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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (11084)	2/7/2006 11:52:50 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541355

I think both sides genuinely believe what they believe (for the most part)- and there will be no rapprochement. The differences are too big on this. Once you've loosed the rhetoric about the other side being dangerous for America because they dissent, there isn't anywhere to go but down. So we're going down. I suspect the next election will be very down, and dirty.

To: Lane3 who wrote (11084)	2/7/2006 11:56:34 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541355

The fundamental flaw in throwing around accusations like that is how subjective emotional terms like "serious, concerned, responsible" and so on are tied silently but firmly to agreement with a particular policy agenda. If you support everything Bush wants to do, you are "serious, concerned, responsible" - if you don't, you are an ignorant lightweight with no ideas or substance. It's a straw man argument designed to convince the electorate that no agenda except the President's is serious and valid. It is deliberately designed to close out debate and consensus around any position except one side's. As such, it is analytically useless, a shallow political ploy that limits rather than deepens debate. But it is very, very effective in American politics and shows up on both sides of the aisle almost daily. It is certainly a staple of hate-talk radio 24/7. And it's one of the huge gaping holes in the effectiveness of American politics today. If you can plaster your opponent with personal, subjective accusations instead of addressing a real, opposite agenda of ideas, you get to skip the debate entirely. Total nonsense. But like I said, very effective in the short-term. In the long run, it is actually very ineffective in building lasting political coalitions. Either Bush's positions are too extreme or ineffective, or more than 50% of the American electorate is now too stupid to appreciate his genius. I vote for the former.