In response to Mac 1958 s thread regarding partisanship.

[Mac1958]

Mac is actually one of the most partisan members of this board, if you apply the actual definition:

1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

Mac's 'cause' is his contempt for anyone who happens by virtue of their own opinions to fall strongly on the left or right.

...and yes, he has a 'biased, emotional allegiance' to that cause.

He is what he condemns, but doesn't realize it.

Holy crap, you REALLY need to get me out of your head.

Maybe answer the freaking question. Wow.
.

 

[bripat9643]

For those not oriented to the binary political ailment, there is no 'opposition' position to favor; we favor what works no matter who presents it.

That right there ^^ --- "binary". Seems to me in order to proceed with this one has to first pigeonhole everything into one of two camps and slap labels on them, which is counterproductive. As soon as we go binary we jettison context, and that's poisonous.

Case in point:

Its on the first page here and is an interesting thread regarding the corrosive effect of partisanship on the national experience.

The thread throws up interesting points along with some predictable partisanship.

I would like to throw out a challenge to all on here.

Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with.

Dont try and be clever about this. As a leading opinion former on here I can sniff out bullshit a mile off.

I will kick off. I have no problem with tory policies to reduce the amount of inheritance tax that people have to pay.

So there you go, play nice.

I thought of one. Term limits. Generally been a right vs lefty thing, and I am against them along with the lefties.

Term limits is a "lefty" thing? News to me. I don't see why it should naturally be either. Why put it in a bag?

Lefties oppose term limits because they favor big government, and the longer a politician is in office the more of a big spending douche bad he becomes.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Mac1958]

Its on the first page here and is an interesting thread regarding the corrosive effect of partisanship on the national experience.

The thread throws up interesting points along with some predictable partisanship.

I would like to throw out a challenge to all on here.

Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with.

Dont try and be clever about this. As a leading opinion former on here I can sniff out bullshit a mile off.

I will kick off. I have no problem with tory policies to reduce the amount of inheritance tax that people have to pay.

So there you go, play nice.

Just stumbled into this. Good stuff.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Mac is actually one of the most partisan members of this board, if you apply the actual definition:

1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

Mac's 'cause' is his contempt for anyone who happens by virtue of their own opinions to fall strongly on the left or right.

...and yes, he has a 'biased, emotional allegiance' to that cause.

He is what he condemns, but doesn't realize it.

Holy crap, you REALLY need to get me out of your head.

Maybe answer the freaking question. Wow.
.

See? That is EXACTLY what I've been referring to. You don't dare debate me one on one on the issues. Your only motive is to troll like a child.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For those not oriented to the binary political ailment, there is no 'opposition' position to favor; we favor what works no matter who presents it.

That right there ^^ --- "binary". Seems to me in order to proceed with this one has to first pigeonhole everything into one of two camps and slap labels on them, which is counterproductive. As soon as we go binary we jettison context, and that's poisonous.

Case in point:

Its on the first page here and is an interesting thread regarding the corrosive effect of partisanship on the national experience.

The thread throws up interesting points along with some predictable partisanship.

I would like to throw out a challenge to all on here.

Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with.

Dont try and be clever about this. As a leading opinion former on here I can sniff out bullshit a mile off.

I will kick off. I have no problem with tory policies to reduce the amount of inheritance tax that people have to pay.

So there you go, play nice.

I thought of one. Term limits. Generally been a right vs lefty thing, and I am against them along with the lefties.

Term limits is a "lefty" thing? News to me. I don't see why it should naturally be either. Why put it in a bag?

Lefties oppose term limits because they favor big government, and the longer a politician is in office the more of a big spending douche bad he becomes.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

The Republicans promised term limits in their Contract on America in 1994.

How'd that work out?

 

[Mac1958]

Mac is actually one of the most partisan members of this board, if you apply the actual definition:

1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

Mac's 'cause' is his contempt for anyone who happens by virtue of their own opinions to fall strongly on the left or right.

...and yes, he has a 'biased, emotional allegiance' to that cause.

