# The Fundamental Problem with Debate



## wst3 (Nov 13, 2010)

Folks, I truly mean no disrespect to anyone posting here. In fact, for the most part I am quite impressed with the level of the political/economic/social debate, and even more impressed with the passion.

BUT, I think that it would be so much better if we could skip the whole name calling thing. It's better here than most places, but it still exists, and once it gets started I tend to tune out that particular thread, which is sort of the opposite of the desired effect.

Even if you personally despise Bush or Cheyney or Obama or Pelosi it might help the real cause - better understanding how we got where we are, and how we, as citizens, can help to reverse the process - if we didn't call them dumb or socialist or whatever.

Personal attacks do not raise the level of the debate!

We all just lived through a thoroughly negative campaign season... did anyone really enjoy it? Instead of belittling a candidate (no matter how bizarre their campaign) maybe we can recognize that it takes a certain something or other to even consider running for office. Show some respect for the process, instead of tearing down the candidate. Discredit their position, don't denigrate the person.

I will give extra points for the paucity of personal attacks on the debaters themselves, but there are still cases where one person seems to think that the only way to win the argument is to make personal attacks on holders of opposing viewpoints.

It does not work. Anyone that is seriously considering the questions at hand is not going to fall prey to "his mother wears army boots" type attacks. And anyone that accepts those personal attacks has probably not spent a lot of time considering the issue.

I like it here, I've learned a ton about sample libraries and virtual instruments, and I've been inspired to work harder to try to reach the bar set so high by many of the artists here.

I've also had to reexamine some of my opinions on social and political issues as a result of the debates here in the cafe.

So just a request... can we keep it a bit more civil?

Thanks!


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 13, 2010)

Debating only happens when people with opposing views respect each other's differing opinions. When they do not, you do not get debating, you get arguing. There are more people in politics nowadays more interested in arguing than debating and you see that reflected in the culture as a whole, dramatically here. 

That is why I no longer participate. I am interested in debating, not arguing.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 13, 2010)

The use of loaded terminology in particular is both superficially effective and stifling. From this side of the pond, it seems to me that practically all political "debate" in the US boils down to who has the most effective and loaded terminology - "death tax" / "Ground Zero Victory Mosque" etc.

It's very hard not to respond in kind, and it tends to ruin effective legitimate use of language. In the climate change debate, some (on both sides) are ideologically opposed to any possibility of them being wrong. No matter what evidence is produced - or could even be conceived - the position of some would always be to deny (as a friend of mine said, there is "no evidence" that could ever convince him, he was so sure - by definition a faith-based position, of course). It, therefore, is perfectly reasonable to call such people deniers, because that is precisely what they do. This - for purposes of clarity - is entirely different to sceptics who, on the balance of their own deductions - don't think there is a case for it, but would assess new information as it presented.

Where it falls apart is that deniers call anyone who accepts the mainstream scientific position as "warmist", even though this is an evidence-based position. And even here, some will quarrel with my use of "mainstream scientific position", because there is someone, somewhere with a PHD who... and so it goes on. All it does is effectively shut down the debate - no-one can be bothered to see which terms are reasonable and which not. Scientists are "warmists", business leaders "deniers" - both as bad as each other, right?

And I DO think such terms effectively tribalise. The Ground Zero Victory Mosque. It wasn't in any sense victorious - it wasn't at ground zero, and it wasn't a mosque. But it was such a powerful (if crude) use of language that an entire popular campaign swept the country because of it, however little it related to reality.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 13, 2010)

Agreed,
I also like debating with folks who are involved in the same industry.
Sharing opinions and speculating can sometimes lead to a larger knowledge and understanding of the issues.
I might feel the need to call our leaders names and apologise for getting a trifle excited, but it doesn't serve anyone to destroy a thread by levying personal attacks against a fellow member here just because of his/hers personal beliefs.
It is reflective of the current role models we have elected, and also in the NHL and NFL.
When I grew up we always shook hands after the game, the leaders in DC would fight all day, then have a shot together.
I guess we did just fine without the bloggers, and 24/7 cable news.


----------



## wst3 (Nov 13, 2010)

chimuelo @ Sat Nov 13 said:


> Agreed,
> I also like debating with folks who are involved in the same industry.
> Sharing opinions and speculating can sometimes lead to a larger knowledge and understanding of the issues.
> I might feel the need to call our leaders names and apologise for getting a trifle excited, but it doesn't serve anyone to destroy a thread by levying personal attacks against a fellow member here just because of his/hers personal beliefs.
> ...



You hit the nail squarely on the head with that!

When I was a kid I (hypothetically speaking of course) might have gotten into a fight or two. When it was over, it was over. Maybe there was a bloody nose involved, but even then, there were no repercussions between the participants. (parents and other authority figures were anther tale altogether<G>!)

And when I was a kid, and even a younger adult, at the end of the game we shook hands, and as often as not ended up at the same place for the after game snack (or later, shot and an beer.) Tales of great, and not so great plays would be re-told.

As a parent I am really disturbed at the behavior of both the students and the adult authority figures. The civility is gone. When the coaches at an 8th grade girls softball game start calling each other names, in front of the kids, well, it's just wrong!

Teachers and parents seem frightened at the thought that they might have to discipline (or guide) someone else's kid! Come on... really? What have we wrought?

That isn't to say that there were no bullies or poor sports, there were, but the adults did their best to quash such behavior at a very early age. And sometimes it worked.

I hadn't made the connection between our current political mess and the way we teach kids to compete, but you know, there might be one!

Excellent observation!!


----------



## David Story (Nov 13, 2010)

If you put one idea, goal or person above all others- you get war. 
All means are justified in advancing your goal. EG, If money tops your value system, you'll do anything for money.

Healthy debate does require respect for other views. But a majority of people are living by a "one-value" code. It's war forever.

Yes, we need to have a purpose greater than ourselves. A one dimensional goal isn't a meaningful life.

No easy answer for how to have a broader range of interests and values. It begins with education. A field that's disrespected now.

