Do you think it's possible to put aside partisan bickering (understatement) here on HP?
What would it take for you to really listen to where "they" are coming from?
Is it possible to consider "their" point of view without automatically shooting the messenger?
Is it possible for "them" to reciprocate?
... or, should I just go smoke some more crack ?
Crack is really harmful MM. So I might suggest some medical marijuana. And we are so politically polarized as a nation now that everyone would rather be right then peaceful. There is no longer such a thing as dialogue.
I'll tell you what would help me to see the Republican's point of view...some progress that they were responsible for. Here in SC the Republican Party has been in control since 1964. In that time span of 46 years SC has moved up to the bottom 4 in quality of education while consistently ranking as one of the 5 poorest states in the nation. Still amazes me to see all these uneducated, poverty stricken people lining up for four more years of the same every election. Stupid is as stupid does is our new state motto.
I am more then able, and willing, to hear some other view. I do not tolerate being told I am stupid, because someone disagrees with me, very well.
please pass the pipe...
Wouldn't some form of hallucinogen be more appropriate?
The very question begs that answer, as neither of the 2 "sides" is anything but bogus, and while various "arguments" can be more or less compelling, they are never intended to fulfill. Both sides are beholden to big moneyed interests and onmce in a while a rare politician comes along who mean what they say and arent spinning.. many if the tea party fit that. So did russ fenigold on the left, and the senator from Minnessota whio died in a plane crash. People who are genuine however rarely manage to overcome the spin of the politicans and media who paint the picture as a 2 way race between business and labor, when it really is a 1 way race to the pot of gold.
I see their side, I do, which is why I know they are wrong!
Yes, I met a woman like you once, many years ago. I was trying to put my point across to her but she did want to listen, see knew whatever I said was wrong. The more I tried to put my point across the louder she got and the more silly the threats got. When she announced that her son would be in from work at any minute I decided to call it a day and stop trying to tell her that I'd given her a £5 note for my cigarettes and she'd given me change for a £10 note.
I really would hope so, but no. To be fair however, almost all of my friends who are extremely political listen and read current events, talk shows, 24 hr news networks, and online research to the tilt of 5 hours a day...every day. They are liberal. I am liberal and used to be staunchly conservative. They, we, listen to Rush, Hannity, Beck in the morning on the radio, NPR, watch Olbermann, Madow, listen to FOX News in the am while getting ready and eating breakfast...come home, hit the stories from the blogs, and spend a few hours researching...researching deficit spending, credit default swaps, Austrian schools of economics, etc. I list all of this as I want you to understand that there is a GREAT amount of time usually spent on the left in understanding the right's arguments. The left, by nature, take all measures into the argument. That is why they are liberal. Now the following is an opinion, but I believe the right reacts without spending too much time trying to weigh the other side, learn about the argument, etc. So, the problem isn't the two sides not seeing each other's sides...it is how they are as people, how they think. One researches and uses logic, the other reacts based upon emotion and preconceptions.
From my research... the allure of liberality is enticing... I am not sure I am completely conservative either... but I have bounds, rooted in life itself... which liberals refuse to draw... so conservatism with all its blindness I must embrace as it seems my only choice... A choice to have my feelings respected, represented, honored and uninfringed upon... no one telling me that more my understanding of life, I am out of touch.
It all makes sense now some people are logical and reasonable, some people are not.. Hmmmm, so possibly the more reasonable and intelligent side are better than the opposition?
I never realized that just by simply attaching the LIBERAL label to your persona makes you smarter.
So much for equality.
That sounds logical...
It does. Equality could happen, but you conservatives would have to work a little harder and read once in a while. Try a library card. Or would that make you a socialist?
The grapes were sour this election cycle? That is OK, here at the lovely HP forums intelligent debate is encouraged.
Personal insults are dealt with swiftly.
So if there is any chance that your superior intellect could stoop down to my moronistic replies to engage in conversation.
Leave the insults out of it!!!
Reality, I apologize to an extent. You are attempting to be civil, and I respect that. I have been on these forums and in these debates for a long while, and while I welcome civil debates (I actually seek them out), I do get frustrated and let it manifest itself at times.
