Frustration with Kool-Aid Drinkers

[Run To State]

Or maybe it's hard to see those posts through the millions that are used to criticize Barack Obama.:lol:

 

Actually, I've stopped participating in the P&R forum as much as I used to because it is an endless war of words that usually gets no where.

I can't help it that there is so much to criticize with him.

[True blue (and gold)]

Excellent thread, HHSDad, and I will add my frustration to yours. As an undecided voter, I am trying to shuffle through all of the "junk" and trying to really analyze issues from different standpoints. Though BGP is not my only source for this, it is one of my biggest. Unfortunately, I find myself completely skipping over some people's posts because I can pretty much guess automatically what they will say. There are those that will ALWAYS say negative things about one side or the other and NEVER compromise or be willing to admit the merits of their opponent. IMO we are never going to shift 100% right or 100% left and those that promote only that side are holding real progress back.

[cch5432]

I don't recall Aces or RTS ever being very critical of John McCain. I recall them being extremely critical of Obama though and Hillary as well.

 

You need to search for the thread "Straight Talk Express". I almost switched my allegiances to Hilary because of Aces' McCain-bashing. :lol:

 

I haven't been into politics for long but the kool-aid drinking is already bothering me. I just try to stay as unbiased on each issue as I can. But I find myself giving the right (I lean that way) the benefit of the doubt on all of the issues that I am undecided/uninformed on.

[PepRock01]

I don't recall Aces or RTS ever being very critical of John McCain. I recall them being extremely critical of Obama though and Hillary as well.

 

 

You must not have been paying close attention to Aces then, there were times that I almost wondered if he would vote for a demcrat ratehr than McCain back when there was still a race for the Republican nomination.

[halfback20]

You must not have been paying close attention to Aces then, there were times that I almost wondered if he would vote for a demcrat ratehr than McCain back when there was still a race for the Republican nomination.

 

It seems like the same thing has been said by at least 10,000 people already. I understand, I have not been paying enough attention to Aces. I get it. I haven't seen them, but they are there. I trust all 10K of you that have told me in this thread :lol:.

[Hatz]

It seems like the same thing has been said by at least 10,000 people already. I understand, I have not been paying enough attention to Aces. I get it. I haven't seen them, but they are there. I trust all 10K of you that have told me in this thread :lol:.

 

HB, did you catch that thread where Aces said, . . .

 

Oh, I guess you did. :lol::thumb:

[ladiesbballcoach]

Recently, in the Misery Index thread, I voiced my frustration with people who believe that their side is always right and the other side is always wrong. It really wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just something that had been bothering me. I'm sure that not feeling well didn't help.

 

Nonetheless, I'm having more and more issues with this. And knowing I'll be hearing it for the next 6 months unless I move to a cave is not comforting. I'll be the first to admit that I'm a conservative who usually vote Republican, but that's usually because I feel that the R candidate is less wrong than the D candidate. I too have found myself taking extreme positions, because I'm listening to the opposite extreme. Sure, I think we need to protect the environment, but I'm not willing to roll back technology 1000 years. And I think we have an obligation to help those who are unable to help themselves, but can we at least make that distinction?

 

What I'm trying to get at is, is it really that hard to see the other side's point? Is it not possible to say, "Boy, my side screwed that one up!" How do we get to the point that we work together for the greater good and not just be cheerleaders for our respective parties?

 

On my issue of abortion, there can be no middle ground that is acceptable when unborn lives are being taken at a rate of over 3,000 a day.

[rockmom]

Excellent thread, HHSDad, and I will add my frustration to yours. As an undecided voter, I am trying to shuffle through all of the "junk" and trying to really analyze issues from different standpoints. Though BGP is not my only source for this, it is one of my biggest. Unfortunately, I find myself completely skipping over some people's posts because I can pretty much guess automatically what they will say. There are those that will ALWAYS say negative things about one side or the other and NEVER compromise or be willing to admit the merits of their opponent. IMO we are never going to shift 100% right or 100% left and those that promote only that side are holding real progress back.

 

 

And, I agree with you 100%! Well stated!

 

It's completely frustrating to be searching for the truth, and have to weed through all the diversionary attacks to find something of substance.

[Hatz]

On my issue of abortion, there can be no middle ground that is acceptable when unborn lives are being taken at a rate of over 3,000 a day.

 

The difference is that you are usually issue oriented LBBC and HHS is pointing to those who are party oriented. I've seen you take exception with both parties over many issues but have never been so blind as to overlook when a party is not standing up for what you believe in.

[halfback20]

HB, did you catch that thread where Aces said, . . .

