PDA

View Full Version : Why all the partisan bickering



BonMallari
10-01-2009, 09:25 AM
I have to admit I enjoy a political DISCUSSION as much as anyone, but the going on here on POTUS are a snapshot of what is happening in the real world.

Someone posts that Senator, Congressperson or President (fill in name and party) said or did this and in typical partisan fashion, someone with a polar opposite view will respond with , well this Senator, Congressperson, or President from the opposing party did the same thing...of course they did

we can spend all day on the computer playing cut and paste to find quotes, and supporting articles to either debunk or neutralize the other viewpoint

Its so predictable on here. I personally think the solution is to remove these politicians, I wonder if politicians didnt have a Rep. or Dem. after their name if we would actually listen to them and find out for ourselves if they are worth my vote and support

You guys and gals that think you are presenting an opposing viewpoint by finding a similar politician transgression from the opposition, really arent...all it is is a urinating match...think about it

dnf777
10-01-2009, 09:38 AM
Couldn't agree more. The Afghanistan thread has been very enjoyable, and so far has avoided the name-calling and insults!

While healthcare is a very important issue, I think Afghanistan poses more existential issues to us as a nation. Certainly anyone who has or will have kids of fighting age needs to take notice, as if we get mired in Afghanistan, I see no way to avoid a draft. By historical precedent, we should have a draft NOW, to alleviate the burden these wars have placed on our military. Murder, suicide, domestic abuse, depression....are all at all-time highs amongst our troops at this point, which to me says they need some relief. But a draft would be political suicide, and that is high on the driving list nowadays.

oops, didn't mean to thread-jump there
dave

BonMallari
10-01-2009, 09:46 AM
You know Dave its one of the reasons I quit listening to the Sean Hannity show, he is the MOST partisan talk show host I ever had the displeasure (not really sure if its a word) of listening to. I do agree a return to a draft would be a step in the right direction,but in this day of litigation I am sure that someone would challenge the constitutional right to assemble a military force

Buzz
10-01-2009, 09:50 AM
Reminds me of something my dad used to say when I was a kid. Something like - does that mean if your friends jumped off a bridge, it would be a good idea for you to do it to?

Or maybe it was two wrongs don't make a right?

Never mind...

ducknwork
10-01-2009, 10:43 AM
Yes, Bon, it is absolutely annoying. There are some that are much worse than others and there are some that can actually hold a conversation without blaming the opposite party for everything in the world.

I wish everyone would grow up. Not necessarily on here, but throughout the country and especially DC.
________
No2 Vaporizer Reviews (http://no2vaporizer.net)

JDogger
10-01-2009, 11:03 AM
The spirit of Potus Place....

http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/gdpit_com_41490242_65.gif

zeus3925
10-01-2009, 12:59 PM
I would to see less ad hominem in these threads. Its time we stop the name calling and blame finding. There are a number of perils the country faces. We need to dialogue and get some solutions or divided we will most certainly fall as a nation.

We are for the most part concerned about the future of the country--liberal and conservative, democrat and republican, alike. We are sure to have differences, but those differences do not merit the bile and hatred spewed out here. Bile and hatred contributes nothing to the discussion. It may serve as a catharsis for those who spew, but it also convinces others of the ignorance of those who utter the abuse.

The vile names that have been hurled in this forum toward people of opposing opinions should be viewed as a loss of the argument by the name caller.

ducknwork
10-01-2009, 01:08 PM
Zeus, I can bipartisanally agree with you...

Now if everyone would practice it...
________
Beautiful brunette melanie enjoys a hardcore fuck (http://www.fucktube.com/video/16605/beautiful-brunette-melanie-enjoys-a-hardcore-fuck)

Bruce MacPherson
10-01-2009, 04:13 PM
I couldn't disagree more. There is nothing wrong with partisanship. We can be civil but we certainly have every right to stand up strongly for principles we believe in strongly. From personal experience, those people that are always interested in finding middle ground between competing ideas are just those too intellectually lazy to form and believe in their own.

road kill
10-01-2009, 04:21 PM
Reminds me of something my dad used to say when I was a kid. Something like - does that mean if your friends jumped off a bridge, it would be a good idea for you to do it to?

