This forum seems to encourage extremists but then again so does everything else.

Well looky here I've found some common ground, I have always considered myself to be more conservative but given the circumstances an at least temporary tax increase just seems logical, I realize the potential for the American people to clam up and not spend but whatever happened to political leaders easing people into new situation oh yeah it has been swallowed up by the need to scream out via extremism over the noise of political rivalry. If it was understood that the tax increase was temporary and that the money was not simply going to be dumped into unemployment insurance I think people would be more willing and trusting. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

 

Bla bla...people who know US pol often say there is little difference between the two main Parties and they are two sides of the same coin. Many people do not vote at all, because there is so little difference between them.

There are flaws in all political theories. None is completely right or wrong. IMHO anyone with a brain is in the middle and I say that from a perspective which is at least as informed as yours.

The OP is right. US politics is chaotic and out of control and therefore dangerous and a risk to everyone.

In US pol threads the culture comes over as extremist. Having to cater to the almost anarchic loonies politically is casting a shadow over your entire system and the finance sector has already taken note and acted to warn you. If you don't take note and take steps to self-correct and be more reasonable and less impulsive, there will be no need for any outside agency to attack your country. Your extremist half wits are doing the spade work themselves, obstructing effective government and forcing your country deeper and deeper into difficulty.

 

That is not what I said.

Again, not what I said.

Wrong again. No conservative denies that many founding fathers held slaves and were racist. We accept that as being a part of the time. Liberals use that to exclude teaching about the principles of the founding fathers and want to remove credibility from the founding fathers because of that history.

And it is easily proven.

It’s not uncommon to hear liberals ridicule conservatives for wanting a Constitutional government by suggesting that they are seeking to return to a time when blacks were considered 3/5 of a person and that the Constitution is somehow permanently damaged because it did not outlaw slavery. (At the time of the Constitution’s ratification in 1789 slavery was still legal in the British and French Empires – although not in England and France themselves – Spain, Denmark & Norway as well as most of the Middle East, Africa and Asia.)

This liberal narrative suggests that the Founding Fathers had the opportunity to outlaw slavery and simply chose not to do so because they didn’t see blacks as fully human. Nothing could have been farther from the truth. While a majority may have been skeptical of suggestions of equality between races, there were a number of eloquent anti-slavery members of the Constitutional Convention, including one of the most influential, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania who called slavery: A “nefarious institution, the curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed” as well as Virginian George Mason who said: “Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant…. I hold it essential … that the general government should have the power to prevent the increase of slavery.”

http://floppingaces.net/2011/05/31/...-of-honor-called-liberal-disdain-reader-post/

The attacks on Glen Beck and his celebration of the history of this nation especially our founding fathers is the biggest evidence about the true nature of the liberal power movement and their feelings about the men that started this great nation.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/0...he-radical-right-or-good-riddance-glenn-beck/

The point as I said was not racism itself but how the left uses the past to tear down the men who founded the country and especially anyone who expresses pride in the founding fathers.

I get this from your party and the actions your party takes.

Example:

War Crimes in the Name of Freedom

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/07/02_war.html

It is a constant attack on the history of this nation by democrats. If you support them then you support their goals and their message.

If you are unaware of what the party you vote with is doing then that is your fault. I see you ducked the Christmas carols example. It can only be concluded you agree with that fight.

 

See that is a very liberal position. Lets look at where its taken us.

WARNING NSFW LINK

http://zombietime.com/world_naked_bike_ride_2006/

Do you agree with this? This is where your line of thought has led us as a nation. There are nudity laws but they are completely ignored.

And its not just San Fransisco

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/11/16/No-ban-on-nudity-in-Seattle-parks/UPI-12541226818949/

Just like people who don't agree with public nudity in front of children are now labeled conservative you aren't as "open minded" as you think you are. This is the danger of saying everyone should be accepted for whatever they do. That is how we took homosexuality from being a tolerated practice to trying to equate it with heterosexuality. You agree with this? Then why don't we remove laws banning children from marrying adults just like the movement to remove laws against homosexual marriage? You don't like this? Why? Are you not tolerant? This is the fallacy of accepting everyone and everything. The morality that we have had for hundreds of years was there for a reason. This is the danger you are not acknowledging.

 

Thats exactly right and it is very very sad. Its why we must fight as hard as we can for the mind and soul of our country.

 

If you really believe that then you are a fool. Show us all how they are similar and I will destroy your half wit logic.

 

You're kidding right? You get your information from a right wing internet blog? This is the "proof" you want me to believe?

I am a Democrat. I do NOT get my information from White House talking points. If someone says something that extreme I fact check it at more credible sources. I even check things in international papers just in case I'm getting Americancentric spin. That helped A LOT during the rah-rah days leading up to Bush's phoney war.

If the only place you get your "news" from is the right wing talk radio and internet websites echo chamber you are bound to make extreme erroneous statements.

 

WTF DUDE! What is with you and the fringe websites? This is your "proof?!" Okay, there are crazy people on the internet. Got it. I have seen more backwaters of the internet in the 15 minutes I've been clicking your links than I have in years. You need to learn to find CREDIBLE sources. The Internet is almost infinite. There is a wacky kook expressing every niche viewpoint out there. You have to learn to evaluate sources. Speak to a librarian if you need help.

