Anger in Politics

[TheRox333]

Why has it gotten to the point in politics where if a person states his opinion on something, there will be 10,000+ yelling at him for his beliefs. Shouldn't government views be more of a friendly debate where each side says there point of view and eventually they will brainstorm until either one side wins or they find a compremise between the two? This past debate with Bush and Kerry was a disgrace to our nation. Instead of many democrats bringing up new and great ideas they mostly ran there compaign on how much they hated Bush. It seems as if we are repeating these actions in Bush's Social Security reform. Why can't we brainstorm together a better Social Security Idea instead of fighting over whether or not to even debate about it. Once again it seems as if Democrats are refusing to consider a Republicans point of view, instead of trying to evovle it to a plan that they like most.

[Ryo89]

You have a point. It would be better for USA if the republicans and the democrats were more friendly to eachother, instead of just opposing the other party. This way, evolution won't come easy.

[Tombulgius]

At 1/28/05 05:39 PM, Ryo89 wrote: You have a point. It would be better for USA if the republicans and the democrats were more friendly to eachother, instead of just opposing the other party. This way, evolution won't come easy.

Exactly my view. They need to chill out.

[jmaster306]

At 1/28/05 05:22 PM, TheRox333 wrote: Why has it gotten to the point in politics where ... This past debate with Bush and Kerry was a disgrace to our nation. Instead of many democrats bringing up new and great ideas they mostly ran there compaign on how much they hated Bush.... Once again it seems as if Democrats are refusing to consider a Republicans point of view, instead of trying to evovle it to a plan that they like most.

Ok, here is the #1 problem with what you are saying.... you are blaming liberals in your argument and saying nothing about conservatives. You do have a good point, but simple things like that which you probably didn't think of will probably piss off your liberal counterparts and make them less willing to hear what you are saying. Since I am a liberal, I will refrain because I don't think that blaming liberals was your intention. Now, if it was.... thats just funny.

[Draconias]

The recent hate in politics is because the United States has recently been going through a major political shift from the Democrat party to the Republican party. On the Republican side there has been a rising digust with the Democrat party; on the Democrat side there has been a rising desperation and frustration against the Republican party. Due to this shift both sides are acting angier more often.

[TimScheff]

At 1/28/05 05:22 PM, TheRox333 wrote: Why has it gotten to the point in politics where if a person states his opinion on something, there will be 10,000+ yelling at him for his beliefs.

There should be people yelling if there is a disagreement, and if the person is just wrong (ie Saddam Hussein had a role in 9/11; Bush is a tool of the Saudi family) those that express or imply that view should be shot down.

Shouldn't government views be more of a friendly debate where each side says there point of view and eventually they will brainstorm until either one side wins or they find a compremise between the two?

If you want debate its about alot of people yelling, its hard if not impossible for people to be civil when things are put into some kind of moral frame work. If you accept the position you take a stand that you are absolutely right and the other is wrong. The only option is for one position to win and the adherents will not abdicate their position without a major revelation or a major fight. Brainstorming only works if you have a common basis to start.

This past debate with Bush and Kerry was a disgrace to our nation. Instead of many democrats bringing up new and great ideas they mostly ran there compaign on how much they hated Bush.

Hating Bush was a clear position. The actions of the Bush administration, from top to bottom, were radically right. Almost any policy proposed by Bush is one that ethically, morally, or philosophically deserved rejection in the minds of the majority of democrats. The major postion of the democrats was to go back to the Clinton status quo.

It seems as if we are repeating these actions in Bush's Social Security reform. Why can't we brainstorm together a better Social Security Idea instead of fighting over whether or not to even debate about it.

They should be calling for a wholesale rejection. The Bush administration is trying to create something by lies: a crisis requiring an extreme action. Even the leading congressional republicans are not duplicating such a ridculous claim. They talk about problems, concerns, and propose changes they would prefer happen, not claiming the changes must happen. The Democrats failed at rejecting Bush lies on Iraq in a unified manner. They at least aren't doing the same with social security.

Once again it seems as if Democrats are refusing to consider a Republicans point of view, instead of trying to evovle it to a plan that they like most.

