How about listening to the issue?

[Brandon]

It makes me sick when people simply disregard what one has to say, and listen to what another has to say simply because of their political stance. Ill try to explain what im getting at, so hear me out for a moment and hopefully I can put my thoughts together in a coherent way.

If you let a political stance persuade you to the point that it alone predetermines your stance, then you are in need of an education and/or (insert petty act of violence here). Take for example that politician A takes up an issue with congress. Well, politician A is part of the Republican party. A lot of people will dismiss whatever they have to say and decide in advance that the issue is being considered wrong, or that the issue isnt important. The party can be interchanged, and the same thing happens. Why? That is simply retarded. Why are you going to insist that this or that issue is _______ based only on the fact that politician is a ________?

I could spend more time giving other examples, but hopefully you can understand what im getting at here. This happens all the time. People insist that nothing good comes from Bush simply because of who he is. How about actually considering the topic? Conservatives undermine stances because they are brought up by "tree-huggers" and insist that the topic is illogical. Why must people be so superficial sometimes. This is equally true of every type of stance. Why?

What are your thoughts on this?
Have you been guilty of this ever?

[clichealias]

I completely agree, its similar to what I said in a reply to some topic entitled "liberals are stupid" or something to that effect.

[Captain-Kingfish]

Both parties are at fault not just one you know?

[Wraith]

At 6/30/04 02:38 AM, -Brandon- wrote: What are your thoughts on this?

This is the most common problem we have in Politics. The dissent between the Liberals, Independents and Conservatives is getting out of hand.

Have you been guilty of this ever?

Occasionally, but not lately.

[Captain-Kingfish]

It is getting out of hand when liberals show pictures of dead American Soilders so they can rise in the polls.... Should be Hung for Treason I tell you.

[RedSkunk]

At 6/30/04 10:06 PM, _Wraith_ wrote: This is the most common problem we have in Politics. The dissent between the Liberals, Independents and Conservatives is getting out of hand.

It's pretty pathetic, both here and in congress. I think the best example of partisanship for the hell of it was Clinton's impeachment.

-Brandon-

Have you been guilty of this ever?

Surely.

[RedSkunk]

At 6/30/04 10:11 PM, Captain_Kingfish wrote: It is getting out of hand when liberals show pictures of dead American Soilders so they can rise in the polls.... Should be Hung for Treason I tell you.

Thanks for illustrating Brandon's point.

[Wraith]

At 6/30/04 10:15 PM, SKUNKbrs wrote: Thanks for illustrating Brandon's point.

My irony meter just broke. =(

[Camarohusky]

I believe that this hatred between parties stems from the two party system, a product of the majority wins election process. If we were to enact a broad election that would allow a precentage of each party to get into the gov equal to the percentage they recieved there would not be such dislike between the praties and the sides because it would not be us against them so much, and parties would have to coalesce and form gorups and work together, thus increasing the willingness to listen to what the other groups say...

[RedSkunk]

At 7/1/04 03:26 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I believe that this hatred between parties stems from the two party system, a product of the majority wins election process. If we were to...

You're right up to a point. The two-party system definitely aggravates this 'us-against-them' blindedness.

But - you still get rabid partisanship in other countries, albeit not as strongly (me-thinks).

[SteveGuzzi]

Approaching this from outside the realm of politics...

---

It is the nature of the ordinary man to compare and judge the manifestations of the naturally-ocurring qualities inherent in things and situations. It is not wrong to do this, but we should not delude ourselves into believing that we thereby describe the quality rather than a manifestation of the quality.

While all judgements are comparative, a judgement is frequently, if not always, relative to the individual who makes that judgement, and also to the time which it is made. To the child, the garden fence is high, but when the same child grows, the same fence is low. The adult in his physical prime knows that to run ten miles, which is easy at that time, will become more difficult as he grows older, but also that the patience required to walk will become easier. Qualitative judgements such as old and young, big and small, easy and difficult, or leading and following, relate as much to the person who makes that judgement as they relate to the thing or action being described.

---

Bi-partisanship is silly when you consider that things don't really ever exist as two 100%-completely-and-totally opposite ends of the same spectrum.

[Reverend-Kyle]

I think it's about stereotyping. I really don't want Canada to be involved in any missile defence system with the United States, that's why I wouldn't vote for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Although issues they bring up can't be all about giving people tax cuts, privatizing health care, and bringing about missile defence, how do I know that listening to one worth-while issue won't end with billions in tax cuts?

On American t.v., I hear a lot about people trying to further their political agenda, which may not be true. Furthering their political agenda-- that gets used so much it has become cliché.

It might also have to do with how well you can relate to the person who is talking. I'm not a wealthy businessman, and I never will be. It's xenophobia.

[Professor-Burgees]

At 7/1/04 03:26 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I believe that this hatred between parties stems from the two party system, a product of the majority wins election process. If we were to enact a broad election that would allow a precentage of each party to get into the gov equal to the percentage they recieved there would not be such dislike between the praties and the sides because it would not be us against them so much, and parties would have to coalesce and form gorups and work together, thus increasing the willingness to listen to what the other groups say...

This system was used in Germany between the wars. No-one could control the country and no-one could get anything done. Nice idea, but, like all good political systems, it doesnt work

[Camarohusky]

The failure of post WWI Germany's government has little to do with the mutli-party system. The stage was set for Germany to fial at the end of the Great War, no matter what government Germany had, it was pretty much set on its course by Versailles.

[witeshark]

Well wasn't the treaty of Versailles supposed to limit all of Germany's military ability after WW1? Well thye didn't pay much attention to it, the Graf Spee and other "pocket batteships" were an amazing way sort of getting around the rules, and all rules went straight to hell when they built the Bismark class, that and Tirpitz. But back on topic, the use of any images like the returning caskets for politcal gain is unforgivable

[RedSkunk]

At 7/1/04 11:45 PM, witeshark wrote: But back on topic, the use of any images like the returning caskets for politcal gain is unforgivable

That's not on topic..

[witeshark]

Well the topic is vague enough, I was close enough