I get it; I’m hard to argue with. I have the cursed combination of:
- Never walking away from a fight
- Being overly aggressive
- Never willing to compromise
With that said, I know, I KNOW, that I can’t be always right. There simply have to be positions where I’m wrong or where I at least have to compromise.
So, looking back, where do I think I’m wrong? Where do you think YOU are wrong?
I’ll start.
I am a massive believer in markets and think that we need drastically less regulation. I’m probably wrong on how far back I wanna go.
I don’t think that we should raise taxes; in fact, I’m for lowering them. I’m probably wrong on the degree of taxation that’s healthy.
Okay, my name is Pino and I’m a debater.
Your turn.
Pino ,
You have to show where you are willing to break with the hardcore rightwingers . You have to show independent thought . Your partisanship is likely to cause weak minded individuals to commit violence , like in Arizona . Basically you have to unilaterally disarm yourself .
Your betters on the left know better . They are always cordial and willing to be respectful of other points of view, except of course, when you mention Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman. But that’s okay because those two bitches are crazy .
You have to show where you are willing to break with the hardcore rightwingers .
I agree.
It should not be impossible to disagree with the book of ideology to be able to be a player in the body politic.
But this has to slice both ways. For example, when I discuss abortion, I ask my left wing friends:
I get no response.
Where can we meet?
pino ,
That is where this left wing compromise is total crap . I hate when someone tries to play neutral. None of us are . I trust a left wing open partisan more than someone who tells me he is not .
As long as everyone gets their say and keeps the name calling under control, and does not post umpteen paragraphs of dogma, then the debate is productive . Having to defend your arguments and facts against someone with the opposite views , clarifies a lot .
But are there only two “wings”? Aren’t there a whole range of different perspectives and beliefs. I can’t say I find myself in agreement with most Democratic partisans. I certainly disagree more with Republican partisans. I probably find myself in agreement alot with Christian Democrats in Germany (that’s the conservative party there — but it would be seen as more to the left here). Perhaps I’m more a traditional/European conservative than left or right in American terms. European conservatives don’t trust markets the way the American right does — and they are openly supportive of community solidarity. They disagree with socialism, but they embrace the idea of a “social market economy,” that being market economies with a social conscience. They tend to be pragmatic and distrust ideology.
Maybe I’m weird, but I don’t want to be put into having to choose between left and right, as if there were only two ways to view the world. I don’t like feeling like if I don’t like what Michelle Bachmann has to say, I have to embrace Charles Schumer. I’m not comfortable choosing between Paul Krugman and Charles Krauthammer. Or, to quote Rik Emmett (formerly of the Canadian band Triumph): “I stand the middle ground.”
Maybe I’m weird, but I don’t want to be put into having to choose between left and right, as if there were only two ways to view the world.
More than a critique of right vs. left I’m looking for a me vs me.
Of the beliefs YOU hold, which ones do you think you might be wrong on?
I think my belief that we’re entering an era where government will become more local and decentralized may be wishful thinking. My belief that terrorism is not really all that serious of a threat may be proven wrong by some kind of nuclear terror attack. My belief that the Euro will continue because so much is invested in it may be wrong if southern European states default. My belief that spirit is more important than the material may be wrong, perhaps we are in a cold, meaningless world.
Unlike you, I want to raise taxes. I may also be wrong in the healthiest degree of taxation. Regulation is tricky — I think sometimes we need less, other times we need more. I believe regulation should be closest to the local government as possible, I may be wrong in believing that possible. I think military spending can be significantly cut because the threats of tomorrow are not major military battles but asymmetrical threats like terrorism, which are best fought with cheaper counter-terrorist methods and enhanced intelligence/cooperation with others. In that, I’m with the Europeans, who have significantly cut military budgets. I may be wrong in that view.
I think my belief that we’re entering an era where government will become more local and decentralized may be wishful thinking.
Yeah…I think were getting bigger and more of it government.
terrorism is not really all that serious of a threat may be proven wrong by some kind of nuclear terror attack.
I agree that the threat of a terrorist attack, one that REALLY does damage, is pretty low.
I may also be wrong in the healthiest degree of taxation.
It’s a giant game of SimCity.
I think military spending can be significantly cut because the threats of tomorrow are not major military battles
This one drives me crazy. Republicans are ALL about smaller government until it’s the government that they like. I’m with you on this one; we can cut the military.
I believe that compromise on the budget will come only after ‘ figuratively ‘ there are bodies on the political landscape in DC. It comes down to raw power . There is no way to know who is stronger until there is real suffering . Obama is using with holding SS checks and military pay to pressure Republicans into caving . After those two powerful groups get royally screwed and are mad, only then we will see if they blame Boehner or Obama . The loser will really lose .
If either side compromises early , they are admitting to their partisan base that they are weak . Neither base will put up with that .
Scott, both sides are mixed up coalitions . I may have to hold my nose and support a Romney or worse to get rid of Obama . You will have to decide which side you are on . Who you will hold your nose to support and stop whoever you decide is the greater evil .
After those two powerful groups get royally screwed and are mad, only then we will see if they blame Boehner or Obama . The loser will really lose .
I agree. So far, the public isn’t crying out for any ones head. Until that happens, these guys are all gonna think they have a mandate.