There is no "evolution" necessary. The concept of "its your money" is ridiculous for social security... its insurance, when I dont' go to the doctor I don't get my insurance money back, thats how the system works. And, social security is only there to keep you off the streets, if you want a lavish retirement you can invest your own money to suppliment the social security. Plus privatizing would cost billions and possibly trillions of dollars. SS has at least till 2040-2050 if nothing changes and another 20 years past that with those people getting 75% benefits. If we'd payback the trust fund for the money our budget deficits (from Reagan, Bush and Bush) stole from it with the same billions and trillions, it would last longer.

Why is there anger? The lies and the attempt to take unnecessary actions.
How about doing something with the 11 millions kids who have no health insurance instead, or assure the right to vote as a consititutional right instead of a privilidge protected only by legislation.
When we as a society determine if Morality means being anti-gay, puritainistic and wanting to change the world at the point of the sowrd or if it means embracing peace and assuring basics like food and heath care for children, then the agner will stop.

[TheRox333]

Ok, here is the #1 problem with what you are saying.... you are blaming liberals in your argument and saying nothing about conservatives. You do have a good point, but simple things like that which you probably didn't think of will probably piss off your liberal counterparts and make them less willing to hear what you are saying.

You make a good point. Maybe what i say will piss off liberals...But the problem i have is that Democrats aren't coming up with any new ideas. And until they do their voices will never really be heard. And to simply say that we should stick with a failing plan is insane. Frankly, i think its ironic that the conservatives are the ones pushing for change when liberals are saying that we should keep things the way they are.

[TheRox333]

Dear TimScheff,
i don't get how you defend the Democrats actions. Sure they have a reason to be upset. There is definately a difference between Republican and Democratic Views. But Democrats need to accept that they aren't in control of the government anymore. And by simply expressing themselves through anger it will only lead to making a fool of themselves. Also the difference between SS and Insurance is in insurance you only get the money when you really need it whereas SS is given to everybody that lives long enough (which is a greatly increasing rate since we r living longer and the Baby Boomers are reaching Senior age). And to be honest, i don't see the point of it. It can be solved using similar methods as Bush's idea on SS. Its not that i completely agree with Bush's idea, its just i don't see how the Democrat's belief on just keepin things the way it is, is going to help anybody.

[ultimatecrusader]

That, my friend is why Washington himself was so against factions. The government sectionalizes itself and it causes a lot of political turmoil. I agree with you though.

[jmaster306]

At 1/28/05 06:03 PM, TheRox333 wrote: Frankly, i think its ironic that the conservatives are the ones pushing for change when liberals are saying that we should keep things the way they are.

Wait.... what? I don't know who you are thinking of but I'd hardly consider promoting gay marriage, fighting against the war in Iraq, as well as changing social security and medicare maintaining the status quo. You would be right in saying that democrats havn't come up with many good working plans because well, the democratic party is pretty well torn to shreds right now and the fact that Republicans have a large majority means that many liberal plans don't stand a chance. Also you might notice that while Republicans are looking for change, some of these changes actually undo earlier laws & acts from more liberal administrations so I'd consider them more of a step back into the past than an actual change.

[TheRox333]

why would these actions be a setback? If it does infact solve the problem, which i don't know if it will yet, then i would say its a step forward. The whole point is that maybe we r looking at SS the wrong way. Obviously it isn't working, so both sides need to be open to knew ideas. Republicans as well, should take new ideas from Democrats into consideration. And if they don't, then i would say they r just as stubborn and closed-minded as many Democrats are about the Republican's ideas. Every idea should be taken into consideration.

[TimScheff]

At 1/28/05 06:20 PM, TheRox333 wrote: Dear TimScheff,
i don't get how you defend the Democrats actions. Sure they have a reason to be upset. There is definately a difference between Republican and Democratic Views. But Democrats need to accept that they aren't in control of the government anymore. And by simply expressing themselves through anger it will only lead to making a fool of themselves.

