The problem with Modern-Day Republicans and Dems.

[Mutanatia]

Okay, so a few things I want to touch on in this one:
1) Modern-day political parties should not be held hostage by people who are radicals. We can see this most egregiously in the Tea Party, who holds the GOP hostage. Every time there is a reference to a death penalty statistic, applaused. When gay serviceman -- REPEAT -- gay MILITARY member asks a question, he is BOOED. There a plenty of examples of this on the left. When there was a famous fight between Debbie-Wasserman Schultz and some other member of Congress, there was no comment by either side. Democrats and Republicans frequently use rhetoric which is more "ramped up-than-it-needs-to-be." Examples of this is when some people say they need to "take the other side out," when voters get in the face of other candidates ("Don't touch my medicaid," remember that? THe bottom line is when these events happen, both sides are quick to refute the other. They need to take a good look inside their OWN party and refudiate their OWN racism, homophobia, and general intolerance of each other. Ron Paul was not afraid to suggest the unpopular position that 9/11 was caused by our own foreign policies. THis was an unpopular view and he knew he would get booed. Why is that any different than saying to those who cheer death statistics or homophobia: "This man is a serviceman, cut it out; that is not the right frame of mind you should have!" or "Please keep your opiinons to yourself. You are not helping yourself; in fact you are hurting our election chance. Further, when I lose the Presidency, I'm going to point to you guys and say, 'you and your intolerant views and their reflection on my campaign are responsible for why I lost the election.'

2) Both sides have this "it's all or nothing" attitude. You see this happen all the time in politics. THe health care bill, the debt ceiling, even social security and medicare. There is something known as REPEAL. If you pass something, and find it implodes the economy, for the love of God, it is not permament. Repeal the sucker. There is always an "undo button" >.

[Konogakure]

Ok I've been itching to talk about this topic for AGES!

Seriously, I don't live in the States anymore (Canada Now) but still there's this one big rant that I have to get off my chest.

BI-PARTISAN governments don't work~~!!! Especially when we have a minority government (like in Obama's case) This type of government isn't gonna work because any GOOD proposals by the Democrats (minority) will be rejected because the Republicans won't want to be chalking up any brownie points for them.

For example... in the Health Care Bill, I recall that all Republicans (except 1) voted against it. Is the Health Care Bill THAT bad? It seemed to have worked out fine here in Canada.

Either way, bi-partisan governments aren't efficient, especially when a minority government is in power because the majority opposition will just reject whatever good bills that are attempting to be passed, making a huge waste of taxpayers' time, money and trust.

[Neo Runa]

There is no perfect system, multi-part systems aren't necessary any more efficient then bi-partisan ones.

It just adds more mouths for the cake. Which then results in prolonged bickering, negotiations and weak compromises *just* to gain a necessary majority. Sometimes, it develops into more concrete co-operation, known as coalition. Which creates it's own set of problems, when the coalition member decides to go and screw their partners.

It also doesn't stop bi-partisan systems from developing. In Poland, for example, there technically exists a multi-party system. In practice however, there are only two parties that can exert any considerable influence. Other two are barely capable of staying within the parliament, and the whole rest doesn't pass the vote requirement to pass into the parliament.

I think the problem isn't in "bi or multi" partisan system, the problem is that politicians increasingly use "it's us or them" mentality. Even in multi-party systems, a lot of politicians base their policies on opposition to the other side (or sides), or on what will benefit them the most - and will not particularly worry when they change the parties (or political lines, if it's a whole party) to their benefit. "The Party X will do action Z, because Party Y did action S, which is opposite of Z. We did that, because S does not benefit our egos. Or wallets. Or what have you." And then Party E does N, because, well, THEY think that they're better then X and Y combined.

In other words, it's less about the benefit of the people or the nation - it's about the benefit of the politicians. Maybe it's because politicians are becoming more and more separated from general population, or increasingly rely on support of certain hard-line, party-associated voter group (I'm looking at you Tea Party) - and do everything to please them to stay in power, or at least, the majority. But I feel that's slightly besides the point.

