Political Crossfire Forums

[socnicklin]

Granted, I am new to the forums and I joined at a very tumultuous time; however, it seems to me that many people here would choose success for their party over the welfare of the country. People on both sides getting excited when Abarmoff fingers someone new and throwing it in the other sides face. Corruption like that is bad for everyone and shouldn't make anyone happy.

Reading through posts it almost always boils down to people from both sides yelling at the other, twisting words and sources to meet their desires, often times way off subject from what the thread was intended to discuss.

I have come to believe the democrats would be ecstatic if Bush/Rove/Rumsfeld were involved in some scandal. They would say it is over for the republicans and put in a little laughing emote. Same with the republicans for Clinton/Pelosi. Something like that wouldn't be great for anyone. It means that someone was betraying the trust of the people and abusing the country as a whole.

Again, I know I am new and will probably be called an idiot/moron/ass and told to get off my soap box, all of which is probably true.

I am not pointing the finger at anyone, all are guilty. But what I want to know is would people take success of their party at the cost of the good of the nation? Would people here admit maybe the other party was right about something all along and that they were wrong? If not what is the point of discussing?

[agentkgb]

I don't know if it's truly possible to put a political party over a nation unless it was an international party. A party can't be successful if the country is doing terribly.
However, what you said about the scandals I guess I kind of agree with in a way. If something like that happened, Democrats as a whole would probably be happy. Whether this is because it's good for their party or because it makes it more likely their party will be able to make the country better or a combination of both I don't know, though I would guess it's a combination of both.

[CountryGuy]

socnicklin wrote: Granted, I am new to the forums and I joined at a very tumultuous time; however, it seems to me that many people here would choose success for their party over the welfare of the country. People on both sides getting excited when Abarmoff fingers someone new and throwing it in the other sides face. Corruption like that is bad for everyone and shouldn't make anyone happy.

Reading through posts it almost always boils down to people from both sides yelling at the other, twisting words and sources to meet their desires, often times way off subject from what the thread was intended to discuss.

I have come to believe the democrats would be ecstatic if Bush/Rove/Rumsfeld were involved in some scandal. They would say it is over for the republicans and put in a little laughing emote. Same with the republicans for Clinton/Pelosi. Something like that wouldn't be great for anyone. It means that someone was betraying the trust of the people and abusing the country as a whole.

Again, I know I am new and will probably be called an idiot/moron/ass and told to get off my soap box, all of which is probably true.

I am not pointing the finger at anyone, all are guilty. But what I want to know is would people take success of their party at the cost of the good of the nation? Would people here admit maybe the other party was right about something all along and that they were wrong? If not what is the point of discussing?

You are 100% correct. There are too many people, not only on these boards but in media, in government, etc. who treat the leadership gauntlet of our country as a game, rather than with the respect it deserves.

And why shouldn't they? There's enough Americans out there who look at parties rather than issues for their candidates. How many times have you seen the "Anyone but Bush" stickers two years ago? While a smaller sect, there were similar stickers for Clinton 8 years before that.

Then there's the people who vote based on the platform of the party, rather than what they're own candidate is saying. For example, Senator-elect Casey is pro-life, yet he's *gasp* a Democrat! I'm willing to bet there's people who voted for the GOP because they didn't want some "hippie liberal Democrat" in office, without even knowing his positions.

So yes, people twist words and refuse to look at BOTH parties with the same critical eye -- That's politics in America.

[Somebloke]

I am well aware of the the phenomenon that you are describing. Amoungst the weak and petty-minded, it is a short step to lose your sense of scale.

I do not, however, place myself in this category. Even with the Iraq war- which I did not support- I still hoped for a positive outcome, despite my misgivings and the crowing of conservatives in the first few days.

[StrawHat]

I think you have a point. I think it boils down to people getting attached to their party via ideology or personal history and then love seeing the other side lose because it must mean that they are winning. People are funny like that. More than that, some people believe that their party and only their party is good for the country, and thus if anything happens to hurt the opposition and thus help their own party, it will, ultimately, help the country.

[callous]

socnicklin wrote: Granted, I am new to the forums and I joined at a very tumultuous time; however, it seems to me that many people here would choose success for their party over the welfare of the country. People on both sides getting excited when Abarmoff fingers someone new and throwing it in the other sides face. Corruption like that is bad for everyone and shouldn't make anyone happy.

Reading through posts it almost always boils down to people from both sides yelling at the other, twisting words and sources to meet their desires, often times way off subject from what the thread was intended to discuss.

