Political Contradictions

[Pieter]

I think for most people who have objections to the death penalty that it isn't so much the punishment itself, but the fact that our legal system is too flawed to implement it properly.

We know for a fact that there are innocent people in prison, and that innocent people have been put to death. Some would say that it's ok that a few innocent people died to get rid of the rest, but that's easy to say when it's not you or your loved ones being put to death.

And do you really mean you're "pro-abortion"? Most people would say they are pro-choice, and that abortion is a choice of last resort.

Pro-choice would've been a better choice of words... I'm cognizant that it tends to be a touchy subject. However, at the same time I must point out that while I appreciate the concept of it as a last resort, I do not personally have any qualms with where in the order of resorts it goes.

Does anyone have a number for the number of innocent that end up being executed? Preferably in more recent history.

[erooMynohtnA]

Christianity is not violent or racist. If you've studied The Bible as much as you claim that you have, you would know this to be true. On the other hand, the koran is full of violence, and calls for violence (ever hear of jihad?). Use some common sense.

I think you should look up the term jihad. I don't think it means what you think it means. Once you find out what it means, compare it to the English word crusade and a series of unfortunate events so named.

And yes, the Koran is full of violence, particularly the parts based on the old testament, but since it is the final word of God, as put forward by the Seal of the Prophets, it's ok.

I just praise the fact that God is so great that He has given the Koran to us as a true text to follow after the "Christian" heresy, the Bible.

[trickery dickery dock]

I think you should look up the term jihad. I don't think it means what you think it means. Once you find out what it means, compare it to the English word crusade and a series of unfortunate events so named.

And yes, the Koran is full of violence, particularly the parts based on the old testament, but since it is the final word of God, as put forward by the Seal of the Prophets, it's ok.

I just praise the fact that God is so great that He has given the Koran to us as a true text to follow after the "Christian" heresy, the Bible.

Are you also thankful that the muslim-in-chief about to release your brethren from jail?

allah is NOT God.

I would normally pray for your soul, however, I'm not sure that somebody living in a modern-day Sodom/Gomorrah with the last name "moor" would ever see the light.

[erooMynohtnA]

Are you also thankful that the muslim-in-chief about to release your brethren from jail?

I am very happy that justice is being meted, whether it is by charging them with crimes committed or dismissing the cases for lack of evidence.

allah is NOT God.

Correct, but Allah is God. It is the word that your Christian Arab brothers use.

I would normally pray for your soul, however, I'm not sure that somebody living in a modern-day Sodom/Gomorrah with the last name "moor" would ever see the light.

I think you're thinking of St Paul/Minneapolis. Madison it just one city. It's ok, counting is hard, and it's probably not part of your core curriculum.

[trickery dickery dock]

I am very happy that justice is being meted, whether it is by charging them with crimes committed or dismissing the cases for lack of evidence.


Correct, but Allah is God. It is the word that your Christian Arab brothers use.


I think you're thinking of St Paul/Minneapolis. Madison it just one city. It's ok, counting is hard, and it's probably not part of your core curriculum.

They are not my brothers, because allah is not God, and I am not an Arab.

It wasn't a matter of numbers, it was a matter of morals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't madison notorious for being a liberal-infested hellhole?

[erooMynohtnA]

They are not my brothers, because allah is not God, and I am not an Arab.

Capitalization is everything.

It wasn't a matter of numbers, it was a matter of morals.

I thought theology counted for English credits.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't madison notorious for being a liberal-infested hellhole?

Define notorious.

[Hauptman]

They are not my brothers, because allah is not God, and I am not an Arab.

It wasn't a matter of numbers, it was a matter of morals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't madison notorious for being a liberal-infested hellhole?

Wait... now I'm confused.... from what you've said before, wouldn't "liberal.. hellhole" be redundant?

[I_luv_saber]

Finally, I see an obstuctionist attitude from the right as well. Under Reagan we saw the Reagan Democrats who voted with him on many occasions. Similarly, Democrats cooperated extensively with the G.W. Bush throughout most of his first term; not on all issues of course but there was significant cooperation.

I give credit to Newt Gingrich in that he and Clinton hammered out quite a few effective compromises and accomplished quite a bit toghether. But since Gingrich it seems as though the Republicans in Washington would rather continuously vote no than support a Democratic President under any circumstances.