You seem to have the expectation that the role of a minority party is to become loyal opposition. I don't think that anger is universal feeling or attribute of the democrats, but ther eare some that are vocal (and its probably in their personality to be a fighter). Being queit or trying to meld something to be more to your liking doesn't work when your opposition is based on moral principle. There's a reason the Republican Party doesn't actually stop most partial birth abortion-- they refuse to pass a law with exceptions for life and health of the mother and the courts, in turn, keep tossing out the law. The democrats are in this position for many issues and thus to only position is opposition and anger as you charachterize it.

Also the difference between SS and Insurance is in insurance you only get the money when you really need it whereas SS is given to everybody that lives long enough (which is a greatly increasing rate since we r living longer and the Baby Boomers are reaching Senior age).

It also pays out to those "who really need it" that are disabled. Its still an insurance policy in its retirement form... if you paid in, and you live long enough, you are deemed to use it. I wouldnt' be opposed to make it more of insurance and only pay out to those who are old enough AND need it. This is an actual democratic proposal that gets shot down from the right because of their assertions that "its your money". Another democratic proposal was and is to not raid the trust fund to pay for our enormous deficit. We shoudl have been and can be in a situation where some of the money can be saved for future payments.

And to be honest, i don't see the point of it. It can be solved using similar methods as Bush's idea on SS. Its not that i completely agree with Bush's idea, its just i don't see how the Democrat's belief on just keepin things the way it is, is going to help anybody.

You identify the prolem right here... you presume there is somthing that needs to be solved, implying there is a problem. Social Security isn't in crisis or have a major problem other than the fiscal irresponsiblity of congress. That can be solved by following the rules in place now; there is no need for something new. The Bush proposals would only enrich the stock market by gambling social security money (look at all the pension funds and 401k funds that were heavily invested in Enron and WorldCom that are now way underfunded or worth less today to see why this isn't good). The Reagan and Bush presidencies have been totally focused on dismantling the New Deal... eliminating Social Security is one of the very last major pieces to this campaign.
The belief to keep things as they are is a very legitimate policy position when the esitmates of viability are to 2040-50 and 75% viability for at least another 25 years. Making a change to a private investment system is a huge risk, just look at the massive failure and resulting financial crisis of Argentina.

[jmaster306]

At 1/28/05 09:59 PM, TheRox333 wrote: why would these actions be a setback? If it does infact solve the problem, which i don't know if it will yet, then i would say its a step forward. The whole point is that maybe we r looking at SS the wrong way. Obviously it isn't working, so both sides need to be open to knew ideas. Republicans as well, should take new ideas from Democrats into consideration. And if they don't, then i would say they r just as stubborn and closed-minded as many Democrats are about the Republican's ideas. Every idea should be taken into consideration.

Hey I completely agree with you, it would really be nice to have a joint effort on this kind of stuff. Now, I would start debating the issue of SS but unfortunately I don't know nearly enough about it to say anything wise. Oh yeah, and I said it was a "step back to an earlier time" not a stepback a.k.a. reverting back to old laws instead of being counterproductive. Honestly, I do believe that some of these things ARE counterproductive but that is a judgement that I didn't want to make without being specific or justifying my statements.

[TheRox333]

And to be honest, i don't see the point of it. It can be solved using similar methods as Bush's idea on SS. Its not that i completely agree with Bush's idea, its just i don't see how the Democrat's belief on just keepin things the way it is, is going to help anybody.

You identify the prolem right here... you presume there is somthing that needs to be solved, implying there is a problem. Social Security isn't in crisis or have a major problem other than the fiscal irresponsiblity of congress. That can be solved by following the rules in place now; there is no need for something new. The Bush proposals would only enrich the stock market by gambling social security money (look at all the pension funds and 401k funds that were heavily invested in Enron and WorldCom that are now way underfunded or worth less today to see why this isn't good). The Reagan and Bush presidencies have been totally focused on dismantling the New Deal... eliminating Social Security is one of the very last major pieces to this campaign.

Actually there really is a problem. At the way we are dealing with things right now, Generation X is going to have to pay for the Baby Boomers SS. Unfortunately, there will be a great difference in population. There will me much more baby boomers that need SS than there will be of people able to pay for it. One way we could fix it is by moving the eligibility of SS back again. But that would be to just to pass on a problem to the next generation who will have an even greater problem. The problem is as of right now, we will not be able to afford to pay SS for every baby boomer.