Or maybe it was two wrongs don't make a right?

Never mind...

Yeah, but he started it!!;-)

Frankly, there are a couple guys here I go at it with that I am hoping to meet, maybe work our dogs together, have a couple roosters in the bag, look at the colorful leaves with the gold hue of fall, and afterwards enjoy a Rocky Patel and a pull off the flask (0le' #7:cool:).

I am certain dnf and I would have a great day in the field and I am certain others feel the same.

I also feel that most of us actually have something in common that is far to rare in America today....LOVE!!

We all LOVE our dogs, the common denominator here!!

PEACE!!

stan b


p.s.--I think it's all Bush's fault!!:rolleyes:

BonMallari
10-01-2009, 04:41 PM
I would to see less ad hominem in these threads. Its time we stop the name calling and blame finding. There are a number of perils the country faces. We need to dialogue and get some solutions or divided we will most certainly fall as a nation.

We are for the most part concerned about the future of the country--liberal and conservative, democrat and republican, alike. We are sure to have differences, but those differences do not merit the bile and hatred spewed out here. Bile and hatred contributes nothing to the discussion. It may serve as a catharsis for those who spew, but it also convinces others of the ignorance of those who utter the abuse.

The vile names that have been hurled in this forum toward people of opposing opinions should be viewed as a loss of the argument by the name caller.

I couldnt agree any more or said it any better :D

and to Bruce, I am a fairly staunch conservative and I lean to the right of center but I know in my heart of hearts that I will never agree politically with Jeff or Roger and I used to think df777 (but lately I have seen more middle ground in his post) but what good is a name calling shouting match . If I want that I can just call my son's mother:p

I am trying to learn to pose my view in a calm sensible way, because when I run into some of you on the FT circuit I would like to be able to smile and say( hi,pleased to meet you and not " oh they are such and such on RTF and they are a political such and such)..my political beliefs should not define who I am,they may help identify it:)

Hew
10-01-2009, 05:04 PM
I couldn't disagree more. There is nothing wrong with partisanship. We can be civil but we certainly have every right to stand up strongly for principles we believe in strongly. From personal experience, those people that are always interested in finding middle ground between competing ideas are just those too intellectually lazy to form and believe in their own.
Exactly. Every word of it.

road kill
10-01-2009, 05:21 PM
BTW--I been looking, where the name calling at?
I honestly have not seen that in a while......unless you mean "secular progressives?"
But then would "right wing extremist" be a name?
But, by defintion some of us may well fit those titles.
So be it!

stan b

road kill
10-01-2009, 05:24 PM
Exactly. Every word of it.
"The only thought more frightening than men arguing religion and politics is the thought of men NOT arguing religion and politics!"

Thomas Jefferson

zeus3925
10-01-2009, 05:27 PM
I couldn't disagree more. There is nothing wrong with partisanship. We can be civil but we certainly have every right to stand up strongly for principles we believe in strongly. From personal experience, those people that are always interested in finding middle ground between competing ideas are just those too intellectually lazy to form and believe in their own.

We have the right to stand for our principles, but rigid adherence to a doctrine rarely accomplishes any thing in politics and governance. It is a good reason why nothing is getting done and the lobbyists are exploiting the rancor. Politics is the art of compromise. It takes quite a bit of intellectual horsepower to understand your perspective as well as the opposing one enough to forge a way through to get something that can work.

Northern Ireland is a good example of two sides at loggerheads for decades, if not centuries. Once they got by the finger pointing and name calling, both sides had to give something in order that they might have peace. For example, the UDF had to give up it privileged position in civil and economic affairs and the IRA had to give up its guns. Now, the Protestants and Catholics are still apart on religious and ideological viewpoints but, the peace has brought investments and jobs. Few are willing to risk the better life to go back to the struggles.

