Seriously, I need to stay away from the political forum because all it is is back and forth name calling, and I am guilty of it as well. But what really irks me is that when someone answers a question of the opposite party in all respectful manner, the person asking the question won't even take it into consideration. I at least like to think that I keep an open mind to the idea of others and try to see their point, but the EXTREME left really really irritates me on here. Don't they have anything better to do than CONSTANTLY bash the President, and that's really all I read. It's time to get over it, move on, and focus on winning the election in 2008. It's wierd that most of the bashing of so called "neocons" is because they support the president. It's such a crazy concept. I don't understand why can't there be a common ground that we are all working towards!! I'm just sooooo sick of the nonsense, does anyone else feel this way or am i going to get stupid biased comments again?!
2006-09-04 19:07:56 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Mark, nobody debates because a debate is usually someone's view on something, and I haven't heard any view from a liberal other than they hate Bush. it's annoying!!! I want some substance from that party, maybe I could understand them more!
2006-09-04 19:13:00 · update #1
No, they don't. And it's sad. Fact is that most countries using majority electoral or voting systems tend to have two parties that rotate in government and this closes the doors to many third parties. Mudslinging is a very disgusting act, no matter if this is politics or not. It's better to make differences by using clear cut issues instead of millions of dollars and gerrymandered districts that are being used today. Agreements are better but depends on the circumstances. The parties are different in many ways and alike in many ways also. But I think the main problem is that none of them have felt threatened from a serious third party or independent candidate. For example, Perot's candidacy in 92 gave him almost 20% of the popular vote and even though he withdrew from the race and came back later on. What would've happened if he'd followed his heart and went to risk the election without stepping down? He might've won or taken the race to the House and would've won in many states I think. But those are our politics.
2006-09-04 19:23:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The people who run for office are usually the extremes of the political spectrum because no one wants to elect someone who likes 2 sides. having a 2 party system that are opposites are inevitable because the only way you can get your bill passed with over 50% is by forming a coalition. If every person in congress were an independent, nothing would get done and only bills that are desperately needed would get passed. This seems like a good thing, but when it comes to bills that deal with money its hard to tell what is desperately needed and what is not.
2006-09-05 02:19:31 · answer #2 · answered by roberts 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree in general. Since I live in Puerto Rico I think that the states are less divided in general than we are. Political fanatics i Puerto Rico keep politicians from doing much good for the people of Puerto Rico.
They are divided along the lines of those who want statehood (PNP), those who want an improved commonwealth status (ELA or Estado Libre Asociado in Spanish.) There is an independence which only gets from 5 to 10% of the vote but that is for another answer.
I don't like fanaticism if it is between conservatives and liberals or between statehooders and ela people in Puerto Rico. There are too many problems for people to waste time and energy over sterile political debates instead of taking action on real issues.
2006-09-05 02:17:44 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think this forum is as much about entertainment as it is about debating issues.
{edit} Many "questions" here are, indeed, annoying and nonsensical. Just a little while ago someone posted a hilariously sarcastic "question," ..........
"Why do (insert derogatory nickname for political affiliation)s always (insert poorly informed assumption)?"
The people asking question in that format are indeed just here for the entertainment. But there are also some people here who ask excellent, thought-provoking questions and they get some very good answers. There is both silliness and seriousness here.
2006-09-05 02:11:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, any good can be a bad,any bad a good. There for, both can make any claim about anything. I don't support the Republicans because of all the Jesus crap. That and they don't conserve anything. The Democrats and they're PC patrols have got to go.Along with this sense that everyone is entitled to everything. We should try to work together though.
2006-09-05 02:24:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Stop paying taxes. We don't have to pay an income tax. It feeds the federal reserve, which is a private bank that runs the country and both Republicans and Dems. We are wasting our time with Bush bashing and that's what they want. Stay sharp people.
2006-09-05 02:37:52 · answer #6 · answered by Bob S 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Originally, debates are conducted for the benefits of the topics on hand. As usual, the reasoning should have the floor but for destruction, I think it should be put to order.
2006-09-05 02:15:30 · answer #7 · answered by wacky_racer 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
having an open mind and looking at the dynamics of any given issue will get you bashed as a waffler. There's no hope for us...
2006-09-05 02:25:42 · answer #8 · answered by GJ 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Substance? The only substance the conservatives can show is losing wars! They are good at that!
2006-09-05 02:20:20 · answer #9 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am a lefty myself. I always say I am a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal. I just wanted to say your pups are really cute! I have two Jack Russells, and your two caught my eye, although they are not the same breed. Thanks for the two points.
2006-09-05 02:14:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