He is what he condemns, but doesn't realize it.

Holy crap, you REALLY need to get me out of your head.

Maybe answer the freaking question. Wow.
.

See? That is EXACTLY what I've been referring to. You don't dare debate me one on one on the issues. Your only motive is to troll like a child.

And you still haven't addressed the question in the thread. You're crazed.


get

me

out

of

your

head
.

 

[Pogo]

OP, is this the thread you mean? It's the only "Marc1958" thread on the "front page" of the Politics subforum when I went to look. (I did browser "CTL-F" on Marc1958.)


Yes, well, that's what one'll be called if, in their view, one expresses heterodox ideas.

Yes,thats the one.

What's the one area you'd want to see a limit of government. If there's more please divulge

I would like to cut the cord between business and the parties.You should not be able to buy influence. I would like tighter controls on politicians going on to work for corporations/lobby groups.
I would like to see a limit on other jobs that elected MPs could take.
Im not bothered about term limitations. In fact that might prove counter productive. What we find very often is that the politicians get led by the civil service because they have more experience. Thats not how it should work.
I would like the devolved governments to have more powers so that issues could be solved locally.

Just off the top of my head.

Amen to that. I'd like to see elected representatives forced to live in a government-supplied dorm. Free meals, room and board but no salary. And you're not permitted to communicate with anybody except your own constituents and your family. Communicate with a lobbyist, go to jail. Make it more like the military, a true 'service'. See how many wanna make a career out of it after that.

This is why the founders never intended our lawmakers to be solely lawmakers. There were to be lawmakers on the side, and still have to run their own practices as well, so they weren't insulated from the laws they make.

Bottom line we need term limits. The average day of the US lawmaker consist of fundraising, so they can remain in power. You put term limits on, and they will be more concerned about getting done what they need with their little time.

We should pass a law where every fundraising call a politician makes, they should have to make a call to a random constituent, and talk about the troubles they have, and never accept money from them.

That's also the result of having (a) a massive entrenched Duopoly, and (b) big media.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Mac is actually one of the most partisan members of this board, if you apply the actual definition:

1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

Mac's 'cause' is his contempt for anyone who happens by virtue of their own opinions to fall strongly on the left or right.

...and yes, he has a 'biased, emotional allegiance' to that cause.

He is what he condemns, but doesn't realize it.

Holy crap, you REALLY need to get me out of your head.

Maybe answer the freaking question. Wow.
.

See? That is EXACTLY what I've been referring to. You don't dare debate me one on one on the issues. Your only motive is to troll like a child.

And you still haven't addressed the question in the thread. You're crazed.


get

me

out

of

your

head
.

You are the topic of the thread.

You accuse people of being mindlessly partisan. You accuse me of being mindlessly partisan.

My response is this. Show me ONE TIME that I have taken an indefensibly wrong position merely because I was siding with Democrats, or with the left, or with any other partisan delineation you wish to point out.

ONE is all I ask,

or, as an alternative, you can respond with something mindlessly childish.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac is actually one of the most partisan members of this board, if you apply the actual definition:

1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

Mac's 'cause' is his contempt for anyone who happens by virtue of their own opinions to fall strongly on the left or right.

...and yes, he has a 'biased, emotional allegiance' to that cause.

He is what he condemns, but doesn't realize it.

Holy crap, you REALLY need to get me out of your head.

Maybe answer the freaking question. Wow.
.

See? That is EXACTLY what I've been referring to. You don't dare debate me one on one on the issues. Your only motive is to troll like a child.

And you still haven't addressed the question in the thread. You're crazed.


get

me

out

of

your

head
.

You are the topic of the thread.

You accuse people of being mindlessly partisan. You accuse me of being mindlessly partisan.

My response is this. Show me ONE TIME that I have taken an indefensibly wrong position merely because I was siding with Democrats, or with the left, or with any other partisan delineation you wish to point out.

ONE is all I ask,

or, as an alternative, you can respond with something mindlessly childish.

