Agreed. I’m not necessarily trying to endorse a particular stance on abortion. I’m just trying to say that the difference between a “private matter” and a matter of public policy might not be as cut-and-dried to everyone as it seems to you.
I don’t understand the rebuttal. An abusive husband might well believe that beating his wife is a matter of personal belief and conscience, and that the government has no right to step in. Others obviously would disagree. Who gets to decide whether it’s a private matter or not?
That’s why placing them in the context of the history of law is acceptable. However, I strongly suspect Roy Moore does believe they got handed directly to Moses. No one is attempting to place Hammurabi’s Code of the Code of Justinian into court rooms - I think it is fair to say that everyone trying to do this is trying to do it for religious purposes. Intent does count in these matters.
I object to attempts by those on the far left to prevent those with different opinions from speaking. But I don’t think this is nearly as big a problem as the others you mentioned.
BTW, you should know that “The Truth with Jokes” does have jokes. Two of them. Maybe three. Franken labels each one - this is not a statement of my opnion of his humor.
Put another way, my problem with the right is that they want to tell you how to live your life inside your house. The left wants to tell you how to live your life when you are outside.
Well, I think some of the answers to items in this thread explain adequately why some people can’t get along. For one thing, failure to get along seems to occur when one person or another makes accusations without explanation or obvious factual support. For example, we have so far heard from the OP the well-known and baseless canard about so-called “political correctness”, which seems to exist mostly as a term used to smear persons one feels may be attempting to alter common language in favor of their political viewpoint. We also hear once again about the supposed “war on Christianity”, which has been pretty conclusively shown to be little more than a construct of certain persons with an incentive to promote conflict between artificially defined groups.
Then we have Airman Doors, who usually expresses himself a bit more thoughtfully, basically accusing a couple of other posters of untruths without actually getting around to saying what those untruths might have been. I’ll wait to hear his case before deciding whether or not to agree with him.
Me, though, I consider myself to be getting along with everyone who is not at this moment chasing me down with an upraised cudgel. Right now, I’m getting along fine with all y’all, whether you like it or not.
I think the issue is fairly simple: both sides want to win votes. It seems as though the most efficient way to do this is to rouse both side’s tensions to fever point. This will inflame your support base to the point where it is virtually certain to vote: after all, the main problem in modern elections is lack of turnout, and often the side that best motivates it core supporters is the winner. To do this, both sides accuse the other of crimes of which they are entirely innocent (political correctness and war on religion seem to be the shibboleths* which the right is currently using to beat the left; the left accuses the right of fascism, with equal innaccuracy IMO).
As to your suggestion to concentrate on the “important issues”- I think that the problem here is the similarity of the two main parties in America. Neither side can be certain of victory if it stands on managerial rather than ideological issues, since “social” (ie. trivial) issues are somewhat easier to poll on (“Do you like God?” “Yeah!” “Bush voter”. “Do you like a well-managed economy?” “Yeah!” “Um…”). Plus they might involve hard work, like thinking hard and debating and devising sensible and original policy, rather than yelling “BIGOT” and “HEATHEN” at each other.
This is all somehwhat venting and tongeu-in-cheek, but there is a nugget of truth in there: in a democracy, politicians respond to public desires. If they didn’t, they’d lose their jobs, and they’ll also lose their jobs if they get so confused with the next guy that the voter can’t make up his mind. So both politicians take deliberately inflammatory positions. And voters whole-heartedly respond.
*Shibboleth is so close to shillaglegh that the two should be used together as often as possible.
Now, now, now. Let’s not say that the definition of “getting along” is “not having a civil war”. I do get what you’re saying, but I had to say it, because someone else would.
My big question is why we can’t change peoples’ minds. I think I’d chalk that up to people simply voting as their parents did or voting for a party based on a couple choice issues.
Of course, to change peoples’ minds, the Truth is necessary. Politics muddles this, even though they’re supposedly in the business of guiding us towards Truth.
The fact that we don’t (or can’t?) know the Truth also GREATLY muddles this.
Unfortunately, religious beliefs don’t lend themselves to questioning. Sure, they (and that’s a collective-religious-community “they”) say that questioning your faith is good, because if your faith can withstand it, it’s stronger, but perhaps people don’t know the questions they should ask of their beliefs. That last part goes for political beliefs as well.
I’ve stirred up the soup a little bit, let’s see where it goes.
Your second paragraph is a BIG reason I’d like to see a third major party in the US. But, like immigration, where both sides don’t necessarily want illegal immigration to stop (Republicans for cheap labor, Democrats for potential voters) both sides don’t have a counterpoint. There’s nothing to check the two parties, and that I think the entire system would run smoother and better with a strong third party.
Why ISN’T there a third party in the US? Granted the Liberal Democrats in Britian say, are not gonna be forming a majority any time soon, but they reguarly poll from 20-30% of the vote. Are Parliamentary systems more conducive to forming multiple parties than the US kind of system?
Because we really don’t belong together? Really, I think it’s that simple. It’s like a bad marriage with no hope of divorce; we may get our own bedrooms, but they can poke their noses in and bother us any time they like. After a while, you go a little crazy.