Thing is, it doesn't really matter what kind of system you have if your politicians can't make a compromise. It's just more obvious in bi-partisan system, where you have only two sides hurling sh*** at each other. In other systems, everyone hurls something at everyone else. Maybe we just need few more decades to get new politicians who (hopefully) will be able to step down from opposing when the law has more benefits then downturns. The point about the proverbial "reset" button is very valid, sadly though, I think it makes for worse political propaganda. "We blocked the bad laws that threaten you!" sounds better then "Oh, don't worry, we will undo it for you if you vote for us!" sadly.

Perhaps it's time remind politicians that guillotine doesn't distinguish between parties, or respect your immunity clause.

Or we should scarp some cash, make a lunar colony with like-minded individuals and tell Earth to sod off.

[The Minor Countries]

Sept 27, 2011 23:22:14 GMT -5 Konogakure said:

Ok I've been itching to talk about this topic for AGES!

Seriously, I don't live in the States anymore (Canada Now) but still there's this one big rant that I have to get off my chest.

BI-PARTISAN governments don't work~~!!! Especially when we have a minority government (like in Obama's case) This type of government isn't gonna work because any GOOD proposals by the Democrats (minority) will be rejected because the Republicans won't want to be chalking up any brownie points for them.

For example... in the Health Care Bill, I recall that all Republicans (except 1) voted against it. Is the Health Care Bill THAT bad? It seemed to have worked out fine here in Canada.

Either way, bi-partisan governments aren't efficient, especially when a minority government is in power because the majority opposition will just reject whatever good bills that are attempting to be passed, making a huge waste of taxpayers' time, money and trust.

However, a uniparty government is called a dictatorship, and while on many things a bi-partisan governtment does hassle back and forth on a subject, it also does give different views on that particular subject, instead of "ok here what we think its going to do, and we know we are right, there's no wayyyy nothings going to go wrong"

[Mutanatia]

Well, the purpose of the divided government is to make things harder to do. The founding fathers WANTED that. They just didn't want... this, what we have now XD

[The Minor Countries]

^Thats true too

[Konogakure]

No the problem... I think... is that political parties see each other as enemies these days and are more likely to condemn a good act/resolution to the country just because its posed by the opposing party.

As part of the Senate/Congress/House of Commons/etc. they took an oath to be loyal to the COUNTRY, not their political parties. They should be thinking of what benefits the COUNTRY the most, not their political parties. They should not be afraid to support something that might be proposed by the Opposition, as long as they believe it may help the country.

[The Minor Countries]

Yea, but they are. they are afraid to lose their spots of power in their parties. Humans are naturally selfish, we crave some kind of powerm and we dont want to lose it. Yes there have been those that go against it, but sadly look at wat happens, they are dropped from their party, because they gave an idea that would help the country, but go against their parties "teachings"

[The Minor Countries]

*power

[Cerb]

I am aware of this booing incident and I have a few comments on it. Some which people might not like to hear so tough.

First off, the OP. It instantly points a finger at the "Tea Party". This is like pointing at a group of a few million people and saying "they are all bad!". That's rediculous. It's like being the entire class being held back because someone misbehaved and won't own up.

Radical views are held on both sides of the house, from liberal socialists to constitutional conservatives. The problem is that all of this hatred is driving a wedge into the mess and causing it to become increasingly polarized.

I've seen many liberals saying that anyone conservative is a facist and should be shot. I've seen them being called every name under the sun because their point of view is fundamentally different. The whole point of America is different points of view.

So a few idiots boo'd a gay soldier. What of it? I know a few liberals who'd boo a constitutional conservative. Is either point of view tolerant? Is either view "liberal"?
Of course not.

So I'll talk freely about my views on homosexuality in the military.
I for one, if I served, would not want to know that one of my squad members got all fired up in the shower room. Sorry but I don't appreciate someone peering at my meat and two veg with sexual appreciation when they are the same gender as me.

In civilian life I can avoid this situation. In the military I doubt I'm going to be allowed such privacy.

So certainly, a lot of conservatives, especially Christians, are not inclined to cheer a gay soldier. I'm not judging his preference, I'm saying I personally don't think it's appropriate to serve as any sexual preference in the military.