Y'know what's really neat about this thread? I inspired some thoughtful conversation. A thread I started led to another one that had people who are usually partisan talking about something they'd agree on with the other side. Interesting conversation, people willing to go out of their comfort zone. And it started with little ol' Mac.

Wow, that's pretty damn neat. You'll never know what that's like.

I don't have to show you anything. I don't care enough about you or your opinion to put forth any effort. But I do know this: As the obedient little partisan ideologue that you are, you don't even have the balls to participate in thread. You've only trolled it, and me.

Neat thread. I'll remember this.
.
.

 

[sakinago]

Yes,thats the one.

What's the one area you'd want to see a limit of government. If there's more please divulge

I would like to cut the cord between business and the parties.You should not be able to buy influence. I would like tighter controls on politicians going on to work for corporations/lobby groups.
I would like to see a limit on other jobs that elected MPs could take.
Im not bothered about term limitations. In fact that might prove counter productive. What we find very often is that the politicians get led by the civil service because they have more experience. Thats not how it should work.
I would like the devolved governments to have more powers so that issues could be solved locally.

Just off the top of my head.

Amen to that. I'd like to see elected representatives forced to live in a government-supplied dorm. Free meals, room and board but no salary. And you're not permitted to communicate with anybody except your own constituents and your family. Communicate with a lobbyist, go to jail. Make it more like the military, a true 'service'. See how many wanna make a career out of it after that.

This is why the founders never intended our lawmakers to be solely lawmakers. There were to be lawmakers on the side, and still have to run their own practices as well, so they weren't insulated from the laws they make.

Bottom line we need term limits. The average day of the US lawmaker consist of fundraising, so they can remain in power. You put term limits on, and they will be more concerned about getting done what they need with their little time.

We should pass a law where every fundraising call a politician makes, they should have to make a call to a random constituent, and talk about the troubles they have, and never accept money from them.

That's also the result of having (a) a massive entrenched Duopoly, and (b) big media.

And I don't think not participating is enough at this point. I agree with you pogo, but I don't want us to hit rock bottom before we realize it. Rock bottom is where we're headed but it doesn't have to be

 

[Montrovant]

You should not be able to buy influence.

Well, I absolutely don't agree with that. I also don't see money as the sole medium of exchange as goes buying political influence.

You think people should be able to buy political influence?

Of course. You do too, you just don't realize it.

Say you want to have blue widgets outlawed and you write a bill to make it so. You have to get some quantity of people to vote with you to pass the bill, and some or all of those people want something too. What do you do to get them to agree to outlawing blue widgets? You may not give them cash, but you give them something. Call it bartering. Call it buying; call it something else. I don't care what you call it; it's still exchanging one thing for another to influence people to concur with you, to give you their approbation, thus what you want -- blue widgets outlawed.

The example above is among the most simplistic, but make no mistake, simple or complex, the core principle is the same. People exchange what they have to offer in order to influence the actions of others. They buy influence and they have no problem doing so. They'd have it no other way. You, I, and everyone else must either be lying or ignorant/naive to seriously suggest otherwise.

The question isn't whether that sort of bartering or outright buying for votes happens, but whether it should. I don't at all question that it happens, and it will continue to do so for the rest of my lifetime and probably many lifetimes beyond, but that doesn't mean I consider it the best way for things to get done. I'd rather political influence were not bought, that political decisions and laws written were based on convictions. I realize it is not the reality.

 

[Montrovant]

For those not oriented to the binary political ailment, there is no 'opposition' position to favor; we favor what works no matter who presents it.

That right there ^^ --- "binary". Seems to me in order to proceed with this one has to first pigeonhole everything into one of two camps and slap labels on them, which is counterproductive. As soon as we go binary we jettison context, and that's poisonous.

Case in point:

Its on the first page here and is an interesting thread regarding the corrosive effect of partisanship on the national experience.

The thread throws up interesting points along with some predictable partisanship.

I would like to throw out a challenge to all on here.

Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with.

Dont try and be clever about this. As a leading opinion former on here I can sniff out bullshit a mile off.

I will kick off. I have no problem with tory policies to reduce the amount of inheritance tax that people have to pay.

So there you go, play nice.

I thought of one. Term limits. Generally been a right vs lefty thing, and I am against them along with the lefties.

Term limits is a "lefty" thing? News to me. I don't see why it should naturally be either. Why put it in a bag?

Lefties oppose term limits because they favor big government, and the longer a politician is in office the more of a big spending douche bad he becomes.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I would think "righties" would oppose term limits because they stifle individual freedom; how many more profound freedoms involving government can one exercise in a democracy than to vote for the person of one's choice?

There's no reason for term limits to be viewed as simply a left/right issue.

 

[whitehall]

American partisan? Is this some kind of trick question by Brit partisans when the most popular name for a male newborn in the U.K. capital is "Mohammed"?

 

[sakinago]

For those not oriented to the binary political ailment, there is no 'opposition' position to favor; we favor what works no matter who presents it.

That right there ^^ --- "binary". Seems to me in order to proceed with this one has to first pigeonhole everything into one of two camps and slap labels on them, which is counterproductive. As soon as we go binary we jettison context, and that's poisonous.

Case in point:

Its on the first page here and is an interesting thread regarding the corrosive effect of partisanship on the national experience.

The thread throws up interesting points along with some predictable partisanship.

I would like to throw out a challenge to all on here.

Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with.

Dont try and be clever about this. As a leading opinion former on here I can sniff out bullshit a mile off.

I will kick off. I have no problem with tory policies to reduce the amount of inheritance tax that people have to pay.

So there you go, play nice.

I thought of one. Term limits. Generally been a right vs lefty thing, and I am against them along with the lefties.

Term limits is a "lefty" thing? News to me. I don't see why it should naturally be either. Why put it in a bag?

Lefties oppose term limits because they favor big government, and the longer a politician is in office the more of a big spending douche bad he becomes.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I would think "righties" would oppose term limits because they stifle individual freedom; how many more profound freedoms involving government can one exercise in a democracy than to vote for the person of one's choice?

There's no reason for term limits to be viewed as simply a left/right issue.

There isn't, it's an issue that something around 76% of Americans agree with imposing term limits. But...the only person I've heard in congress pressing for term limits is rand Paul. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but there are few in congress who are going to act against self serving tendencies, of which term limits will hurt them.

What I'm saying is we need a grassroots movement, from both right and left, to make sure all of the legislative branch is able to talk about is term limits...they definitely will NOT do it themselves

 

[NYcarbineer]

Mac is actually one of the most partisan members of this board, if you apply the actual definition:

1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

Mac's 'cause' is his contempt for anyone who happens by virtue of their own opinions to fall strongly on the left or right.

...and yes, he has a 'biased, emotional allegiance' to that cause.

He is what he condemns, but doesn't realize it.

Holy crap, you REALLY need to get me out of your head.

Maybe answer the freaking question. Wow.
.

See? That is EXACTLY what I've been referring to. You don't dare debate me one on one on the issues. Your only motive is to troll like a child.

And you still haven't addressed the question in the thread. You're crazed.


get

me

out

of

your

head
.

You are the topic of the thread.

You accuse people of being mindlessly partisan. You accuse me of being mindlessly partisan.

My response is this. Show me ONE TIME that I have taken an indefensibly wrong position merely because I was siding with Democrats, or with the left, or with any other partisan delineation you wish to point out.

ONE is all I ask,

or, as an alternative, you can respond with something mindlessly childish.

Y'know what's really neat about this thread? I inspired some thoughtful conversation. A thread I started led to another one that had people who are usually partisan talking about something they'd agree on with the other side. Interesting conversation, people willing to go out of their comfort zone. And it started with little ol' Mac.

Wow, that's pretty damn neat. You'll never know what that's like.

