Your Political Views - a test

[Tgace]

Id be willing to bet that some of you folks would be agitated with me if I were making statements about Pres. Clinton....but your statements about Bush are supposed to be accepted as unbiased truth.....stuff like this (IMHO) is always more about partisan politics and political ideology than it is about specific issues.

 

[Tgace]

Based on where most people, who have no problem with it, have landed on this compass test there is a bent toward the anarchy, so it is not surprising to find my comments that demonstrate some hope and faith in the agendas and purpose of our officials as unwelcome or ignorant. They are chosen, voted and accepted leaders. Leaders are only as successful as their followers. Even the losing candidates model this sense of national fraternity in formal statements of support for the newly elected official (POTUS or otherwise), regardless of party affilitations. Sometimes being a good follower means speaking up, sometimes it means taking a leap of faith. Sometimes it means protesting... but nothing good comes of 'enemy' language accept further fighting. Fix the problem not the blame: Vote him out or compete against him if you want to 'fix' this.

Oh youre just a facist, warmongering nazi (but I respect your service), who blindly follows the flag (but Im a patriot too), you need to become part of the "global village" (because Ive seen how well other nations have done throughout history).

 

[OULobo]

Id be willing to bet that some of you folks would be agitated with me if I were making statements about Pres. Clinton....but your statements about Bush are supposed to be accepted as unbiased truth.....stuff like this (IMHO) is always more about partisan politics and political ideology than it is about specific issues.

But the problem is that you can blame all viewpoints on bias. I don't think Clinton did very well. I don't really like him and I rarely argue when people bash him (although you can't deny that life was a little better when he was in office, for whatever reason). I don't like either Bush or Clinton and I'm not really loyal to a party, but I'm "biased and unproductive" in converstation according to some (loki, I'm not really taking a shot at you, just showing how no matter what stance you take someone will find a way to try and disregard your statments).

 

[Tgace]

So is "talking politics" pointless?? Ive yet to see anybody change their viewpoint because of it, and it only seems to foster arguement. Vote your conscience, do your part as you see it and leave it at that.

 

[Makalakumu]

So is "talking politics" pointless?? Ive yet to see anybody change their viewpoint because of it, and it only seems to foster arguement. Vote your conscience, do your part as you see it and leave it at that.

I frequently change my viewpoint when people make good points. Loki has made a good point in regards to my use of the term "enemy" and I am tending to agree with that critique. On another thread, someone posted some interesting information about president Clinton which showed some responsibility on his part for 911. This is information that I did not know and now it has changed my view. For me, opinions are fluid constructs. They change with the coming of new information.

 

[Makalakumu]

Oh youre just a facist, warmongering nazi (but I respect your service), who blindly follows the flag (but Im a patriot too), you need to become part of the "global village" (because Ive seen how well other nations have done throughout history).

That's right! Because you can't love your country and disagree with the leaders at the same time! That'd be crazy!

Sich Hiel

:jedi1:

 

[OULobo]

I frequently change my viewpoint when people make good points. Loki has made a good point in regards to my use of the term "enemy" and I am tending to agree with that critique. On another thread, someone posted some interesting information about president Clinton which showed some responsibility on his part for 911. This is information that I did not know and now it has changed my view. For me, opinions are fluid constructs. They change with the coming of new information.

Exactly. I have had my mind changed numerous times on this forum. This is a great example of how debate really helps.

 

[Makalakumu]

"As servicemen - at every rank, we are taught that we are to follow lawful orders. That means that we are obligated to refuse orders that violate the laws of land warfare, geneva convention agreements, as well as Uniform Code of Military Justice (similiar to the Justice code that civilians answer to as well). We also do have time to consider whether these orders are lawful or not. During briefings, training, daily activities that are far different from the 'fog of war' that you are assuming is the only time that we answer orders or exercise our oaths. Most of the time, we did/do mundane puttering and prep for those intense moments. The majority of military types never see that level of combat because they are logisticians and support for those who do..

Did you join the military to "protect our freedoms", "serve our country", or "go to college"? Or any combination or other. Be honest.

