How do you see the opposition?

[Baruch Menachem]

Rdean made an interesting thread. Not so much for what it tells us about about the topic at hand, as much as it tells us about Rdean.

He seems to feel all employers are Republican, that they hire only like minded people, that they are easlity manipulated, lazy, and cheap. His head holds so many contradictory opinions that it is a miracle he has only one head to hold them all.

I am not going to go on a tear against him, as he is representative of a problem on both sides. My own views are not a lot better. I see many Democrats as petty spiteful folks who are more interested in kicking people down a peg and getting revenge for others good fortune than in making things better for people generally. Those who are not like this are dreamy folks who have too rosy a view of human nature, and either excuse or facilitate bad things happening because they don't understand the animal they are dealing with. Much as someone who thinks wolves are cute and cuddly and would be happy with a vegan diet. This won't work either. (Not to say Humans are wolves, but folks who ignore the fact that we are, in terms of the food chain, part of the predators level are missing important facts that cause big problems for good understanding)

I think most of the folks I deal with here are honestly obtuse. There are those who are cluless, but I give them a pass. I don't know everything either. There do seem to be a few here that need to see a pshrink. They are generally on ignore.

Anyway, Do you think of people you disagree with as fools, honestly misguided, knaves, venial, or how? Do you regard them as honestly misguided, or twisted souls using politics as a way of relieving their own psychological distress?

 

[uscitizen]

Prople of similiar mental dispositions tend to gather in groups.
then they often set goals of making everyone lese just like them.

 

[Jarhead]

Rdean made an interesting thread. Not so much for what it tells us about about the topic at hand, as much as it tells us about Rdean.

He seems to feel all employers are Republican, that they hire only like minded people, that they are easlity manipulated, lazy, and cheap. His head holds so many contradictory opinions that it is a miracle he has only one head to hold them all.

I am not going to go on a tear against him, as he is representative of a problem on both sides. My own views are not a lot better. I see many Democrats as petty spiteful folks who are more interested in kicking people down a peg and getting revenge for others good fortune than in making things better for people generally. Those who are not like this are dreamy folks who have too rosy a view of human nature, and either excuse or facilitate bad things happening because they don't understand the animal they are dealing with. Much as someone who thinks wolves are cute and cuddly and would be happy with a vegan diet. This won't work either. (Not to say Humans are wolves, but folks who ignore the fact that we are, in terms of the food chain, part of the predators level are missing important facts that cause big problems for good understanding)

I think most of the folks I deal with here are honestly obtuse. There are those who are cluless, but I give them a pass. I don't know everything either. There do seem to be a few here that need to see a pshrink. They are generally on ignore.

Anyway, Do you think of people you disagree with as fools, honestly misguided, knaves, venial, or how? Do you regard them as honestly misguided, or twisted souls using politics as a way of relieving their own psychological distress?

Putting aside those that are obviously partisan fools of both sides, I see those with differening views than mine as teachers and students all in one. I have a lot to learn from them just as they have a lot to learn from me.

I am a conservative who believes all have the right to live as they wish. Knowing why they wish to live as they do helps me as a neighbor, employer, copmmunity participant and American citizen. I have no anger to their views. Just curiosity.

Afterall, who am I to say my way is right for anyone else?

 

[FrankieGA]

I honestly feel that most people on this site that claim to be Democrat are truly spiteful. If you don't agree with what is currently going on you are automatically labeled a Republican. Many don't realize that there is a distinct difference between Conservative and Republicans. Yes you can have the mix on either side of the aisle.

But the same does indeed go for the other side as well. Most that bash Bush or consider the Tea Party movement ugly immediately are labeled a Liberal Democrat.

Fact is there are some serious issues going on in government that need to be addressed by both sides of the aisle. Enough is Enough. And as long as the American People stay divided in the issues and not divided on how the process is completed the longer we will stay where we are at. People need to wake up, take a look in the mirror. Do some research, search for the answers. We are not going to agree on everything, but we certainly can agree and comprimise on most things.

 

[txlonghorn]

wow...I don't think I can answer your question with just one of the choices. As you said, some are obtuse, some are misguided and, let's face it, some are just here to spew hate. What's interesting is, that sometimes, during a debate, arguement, name-calling session, or whatever is going on between the regulars here, I bump into a line of thinking that makes me stop and analyze my own thought process. If you are open to other positions and are willing to consider alternate opinions, you can gain from it.