I don't have to show you anything. I don't care enough about you or your opinion to put forth any effort. But I do know this: As the obedient little partisan ideologue that you are, you don't even have the balls to participate in thread. You've only trolled it, and me.

Neat thread. I'll remember this.
.
.

I see, so for the record, you cannot come up with a single example to support your repeated accusations against me.

Fair enough. that sums it up perfectly. You're basically full of shit.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You should not be able to buy influence.

Well, I absolutely don't agree with that. I also don't see money as the sole medium of exchange as goes buying political influence.

You think people should be able to buy political influence?

Of course. You do too, you just don't realize it.

Say you want to have blue widgets outlawed and you write a bill to make it so. You have to get some quantity of people to vote with you to pass the bill, and some or all of those people want something too. What do you do to get them to agree to outlawing blue widgets? You may not give them cash, but you give them something. Call it bartering. Call it buying; call it something else. I don't care what you call it; it's still exchanging one thing for another to influence people to concur with you, to give you their approbation, thus what you want -- blue widgets outlawed.

The example above is among the most simplistic, but make no mistake, simple or complex, the core principle is the same. People exchange what they have to offer in order to influence the actions of others. They buy influence and they have no problem doing so. They'd have it no other way. You, I, and everyone else must either be lying or ignorant/naive to seriously suggest otherwise.

The question isn't whether that sort of bartering or outright buying for votes happens, but whether it should. I don't at all question that it happens, and it will continue to do so for the rest of my lifetime and probably many lifetimes beyond, but that doesn't mean I consider it the best way for things to get done. I'd rather political influence were not bought, that political decisions and laws written were based on convictions. I realize it is not the reality.

The question isn't whether that sort of bartering or outright buying for votes happens, but whether it should.

Okay. You want to address the normative side of the matter. Fine.

I'm a democratic capitalist, and so is "Mark". I purchase services from Supplier A and I donate money to Charity B. "Mark" is also a capitalist. He buys services from Supplier A and contributes to Charity B. Our expenditures are as follows:

• Xelor
  • Supplier A --> $632K/year
  • Charity B --> $230K/year
• "Mark"
  • Supplier A --> $6K/year
  • Charity B --> $200/year

Lest you think the sums noted are outlandish, see this: Here's What the Average American Pays in Federal Income Taxes

If Supplier A or Charity B announces a change in their policy, assortment of offerings, or something else (doesn't matter what changes). Assuming A and B are wiling to receive input from stakeholders,

1. Should I expect to have more influence than Mark? Should it be the other way round?
2. Should A or B place more weight on my or Mark's opinion about their future course of action?

I don't think I need to tell you what my answers are to the two questions above, but just in case:

1. Yes, I should expect to have more influence.
2. A or B should place more weight on my opinion than Mark's.

Now consider that A is going to provide the very same services whether Mark or I pay for them; thus my and Mark's only real options are (1) pay for A's services, (2) suffer the consequences for receiving A's services but not paying for them, or (3) move to a locale where A doesn't provide services. Looking at the same two question, my answers are the same.

 

[Montrovant]

You should not be able to buy influence.

Well, I absolutely don't agree with that. I also don't see money as the sole medium of exchange as goes buying political influence.

You think people should be able to buy political influence?

Of course. You do too, you just don't realize it.

Say you want to have blue widgets outlawed and you write a bill to make it so. You have to get some quantity of people to vote with you to pass the bill, and some or all of those people want something too. What do you do to get them to agree to outlawing blue widgets? You may not give them cash, but you give them something. Call it bartering. Call it buying; call it something else. I don't care what you call it; it's still exchanging one thing for another to influence people to concur with you, to give you their approbation, thus what you want -- blue widgets outlawed.

The example above is among the most simplistic, but make no mistake, simple or complex, the core principle is the same. People exchange what they have to offer in order to influence the actions of others. They buy influence and they have no problem doing so. They'd have it no other way. You, I, and everyone else must either be lying or ignorant/naive to seriously suggest otherwise.