My suggestion is a campaign for education that uses loaded terminology. It's all about your intent with that tool.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 13, 2010)

My best friend since I was 6 years old is a Brotha' that I got in a fight with.
We spray painted their Snowman black and gave it big red lips, very uncool but I grew up during the power grab where assainations of black and white leaders was a yearly thing. We beat the crap out of each other then he became my best friend, and we even played in a band from 2nd grade until High School graduation. We still see each other and I smoke his keyboard player whenever I visit him.

My son and his friends are thankfully even more respectful of others, and often see cable news as the source of racism. The countrys' leaders use it in such a disgraceful, pathetic way and the children actually see this and wonder wtf...???
I turn off MSNBC, Fox news, CNN everytime I see it. Too many ads anyways.

I also still watch the 3 Stooges and shoot 'em up movies and video games with my youngest boy, and neither of us ever shot anyone or hit a friend in the head with a hammer.

I actually think our youngest children from 26 and under are way more civil than we ever were. Plus they have retained some of the fighting American and competiveness that helps shape kids with the proper supervision.
I dont need the Government telling me my job, just because many of their failed social programs have had poor results.

Anyways despite my anti Government spiel, I am a patriot and Thankful for everything my countrymen stand for, whichever beliefs they may be.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2010)

There's a huge difference between appropriate insults and gratuitous ones. In the current climate there is no middle ground; the truth is not halfway between reality and the pigheaded ideology we get from the American right.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 13, 2010)

I hear what you are saying and unfortunately, I plead guilty of letting my anger at a very damaging political system boil over.

I have made personal attacks myself, usually directed at people that seem insensitive to the plight of many.

I do agree that a gentleman's approach to debating should be the norm, but I also do feel that we, as people living in the USA, have been way too nice and have allowed a very militant, agressive minority to take over this country without putting up a fight.

I do admire people such as Gandhi, Jesus, Martin Lutherking for their pacific approach. I just have a hard time getting there...

Injustice stirs me up, and the GOP is a great proponent of abuse in this country.
That's the way I see it. Democrats may not be far off, but they seem to care about people a bit more.

I didn't grow up here, so it's not that I have been influenced by parents, or a social group...etc
My parents were fairly wealthy for the most part of their lives, and I have no problem with money, or shades of capitalism.

It is very difficult to stay calm when all of the points you are making fall on dead ears, and when what your interlocuter stands for contributes to the misery of millions.

Mea culpa, I am french and we're know for our short temper.
I'll try to play nice next time...


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 13, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 13 said:


> There's a huge difference between appropriate insults and gratuitous ones. In the current climate there is no middle ground; the truth is not halfway between reality and the pigheaded ideology we get from the American right.


 
The truth is between "the pig headed ideology we get from the American right" and the knee jerk ideology we get from the American left.

There is never a good reason to insult the views of an equally educated person and their motives should not be automatically suspect simply because they reach different conclusions.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2010)

I don't give a flying hoot what someone's motives are. Vile opinions are not worthy of respect even if they come from someone with far more education than I have.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 13, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Sat Nov 13 said:


> There is never a good reason to insult the views of an equally educated person and their motives should not be automatically suspect simply because they reach different conclusions.



I could argue about this.
Oviously, the other person is not equally educated.
If he was, he wouldn't have such a hard time seeing our point of view.
None of us are equally educated, due to a million reasons, family background, social circumstances, travel, life experiences...etc

You are right, motives shouldn't be suspect.
And I know for a fact that there are wonderful people that vote republican.
Unfortunately, America is no longer fighting the good fight (Vietnam, Irak 1, Irak 2, Afghanistan...etc)

Even if the individual voter has a pure heart, the fact that this persons contributes to world dominance, murder on a large scale, corruption, and all of the abuses steming from this, is reprehensible. 
You may argue that this is only my personal opinion, but I'd have to point out to you that it does seem that this is the way millions (billions) of other people see it too. Don't you think that there may be a reason for that negative opinion people have of the USA worldwide?

Oh yea,I forgot: they are jalous of our freedom!
And sorry, here I go again: one has to be seriously uneducated (oops) to be satisfied with such an explanation...

One doesn't have to be muslim to have a negative opinion of the USA.
This country, for all of its great ideals and early history (save for the Native American Indian genocide and the African American enslavement), have veered off the righteous path.

Time to wake up and smell the burnt coffee


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 13, 2010)

Also, sorry to hijack this thread.
For the longest time, I hesitated posting such views on the politics of our country, for fear of alienating my professional connections.
After all, we do work for corporate America, and this may come back and bite me in the ass.
I no longer care. Maybe unwise, but at least I have a better conscience...

In our case, trouble ain't big government, it is big corporations.
There, I just lost another job.... :mrgreen:


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 13, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 13 said:


> I don't give a flying hoot what someone's motives are. Vile opinions are not worthy of respect even if they come from someone with far more education than I have.



There are vile opinions on the left as well.


----------



## David Story (Nov 13, 2010)

This thread is asking people at war to play nicely. 

Civil kids under 26 are easily bent to an us v them paradigm. That's the way elites rule, keep the public scared and divided, fighting for an illusory goal.

We have a long way to go in teaching tolerance, critical thinking and compromise. It will take a dedicated campaign to counter adversarial culture. 

The other guy could be right. That's the formula for a productive discussion.

Debates are usually about winning and losing. That's not going to pull back war-like thinking. 

You have to believe there's a middle ground to find it.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 13, 2010)

Both the left and the right are exhibiting such signs of outright insanity that it's tough not to get into name calling if you're discussing politics. I'd love to be able to be civil all the time. But, if I ever saw Rand Paul or Harry Reid in person I'd probably end up getting arrested because the list of insults I'd hurl at them would be so long and vile that it would be considered publicly indecent.

Candidates are bought and sold these days. Obama was one that wasn't bought in the beginning but is showing all signs of being completely owned by outside interest now. Seeing a good man succumb to the system that he vowed to fight makes you want to curse loudly.

