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.
I guess so, if I come across that way. But I am man enough to admit being ultra dumb if it turns out that way, like in this case I had to look up the definition of ambiguous.
1. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer.
2. Linguistics . (of an expression) exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions, as the sequence Flying planes can be dangerous.
3. of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character.
4. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.
But one can also be ultra disillusioned or disenchanted with it all which I sometimes feel.
I still stand by what I said about people who become ultra in something or better described a fanatic or extremist.
Ah we enjoy our partisan views and to some extent, they are valid. Folks pick a side, hopefully because they support it at a personal and philosophical level, and sling some mud, nothing new.
I know I chuckle to myself a great deal as I watch folks so strongly in support of personalities and parties instead of policies, as they spend half their time assailing the opposition, the other half defending and rationalizing their own supported misadventures. What is somewhat saddening though is that we are talking adults that one would think would eventually realize this at some point, but its seems they never do.
Folks may say this is done out of ignorance, and for some this may be true but I've seen people argue policies, economics, and philosophies with some mastery, so it isn't because people are dumb or smart wholesale. Is it just because it is easier perhaps?
I guess it is just a mystery to me why we seem to desire turning our politics into a game show like family feud, but instead of answering questions about issues, it always returns to the suits.
The policies of the two parties in D.C. differ very little. It's usually only a question of how much more power the feds are going to take.
So they turn it into personalities. Or dems do this, repubs do that.
There really isn't a major issue I can think of the lest 20 years that repubs and dems in D.C. didn't agree on.
Folks may say this is done out of ignorance, and for some this may be true but I've seen people argue policies, economics, and philosophies with some mastery, so it isn't because people are dumb or smart wholesale. Is it just because it is easier perhaps?
.
If you took fear and ignorance out of the decision making process you would remove the foundation for a likely 70% of American voters.
People vote against the other guy/gal/party as much as they vote for the person they support. Oft times the voter gets two bad choices.
As people learn, or follow, through their years they find themselves on the political spectrum somewhere that they feel comfortable.
They'd be damned if someone with an intellectual post, or a compelling position on C-D, is going to prove to them that their original choice was wrong and that somewhere, somehow, they made a mistake or were faulty in their decision making process.
I try to be objectionable on most things but I still find myself, on occasion, sticking to my guns. I think it falls in the fight or flight category.
I don't think this speaks for every single person but I do feel it's the majority.
I have often thought that we would be far better off as a nation if we could vote for policies and direction, instead of whichever flashy actor we "liked" the most.
The policies of the two parties in D.C. differ very little. It's usually only a question of how much more power the feds are going to take.
So they turn it into personalities. Or dems do this, repubs do that.
There really isn't a major issue I can think of the lest 20 years that repubs and dems in D.C. didn't agree on.
Even health care.
I'm reminded by an exchange between Andrew Bacevich and Bill Moyers from like a year or so ago and is something I've suggested for some time.
(Prior permission granted to reprint in part or entirety from Andrew Bacevich)
Quote:
One of the real problems with the imperial presidency, I think, is that it has hollowed out our politics. And, in many respects, has made our democracy a false one. We're going through the motions of a democratic political system. But the fabric of democracy, I think, really has worn very thin.
ANDREW BACEVICH: No. I think that the imperial presidency would not exist but for the Congress. Because the Congress, since World War II, has thrust power and authority onto the presidency.
BILL MOYERS: Here is what I take to be the core of your analysis of our political crisis. You write, "The United States has become a de facto one party state. With the legislative branch permanently controlled by an incumbent's party. And every President exploiting his role as Commander in Chief to expand on the imperial prerogatives of his office."
ANDREW BACEVICH: One of the great lies about American politics is that Democrats genuinely subscribe to a set of core convictions that make Democrats different from Republicans. And the same thing, of course, applies to the other party. It's not true. I happen to define myself as a conservative.
Well, what do conservatives say they stand for? Well, conservatives say they stand for balanced budgets. Small government. The so called traditional values.
Well, when you look back over the past 30 or so years, since the rise of Ronald Reagan, which we, in many respects, has been a conservative era in American politics, well, did we get small government?
Do we get balanced budgets? Do we get serious as opposed to simply rhetorical attention to traditional social values? The answer's no. Because all of that really has simply been part of a package of tactics that Republicans have employed to get elected and to - and then to stay in office.
As pointed out, this is not a Republican thing or a Democrat thing, this is American politics generally and that is inclined towards incumbency and maintaining the establishment over change.
A large part is that most of the sheeple pick their canditate based on the ads on tv and other 30 or less second blips. PR people can create any kind of "personailty" they want in their ads. Then do phrases which suggest but say nothing so everybody gets to hear just what they want in the canditates speech. And you have politics in the age of the instant on/off attention span.
Issues, got a nice list to choose from of four word phrases that make you sure they are speaking just to you.
What we need is people who must define their views without the pr people, sit in a dull looking chair, and speak about them in their ads. Wonder how many people would just tune it out totally because it lacked glitz and instructions.
A large part is that most of the sheeple pick their canditate based on the ads on tv and other 30 or less second blips. PR people can create any kind of "personailty" they want in their ads. Then do phrases which suggest but say nothing so everybody gets to hear just what they want in the canditates speech. And you have politics in the age of the instant on/off attention span.
Issues, got a nice list to choose from of four word phrases that make you sure they are speaking just to you.
What we need is people who must define their views without the pr people, sit in a dull looking chair, and speak about them in their ads. Wonder how many people would just tune it out totally because it lacked glitz and instructions.
A new study by MIT researchers published in the journal "World Politics" shows that people vote for politicians just because they "look the part." That's right: They'll cast a ballot for someone simply because they look smart, competent or attractive
Well Silas, I tossed Kucinich out there because while he may be as liberal as they come, I believe he is from that more traditional cut of politics where candidates were philosophically driven. I mean Ron Paul and Dennis Kuncinich to me, represented a more traditional liberal/conservative positions, and whether one agrees or disagrees, I can respect principled people I disagree with. Oddly enough, both of their parties treated them like AIDS patients with herpes, covered in leprosy.
r.
I get that, I call people like Kucinich an Honest Liberal.........and I do respect them for that. I think Paul made it to easy for the party to paint him as a loon, therefore the opposition would and could do the same . I am a much bigger fan of Rand Paul.
I guess so, if I come across that way. But I am man enough to admit being ultra dumb if it turns out that way, like in this case I had to look up the definition of ambiguous.
1. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer.
2. Linguistics . (of an expression) exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions, as the sequence Flying planes can be dangerous.
3. of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character.
4. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.
But one can also be ultra disillusioned or disenchanted with it all which I sometimes feel.
I still stand by what I said about people who become ultra in something or better described a fanatic or extremist.
Just a little humor...wasn't pointing the finger at you my friend. Some of us need someone to temper our ultraness.
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.
But I am man enough to admit being ultra dumb if it turns out that way, like in this case I had to look up the definition of ambiguous.