People do not slavishly navigate to one political pole or another. There are gradations in between. It doesn't mean they are intellectually lazy, it is because their world view comes not only with knowledge but, life's experiences as well.

road kill
10-01-2009, 05:32 PM
We have the right to stand for our principles, but rigid adherence to a doctrine rarely accomplishes any thing in politics and governance. It is a good reason why nothing is getting done and the lobbyists are exploiting the rancor. Politics is the art of compromise. It takes quite a bit of intellectual horsepower to understand your perspective as well as the opposing one enough to forge a way through to get something that can work.

Northern Ireland is a good example of two sides at loggerheads for decades, if not centuries. Once they got by the finger pointing and name calling, both sides had to give something in order that they might be peace. For example, the UDF had to give up it privileged position in civil and economic affairs and the IRA had to give up its guns. Now, the Protestants and Catholics are still apart on religious and ideological viewpoints but, the peace has brought investments and jobs. Few are willing to risk the better life to go back to the struggles.

People do not slavishly navigate to one political pole or another. There are gradations in between. It doesn't mean they are intellectually lazy, it is because their world view comes not only with knowledge but, life's experiences as well.

That is very well said.

stan b

dnf777
10-01-2009, 05:42 PM
BTW--I been looking, where the name calling at?
I honestly have not seen that in a while......unless you mean "secular progressives?"
But then would "right wing extremist" be a name?
But, by defintion some of us may well fit those titles.
So be it!

stan b

Nothing wrong with "secular progressives". Those are the folks who taught us the world is round, women can work and vote, and gave us Rock-n-roll! :p

Calling someone a "right wing extremist" can be either a compliment or an insult, depending on who you talking to!

JDogger
10-01-2009, 07:11 PM
I feel like I'm reading Archie and Jughead...:)

zeus3925
10-01-2009, 07:16 PM
I feel like I'm reading Archie and Jughead...:)

I see you are drawn to high grade literature.:D

YardleyLabs
10-01-2009, 08:08 PM
BTW--I been looking, where the name calling at?
I honestly have not seen that in a while......unless you mean "secular progressives?"
But then would "right wing extremist" be a name?
But, by defintion some of us may well fit those titles.
So be it!

stan b
Actually, I think I agreed that secular progressive was a fair description of me, although many other "progressives" preferred not to be called secular because of their religious beliefs. And I think you agreed that right wing extremist was a fair description for your beliefs. Possibly the last two things we've agreed on.:D

As a nation, we have a long tradition of intense disagreements and even nasty ad hominem attacks. If you think people are nasty today, look at some of the materials from the campaign between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. However, we have thrived as a nation because, with one exception, our partisans have always concluded that it was better to compromise and live together in a representative democracy (win or lose) than to split apart or give up on democracy in favor or some theoretical dictator who would obviously be smart enough to always agree with our own personal position. In a very real sense, that spirit of pragmatic compromise is the true ideology handed down to us by our forefathers. Other than during the period of the civil war, I am not sure we have ever have a period when some many seemed willing to throw away that core aspect of our heritage.

Bruce MacPherson
10-01-2009, 09:26 PM
We have the right to stand for our principles, but rigid adherence to a doctrine rarely accomplishes any thing in politics and governance.

You can explain that to all the conservatives that lost their seats in the last election because they decided to act more like liberals.
No one is against compromise necessarily. Unfortunately comprimise in politics is one side strong arming a few on the other side, either to wishy washy or gutless to oppose them, and calling it bipartisanship.

JDogger
10-01-2009, 11:07 PM
I see you are drawn to high grade literature.:D

Like a crash on the highway, sarge...like a crash on the highway:)

That's why I keep comin' back.