Its fun to see all the different mindsets displayed here. There are some real thinkers here...and then there are some real non-thinkers too.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not proud to be a Republican, but for me right now, it is better than being a Democrat, and if you don't belong to one or the other in New Mexico, you have little chance to contribute to the process at the primary level.

I don't condemn all Democrats in my mind because I have too many friends, colleagues, business contacts, family, and neighbors who are Democrats and who are very good people as I also have many friends, colleagues, business contacts, family, and neighbors who are Republican. And there are scoundrels in both parties.

Allowing for exceptions of some liberal Republicans and some conservative Democrats, however, I think there are otherwise deep philosophical differences between the American right and American left as reflected in the two major parties.

Democrats tend to have much less appreciation for tradition or traditional values, the Founders' intent with the U.S. Constitution, or a concept of God given unalienable rights. If it is Democrats in power, they tend to put trust and confidence in big government to solve social and economic problems and support mandatory participation in whatever elected leaders choose as solutions to those problems.

Republicans tend to have much more appreciation for tradition and traditional values, are more likely to support and apprecaite the Founders' intent with the U.S. Constitution, and fiercely defend the concept of God given unalienable rights. Regardless of who is in power, Republicans put little confidence in government to solve social and economic problems and resent mandatory participating in whatever elected leaders choose as solutions to those problems.

Democrats see the people as a single organism to be directed en masse.

Republicans see the people as indviduals with unalienable rights that are to be restricted as little as can be accomplished while remaining a people governed by laws.

 

[Modbert]

My opposition is those on both sides who like to keep the IQ of this country down another twenty points and those who are simply trying to create violence in one way or another.

Although I hate to say it and I wish I never did, there are a good number of people in this country and probably on this board who cheer daily when the unemployment numbers go up or the war doesn't go well. Why? They want to see the President and Congress fail, and be booted out of office.

But before some decide to kick, scream, cry, and flip out. There were sure a fair amount of people on the left who did the same thing when Bush was in office.

We should all strive for a better nation, not one that is divided against itself.

 

[Modbert]

Democrats tend to have much less appreciation for tradition or traditional values, the Founders' intent with the U.S. Constitution, or a concept of God given unalienable rights.

This is my point about the twenty IQ points folks.

Do you know the Founders intent with the U.S. Constitution? Unless you were alive then, nobody truly knows. It's all a guessing game, and anyone can shift it so it looks like they are being traditional.

Also, there are no God given unalienable rights. Let me repeat that.

There are no God given unalienable rights.

Because unless public figures are now suddenly more powerful than God, there would of been no slavery in the first place.

Rights are a figment of our imagination, make believe things we wish we had but we truly don't. If you think you have rights, you have bought into the idea that these "freedoms" you think you have cannot be taken away at any time. You'd be wrong. Rights aren't rights if they can be taken away.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkSFIWzi7aA]YouTube - What Is Best In Life.[/ame]

 

[FrankieGA]

Dogbert, And here is how the fighting starts. Maybe listening and taking it in before you quickly jump to bash someone else's point of view would help you understand the thought of the other side. This is exactly what is happeining in this country daily! People from both sides rushing to give their opinion before thinking about it. Fact is, there are a TON of written documents from the founding fathers that go into great detail on how they felt and what they thought. Maybe take a minute and read a biography of any of the founding fathers and then come back to debate it what they "Thought" was best for this country.

Don't be so quick to jump to an argument, this thread was started to voice how you see each side, not to start a war of words over who was right and who was wrong.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

We do know a lot about these guys. They wrote like crazy, a lot of them. And we have their arguments at the time from the papers they left. We know a lot, but the past really is a different country and there are so many assumptions we make that are different from the assumptions they made that trying to get too deep in their minds beyond broad strokes of fundi basis is kind of hard.

 

[Foxfyre]

Democrats tend to have much less appreciation for tradition or traditional values, the Founders' intent with the U.S. Constitution, or a concept of God given unalienable rights.

This is my point about the twenty IQ points folks.

Do you know the Founders intent with the U.S. Constitution? Unless you were alive then, nobody truly knows. It's all a guessing game, and anyone can shift it so it looks like they are being traditional.

Also, there are no God given unalienable rights. Let me repeat that.