 

Oh, I guess you did. :lol::thumb:

 

 

 

:laugh::creepy:

[Habib]

Excellent thread, HHSDad, and I will add my frustration to yours. As an undecided voter, I am trying to shuffle through all of the "junk" and trying to really analyze issues from different standpoints. Though BGP is not my only source for this, it is one of my biggest. Unfortunately, I find myself completely skipping over some people's posts because I can pretty much guess automatically what they will say. There are those that will ALWAYS say negative things about one side or the other and NEVER compromise or be willing to admit the merits of their opponent. IMO we are never going to shift 100% right or 100% left and those that promote only that side are holding real progress back.

 

:thumb:

 

I enjoy reading posts from those from both sides of the aisle, but there are some from both sides as well that are so predictable it becomes comical.

[AcesFull]

Like I said Aces, it wasn't really directed at anyone, it just came out in your thread.

 

I know partisanship is nothing new. My frustration stems more from what I hear outside of BGP, especially from our politicians. I'm not asking anyone to change their spots; I have a heck of a time myself with wanting to slam someone I strongly disagree with instead of seeing where they may be right. We're at that point that we can't expect Congress to do anything really productive. Every move seems to be political in nature. Whether you're a conservative or liberal or somewhere in-between, we need to demand more from our lawmakers.

:thumb: I feel much better.

 

I was just commenting to my wife last night what a likable liberal Lanny Davis is. To be honest, I just do not find many liberal politicians the least bit likable and I feel the same way about most moderate and conservative politicians. What has happened to the breed of likable politicians of yesteryear like Reagan, Tip O'Neill, and Ed Koch?

 

Davis said last night that he is a proud liberal Democrat and that he does not identify himself as a progressive. Why don't more politicians (and pundits like Davis) proudly put forth their ideas instead of trying to sneak changes in through the back door under misleading labels?

 

I also find Jerry Brown, Ed Koch, and Joe Lieberman very likable and honest liberals. It is much easier to seek common ground with people who are willing to honestly debate issues on their merits in a civil manner.

 

Instead, the parties elect people like Trent Lott, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid as their leaders. Both parties have adopted strategies totally devoid of any real statesmanship and short of another terrorist attack or natural disaster of Biblical proportions, I don't expect that to change any time soon.

[ladiesbballcoach]

:thumb: I feel much better.

 

I was just commenting to my wife last night what a likable liberal Lanny Davis is. To be honest, I just do not find many liberal politicians the least bit likable and I feel the same way about most moderate and conservative politicians. What has happened to the breed of likable politicians of yesteryear like Reagan, Tip O'Neill, and Ed Koch?

 

Davis said last night that he is a proud liberal Democrat and that he does not identify himself as a progressive. Why don't more politicians (and pundits like Davis) proudly put forth their ideas instead of trying to sneak changes in through the back door under misleading labels?

 

I also find Jerry Brown, Ed Koch, and Joe Lieberman very likable and honest liberals. It is much easier to seek common ground with people who are willing to honestly debate issues on their merits in a civil manner.

 

Instead, the parties elect people like Trent Lott, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid as their leaders. Both parties have adopted strategies totally devoid of any real statesmanship and short of another terrorist attack or natural disaster of Biblical proportions, I don't expect that to change any time soon.

 

I don't think Boehner has done what you imply with the bolded.

[AcesFull]

I don't think Boehner has done what you imply with the bolded.

I left Boehner out for a reason. He does not seem to be as addicted to the limelight as the examples that I listed. Denny Hastert and Bill Frist were also more low key than the others. Unfortunately, the politics of Lott, Pelosi, and Reid get attention, polarize the electorate and yield election wins. I think things will get worse before they get better.

 

My personal theory is that politicians have become so good at gerrymandering House districts, there is not much incentive for them to find common ground. There are very few moderates in the House on either side of the aisle. As House members get elected to the US Senate, that body also becomes more polarized.

 

I think that minorities have actually been hurt more than helped by gerrymandering. As individuals, black representatives have very little power and very little prospect of being elected to higher offices because of their extreme positions. Without extreme gerrymandering, more moderate blacks would be elected, although there would probably be fewer of them. Instead of being represented by a handful of socialists that make up most of the Black Caucus, the blacks elected to Congress would have more mainstream appeal, make better potential Senate and presidential candidates, and they would wield more influence in the House.

 

The polarization of Congress caused by gerrymandering is hurting the quality of representation in this country and making it more difficult for Americans to find common ground on important issues.

 

I do not have a problem with liberals representing liberal constituents and conservatives representing conservative districts, but incumbents have become so good at gerrymandering, both liberals and conservatives are over represented in our federal government and what is worse is that their seats are "safer" than those of moderates.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Define gerrymanding please.