By the way I despise Glenn Beck because he is a fat hypocritical druggy blow hard. I don't appreciate a drug addict and alcoholic telling me how to live my life. I have news for you buddy I have NEVER been a drug addict or alcoholic and I don't go to church every five minutes. If he needs to to stay off the smack and sauce good for him. I hope it continues to work for him. I am NOT going to learn US History or political science from that hypocritical druggy. And I am not going to learn "family values" from a divorcee.

Sorry that hypocrite just pisses me off. I can't believe someone with his track record would tell anyone how to live their life.

 

it just reflects the increasing polarity in US politics, which has been well documented by social scientists.

I find american conservatives to be quite extreme in their views about everything, to the point where they demonise "liberals".

apparently I am lazy and living off handouts and a drug user with no morals ... just because of my political views.

It may be true that american liberals are just as extreme - I guess not bearing the brunt of their aggressive posting style, I don't see that so much.

american conservatives are often extremely nationalistic, and regard people from other places as somehow inferior as well ... everything about our beliefs, political systems, whatever .. is inferior.

I think internet forums in general feed this. because people are anonymous, they can show their worst side without fear of people getting back to them. they can - if they are too far beyond the pale - get banned - butthere are plenty of other forums to join.

IN addition, internet forums show the rest of the world the dark underbelly of american ignorance. for many of us, unless we go to the US, the only americans we are likely to meet are better educated and a little bit more civilised than what we often see here.

since I started coming to forums about a decade ago, my view of america and americans has changed for the worst.

sad but true.

Sometimes I have thought about donating to the forum - I did once to a forum I previously was a member of in the hope that if people pay, the quality of the forum would improve,

it didn't, so I wouldn't bother.

 

What in my post made you assume I would think this was ok?

"You are correct not all behavior is to be tolerated, but that does not mean we should become intolerant."

I am not saying a bunch of exhibitionists can practice indecent exposure in front of children, again "You are correct not all behavior is to be tolerated"

You seem to have gotten stuck on "but that does not mean we should become intolerant." meaning just because some are extreme left is not an excuse to be extreme right.

The whole point of this post was that I am personally frustrated with the extreme liberal tendency to say everything is OK as long as it is not traditional. Liberals typically have a message that preaches equality for all, but tear down conservatives because they disagree with their value for tradition. (I cannot speak of all liberals because I hope their are some out there with more balanced opinions.)

I think my post was fairly balanced but had a conservative undertone.

 

I hope to see some conservatives out there with more balanced opinions than what we generally see here.

 

Good luck with that.

 

And that means you want them to agree with you, OR they're unbalanced.

 

I think it's due to a fundamental difference between this environment and the outside world. People generally become politically active in the real world because they care passionately about certain issues. People (not all of 'em) come *here* because they like to argue.
It's rare that a discussion occurs that doesn't degenerate into a simian poo-flinging contest, and it's even more rare to run across a thread where you walk away with a deeper understanding of the issue or your opponents' viewpoint.... but it does happen occasionally.

We as mods are powerless to do anything about that.

 

"Balanced" by whose standards? Yours? Mine?

I'll settle for more people all over the spectrum who have more rational arguments supporting their positions.

 

I don't see what the big deal is. There are all sorts of nutbars out there. They don't get too many outlets beside the anonymity of the internet. Here, the bulk of nutcases are right-wingers. Other sites will be dominated by crazy lefties, religious nutcases, conspiracy theorists etc.

Remember, these crazies who post over-the-top obnoxious, vile frothing at the mouth stuff are either parodies or cowards.

 

The internet amplifies pettiness, or at exposes it more.

 

Extremism is not the goal it is the tool. Every great con job depends on three things.
　
Greed, gullibility, and misdirection.
　
Misdirection and the constant barrage of misinformation (propaganda) insures there will be no honest discussion of the relevant issues and that is “extremism“, and extremist is the two party system.
　
The sad part is the participants sucked in by their own inefficiencies, hatred, and social discrimination, to name a few, don’t even realize (gullibility) they are being used and played as the extremists. They actually think they are benefiting (greed) from following the pack mentality when they actually being played by the same piper.


When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, all that is accomplished is wasted energy with no results.
　
This is the two party system in a nut shell. While the peasant butt heads, then the manipulating minority are free to do what they do best. Screw the peasants.

 

As a liberal myself I can name off the top of my head 2 whacko liberal sites that I refuse to have anything to do with.

alternet
cindy sheehan

 

It appears the amplification is winning.

 

I think you were fine up until you demonized the 2-party system. Since it has its good and bad, in demonizing it you commit the crime you impute.

 

It's one or the other. Creating more pettiness or simply exposing pettiness that's usually hidden. I'm sure it does create some pettiness, but even if it didn't there's enough pettiness, often hidden, to be genuinely frightening.

 

They are the incubation mechanism for the extreme, how can they not be held accountable?
　
Sounds like you are too bias to step back and recognize the system for what it is.

 

My bad I thought you were saying it exposes it, as in brings it to light so as to not be as controlling. So I agree it only gets worse, not better.

 

It don't think polarization is the necessary result of a 2-party system. There is that danger, but it is only a danger, not an unavoidable end-result. And least that's what I would argue. And I would argue that it has advantages over a multi-party system. Perhaps a 2-party system is altogether worse than a multi-party system. I suspect it is slightly worse but this is just an intuition of mine.

If you're grasping for a "middle-ground" that acknowledges the truth about multiple sides, this is precisely what I'm trying to do here.