Am I a "Secular Progressive" RK? I guess. Proud to be secular, I gave up church and religion a long time ago.
Progressive? Nah, not really. I still search rural stores and gas stations for a Grape Nehi and a moonpie, and a nickel play on a pinball that I'll never find. I guess like many, I have a nostalgia for the things I remember, that are now gone.
Kinda like America, ya know.
I've lived in NM for almost forty years now. It's different from the VA of my youth, always has been, but even more now.
This country has changed, and I'll have to deal with it. For the next 3 months I'll serve on a Grand Jury panel, and I'll have to be face to face once a week with those changes, and try not to let my nostalgia for the way things used to be, affect my decisions on the way things are.
Again, tomorrow I'm off to the high country of NM. No phone, no cell, no internet, no TV. The three dogs just get to run the ranch and maybe we'll build a blind on the pond. Maybe we'll just lay in the hammock. Sigh.

JD

zeus3925
10-01-2009, 11:16 PM
You can explain that to all the conservatives that lost their seats in the last election because they decided to act more like liberals..

That would be true if they lost their seats to conservatives. The scene was right for a major upheaval in the body politic. We had two wars without end, a crashing economy and an unresponsive government.


No one is against compromise necessarily. Unfortunately comprimise in politics is one side strong arming a few on the other side, either to wishy washy or gutless to oppose them, and calling it bipartisanship.

Compromise, especially effective compromise, is not the product of strong armed tactics. That approach only leads to resentment. A good compromise is crafted by those who have differences, yet still wish to make a settlement in the end. A compromise often involves hard bargaining mixed in with some pragmatism. It does not play on weakness of character --that's surrender.

It is my hope that the next election would flush out the grandstanders that carry one like prima donnas, but, do nothing to advance our nation. Likewise, I would like to see the voters dispatch those who stand in the way those who will act for the common good.

Pete
10-01-2009, 11:23 PM
You can explain that to all the conservatives that lost their seats in the last election because they decided to act more like liberals.
No one is against compromise necessarily. Unfortunately comprimise in politics is one side strong arming a few on the other side, either to wishy washy or gutless to oppose them, and calling it bipartisanship

I'm gonna have to say that compromise got us in the soup we are in today.
We as a people should never ever compromise on principle.

All of our social and fiscal ills originate from compromise.

Pete

JDogger
10-01-2009, 11:43 PM
All of our social and fiscal ills originate from compromise.

Pete

Yours or mine? Ills or compromises?

JD

Bruce MacPherson
10-02-2009, 12:32 AM
That would be true if they lost their seats to conservatives. The scene was right for a major upheaval in the body politic. We had two wars without end, a crashing economy and an unresponsive government.



Likewise, I would like to see the voters dispatch those who stand in the way those who will act for the common good.

My point exactly, if they had acted like conservatives they probably would have not lost the numbers they did.

"Common good" is a subjective term to me. What you consider it to be may not be what I consider it to be.

zeus3925
10-02-2009, 05:29 AM
"Common good" is a subjective term to me. What you consider it to be may not be what I consider it to be.

But we can keep the debate civil.

subroc
10-02-2009, 07:07 AM
But we can keep the debate civil.

Sure. But rejection of your ideas/ideals is not being un-civil.

Pete
10-02-2009, 08:30 AM
Yours or mine? Ills or compromises

Definitely from your social,fashist.marxist principlels

Pete

zeus3925
10-02-2009, 09:39 AM
Definitely from your social,fashist.marxist principlels

Pete

Pete that's just what we don't want here. That is an ad hominem attack. That isn't civil discussion.

JDogger
10-02-2009, 09:58 AM
Definitely from your social,fashist.marxist principlels

Pete

Well, that clears that up. Thank you.

JD

subroc
10-02-2009, 10:26 AM
Definitely from your social,fashist.marxist principlels

Pete



Pete that's just what we don't want here. That is an ad hominem attack. That isn't civl discussion.

unless it is true.

Blackstone
10-02-2009, 10:40 AM
I'm gonna have to say that compromise got us in the soup we are in today.
We as a people should never ever compromise on principle.

All of our social and fiscal ills originate from compromise.

Pete

I would have to say greed is more likely the origin of our current social and fiscal ills.

JDogger
10-02-2009, 10:47 AM
unless it is true.

Would you care to cite a post of mine where I make socialistic, facist, Marxist statements of principal?

If you can find one I'll be glad to debate it with you.

