Polarizing America

[sph1nx]

President Bush is perhaps one of the most polarized presidents in recent history. People either love him, or they absolutely hate him. In reading through some of these posts, I find it interesting that I rarely find anyone who is on middle ground. I personally don't have a party, I believe what I believe, and many times I end up falling on both sides of the fence. It seems almost as if in believing one thing, people sign a contract to believe in a bunch of other garbage that they don't understand. I have seen this repeatedly in these forums, people who know the words to say, but can't back it up if their life depended on it. It is really annoying. I am hoping that there are other people who don't subscribe to any particular political doctrine and can just voice their opinion without going into a fit of rage because they are too arrogant to believe that they might be wrong about something. Is anyone else with me on this? I think America will profit most the day that politicians and people can come together and actually talk about a subject with an open mind, rather then a bunch of rhetoric and half-truths. Well, I find it comfortable in the middle. Quite liberating actually, I can believe whatever I want without conforming to the right or the left . I just want to know if anyone else feels this way. IMO nothing good will ever come from either extreme. People seem to just loose their minds at some point, maybe it is the water or something.

 

[Infohawk]

This OP is coming from a post where he labelled someone anti-semite without giving any reason and said a post was the stupidest thing he ever heard without giving a reason. Spare me.

Anyways...

Here we go again with the middle-men who are full of themselves. Again, this is the kind of person that would have thought abolitionists were rabid partisans during the civil war. Being partisan in itself doesn't make you wrong or less analytical. Look at history, there are partisans that are on the wrong side of history and partisans that are right part of history. Being in the middle isn't inherently respectable or valuable.

 

[ReiAyanami]

Fortunately Cheney is the real (acting) president. Unfortunately he voted against Martin Luther King Jr's birthday.

 

[sph1nx]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
This OP is coming from a post where he labelled someone anti-semite without giving any reason and said a post was the stupidest thing he ever heard without giving a reason. Spare me.

Anyways...

Here we go again with the middle-men who are full of themselves. Again, this is the kind of person that would have thought abolitionists were rabid partisans during the civil war. Being partisan in itself doesn't make you wrong or less analytical. Look at history, there are partisans that are on the wrong side of history and partisans that are right part of history. Being in the middle isn't inherently respectable or valuable.

Point taken, however, on a couple of the posts, I don't think I needed to put a rhyme or reason. How am I supposed to effectively argue with someone who posts on why we support Israel "Because America hates Muslims and Arabs, and loves Jewish money." Yes, that was indeed an example of backing up ones argument. DO I REALLY NEED TO BACK UP THAT STATEMENT? I did not say the post was the stupidest thing, just the statement. The Anti-Semite comment came because the guy said that people would call him that, his post talked basically about how Jews controlled the white house. But you are right, I was not right in calling him that even if it was half-joking. I am sorry if I came across as 'full-of-myself' because that was not my intent in any way. I guess I just find it hard to completely agree with both sides, and it can be frustrating. Anyways, so what you are saying is that there is one side who is right about everything and one who is wrong. You kind of proved my point that everything comes in 'sides' as of late. Apparently, my side of agreeing with philosophies of both the left and the right makes me neither respectable or valuable. Okay.

 

[sph1nx]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Fortunately Cheney is the real (acting) president. Unfortunately he voted against Martin Luther King Jr's birthday.

I agree, however, does that automatically make everything that has anything to do with the Republican party wrong in some way or another? If it does, explain.

 

[Moonbeam]

Here you can see some real objective thinking and understand what you're talking about from a deeper perspective.

 

[sph1nx]

LOL, thank you, everything is so clear to me now, thanks moonbeam.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: sph1nx
LOL, thank you, everything is so clear to me now.

That means that you're OK..because you AGREE with Moonbeam...correct?

Sorry...not sure what to add to this topic. While many are in the middle, they get nowhere here...well, at least most of the time.

Many hate Bush

Many love Bush (barf)

 

[sph1nx]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: sph1nx
LOL, thank you, everything is so clear to me now.

That means that you're OK..because you AGREE with Moonbeam...correct?

Sorry...not sure what to add to this topic. While many are in the middle, they get nowhere here...well, at least most of the time.