I have come to believe the democrats would be ecstatic if Bush/Rove/Rumsfeld were involved in some scandal. They would say it is over for the republicans and put in a little laughing emote. Same with the republicans for Clinton/Pelosi. Something like that wouldn't be great for anyone. It means that someone was betraying the trust of the people and abusing the country as a whole.

Again, I know I am new and will probably be called an idiot/moron/ass and told to get off my soap box, all of which is probably true.

I am not pointing the finger at anyone, all are guilty. But what I want to know is would people take success of their party at the cost of the good of the nation? Would people here admit maybe the other party was right about something all along and that they were wrong? If not what is the point of discussing?

Your missing a key component to your thought process. The political system doesn't work in America. Our communication problems don't stem from people being irrational, they're being irrational because the avenues they are supposed to use to create discourse have been bypassed, destroyed, and ignored.

If you want people to settle down and get along, point at the government, not the people as the source of the problem.

[Ozzone]

socnicklin wrote: Granted, I am new to the forums and I joined at a very tumultuous time; however, it seems to me that many people here would choose success for their party over the welfare of the country. People on both sides getting excited when Abarmoff fingers someone new and throwing it in the other sides face. Corruption like that is bad for everyone and shouldn't make anyone happy.

The welfare of the country is a matter of opinion. Success is if your side wins and the other side loses.

Take a major issue. Who determines success? You do if your side wins.

I understand what you are trying to say, but bloggers and forum posters don't care about the welfare of the country as much as they care about their side, or point of view, winning over the other side.

Tragic, but true.

[LostSoul3412]

Everyone wants the best for their country.

The difference is what the definition of "best" is.

[Somebloke]

Ozzone wrote: socnicklin wrote: Granted, I am new to the forums and I joined at a very tumultuous time; however, it seems to me that many people here would choose success for their party over the welfare of the country. People on both sides getting excited when Abarmoff fingers someone new and throwing it in the other sides face. Corruption like that is bad for everyone and shouldn't make anyone happy.

The welfare of the country is a matter of opinion. Success is if your side wins and the other side loses.

Take a major issue. Who determines success? You do if your side wins.

I understand what you are trying to say, but bloggers and forum posters don't care about the welfare of the country as much as they care about their side, or point of view, winning over the other side.

Tragic, but true.

Sometimes I think you don't see the forest for the trees.

Merely because we argue a great deal over these issues does not mean that we don't have an overriding interest in the benefit of our respective nations. I think that for most people here this is something that we take for granted (outside of 'is so-and-so a traitor' arguments). Whhile I don't feel the need to pepper my statements with "and I love Australia" it doesn't mean I don't (I do, but an important aspect of patriotism in Australia is that you never admit to it. This would clue other people about what a great country this is and then we'd get no peace and quiet).

While there are a few massive egoists on the boards with little interest in anything other than their personal sphere of influence (I could name names but I won't) that does not mean that the people here do not care about their country.

[psholtz]

socnicklin wrote: I have come to believe the democrats would be ecstatic if Bush/Rove/Rumsfeld were involved in some scandal.
Which one? :rotf:

The Republican administration has been nothing but scandal upon scandal for the past 6 years. The fact that the Democrats have sat on their laurels, doing exactly nothing this whole time, just proves how criminally negligent they (the Democrats) really are.

[Ozzone]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Everyone wants the best for their country.

The difference is what the definition of "best" is.

EXACTLY!

[Ozzone]

Somebloke wrote: Sometimes I think you don't see the forest for the trees.

Actually I believe I do.

Quote: While there are a few massive egoists on the boards with little interest in anything other than their personal sphere of influence (I could name names but I won't) that does not mean that the people here do not care about their country.

Remember what I said:

Ozzone wrote: I understand what you are trying to say, but bloggers and forum posters don't care about the welfare of the country as much as they care about their side, or point of view, winning over the other side.

I highlighted the crucial part. The welfare of this country is subjective.

[Somebloke]

Ozzone wrote: Somebloke wrote: Sometimes I think you don't see the forest for the trees.

Actually I believe I do.

Quote: While there are a few massive egoists on the boards with little interest in anything other than their personal sphere of influence (I could name names but I won't) that does not mean that the people here do not care about their country.

Remember what I said:

Ozzone wrote: I understand what you are trying to say, but bloggers and forum posters don't care about the welfare of the country as much as they care about their side, or point of view, winning over the other side.

I highlighted the crucial part. The welfare of this country is subjective.