Sorry that I can't be on board with this "civility" thing. But if you saw a man about to kill a kid would you debate with him "rationally"? I think not. The current course of government right now is so destructive to democracy and future that it's frightening. Everybody seems to think that if the system bends their way politically then it's "all right". But the truth is that lib dems and cooky rightwingers aren't doing the country any favors right now.

I went to a parade on the other side of town. I got no beef with anybody so I took my family to eat in the poor neighborhood. Just to take race out of the card the neighborhood was equally mixed, poor white, black and latinos. I looked on the window of the restaurant and saw that they accept EBT (food stamp) cards. I was like my God! Here we are sweating out our monthly budget and here this national chain restaurant accepts food stamps. I'm like where's the shame. When I was growing up if somebody on foodstamps brought out their coupon book it was a source of shame. Shame enough for people to go out and get a job if they had to. Now it's like a credit card acceptable at major food chains. Wtf.

So between the libs wanting to put everybody on the dole and make it publicly acceptable and Reps wanting to feed everybody to the wolves, I pull out my hair and scream. Nobody really wants to help people be productive. They either want to keep them on the nipple forever (dems) or they want to punish them severly (Reps).

Both sides are pursuing a course that is leading to destruction at the moment.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2010)

> There are vile opinions on the left as well



The difference is that they're held by very few people, while pretty much every single conservative position is...well, if not vile then totally wrong. It's simply not true that left and right are two sides of the same coin. The middle ground is on the left of today's center.

Patrick is right (as usual  ). I agree with much of what Jose says, but it's not true that "libs want to put everyone on the dole." And I'd like to know what Harry Reid says that's so terrible. He's a pretty even-keeled center-left finger-to-the-wind politician as far as I can see.

To tell you the truth, I'm not offended by having Rand Paul's points of view being part of the political debate. I don't agree with strict libertarian positions at all, and I find the prospect of him filibustering our raising the debt ceiling scary, but - despite his being a Tea Party darling - he's not a knee-jerk idiot Republican, just an eccentric thinker.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 13, 2010)

I just threw Harry Reid in there so that the guys on the right wouldn't think I was singling them out. But, who am I kidding. Every time a republican opens his mouth I want to throw up.

Rand Paul though I can't agree. I feel that he's racist, with statements like the ones he's made. Also, I think that he has no integrity. He'll be the first to go down in a flame of scandals. He'll be a tea party darling today, then in a few months he'll be on the Tea Party hit list. Just like Scott Brown. Though Scott Brown I actually like.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2010)

We'll see about Rand Paul. While I haven't been watching him closely, my impression is that he does have integrity and that what looks like racism is part of his extreme libertarianism.


----------



## P.T. (Nov 13, 2010)

There really is no debate in america, not even in the media.

Everyone just takes a hard line position and defends and attacks.

People rarely listen to the other side except to find something to tear apart.

It is a broken, abusive society.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 13, 2010)

P.T. @ Sat Nov 13 said:


> There really is no debate in america, not even in the media.
> 
> Everyone just takes a hard line position and defends and attacks.
> 
> ...



My point exactly.
And so, when the machine is broken, you replace it... hopefully with something better, with more regards for the individual, and less so for power and privilege.

ah ca ira, ca ira, ca ira, les aristocrates a la lanterne.. o=<


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Nov 13, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 13 said:


> We'll see about Rand Paul. While I haven't been watching him closely, my impression is that he does have integrity and that what looks like racism is part of his extreme libertarianism.



Rand Paul is one of the worst politicians I've ever seen. Don't you remember? He was the one that said, regarding the BP oil spill, that "sometimes, accidents happen" and that Obama's criticism of BP was "un-American." He's been outspoken in his criticism of government spending, yet he as a doctor himself has happily taken Medicare payments. When called out on this, he says that "doctors deserve it." Don't get me wrong... doctors DO deserve it. But he's a hypocrite of the highest order. And of course, this is to say nothing of his ludicrous opinion that there is no such thing as upper, middle and lower classes... everyone is interconnected. If a rich person buys a yacht, he needs people to clean the yacht! Therefore, don't worry about the poor; just take care of the rich and everyone will be taken care of.

If anything, Ron Paul is the most principled conservative around. He's unabashedly extreme, but never hypocritical about it.

With regards to the state of debate in America, the problem lies in Republicans. The Democrats do not deserve much of the blame. Since Obama came into office, the Republican party has been uncompromising and obstructionist. This isn't a matter of debate - it's flat-out true. John Boehner went on the record recently saying that they will continue to not compromise on their positions, while other Republican leads have stated repeatedly that it's their #1 goal to make sure Obama doesn't get re-elected. THAT'S their #1 goal. Not, you know, creating jobs, helping the economy, improving health care. 

In this day and age, an elected representative of this country can shout "You lie!" during a speech by the president. They can get away with supporting the most ridiculous and blatant lies ("death panels", etc.) with no media scrutiny. But the Republicans certainly won't change. As Nick pointed out, garbage opinions and lies do not deserve respect or attention, and they deserve to be called out as such. For example, when someone claims that tax cuts are effective at improving debt or deficit, they are wrong. This is not a debate or an argument, any more than one could argue whether the sky is blue.


----------



## P.T. (Nov 13, 2010)

Well, except for the fact that the democrats are as obstructionist and uncompromising, or even more so, when they are out of power.

The fact that people are able to choose sides and support one or the other of these parties of clowns amazes me.

They will both destroy the Country.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 14, 2010)

This is a great example of debate, and everyone involved is correct in what they say about their chosen party too.
But the facts are irrefutable when you look at the issues.
The World Trade Center is not just a US based facility, it is the nations of the worlds corporate interests, the Federal Reserves partners if you may.

So who repsonded to this in a most insidious way was the power brokers themselves. The Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the Private " Security " armies that answer to no Government. These same entities told Bush to pass TARP too.
Remember who raised the Social Security age in 1983 all by himself.......??
Grennspan, not O'Neil or Reagan, just this lowly little man who has outlasted every President in the history of our nation.

