Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In many cases, there is a singular solution. But single solutions do not satisfy multiple goals. Some want equal access and opportunity - some want equal outcomes. You can't satisfy both. You can't focus on one without neglecting the other. What do you do?
I think fewer want equal outcomes than you would probably estimate. I think if equal access and opportunity were fully institutionalized, then equal outcomes would follow. However I think both arguments have merit.
At the same time, I think there is a considerable quiet number who don't care about equal outcomes or equal opportunity and just want "More for Me."
In this age of media overload and sound bites, it seems that sadly many people:
(a) Need complex political discussions broken down in to such simplistic terms that the problem is no longer accurately represented.
and
(b) Cheer for their political party like a football team and instead of intelligent, thoughtful rejoinder offer "In your face...", "Not in a million Years", and other simplistic pejoratives as actual argument.
Have we become so stupid... so simplistic... as a nation that we need political discussions framed in an us versus them vernacular? Are we too lazy to look at the breadth a depth of a political, social or international issue and realize there is no singular solution (whether conservative or liberal) that will satisfy all?
The level of rhetoric on this forum is a complete embarrassment.
Not sure what you are suggesting , but, I would say your post is somewhat contradictory.......(Are we too lazy to look at the breadth a depth of a political, social or international issue and realize there is no singular solution (whether conservative or liberal) that will satisfy all?) that is exactly why we have what you protest!
Not sure what you are suggesting , but, I would say your post is somewhat contradictory.......(Are we too lazy to look at the breadth a depth of a political, social or international issue and realize there is no singular solution (whether conservative or liberal) that will satisfy all?) that is exactly why we have what you protest!
Respectfully, I disagree.
Solutions are very complex, and rarely is the pure liberal or pure conservative solution what is actually best for the country.
However because we are ideological cheerleaders we brainlessly support the solution that is most congruent with our ideology even though it is most often a non-ideologically driven approach that will provide the best result for the country.
Maybe we should stop cheering political parties/ideologies as if they were rival sports teams?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff
In this age of media overload and sound bites, it seems that sadly many people:
(a) Need complex political discussions broken down in to such simplistic terms that the problem is no longer accurately represented.
and
(b) Cheer for their political party like a football team and instead of intelligent, thoughtful rejoinder offer "In your face...", "Not in a million Years", and other simplistic pejoratives as actual argument.
Have we become so stupid... so simplistic... as a nation that we need political discussions framed in an us versus them vernacular? Are we too lazy to look at the breadth a depth of a political, social or international issue and realize there is no singular solution (whether conservative or liberal) that will satisfy all?
The level of rhetoric on this forum is a complete embarrassment.
Having had this and similar discussions before, I've often wondered if it is deliberate that media has helped created and nurture an era of sound bytes.
If people are caught up in this absolutist he said, she said, black and white, good and evil dichotomy, then while the stands are filled with drunken fans unquestionably supporting their team, they never bother to notice that the stadium owner could care less who wins, the point is to fill the stands and empty the pockets of the viscerally reactionary pinheads known as pay as you go fans.
Political philosophy in America is dead and has been for a while. While there may be the small minority who pine for it, crave it, and engage in it, they are crushed under a sea of party first reactionaries who haven't realized that the two parties only exist in rhetoric yet sleep in the same bed of deeds.
In this age of media overload and sound bites, it seems that sadly many people:
(a) Need complex political discussions broken down in to such simplistic terms that the problem is no longer accurately represented.
and
(b) Cheer for their political party like a football team and instead of intelligent, thoughtful rejoinder offer "In your face...", "Not in a million Years", and other simplistic pejoratives as actual argument.
Have we become so stupid... so simplistic... as a nation that we need political discussions framed in an us versus them vernacular? Are we too lazy to look at the breadth a depth of a political, social or international issue and realize there is no singular solution (whether conservative or liberal) that will satisfy all?
The level of rhetoric on this forum is a complete embarrassment.
There are many that believe government is here to take care of us. Your not going to change their mind.
There are many here that believe in taking care of their neighbor, and government doesn't need to force me to take care of the world. Your not going to change their mind.
Thus you see a very big division. Not just a little disagreement. It was not like that, when we were only 20% Totalitarian at the turn of the last Century. Now at 70% Totalitarian, citizens are waking up. We give up our freedoms, living under momma's roof.
There are many that believe government is here to take care of us. Your not going to change their mind.
This is the latest right wing canard that only serves to further the divide. I'm certain the overwhelming majority of progressives don't feel that the government is there to take care of "us."
The government provides a safety net for the small minority unable to care for themselves.
The government has many other functions as well some of which (hopefully) even you support.
Misstating liberal intent has become fashionable on CD and it's modeled after right wing radio and Fox. The actual liberal stances are ignored for ridiculous caricatures which sound funny when Rush describes them, but have no basis in truth and only stand to divide us further.
