In the disputes and accusations of our nation's leaders and newsmakers, we find a diverse view of these issues from all class of people. Our past and current events dictate our response based on the facts at hand. A good debate is enjoyable to me. It does tend to get soiled with spin from both ends of the topics at hand, but both sides have thier point.
The question of patriotism seems to be at the core of many posts. My experience with this leads me to believe, in all honesty, all of them are as patriotic as the next. At times, I worry over the use of rhetoric and veritrol in the blogs. Many bring another's patriotism in to question while others point out another's assumed government preference.
In truth, we are all liberal on some topics and conservative on anothers. But the core of ones believe should not be altered to suit the issue. So, if you are against a regulation that restricts your rights, you should be against it for any other regulation put forth that does the same.
One should refrain from polarity in thier politics, leaving open the choices one has for debate. As it stands, a conservative will not budge from thier base and a democrat will not budge from his. Yet, a little give on both is neccessary to come to a conclusion on debate.
How complex and yet vague is our constitution that our founding fathers left us. One can argue the right to privacy and the right to liberty, but so many times they conflict with each other. It becomes a never-ending saga with various sub-topics involved. But, again, we should not be swayed from our own beliefs.
Several occasions have forced people to change thier perspective on basic beliefs. During the healthcare debate, the issue of the mandate raised concerns of the government "forcing a bill down the People's throat". And yet, a bill in Wisconsin being "forced down People's throat" is met by cheers of those that were apposed to the same tactic. They claim that thier right to choice had been breeched by the healthcare reform bill. I, for one, am apposed to any violation of rights. But on the same issue with rights, Wisconsin wishes to remove the right to collective bargaining which was met with cheers by those apposing thier right to choose. The same can be said about contracts. During the stimulus debate, many were protesting the huge bonuses given out to corporate america using tax payer money. It was then countered with the fact that those individuals were "contracted" and they had to get paid. Now, Wisconsin also has contracts with thier state employees but others that felt that big business bonuses where justified by contracts feel that contracts should not met for the employees. 15% of legislation slated for the Obama Administration has been filibustered. The state of Wisconsin has no filibuster, the only option would be to not show for a vote. Once again, filibusters are fine for somethings but not all.
Opinions are always diverse in nature and change as information is given. But one's core beliefs are so much harder to alter. To change those so frequently is hypocracy.