Is this that hard to see....? Our enemies sure know who to attack. That last plane that fell over PA by the brave passengers was looking for another target and my bet was that was the Federal Reserve.

We let some politicians make speeches and become passionate about issues and beliefs, but these are merely wallpapers. We talk about Human Rights but then to avoid obeying our own laws we create Blackwater Security and other " privately " funded armies to kill whoever and whenever they want.
So this debate is just a reflection of what we read on blogs and see on cable news. 

The Fedreral Reserve crowd wants Health Care run by the Government, they also want Cap & Trade, or any other program that will provide the funds neceassary for bringing massive revenue to the Capital. But there has to be some party or person to blame for every move thats made. The Federal Reserve invented lobbyists. These powers need aynominity and they need politicians as the fall guy.
Guess what, the retirement age and social security age are going to be raised and the perfect people to perform this opera are the newest GOP electees.

So for the sake of debate, you guys can keep track of your favorites and post links to their scripted speeches, etc. But I will bet that the Federal Reserve once again will rule the roost and use these newest pawns to pass through programs THEY want.
Just another reminder of who runs the show. 
Remember that little known law allowing unamed corporations to fund campaigns that was passed overnight and never reached a committee....? We are suppose to believe that this " Super Majority " was powerless to stop this action in the Supreme Court and just had Sotomayor appointed...........

I really want to read a book by Nancy Pelosi when she leaves office as I believe her to be the most powerful politician in DC in recent years.
She actually attacked the Federal Reserves muscle, the CIA and challenged them to open court, sure she was wrong, but she was correct in her assumption that they would never appear in a public debate. So she is well aware of who runs the show and even now celebrates as if she has won a great victory... They must allow her to remain or she could really expose the inner workings and screw up the Feds plans to use the peoples choice of new fresh meat.

I'll even go as far to say that these Conservatives will push through their committees legislation enabling the EPA to have its way with Cap & Trade. Just look at all of the corporations that sit on the board of memebrs at the CME. Monsanto......?? Raytheon, GE.........these defense contractors are now " Green. "
And it sure wasn't some conservative or liberal speech reader that coerced this move, it was the Federal Reserve boys using their muscle.

So any move to create the needed revenues to re work our society to prepare for the new era of renewable and alternative energy requires Big Oil and Big Banks. The chess board is already set up, so enjoy the sideshows from these 2 partys' but the people pulling the strings are the same folks who have been in power for decades and nothing will get in the way of these international banks and Kingdoms.


----------



## rJames (Nov 14, 2010)

josejherring @ Sat Nov 13 said:


> So between the libs wanting to put everybody on the dole and make it publicly acceptable and Reps wanting to feed everybody to the wolves, I pull out my hair and scream. Nobody really wants to help people be productive. They either want to keep them on the nipple forever (dems) or they want to punish them severly (Reps).
> 
> Both sides are pursuing a course that is leading to destruction at the moment.



Don't want to put you on the spot Jose, but is this really true? Is better education for impoverished parts of the country or access to health care or stimulus job programs or closer regulation of financial institutions or extended unemployment benefits (during a period of 10%+ unemployment) or...

which liberal program seeks to keep "them" on the nipple forever? And, who are "them?"

Can anyone suggest a "vile" opinion from members of the left who are members of congress?


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 14, 2010)

rJames @ Sun Nov 14 said:


> Can anyone suggest a "vile" opinion from members of the left who are members of congress?



For starters, the view that those on the right who reach different conclusions are either venal, corrupt, or stupid instead of just wrong.

The view that anyone who has doubts about whether gay marriage i.e instead of a civil union with full legal rights but that is not called "marriage" is homophobic.

The view that all crime is a direct result of poverty and that values does not at least play a role.

We Democrats need more congress people like, Diane Feinstein, Harold Ford and Evan Bayh, and fewer like Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reed.


----------



## rJames (Nov 14, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Sun Nov 14 said:


> rJames @ Sun Nov 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone suggest a "vile" opinion from members of the left who are members of congress?
> ...


 Well, we KNOW that there is corruption on both sides, so saying that at least some conclusions are corrupt is not really in question. I think we can agree that some ideas, on both sides are stupid. Venal, I covered in "corrupt". So, I think "vile" is a bit strong.



> The view that anyone who has doubts about whether gay marriage i.e instead of a civil union with full legal rights but that is not called "marriage" is homophobic.


 Again, is this really "vile?" I have a feeling that if civil union wer voted on in either house, you'd find rapid agreement from the left.



> The view that all crime is a direct result of poverty and that values does not at least play a role.


 Hmmm. After the TARP bailouts and Berni Maddoff, I'm not sure you can really build this case. Maybe you are saying that some on the left believe that poverty CAN lead to crime which doesn't seem to be such a vile idea.



> We Democrats need more congress people like, Diane Feinstein, Harold Ford and Evan Bayh, and fewer like Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reed.


We are in agreement that we need more statesmen.

Not sure you've proven a vile side to the Democratic agenda.

OK. Nick, now its your turn. Vile ideas coming from the right?


----------



## rJames (Nov 14, 2010)

As is the premise of this thread implies... hyperbole begets hyperbole.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 14, 2010)

rJames @ Sun Nov 14 said:


> josejherring @ Sat Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > So between the libs wanting to put everybody on the dole and make it publicly acceptable and Reps wanting to feed everybody to the wolves, I pull out my hair and scream. Nobody really wants to help people be productive. They either want to keep them on the nipple forever (dems) or they want to punish them severly (Reps).
> ...



If you've ever been in a poor community whether inner city black or Latino or rural white you'll recognize immediately that the number one destroyer of these communities are food stamps, welfare and the mentality that goes with it. It's all well and good sitting in suburbia to think that these programs are beneficial, they are absolutely not. They breed laziness, lack of motivation and obesity and a criminal mentality, a mentality that says that the "world owes me and I don't have to do anything to make it in the world" big brother will provide.