I don't care if they fight as well as anyone else. I know full well they are brave and fight as well as the man or woman next to them. That's irrelevant to me.

It is my belief that women and men don't share shower facilities and barracks rooms in the military. I might be wrong about that but I am more or less certain that I'm right.

Why is that, do you think?

If someone's going to be all turned on because they are showering with me, it's only fair I get to shower with someone who turns me on.

... right.

[The Minor Countries]

I partially agree. I don't care if gays fight in the military, makes no difference to me. If they want to fight for this country and lay down their life for us, then cheers to them. While I certainly wouldn't appreciate a guy coming on to me sexually, I highly doubt that if I say I'm not into that, that they aren't going to leave me alone.
I use the same argument with women in the military. I believe they should be allowed to fight, as long as they realize that no special treatment can be given to them. They wanted to join and fight, then they will be trained like any other. Obviously this doesn't mean they share showers or bunks, but that shouldn't stop the allowance of women fighting.

[Cerb]

I doubt they wouldn't leave you alone either. I shouldn't have to express that opinion when I'm doing my job though. It's also one of the only jobs that I can think of where you literally bunk and shower with each other.

I can imagine going to your CO and filing a sexual harassment suit because Private Smith admired your Private Johnson.

Sorry, couldn't resist the humor.

[Mutanatia]

I wasn't saying that the people in the room reflect the WHOLE party. What I'm saying is: it reflects poorly, and when people do stupid stuff like that, I think the candidates should step in and say, "No, that's not the way you look at things." For instance, booing a servicemember? I don't think that any of us here would happen to agree with that action. Questioning, maybe, saying they don't like the repal of DaDT, yeah sure. But actively BOOING? What I'm saying is, for either side (Republicans just happen to be spotlighted more) to BOO someone is the perfect time for a candidate to say (nicely): "No, you idiots, you're wrong. Do I necessarily agree with the policy? No. But do I want our party to be seen as racist and bigoted? Hell no. I know we're better than this."

That's pretty much all I'm asking for. Should a gay person be booed? No. You may totally disagree with them, but it is not okay in my mind to be viciously against them. If the Dems booed, say, George W. Bush (perfect example, no? ), I'd say they were just at fault. Point of the matter is: to actively (or passively) LET that hatred be shown is ridiculous.

As to Cerb's point: Absolutely agree. But at the same time, I doubt you and I would try to actively get said turned-on soldier expelled, especially if he's contributed to a number of missions and had everyone's back (Not in that way ). That's the difference here. As Joel Osteen said, I'm not going agree with you, but I'm not going to hate you either.Pperhaps the best plan is to say: "Look, I don't agree what's going on in the military. What I do know is, though, this man--gay or not--is a hero. And there's no way we should be booing soldiers. Is this really what we want to be known as? A party of booing servicemen? I think not. I think we can disagree with them, and can an should have that conversation, but at the end of the day, we shouldn't hate someone."

In no way, shape or form, are all Republicans racist. But as a candidate, not saying anything is just as bad as joining in on the verbal bullying of these people.

That's my point.

[Cerb]

Well here's the big point. It's not the speakers job to control the crowd. That's the job of the debate moderator. For any individual speaker it is essential that they address the questions rather than get involved in an unproductive argument with the minority.

The question is whether they listened to the question and responded appropriately.

That's the point. The moderator failed and if i had been asked a question I'd respond to that, not the idiot minority who aren't worth my time. That is my take on what happened but it backfired because of a media bias that wants to show things as they want them to be.

That's my take on that.

[Mutanatia]

So, then, why can they not say, "This is what I think: I think that people who serve in the military are absolute heroes. That's being said, there are a few things that I think can be changed in the military," and go from there. Point addressed. Candidate gets it. Go ahead and then say you think current policies are wrong. THat's simple. I think even Michelle Bachman would agree with that

And that is that (running out of ways to sign off here XD)

[Cerb]

Okay so I watched the video. I counted the voices. At most there were 3 seperate voices in what was clearly a crowd of people. One male led then another (and possibly a third) male voice joined in. Then the question was addressed specifically.

