The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

scaeagles · 07-17-2007, 10:28 PM

Another problem is the "comprehensive" approach. I think any bill with that has the title "comprehensive" in it is bad news.

It is difficult enough for small things to be agreed upon. So instead of focusing on a small aspect of something, some arrogant politician (or group of them) decides they have the complete answer and package it all together. Well, this then goes through committees and pork gets added and there is legit disagreement and the position can be spun in a miriad of ways.

The recent immigration reform bill is a perfect example. Why not break it apart a bit? How about voting on an actual bill to control the borders by building a high tech fence? The merits of said fence can be debated alone without having to couple it with what to do about 12 million illegals in the country at ppresent. It's like discussing the surgical procedure ad infinitum while the wound continues to gush blood.

And yet, simple and small changes are often rejected as well and, as Prudence wrote so well, rejected as stupid or dangerous or some other such word. Social Security reform is a great example of that. No one dare to touch it, and the very mention of a younger contributers being allowed to invest a very small percentage of said contribution is portrayed as the desire for widowed grandmothers to be sleeping on the streets.

So what to do? Ther are passionate points of view from polar opposites that passionately will defend what they think is best - or perhaps what gives them the most power. Those polar opposites will portray the other side as anything and everything in order to make their side seem like the better solution.

I don't know if the discourse is headed downhill as much as the coverage of the discourse. It was over 40 years ago that a political campaign portrayed Goldwater with the infamous commercial of "In your heart you know he might" as someone likely to drop nukes on Russia. Pretty harsh. The examples are endless.

When passionate people compete for things they are possionate about, it is tough to come to some sort of viable alternative.

SacTown Chronic · 07-20-2007, 09:13 AM

...hung by the neck until dead.

watch

SacTown Chronic · 07-26-2007, 03:49 PM

For Leo

scaeagles · 07-26-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

For Leo

OK, that seriously rocks. I am probably going to buy one.

07-17-2007, 10:28 PM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Another problem is the "comprehensive" approach. I think any bill with that has the title "comprehensive" in it is bad news. It is difficult enough for small things to be agreed upon. So instead of focusing on a small aspect of something, some arrogant politician (or group of them) decides they have the complete answer and package it all together. Well, this then goes through committees and pork gets added and there is legit disagreement and the position can be spun in a miriad of ways. The recent immigration reform bill is a perfect example. Why not break it apart a bit? How about voting on an actual bill to control the borders by building a high tech fence? The merits of said fence can be debated alone without having to couple it with what to do about 12 million illegals in the country at ppresent. It's like discussing the surgical procedure ad infinitum while the wound continues to gush blood. And yet, simple and small changes are often rejected as well and, as Prudence wrote so well, rejected as stupid or dangerous or some other such word. Social Security reform is a great example of that. No one dare to touch it, and the very mention of a younger contributers being allowed to invest a very small percentage of said contribution is portrayed as the desire for widowed grandmothers to be sleeping on the streets. So what to do? Ther are passionate points of view from polar opposites that passionately will defend what they think is best - or perhaps what gives them the most power. Those polar opposites will portray the other side as anything and everything in order to make their side seem like the better solution. I don't know if the discourse is headed downhill as much as the coverage of the discourse. It was over 40 years ago that a political campaign portrayed Goldwater with the infamous commercial of "In your heart you know he might" as someone likely to drop nukes on Russia. Pretty harsh. The examples are endless. When passionate people compete for things they are possionate about, it is tough to come to some sort of viable alternative.
	Submit to Quotes

07-20-2007, 09:13 AM	#2
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	...hung by the neck until dead. watch
	Submit to Quotes

07-26-2007, 03:49 PM	#3
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	For Leo
	Submit to Quotes