JD

PS I already know your answer.

Matt McKenzie
10-02-2009, 12:28 PM
I would have to say greed is more likely the origin of our current social and fiscal ills.

Please define the word greed and then explain how it is the origin of our current fiscal ills.
Thanks,

Blackstone
10-02-2009, 01:51 PM
Matt,

I would define greed as an excessive desire to acquire or possess more, especially more material wealth, than one needs or deserves, or an insatiable desire for wealth.

I won’t rehash all the factors that led to the current housing market collapse, the near collapse of the banking industry, and the collapse of the credit markets. It has been discussed in depth here many times, and the information is also available readily on line. Some blame Democrats, and some blame Republicans, but the bottom line is, a lot of people made a lot of money with the schemes and policies that led to our current economic problems. Even when it became apparent that there was a good chance the whole house of cards would come crashing down, those involved did nothing to stop it. In fact, they sometimes hid the facts to ensure they would continue to make more money, even if it was at the expense of the rest of us. To me, that constitutes greed.

Pete
10-02-2009, 02:21 PM
[QUOTE][Pete that's just what we don't want here. That is an ad hominem attack. That isn't civil discussion.
__________________
/QUOTE]

Sarge
If america was always a social or marxist nation then I would say that no principle was compromised.
But since my grand father,father or I cant remember this country ever being a socialistic country or a marxist country ,,then I have to say it was our principles that were compromised,,, if they werent outr budget would be in the black.
Slowley since 1913 this was a pretty free country,,since then those freedoms have become usurped through compromising with those who do not hold those principles dear.

If we were becoming a very conservative country then I would say that the liberal doctrine has been compromised.
But that wont ever happen again. That I can guarentee.

Although Roosavelt was a Dem. By todays defintion he would be a far right extremest.

Pete

Pete
10-02-2009, 02:23 PM
Well, that clears that up. Thank you

Don't mention it. Just doing my patriotic duty.

Pete

Pete
10-02-2009, 02:27 PM
would have to say greed is more likely the origin of our current social and fiscal ills On ther contrary.

Greed occures because principles are consistantly broken without much consenquence.

Pete

road kill
10-02-2009, 02:28 PM
I feel like I'm reading Archie and Jughead...:)

Are Archie or Jughead names?

Are you calling me an Archie or a Jughead??

Which one are you?:cool:

JDogger
10-02-2009, 03:45 PM
Are you calling me an Archie or a Jughead??
:cool:

No. I'll leave it for you to define your own comicbook alter-ego ;-)

Blackstone
10-02-2009, 03:51 PM
On ther contrary.

Greed occures because principles are consistantly broken without much consenquence.

Pete

Most greedy people don't have a lot of principles. And, if you are greedy, and in a position of power, you find ways to avoid consequences.

zeus3925
10-02-2009, 06:00 PM
Sarge

But since my grand father,father or I cant remember this country ever being a socialistic country or a marxist country ,,then I have to say it was our principles that were compromised,,, if they werent outr budget would be in the black.

If we were becoming a very conservative country then I would say that the liberal doctrine has been compromised.

Pete

I suspect we are using "compromise" in different shades of the word. I use it as achieving a common agreement among initially opposing viewpoints.

Unfortunately, it is one of those words in the English language that has divergent meanings. I sense that you use it in the sense that something has lost its potency (eg. Secrecy has been compromised.) Am I correct?

road kill
10-02-2009, 06:08 PM
I suspect we are using "compromise" in different shades of the word. I use it as achieving a common agreement among initially opposing viewpoints.

Unfortunately, it is one of those words in the English language that has divergent meanings. I sense that you use it in the sense that something has lost its potency (eg. Secrecy has been compromised.) Am I correct?

CONSENSUS!!

That's what it used to be.

zeus3925
10-02-2009, 06:25 PM
CONSENSUS!!

That's what it used to be.

That's the flavor I'm looking for.