As for unemployment benefits, I have a neighbor who does bit acting jobs here and there and standin work for other actors. He told me the other day that he collected unemployment through SAG for 2 years thanks to the extensions. His extension ran out and the next week he got a job! So as much as I hate to hear it, I do recognize that extending unemployment indefinitely for some just becomes an excuse not to work.

As far as health care. I don't think that the new health care bill goes far enough. I think that there should be government sponsored health care like medicare for all. I think that government health insurance and private health insurance can work really well like in Switzerland. And I hate the right for blocking real health care reform and thinking that it's some sort of socialist plot to "take over" health care.

So, where does that put me? I consider myself beyond the quaint little arguments of left vs. right. If we really want to help people like re-educating people so that they can compete in today's job markets, make sure people lead healthier lives and stuff, we need to move beyond what the Dems and what the Reps are offering. Both sides offer only disaster. Just look around you. Are things really as good as they should be? Both sides have had a chance and both liberal and conservative "philosophies" have failed mankind miserably. It's time to move beyond left vs. right and into some real solutions to our problems.

My hope for Obama was that he could move beyond the current political philosophy of the day. He has every capability to do so. But like I said his first two years just seem like he was owned. But, I'm hopeful as it looks like he's starting to put his head above water to see a new horizon.

Jose


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 14, 2010)

These Social programs are flawed and designed to keep people down. But they are the most basic form of stimulus as the money is immediately spent and put back into circulation.
Only recently have I seen just how poorly designed these programs truly are.

Example in case.

My friend has collected unemployment benefits for 8 months, which means he is on his second Tier since 6 months was all the program was designed for originally.
But he got a job call that lasted 2 weeks, didn't file for benefits again until he returned to the out of work list at the Union Hall, just to find out that the 2400 USD he earned in 2 weeks disqualified him for further benefits.........???
So by taking a job and trying to play by the rules he is punished, and quite destitude right now. 
He can't even get a job at 7-11 since all he knows how to do is shovel Concrete and stack and pack wall panels.
He could have refused the job and collected 425 USD weekly for 60 more weeks, but now is up shit creek, and trying to get welfare or food stamps.

And we are suppose to believe that the Federal Government can handle the insurance policies for 300+ Million people..........???
Oh I cant wait to schedule my first appointment just to find out I was sent to a Surgeon instead of a General Practioner.......

These clowns couldn't find a hooker in a whore house.


----------



## rJames (Nov 14, 2010)

I agree with your post Jose. My disagreement was whether or not liberals wanted people to remain on the nipple.

Welfare will always be abused by some but where to cut it and allow suffering because of that. There is always a fine line.

We all wish that we could target with surgical precision (as we do our weapons) and help only those who actually need it.

One example of someone who milked unemployment (ah, the nipple analogy reappears) does not condemn the system. If it did, capitalism would be indicted because of the greed of a few.

Also in agreement that Obama fell to the pressures of reality. Too bad. We elected him for change, and he is trying, but the system is too entrenched.

I hope he uses these last 2 years in the presidency as a bully pulpit and actually leads.

BTW regarding insurance. That guy who lost his home as the firefighters watched it burn because he didn't pay his $75 fee is the poster child for what insurance is all about.

A large group of people pay into an insurance pool, most of whom will *never need the insurance,* so that if they happen to be one of the few that end up needing the help, it is there for them. If that $75 was a tax, he would still be a proud homeowner.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 14, 2010)

Great Points Chim!

Ron,

I agree with help. I'm all about helping people. I think the world doesn't help enough. But with help you have to be careful. And, it's the nature and kind of "help" that government offers right now that I think is destructive.

I'm not really a bible person, though I did read the Bible cover to cover about 10 years ago. I always remember the saying, "if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime". I honestly believe in the basic goodness of most people and I feel that most people will do the right thing if they knew how. Some will do the wrong thing, but most do the right thing or this world wouldn't work at all. 

I think that if you help somebody you have to help them with the purpose of getting the person you are helping to stand on his own. I'd be all over programs that re-educated people to read better, write better and taught basic job skills, like typing and computers, ect.... Stuff that can actually be used in todays job markets. Even trade skills. 

I revile programs that just hand people money to sit at home watching Jerry Springer eating bon bons that they got with their EBT card.

As for your Fire example I hadn't heard of it. Seems kind of odd that firefighters would do that. Most firefighters I know of wouldn't even think about whether a guy has insurance or not. I've not met a more decent bunch of people willing to help anybody in an emergency than firefighters.

I think that if the social programs were more emergency based they would actually work. But, over the years they've become a lifestyle choice for many.

Jose


----------



## rJames (Nov 14, 2010)

Jose, First of all, I'll bet we could agree on almost everything. I mean, I think I agree with you. I don't need to make you see my side. 

But... in practice, there is always a point of diminishing returns, in business and in government. How many more government employees would you need to check on everyone who applies for or has been enrolled in some government subsidy to make sure that only the truly needy receive help? 

I think we all agree there is waste in government. And it is very easy to say that we should cut taxes and abolish government waste. And there may be some glaring examples of government waste. I'm for abolishing government waste!!!

It always comes back to that fine line. Actually identifying waste is costly. 

You want the government to help people learn how to fish? Great. Let's create a government program to train the unemployed for new careers! Hmmm. I wonder if that would be tough to get through congress??


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 14, 2010)

> For starters, the view that those on the right who reach different conclusions are either venal, corrupt, or stupid instead of just wrong.



All of them are wrong, and many of them are not *just* wrong. I'd be careful not to leave uninformed and pigheadedly ideological off your list of additional pitfalls that many have succumbed to.



> The view that anyone who has doubts about whether gay marriage i.e instead of a civil union with full legal rights but that is not called "marriage" is homophobic.



Being homophobic has nothing to do with it, in fact I'm sure there are plenty of people who are afraid of gay people who nonetheless know better than to want to deny them their civil rights.



> The view that all crime is a direct result of poverty and that values does not at least play a role.



That's a caricature of kindergarten liberalism, and very few liberals go the extreme of saying that it's *all* poverty - any more than we believe that the answer to everything is education. But denying the connection between poverty and crime is not dealing with reality.