The question isn't whether that sort of bartering or outright buying for votes happens, but whether it should. I don't at all question that it happens, and it will continue to do so for the rest of my lifetime and probably many lifetimes beyond, but that doesn't mean I consider it the best way for things to get done. I'd rather political influence were not bought, that political decisions and laws written were based on convictions. I realize it is not the reality.

The question isn't whether that sort of bartering or outright buying for votes happens, but whether it should.

Okay. You want to address the normative side of the matter. Fine.

I'm a democratic capitalist, and so is "Mark". I purchase services from Supplier A and I donate money to Charity B. "Mark" is also a capitalist. He buys services from Supplier A and contributes to Charity B. Our expenditures are as follows:

• Xelor
  • Supplier A --> $632K/year
  • Charity B --> $230K/year
• "Mark"
  • Supplier A --> $6K/year
  • Charity B --> $200/year

Lest you think the sums noted are outlandish, see this: Here's What the Average American Pays in Federal Income Taxes

If Supplier A or Charity B announces a change in their policy, assortment of offerings, or something else (doesn't matter what changes). Assuming A and B are wiling to receive input from stakeholders,

1. Should I expect to have more influence than Mark? Should it be the other way round?
2. Should A or B place more weight on my or Mark's opinion about their future course of action?

I don't think I need to tell you what my answers are to the two questions above, but just in case:

1. Yes, I should expect to have more influence.
2. A or B should place more weight on my opinion than Mark's.

Now consider that A is going to provide the very same services whether Mark or I pay for them; thus my and Mark's only real options are (1) pay for A's services, (2) suffer the consequences for receiving A's services but not paying for them, or (3) move to a locale where A doesn't provide services. Looking at the same two question, my answers are the same.

Government is not a business, nor a charity.

Would you say that paying more in taxes should give someone more say in governance?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, I absolutely don't agree with that. I also don't see money as the sole medium of exchange as goes buying political influence.

You think people should be able to buy political influence?

Of course. You do too, you just don't realize it.

Say you want to have blue widgets outlawed and you write a bill to make it so. You have to get some quantity of people to vote with you to pass the bill, and some or all of those people want something too. What do you do to get them to agree to outlawing blue widgets? You may not give them cash, but you give them something. Call it bartering. Call it buying; call it something else. I don't care what you call it; it's still exchanging one thing for another to influence people to concur with you, to give you their approbation, thus what you want -- blue widgets outlawed.

The example above is among the most simplistic, but make no mistake, simple or complex, the core principle is the same. People exchange what they have to offer in order to influence the actions of others. They buy influence and they have no problem doing so. They'd have it no other way. You, I, and everyone else must either be lying or ignorant/naive to seriously suggest otherwise.

The question isn't whether that sort of bartering or outright buying for votes happens, but whether it should. I don't at all question that it happens, and it will continue to do so for the rest of my lifetime and probably many lifetimes beyond, but that doesn't mean I consider it the best way for things to get done. I'd rather political influence were not bought, that political decisions and laws written were based on convictions. I realize it is not the reality.

The question isn't whether that sort of bartering or outright buying for votes happens, but whether it should.

Okay. You want to address the normative side of the matter. Fine.

I'm a democratic capitalist, and so is "Mark". I purchase services from Supplier A and I donate money to Charity B. "Mark" is also a capitalist. He buys services from Supplier A and contributes to Charity B. Our expenditures are as follows:

• Xelor
  • Supplier A --> $632K/year
  • Charity B --> $230K/year
• "Mark"
  • Supplier A --> $6K/year
  • Charity B --> $200/year

Lest you think the sums noted are outlandish, see this: Here's What the Average American Pays in Federal Income Taxes

If Supplier A or Charity B announces a change in their policy, assortment of offerings, or something else (doesn't matter what changes). Assuming A and B are wiling to receive input from stakeholders,

1. Should I expect to have more influence than Mark? Should it be the other way round?
2. Should A or B place more weight on my or Mark's opinion about their future course of action?