While I agree that Republicans are being obstructionist, I think to say the Democrats were cooperative with Bush is a bit of a stretch. This atmosphere has been around a lot longer than the Republicans have been blocking. I think neither party can be blamed for not cooperating, by themselves. Both parties are guilty of it and will continue to be until something is done (and by that, I mean people start caring and doing something).

(sometimes the old Greek idea of having public servants being publicly owned slaves seems soooo appealing! Less cooperation and usefulness means more whipping! )

While I tend to disagree with Obama's policies (while finding some of the ideas he's putting forth good to the point of necessary), I can certainly appreciate the attitude he's trying to spread among the people. My hope is that this attitude will permeate party lines, and we'll keep this attitude as neither a Democratic or Republican thing. Then we can start ridding ourselves of this bipolarity.

Although that's what I hope, my fear is that from the bad Bush years, Democrats simply will no longer put up with anything Republican, and we have yet to see even more fierce attitudes from the left against the right.

[Hauptman]

While I agree that Republicans are being obstructionist, I think to say the Democrats were cooperative with Bush is a bit of a stretch. This atmosphere has been around a lot longer than the Republicans have been blocking. I think neither party can be blamed for not cooperating, by themselves. Both parties are guilty of it and will continue to be until something is done (and by that, I mean people start caring and doing something).

While certainly they are all politicians, and have much in common, I think it's a mistake to say the two parties are just alike; a similar argument comes into comparing men and women.

That's why I specifically pointed out positive examples from both parties. Gingrich certainly wasn't cooperative with Clinton so much as he had a particular goal in mind and stuck to it. If Clinton was willing to move in the same direction then agreement was reached.

Certainly the Democrats didn't support G.W. Bush, but when Bush put forward something they agreed with, they voted for it. The obstructionist position is to say "no" to everything the other side proposes with no clear legislative goals in mind.

As much as I disagree with Gingrich on many points, he had clear philosophical ideas that shaped his legislative agenda just as Obama does now. Unfortunately, Gingrich was pushed out more by the power brokers in his own party, and he should never have let that impeachment debacle go forward.

I don't suggest at all that Democrats have never been obstructionist, and clearly pointed out examples of smart Republican leadership. BUT in recent years, I see significantly more useless, hypocritical, obstructionist positions from Republicans. Which could explain their recent election results.

The next question is when will the Republicans acknowledge this?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Back to the topic of political contradictions: I have always thought that it is thoughtless or hypocritical to be in favor of the capital punishment, while considering corporal punishment unethical/barbaric/bad.

Some massive snippage by me below:

While I agree that Republicans are being obstructionist, SNIP This atmosphere has been around a lot longer than the Republicans have been blocking. I think neither party can be blamed for not cooperating, by themselves. Both parties are guilty of it and will continue to be until something is done (and by that, I mean people start caring and doing something).
SNIP
Then we can start ridding ourselves of this bipolarity.

Although that's what I hope, my fear is that from the bad Bush years, Democrats simply will no longer put up with anything Republican, and we have yet to see even more fierce attitudes from the left against the right.

Major problem: The US. voting system with one-seat constituencies and winner-takes-all system practically ensures a two-party system (Duverger´s Law). In a two-party system, there is little to be gained in the short perspective to be accomodating to the views of the other side, and much to be lost. Politicians want to survive the nest nomination/election, so we are stuck with a trench war.

The only thinkable way out is to overhaul the voting system, so that voters have several viable options, and only very rarely have to think in the terms of voting for the least bad option. With a multi-party system and very few noncompetitive voting districts, many of the ills peculiar to USA (and to a lesser degree other countries with the old Bristish system as a template) will disappear or become much less prevalent. A lot of americans think that the money needed to get elected is the root of the problem, but that is barking up the wrong tree IMNSHO. With nearly any other system than the current money will be less of a decider, and getting through the media stream will be more useful. If the voting system demands that voters must rank more than one candidate, and rank them all, then that will help alot also.

It can be proved that there is no perfect voting system - look up Arrow´s theorem, Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem etc. if you do not believe me. OTOH, it can be proved that various voting systems have different amount of faults, and that the present one is one of the very worst ones around.

