<tone = way less attacking than it seems>
You're usually really civil in making your points and I appreciate that, but you hide behind the label of moderate or independent while having a stronger bias than you claim. I think a lot of moderates, even those with right leanings should be happier with the POTUS than strict dems or repubs would be, but I don't believe that is the case for you. You say you hate the two party system and the divide, but there has been a lot of compromise lately which is why both sides are so upset. I think you are hoping for compromise, but only if that compromise turns out to be everything you want. I'm aware this partly fits in the other thread, but was replying to your comment here. Again no hard feelings, you're one of my favorite posters that I usually disagree with.
</tone>
Actually, I am Newton's third law of motion. I am the equal and opposite reaction (ok sometimes greater-than and opposite). The dems seem to always be the ones to push harder their agenda and sound-bites, so I push back. They also seem the least likely to admit to any failings. That is just fuel to the fire. To claim infallibility (even by inference) and then to DEFEND that claim no matter the evidence is just too good to pass up. To their defense, I think repubs tend to show false humility in discussions such as this, which is why so many seem to be moderates and so they draw less fire. Trust me, I pushed back just as hard on Milsapa till I realized the role she was playing so now I just enjoy the show there and sometimes tag along.
But if you go to the "Show me yours" thread I say I have right leanings there, so that is no surprise. Largely because of the insanity of the left and their attitude of infallibility. In my experience with republicans I know in my personal circle (and democrats too) the republicans seem more open to discourse, if in the end somewhat more devious, while the dems take the stance of "we are right...la la la can't hear you...we are right....la la la" (obviously hyperbolic). It is the latter that grinds my gears more than anything, so I push back against that.
Plus this is a message board. We have some pretty good topics of conversation, but in the end it is a collection of soundbites. Point and counterpoint and occasionally some in-depth stuff that really might mean something along with lots of bravado and posturing. After all, it is anonymous, so it is easy to be what you want to be, to play a character if you will, rather than have real discussions.
Although I enjoy our banter and discussions of this nature about a wide range of topics, I take everything with a grain of salt. Even what I say (maybe even especially). =)
If you would like to have a more in-depth political discussion, and are in the Reno area, give me a call (PM me I will give you the number) and we can have lunch or go out for dinner or something, or you can come over and I can invite my political discussion group (otherwise known as chess partners and poker buddies) who represent a pretty diverse array of opinions and knowledge on the subject. That would be a great discussion.
But this is, for all of us, more entertainment than insightful philosophical discourse.
(Also you do realize I was just throwing back at Thriller what he was implying, right? In that little post he showed his contempt for republican intelligence (notice he only mentioned republican candidates?), and I just turned the tables. Otherwise known as banter.)
