Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (14792)	3/17/2003 2:39:26 PM
From: lurqer	Respond to of 89467

Although the conversation all to often slips into acrimony on this board, the political diversity behind that conversation should (IMO) be celebrated. Just as genetic diversity in the gene pool of a species, allows that species to better respond to a changing variety of conditions without risking extinction, so diversity of opinions in the body politic provides a sturdier base of responses to national problems both foreign and domestic. Hence, diversity of both political creed and types, should be appreciated for the strength it provides By diversity of political creed, I’m referring to the classic left – right, liberal – conservative spectrum, with which we are all familiar. By political types, I’m referring to something a little more obscure. Perhaps the best way to understand to what I’m referring, is to think in terms of trust. A spectrum of trust will face any new president. Some will be very cynical, and not the least bit trusting. Others, while skeptical will allow “the new guy (eventually /gal)” to earn their trust. In the middle, are those neither trusting nor skeptical; while even more trusting are those prepared “to give the benefit of the doubt”. Finally, there are those who are the “true believers” who have total confidence in “their guy”. This trust dimension is more a matter of temperament than it is political creed. Both liberals and conservatives can have a skeptical or trusting temperament. Just as liberals and conservatives find each others politics abhorrent, so believers and skeptics find each others temperaments repugnant. To the believers, the skeptics are traitors, Quislings and unpatriotic; to the skeptics the believers are lemmings, lock-step automatons incapable of independent thought. Clearly, both temperaments are required for any healthy body politic. If everyone was questioning, there would be no us - only a bunch of MEs, completely atomized. Anyone that thinks this is ideal, doesn’t understand teamwork. OTOH, government without some “second guessing”, is like an auto with no brakes or steering. To find where a particular individual lies in this, two dimensional framework, care should be exercised. Is a particular individual skeptical because they are inherently skeptical or simply because they don’t trust the “other side”? Moreover, closer examination will reveal that the two dimensions are not independent. The more extreme the liberal (or conservative) creed, the greater the degree of oscillation in the skeptical-belief dimension as the government changes creed. By far the best way to determine, the location of an individual on the belief dimension is to observe their behavior while “their guy” is in power. After observing this two-dimensional spectrum of creeds and temperament for some time, you notice that all cells are not equally populated. Most skeptics tend to be ambivalent to creed, while most true believers tend to adopt more extreme creeds. But while that is the general tendency, the skeptics that are committed to a creed and the believers that are near the center of the creed spectrum, although both rarer, are of extreme importance. Why? Because it is these two groups that can, when needed, most effectively alter the direction of the body politic. The creed committed skeptic, being more open to alternatives, will spot a dangerous error in the direction of the government long before the true believer of that creed. Given their creed credentials, they are both more likely to be believed, and to present acceptable alternatives to the true believers of that creed. The true believers without a strong creed bias can more easily change their opinions for their primary unswerving allegiance is to the country itself. So given that a government of a particular creed exists, and for whatever reason it’s headed down the wrong path, part of the incessant criticism from the true believers of the opposite creed starts to “ring true” to the permanently skeptical.. They distill the valid criticism from the “They’re all bad” rhetoric of the opposing true believers and package the criticism in a more logical formulation. If that formulation is of sufficient strength it will convince the committed skeptics of the governing creed and some of the creedless true believers. Finally, the creedless skeptics and the committed skeptics of the governing creed will arrive at an acceptable alternative for the true believers of the governing creed. It’s a messy process with a lot of name calling and impugning of other’s motives. But that’s democracy – when it works. JMO lurqer

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (14792)	3/17/2003 2:44:51 PM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

you guys are just plain naive on the United Nations costs all unpaid bills by default go to the United States they are the landlord stop patting yourselves on the back and try the thought process you guys, especially the liberals, are just plain ignorant thought process is not native imagine you as a landlord own an apartment building you have 20 tenants and 4 of them are deadbeats they leave their apartment units with unpaid rent maybe even a couple other bills tied to their units who ends up paying for this? THE LANDLORD in the U.N. case, the landlord is by default Americans last I checked, their buildings rested on NewYorkCity soil a common thread among liberal citizens is that nobody picks up the tab for their outofcontrol spending resort to the landlord resort to the Congress or taxpayer base accounting, economics, and high finance is certainly you guys' weak suit !!! and another thing, do you realize your many many ideals are far more consistent with Vladimir Lenin's than with Abraham Lincoln??? hard to believe, isnt i? re: personal freedom, right to property, search & seizure, taxation of wealthy, uncontrollable govt spending, implicit burden on poor to finance Ruling Elite/ Liberal Left currency inflationary debasement, etc ( I didnt expect you to understand this argument ) / jim