Why America can not 'unite' in light of the election.

[burner69]

My opinion on why the Bush debate is so charged and why nobody will ever agree on it - why uniting the nation is not possible.

Bush has rather radical views on the world.
He is very religious, and seems intent on drawing state and church closer.
His method of foreign policy is.... in yer face... shall we say.

Now, it seems that 50% ish of people like this. They may be religious and find drawing state and church closer will make things better.
And they believe that going out into other countries and changing things is for the better.

The other half disagree, and, like myself, see it marginalising if you link church with state.
And that he has little right to say how other countries are run.

Some believe he has made the world safer.
Others believe the opposite.

These are my views.
What are yours?

 

[Absinthe]

Those that support and those that don't support Bush generally have opinions of polar opposites. Nobody wants to budge out of the fear that giving the other more ground will have the nation suffer for it.

It was that way last term. And since then, both sides have become even more entrenched. When first elected, Bush talked about healing the divisions made in the nation. He instead alienated half the country.

I won't be surprised if his second term turns out to be more of the same.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

My opinion on why the Bush debate is so charged and why nobody will ever agree on it - why uniting the nation is not possible.

It is possible, its just nobody wants to unite, because they feel if they do, then their supporting Bush.

Bush has rather radical views on the world.

Radically different from a Liberal, and a Liberal, has radically different viewpoints then a conservative.

He is very religious, and seems intent on drawing state and church closer.
His method of foreign policy is.... in yer face... shall we say.

I disagree. He can intend all he wants to with state or church, but I dedicated most of my votes to Liberal positions for, not only my state, but my country.

This should debunk a good half of that being possible.

His method of Foreign Policy could be flawed, but I dont view the "in your face" what flaws it. More like the action that follows through with it.

Now, it seems that 50% ish of people like this. They may be religious and find drawing state and church closer will make things better.

Im conservative, and dont agree bringing church or state closer together is a healthy idea. But, I do agree, if it is apart of our countries specifics, it should'nt be removed or added but left in its original context.

Much the same an atheist has the right, not to believe, a Christian has the right, too believe. We can specify our situations or World history following a religious concept, but we cannot say on the exact term, Religion was indeed responsible too these ends.

I would argue that the evil residing within the conscious of a man, is much more responsible for slandering the belief system of both atheist or Christian alike.

The Crusades might speak a volume on some of the manipulation following a church mindset, and yes, the Holy Roman Empire and its birth into the Catholic Church, also could contribute some factors. After all, we know what the Catholic Church was capable of.

We also, knew infact, the Catholic Church, was involved with Science, and had its own researchive branches. Its just, we know outside sciences, were oppressed, because they were the only other researchers capable of proofing the Catholic Church false.

However, it does also speak volumes, that those who dont believe, accept the significance of hard-questioning, and beligerent attitudes towards those who have religion.

Tid-For-Tad. What that means, is escalating which one is the worse, or for the better, right.

We can equate these, but both sides have the right to believe what they want. Intending to merge state and atheism, would alarm me much the same, as merging state and christianism.

Their both not right, and nethire are true official doctrine. The church that does exist, with some of its proclamations on the American Dollar or ruling, is the follow of a morale rule.

The bible, was just used as context, to promote a grounds for our civil liberties or amendments. We cannot exclusively say we dont need either Christianism or Atheism, because without one or the other, our society would be lawless and would have zero constructive merits.

The Opposition for both, is what makes society healthy, and men willing to believe or follow their own. To remove either, would be a horrible change to society. The middle-ground, is co-existance, and if Atheism wants a part, or any other religion wants a part in the grounds of what the United States exists to be, we can surely add to, but not bury or exchange one for the next.

And they believe that going out into other countries and changing things is for the better.

I believe removing Poverty is a better issue. If your referencing to Iraq, I cant say everybody supports the conquest in their. Most of everyone, just hopes the troops get home.

Its not that selfish--people in Britain who have sons or daughters in the military, hope for theirs aswell. Same with Iraqi citizens--and its a shared merit beyond the scope of the war.

Some believe he has made the world safer.
Others believe the opposite.

I believe both, to some element.

My viewpoints are, that he's not perfect. He's a politician, and politicians lie, and are deceitful. This is to agree with Mechagodzilla and CptStern, that the Iraq war is purely not an element justifiable but Bush's claims.

Why can Americans not unite? Because they're not willing.

You can say, "well im not willing because x_variable", but its the same as, "not willing", just without the despondancy or reason added to it.

Its simple enough without an added answer, but I acknowledge all of them, but I will not acknowledge those who are going to leave themselves at the date Kerry lost.

If your unwilling to move on, or focus on sanctioning bush, or pursuing this plausible victory for a Liberal stance, then your not constructively upholding your opinion.

I'm upholding my opinion, because im a with a group right now thats pressing the state to not only acknowledge the ecological problems right now (which Bill Mahr is apart of), but one where Gay Marriage is trying to break into somethings.

Enough about me, the end of it all is, people dont want to work together. They have their grounds, but its not fair. Selfish, and if so they dont want to work together, or get their voice heard, I'll just move onto where, not only my voice can be heard, but others aswell.

