Can we get to a place where we discuss political differences as if we were close

1. 75

   Lalulinhoposted 14 years ago

   Can we get to a place where we discuss political differences as if we were close friends?
   
   Can we have debate without venom, the way you argue with a close friend--pushing hard & calling b.s. when you see it, and even if there are fireworks, there is still respect and friendship. 
   
   What if we had more Crossfire-type shows with regulars from left and right?  Jon Stewart was wrong about Crossfire "ruining the country." Crossfire's end meant more choir-preaching:  Rush on his show, Maddow on hers, Beck here, Olbermann there. No one makes arguments to convince people who don't already agree with them. On either side.
   
   Please, no "We can't talk b/c the other side sucks" answers.

   replyreport
2. 59

   Chaice27posted 14 years ago

   Stewart was right on with crossfire. He never said anything bad about the concept of open debate. What he did get on them about was they were not having open debate. Crossfire and shows like it were so mishandled as to make the american people lose all faith in the media. The fact is more people get thier news from Stewart and Colbert than they do from the "News" organizations.
   I would love to see open debate instead of name calling and rhetoric. It's been too long since we had anyone talk about the issues. My children have never heard a debate, they watch the political circus with me and I try to make heads or tails of it to help them, but instead of discussion about ideas it turns into my opponent did this or said that.
   It doesn't help that a large percentage of professional politicians are obviously self serving at best and corrupt at worst. The media is bought and paid for and they promote the hype instead of the message.

   replyreport
3. 61

   commisionerposted 14 years ago

   of course we can. but when faced with the truth and proof the "other side" hollers foul. i can talk and listen to both sides of the coin. i do this almost daily. the proof though lies in the words of bills that are so long winded that most people don't read them and some don't understand them.
   the problem i have with the current administration is they don't listen to US!!! we told them no to this health care and the majority of americans in all kinds of polls said NO. and yet they went and voted it in. against the will of the people, who by the way are the bosses, they pushed it through without even reading it through.
   i read it. i am on  the poorer side of the spectrum. my wife and i make less than 20 k a year, and i am against the bill. it is bad for the country. it must be repealed.

   replyreport
4. 80

   Wayne Brownposted 13 years ago

   I think it is possible but emotions need to be checked at the door.  When discussions take on an emotional nature, they can quickly become volatile.  Then no purpose is served because both parties quit listening and no real information is exchanged. In a sense it takes on the characteristics of a physical fist-a-cuffs.  In those events, someone is alway said to "win" but in essence there are no winners in that regard.
   
   We first have to approach each other as human beings who deserve a level of respect and courtesy.  We must also recognize that we live in America where people are entitled to have opinions and to voice them.  I will listen to anyone as long as they are providing a level of information that seems to have some logic and reason behind it.  When that I occurs, I am interested to hear that information so that I can weigh it for myself.  Spirited discussion and debate is good and it is very healthy in America.  In that process, we need to remember, first we are "Americans" and we need to be thinking in that perspective before pushing our point.  Thanks WB

   replyreport