I do think it is hilarious how I list specifically the effort involved and you ignore it and just attach a title to the effort. Do you ever get bothered that you have to either lie or misrepresent to follow your ideology path?
Because your claim at knowing the intelligence level of a liberal/conservative is simply silly.
There is no such thing as liberal/conservative, there are only human beings.
The sooner more people actually realize this, the easier it will be to get this Nation back on track!
Yes, we are all humans, and (except for those who are only out for their own selves - the Ayn Rand literalists), we all want similar goals: peace, prosperity, happiness.
But we differ so much on how to achieve that and THAT is where we are different.
You want limited government to make this a better country. I want MORE government for exactly the same reason. You think I'm a fool, of course I will return the sentiment and on we go.
Maybe the South had a good idea. Maybe we would have been better off as two nations, one conservative, one liberal. We could respect each other at a distance.
No we want limited government because men are corrupt and flawed and when you give them power they will abuse it. We want limited government so we can craft our lives as we see fit not as the government thinks it should be.
If you want more government if you want others to tell you how to live in order for everyone else to realize your view of what a better life is than yes, you are a fool, end of conversation. That which you seek can be had in other countries, and it's not what America is about! I just can't understand why liberals can't see this... GO! Go to the country that has what you want and let us alone to be free! Stop trying to change us into you! Get out! Get out of our country!
I think the clincher is conservatives, like yourself, believe that limited federal government will mean more freedom. Whereas, liberals believe that when you lessen regulation, those flawed people that you referred to who run businesses will abuse the population, like dumping in rivers, work conditions, cut corners on monitoring safety, etc. Additionally, if you lessen the federal govt, you empower the state governments. I cannot find anyone who think their city govt or state govt work at all. I live in Dallas, a huge conservative big city with all kinds of things going on...and our city is run by retards who couldn't figure out how to roll down a window. Our state has a higher deficit than California, and we are the no state-tax, cut taxes type of place. When we don't regulate the market, we get the abuse we had during the last decade and recessions like we experienced. Who is going to check the real power people if the govt doesn't?
We are all human, a good foundation.
Ayn Rand? I am familiar with her work.
I want limited Federal Government, I do not care what the State's do, as long as they do not look to the rest of the States to cover their incompetence. (California!)
I do not consider you a fool, I consider you a highly intelligent human being.
The balance has worked so far, but discussion needs to be respectful and considerate.
I don't think it is working now.
We really are polarized. Look at lady_loves comment, for example. i see things entirely opposite: yes, some people are corrupt, but I think most people are honest and trustworthy.
Do you know that I have worked for myself since 1983, do business entirely on a handshake, have invoiced millions of dollars and have had less than $1,000.00 in bad debt in all that time? Most people ARE honest.
But never mind. I do not see any opportunity for common ground when we are so far apart. I can't accept letting States run rough shod over civil rights, for example. What you see as "home rule" I see as danger to minorities. I think we need a strong Federal government, you do not.
I don't see where we can agree.
Your entrepreneurial success is astounding and I commend you for realizing and living the American dream. I hope your success continues.
Where would you draw the line? Is there any reason that any Government would have the right to kill an individual if it is deemed to be beneficial to the Government?
We do that now, don't we? Both in wars and for certain crimes.
I don't believe in the death penalty. First, having no religion, I do not believe the person is heading for Divine punishment, so I'd like to see them suffer in jail if they truly are evil.
If they are simply mentally disturbed, I think they may still need to be put away, but should never be killed.
Second, it costs too much. The appeals process is almost always far more expensive than incarcerating them.
Finally, innocent people sometimes get convicted. I'd rather not kill anyone just in case they actually are innocent.
But this does point out another difference between us. You say "Government interest". I would think of it as OUR interest.
If the government chose to eliminate the non-producers from society, a sort of population cleansing. At that juncture would you agree we would need to curtail the power and force of the government?
Again, WE decide that?
What are the circumstances? Is it that we all die if we don't do this?
If not, I would expect (and would participate in) insurrection. Wouldn't you?
But you seriously don't believe that elected representatives would ever vote for this? We can't even get Congress to tax Social Security benefits that go to the extremely rich
No I do not believe this could happen!
I am just glad that at some point we agree that there needs to be some limits placed upon the power of the Federal Government.
