You know, it almost sounds as though you’re saying I shouldn’t care about anything that doesn’t directly affect me, and that my personal self-interest should be the sole determiner of what legislation I support.
I don’t know Least Original’s political affiliation, but generalizations like that bother me. I’m a Democrat of sorts and having “potential voters” has nothing to do with the reason that I, in some respects, support the illegal immigrants that are here. And I certainly do want the illegal immigration to stop! I thought that most Republicans did also. Learn something new every day.
Maybe this is one of the reasons we don’t seem to be able to get along. We project stereotypes upon each other and react to that rather than to anything resembling the truth.
When it doesn’t affect you and doesn’t hurt anybody ELSE, then it’s none of your business… It’s not about self-interest, it’s about respecting other people’s moral autonomy.
This is a strawman. I don’t know any liberals who are offended by public displays of religion . It’s only an issue when the government is doing it.
Nope. Have you actually read them? Here they are.
1. Have no other gods before me.
2. Make no images of anything in heaven, earth or the sea, and do not worship or labor for them. [Ironic that the Ten Commandments monument is itself a violation of the 2nd Commandment]
3. Don’t take God’s name in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath.
5. Honor your mother and father.
6. Do not kill.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not bear false witness.
10. Don’t covet your neighbor’s wife or anything else that belongs to your neighbor.
Of those ten items, only two are actually forbidden by law and 1-4 are purely religious (meaning the government is forbidden to endorse them). Forbidding murder and theft are common sense, universal standards in any human community. No part of our law is based on the 10 Commandments. Where the hell do people get this stupid idea that they do? I can only surmise that most have them have no fucking idea what the 10 Commandments really are.
This comment was unnecessarily hostile for a GD thread. I apologize.
And now that you mention the 10 commandments, I have to say that those are the protestant 10 commandments, Jews and Catholics have have slightly different way to write them:
http://www.revricky.com/sermons/12commandments.html
One can make the point that it is a small difference, but suppose we make a religion, fundamentalist in this case, the preferred one in the land? Then the quiet support for the commandments will bring forth sectarianism. It reminds me of the classic “from the earth to the moon” by Jules Verne, in it, Florida and Texas were almost at each other’s throats, fighting to be the location of the giant moon cannon:
Jules Verne. From the Earth to the Moon. CHAPTER XI, FLORIDA AND TEXAS
I see that there are three or more ways to write the commandments, rather than selecting one of the many [del]Texas cities [/del] versions of the commandments I go for [del]Florida[/del] not showing a preference.
I think one of the problems is the villification of people we disagree with. You support gun control? Well then, you must be some gun grabbing jerk who wants to stomp all over my 2nd Amendment rights. Nevermind that you’re concerned about crime, suicide, homicide, etc. because it’s all about you rubbing your hands together and laughing that maniacal laughter so common to evil people.
You’re against legal abortions? It’s because you hate women and what to treat them like chattel, isn’t it? It isn’t possible that you genuinely believe life begins at conception you’re just in it because you want to keep women under your thumb.
I might help if we took a deep breath and tried to understand where the other person was coming from instead of just assuming their ignorant brutes for disagreeing with us. Of course that isn’t to say that there aren’t plenty of ignorant brutes out there but let’s not jump to conclusions.
Marc
The most frequent political position I see on the SDMB is a combination of socially liberal and fiscally moderately conservative. Having been brought up Catholic in the 1960s, it felt like the reverse. Now I’m rather consistently left.
I rarely see anyone arguing in favor of socialist economics, but I always see it denounced. I rarely see anyone in favor of overturning Roe or banning same sex marriage. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single instance here of being socially conservative and economically liberal at the same time. The Catholics I remember from my childhood are the closest thing I know to that. I see an awful lot of hardcore right-wing Catholics these days, and it feels nothing like my upbringing where RFK was our hero.
As for the war in Iraq, it’s long past the point where anyone can defend it. I perceive more of a political consensus here than is often acknowledged, especially on social liberalism. One thing Dopers tend to care about strongly is science. I would expect near unanimity against the Bush administration’s attempts to control science for political ends, so I’m frankly surprised at the vigorous arguments made here against the consensus of the scientific community on global warming.
Well, I am in favour of socialist economics, but I’ve learnt that (as on gun control) there is little point in arguing the point. The vast majority of voters take the opposite position, so (although all sides are debating in a perfectly reasonable manner, note) dissenting voices are simply drowned out.
And, Diogenes, wouldn’t the Commandment about bearing false witness mean that there are 3 of the Commandments in law, rather than 2?
Only under some specialized circumstances (perjury, libel). For the sake of argument I’ll grant it, though. Still, we don’t have those laws because of the Commandments and the assertion that the Ten Commandments “are the basis of most of our laws” is still patently false.
Jews say the divine laws intended for Christians and other goyim are the Noah commandments, not the specifically Jewish Mosaic law. What do Jews think about Christians appropriating Mosaic law and turning it to Christian purposes?
Oh, I agree. I just wanted to nitpick. 
On a more general note, one of the reasons partisanship has become so strident is that we take it all way too seriously.