Actually, it is an 'us vs. them' game. Why? Because "us" for me respresents conservative values. "Them" would be those representing liberal values. I can say wholeheartedly that very few liberal values resonate with me. Therefore, if liberal values are being forced upon me by a politician, he/she automatically becomes a "them" to me. And by extension, you can bet that I will fight the forces that be to minimize the impact of those values that I find disagreeable. I would surmise that liberals can, and do, the exact same thing.
Dissent is patriotic.
So,why play footsies with the topic? I don't play Kumbayah with my principles and my ideals just because it will make my opponent feel warm and fuzzy. It is what it is. And I exercise it accordingly at the ballot box.
For me, politics is a referendum on core values. Who most closely resemembles my core values? Most of the time its conservative candidates, although I find myself offering less wiggle room these days. But that doesn't mean that I like the current climate of political affairs. It just means that I adapt and I fight the good fight by whatever means necessary. If that means offending a few liberals along the way, so be it.
Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 06-14-2010 at 02:30 PM..
Reason: spelling
I say I'm conservative in my beliefs in general but do recognize that the Democrats and Republicans are rotten to the core. Realizing that, it does not mean I should not be conservative, but then again once someone awakens, like me, what do people do that don't realize that the D vs. R game is that, just a game? Call you a tinfoil helmet kook.
Actually, it is an 'us vs. them' game. Why? Because "us" for me respresents conservative values. "Them" would be those representing liberal values. I can say wholeheartedly that very few liberal values resonate with me. Therefore, if liberal values are being forced upon me by a politician, he/she automatically becomes a "them" to me. And by extension, you can bet that I will fight the forces that be to minimize the impact of those values that I find disagreeable. I would surmise that liberals can, and do, the exact same thing.
Dissent is patriotic.
So,why play footsies with the topic? I don't play Kumbayah with my principles and my ideals just because it will make my opponent feel warm and fuzzy. It is what it is. And I exercise it accordingly at the ballot box.
For me, politics is a referendum on care values. Who most closely resemembles my core values? Most of the time its conservative candidates, although I find myself offering less wiggle room these days. But that doesn't mean that I like the current climate of political affairs. It just means that I adapt and I fight the good fight by whatever means necessary. If that means offending a few liberals along the way, so be it.
I can certainly accept anyone who adheres to a political philosophy, be it Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, or even Communist, Socialist, Anarchist, at least as long as there is some accepted definition of their philosophy.
I have said that I used to consider myself a Republican because I held more traditional Conservative views, however the Republican Party changed far more than my views did and so thus, I cannot support the Republican Party simply because they are the opposition to the Democrats. To me this is just silly and counter productive.
This is why there is such great importance on definition, use of language and even semantics when discussing these subjects because without a clear starting point, then any result won't be accurate.
A couple of examples. There was a time in our past when a Conservative was less about ones personal religious views and instead was based upon things like fiscal responsibility, a non-interventionist foreign policy and a dedication to freedoms and liberty.
Reagan had the idea that if we lowered taxes and starved government, it would be forced to cut bloat. I understand this premise, but what happened instead was that the government, instead of cutting spending, began to borrow greater and greater sums of money from future generations not yet born. How is this fiscally responsible? How is it even moral that we should live well today on the debts the unborn will have to pay?
George Bush in 2000 ran under a few buzz word statements, "No new nation building" and "a humble foreign policy", as at one time it was viewed as a liberal and progressive idea that we should spread democracy or intervene in the affairs of other nations. Yet today, the contemporary right equates national defense with protecting American interests abroad, and the real problem is that defining exactly what our interest are can be anything we lay eyes on. This is not Conservative by any stretch of the word and if one looks up the definition of "conserve", the root, it is an opposite to what the right today promotes.
In the past Conservatives would NEVER have supported something like the Patriot Act or spying via warrantless wiretaps, or even things like rendition, but today the contemporary right not only accepts these things in the name of national security, it promotes their expansion as we have seen with the Department of Homeland Security.
The first tree huggers in this country were Conservatives, as I would ask to please note that Conservationist and Conservative share the same root word. Teddy Roosevelt once said that is made him sick to see America being "skinned" and our national treasure that is our land being squandered simply for profit of a few. Conservation after all is about the sensible management of our national resources and their preservation for future generations of Americans, a very conservative idea.
This video clip is one example of how the contemporary right has promoted the centralization of government, another tenet they once railed against.
However, don't think I'm just picking on the right because I can point to a large number of issues where the left in this country are every bit as guilty of this same party first absolutism. As contrary to what many on the right think, there are few traditional Liberals in government any more. The issues of things like anti-war, human rights, education, etc... have all taken a back seat to the same kinds of rhetoric based gotcha.
Now maybe one group or the other is more or less guilty of these kinds of transgressions, I don't really care, as the point is most will willing cast aside principles as laid out in traditional political philosophy in favor of rapid sound bytes to play the game of gotcha.
Here's the other thing - government has an interest in keeping half of the population against the other half. Why?
Divide and conquer.
As long as we are fighting ourselves, the government pretty much does what it wants. When the people are together then we run things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