 

[Steelwind]

I think this all goes back to the founding principles our country was built upon. Like-minded individuals came here to start a new life, one that was free to the people and allowed them certain unalienable rights that they were not given back in England. Democracy seemed to fit the bill because the majority was indeed the majority. However, our open policy to immigrants, allowing them to come to the United States in search of a better life has slowly dilluted the effeiciency of our democratic government. Over the years more and more people of varying opinions have made the United States their home. We're starting to see now that the majority isn't as major as it once was. There are too many people with too many different views, and it has divided the nation almost equally. Democracy requires a majority for it to run effectively, however our minority is becoming equal to the majority. What we're left with is one half of the country as happy as a daisy and the other half pissed off.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I think this all goes back to the founding principles our country was built upon. Like-minded individuals came here to start a new life, one that was free to the people and allowed them certain unalienable rights that they were not given back in England. Democracy seemed to fit the bill because the majority was indeed the majority. However, our open policy to immigrants, allowing them to come to the United States in search of a better life has slowly dilluted the effeiciency of our democratic government. Over the years more and more people of varying opinions have made the United States their home. We're starting to see now that the majority isn't as major as it once was. There are too many people with too many different views, and it has divided the nation almost equally. Democracy requires a majority for it to run effectively, however our minority is becoming equal to the majority. What we're left with is one half of the country as happy as a daisy and the other half pissed off.

Words, were never spoken truer.

 

[KidRock]

liberals..sore looosers

 

[Sprafa]

take the bipartisan system down and you have a healthy democracy.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Most of the Partisan behavior came out of excited democrats. They could've gotten someone better to have represented them.

But they lost.

 

[Absinthe]

liberals..sore looosers

 

[Neutrino]

I think this election really underscores some of the problems with democracy. No, not because Bush was elected, but because of what it has done to the nation.

A democracy is suppose to be for the people. Now certainly you can never make everyone happy, but it works pretty well as long as there is a distinct majority on one side. But what happens when things are so evenly split as they are now? How is democracy suppose to handle a population that is divided down the center?

This can work for small groups. For example, if you have 3 people and a vote is split 2 to 3 then obviously democracy agrees with those 2. Or even 5 people makes sense if it's split 2 to 3. But what happens when you up the numbers? What happens when it is split 50 million to 53 milliion? Are we really serving "the people" anymore? Not that this election is alone in this by any means. There have been elections split in a similar way. But the quesion is, at what number of people does democracy fail? What if it was split 100 million to 101 million? Or how about 200 million to 202 million? What about China? If china were a democracy what if the vote was split 500 million to 505 million? Is this truly a representative democracy?

I'm not sure, but I see some very serious problems with this kind of thing. Perhaps some of the blame lies with our two party system. It seems as the population grows, only giving them two choices is not a very good option. Although, multiple party systems bring their own problems as well. In a three party system someone could be voted in with only 34% of the vote. So what about the other 65% of the people that disagree with them?

That's not to say it isn't a pretty good system over all. It's served us reasonably well. But I think there are also some inherant flawes within it that could be improved upon. Though truly any system of government for humans would seem to be always fraught with problems due to the nature of humanity.

 

[burner69]

The thing is, it is 'possible' to unite the country. But only if both sides agree on a middle marker - which realistically will not happen.

KidRock you never cease to astound me. Keep it up :thumbs:

 

[Korgoth]

He isn't my president and I don't care what anyone says. He does not represent me, I didn't elect him, and he doesn't have one single policy that I'm aware of that I agree with. I don't hate him personally, but I do despise his policies, I don't believe he is a fit leader, his administation is caught up in questionable buisness dealings and they've sent one of my best friends to fight in a foreign land under false pretenses. He can never reach out to me, no matter what he does.

 

[burner69]

He isn't my president and I don't care what anyone says. He does not represent me, I didn't elect him, and he doesn't have one single policy that I'm aware of that I agree with. I don't hate him personally, but I do despise his policies, I don't believe he is a fit leader, his administation is caught up in questionable buisness dealings and they've sent one of my best friends to fight in a foreign land under false pretenses. He can never reach out to me, no matter what he does.

^^ the voice of the 48% "minority" I believe.
Listen to this guy people... and you Bush!
By the way, I wish your friend good luck. It sucks having someone you know over there, especially when you disagree with the war.

 

[FortisVir]

First off, before I start this rant, I just want to make my position on politics clear (or as clear as I can make it).

It is my opinion, that during certain events in the political history of a country, there comes a point where a rational citizen must decide whether a certain leader is performing his/her job adequately based on the facts alone and not through partisan favor.


What I mean is, I don't think Bush is a bad president because he is a Republican or because he is a conservative Christian blah blah blah. I think he is bad president because his actions in the long term are only going to hurt America, period. That's it. If some of you have the idea that us Democrats hate Republican ideology and thats the bottom line than you need to reform your conceptions.

My family is probably about 80% conservative and 20% liberal. And I respect everyone in my family's opinions when we get into politics. I've been following George Bush's presidency for a while now and I threw out the "Bush is bad because he's a Republican a long time ago". I would much rather focus on the blunders of this administration established as fact than some partisan agenda.

On the subject of unification, I just don't know if it's going to be all sunshine and roses a year from now. I, for one, am not going to forget what has happened in the last four years. I did not vote for Bush on Tuesday and neither did millions of other people. The fact that Bush is going on and on about his "mandate" scares me. This administration has been so terribly awful that I can't on a good conscious wipe the slate clean of everything that has happened.

To go off on a semi-tangent here, I don't give a crap about gay marriage. If two gay people want to get married that's fine with me, they certainly can't do any worse with it than us straight people. I am much more concerned with our foreign policy, our economy, and our environment. I like to think that millions of people without health care, millions of people in poverty, and tens of thousands of people dead in Iraq is a "moral issue", but that's just me.

Am I being bitter? Maybe so. But "in light of the election", and our current political situation, complacency is not an option.

/end rant. I'm going to bed.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I respect that ^

 

[burner69]

One of the best posts I've heard.