Where do all of the main stream ideals of each party start?? Anyone who has an open mind can see all kinds of hypocrisy in each party, what i dont understand is where these ideals start since they are clearly in grey areas of each party, yet each party has their side set in stone. A good one which represent hypocrisy in both parties would be the aboprtion debate, and the death penalty, both parties are guilty of being highly hypocritical when comparing one issue to the other in this debate yet both choose to absolutely support their side of the argument, my question is why are people not more capable of intelligent thought?? You would think if people were capable of making a decision of their own then both of these would be much more split. Why is it that people just choose the side of debate for which their party stands 99% of the time?? Please keep this away from the typical ET, he said she said banter and try to answer the question, is there an exact moment you can pinpoint with alot of these issues where one leader of a side went one way and the whole party went with them, and it has remained that way ever since? Is either side even capable of critical thought anymore, or are 99% of people just sheep?
Some people defend principles at the expense of people and others defend people at the expense of principles ...survival. Another bumper sticker: The truth is a liquid not a solid.
Its unfortunate that a significant number of ET members see the world in black and white. To these stubborn members, there is no gray. I don't know how such people could become profitable traders. There are guys here that will criticize EVERY single thing about Obama. I mean everything. And yes, there is certainly ton's of hypocrisy from both parties. I would also argue that the Republican and Democrat parties are very similar in there overall ideologies too. For a American who is unaware of the political parties in other countries, the differences between Republicans and Democrats look substantial. Those aware of all the different factions in Great Britain or Germany know that the parties could be radically different on ideology.
Dunno about anybody else, but my political ideals stem from two very simple premises. One, I prefer to be left alone and in exchange I prefer to leave other people alone. Unlike the majority of people on this planet, I'm not interested in telling other people what they can smoke, eat, drink or say. As long as they only hurt themselves, they can go to town with my blessings. The other premise comes from two documents of which very little is known - The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America. The basic premise of these documents from ancient history is that every man has certain rights, including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the other idea proposed by these outdated and forgotten documents is that government is implemented to secure these rights. I know, very old fashioned. Quaint, even. Government shouldn't grant any "rights" that depend on others to provide them. We're not going to limit freedom of speech and assembly because we've run out of words and places to assemble. You can speak your mind 24x7 for as long as you'd like. However, you do not have the right to have other people listen. That would be a right supplied by others. You don't have a right to food, shelter and a 52" Plasma TV, all provided by the government. I'm not a hypocrite. I support the death penalty in certain situations. I see that the Constitution does not provide the power to the federal government to ban or permit abortions - that power is "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." While I would oppose a state ban (in my state - the rest of you can do as you wish) on abortions, I tend to agree with the prolifers on most aspects, such as banning late term abortions, parental consent for minors (except in incest cases), etc. It's not hard to understand.
The same thing can be said about people who criticize EVERY single thing about Bush, so my question is can you pin point a moment in time for a lot of issues where one party or the other decided to go one way or the other on a given issue in the face of it being completely hypocritical? Where were these party ideals, which do not fall along the lines of the general ideals of the party get set in stone?
TGREGG, i agree with what you have said almost to a tee, including the death penalty and abortion which i am in the middle on both, i admit i am right wing, i believe basically that government should just stay the f%$# out of our lives 99% of the time, but while i support these ideals i am also able to see the hypocrisy in alot of the issues subject to debate on the right wing, or left wing something which you will rarely see a right, or leftwinger even give an inch on. Wait 5 minutes for some troll like thunderdog of dr jackmehoffolus to respond, and you will see what im saying, this is not reserved just to people incapable of critical thought on this board either, it is all over the mainstream media, so again i wanna ask.... Can anyone tell me where these Grey areas got set in stone for 99% of people??? can anyone find one of these critical areas and pinpoint a date or president who decided the way its gonna be and then it ended up that way, for an entire group of people?
I'm confused with what you are trying to ask. Do you mean like Bush initially ran on a non-interventionist foreign policy in 2000 and yet ended up invading Iraq and fighting this illusionary enemy in the War on Terror? Or how the Democrats claim to be the party of peace, although historically it was usually the Democrats that got us into war?
Yeah this is a good set of hypocrysies but i mean in the underlying, main arguments more than anything, like how did the right go "pro life" but at the same time "pro death penalty," or vice versa, i mean the actual groundwork for 99% of the debates not shit like that dumbass Ensign preacching family values and teeing off on his secretary. At what point in time did Pro life become a republican ideal? but and pro death penalty again become mostly a republican ideal? Or vice versa. As these two situations clearly contradict each other.
Yes now I know exactly what you mean... I don't know if there is a specific point in time where these contradictions occurred. I will say that a long, long time ago the Democrats used to be more popular in the South. I'm going to look for a book that I remember from my college days that mentions the Republican/Democrat hypocrisies. I remember the Abortion/Death Sentence example perfectly. There are dozens of them.
Just found the book. Its Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think by George Lakoff Strict Father = Conservative Nurturant Mother = Liberal Google it or see reviews on Amazon.com for a overview. This is a book that has to be completely read to understand why liberals/conservatives supposedly support their (sometimes contradictory) views. It brings up all the mainstream issues and how the models form for both types.