This is very similiar to the process/freedoms to question that civilians have. As far as democracy and blind faith and all that: what about us as rep. of Martial arts. We come into question and criticism by those who don't know as much as we do about the reality of the job/practice/lifestyle. We know more by nature of where we have chosen to be in relation to the topic/job/lifestyle. Students walk into a class and accept the instructional/environmental and social guidelines of the head instructor/leader of the school. If they don't like it they can either leave, make suggestions, seek clarification or do something else. But to stand at the door and complain and complain and call names and blah blah blah is not a productive practice, nor is it the lesson we are teaching our own students.

For the last four years, progressives have been trashed by the President and Republicans in general. We have been written off as "activists" and "focus groups". We have had to deal with all sorts of nasty behaviour from people who, according to the test, are diametrically opposed to us. I will concede that my usage of the word "enemy" is sophomoric in a sense. Yet, it comes very close to describing what I feel concerning recent policy decisions. The things that our president is doing at this moment, real "enemies" of our country did in the steps toward becoming an "enemy".

We are admired by some for our willingness to develop our ability to exercise judgement and execute violence when things get tough. Others say that we are war mongers because we are always preparing for fighting.... I think that it is a matter of perspective, but we - as martial artists also promote philosophies of harmony and cooperation as part of our codes of conduct and personal character development. Regardless of what others do, we have to live with ourselves. Would you openly call people in your direct contact 'enemies' because you don't agree with them? Or would you demonstrate some character and try and lead by example or make changes from within instead of calling names? Based on your posts, I think you would try and demonstrate good character on that scale. Why is it different when the scale changes? Or when the person, regardless of what your issues are, can't hear you directly. Isn't that the same mentallity of prejudice and racism. "Those people" are "always" and "I know because look at this information", but it isn't all of it. Should I say that Black people/minorities are more prone to violence and drug trafficing because the statistics and practices are there to support it? That would go over real big!.

There is a large difference between prejudice and racism and the labeling of President Bush as "the enemy". I agree, the tone of this label is extreme. Yet, these are polarized days! When the President was elected, no one expected him to come out with policies that were so far right.

And I disagree with the scale argument. Reducing the argument down to a person to person level makes no sense because in politics we deal with groups. Group interactions are different then interactions between individuals. I can tell you that my reaction toward President Bush in person would be far different then my reaction to President Bush Incorporated. Politically, George W. Bush is more then just a man. Personally, we could probably kick back some soda a pretzels and make it through a good baseball game...that is if he didn't choke and if he would be willing to slum with the proles

I am not saying that you have to go along to get along. I am saying that at the end of the day we all sleep under the same flag and status as citizen, there should be some decorum, respectful conduct that is maintained for mature discussion and consensus.

It's all a matter of context. I regularly participate in local and state governmental meetings and its a different story. Respecting someone's opinion despite strong idealogic difference is essential for compromise. In an informal setting or informal debate, it's okay to let your passion out and fling off a few tongue in cheek comments. Part of being a mature adult is knowing when that is appropriate.

Do you have the time in your life/day to be in on every decision that the governments have to make? Do you have the time to research and become knowledgeable on all the issues, opinions....? Do you think that government should be wide open with intelligence gathering information/practices and technology? The open information argument is ideal but not realistic.

It's too easy to let this slide into a realm of excuses. As a voter you need to be as informed as you possibly can be and there is NO excuse not to be. Anything else is a dereliction of your DUTY as a United States citizen. The administration has the responsibility to be as up-front and open as it possibly can about its operations. This administration is the most secretive administration in our history and we cannot let them continue to make excuses for not being open for the sake of "national security". For instance, discovering that Ken Lay probably had a large hand in the construction of our administrations energy policy has nothing to do with "national security".

The 'us' and 'them' tone when it comes to politics doesn't speak well to the possibility of national fraternity let alone a global one.

I agree, but again, it's all a matter of proper context.

 

[Tgace]

That's right! Because you can't love your country and disagree with the leaders at the same time! That'd be crazy!

Sich Hiel

:jedi1:

My "point" is that there always seems to be an "iron fist" inside the "velvet glove" of politically correct speech. People say they "appreciate" the things you do then go on to bash you. Seen it in uniform and at work. Nowhere did I say that its "unpatriotic" to be against a policy or decision. Im just pointing out how many times (and not you in particular) if a "patriotic" person makes a statement about loving his country, believing it is "better" than other nations, etc. its fair game to call him a facist, flag-waving nazi etc. But if the criticism is directed the other way, they get a response like above and the door slams shut.

