posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 02:49 AM
All of this stuff at Wall Street and all of the opinions I keep hearing going around have got me thinking about a couple of interesting ideas. These
arguments here in some threads are getting really heavy. I've been blown away by a few that are ridiculing the people down there and it really makes
me want to comment, but I know it's a waste of my time. I am hearing a lot of people bashing the protesters and calling them names, and it seems that
it's almost a symptom of the current deadlock our political parties seem to be stuck in. I see Left vs Right in these arguments over and over around
here. Someone was bashing someone else and throwing people on the Left into some broad generalization, in a thread I was reading and I got to
Okay, so what is the main underlying difference between a leftist and a rightist. Well my first answer without really thinking was that Leftists are
basically driven by compassion, and Rightists are driven by fear and anger. Please feel free to blast away at my generalizations here, but they come
from my own short sighted experiences with my family and friends. I would like to make one point about something that I have noticed though, Rightists
are much more quick to ridicule, condemn, label and just get nasty during a discussion. Leftists seem to be more quiet about their stance and harder
to determine until you get them into an argument, they seem more likely to just discuss things instead of arguing.
Well there is my observation, I could be completely wrong and please by all means feel free to set me straight. Here are my questions.
1st question: What is the real core difference between a leftist and a rightest?
2nd question, and the important one I think: Is there really any need for there to be political parties any more?
The world has become a much more complicated place these days, religions stand back to back with each other, people of all colors occupy the same
place in countries all over the world. Big business has become immersed in government, one country is reliant on another for goods, resources,...
weapons. What I want to know is what good is it for us to have teams that are constantly trying to overpower each other in our government nowadays. I
mean, I know that it served a purpose in the past for people to be able to identify one politician from another and it definitely serves a purpose to
make things easier for voting across the board, but what would happen if the people decided to make each politician stand on his own two feet and
banished his ability to stand behind those others on the team he has chosen. I would think it a fresh idea for new politicians to have to stand alone
in their battles. Would it make for more productive discussions and less nasty, name calling, mud throwing, pissing matches that go on during our
commercials, probably not at first, but I wonder. I think that if you took all the guys and girls in congress and said to them, "Okay kids, you're
all on the same team now so play nicely and get something done." now that would be a session I could watch. I mean does the division really create
balance any more, or is it causing a perpetual lack of balance instead? I wonder what could happen, I'd go out and march for that. Maybe... But I
would like to hear some thoughts first about what might change, if anything.
Any ideas out there? Opinions? Care to divulge which side of the isle you stand before making your argument?