YardleyLabs
10-02-2009, 07:36 PM
I actually think consensus is an unrealistic basis for governing and definitely undesirable. It hardly works in governing a church, and never works for a country. The form of compromise that I think can permit people who disagree vehemently on many issues to work effectively together consists of several crucial elements:

Recognition of a fundamental common interest. Just as the success of a marriage depends more on a commitment to make it work than it does on the love of the moment, the success of a country is founded on acceptance of equal rights of citizenship (none of us is more American than the other), a commitment to the democratic process, and a recognition that patritotic allegiance does not demand agreement.
A willingness to form tactical alliances on issues without expecting or requiring ideological agreement on reasons. These alliances may take the form of agreement on an action (build a dam) for different reasons (you want a recreational area, I want flood control), or horse trading in which I support your cause in return for your support of mine.
Honest brokers: People with divergent objectives can work together as long as each trusts the other to fulfill their part of a bargain. You do not need to like your bargaining partners; you do need to trust them. In turn, you must be trustworthy yourself even when it is not in your short term interest.
Do not demonize opponents that you can't kill: When you demonize your opponents, you forget the common ground that binds you and make it impossible for your opponent to ever trust you as an honest broker.

road kill
10-02-2009, 07:43 PM
Compromise; 1 a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things

Consesnsus; 1 a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

You be the judge.
By definition, which do you prefer?

zeus3925
10-02-2009, 09:27 PM
Compromise; 1 a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things

Consesnsus; 1 a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

You be the judge.
By definition, which do you prefer?

Thanks, Roadkill. I guess I had the first definition of compromise in mind.

Bruce MacPherson
10-02-2009, 09:49 PM
Matt,

I would define greed as an excessive desire to acquire or possess more, especially more material wealth, than one needs or deserves, or an insatiable desire for wealth.



I love this definition. Now explain to me how one comes to know if you have acquired more wealth than you need or deserve?

zeus3925
10-02-2009, 11:31 PM
I love this definition. Now explain to me how one comes to know if you have acquired more wealth than you need or deserve?

You never do. It becomes a game of racking up a score.

Bruce MacPherson
10-03-2009, 01:04 AM
You never do. It becomes a game of racking up a score.

You know what it is Zeus, as I sit here in my later years and I see a statement like "some have more than they need or deserve" I think, now they tell me. Guess all those years spent busting my backside, taking risks, taking care of my family and making sure my wife and I can sit back, relax and watch the world go by surrounded by kids, grand kids and good dogs was just a waste of time huh?;)

Pete
10-03-2009, 08:43 AM
A willingness to form tactical alliances on issues without expecting or requiring ideological agreement on reasons. These alliances may take the form of agreement on an action (build a dam) for different reasons (you want a recreational area, I want flood control), or horse trading in which I support your cause in return for your support of mine

There is some of the compromise I am talking about.

I'll vote for a hike in welfare if you vote not to kill the 2nd admendment

sures its a stretch but many have voted for bills because they wanted 1 aspect of it while detesting the others.

Pete

zeus3925
10-03-2009, 09:37 AM
You know what it is Zeus, as I sit here in my later years and I see a statement like "some have more than they need or deserve" I think, now they tell me. Guess all those years spent busting my backside, taking risks, taking care of my family and making sure my wife and I can sit back, relax and watch the world go by surrounded by kids, grand kids and good dogs was just a waste of time huh?;)

I did the same thing, Bruce. Well, one thing is for certain: We have kept our pride.

JDogger
10-05-2009, 11:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by subroc http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=507259#post507259)
unless it is true.

Would you care to cite a post of mine where I make socialistic, facist, Marxist statements of principal?

If you can find one I'll be glad to debate it with you.

JD

PS I already know your answer.

So Joe? Ya got anything? Or ya just sky-blasting again?

JD

Blackstone
10-06-2009, 04:24 PM
I love this definition. Now explain to me how one comes to know if you have acquired more wealth than you need or deserve?

Although the answer to that is subjective, you should be able to recognize greed and excess when you see it. How about Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski with his $6,000 shower curtain, $15,000 gilded umbrella stand and $2,900 of coat hangers for an example? That would qualify in my book.