And I dont mean to be an armchair psychologist but, while you may be rethinking your use of the word "enemy" I still get the feeling that the word is close to your true "feeling". Which is what I thought was being questioned. The belief that our leaders are the "enemy" and not the terms used to describe that belief.

 

[Makalakumu]

My "point" is that there always seems to be an "iron fist" inside the "velvet glove" of politically correct speech. People say they "appreciate" the things you do then go on to bash you. Seen it in uniform and at work. Nowhere did I say that its "unpatriotic" to be against a policy or decision. Im just pointing out how many times (and not you in particular) if a "patriotic" person makes a statement about loving his country, believing it is "better" than other nations, etc. its fair game to call him a facist, flag-waving nazi etc. But if the criticism is directed the other way, they get a response like above and the door slams shut.

And I dont mean to be an armchair psychologist but, while you may be rethinking your use of the word "enemy" I still get the feeling that the word is close to your true "feeling". Which is what I thought was being questioned. The belief that our leaders are the "enemy" and not the terms used to describe that belief.

It is possible to appreciate part of someone's opinion and then disagree with other parts. I respect a person's decision to serve this country as a servicemen, although I disagree with the usage of that service by our current leaders.

There are many things that are great about our country and we have a lot to offer to other people. Likewise, there are many things that we could learn from other countries. I am wary of "patriotism" because it has so often equated to nationalism. I am more fond of realism. Realism in the way we see ourselves.

"Enemy" is the way I feel. I can't help it if someone takes exception to that. At least I'm being honest. I see so many unamerican things that our president is doing that it is beginning to become difficult to draw the line between those who have been traditional "enemies" and our leaders. A large part of me feels like the President has declared war on the working people of this country.

 

[Tgace]

So your "enemy" opinion hasnt changed has it? Then will debating it anymore really make a difference?

I frequently change my viewpoint when people make good points. Loki has made a good point in regards to my use of the term "enemy" and I am tending to agree with that critique.

 

[Makalakumu]

So your "enemy" opinion hasnt changed has it? Then will debating it anymore really make a difference?

Debating it could make a difference. It is always possible that I have gone wrong with my rhetoric concerning the President. Loki has made the point that it is my tone that he takes exception with and not neccessarily the substance of my arguments. If this is your point, I'll ask you the same question...how should we discuss emotionally charged subjects on the internet?

What are the rules of engagement?

It you disagree with the substance of my arguments...have at you! En guarde!

:jedi1:

upnorthkyosa

 

[Tgace]

Debating it could make a difference. It is always possible that I have gone wrong with my rhetoric concerning the President. Loki has made the point that it is my tone that he takes exception with and not neccessarily the substance of my arguments. If this is your point, I'll ask you the same question...how should we discuss emotionally charged subjects on the internet?

What are the rules of engagement?

It you disagree with the substance of my arguments...have at you! En guarde!

:jedi1:

upnorthkyosa

I suppose that I probably am having more of an issue with the "anti-americanish" tone that I am with any issue with the POTUS. I dont know if youve noticed, but I havent really defended the pres. as a person or his policies. There are a number of things that I do disagree with (the blatantly political "migrant worker" issue for example). I guess that I am a dyed in the wool Patriot. While I may not "believe" entirely in any individual politician, I do believe in my Country and our system of government. Not that you are not, but I try to come from a less "our government sucks" angle.

 

[Makalakumu]

I suppose that I probably am having more of an issue with the "anti-americanish" tone that I am with any issue with the POTUS. I dont know if youve noticed, but I havent really defended the pres. as a person or his policies. There are a number of things that I do disagree with (the blatantly political "migrant worker" issue for example). I guess that I am a dyed in the wool Patriot. While I may not "believe" entirely in any individual politician, I do believe in my Country and our system of government. Not that you are not, but I try to come from a less "our government sucks" angle.

There is nothing wrong, ideally, with patriotism. I am wary of it. In so many cases, it has equated with nationism in the past. Mind you, I'm not saying "all patriots are mindless slaves" or anything like that.

As far as tone goes...some political engagements, especially informal ones, are merely exchanges of well crafted barbs. There is an art form in that kind of sparring and it isn't just about trashing your opponent.