There are no God given unalienable rights.

Because unless public figures are now suddenly more powerful than God, there would of been no slavery in the first place.

Rights are a figment of our imagination, make believe things we wish we had but we truly don't. If you think you have rights, you have bought into the idea that these "freedoms" you think you have cannot be taken away at any time. You'd be wrong. Rights aren't rights if they can be taken away.

The Founders left behind a huge pile of documents describing, defending, and explaining their intent with the Constitution. A good education used to include a good grounding in those documents, but I allow for you being educated under modern liberal public education so of course you have probably not even been advised of those documents, much less exposed to their content.

And the Founders, every single one of them, supported the principle of God-given unalienable rights and every one of the 50 state Constititutions also refers to and defends that principle. You probably haven't been advised of that either.

The fact that you, yet again, bring the non sequitur of slavery into the process just makes you consistently focused on that non sequiture.

And I think that the fact that you say you don't believe in rights and individual liberties does make you a very good liberal Democrat however.

 

[Modbert]

Dogbert, And here is how the fighting starts. Maybe listening and taking it in before you quickly jump to bash someone else's point of view would help you understand the thought of the other side. This is exactly what is happeining in this country daily! People from both sides rushing to give their opinion before thinking about it. Fact is, there are a TON of written documents from the founding fathers that go into great detail on how they felt and what they thought. Maybe take a minute and read a biography of any of the founding fathers and then come back to debate it what they "Thought" was best for this country.

Don't be so quick to jump to an argument, this thread was started to voice how you see each side, not to start a war of words over who was right and who was wrong.

Except you don't know me. You think this is the first time I've heard Foxfyre spew this. She is what I consider to be the Republican version of Rdean.

Debating what the Founders thought was best for this country and saying you know is two different things. Foxfyre thinks that Republicans do know, Democrats don't. Which is pure ignorance.

I'm not starting a war of words either to see who's right and wrong. I'm simply saying what is fucking stupid.

You also seem to fail to realize that certain people take certain documents to make it look like the Founders thought a certain way. In reality, we can only guess. Anyone telling you they directly know is bullshitting you unless they suddenly got bodies and rose from the dead.

 

[Modbert]

We do know a lot about these guys. They wrote like crazy, a lot of them. And we have their arguments at the time from the papers they left. We know a lot, but the past really is a different country and there are so many assumptions we make that are different from the assumptions they made that trying to get too deep in their minds beyond broad strokes of fundi basis is kind of hard.

And this is my point. Does anyone think the Founders could imagine submachine guns? Cars? Or how about drugs like cocaine?

 

[Modbert]

The Founders left behind a huge pile of documents describing, defending, and explaining their intent with the Constitution. A good education used to include a good grounding in those documents, but I allow for you being educated under modern liberal public education so of course you have probably not even been advised of those documents, much less exposed to their content.

And the Founders, every single one of them, supported the principle of God-given unalienable rights and every one of the 50 state Constititutions also refers to and defends that principle. You probably haven't been advised of that either.

The fact that you, yet again, bring the non sequitur of slavery into the process just makes you consistently ignorant, but its no biggie.

The fact that you don't believe in rights and individual liberties does make you a very good liberal Democrat however.

Find me where the Founders put God in the Constitution, and then I might start believing your bullshit.

Then you attack me because I learned at a public school. What kind of elitist bullshit is that? I find it ironically you go after Obama for what exactly type of person you are. I know all about the documents thanks.

I'm telling you reality. The founders were not immune from pure hypocrisy. When they were preaching unalienable God given rights, they had slaves. So go get a history book and read up.

I never said anything about individual liberties, now you're misframing my argument. I said that rights don't exist, since rights are things that cannot be taken away. You go and tell the people who got interned during WWII that their rights weren't taken away.

 

[Foxfyre]

We do know a lot about these guys. They wrote like crazy, a lot of them. And we have their arguments at the time from the papers they left. We know a lot, but the past really is a different country and there are so many assumptions we make that are different from the assumptions they made that trying to get too deep in their minds beyond broad strokes of fundi basis is kind of hard.

And this is my point. Does anyone think the Founders could imagine submachine guns? Cars? Or how about drugs like cocaine?

But how in the world does that relate to unalienable rights or the principle of the role of government being to secure those rights? If the bad guys have more resources to be bad, so do the good guys have more resources to be good.