> We Democrats need more congress people like, Diane Feinstein, Harold Ford and Evan Bayh, and fewer like Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reed.



I'd be delighted with 435 Nancy Pelosis, Henry Waxmans, and Dennis Kucinichs in the House and 100 similar Senators. They're the ones who are out there fighting for us, and that's what we need.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 14, 2010)

Andrew A, believe me: I don't agree with Rand Paul at all. But I don't share the view that he's just a nutcase. What I find offensive is assholes like Mitch McConnell who say any old nonsense that comes to their head.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 14, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Nov 14 said:


> I'd be delighted with 435 Nancy Pelosis, Henry Waxmans, and Dennis Kucinichs in the House and 100 similar Senators. They're the ones who are out there fighting for us, and that's what we need.



Exactly my point: Nick Batzdorf = Sean Hannity, flip sides of the same extremist coin, equally so entrenched in their view of the world and so convinced that they are not only the ones that are right but the only ones who are well motivated and intelligent that they cannot see past it to any potential common sense compromise.

There was a time when in American politics, not so long ago, ideological opposites like Rob and Reagan and Tip O'Neil respected each other and the American people enough that they could go out, down an Irish whiskey or two, and reach a compromise, and we were all the better for that. Even Clinton and Gingrich did it.

Can you really see Pelosi and Boehner or Reed and McConnell doing that? No, and that is why were are in deep trouble here. And the reason they are that inflexible is partly because they reflect their constituencies, as we can see here in this thread.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 14, 2010)

Jay, both parties have become caricatures of themselves. I too remember the days when no matter what party people belong too they were able to see the other side. Both parties at least wanted the same things. They only really disagreed on how those things should be accomplished.

Let's not forget that the Neo Cons use to be Liberals. They felt that liberal policies had failed so wanted to find other ways to achieve the exact same aims. Hell look back far enough and you'll find that the party of Jefferson was called the Democratic Republicans.

It so easy to forget that we are on the same team here. No need to hate. I honestly cringe every time I hear a Republican like Sharron Angle talk. But if you get past the biased media sound bites you'll find out that she's really quite reasoned in her beliefs and approach. Far more reasoned that Harry Reid was/ is.

So I'm a despicable person because every time I hear Harry Reid speaking I have a hard time believing that he's a real person? Just because he's part of the liberal establishment and Sharron Angle was suppose to be a cockeyed right wing nut job, I'm suppose to like Reid. Nah, at least Angle was a real person. Didn't jive with what she was proposing, but if I were in Nevada I would have voted for her. (And yes, some Mexican's do look Asia dammit. Native American and Asians, it's the same race of people. Why did so many people take offense to that? I would be like mistaking a bunch of Chinese people for Malaysians or something. It happens.)

Jose


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 14, 2010)

Harry is too hard to beat because of the Unions, and their free bus rides to the voting polls. They even gave out food to get the homeless vote too.....

She would have won the Hispanic vote until she ran the ad where Gang members were slipping into the US and coming to Vegas to sell drugs.
She was right, but it made lots of folks mad as we depend on those drugs to get through another week of playing cover songs.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 14, 2010)

chimuelo @ Sun Nov 14 said:


> She was right, but it made lots of folks mad as we depend on those drugs to get through another week of playing cover songs.



:mrgreen: o/~


----------



## rgames (Nov 14, 2010)

re: extremism

There are two problems:

*1. People look for the internet group, TV channel, radio show, whatever that EXACTLY matches their basic philosophies.*
Compromise is no longer necessary because you can just about always find a group of people who think exactly like you. Think about the discussions on the internet: rarely do you see people arguing points with their own analysis or insight. They most often express their opinions through a link to some else's analysis and insight. So rather than having thousands of minds thinking for themselves, those thousands pick one of a handful of opinions and adopt it as their own.

This process amplifies one's existing views rather than considering others that might be contrary: that leads to extremism.

*2. The news media love extremists because they make good press.*
Therefore, it's good business sense to focus on the most extreme politicians and the media consumer is lead to believe that's political reality. In fact, it is not: the American people are always somewhere in the middle. Several years ago, I read a paper that described a technique used to rate people and/or organizations on the Left-Right political spectrum. It then applpied that technique to the members of Congress. The most amazing result was that the names closest to the center were almost never mentioned in the media. The politicians who scored way out on the left or way out on the right were the recognizable names.

This process presents leaders who are constantly pushing the Left-Right spread and, therefore, also leads to extremism.


So how do we fix this problem?

Simple: think for yourself. Establish your thoughts based on personal experience and what makes sense *to you*, then look for the leadership that's the closest match to those thoughts. If that leadership doesn't exist, then either compromise or run for office yourself.

rgames


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Nov 14, 2010)

P.T. @ Sat Nov 13 said:


> Well, except for the fact that the democrats are as obstructionist and uncompromising, or even more so, when they are out of power.
> 
> The fact that people are able to choose sides and support one or the other of these parties of clowns amazes me.
> 
> They will both destroy the Country.



Well, except... no. Look at the Democrats under Bush. Overall, they went along with policy as dictated by the President. They're weak. And even now, most Democrats (including the President) are very open to compromise and have stated this repeatedly. They cave on their core values over and over and wonder why they don't garner public support and get re-elected. Meanwhile, the Republicans have a simple mantra: "less regulation, cut taxes." They don't compromise. They always obstruct. The Dems were compromising with the Republicans even with the huge majority they had from 2008 until this current election - now that the tables have turned, do you think they're going to suddenly start standing up for themselves?

I hope so, but I doubt it. Finding true progressives is a very difficult task. People who can be the progressive equivalents of guys like Ron Paul.

Overall, this country has moved pretty far to the right. You have people crying "socialism" and "class warfare" over tax rates that are LOWER than they were during the Clinton era. Nobody would even consider a middle-class tax increase to those same rates - anybody that did would be ostracized. Meanwhile, it was relatively uncontroversial under Clinton. People seem to have accepted warrantless wiretapping, FBI surveillance of non-"watch list" civilians (bugged cars), obtrusive airport security procedures, the multi-billion dollar Homeland Security Department (the largest expansion of our government in some time), etc. These things are no longer controversial like they should be.