Many hate Bush

Many love Bush (barf)

Yeah, I guess I have no idea where I was expecting this to go. Agreed that the middle-folk don't really get anywhere. Oh well, guess I will just have to convert to one or the other (kidding). I guess I was just frustrated with some of the things I read on other posts. Stupid...impulsive...personality...I guess I would just like to apologize to all for making them read a bunch of crap that really didn't ask anything.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: sph1nx

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: sph1nx
LOL, thank you, everything is so clear to me now.

That means that you're OK..because you AGREE with Moonbeam...correct?

Sorry...not sure what to add to this topic. While many are in the middle, they get nowhere here...well, at least most of the time.

Many hate Bush

Many love Bush (barf)

Yeah, I guess I have no idea where I was expecting this to go. Agreed that the middle-folk don't really get anywhere. Oh well, guess I will just have to convert to one or the other (kidding). I guess I was just frustrated with some of the things I read on other posts. Stupid...impulsive...personality...I guess I would just like to apologize to all for making them read a bunch of crap that really didn't ask anything.

No...no need to apologize here. Your question is fair. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground anymore. Maybe things change soon....hopefully.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sph1nx
LOL, thank you, everything is so clear to me now, thanks moonbeam.

Yes, yes, only too glad to help. The heart of the matter has nothing to do with left right or center. It's much more simple that that. Whatever our position on whatever the subject, anybody who doesn't agree is a Butt-Head and if the Butt-Heads would only be rational and stop playing their stupid hypocritical games we could easily prove it. How much more rational can you get than that.

 

[sph1nx]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sph1nx
LOL, thank you, everything is so clear to me now, thanks moonbeam.

Yes, yes, only too glad to help. The heart of the matter has nothing to do with left right or center. It's much more simple that that. Whatever our position on whatever the subject, anybody who doesn't agree is a Butt-Head and if the Butt-Heads would only be rational and stop playing their stupid hypocritical games we could easily prove it. How much more rational can you get than that.

I vote Moonbeam for president.

 

[cwjerome]

Partisan definately implies biased, unthinking allegiance to their political party, and these adherents are as zealous and dogmatic as any religious nut. They are very tribal, and aren't guided by strong principles but rather guided by strong herd instincts.

sph1nx, I say follow your own judgement and don't give a steaming loaf what the party hacks parrot.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Partisan definately implies biased, unthinking allegiance to their political party, and these adherents are as zealous and dogmatic as any religious nut. They are very tribal, and aren't guided by strong principles but rather guided by strong herd instincts.

sph1nx, I say follow your own judgement and don't give a steaming loaf what the party hacks parrot.

Unfortunately such platitudes are useless despite the sparks they create. One person's principles are another's herd instincts. In order to see you must be free of attachment and attachment to attachment.

 

[cwjerome]

In a relativist, subjective philosophical swamp, yes...yes, you would be correct moonbeam.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
They are very tribal, and aren't guided by strong principles but rather guided by strong herd instincts.

sph1nx, I say follow your own judgement and don't give a steaming loaf what the party hacks parrot.

Says the guy who blindly drank the OperationIraqiLiberation (OIL) coolaid and fully subscribes to the neoconservative worldview. (I don't have a problem with fulling subscribing to anyone's worldview but if it's the wrong one you are responsible for it).

 

[arsbanned]

These are not times for middle ground. Middle ground will not undo the damage George Bush has perpetrated on this country and the larger World. People need to react far more strongly to the atrocities this SOB has commited. I think the real problem is too many people think we can be on some middle ground. Is the junta running the U.S. on middle ground? Do they govern from a middle ground? Fvck no. They are a bunch of right- wing- religious- fanatical- nut-jobs and they must be opposed.
Sitting back and feeling "liberated" implies a disconnect with reality.

 

[cwjerome]

Infohawk, I subscribe to my own worldview- and your labels are just that: YOURS.

I understand my ideas and know my reasons... and if I turn out on the Right, then so be it... but I can care less about your Republican-Democratic fixation, because I value ideas, not political parties or idiot terms like "neoconservative".

Please understand that I say this with all candor: You do not understand me, so quite trying to.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
In a relativist, subjective philosophical swamp, yes...yes, you would be correct moonbeam.

Only if there isn't another way that is invisible to you to know what is true and false. But before we need to get into that you first have to prove there is an objective reality. You can assert there is but that's not good enough. What do you mean by these objective principles?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Please understand that I say this with all candor: You do not understand me, so quite trying to.