And the principle remains unaffected and just as valid as it has ever been.

 

[FrankieGA]

Dogbert, And here is how the fighting starts. Maybe listening and taking it in before you quickly jump to bash someone else's point of view would help you understand the thought of the other side. This is exactly what is happeining in this country daily! People from both sides rushing to give their opinion before thinking about it. Fact is, there are a TON of written documents from the founding fathers that go into great detail on how they felt and what they thought. Maybe take a minute and read a biography of any of the founding fathers and then come back to debate it what they "Thought" was best for this country.

Don't be so quick to jump to an argument, this thread was started to voice how you see each side, not to start a war of words over who was right and who was wrong.

Except you don't know me. You think this is the first time I've heard Foxfyre spew this. She is what I consider to be the Republican version of Rdean.

Debating what the Founders thought was best for this country and saying you know is two different things. Foxfyre thinks that Republicans do know, Democrats don't. Which is pure ignorance.

I'm not starting a war of words either to see who's right and wrong. I'm simply saying what is fucking stupid.

You also seem to fail to realize that certain people take certain documents to make it look like the Founders thought a certain way. In reality, we can only guess. Anyone telling you they directly know is bullshitting you unless they suddenly got bodies and rose from the dead.

If you read the documents that they wrote in their own words, sure they may have been reprinted or typed for easier reading, how can you say you are just guessing what they may have meant. When it is there in plain writing in their own words. If that is the case I could look at everything POTUS Obama has said and put my own spin on it. I don't, because I take his words and digest them into trying to understand what he is thinking. Just as I have done for anything. If you read Napoleon's memoirs, are you to suggest that he didn't wan to conquer the modern world? Because he did, his views were paramount for his time, and quite disturbing if you took the time to read them.

My point is, the Founding Fathers made sure their beliefs were written and documented for generations to come, so that we would all understand what the new experiment called the United States stood for against the Typical Governments found in Europe.

 

[saveliberty]

I see them like my family. The oldest daughter is very independent and asks good questions. Tends toward the conservative, but has some good points on her more liberal issues. The middle daughter is the peacemaker. She often doesn't know the issues and is mostly just interested in the people she knows. Went to Haiti two years ago and will probably return this summer. The youngest knows the issues and has an opinion at the ready. Most conservative of the lot.

None of them are spiteful, ignorant or hateful. Although, on any given day they can fight like cats and dogs. Sound like anyone here?

 

[Modbert]

If you read the documents that they wrote in their own words, sure they may have been reprinted or typed for easier reading, how can you say you are just guessing what they may have meant. When it is there in plain writing in their own words. If that is the case I could look at everything POTUS Obama has said and put my own spin on it. I don't, because I take his words and digest them into trying to understand what he is thinking. Just as I have done for anything. If you read Napoleon's memoirs, are you to suggest that he didn't wan to conquer the modern world? Because he did, his views were paramount for his time, and quite disturbing if you took the time to read them.

My point is, the Founding Fathers made sure their beliefs were written and documented for generations to come, so that we would all understand what the new experiment called the United States stood for against the Typical Governments found in Europe.

You're being a bit dishonest in your first part of your post. With the Napoleon example, that's history. That's not trying to say what someone who's been dead for over 200 years would believe today in 2010.

As for your second, which I bolded. What do you mean typical governments found in Europe? If you mean in the late 1700's, you would be correct. If you mean in 2010, you'd be dead wrong.

 

[kwc57]

I see the "opposition" as fellow Americans with a different way of seeing and doing things more than I see them as "opposition". The us and them, good guy vs villian thing is extremely counterproductive. I'm not much of one for talk radio. About the only talker I can appreciate is Neal Boortz. Perhaps because he is truly libertarian as opposed to just paying lip service to it like the folks who have carried the GOP water for years and conveniently are now "conservative" over being Republican. I think it was on Boortz day before yesterday when a caller asked and he stupidly agreed that the 48% who pay no taxes in the US are all Democrats. Always, never, all, they, etc. are terms to be avoided. People are people and it is hard to pigeon hole them. There are 2nd amendment folks on both sides of the aisle as well as pro-choice and pro-life on both sides.

Perhaps viewing our brothers and neighbors as "opposition" is part of the problem in this nation rather than part of the solution.