No, he didn't chide the couple of idiots in the crowd, nor should he. The question was asked and he responded with what he believed should happen.

Don't ask don't tell should be reinstated and it should apply to both hetero and ho sexual individuals and nobody should be punished for the actions that they have taken under the current policy being operated under the Obama administration.

Crowd boos... what nonsense. Listen carefully to the "crowd" that booed, and then listen to the "crowd" that cheered and you'll hear the difference.

I may not know much but I'm pretty good when it comes to listening.

They may have been booing the fact that he admitted he lied while in the service. I'd have booed that myself.

[Mutanatia]

Actually, you're right now that I think about it and flog my memory XD I also think that death STATISTICS shouldn't be applauded. If you want to applaud the penalty ITSELF, fine... but to applaud the fact that 200+ people have been put to death is pretty dark XD

Also, under DADT, you HAD to lie. THat's what it was repealed.

[Cerb]

That's the entire point. You never have to lie.
If you put yourself into a situation where you have to lie, then you only have yourself to blame.

[Mutanatia]

The rule with DADT, was simply, don't ask, don't tell, right? So, if someone asks if you are gay--first off, they were breaking the rule. Second off, if you were gay, you couldn't answer the question or else risk being thrown out of the military. That's the gist of it, I think. THe problem was that the military was so focused on keep homosexuals out, rather than worry about those who asked.

So... take what ethical stance on that as you will But I think that's what he means by lying >.>

[Cerb]

Someone asks. You female dog them out for asking.

That's why it's "Don't ask". Ergo, there is no call to lie.

If you "lie" then by implication someone asked. If you elected to lie rather than telling them to get bent, then it's your issue.

But we are wandering off track. The problem here is the media and a few radicals screwing the pooch and polarizing the nation. It's mostly because the economy is bad and both sides are trying to figure out how to fix it. Neither side is going to figure it out though because both sides are going to block each other.

The fact is that when the Democrats had control of both houses and the White House, they tried to spend their way out while focusing on a Health care reform which seems to have doubled medical premiums across the board.

So now we have every body shit scared because the sudden realization that artificially bolstering the economy didn't help. We now have to account for all that living on credit and about half the country is going "Woah, we need to cut spending before we're screwed." and the other half screaming "Tax the shit outa people like Buffet to pay for all the money we've wasted."

Neither solution is entirely practical, but I think reigning in government is a good start.

[The Minor Countries]

If u think about it, this thread should be called DADT,ALLOW OR NOT?
Lol that's the only issue we are talking bout. It's a big issue don't get me wrong, but there are other big differences between the parties.

[Pangaia]

Oh this is a very interesting topic to me. I am fed up with the two party system at times. I heard this line that somebody said was from Bill Clinton (Now I'm not a fan of his but the former president has this one right) and I paraphrase it "We have turned political ideology into political theology". This is true. Nobody wants to compromise, people don't want to meet the other half way, it has gripped our political system in turmoil, and I don't see it changing until we get people who know what a compromise is.

[Pangaia]

Also coming from California, I definitely want porportional representation, I think that would get some changes. The Two party primary system we have, well we will see how that one works. I am not expecting it to change anything really. Non-partisan, well, I don't know how that will work, because essentially the two party primary system got rid of the requirement to put down party affilitation. Its a mixed bag in my case. I would prefer repealing the two party, and going with Porportional Representation, not winner takes all, on a state level. The National Level is a bit more tricky. Just my thoughts, if any cares to rebuttle, please do so respectfully.

[Pangaia]

Oops I mean, Top Two...not two party....top two....

[Cerb]

About the only way you can satisfy the citizenry (and I doubt that'd work) is by holding a refferendum and going with a majority vote on every issue.

Which isn't going to happen in the US, and probably shouldn't.

[kuthim]

All they really have to do is meet in the middle every once in a while then eveyone will be better off.

[The Minor Countries]

True, but if it doesnt beneifts them, they dont like it. Whether it beneifts us or not doesnt matter to them

[Geilinor]

The Democrats and Republicans are holding progress and the country hostage. Politics are nothing but constant attacks now.