Whether someone is ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’ is far less important than whether they are good to their kids, honest and fair to their friends, reasonable and thoughtful in their dealings with others, polite, etc. Your personal political beliefs should be only a small part of your life.
Likewise, the federal government has a budget that is only 20% of the economy. And of that, most of it is ‘entitlements’ that is money merely taken in and spit back out again. The actual effect the government has on our day to day lives is a lot smaller than political partisans like to think.
Even the war in Iraq has a very small effect on your life. Yes, it’s sad that thousands of soldiers have died. But 40,000 people are killed every year in auto accidents, and we don’t wring our hands and have endless debates on this board about auto safety.
Part of the problem is the rise of 24 hour news and a competitive cable news industry, along with the internet. Some of us have come to walk, talk and breathe politics, and it has pushed us into bitter opposing camps. But wide swaths of society don’t care, don’t even vote, and wouldn’t even be able to tell you who the Secretary of Defense is, let alone spending their waking hours in deep debate over whether or not he should resign.
And they’re probably the more rational ones. In terms of how Rumsfeld’s resignation will affect their own lives, they probably have a better grasp on how much they should care about it than we do. Hell, I’m not even American and I engage in debates over it.
And yet, this stuff does have consequences. So we can’t just dismiss it. Abortion and war and government regulation are serious issues. But the hardcore partisans have some perspective issues over it all.
Oh ? How often do use a product that could hurt or kill you if improperly made, and is therefore regulated ? Cars, anything electrical, and medicine come to mind. You breathe, eat and drink; there’s the EPA and FDA ( or your country’s version ), trying to keep you from being poisoned. You have no doubt used roads maintained by the government, rely on cops provided by the government, rely on anti fraud laws to keep from being scammed out of all you own on a regular basis, rely on an economy supported by public education and government scholorships.
Our culture is permeated by the government, usually for the better; Americans just don’t want to admit it, because of the government = bad bugaboo.
First, accidents aren’t murder, and we’d be rather more concerned if those deaths were, say, from somebody wiring the cars with bombs. Second, the Iraq death toll is rather higher if you include Iraqis, who are the actual victims, after all.
The phrase “self destructive fools” comes to mind. That attitude is the thing most likely to destroy American democracy.
And you really believe that, absent the government, you’d be getting poisoned, electrocuted, and otherwise damaged by the things you use?
If so, you’re guilty of having an extremely distorted view of how much effect government really has in these areas. Understandable, because you are bombarded by propaganda from politicians who take the claim for anything good that happens in life, and from activists and lobbyists trying to convince you that you’ll die horribly unless you support them.
If the EPA and FDA vanished tomorrow, you’d scarcely know the difference. In my opinion, it would actually be an improvement if they were gone. For example, new drugs might get to the people who need them in less than 15 years, and we might see more medical innovation if it didn’t cost $100 million to meet regulatory compliance. But these are changes in the margins. Overall, society would tick right along.
Yeah, yeah. But most people agree on those things. It’s not rabig partisans that keep the public education system going. There’s widespread societal demand for it, or something like it. It’s not in danger of going away (unfortunately). And if Libertarians like me had our way and managed to privatize it, not that much would change. Kids would still get an education, because as a society we recognize it’s important.
Usually for the better? Hah. But I’m not trying to give a pro or anti-government position here. I’m just pointing out that in terms of our day to day lives, the ‘hot-button’ issues partisans endlessly debate really aren’t all that important.
What’s the difference? Are you saying that energy expended on making driving safer would have no effect? If the real interest is saving lives, and not partisan posturing, then it seems to me that you should be spending at least as much time worry about car safety as the Iraq war. And accidents in cars kill children and women and pedestrians. The soldiers killed in Iraq were all volunteers.
And let me repeat that number again: 40,000 people a YEAR. That’s almost as many Americans as were killed over the entire course of the Vietnam war. Car accidents are the #1 cause of death for people under 40. Most of us know someone who was killed or severely injured in a car crash.
So why don’t we spend ten times as much effort working on car safety issues as we do worrying about the Iraq war?
Minus the thousands killed every year by Saddam? How about the 400,000 bodies unearthed from mass graves so far? We can argue this all day - in another thread.
No, the thing most likely to destroy American democracy is wild partisanship, which breaks down trust in instututions, and prevents reasonable dialog, and destroys our sense of perspective. American Democracy ticked along just fine for a long time when the average person paid almost no attention to the day-to-day workings of government, and when that government was only a fraction of the size it is is today.
Such as still believing the Swift Boaters, or the existence of WMD’s in Iraq, for instance? :rolleyes:
Except that “political beliefs” are how you deal with others, on a broad rather than local scale. They *are * how you are good to all kids, not just your own. They *are * how you believe in dealing with *all * others. They *are * how reasonable and thoughtful in how you deal with *all * others. That’s the very definition. Do you somehow follow separate rules of your behavior for people you know vs. people you don’t know? How does that work? You take care of your friends and family, and the rest can go hang? Isn’t that attitude part of the reason for trouble getting along?