So, I don't think the issue is that people are polarized to the extreme left and the extreme right. Viewpoints on the extreme right have virtually taken over mainstream politics, making even standard progressive viewpoints look like ultra-liberal socialism in comparison, so "compromise in the middle" basically means right-wing policy (or center-right) as opposed to something TRULY balanced.


----------



## TuwaSni (Nov 14, 2010)

They should ALL be taken out behind the woodshed and taught how to act like decent human beings!


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 15, 2010)

Its time Americans realize that the men we send to DC are snivelling weasals and self serving hypocrits without a spine.
Ask yourself who has been the most effective at getting their message out and taking a stand on their beliefs............?
Women have.
Who tilited the recent election from badgering Liberals wherever their heads pop up.......Palin. WHo ruled COngress with Stalinistic determination......Pelosi.
Who takes trips overseas and then makes announcements about the White House policies without fear of being repremanded.........Hillary Clinton.
And what about the brave Governor of Arizona..........??
I cannot agree on all issues with these women but where are the men who have a pair between their legs.....?
In 2012 I think we will see women rise up and remove these girly men and we can thank them.
Send them over to China and we will get tons of cash.
That little weasal Geitner is a pathetic beggar and a tax cheat...........how he was ever allowed a position at Treasury is a joke and makes the White House look weak and foolish.
More recently the Obama team went overseas and was refused every single request and was a complete failure.
Hundreds of Millions spent everyday to do what............??
Look even weaker than they already are.
Send in the women and lets get something done. These current highly educated Putos have only weakened us time after time whenever they go overseas.
Perhaps Obama forgot that negotiations from a position of strength is what gets negotiations won, not begging and reading scripted speeches.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 15, 2010)

zircon_st @ Mon Nov 15 said:


> So, I don't think the issue is that people are polarized to the extreme left and the extreme right. Viewpoints on the extreme right have virtually taken over mainstream politics, making even standard progressive viewpoints look like ultra-liberal socialism in comparison, so "compromise in the middle" basically means right-wing policy (or center-right) as opposed to something TRULY balanced.



Have to say, that sounds about right viewing from afar. I can hardly hear anything left wing at all. You've got centre-ish, right and ultra-right as far as I can see. When basic healthcare is "socialised medicine", something's gone badly wrong with the system.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 15, 2010)

noiseboyuk @ Mon Nov 15 said:


> zircon_st @ Mon Nov 15 said:
> 
> 
> > So, I don't think the issue is that people are polarized to the extreme left and the extreme right. Viewpoints on the extreme right have virtually taken over mainstream politics, making even standard progressive viewpoints look like ultra-liberal socialism in comparison, so "compromise in the middle" basically means right-wing policy (or center-right) as opposed to something TRULY balanced.
> ...



I am not buying it. First of all, what appears Centrist to an American Centrist is probably perceived as right wing to most Europeans because their center is more skewed to the left IMHO.

Her is a perfect example of polarization:

1. On the Left- We do not need entitlements to be cut, simply make the wealthy pay their fair share.

2. On the Right: Taxing anyone leads to fewer investments that create jobs so the answer is to cut spending on entitlements an everything else.

3. In the Center: Some people who are indeed very wealthy may have to pay more taxes but that alone will not do it, there must be some alteration to entitlements.

And chimuelo, I do not believe that we are electing bad people, it is the system. Most of them I believe go into office with the idea of making things better according to their view of better. Then they get there and are pressured by their constituents, their party's leadership, and the special interest groups and lobbyists that contribute the money they need so that a month later they can start planning their campaign to stay in office and find out how nearly impossible it is to build any kind of concensus for meaningful reform.


----------



## rJames (Nov 15, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Nov 15 said:


> I am not buying it. First of all, what appears Centrist to an American Centrist is probably perceived as right wing to most Europeans because their center is more skewed to the left IMHO.
> 
> Her is a perfect example of polarization:
> 
> ...


I can agree with all of this.

But I think it is much more likely that the Dems will compromise to the centrist position than the Reps and Tea Party.

We'll see because this is exactly where we are right now. The compromise that seems to be on the table is that the Dems allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (as well as the middle class) stay in place for at least a few more years.

Because the Dems (at least Obama) have already compromised that the cuts for the middle class stay in place (rightfully so in these tough times).

The right wing has virtually stopped discussion (on everything) in the Senate even before the mid terms. So, the compromise has to be taken way over on the right or we will see nothing happen again.

We'll see...


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 15, 2010)

And nope, I don't buy that for a millisecond!

There are right wing governments in Europe, there are left wing, and a range in between. There have been more left-wing governments in the US past history than any current position. I'd say - as objectively as you possibly can be without being a professional sociologist - that the entire mainstream political range in the US is centre rightwards right now.

In the UK our situation is different, but also far from ideal. In previous recent history, our own political range has been extremely narrow - at times it's looked like all three main parties are occupying the same centre-ground space. Under our electoral system, so goes the theory, the centre ground wins and loses elections, cos they swing the marginal seats. By contrast, if you go back to 1980 or earlier, the differences between the parties were enormous - those days are long gone.

So we have a different set of issues to you guys. Right now, however, there is a more left-wing faction within the Labour party, more so than at any time in the past 15 years arguably, but its unclear whether than will be represented by the national party... I suspect not.

But don't kid yourselves, US folks - your voters have a pretty limited set of options. IMHO, that's in part because debate is closed down extremely effectively by the mainstream media. And - weaving even more wildly off topic - why there are many of us in the UK who will fight for the BBC to remain strong and independent, and not allow Murdoch to completely take over.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 15, 2010)

noiseboyuk @ Mon Nov 15 said:


> And nope, I don't buy that for a millisecond!
> 
> There are right wing governments in Europe, there are left wing, and a range in between. There have been more left-wing governments in the US past history than any current position. I'd say - as objectively as you possibly can be without being a professional sociologist - that the entire mainstream political range in the US is centre rightwards right now.
> 
> ...



