In responding to another topic I thought this would be a valid point to debate.

With the White House and both houses of Congress in Republican control, my topic of Debate is:

If the Economy made a very significant turn around and the Stock market re bounded nicely above the 10,000 range, would opponents to the Republican party be glad this happened?


This is on both sides of the aisle too, In the 70's when Carter was in office the Economy was in the dumps and the Republicans pressed this issue hard. Carter is a good man, he just made some poor decisions. If the Economy had not tanked, the Republicans would have not had this issue to run on, and possibly Regan would not have won.

We all have different ideologies, but to let them get in the way of what is good for our nation as a whole is quite fickle...

Sleeper

As you know immediatley after 9/11 the entire world was behind Bush, including people like me. He squandered that.

Of course I want to see our country doing well economically, and diplomatically. I would be happily shocked if Bush were to go in the direction that would take. I'm not holding my breath. Every action he takes brings us further away from those goals.

You can imagine how unhappy this makes people like me...and why it is important to retain some kind of bitter humor at least.

Danya, it's finally time to get rid of Saddam once and for all. He's been sitting on his side of the world far too long, building more palaces while his people starve

GO, Maybe we should keep that discussion in the right threads.

Edited to remove response to off-topic posting. Sorry - I got distracted...

This topic really got me thinking...is it ever going to be possible for all American's to be satisfied at the same time? I don't think it is...The GOP and the Democratic parties have completely different values. As long as a President is of one party or the other I see constant friction in the future.

I value politicians who try to look after the good of the country in their own mind. An example of someone I think tries to do this is John McCain. He speaks an independent voice and searches for what he seems to truly believe is in the best interest of the American public. Since I can not peer into a person's soul, appearances will have to be reality for me.

Maybe everybody should get ensnared in a scandal and survive politically. (Keating Banking Scandal in this case)

If the economy made a dramatic turnaround both sides of the aisle would fight to take credit for the recovery. They would stop doling out levels of blame for the bad economy and stake out new political spin on why democratic or republican policies helped bring this around.

That's the thing Danya. Ideologically we have differences. But we are all still human.

I was thinking about this as I sat here reading this thread.

How do we know which one of our Idiologies are right for our country or even more so, as humankind. What policies will be best for our advancement to grow as a better people. From taxes, to school vouchers, to war with other countries. What is really the right thing, will we ever know, because even if an enacted policy works, some will say it was the wrong thing to do.

In my mind a flat tax is a fair system. but to others a progressive system is fair because they believe the rich won't pay enough under a flat tax. I just use this as an example. We have never tried the Flat tax system so how do we know it won't work, or how do we know the Progressive system is working.

But then I stop and think to something I said in an earlier post to Danya " We can't "what if" everything. Because if you do this nothing will ever get done.

I believe what we have to do is all realize we all live on this planet together, and better learn to accept we are the same but with different views.

Sting said it best in his song Russians, "We share the same Biology, regardless of ideology"

I believe one thing we must all realize, no matter how passionate you are on a subject......you might be wrong.

Sleeper


PS Heck, I may be wrong about this post..

Good topic, sleeper.

In politics, as in life, horrible things may have good consequences, and good things may have some negative consequences. The potentially (and perhaps unintended) good consequences that come from bad events doesn't make the events themselves less bad. Take 9/11, for example. Obviously a horrible event. But a good consequence of that attack is that as a nation, regardless of what side of the issues we come down on, we are thinking and talking about the Middle East and about US foreign policy in a more in depth way than ever before. That could have some good long-term effects on our level of political apathy.

As someone on the far left of the dial, I believe there is a certain meta-level at which 4 or 8 years of a more repressive right-wing government will have an excellent effect on the longer-term goals of the progressive left. More and more Americans will join us as they wake up to the horrors of Republican dominated government. This will also hopefully move the Democratic party out of the center, and farther to the left. Having a centrist like Clinton in the white house was very lulling for the left. Again, this is on a meta-level, because in the real world, I care very much for what is happening RIGHT NOW.

The same argument holds true in the other direction. Just so you know now, I am offering the previous argument merely as an example. I am not attempting to start a debate about that paragraph. I know many of you will disagree. Were I a conservative, the same thing would hold true, just from the other side.



But the problem here is that those different ideologies hold differing beliefs on what is "good for our nation." It's not fickle at all. If we all held different ideologies, and yet agreed on what was good for the nation, we wouldn't REALLY have differing ideologies at all. Your political beliefs may guide you to think that it's "common sense" that xxxx is good for the country, and that those who disagree with you are trapped by ideology and are somehow "refusing" to admit that xxxx is good for the nation. Remember that they probably feel the same way about you!

In a way, ideology will always guide not only a follower's political bias, but his very notion of what constitutes "common sense."

Well, maybe it's also necessary to have the two parties...that way it keeps balance and what's important to each party get's a chance to be addressed?

I dunno.

That's what we call mudslinging. It's part of politics.

Also, that's what is so great about our system. If you don't like one partys' opinions or choices, than you can go over to the other party or start one of your own

Remember the Vermont Senator? He used to be Republican....now he's an Independent because he didn't like the choices the Republicans made




Only 9/11 made it seem possible. All the Senators stood behind Bush & said "Give em Hell!"

Of course that was because 'Em' and 'Hell' were not specifically defined!

I don't think mudslinging and holding to different values are the same thing. Maybe you could offer some examples?

I agree with Danya here.. Mudslinging is generally one party or another over exaggerating their opposition to cast them in a negative light.

I have always disliked these kinds of politics. I want to vote FOR a person or policy, not against one..

Sleeper

I think that's what everyone says but how to accomplish it is a mystery to me. It seems as soon as one candidate comes forth it becomes the job of the other side to gather as much dirt as possible...personal and politcal. This way anything they say is rendered suspect.

That is why I would prefer if any candidates that came forward admitted to any skeletons, and then addressed them, and at that point simply said they were moving on with their campaign and discussing what they wanted to accomplish. This saves time and also doesn't attempt to insult the intelligence of the people.

I'll keep dreaming though.