Well it's that time again..

[garyd]

More idiots acting as if the partisan divide is the problem rather than the issue upon which that divide occurs.

We have a partisan divide largely because we have people with a very different views of where the country needs to go. Everyone here is a partisan of a certain set of ideas though scarcely the same set of ideas and there isn't a damn thing wrong with that. But the notion that there is some sort of nebulous middle ground on every issue is completely absurd and even where there may be a middle ground of sorts that middle ground may represent no improvement to the status quo. And if it isn't going to improve things why bother?

Some examples :

We should eat 5 lbs of crap a day. We should eat 0lbs of crap a day. Do you really want to compromise somwhere in the middle?

 

[RadiomanATL]

What ime is it again?

Miller ime!!

 

[rightwinger]

What the hell are you talking about?

What do I care what you had for dinner?

 

[garyd]

Good job rightwinger but then I didn't really expect you'd have a clue.

 

[Diuretic]

More idiots acting as if the partisan divide is the problem rather than the issue upon which that divide occurs.

We have a partisan divide largely because we have people with a very different views of where the country needs to go. Everyone here is a partisan of a certain set of ideas though scarcely the same set of ideas and there isn't a damn thing wrong with that. But the notion that there is some sort of nebulous middle ground on every issue is completely absurd and even where there may be a middle ground of sorts that middle ground may represent no improvement to the status quo. And if it isn't going to improve things why bother?

Some examples :

We should eat 5 lbs of crap a day. We should eat 0lbs of crap a day. Do you really want to compromise somwhere in the middle?

Theoretically it's possible to argue ideas and then reach a new position - the old dialectical model of thesis/antithesis-synthesis which then becomes a new thesis.

But in practice it's a numbers game and those with the numbers win.

 

[JakeStarkey]

More idiots acting as if the partisan divide is the problem rather than the issue upon which that divide occurs.

We have a partisan divide largely because we have people with a very different views of where the country needs to go. Everyone here is a partisan of a certain set of ideas though scarcely the same set of ideas and there isn't a damn thing wrong with that. But the notion that there is some sort of nebulous middle ground on every issue is completely absurd and even where there may be a middle ground of sorts that middle ground may represent no improvement to the status quo. And if it isn't going to improve things why bother?

Some examples :

We should eat 5 lbs of crap a day. We should eat 0lbs of crap a day. Do you really want to compromise somwhere in the middle?

What a silly point. If you are going to make it, garyd, at least support it convincingly.

 

[garyd]

Theoretically yes however positions that are diametrically opposed often have no significant middle ground that anyone on either side would find acceptable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To suggest that the political philosophy of the two-party system cannot generate significant middle ground is going to require particulars. From the beginning (think the 1st U.S. Bank and the siting of the nation's capitol on the Potomac), American politicians have been doing exactly that. The most spectacular failure was the South's refusal to accept the constitutional process in the aftermath of the election of 1860. I, for one, will generally try to find the middle ground.

 

[Diuretic]

Theoretically yes however positions that are diametrically opposed often have no significant middle ground that anyone on either side would find acceptable.

That's true if the search were for compromise.

 

[dilloduck]

power --not progress

 

[rightwinger]

Theoretically yes however positions that are diametrically opposed often have no significant middle ground that anyone on either side would find acceptable.

Care to give a legitimate example?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I suspect that garyd is rethinking his position.

 

[rightwinger]

I suspect that garyd is rethinking his position.

I doubt if he ever really had one

 

[garyd]

I have my doubts that you and Jay could understand my position if I use any words with more than 2 syllables.

None the less you have asked for an example so I will give you one.

On the Subject of Abortion the overwhelming Majority of people coalesce about one of two points. Abortion permitted only in the case of rape, incest or threat to the mothers life and health and abortion anywhere at anytime. Neither of these groups are willing to move in the direction of the other even by the smallest amount. There for a compromise position somewhere in the middle will please neither.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let you in on a secret, garyd. That majority is about 55 to 58% (not overwhelming), and it fluctuates up and down. The far reactionary wingnut (no abortions) and the the far left wingnut (any abortion anytime) are far, far smaller. Thus, the compromise position, the centrist position, is that Roe v. Wade will not be overturned by John Roberts Supreme Court. In this case, the centrist position has been the correct position.

 

[garyd]

sorry joe the majority about sixty odd percent or more coalesce about those two points. In fact close to 80 percent fall into one of those two position with the ovewhelming majority in the former.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Close to your eighty percent. Not bad! Shows that the left and the center coalesced, minimalizing the right. That means that Roe v. Wade is safe for the meantime.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Oct. 22-25, 2009. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"Which of the following best represents your views about abortion? The choice on abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor. Abortion should be legal only in cases in which pregnancy results from rape or incest or when the life of the woman is at risk. OR, Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances."

Woman and Doctor Rape,Incest,Life of Woman Always Illegal Unsure

10/22-25/09 51 31 15 3
5/12-16/05 55 29 14 2
11/03 53 29 15 3
1/03 59 29 9 3
1/97 60 26 11 3

Get even more from http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

 

[rightwinger]

I have my doubts that you and Jay could understand my position if I use any words with more than 2 syllables.

None the less you have asked for an example so I will give you one.

On the Subject of Abortion the overwhelming Majority of people coalesce about one of two points. Abortion permitted only in the case of rape, incest or threat to the mothers life and health and abortion anywhere at anytime. Neither of these groups are willing to move in the direction of the other even by the smallest amount. There for a compromise position somewhere in the middle will please neither.

The middle ground is reducing the need for abortion

Birth control, sex ed, free neonatal care, assistence for single mothers all reduce the need for abortion

 

[PatekPhilippe]

To suggest that the political philosophy of the two-party system cannot generate significant middle ground is going to require particulars. From the beginning (think the 1st U.S. Bank and the siting of the nation's capitol on the Potomac), American politicians have been doing exactly that. The most spectacular failure was the South's refusal to accept the constitutional process in the aftermath of the election of 1860. I, for one, will generally try to find the middle ground.

Oh yes....all of your posts are evidence of that...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The mainstream of America generally embraces my positions and rejects yours, as the electorate did in the last national elections. Until the palinistas, the tea baggers, etc., are willing to adopt mainstream, 21st century American principles, you will continue to remain in the vastly diminishing minority.