« prev   random   next »

1
1

Let's have a civil, political discussion for once.

By edvard2 following x   2014 Aug 4, 3:46am 36,447 views   80 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


This may or may not be possible. But let's try something new. As seen on this site on a daily basis, both liberals and conservatives ( I am certainly not innocent of this) go back and forth in a non-ending game of blaming one side or the other for their problems or what they perceive to be the inferior wing ( left or right).

This is totally useless and nonconstructive. All that happens is that one person makes an intentionally inflammatory post to "get back" at the liberals/conservatives and then out come the charts, the catty name-calling, the use of political cliche's and catch phrases with the post eventually simply burning itself out in a big shouting match. Nobody walks away feeling good about it either.

So I'm going to start a new thread and the way this thread will work is that people who wish to participate can in very general terms describe what they feel would be an ideal situation as they envision the government and its inner workings as well as some of their own opinions concerning their core beliefs. Please don't be insulting, demeaning or otherwise simply nasty. If you post a response respectfully then you will receive respect in return. If I see any grossly offensive responses or name calling I will delete those posts.

So I will go first.

No.1, I feel that the vast majority of Americans are good, reasonable, decent people with strong moral compasses. I know for fact that on a daily basis having lived in the South and now Cali that regardless of political leanings most people I know or have met shared the vast majority of my beliefs as well. In most cases the difference of opinion were actually much less severe. Both the Liberal and Conservative positions, as represented in the news and media tend to be the extreme liberal/conservative views since its those people who yell the loudest who get all of the attention.

No.2 to me it seems that both "sides" have good aspects to their ideology. Some of these are similar but different in their execution. As a Southern guy it was almost expected that anyone who you saw broken down on the freeway meant you should pull over the help them- no matter who they were. There is a certain respect for family and in particular family elders as well. Liberals have long held the belief that all people no matter their background deserve the same rights, which in some ways is very similar.

As far as my personal, direct political beliefs I would underline them as follows.

A: To me the biggest issue right now is the effects of outside money influencing politics. There is a huge lobby and political organization/fund raising element to today's politics. Its made running for any office prohibitively expensive meaning no "ordinary" American could hope to run for President let alone even a local government position. This in turn means that our elected officials are perhaps more keen on pleasing their corporate backers than their constituency. I strong oppose outside money influencing the system and it were up to me, all of it would be abolished.

B: I strongly feel that all people, regardless of their race, sex, sexual preferences, religion and background deserve access and treatment via universal civil rights as guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

C: Today's news media is a joke. Since both now make money making news that is intentionally tilted towards either a right or left viewpoint means its no longer real journalism. Its more an unending editorial. The problem with that is viewers mistake this for news and use it as their "knowledge base" of politics. So the population becomes more ignorant and devoted to their one source of "news". This is irresponsible on part of those media companies who would rather make money selling garbage than a quality product.

D: People need to stop blaming each other for what's going on in Washington. The truth is that Congress and the Senate are in a gridlock and seldom is the news about them doing their jobs, which is to pass bills, debate, and otherwise perform the duties they were elected to do. In the meantime their constituency is so busy trying to blame each other ( those liberals! ) or- ( Those conservatives!) that the actual business in Washington is ignored. If there are those who are unhappy with the way things are in Washington, then go vote. Its really that simple.

E: I strongly feel that the financial woes of the country come from weak and ineffective financial strategies. I'm not a fan of taxes like the next guy but this seeming desire to never-ever raise them is in turn crippling the country in many ways from degraded schools and roads as well as non-stop budget shortfalls. I feel very much so that the taxation model we have now is grossly lopsided and benefits a very small minority whom if taxed fairly like the rest of us would drastically improve the overall financial health of the country. If there are some highly privileged citizens whom drive on our roads, use our bridges and send their kids to our schools as well as benefit from the protections of the world's largest military then they too should pay for the use of those at the same equally applied tax standards as the rest of us. To put this one step further, government should avoid attaching ideology to financial concerns. The economy moves at the speed of sound and by holding that process up with legislation that sometimes takes years to enact is impracticable and ineffective.

Anyway... that's all for now.

« First    « Previous    Comments 23 - 62 of 62    Last »

41   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2014 Aug 4, 6:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

BTW, curious2, I think I know where you are going, and I agree with you, if you mean there is a chance for voters to overturn the money game if/when they become a little more aware - and motivated.

42   curious2   ignore (0)   2014 Aug 4, 7:11am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

edvard2 says

Oh well...

Can you please cite which comments you think were uncivil? You said you would have deleted one, and your choice of which one you would delete surprised me. I think we might have different definitions of civility.

43   Tenpoundbass   ignore (15)   2014 Aug 4, 9:23am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Stop giving or taking credit to anyone or anything. The best marketing won.

The Voters gave Obama the Oscar.