...because I value ideas

For someone who values ideas you seem faaaar more concerned with attacking the people behind them. If you really cared about ideas, you would ignore the source, whether it be Democrat, Republican, or whatever since the messenger has nothing to do with the message.

Anyway, the real issue here is the frequent attempt on this board by people who consider themselves moderates to elevate themselves among the rest by proclaiming objectivity and balance. It's laughable and lazy (if you want to elevate yourself above the herd debate ideas not affiliations).

(And I understand sophomores very well thank you very much).

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I subscribed to my own worldview- and your labels are just that: YOURS.

I understand my ideas and know my reasons... and if I turn out on the Right, then so be it... but I can care less about your Republican-Democratic fixation, because I value ideas, not political parties or idiot terms like "neoconservative".

Please understand that I say this with all candor: You do not understand me, so quite trying to.

Why would I bother trying to understand you, when you don't understand the World? Frankly, I don't give a fvck about you.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I subscribed to my own worldview- and your labels are just that: YOURS.

I understand my ideas and know my reasons... and if I turn out on the Right, then so be it... but I can care less about your Republican-Democratic fixation, because I value ideas, not political parties or idiot terms like "neoconservative".

Please understand that I say this with all candor: You do not understand me, so quite trying to.

Why would I bother trying to understand you, when you don't understand the World? Frankly, I don't give a fvck about you.

Now now, easy guys, still 14 days till go.

Just sit back and watch the "Neoconservatives" come unglued. :laugh:

 

[cwjerome]

Infohawk, why did you quote me and attack anyways... because you know my words apply to you?

I will admit I can sometimes attack people when their ideas are stupid, because... the sources are often stupid. I'm trying not to do that anymore. But let me clarify something about me again though... I am not moderate, and I have never said so. I am pretty far conservative on most political issues. What I have been saying though is I consider myself objective and can care less about political parties. This relates to the topic because if people just thought about ideas and went with their judgements instead of marrying their political party, then there wouldn't be such polarization. I suggest you listen to what I say, instead of what YOU think I -or want me to- say.

Moonbeam, I'll be happy to discuss that subject... but you were somewhat absent on the "Are all cultures equal?" topic.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Why did you quote me and attack anyways... because you know my words apply to you?

I will admit I can sometimes attack people when their ideas are stupid, because... the sources are often stupid. I'm trying not to do that anymore. But let me clarify something about me again though... I am not moderate, and I have never said so. I am pretty far conservative on most political issues. What I have been saying though is I consider myself objective and can care less about political parties. This relates to the topic because if people just thought about ideas and went with their judgements instead of marrying their political party, then there wouldn't be such polarization. I suggest you listen to what I say, instead of what YOU think I -or want me to- say.

Moonbeam, I'll be happy to discuss that subject... but you were somewhat absent on the "Are all cultures equal?" topic.

I know, I did a huge post to you that I put my heart into and I hit some key and it disappeared. Pisses me off to redo something I could never do as well again.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: sph1nx
Well, I find it comfortable in the middle. Quite liberating actually, I can believe whatever I want without conforming to the right or the left . I just want to know if anyone else feels this way. IMO nothing good will ever come from either extreme. People seem to just loose their minds at some point, maybe it is the water or something.

You are basically saying that you find it comfortable to borrow from two absurd political ideologies. I actually find it much more comforting to be as you call it "on the extreme," as I believe in natural order (also called anarcho-capitalism or governmentless/stateless society). The reason why is that everyone else is out there, including yourself is basically trying to determine how much of your life the government owns, and what areas of your life the government is justified in invervening in. This I cannot accept, because I believe that people own 100% of themselves, and that the only time anyone is ever justified in having authority over another adult is when they directly consent to it. Any idea, no matter how little or far it deviates from this truth, to me is a very uncomfortable position to be in, and the theories as to how to determine how much of your life the government owns become more convoluted and complex.

The least complex of the theories, however, comes from the minarchists, who believe that government action is only justified in the protection of private property, but of course this view is still founded on the absurdity that the government should have a monopoly on this function.

The bottom line is that as long as the "extreme" is anarchy, then plenty good can come from the "extreme."