[Malkontent]

The main problem in any political arena at any time can be traced down to my personal pet peeve, Platform thinking! That's right, the idea that a person's entire world view has to follow a certain platform; has to tie in with a certain theme; has to conform to the way said person classifies themselves.

"Hmmmmmmm.... I think I am a.... Left-of-center-Social-Liberal-Fiscal-Conservative-Civil-Reformer!
That means every single thought I convey to the rest of the monkeys on this rock must be the sort of thing a.... Left-of-center-Social-Liberal-Fiscal-Conservative-Civil-Reformer
would endorse.... where'd I put that damn manual?"

No I'm sorry kidlets, the world doesn't actually work that way. What do you think lost Karry the election? See John run! Run John run! See John cuddle up to the left! See John cuddle up to the right! See John cuddle up to the left again! See the left not buying it! Karry should have stuck to his actual politics. You know, the politics that are plainly seen in his record as a senator, The politics for which he was chosen out of the lot as a potential candidate, the politics that won him the nomination... He should have stuck to his guns but no, no, that would make too much sense! We can't have a politician make sense!

The Democrats made the mistake of thinking all republicans are the same animal. You can't have a two party system (I refuse to dignify Nader) if that were true. An increasing number of registered Republicans are indeed overly patriotic ultra-right zombies with delusions of grandure, who tout Manifest destiny and aren't concerned about the overall consequences of their chief button-pusher's narrow approch to world affairs "cuz the end times is a-commin' and we're just-a bidin our time till Jesus comes back. What's really important is that them thar fags shouldn't be allowed t'get hitched!" But these people don't represent the whole of the party, they don't even really represent the majority! Karry should'nt have moved to a Left wing platform, he HAD the left! By virtue of being John Karry, he had the left licking the lint out from between his toes!

He should have gone after money conservatives, military conservatives, justice conservatives! But he didn't, why? because his campaign managers assured him that this wasn't a good idea, and no decided Republican would ever cross the floor, and he should consentrate on getting lefties out to the poles, like they weren't going to be marching out in droves, their foaming mouths creating a white-wash effect on the city streets! "Don't endanger your core vote by telling the truth, By telling moderate Republicans that a vote for Karry won't bring about the end of the world (prematurely)!"

Why not? It's not like Bush has given moderate conservatives in the United States reason to jump up and down chanting his name and burning the effigies of the blue donkey by the light of the full moon. If you're a military family, you have reason to disapprove of Bush. Contrary to poppular belief, only elite officers, and rear eschelon goom-bahs (Both comfortably far away from any real action) can embrace a global fire starter. Real soldiers realise that every time Cheney twitches his stubby fingers they, or the men and women next to them might catch a 7.62mm kiss in the side of the head! Their families know this too, and worry about it. If you're a small business owner, it can't have escaped you that a massive tax cut, on the eve of a #@$%ing global conflict, right after the biggest stock-market nose dive since the dirty thirties, might not have done your little growth chart any good no matter how "Dynamic" your business strategy is. If you stand for Law and Order, you have to realise your position as an arm-chair vigilante just got a little more dangerous since the Bush administration decided compact automatic firearms are okay afterall! If you don't, see the point about the 7.62mm kiss and imagine getting it one day while waiting for the #5 bus because some meth head liked your shoes. It would have been so easy to force these people to stop tuning out reality and take a look around.

I'm not saying Karry would have got a massive majority, an underground cult following, and his own sit-com on FOX or anything. But they might have carved out a victory, or even just a better showing in the senate, or congress. Both sides chose to treat the a bad TV stereotype. They can be Blue/Red, Left/Right, Democrat/Republican. These are your choices. There's an awful lot of talk about "wings" in politics, but the average person doen't consider the reason for that metaphor.
Take a bird, cut off it's Left wing, it can't fly...
Take a bird, cut off it's Right wing, it can't fly...
Take a bird, cut off both it's wings (as in political center), it can't fly...
Take a bird, respect the validity of both it's wings, let it draw strength from both, let it use both in flight, and guess what... It will fly.
Someday politicians across the western world will learn to apprieciate that. Maybe we will too.