No, we do not really agree. Again, I see this as WE having gone wrong, not some evil government.
We are the Government.
We can still agree we are all human beings still though, right?
I dunno. You look like a bird of some kind..
Yes, as I said, we have the same overall goals, but we see the way to those goals very differently.
I DO see the other side. I have a number of hubs about that. But too many issues have no middle ground.
You will never find the path unless you pursue it!
You can't play the discussion on hypothetical situations. What if dragons came out of the ground and kids turned into smurfs? We don't want to expand government to the extreme, but we want government, understand its use, and believe we need it to curtail corporate power.
I will try and put this as politely as possible. You are not in a situation to tell me what I CAN or cannot do. I despise the "you can't" expression almost as much as the "you have to!" saying. Both expressions makes me cringe.. Besides, read back through the thread and you will see that I in fact DID! Thus, you are wrong.
Which was the point I was trying to make, at some point government must be limited. The disagreement resides as to the extent of the limitations. I was trying to get PC to agree with this, common ground needs to be the foundation of a discussion. If nothing is done to limit government power, a charismatic orator could pull the Nation to the extreme, as history can show.
If WE are government, then the only limitations we have are those we put on ourselves.
That's why we have a Constitution and a Supreme court. That's why amendments are deliberately difficult, requiring strong agreement.
Our government is never perfect. There are undoubtedly better ways to do some aspects of it - our voting system could definitely stand improvement. But basically, the system works and no, the only limits are Constitutional.
I agree with this entire statement!
It is the usurpation of the Corporation of the United States by foreign entities that I would really like to limit.
Foreign Banking entities.
Also Secret Government?
Also Global Government?
Yes, even the ultimate string pulling Illuminati!
The individual needs to at least look through the trees a little to grasp the Groves of betrayal.
When they present intelligent, logical arguments instead of vitriolic name calling, with unbending viewpoints.
Make me a millionaire and I will let you know.
I know, Tony. You know I'm just joshin' about crack. Never touch the stuff.
So speaking of medical marijuana -- big news story here the other day was two guys broke into a med weed clinic and of course stole all the "product" but also stole $1500 that was in a can for charity as well as all toys that were in a bin for charity.
Apparently this shop was targeted because they were AGAINST Prop 19. Wow!
Mon, I thought the ganja made people mellow and peace-loving.
Hey -- maybe that's what our Congress needs!!!
The problem is that when you see some element of reason in the other side and then say so - they will just claim that this proves that everything they say is right because you have just admitted it. It takes two to tango unfortunately.
or else if you start to see the flaws in your argument the whole house of cards starts to collapse and all the beliefs held so dearly by you and your parents are off like autumn leaves in the wind and your life is exposed as a lie. That basically you've been conned.
Partisan bickering? The Dems are the authority on partisanship, bickering, keeping those that don't agree with them out of critical policy meetings,and generally acting like a bunch of spoiled brats. And now that the Dems have lost the House, they want dialog and compromise.
Obama wouldn't allow the Republicans into the discussions on Obamacare. He said we could come along for the ride but we'd have to sit in the back.
A better idea would be for the Republicans to tell the Dems to stick it until Obamacare is at the very least defunded completely. Then make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
The goal should be making Obama and Harry Reid look as bad as possible. That shouldn't be hard. Then work to get both these narcissistic Socialists voted out of office unless, of course, investigations of them both doesn't get them to resign first.
Do you see the irony in this post? Nope...I doubt it. How typical.
It's typical. We had a change of government this year and the new incumbents are going full tilt at cutting jobs, raising taxes and cutting spending despite the evidence that everything the are doing has been done before and failed miserably.
They are telling us how much we are all going to suffer, but every bit of pain is the fault of the previous incumbents.
Many people who should know better believe and endorse every word they say.
Oh, must remember, none of their measures affect the higher echelons of business, the banks are home free keeping their huge bonuses and not lending money.
Turkeys voting for Christmas.
Give me one good reason why the Republicans should work with a president that's done everything in his power to exclude them from the decision-making process.
Obama thinks himself a king rather than what he is, a man that's been elected to work FOR us. He has done nothing but try to destroy the American way of life and now that his ideas are being rebuked by the American people, his narcissism won't allow him to think anyone would dislike one of his ideas or policies.