Well, IMHO the UK is not "Europe" is any meaningful sense. It has never been as Socialistic as countries like Sweden, Norway, etc.

And in the US we have access even in our mainstream media to a great diversity of views. You have a Rachel Maddows and a George Will for a responsible discussion of issues to balance out the fringies. It is not ALL Glenn Beck and Arian Huffington.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 15, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Nov 15 said:


> It is not ALL Glenn Beck and Arian Huffington.



Good to hear!


----------



## rJames (Nov 15, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Nov 15 said:


> And in the US we have access even in our mainstream media to a great diversity of views. You have a Rachel Maddows and a George Will for a responsible discussion of issues to balance out the fringies. It is not ALL Glenn Beck and Arian Huffington.



Yes but, referring to Richard's comment about us becoming more extreme (which I totally agree with), who has a louder voice Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or George Will.

I pine for the day when George Will was representative of the Republican party.

And I'd put Rachael Maddow as the counterpart to Glenn or Rush but is she anywhere near as fringe as those two?


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 15, 2010)

rJames @ Mon Nov 15 said:


> And I'd put Rachael Maddow as the counterpart to Glenn or Rush but is she anywhere near as fringe as those two?



I totally reject the idea that she is the left equivalent to Glenn or Rush.


----------



## rJames (Nov 15, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Nov 15 said:


> rJames @ Mon Nov 15 said:
> 
> 
> > And I'd put Rachael Maddow as the counterpart to Glenn or Rush but is she anywhere near as fringe as those two?
> ...



My point exactly. Even Olberman cannot hold a candle to their extremism. And yet we are always told that the "liberal media" has just as many extreme wackos as the right.

I believe you are a centrist as I am but the right has moved so far to the right that you may soon find yourself labeled as a liberal. (I guess that all depends on the company you keep)


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 15, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Nov 15 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Mon Nov 15 said:
> 
> 
> > And nope, I don't buy that for a millisecond!
> ...



The UK may be perceived as more leaning to the right, compared to the rest of Europe (depending on what government is in place at any givenmoment) and in a way it makes sense, since it is also closest to the USA in terms of partnership.

But then, if you position the US, it would definitey fall way to the right of that.
Let's remember that "socialist" has become a scary word here, a stigma...!?

Great diversity of opinions, yes. But some are given a trickle of a bandwidth, while others have overtaken all media outlets and are heavily propagated.
Which makes sense, since the US media is a monopoly...


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 15, 2010)

rJames @ Mon Nov 15 said:


> I pine for the day when George Will was representative of the Republican party.


Me, too. I remember watching "This Week with David Brinkley" and often had to concede that he had a better argument than Sam Donaldson or whoever was taking the liberal position.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 15, 2010)

But if you listen to what George Will says today, it's totally idiotic. And the reason is very simple: those ideas warranted asking "what if they're right" BEFORE THEY WERE TRIED IN THE REAL WORLD!

30 years later, they've failed miserably. That's why I have zero interest in suffering fools gladly.

***

Jay, on the one hand you're saying that Rachel Maddow is not the liberal equivalent to the right-wing jackass of the moment, but on the other hand you're saying that Nancy Pelosi and Dennis Kucinich (who by the way are very different from one another) are the counterweight to Sean F-ing Hannity. So which is it? Are you foolish enough to disagree with me or do you have the intelligence to admit that I'm 100% right?

What I really think is that we basically agree - except that you're a total sissy wimp pansy who pretends not to know what he knows full well, while I'm MACHO.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 15, 2010)

<- just in case anyone thought I was actually serious in my last post.

Jay is every bit as macho as I am.


----------



## rJames (Nov 15, 2010)

You really know how to close down a thread!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 15, 2010)

Okay, let's open it up again: JAY IS NOWHERE NEAR AS MACHO AS I AM!


----------



## Animus (Nov 15, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Nov 15 said:


> rJames @ Mon Nov 15 said:
> 
> 
> > And I'd put Rachael Maddow as the counterpart to Glenn or Rush but is she anywhere near as fringe as those two?
> ...



Of course as a liberal you would think that. One man's saint is another's devil.


----------



## P.T. (Nov 15, 2010)

"And even now, most Democrats (including the President) are very open to compromise and have stated this repeatedly."
---------------

Of course they are, NOW. They lost the House.

I didn't see that willingness to compromise before.
The attitude was 'we won, so get on board'.

But I have already said in this thread that it is not the job of the Congress to support the president nor is it the job of one party to support the other party.

The President and the Congress are two separate bodies with their own powers in a system of checks and balances and each rep and senator was elected to represent the people who elected them, not to do what the President of the majority party wants done.

The problem I see is the hardening along ideological lines and the closed mindedness.

I expect people to listen to the other side. To accept ideas that make sense and to reject others that don't. To accept reasonable criticism and reject unreasonable criticism.

I expect some decency and respect for other people humanity.

If you want to cut the Country down the center on ideological grounds then the only answer is war and a breakup of the Country. Which at this point may be the only way.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 15, 2010)

Animus @ Mon Nov 15 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon Nov 15 said:
> 
> 
> > rJames @ Mon Nov 15 said:
> ...



I am not a Liberal, I am a Centrist. There are responsible, intelligent Conservative Republicans. Glen Beck is not one of them.

Joe Scarborough for example is. Although I disagree with him more often than agree, he is thoughtful, intelligent, and I am always interested in what he has to say.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Nov 19, 2010)

> I didn't see that willingness to compromise before.
> The attitude was 'we won, so get on board'.



Actually, the Dems compromised quite a bit on most if not all of their policies, despite the fact that the Republicans voted against almost all of it. Basically no progressive policy was passed in the last two years. Why do you think the Republicans won? Because the Democrats couldn't get anything done; they caved on their values, and what we got were half-baked "reforms".


----------