I don't think I need to tell you what my answers are to the two questions above, but just in case:

1. Yes, I should expect to have more influence.
2. A or B should place more weight on my opinion than Mark's.

Now consider that A is going to provide the very same services whether Mark or I pay for them; thus my and Mark's only real options are (1) pay for A's services, (2) suffer the consequences for receiving A's services but not paying for them, or (3) move to a locale where A doesn't provide services. Looking at the same two question, my answers are the same.

Government is not a business, nor a charity.

Would you say that paying more in taxes should give someone more say in governance?

Would you say that paying more in taxes should give someone more say in governance?

Yes. Of course. I thought that was clear from the final paragraph of the post to which you responded.

 

[Billo_Really]

Its on the first page here and is an interesting thread regarding the corrosive effect of partisanship on the national experience.

The thread throws up interesting points along with some predictable partisanship.

I would like to throw out a challenge to all on here.

Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with.

Dont try and be clever about this. As a leading opinion former on here I can sniff out bullshit a mile off.

I will kick off. I have no problem with tory policies to reduce the amount of inheritance tax that people have to pay.

So there you go, play nice.

There is one thing the right does better than anyone...

"Building a communication infrastructure across all
forms of media to get their message out to the masses non-stop 24/7!"
​

If there is one thing the left could learn from the right, that is it. When the left is out of power, we protest. When the right is out of power, they build infrastructure. And what they've been able to build, is quite impressive:

• television - Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity
• radio - Michael Savage, Limbaugh, Beck
• print - WSJ, American Thinker, Drudge Report
• internet - Little Green Footballs, Presidential Tweets, USMB's own right wing posters
• think tanks - Heritage Foundation
• organizations - Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity

The list just goes on and on. I don't like their message. I don't agree with their message. And sometimes, their message disgusts me. But there is no denying the fact that their message is getting out every day, 24/7, non-stop to the entire planet.

There is nothing on the left that could compare to that. There's Soros. But that's just one contributor. Nothing on the left has anything of that magnitude that crosses all forms of media.

 

[Pogo]

Its on the first page here and is an interesting thread regarding the corrosive effect of partisanship on the national experience.

The thread throws up interesting points along with some predictable partisanship.

I would like to throw out a challenge to all on here.

Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with.

Dont try and be clever about this. As a leading opinion former on here I can sniff out bullshit a mile off.

I will kick off. I have no problem with tory policies to reduce the amount of inheritance tax that people have to pay.

So there you go, play nice.

There is one thing the right does better than anyone...

"Building a communication infrastructure across all
forms of media to get their message out to the masses non-stop 24/7!"
​

If there is one thing the left could learn from the right, that is it. When the left is out of power, we protest. When the right is out of power, they build infrastructure. And what they've been able to build, is quite impressive:

• television - Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity
• radio - Michael Savage, Limbaugh, Beck
• print - WSJ, American Thinker, Drudge Report
• internet - Little Green Footballs, Presidential Tweets, USMB's own right wing posters
• think tanks - Heritage Foundation
• organizations - Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity

The list just goes on and on. I don't like their message. I don't agree with their message. And sometimes, their message disgusts me. But there is no denying the fact that their message is getting out every day, 24/7, non-stop to the entire planet.

There is nothing on the left that could compare to that. There's Soros. But that's just one contributor. Nothing on the left has anything of that magnitude that crosses all forms of media.

That's mainly because negativity sells. Especially conspiracy and fear and loathing and scandal and division and dehumaization and paranoia, which is exactly what that crowd sells to the gullible.

I've always noticed that while they are unmatched at that --- they can't figure out humor at all. Completely uncomfortable with it. That's because humor makes people feel good. So you have the Mahers and the Colberts and the Noahs etc etc, and no equivalent on the "right".

But to the first point, absolutely they organize well, which again prolly mirrors gullibility, passive-authoritarianism and/or aversion to diversity. As Will Rogers put it "I do not belong to an organized political party -- I am a Democrat".