 

[loki09789]

Did you join the military to "protect our freedoms", "serve our country", or "go to college"? Or any combination or other. Be honest.

And I disagree with the scale argument. Reducing the argument down to a person to person level makes no sense because in politics we deal with groups. Group interactions are different then interactions between individuals.

It's all a matter of context. I regularly participate in local and state governmental meetings and its a different story. Respecting someone's opinion despite strong idealogic difference is essential for compromise. In an informal setting or informal debate, it's okay to let your passion out and fling off a few tongue in cheek comments. Part of being a mature adult is knowing when that is appropriate.

I joined the service for about the same reasons as anyone else: Personal test, college money, paid adventure, desire to make a difference, travel... and my recruiter was a very gorgeous Polynesian/Portagese woman who had joined the service when she lost her cheerleader scholarship... I figured they all looked that good . What I learned by joining and serving was far more important than my entry motivations. It is the path not the destination kind of thing.

My loyalty, respect for, and behavior towards the guy next to me and my superiors/subordinates, regardless of personal differences was more important than the differences when we had to come together. During meetings, training planning, operational planning, daily maintenance .... professional bearing/conduct and respect were the key to getting people to take you seriously as a leader, peer or subordinate. The 'sharp shooter's', '**** birds',... were hard to take seriously - even when they were dead on. I learned that there were times when it was acceptable to air differences, offer opinions/options/insights and there were times to shut up and dance because the powers that be had decided on what was to be done. I didn't always agree or understand completely, but I did swear an oath (remember that I am not talking blind loyalty here, lawful orders...). This doesn't mean that it was all stiff and formal. Respect, loyalty and professionalism can be delivered casually as well. Some stuff I learned the hard way, some I learned by doing the right thing... regardless I learned. This lesson translates all the way up and down the chain.

As citizens, though it is looser than military services, we all 'were the same uniform' of citizenship and I think the lessons about appropriate conduct and timing of when to talk and when to shut up and dance still apply.

The scale analogy works if you recognize that a person as a body has elements like a group becomes a single body when the members choose to be identified/associated under the same heading. Terms like the 'body of government' or 'ship of state' are analogous statements that describe a group of people as a single identity. Political cartoons constantly reduce the issues/parties into single units to illustrate points. Symbols such as Elephants and Donkeys create a single body identity of the major political parties. If scale analogies don't work, how can we talk about fight tactics as concepts that could apply to entire armies or individual fighters?

As far as contextual appropriateness, since when is decency and treating people with a little dignity ever inappropriate? Regardless of what others are saying and doing, when is it appropriate to 'stoop to their level' if someone is treating you poorly? Character/bearing calms people and creates a living disparity between what the 'other' person is doing and what they should be doing. Consider the peaceful protest of Dr. Martin Luther King, Ghandi and others who are plotted on the compass, their dignified demonstration of moral conviction with character and bearing was far more influencial than any 'enemy' level of commentary or reactive emotional state.

It comes down to the simplest lessons of pointing your finger at someone and remembering that three are pointing back at you... cliche, but still clear.

 

[Makalakumu]

As far as contextual appropriateness, since when is decency and treating people with a little dignity ever inappropriate? Regardless of what others are saying and doing, when is it appropriate to 'stoop to their level' if someone is treating you poorly? Character/bearing calms people and creates a living disparity between what the 'other' person is doing and what they should be doing. Consider the peaceful protest of Dr. Martin Luther King, Ghandi and others who are plotted on the compass, their dignified demonstration of moral conviction with character and bearing was far more influencial than any 'enemy' level of commentary or reactive emotional state.

It comes down to the simplest lessons of pointing your finger at someone and remembering that three are pointing back at you... cliche, but still clear.

Here is a saying that describes many of the conversations that people have on this board and in real life. "Lean back on your knife," what it means is to speak freely and without fear. Sometimes these discussions are clever banters and sometimes they get heated because of language like "enemy". There is purpose in speaking this way, though, over the net and in real life. We could have this discussion in real life and it doesn't necessarily mean that I have forgotten my manners. That is what I mean by contextual. When we "lean back on our knives" no matter what is said, we shake hands afterward and part ways, hopefully getting to know more about what the other guy actually feels. In a way, it's very much like sparring...

When the knives are out, then the tone switches. Business gets done.

upnorthkyosa