Part of the problem as I see it is that a lot of the really hot-button issues get right down to some basic moral beliefs.
To take the two examples in the OP, abortion and homosexuality: if you truly believe that an abortion at any point in a pregnancy is murder, what kind of compromise is actually possible? And if you really believe that homosexuality is a freely chosen lifestyle that has serious consequences on society at large (and especially if you believe that homosexuals are more promiscuous and/or “recruit”), again, there’s not much room for compromise. There are many folk who regard abortion and homosexuality in exactly the same way as most people regard murdering five year old children and pedophilia, respectively. If you think of it that way, you can see why it’s so hard to “just get along.”
Times in which some third party has emerged, they appear and are strong for an election or two, then they get a little bit of clout, then they get absorbed/assimilated by one of the major parties. That’s simply how we roll, baby.
I don’t know if the parliamentary system makes it more condusive to spawning more political thought. I DO know that it’s like a terrorist or a revolutionary (which, depending on your point of view, are eerily ismilar); they aren’t born, they’re created.
Of course, a third party gets swallowed up before they gain power. Yay, us.
Another reason is money. A BIG reason. It takes a lot of money to get a position with clout. I heard somewhere (no cite for you!) that the average going rate for a gubernatorial campaign is around 40 million dollars. That tends to throw the little guy out and slave the candidate to whoever bankrolls him.
Obviously, campaign reform is a pressing need. Do we rank that before or after gay marriage, abortion, and putting Confucius’ statements in stone at the City Court?
Isn’t deliberately lying to the people who have elected you as their leader an example? Isn’t letting your personal pride and stubborness get in the way of correcting mistakes an example? Is using political clout to avoid the draft a moral issue? Are allowing political cronies to spread inaccurate and vicious rumors during two separate political campaigns examples? Is nano-managing a war from the Pentagon in opposition to military advice perhaps an example? Does the situation in Louisiana and Mississippi remain an example?
Maybe I have misunderstood what you have said. I have no bone to pick with you personally.
In fact, I seem to have a fondness for many of the conservatives at the Dope. I wish they were the “opponents” instead of the clowns in Washington.
And some of the worst conservative offenders are not in government, but in the media. Jerks such as Limbaugh and O’Reilly do the Right such a disservice. They stir up the idiots in the crowd that take everything they say as gospel. Why can’t they see through them? I don’t get it! (If I swear off Franken, will you guys dump Rush and Bill?)
We really don’t need any distractions on the way into a courthouse, do we? I want easy steps and a good handrailing or a ramp. If I must be pious, I can always bring my own copy of the Ten Commandments or ask loudly for a closet to pray in.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Another reason is money. A BIG reason. It takes a lot of money to get a position with clout. I heard somewhere (no cite for you!) that the average going rate for a gubernatorial campaign is around 40 million dollars. That tends to throw the little guy out and slave the candidate to whoever bankrolls him.[\QUOTE]
Not really. First off, even the “big donors” these days are usually pretty chump-league in terms of the whole. Take a look at how some of the campaign contributions break down: depending a bit on the party and the region and the canidate, personal donations and those from citizen action groups usually seriously outgun those from other lobbyists or corporations. Second, everyone donates to those who agree with them already, or to whom they hope to extract some favors.
It is true that it helps to be good at raising money. But many of those canidates developed those skills in earlier races. By the time they get a chance at the big leagues, they’re pretty good and running in races. Most are successful buisinessmen of some kind, and have demonstrated money-handling skill.
Many parliamentary system tend to be much more party-oriented, which in the long run probably reduces choice. Secondly, while one might be more like to find a party amenable to your views, your odds of actually having your program of government implemented in any consistent fashion is no better, and quite possibly worse.
I also mourn the dearth of civility in our public discourse.
Look at the splendid example of St. Ronnie! Confronted with positive proof of a scheme to sell weapons to a belligerant foreign power, and to use those proceeds in a plan to thwart the directly stated will of Congress, he said: “Mistakes were made”. Did he rail and rant, demanding that the miscreants be brought swiftly to severe justice? He did not! He calmly stated the obvioius truth that there were errors, miscalcuations, oopsy!
And our own Beloved Leader! Asked about how many innocent Iraqis were sacrificed in the Iraq Debacle, he allowed as how, roughly, 30,000 had perished. Thereabouts. Approximately. And furrowed his brow! As if to say “Gosh darn it, its a shame, a gol-durn shame! No really, too bad!”
But did he go on to blame those Dems who had cravenly caved to the drumbeat for war? Did he malign the leadership for callously exaggerating an empty threat into a national crisis? He did not! No finger-pointing from him, nosir!
We might all profit from such splendid examples of calm probity.
So you’re saying that a person that belongs to the working poor class has a chance at winning a gubernatorial campaign?
It takes money to make money, and usually, people who run for higher rungs of governmental spots have already got a political past. They’ve got donors that have been served by this individual previously and wil give to be further serviced. It’s awful hard for me to believe that money doesn’t have a lot to do with Big Politics. Look at Arnold.