He instead says the Republican take over of the House was due to the peoples frustration over the economy. This man is an idiot and if Democrats don't wake up, he's going to destroy your party. Oh, wait, that would be the best thing to happen in country in 100 years.
Hunter, you apparently weren't paying attention during his first year. He tried to include Republicans in everything, to the end of them lying flat out to the people and refusing to deal with him in any account. Even some policies that were originally Republican....when Obama supported them, they turned to the other side. They have used the filibuster flaw more than any other Senate in the history of the country, time two. The guy can't even fill positions...he has been in office for 2 years, and the Republicans are still blocking his smallest appointments.
The concept you have of the American way of life is apparently not mine. Only 13 % voted in the last election, so that isn't the will of the people. That is the will of the motivated at that particular time. With regards to you statement that he is an idiot. Dude, you look like a hillbilly. He went to Harvard. Try this on...I find you to be an idiot. I find you to be attempting to destroy my American way of life. I find you to be the problem, and in the next election, WE will silence your ignorance and lazy attitude. Yes, I call you lazy because you apparently don't do any research or you wouldn't think the way you do. Deal with it.
If Obama would stop choosing the most Socialist-leaning people to fill the positions perhaps filling them wouldn't be a problem.
You can call me a Hillbilly if you'd like, Tex. Thank you!!! I would much rather be called that than a Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Harvard graduate, or Obama supporter.
The only way of life I'm against is the lazy, welfare, nanny, Socialist State Obama is trying his best to make this country. Am I to believe this is the utopia you want and wish for? And here I thought you were true Texan. I guess my perception of Texas and Texans were wrong but I'll do my best not to judge all of the state and its people by one lone misguided individual. Perhaps you're a transplant and not a true born and bred Texan. That's got to be it.
The true Texans I know would in no way adhere to the utopia mindset you obviously subscribe to. They are rugged, strong individuals who will be led around by a Socialist nose ring by no one. Come on. Where are you really from? It can't be TEXAS!!!!
MM - The problem that's unique to our time is that there is no middle ground for those on the right. Habee has been clear in her prayer for moderate candidates. But the war cry from the right is to purge all moderates from the GOP.
Conservative and liberal founding fathers were just as passionate about their politics as we are today. What's different is the willingness to compromise which is absent from one side. It's gonna get worse before it gets better, but eventually, the moderate voter will reject the demand for purity and look for pragmatic candidates willing to fix serious problems with imperfect compromise legislation.
Can you name a liberal founding father? I have been thinking about that for years and can honestly say that by the current definitions of liberal and conservative I cannot think of one liberal founding father. Though Jefferson might come close, he still would not qualify by current liberal opinion on the nature and responsibility of government.
"The rich alone use imported
articles, and on these alone the whole
taxes of the General Government are levied.
The poor man, who uses nothing but what
is made in his own farm or family, or within
his own country, pays not a farthing of tax
to the General Government... Our
revenues liberated by the discharge of the
public debt, and its surplus applied to canals,
roads, schools, &c., the farmer will see his
government supported, his children educated,
and the face of his country made a paradise
by the contributions of the rich alone, without
his being called on to spend a cent from his
IMO, there is only ONE real argument which distinguishes the liberal and conservative positions - whether the rich should pay their share of taxes to support the needs of society at large.
Only ONE difference between liberal and conservative. Wow, and here I thought it was liberal omniscience that was THE ONE AND ONLY POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE. The differences are innumerable because a conservative who understands his philosophy finds himself dwelling in an entirely difference universe.
You are mistaken. By the modern conservative litmus test, Ronald Reagan isn't even a conservative. Look a little closer.
I do wonder if that is going to happen in our lifetime.
Is the generation coming up behind us showing signs of pragmatism?
If they stop talking in hateful Right talking points!!
Like, a discussion about how to help all Americans have affordable healthcare becomes, "A government take-over shoved down our throats."
Ad Naseum...24/7 by every talking head and mouthpiece on the radio and tv.
