congress is bipolar.

Is no one willing to admit the ways their opponets are right. It’s so easy to be nay sayers after the fact.

What do you mean? Republicans are breaking ranks with the President everyday.

They are breaking ranks with the president on his brick wall he hit in the Iraq war. Don’t look at the views of the illegal alien problem either. They were divided by the compramize needed to get the amnesty bill to work. It would set legal forground for problems.

Look on how they pander to their public. It’s limited forum looks way too much like stretching the truth to fill in the gaps.

I’m not disagreeing that Congress isn’t bipolar . . . but I do have to ask, in an elected society, oughtn’t the officials ‘pander’ to the public from which there authority is (theoretically) derived?

Now, clearly this doesn’t model reality terribly well because different people clearly have different amounts of influence – usually along plutocratic lines. But, I have to ask if this ‘bipolar’ nature isn’t something that is to be expected from popularly elected officials rather than an unfortunate side-effect?

is competition good?

Ya as long as you don’t build up defence walls against this competition. By not arguing the facts, no one can be naysayers toward the variables the facts misrepresnt. And in fact the presidentential wannabe is elected by pandering to conflicting ideology in order to get more votes.

Imagine a democrate saying the opposing force hyjacked religion. Then comes around with an obscure religion with different ideology then mainstream religion. Who’s hyjacking religion to come about to their own conclusions? A democrate is somone who takes the more popular vote, even though usually this more popular vote says they have to pander to a public vastly ignorant toward the facts. The religious public vote says rape isn’t a big enough reason to accept all abortions. And since when does abortion solve the rape problem. Democrates sypathize with the victum even though an abuser is a victum of his own free thinking. Democrates usually do tend to take the lesser of two evils, but it’s uasually a bandaid to he problem and hurts other peoples rights. Look at the gun problem and how the abuse is usually from drug addicts.

They hate religion, but come up with theories and and take us on a long and blinding road to protect the public from their own unreasonable ideology. In order to unite the public, government has to take up the slack the lack of religion has left us. They in turn create a following baced upon fear of prosecution or lossing their politically correct job.

Communism will never work unless robots do all of the work. Socialism will never work unless it follows the teach a man to fish theory. Compramizes needed to obtain these things are vast, and depend on people to follow blindly.


They hate religion, but come up with theories and and take us on a long and blinding road to protect the public from their own unreasonable ideology.

Are you saying the liberal ‘anti-ideology’ is itself an ideology?

Fair enough, but we can’t fall into the trap of comparing faiths. We also can’t ignore them: faiths are subjective and true. Further, faiths aren’t rational: we can have faith in reason, but this is itself an unreasoning optimism.

Optimism should be affirmed, not liberalism or conservatism but the very struggle to survive. We need to affirm the forward-looking elements of any political project. We need less slogans and platforms… and more thinking, more change! I want to see leaders who are better than us; or else, get the f*$# out of the way and let someone who can handle the job do it!

faiths aren’t raitional???


Faith leads us to the facts we can’t see from our rational perspective.

I’m not saying faith is irrational; it’s just non-rational. After all, why do we believe in reason? That itself is a faith, isn’t it?

We ought to recognize this: reason is founded on irrationality! :slight_smile: We’ve got to have faith in the events which inform our subjectivity. Paul is probably the best example of this sort of fidelity-to-the-event. I’m not anti-religious, I’m not even an atheist, but it’s clear that faith is a priori and not something we come to a rational conclusion about. This is clear when we consider that we must have faith even in reason itself in order to become rational.