Political polarization

[Occhidiangela]

People who don't want regulations aren't a bunch of crime supporters who also rush around havign sex wiht as many different peopel as possible just for the heck of it[right][snapback]63754[/snapback][/right]

Hullo, chiming in here:

Regulation, politics and duelling opinions seem superfluous to some of that passage's thought.

There was a time where I could have been described as wanting to "rush around and have sex with as many different women as possible just for the heck of it." As it turned out, that drive did not match opportunity on a one for one basis with urge, for better and for worse. Better? A few less bastards in the world. Worse? Some morale dampening lonely spells along the way to a better approach, and a few better matchups. (Funny how changing approach changes a lot else. Style counts, I guess.) What business is it of the government to get involved in that, I wonder? Codifying the age of consent?

What does this have to do with your original line of inquiry? Not much.

My comment on that larger topic is that not that many folks want to enter into a debate, or argument, due to being risk averse. One risks losing a debate. A discussion has no loss, and has the benefit of possibly emerging as a win-win transaction.

It is my cynical opinion that much recent "political debate" and "discourse" is pure smokescreen. What we have seen lately is more along the lines of advertising, and folks trying most anything to win market share in the political industry.

And completely OT: Is there any debate on who leads the relief effort for those the quake / tsunami left in the lurch? It is my guess that any number of "someones" on the international political scene will try to milk that situation to their advantage, with the aim of generating compassion spin.

Occhi