Get the voting system right, and quit blaming people for doing what is in their own best interest. If the voting system is fixed, cooperation - when it is in the best interest of the nation - will become common, simply because it satisfies the best interest of the politician to be re-elected.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Hauptman]

While we do have a two-party system, I think a better perspective would be to call it a two coalition system. This makes it easier to compare to Europe where you see multiple parties, but generally two established coalitions.

There are many sub-groups of interests/voters within each party here in the U.S., and while some are firmly entrenched with one party, some do move their support back and forth between the two.

[I_luv_saber]

While certainly they are all politicians, and have much in common, I think it's a mistake to say the two parties are just alike; a similar argument comes into comparing men and women.

I don't mean to say the two parties are alike. In many ways they are very different. But we do need to keep in mind, they all do share one likeness... they are politicians! And while that does not make them the same, it does give them similar qualities.

Certainly the Democrats didn't support G.W. Bush, but when Bush put forward something they agreed with, they voted for it. The obstructionist position is to say "no" to everything the other side proposes with no clear legislative goals in mind.

I think the point is, there isn't much that is being put forth that they agree with. One could argue that the Dems are being just as snotty as the Reps as far as "playing nicely" goes.

I dunno, personally, I see them both as equally guilty in this atmosphere. If the Republicans are being more obstructionist it's marginally.

I don't suggest at all that Democrats have never been obstructionist, and clearly pointed out examples of smart Republican leadership. BUT in recent years, I see significantly more useless, hypocritical, obstructionist positions from Republicans. Which could explain their recent election results.

My point was, while it does seem the Republicans are doing this somewhat more than the Democrats, it's not by a very large margin.

Plus, right or wrong, for many Republicans, the Obama election hurt a lot. Hopefully they'll stop pouting after they realize they're stuck with him for awhile.

The next question is when will the Republicans acknowledge this?

In short: Never.

[I_luv_saber]

Hi!
Some massive snippage by me below:

The problem being, I think that snippage is related to the subject at hand... you'll see below what I mean.

A lot of americans think that the money needed to get elected is the root of the problem, but that is barking up the wrong tree IMNSHO.

While I do agree we need to rethink our current voting system, I think the money will be more a decider than you think. Whether it's the money needed to get elected, the unethical fundraising (and the even more unethical spending of money from fundraisers), or the strong lobbyists, I think it leads to a lot of problems here. Follow the money and you start to see a lot going on that shouldn't be.

I like the idea that politicians should be forced to wear patches on their jacket representing who's "sponsoring" them, like the NASCAR drivers .

With nearly any other system than the current money will be less of a decider, and getting through the media stream will be more useful. If the voting system demands that voters must rank more than one candidate, and rank them all, then that will help alot also.

I don;t think money will lose as much importance as you think, but my hope would be, for a multi-party system, is that we'd see less bipartisanship in the culture. When there's 6 parties, it's a little harder to say "with us or against us" than a two party system.

Get the voting system right, and quit blaming people for doing what is in their own best interest.

If by people you mean the politicians, no thanks. Regardless of the voting system, there needs to be better, more straightforward laws in place to keep them from abusing the system and hold corruption to a minimum. The voting system will not fix this, it will simply help.


While I certainly agree our voting system is broken and badly needs to be fixed, I reject the idea that doing so will fix all of our problems.

Really, just about all of our problems come down to one thing: Americans have stopped caring. There are not enough Americans out there who care about what's going on in their country, or really care for anything beyond what's on TV Friday night. This is more of a cultural problem than a political one.

Which is why I find the part you snipped out of my post relevant, if not the most relevant, to the current subject. While I disagree with some of the things Obama did/wants to do, I appreciate the fact he's trying to get Americans to care about their country again. Because, bottom line, no matter how good of a voting system you have, if people don't care, it won't work right.

I've stated before my position of how I believe Obama was elected and about that campaign. But, regardless, I think it showed people are starting to care. People are starting to realize again that they can make a difference and their involvement matters. Hopefully we're moving out of this "trench warfare" we're caught in.

(Also, when people do really start to care again, if the parties do not fix this hostile atmosphere they've developed, I think we'll start to see the people demanding changes of some sort, whether it be party reforms, or voting reforms)

Regardless though, I do agree that the voting system itself causes many problems and needs to be fixed. There's better systems out there.