All liberals this, all conservatives that....

[yeartolate]

Is it just me, or do other posters have little respect for folks who lump all members of a party into one single borg brain. (sorry for the Star Trek reference).

The fact that so many Americans are centrists speaks to the fact that most do not follow one particular ideology strictly - so "all this and that" is intentionally devisive and incorrect.

When I see "all Dems" or "all Republicans" all that I really read is "blah blah blah blah".


Just my humble opinion.

 

[cardaway]

I blame the internet. From what I have seen, the most vocal are the ones on the extremes on both sides.

My recent "we're doomed" feeling came when I was reading the SCOTUS nomination crap. Proof positive that some people are out to divide everybody. Everything goes from "they work for the people" and "make the right decisions" to "they better support the party" or "they are responsible to the people who elected them" with the flick of a switch.

In fact I doubt we will ever see another national decision based on what's in the best interest for "all" people. I would be happy to see a national election campaign based on what a candidate has to offer rather than the here is why you shouldn't vote for the other person deal.

 

[2funny2c]

How do you propose that a decision that is made is best for "all" people?

Does such a thing exist?

Very idealistic.

 

[cardaway]

How do you propose that a decision that is made is best for "all" people?

Does such a thing exist?

Very idealistic.

Maybe so, but the extreme opposite is what we are currently seeing more often than not. Decisions that are clearly made to serve a small minority. Decisions made not for the whole country, but to satisfy an agenda.

Even if we can't get all the way there, we can come a lot closer.

 

[crcormier]

I blame the media and the politicians. They all do it, Rush, Al Franken, the congresspeople, the administration, it's all one side or the other. Sad really, because there are some republican politicians I really like, but being a democrat I get lumped. I try not to do it, but exchanges get so heated it's hard not to take a side sometimes.

 

[AllyandJack]

I agree.....sometimes elected officials fail to realize a few key things. Mainly that, just because they have a D or an R after their names doesn't mean they have to hold hard and true to everything that party historically supported. Also, they represent us. They're entitled to their personal opinions, but they are not there to cast votes that impose their view on the rest of us. They might be a Republican and the majority of their constituents might be for less taxation, but they might also be Pro-Choice.

Just because you believe in something that is, traditionally, part of the Republican party's vision or the Democratic party's vision doesn't mean you believe it ALL. Fine, if you do, but don't call me a Right Wing Religious Neo-Con because I don't want socialized medicine. I'm not religious. I'm Pro-Choice. I'm all for gay marriage and gay parenting/adoption. I'm hardly a Right Wing Religious Neo-Con. People should take that into account when debtating, arguing or hurling insults.

 

[yeartolate]

I blame the media and the politicians. They all do it, Rush, Al Franken, the congresspeople, the administration, it's all one side or the other. Sad really, because there are some republican politicians I really like, but being a democrat I get lumped. I try not to do it, but exchanges get so heated it's hard not to take a side sometimes.

HEck, why even go to the media and politicians....it happens on the disboard every day!

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I blame the internet. From what I have seen, the most vocal are the ones on the extremes on both sides.

Add to this the numerous talking heads (from BOTH sides) who try to make either "Democrat" or "Republican", "liberal" or "conservative" synonymous with pure unadulterated evil and those who hold or espouse the opposite view to the talking head are simply plotting to bring about an apocalypse. All this "doom and gloom" that the other side is going to visit on our heads, our children's heads and their children's childrens heads is getting beyond tiresome. As are the predictions of the opposing side's eventual demise as a major political force in this country.

We've allowed people to create all kinds of new "boogeymen" to scare those who are unable or unwilling to think for themselves into towing a specific party line or parroting specific party talking points.

I suppose it's easier to paint with a broad brush because then you don't have to provide specific examples of the "evils" the other side will visit on everyone else. Like in horror movies, they know the monster you can't see is way more scarier than the one you can see.

 

[Disney Doll]

When I see "all Dems" or "all Republicans" all that I really read is "blah blah blah blah".


Just my humble opinion.

I agree with your humble opinion. Painting with a broad brush, stereotyping...it shows ignorance and nothing else.

 

[cardaway]

Add to this the numerous talking heads (from BOTH sides) who try to make either "Democrat" or "Republican", "liberal" or "conservative" synonymous with pure unadulterated evil and those who hold or espouse the opposite view to the talking head are simply plotting to bring about an apocalypse.

Video killed the radio star and the internet killed true journalism...

Can't take your time to check your facts and the story straight. You must be first, and if not first, top the one before you.

Can't be unbiased. Bias sells, and since you can bet that the same story is already being spun in another juicy biased way by the time you will report it, you better compete or you'll be lost in the surf.

Responsibility, who needs it. The interenet has trained people to have the memory and attention span equal to the size of their cache. Just refresh and start over, they'll be there for more juice.

 

[Chicago526]

Also, they represent us. They're entitled to their personal opinions, but they are not there to cast votes that impose their view on the rest of us.

Actually, that's exactly what they are supposed to do. We are a republic, not a democracy. We elect our officials to make decisions for us, not do what we tell them to do. If we don't like how they represent us, we are free to elect someone else they next time they are up for re-election. Idealy, they are supposed to make the best possible decision for their constituants, even if it goes against what their constituants want.

 

[Galahad]

All great points. I would add to that that the Rush/Frankin/Fox/Moore poison seems to have tried to turn all subjects into politics. Life is not politics. We choose up political "sides" like the parties are sports teams.

 

[yeartolate]

All great points. I would add to that that the Rush/Frankin/Fox/Moore poison seems to have tried to turn all subjects into politics. Life is not politics. We choose up political "sides" like the parties are sports teams.

But if a sports team wins based on a bunch of bad calls or plays, it is a shallow victory.

 

[AllyandJack]

Actually, that's exactly what they are supposed to do. We are a republic, not a democracy. We elect our officials to make decisions for us, not do what we tell them to do. If we don't like how they represent us, we are free to elect someone else they next time they are up for re-election. Idealy, they are supposed to make the best possible decision for their constituants, even if it goes against what their constituants want.

What's best for their constituents might not be the same as their personal views. That's more along the lines of what I meant. I would hate to think my elected official would vote along a party line if it wasn't in the best interest of the people he represents. For example, if the state was planning to increase the cigarette tax by .10 to help fund the state-run children's health insurance plan, I would hope my elected official, if he was a Republican, wouldn't vote against that based purely on the views of the traditional Republican party.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

All great points. I would add to that that the Rush/Frankin/Fox/Moore poison seems to have tried to turn all subjects into politics. Life is not politics. We choose up political "sides" like the parties are sports teams.

Everything is given a political spin by both sides. I'm amazed at the political spin over something like the number of outfits Camilla brought for her one-week visit. What in the world does this have to do with politics? Yet it's inserted into the spin machine along with every other news tidbit.

Life may not be politics, but politics is life to some of these people. There is, sadly, practically nothing off limits anymore -- anyone and anything is fair game. And some of them actually dare claim to be journalists.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

What's best for their constituents might not be the same as their personal views. That's more along the lines of what I meant. I would hate to think my elected official would vote along a party line if it wasn't in the best interest of the people he represents. For example, if the state was planning to increase the cigarette tax by .10 to help fund the state-run children's health insurance plan, I would hope my elected official, if he was a Republican, wouldn't vote against that based purely on the views of the traditional Republican party.

Hope may spring eternal, but politics has a heavy foot that often stomps on it.