[jmaster306]

At 1/29/05 02:19 PM, Malkontent wrote: Alot of really good shit

Wow, you should post in this forum more often. I really do agree with your analogy of the bird about the parties working together or not. That being said however, there are certain issues that by nature cause conflict between the two parties. For example, I really don't see how the issue of gay marriage will be peacefully resolved. If nothing else, the fact that over 10 states have banned both gay marriages and civil unions with more states following shows that this issue will not be easily solved. Unfortunately in cases like this, the bird known as america will inevitably divide because some consider it an "uncompromisable issue" to quote the catholic church. Trust me, I want for the two parties to work together on improving this nation, but to expect them to always work together is a bit naive.

On a side note, they say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I've often seen how a political majority works in the same way which is one of my biggest fears with Republicans having the majority in both houses of congress and the white house. This being said, I would fear this kind of dominace even if it were the democrats in power.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

People are angry in politics because
1. They didn't come to their opinions over a extended period of time examining the different ideologies and finally deciding on the one that seemed the most reasonable, they picked the one that their parents had or they learned it in school or at their job.

2. People would rather be wrong than have to think they are wrong. This is a confusing statement, but people don't just have beliefs, they have strong feelings on what they would like to believe. Many people not only believe that people are all good deep down, they really want to believe it too because changing that belief would change their entire paradigm, something that isn't fun for some people.

3. Propaganda, maybe even subliminal suggestion. I know that when I listen to certain songs, my mood can change quite significantly. I'm sure that principles of psychology are used in the media to increase the emotional content of certain ideas, words and phrases. A good example, many people find it extremely difficult to say the n-word, me included (don't try, there's a filter on the bbs). On one hand, it's just a word, on the other, there are immense associations with the word that trigger emotions when it is read or spoken.

There are lots of good reasons people are angry when it comes to politics, the key is not to attack the people, but to address the causes.

[drDAK]

At 1/28/05 05:39 PM, Ryo89 wrote: You have a point. It would be better for USA if the republicans and the democrats were more friendly to eachother, instead of just opposing the other party.

Say goodbye to Michael Moore.

[Tombulgius]

At 1/29/05 09:16 PM, drDAK wrote:

At 1/28/05 05:39 PM, Ryo89 wrote: You have a point. It would be better for USA if the republicans and the democrats were more friendly to eachother, instead of just opposing the other party.

Say goodbye to Michael Moore.

Indeed, Moore would be out of a job if the parties made up.

Democratic Party: "Sorry, Michael, but we don't need you anymore. The Republicans are our friends now."
Moore: "But......I get it! You're a dirty Republican, too, huh!?"

[drDAK]

At 1/29/05 09:24 PM, Tombulgius wrote: Indeed, Moore would be out of a job if the parties made up.

Democratic Party: "Sorry, Michael, but we don't need you anymore. The Republicans are our friends now."
Moore: "But......I get it! You're a dirty Republican, too, huh!?"

Then we'd be a single-party ruled country. Like China.
That would suck. I really don't want that to happen.

Then one day we decide those Chinese sons of bitches are goin' down... lol

[Tombulgius]

Single party would be kind of wierd. A bit more peace between the parties wouldn't hurt, though. It would be less of a "you're bad because you are [insert party here]!" situation.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

I wonder how much tension there REALLY is between the two parties. They both are far too similar on some issues for my comfort and I can imagine that a perception of tension between the powerful people gives them a lot of stability.

[spoke2go]

[e-mail]
I dont really know why but I can give you my take on why people start to get angry with politics it's because these days people are really passionate with their opinions and views especially the republicans during the election I got screamed at and harrased by a bunch of bible thumping bush humping rednecks who started shouting baby killer and gay lover and thats what makes politics so angry because everyone gets attacked for their beleifs and so they become defensive and dont want to listen to what the other person has to say or the logic behind it. So what it really comes down to is you have the freedom of speech but you dont have the freedom to stay out of an argument and be persecuted for your beleifs.

[TheRox333]

i might be willing to bet if such a "lets be friends policy" existed at least some of them would consider it.