But not to the same people. It’s redistribution, born of a sense of justice, a sense of obligation to people outside our narrow circles.
Then why the hell do you complain so much about it?
On yours, maybe. I just attended the funeral of one of my son’s good friends, blown uup in Ramadi. One of their classmates is now a widow. They’re all just 20. There’s a hole in the lives of everyone who knew him.
You make it sound like all the deaths in Iraq just sort of happened, nobody’s fault really, not the result of conscious decisions by real persons to put them in harm’s way. If you don’t know better than that, you never will. If you do know better, there’s no place to take it but the Pit. Kindly advise which.
You are the ultimate controller of your own beliefs and actions, are you not? You. It’s true for everyone, is it not? No excuses.
Is it less important a subject for all that?
Is that rationality in action, or alienation and helplessness?
I think maybe The Public should be more informed and more interested. After all, tyrants and dictators depend on apathy and ignorance. Sunlight is a good antiseptic, in more ways than one. As far as things being done in a less polarized and less confrontational manner, that won’t happen any time soon. The tone was set by the White House, and Rove/Bush in particular, and their more vocal supporters. Never mind for now that they were wrong - dead wrong about so many things. Never mind that they were lying and continue to lie about so many things. When they couch so many issues as “helping the enemy” or traitorous activity or call people cowards, or the “we have a mandate so suck it up”, or the bible says so, then they deserve to get the same abuse heaped right back upon themselves. Hit a dog often enough, and sooner or later he’ll take your arm off. So, no, I don’t buy the “mean liberals” or “freedom hating” bullshit.
Take me for an example. After the elections I offered a polite congratulations to the various Bush supporters. The sense of their replies was “we won so fuck you” - not those lteral words, but that was The Mandate.
As a former member of the Army, I was/am “sensitive” to the not so vague hint that a lack of blind loyalty to The Leader was unAmerican or treachery.
As a gay person, I resent the biblebashing and government endorsed meme that I am somehow less worthy of even the most minimal legal protections - job security and the right to live where I choose (in some places). I don’t need some horse fucker (Horsley) or lying flip flopping hypocrite (Santorum) or some daugher raping preacher (to invent an example) telling me I’m no damn good. Read Al Gore’s latest speech about this. It’s a real good “mind your own business” speech.
As a Catholic, I refuse to buy into the Rapture, End Times, ID, Creationist nonsense. Don’t tell me what to believe. Want to talk about the Bible and religion? My Bible and religion says these things don’t exist the way they are being pushed.
To me, it seems to be too much vilification from the Far Right. Then turn on the radio or TV. Savage. Limbaugh. Robertson. Hannity. Read a book? Coulter. As I see it, the hate is there and I see where it’s comng from. Until this old dog stops geting hit, he’s gonna keep snapping.
If this seems rambling, it’s because I am relying on memory right now. No cites.
That’s another thing. I’m tired of argument by attrition with these people - they keep demanding more and more cites from “my” side, but almost never provide any of their own. And the same damn stupid arguments keep coming back up, as if we’re going to suddenly turn stupid and forget something.
Honestly? Sure. Courtesy? Sure. But maybe those who cry the most about being out upon and being persecuted should try using some honesty and courtesy once in a while too.
Last thought. Newt Gingrich once made a comment about bipartisanship and working together. He equated bipartisanship with date rape. So there it is. The is no getting along.
I am in total agreement with everything in your post, and will not bother repeating what you said. I will add the point that the media who cater to the “bitter opposing camps”–that includes cable news, magazines, bulletins, hate radio, and books–survive and succeed for one simple reason: their stuff feels so damn good. Folks like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, and Ann Coulter succeed because they’re selling pure emotional satisfaction. It doesn’t matter that almost everything they say is bullshit and that you could expose their lies with just a minimal amount of fact-checking. Facts aren’t part of their formula; it’s all in the emotions.
Nasty partisan commentators are not unique to either side of the political spectrum, nor unique to the present day, nor unique to the United States. However, the current spasm of extra-hateful partisanship began with the rise of right-wing hate radio in the 80’s and 90’s.
Of course, just like the good old days, or what happens in countries with weak or corrupt regulations. For example, a while back thousands died in Turkey after an earthquake; it turned out that building codes weren’t being enforced, and many collapsed.
I’d be breathing poisoned air, drinking poisoned water, eating poisoned food, and I wouldn’t dare take medicine of any kind. Plus, I’d be watching the country be clearcut and stripmined into a moonscape.
The drugs would be useless or poisoned; you’d see the return of things like “diet pills” filled with tapeworm eggs. You don’t see medical innovation because there’s no point; why make a new drug when you can repackage an old ?
No, the majority would be lucky to be literate at all, much less get an education.
And I have no regard for them whatsoever; that’s why I mentioned the Iraqi dead.
Because the auto industry contributes money to American politicians, and the Iraqis don’t.
The death rate in Baghdad alone is 8 times what it was prewar; we are directly and indirectly killing far more than Saddam, and much more indiscriminately.
Putting Moore in the same category as those two is ridiculous.