On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Josh Andler <
scislac@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ahhh, but you see the point of that was that the argument I was
> commenting on was drudging through the US vs THEM territory that the 2
> party system seems to bring out in people. If someone wants want to
> claim that their party is right about everything all the time, surely
> their party has produced things much more quote worthy than "the other
> guys" have. Personally I have no party preference and I find the petty
> fantasy bullshit everyone gets caught up in to be tiresome and
> aggravating because it prohibits solutions and encourages foot dragging
> and finger pointing... about shit everyone is only speculating on at
> this point no less.
>
Seems like we have some good Josh's on this list. cheers all.
Personally, I have no issue with demonstrative differences, and argument for
which is right. When that argument dissolves into ad hominem verbiage, it
becomes counter-productive. In this campaign, I didn't see any of the major
candidates as going 'negative' in that regard. Sure some on each side did.
There are nuts on both sides. What's really annoying is that one side likes
to pull the trigger and duck as if they were shot at. Continually accusing
the other side of class warfare or racism has a tendency to increase
divisiveness; and perpetual victims don't make good leaders anyway.
Aside from that, I tend to subscribe to a yin-yang philosophy in our
system. Its counter-intuitive, but there seems to be a natural and cyclic
balance that is establish by the two party system. Mostly, I want
government to stick to the basics like providing for the common defense and
upholding the natural given rights of the people. After that, tax as little
as possible and get out of the way.
-j
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)