I apologise for the condecending note in the previous post. Your view just came across as more cynical than was warranted. It seems that we agree on the same argument; just approach it from different angles.

[Fido]

callous wrote: socnicklin wrote: Granted, I am new to the forums and I joined at a very tumultuous time; however, it seems to me that many people here would choose success for their party over the welfare of the country. People on both sides getting excited when Abarmoff fingers someone new and throwing it in the other sides face. Corruption like that is bad for everyone and shouldn't make anyone happy.

Reading through posts it almost always boils down to people from both sides yelling at the other, twisting words and sources to meet their desires, often times way off subject from what the thread was intended to discuss.

I have come to believe the democrats would be ecstatic if Bush/Rove/Rumsfeld were involved in some scandal. They would say it is over for the republicans and put in a little laughing emote. Same with the republicans for Clinton/Pelosi. Something like that wouldn't be great for anyone. It means that someone was betraying the trust of the people and abusing the country as a whole.

Again, I know I am new and will probably be called an idiot/moron/ass and told to get off my soap box, all of which is probably true.

I am not pointing the finger at anyone, all are guilty. But what I want to know is would people take success of their party at the cost of the good of the nation? Would people here admit maybe the other party was right about something all along and that they were wrong? If not what is the point of discussing?

Your missing a key component to your thought process. The political system doesn't work in America. Our communication problems don't stem from people being irrational, they're being irrational because the avenues they are supposed to use to create discourse have been bypassed, destroyed, and ignored.

If you want people to settle down and get along, point at the government, not the people as the source of the problem.

Ya'all shere said a moufull thare, Pardner!

We could change a few words and say the our father to the great white chief: Lead us not into disunion, but deliver us from evil. But what is more evil than disunion, because once you have lost union how can you get it back? We are about as divided as we can be, and as divided as we have ever been. The need for 51% to rule has put the goal line of government on the fifty yard line. Satisfying any more than the exact amount needed only raises the expectation level for progress and for good government. If the government put a worthy price on consensus they might have it. We want to get along. We agree on far more than we disagree, but if you lay down in front of the other party there is no limit to the amount of dirt they will pile on you. Napoleon was right to ban parties in France. They should never have been allowed in this country. They are a terrible source of injustice, and the major cause of disunion. They are killing us, and we can't wait to feed them more life.

[JeffS]

callous wrote: Your missing a key component to your thought process. The political system doesn't work in America. Our communication problems don't stem from people being irrational, they're being irrational because the avenues they are supposed to use to create discourse have been bypassed, destroyed, and ignored.

If you want people to settle down and get along, point at the government, not the people as the source of the problem.


Swing and a miss, callous.

The system doesn't work because of the government? The people are the government and have plenty of say if the so choose. However, they don't choose to do so. The issue is apathy on behalf of the electorate. Its easy to blame the big, bad government but it is a reflection of whom we put there and by whose votes they were elected by. Discourse has not been destroyed, it is at an all time high in discourse visability with more avenues, such as the internet, than ever were available before. Your assertion is patently wrong simply on its face. We have more availability to more people...it doesn't make my sister care any more than she did before. She'll never vote because she doesn't care. I want her to engage in issues and if so, she'd be a Democrat, but she doesn't care.

Why? We've gotten pretty comfy with our little democracy and these tectonic shifts that us wonks think we see such as the last election are but a mere blip on the screen of my sisters as she is more focused on going to work and scrapbooking. In America, we have no urgent need to engage in politics, for better or worse. We here at PCF might disagree but we are not America at large and America at large has stamped a big fat yawn on politics.

To think the government did this is paranoid and simply not true. We can point fingers at the government but in the end, it's easier to do that than to change the minds of half the country.

[JRM4833]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Everyone wants the best for their country.

The difference is what the definition of "best" is.

[SideTraKd]

Ozzone wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Everyone wants the best for their country.

The difference is what the definition of "best" is.

EXACTLY!

I'm sorry, and I hate to say this, but... that's a little on the naive side.

We live in a country with a political system that can be, and often is, influenced from outside sources, with a great many of our politicians (and pseudo-intellectuals) viewing themselves as "citizens of the world", as opposed to citizens of the United States of America.

For such people, putting party ahead of country poses no issue whatsoever... :-|

[Bobby Chicken]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Everyone wants the best for their country.

The difference is what the definition of "best" is.

No, that's not the difference. Everyone wants to allow life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The question is what is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and posibbly even who everyone is).