people respect the military more than any other institution; most people are against homosexual marriage which is why its always gone down in a any vote; most people are for lower taxes - even choosing lower taxes over things like health-care reform.

The problem is we have a MSM and political class that often obfuscates issues and/or ignore them outright.

While both parties are broken th Dems are more so - even with regard to polls. They attacked troops in 05-06 to pull rug out from under Bush and they actively hoped for defeats in order to defame Bush. You could tell this was not the usual Dem party after that. Now they want to FORCE higher energy prices and taxes for the cap and trade scheme they want and to use to funds for their other destructive programs.

Health-care need fixing and most people know it but Dems are trying to steal it for sake of more power for gov and unions. Of course our national defense is being gutted as we speak and that's a Dem trademark. They will also teach sex ed to kiddies even though most people really don't want it.

Many in GOP will sell their grannies to make a buck . Dems will do the same - and perv your kid, ruin defense, health-care etc while they are at it - and then they will send you a huge bill for it (which you cant pay for because they killed off jobs).

Individual voters can wake up but not the leadership we have now. They are the maniacs the founders worried about. I see the GOP and a party that's ill but curable. The Dems aren't even American anymore (hence the global apologizing and leaving US defenseless) and function like an auto-immune disorder on America. They support whatever is wrong and attack anyone trying to do anything about it.

You're an ignorant ass.

People are only against homosexual 'marriage' in polls, not equal rights under homosexual unions. It's all about how you ask the questions, and Republican zealots and morons are kings of asking the loaded questions to make people think that there are others as stupid and evil as them.

Republicans spent us into the ground with Reagan, and again under W. W was an evil, maniacal, dictatorial fucktard who should have been killed in his first year to save the world decades of pain of suffering for no good cause. Republicans handed the keys to the country over to the military industrial complex...at least what was left after corporations divided us up at Republican invitation.

Polls rate the approval of sex ed in school at between 67% and 87% depending on how it's phrased and which poll you consult. You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about on anything.

Not saying Democrats are better mind you, just pointing out that you've got partisan BS up your ass.

 

[IronWing]

No. I think there are a substantial number of nihilists running under the banner of social conservatism that would like to see America suffer the wrath of their righteous god.

 

[shortylickens]

Its too easy to paint conservative Republicans or liberal Democrats as evil and crazy but its just not true. They all want whats best they just have completely different ways of seeing things how they are and how they should be. Also, they have put way too much effort into bashing the opposing side and too little effort into fixing problems.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Do they? Of course they think so, and Hitler was doing his best for Germany as well.

in this analogy, are you hitler?

You would certainly think so, problem with that analogy is that you are the proponent of big government.