44   jazz_music   ignore (11)   2014 Aug 4, 12:09pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

reasonable to say, on seeing government mess up badly, that government shouldn't get involved

Government is being FORCED in secrecy by business to mess up badly whenever it acts in response to popular pressure. Popular demands are by definition non-optimal for business and are not tolerated. Business' tactic is to bring the full force of money in secrecy to bear assuring that we the people get burned as badly as possible, and taught a harsh lesson about driving our government. In other words, don't even think about it, look at what we'll do to you if you do --sincerely, the Oligarchy.

ON THE OTHER HAND

If business wants something it gets predigested behind closed doors, enacted while everybody is looking the other way, probably at some horse shit news-a-thon, and the result is pristine, perfect implementation of optimal benefit for business.

The big difference between policy for business and policy for people is the transformation that happens in secrecy between the expressed desire and the implemented change in policy.

E.g. the original TARP bailouts under Bush didn't even have ANY SPECIFIC performance requirements on the businesses getting the bail outs.

The point is that the government, which you may have been punished into believing is pathologically incompetent, operates surgically PERFECTLY when Oligarchs decide to tap us taxpayers. --THINK ABOUT THAT, OKAY?

People frequently wonder why is it that we all care so much about this BS or that BS that it is on every TV channel every day for weeks on end?--It's because they want you to look over there instead of over here. (in Washington D.C., at the state capitol) If it seems crazy, it's big money in motion. Cover their tracks by having the talk shows to bemoan "Liberal media." --is there an anti-Oligarchy media really?--THINK ABOUT THAT TOO, OKAY?

45   jazz_music   ignore (11)   2014 Aug 4, 12:33pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag        

thunderlips11 says

there is a chance for voters to overturn the money game if/when they become a little more aware - and motivated.

This is the crux. What will provide sufficient awareness and motivation that a billion dollars can be spent implanting lies useful to our Oligarchy into our heads and we STILL take the opposite choice. Even mobilize TOGETHER instead of AGAINST each other as all this money commands us to do.

The answer may be that a lot more widespread pain and death will occur before we start to turn over a new leaf. The media will turn away from a resistance and show a feel-good marathon, as it has turned away over the last 15 years to neutralize the biggest demonstrations ever conducted. --there is no longer any such law that news must serve the public

Don't doubt that the police, the courts, the prisons, the ARMY, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI are already right there on top of the expected situation and planning the tactics prepared for this popular resistance to happen already. They already know that the answer will have to come out of a public resistance and are prepared to conquer those who dare step out of line.

Expect false flag operations to discredit a resistance as a violent gang, terrorists, whatever works. Brutal violence will be perpetrated by hired thugs (maybe officers undercover) so a pretext exists to shut it down and throw all into police vans, that much is guaranteed.

Things will get bad, and upside down, at some point that ALL those forces will have turncoats within that will help wrest away control of government back to popular interests.

Then a new beginning will occur.

These are the likely machinations of social change, that haven't changed much over ~5000 years have they? We have a tightly controlled society with ubiquitous web cams, surveillance drones, cowboy police, kangaroo courts, profit-making prisons, ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, MARINES, CIA, NSA, FBI, TSA, SS, not to mention their shadow-force of contractors. Probably those actually in the armed services will be the first to turn against the oligarchs because they face the real possibility of their own deaths and their comrades in arms, they face such brutal truths and so they loathe to whore their honor. Honor is important, yes it really is, it could save us.

These are not unrelated facts: One person in every 25 to 30 is sociopathic, they make great upper managers so recruiters filter for these traits. The planet doesn't have enough room for more than one sociopath. We likely have a fair amount of these assholes in high places: Effectively dealing with these realities might ultimately bring salvation of the human race.

46   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2014 Aug 5, 3:16am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Here is an example of a fine, civil, bipartisan discussion here:
/?p=1228016

47   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2014 Aug 5, 3:39am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

One can simply 'choose' to be 'civil', regardless of the circumstance.

Sure, psychologists can be civil to schizophrenics. Whether they can have a civil discourse about the need to aluminum foil the walls is something else.

48   Tenpoundbass   ignore (15)   2014 Aug 5, 3:52am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

sbh says

The punk business you demonstrate with deletions and baiting and ranting in pidgin English.

I also put you on Ignore, DO YOU WANT A FRESHONE!?

49   Tenpoundbass   ignore (15)   2014 Aug 5, 4:04am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Challenge accepted oh Civil one.

50   jazz_music   ignore (11)   2014 Aug 5, 5:52am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

CaptainFuckkup says

DO YOU WANT A FRESHONE

I'll have a CALZONE. Meanwhile you GOP Gassholes can go figure out why the razor wire on FEMA camps is pointed inward instead out outward to protect.

51   jazz_music   ignore (11)   2014 Aug 5, 6:49am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Only 90 more days and all can commit a revolutionary act,

ALL can vote out the whichever representative you feel does not represent you.

It will be more difficult in Florida to vote, but not if determined.