I usually listen well to people who present an argument without emotion, name calling and back biting. Facts are important, not opinion, speculation or heresay. I may not agree with them but they will have convinced me of the validity of their argument.
hmm perhaps listening isn't enough. Maybe the desires of one set of men and their ethics conflict on a basic level with those of their opposition. Maybe clear seeing makes them distrust and even feel disgust at the basic platform that each group stands on to the point that the only things they do agree on are things that don't support either platform. Consider that political conquest may actually be in the minds of each party, not reconciliation.
Hmm, I won't necessarily agree with an opponent's conclusions, but I'll have much more respect for their argument if they base it on facts rather than talking points. I won't claim to do this every single time, but I usually try to do my best to support my points in debates with facts. It's much more fun for me when my opponent does the same.
It's also more productive, in my opinion, because even if no minds get changed, it lays out the basis of each debater's beliefs and opinions, so others can judge better for themselves who is right.
That's something I appreciate about Evan, for example. I disagree with him about a lot of things, but his arguments are generally well constructed and supported, and he even changed his mind once when presented with evidence that he was mistaken!
The people whose entire argument consists of "liberals are stupid," stated in as many variations as they can think of (for some, it's not many), don't get any respect at all. Nor do the trolls. And yeah, there are a few liberals around who I wish would get off my side.
Thanks to everyone who has commented here. I find it curious, indeed, that the posters are by and large from the same side of the abyss....
I suppose it's safe to say there is NOTHING that would persuade the other team to listen to our side.
I like the idea of PROOFS -- problem is, with the Internet and even the airwaves teeming with misinformation, where do we go to get FACTS????
As to the over arching question in this thread, I cannot see the other side because we are looking at different things, entirely. This does not mean that I need to be hateful or miserable toward someone with whom I share no common definition of reality. I do, however, try to avoid arguing in any emotional fashion with someone who calls themselves liberal, leftist, socialist, etc.... There is nothing to be accomplished in doing much more than laying out what I think and letting the rest go by unremarked. Is there common ground between people, sure, we all have the same basic needs. Is there common ground between committed liberals and conservative, no, they do not share a universe of discourse. It is like talking to an alien, from either perspective. For me the difference is the level of bile. I don't have the time or energy to get annoyed with a liberal nor do I have the inclination to teach adults anything. When one is ready one will learn until then no learning occurs
Consultation is an instrumentality to improve.By sharing each others view many hidden shades become apparent.It creates mutual love and affection and respect of humanity. It creates a sense of participation in the affairs and when a final decsion is taken by full debate and discussion the outcome is certainly better than a verdict given singly caring for none. Each one has the right to say and differ. The dissenting opinion though not adopted but is preserved and may be used in future if reconsidered at any time and found more appropriate.
May God bless all.
I am a "fence sitter." stradler may be a better description.
My mind is always open to both sides.
I try to take the best of both and delete the rest.
My decisions in life are based soley upon what I consider to be logic and reason.
I can only find logic and reason in that which provides me with empirical proofs.
I consider opinion, but if the opinion has no substance, I delete it too.
If one believes in something which has its foundation on naught but opinion, I consider that person as not being credible, rational or logical. In fact I consider such a person to be absurd.
The majority of humanity falls into the aforementioned category.
hehe, as a fence sitter you are either in favor of a massive wedgy or working towards it.
I think it is tough to have debate these days without emotion. All to often the content of the discussion spirals into talking points no matter which side of the argument a person is on and when you have only talking points rather than facts it becomes hard to defend. Many people rely upon their emotional attachment to a position, their response to a specific argument rather than rational evaluation and reason. Once a person has established an emotional attachment, no matter what the issue rationality is not going to move them and debate becomes futile.
This is why so many of the most recent issues became so heated. Why so many debates are not debates at all but arguments based upon personal feelings / opinions.
I am always happy to listen to the other side of an argument. Doesn't mean I will necessarily change my mind, but I may find value in the argument and may be willing to meet someone halfway.
This is the year where hope fails you
The test subjects runs the experiment
And the bastard you know, is the hero you hate
But cohesing is possible if we try
Theres no reason, theres no lesson
No time like the present, Tell me right now
What have you got to lose, what have you got to lose
Except your soul... who's with us?!
I fight for the unconventional
My right, and its unconditional
I can only, be as real as I can
The disadvantage is
I never knew the plan
This isn't just a way to be a martyr
I can't, walk alone any longer
I fight, for the ones who can't fight
And if I lose, at least I tried
We-we are the new diabolic
We-we are the bitter bucolic
If I have to give my life you can have it
We-we are the pulse of the maggots
I won't-be the inconsequential
I won't-be the wasted potential
I can make it-as severe as I can
Until you realize
You'll never take a stand
It isn't, just a one-sided version
We've dealt, with a manic subversion
I won't, let the truth be perverted
And I won't leave another victim deserted
We-we are the new diabolic
We-we are the bitter bucolic
If I have to give my life you can have it
We-we are the pulse of the maggots
We fight until no one can fight us
We live, and no one can stop us
We pull when we're pushed too far
And the advantage is
The bottom line is
We never, had to fight in the first place
We only, had to spit back at their face
We won't, walk alone any longer
What doesn't kill us only makes us stronger
There was a series of thin booklets that I had found at a local library many years ago. I believe they were called "Point Counter-Point".
Anyway, they would include very well-written essays by knowledgeable people on the given subject. I would read one essay and think "I think I agree with this", but then read a counterpoint essay and think "I think I could agree with this too".
There are rarely one easy answer to a complex question.
The preface in each booklet explained the importance of understanding different perspectives so well that I don't know that I could do it justice.
These could be part of that series, but I'm not sure.
http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/browse … IES_NUMBER
I think that much of the positioning comes not from the lack of information but from too much information, most of it bull**it. Most people do not weem to be able to differentiate between some kind of supported 'fact' and some totally bogus twaddle spun from thin air.
One of the things I'm learning over and over is that I should question a lot of my thoughts and beliefs. It's the only way to introduce new opportunities of thought and experience, which really is at the root of discovery of one's "truth." Otherwise, I'm pretty much imprisoned by a belief and thought system that I adhere to, whether there is any truth in it or not.
And I have to say, that despite the nice intellectual approach, I still am very opinionated and I very often am so put of by the person's demeanor that I automatically dismiss them all together, rather than consider if there is any truth in what they have to say.
So I admit my short comings in that area. But it's a journey and it's quite fascinating. Seeing the other person's point of view might only have to be acknowledgement that you understand what they say, but don't agree. Agreeing to disagree is not a bad thing. Understanding each other can only bring more acceptance rather than reinforce feelings that they are somehow an enemy. It's that illusion that they are an enemy that seems to be most pernicious. It most cases, it isn't true.
Great statement, we all have much more in common then we have seperation.
It is those in control, afraid of a United Humanity, that works to divide us on any isuue possible.
Exactly! The Catholics proved that during the 1000 yrs of the dark ages.
Man is s social creature that NEEDS to be controlled. he is a 'social predator."
He is fragmented for so many reasons, that the potential for "him" to work in concert, doesn't exist.
This situation will not improve with time.
so certain are you, eh Quark? Perhaps it is you who will not change and thus are blind to the changes of others.
You can't really be that outa contact with the times...can ya?
...'course you have alota company.
May I ask, Jagged, your level of formal education?...Just curious.. ty :-)
lol Which times dear quark would those be? For you have to admit for all your intellect that time doesn't exist. Matter is illusion, only awareness is definitive. As for my education, I have around thirty years of education and utilized like the finest haiku if that were relevant.
You do "tapdance" around the barn smartly...lol
30 years of "formal" (I did ask for years of "formal" education) education eh? Why did it take you so long to get thru school? 30 years! WOW!
You could really impress me with a poem in "haiku" form!
Everyone else too.
Go for it!! I'm excited.
working man voting is like deer selling hunting license. The new conservative initiatives will be led behind the scenes or maybe publically by Karl Roves the primary character who puppetted Bush Jr. We are in for more of the same. Tax breaks for the wealthiest Bushes first tax cut was enjoyed by the wealthy and taken from the working man at the gas pump.
I would hate to see the other side because maybe my perspective will fracture and then life might be like a Picasso.
Your right, he was an idealist and a politician. A rare cat who happened to understand the entire picture but for all that, he did battle with "Democrats" on subjects that mattered to him and chose to be called a "Republican" all the same. Odd the irony of a liberal choosing the minority side at the time to purport things that for his party choice alone he was opposed by those who should have agreed with him whole heartedly.
then stage runs on banks if you can manage it. I didn't know that government could cut jobs though other then government jobs which there are too many of by far. Raising taxes is an interesting charge though and I would love to see your source on that. Spending cuts... whats wrong with letting people spend their own money rather then government spending it? The raise in taxes though concerns me...
lol If you can attest or attach any label to yourself and own up to it in good times as well as bad then you are smart indeed.
Some labels however seem to brand one as willfully amoral which has its intelligent justifications as well.
nah Pcunix would say that those who disagree with her are Cretans or mutants. She of course is always right.
He's a socialist, he just doesn't like to use that word.
Have you ever read any of my hubs on Left vs. Right?
Didn't think so.
By the way, I am a "he". Look closer.
lol My bad, I get called she all the time and who can blame them when I use an male/or female avatar. An honest mistake. You are always right yet again. I should look closer.
I could see the other side if I put my pants on backward but I would never live that down.
So in general, do you all live in homes or have families that are all on the same political wave length? If you are a Dem could you live with a Rep. spouse?
I can't be one side or the other - it doesn't personally work for me, to much wrong on both sides don't make a right in the middle - I'm so tired of all of it on both sides that I just don't want to be part of it anymore. I feel like I'd be on a loosing team no matter which way I went. Its a sad feeling, but I just don't trust anyone to get any job done anymore.
I agree with you that both sides can be disgusting. However, if I abandon voting, then I give up all hope.
The Republicans generally disgust me more based on positions. The Dem candidates may in practice vote just like their GOP counterpart would, but I have to keep voting for the ideals I believe in even if the politicians themselves won't hold to those ideals.
Unfortunately, I have to be pragmatic. Sometimes a third party candidate comes along who really would be good, but I can't vote for them because they have no chance. I HATE doing that, because I know that so many of us do exactly that and that is one of the reasons they do not have a chance - but there we are.
Politics is ugly, but it's all we have.
I am a liberal living with a registered Republican. He is a conservative, although I would classify him as socially liberal in that he supports a woman's right to choose, supports federal funding for stem cell research, and opposes government regulation of morality. I call him a "sane" Republican because he can recognize crazy when he sees it (like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann), but he is generally conservative in that he supports lower taxes and is more concerned about wasteful government spending than I am. He watches Fox News, but he will also watch Rachel Maddow (Keith Olbermann is too much for him), so he can listen to opposing ideas without popping a blood vessel. I will also watch Fox News; I can stomach O'Reilly for example, but absolutely cannot listen to Hannity/Beck for more than a few minutes without having to leave the room. Fortunately, he thinks Beck is a moron and has more than once acknowledged that Hannity lies.
So, yes, we live together and discuss politics but there are times, once in a great while, when we have to just clam up to avoid getting tense. I also have a brother who is a conservative Christian and a Republican and he and I can discuss politics without getting too uptight.
My husband is a really interesting mix of liberal, conservative, libertarian, and autocrat, so political discussions in our house tend to be lively.
Just read through the first page...
Funny how a topic based on the idea that reason prevails over partisan politics turns into an opportunity to attribute all political slant to the forces of the "Right".
Does this not make the point of the OP?
by My Esoteric5 months ago
Congressional Republicans just promised to deny Hillary Clinton any honeymoon period and will continue their stated "Party over Country" policy of total obstruction of our Democratic President. To make...
by Scott Bateman3 weeks ago
Odd that the House was able to pass 60 bills repealing Obamacare when Obama was president but can't pass one when Trump is president.
by Alexander A. Villarasa3 years ago
The eminent essayist, author and political commentator Charles Krauthammer posited that the ongoing persistence of the disaster that is ObamaCare, could or would start the unraveling of American Liberalism...
by ptosis4 years ago
Biden & Ryan . "My friend" + fake smiles and posing smirks = Biden and Ryan talks as if he ......A chastising lecture giver?
by Credence22 weeks ago
This should prove most interesting. I say sorry in advance to Trump supporters, but this is comprehensive and irresistible. http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-o … president/For those that have the problems...
by Credence23 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.