[Bruce_the_vii]

Political partisanship is boring. It's preaching to the converted. Lots of it on this forum. A good word for it that I read on this forum was it's "tribalism". I was reading Roget's Thesaurus and found another phrase for it. "A lump of affectation". It's amazing how wise the language, English, is. I'm talking to you kids, eh.

[Mr_Canada]

It's a culture war. What can ya do.

High School never ended.

[Bruce_the_vii]

A culture war. Interesting comment, I'll remember that.

[Bruce_the_vii]

A drinking buddy of mine from another forum points out that culture is spelt cult-ture. The thinking is it's always a cult. The semantics is a bit of stretch but the idea is good.

[Zipperfish]

I like the Pepsi / Coke analogy. You look at Ignatieff and Harper--both academics, both very similar on a lot of issues. What do you do when you have two products that are similar, like Pepsi and Coke? Well you advertise the crap out of them. You "brand" your pop so that people aren't buying the pop, they're buying what they think the pop represents, they're buying the myth you create around the pop. You maintain the differential by hammering the consumers with ads and convincing people that choosing between Pepsi and Coke is a really important decision, despite the fact they both taste the same.

[Mr_Canada]

Then there's Layton. He'd be something like Mountain Dew or another 3rd level pop
that no one really drinks anymore but has fond memories of drinking as a teenager.

Elizabeth May is No Name Cola.

[ShepherdsDog]

Nothing about layton is real or original, so he'd be a no name artificially sweetened beverage.

[leewgrant]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

Political partisanship is boring. It's preaching to the converted.

Without political partisanship there wouldn't be political parties. Although it does get a bit amusing to see people ignore the warts of our leaders - of which there are many.

As for alcoholic analogies Iggy is definitely white wine, Harper is white wine who pretends to be beer, Layton is beer so long as it has a union label and May is Screech, in more ways than one.

[Proculation]

leewgrant wrote:

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

Political partisanship is boring. It's preaching to the converted.

Without political partisanship there wouldn't be political parties. Although it does get a bit amusing to see people ignore the warts of our leaders - of which there are many.

As for alcoholic analogies Iggy is definitely white wine, Harper is white wine who pretends to be beer, Layton is beer so long as it has a union label and May is Screech, in more ways than one.

Still, it is in fact boring. I don't know what people like DerbyX or ridenrain bring to a debate in here.

[Bruce_the_vii]

That's what I meant. The exagerated partisanship. There are differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives of course but much of the partisanship on this board (and in Parliament) is strained points

[ridenrain]

Proculation wrote:

Still, it is in fact boring. I don't know what people like DerbyX or ridenrain bring to a debate in here.

High quality propaganga that you just can't find anywhere else.

[Bruce_the_vii]

lol

[Mustang1]

It's easier for some to spit out banal tribal mantras than actual learn or think about the complexities of ideology and political issues. In an era where cut n' pasting and parroting is substituted for knowledge and understanding the unaware can try and level the intellectual playing field by simply barfing out the party line.

Watch the "debates" here - partisan shots are never on topic, it's usually, "well, the Libs did it" or "Layton is dumb" and often misses the point or fails to address the actual question.

It's low brow, bushleague and simplistic. But for some, it's all they've got.

But this doesn't mean that some here can have dissenting ideological views and not be able to articulate them successfully. There are plenty of those people too

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish wrote:

I like the Pepsi / Coke analogy. You look at Ignatieff and Harper--both academics, both very similar on a lot of issues. What do you do when you have two products that are similar, like Pepsi and Coke? Well you advertise the crap out of them. You "brand" your pop so that people aren't buying the pop, they're buying what they think the pop represents, they're buying the myth you create around the pop. You maintain the differential by hammering the consumers with ads and convincing people that choosing between Pepsi and Coke is a really important decision, despite the fact they both taste the same.

I agree with just about everything...except that Coke and Pepsi tastes the same. Pepsi is more sugar heavy, Coke is more carbonated.

Now, can we really end political partisanship? Hell no, we can't. Like Zip and I discussed a few days ago, we're all biased and partisan. And I see no real issue with that. Its when we turn our ideologies into brick walls is when we have the problem. I can believe whatever I want, and you can believe whatever you want, and there's nothing wrong with a friendly debate/argument, as long as both sides can stay levelheaded, and relaxed, and that we argue using facts, or at least reasoned opinions (when facts aren't there, like in moral discussions) instead of insults and flaming.

[Mr_Canada]

ridenrain wrote:

Proculation wrote:

Still, it is in fact boring. I don't know what people like DerbyX or ridenrain bring to a debate in here.

High quality propaganga that you just can't find anywhere else.

I'm putting this in my sig. Not out of an attack, but because it made me LOL.