52   justme   ignore (0)   2014 Aug 5, 9:54am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Demanding or applying a false balance when reporting on the views of sensible people and the views of crazy people is one of the main reasons there are so many crazy and uninformed voters in American politics today.

The media has basically been kowtowing to the right-wing lunatics for the last 50 years, and the result is the craziness we have now.

Also please note that ONLY right wing lunatics get a free pass with their lunacy, whereas any left-wing loony (yes, they do exist, in small numbers) is immediately called out and ALL lefties are tarred with being the same as them.

So yes, fake civility and false equivalence and false balance is one of the main reasons why we now have so much incivility in American politics.

I say, to hell with civility. Call the loonies for what they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

Paul Krugman has written on this topic a few times. I could could not find a link. If anyone has a link, please post it.

In short, demanding "civility" is a tool of the oppressors, and this tool has been used very successfully in the US for many years.

53   curious2   ignore (0)   2014 Aug 5, 10:22am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

justme says

Paul Krugman has written on this topic a few times. I could could not find a link. If anyone has a link, please post it.

Krugman has been writing about that since at least 2000, but he's guilty of the same thing. For example, advocating yet again for another wasteful spending program, he claimed that there was only one, century-old rail tunnel under the Hudson between New York and New Jersey. ("There just isn’t enough space for everyone to drive to work. But right now there’s just one century-old rail tunnel linking New Jersey and New York — and it’s running close to capacity. The need for another tunnel couldn’t be more obvious.") In reality, PATH alone has two pairs of tubes, Amtrak has its own, and then there are the vehicular tunnels large enough they accommodate bus traffic, and the GW Bridge, also big enough for buses. But, since it's Krugrman's opinion, he never corrected himself; no matter how many bridges and tunnels observers can actually count, Krugman proclaims there is only one. Even if you think that Krugman might have somehow miscounted initially, even though he lives in New Jersey and writes for the NY Times across the river in Manhattan, that would not explain why he never corrected his count; it was probably a lie from the start and certainly a lie as it continues to be published that way on NYTimes.com. Krugman wanted his deluded followers to believe it was "obvious" that everybody needed to spend billions of dollars building another rail tunnel, and NY Times wants his audience for the same reason Fox wants Bill O'Reilly's. If you are relying on Krugman for your view of reality, then you risk becoming as deluded as the Faux Noise viewers whom you denounce.

54   justme   ignore (0)   2014 Aug 5, 10:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Ah yes,

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/views-still-differ-on-shape-of-planet/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Views Still Differ on Shape of Planet
January 8, 2011 6:41 am

More than 10 years have passed since I wrote this:

If a presidential candidate were to declare that the earth is flat, you would be sure to see a news analysis under the headline ”Shape of the Planet: Both Sides Have a Point.” After all, the earth isn’t perfectly spherical.

55   curious2   ignore (0)   2014 Aug 5, 10:27am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

justme says

Ah yes,

Um, yes, I already linked to that for you, in response to your earlier comment, and explained it in context. I hope you aren't one of those who only ever read Krugman, though it would explain your views on the mandatory medical insurance legislation he's been beating the drums for since it was called Hillary's Plan (and back then he was ridiculing Obama for opposing it).

56   justme   ignore (0)   2014 Aug 5, 11:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Jeez, I just wanted people to see the famous "Views Still Differ on Shape of Planet" headline. What is the problem?

57   curious2   ignore (0)   2014 Aug 5, 11:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

justme says

I just wanted people to see the...headline. What is the problem?

You seem to be changing your tune:

justme says

I say, to hell with civility.

I gave you a link, you should have been happy, but instead you have a problem, apparently because I presented it in context showing it came from a source as unreliable as what you had been complaining about, and who got "a free pass" just like the ones you claimed (incorrectly) went only to the other side.

58   justme   ignore (0)   2014 Aug 5, 11:45am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

You seem to be changing your tune:

justme says

I say, to hell with civility.

Okay, I see. You wanted me to practice some incivility on you! Ok, I will, but no promises about the future.

I said nothing at all about the inanity of your complaint against Krugman. People can check the facts themselves.

There, is that incivil enough for you?

59   BlueSardine   ignore (2)   2014 Aug 5, 1:45pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Is that with or without the testosterone booster?

jizz muncher says

I'll have a CALZONE.

60   Paralithodes   ignore (1)   2014 Aug 5, 8:58pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

thunderlips11 says

Sure, psychologists can be civil to schizophrenics. Whether they can have a civil discourse about the need to aluminum foil the walls is something else.

Hey, just curious ... Did you ever figure out what the rule of 72 was about?

61   HEY YOU   ignore (7)   2014 Aug 9, 5:52pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I'll be having no part of a civil discussion. Don't people realize this is Patnet? roflmao

62   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (38)   2014 Aug 9, 10:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

All banksters need to be skull fucked to death by nice people who use a clean handkerchief to clean the blood and gore off of their dicks when they are done.

« First    « Previous    Comments 23 - 62 of 62    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions