Serious question, to those of any political viewpoint who frequently bash the opposing political parties?

Most who do it have little or nothing useful to add to the debate. Both sides do it equally well. Those we choose to be our leaders are adept at attack politics, and those who follow them tend to emulate their chosen ones.

I have done my fair share of "bashing", and had my fair share of being bashed. It accomplishes nothing.

Some do it for fun. Some do it because they are seeking validation or vindication. Whatever the reason, it is counterproductive. Polarizing society makes it more difficult to find a common purpose. Without a common purpose we cease to be a civilized society.

When I ask a question my bias may show but I do try and present the question allowing for a rebuttal. It used to annoy me when I'd post a question and get responses like " you liberal lamb" but I chose to ignore those types. I would focus my attention on those people who while not agreeing presented a good argument for their belief. All I'm asking is if you think this Administration has been honest with us tell me why ? Tell me where the weapons off mass destruction are ? Have we won hearts and minds ? Is Iraq now a fragile democracy or on the verge of civil war ? How is gay marriage a threat to traditional marriage ? Is it really worth staying the course ? What I've found is the most mean spirited and subjective answers come from those who offer the least information while accusing me of being a Zionist or a liberal lamb to the slaughter. I make a sincere effort to educate myself on those matters that are important to me from multiple sources. The views I possess and the questions I post or reflective of that process. I answer according to what I've researched at the time and attempt to keep it objective with sources. What I've found is when a person wants to make a point without doing any objective research they label the opposing viewpoint. The country has been polarized by this Administration into a "with us or against us" mentality. I know all Republicans don't support the military actions in Iraq. I also know like Lieberman some Democrats do support this military action in Iraq. Those who imply that are using what's called a strongman tactic where they present only two options and argue their point from center. It's the same tactic used in Bush speeches "you are for us or against us" implying you either support this war or you want to cut and run. This tactic gives the less educated, the less articulated and the less tactful a forum to condemn as moral deficit another persons opposing viewpoint. The thing I've noticed is most do it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary again like this Administration. When North Korea launches test missiles is "gravely concerning" when Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "it was imminent threat". We know how that ended with Saddam displaced for being a brutal leader and the Military staying the course. Our leaders tell us it's a fragile Democracy while the international community tells us it's dangerously close to Civil War. I expect opposition to my viewpoints I can live with that but when the argument is made with ranting tirades and no sources I can't respect it. If you disagree come to the table with reason and sound logic not re-canned propaganda. The thing I find the most incredible are those who profess Jesus and condemn other cultures as religious fanatics while calling for the annihilation of Muslims. I just write them off rather then responding there's not point they won't or can't hear it.

Most folks here have a POV, left of center or right of center (some more distant from center than others). Generally, people come to a site like this because they like to proselytize.

The trouble with proselytizing to the "opposition" is that it sometimes gets heated. Given the anonymity provided by the Internet, pseudonyms and pseudo-personas here on YA, some people feel more free to attack when pressed. Still others just like to tweak the opposition, for the fun of it.

To sum up, this is sort of the "cyber wild west". You'll see it all. Your Q. - "...trying to gain an insight into the goals of specific individuals" assumes that they all HAVE goals for what they write.

There's a lot more "hey...look at me" going on here and a lot less "hey...think with me". Speaking only for myself, I like to test the strength of my convictions in a public forum. I'm not as concerned about whether I change someone else. I just want to be confident that my ideas can stand up to a rigorous debate.

They think that by emulating what they see people on TV talk and news shows and such that they are participating in the political process. They don't realize that most of those statements are made to be highly controversail to attain more free press. I saw celebrity so-and-so on Leno last night bashing the president and I think he's right and wasn't his last movie just so awesome and now were going to fight for change. Most of the bashers views aren't there own, just what they think is the popular viewpoint to have.

Good question. I still don't understand why but I have on occasions answered back with the same tone in my reply. Sometimes it just seems there is such a salvo of negativity it is hard not to jump in and throw a verbal punch. I feel bad if I end up doing that to someone who has asked a fair question later in the day. I guess it is easy to get into the mob mentality. Perhaps that is their motivation and they enjoy the snowball effect they have created. I know now that there are certain questioners that I refuse to answer because they ask the same variation of questions day after day.

I've done a bit of bashing.

1. I'm expressing outrage, as in "Can you believe the unlawfulness, hypocrasy, and chutzpah of the current Administration in Washington?" So chalk up one for "venting," if you will.

2. I'm vaguely aware of, but sometimes ignore, an immature impulse on my part to be cute with my assessment of the other side, and to justify it by the "rightness" of my position. It's a fraternity prank, a "ding dong ditch," leaving a stinky sack on Prof. Grumpy's porch. It's kind of like when you put in that question about starting a new country and leaving the good old USA behind. Think how THAT will look on your "vetting" profile for your position on the judiciary.

3. So is there a good reason for the edginess, even vitriol? Can it inform a debate? Convince anybody even? Or, turning things around, do I pay any heed to somebody else's rant? To be honest, I sometimes do read and consider others' splenetic fustian. I look for information content. If there's anything in there, I'm happy to think it over.

In areas of heated controversy, maybe finding patience is the high cost of communication.

I can make entries that are better reasoned, more civil, and show more respect for the opinions and feelings of others. I can look past shortcomings in the communication styles of others to get the the important issues. We can all do our part to raise the level of discourse.

It's a forum for vigorous political debate. Man is a political animal and enjoys the same type of debate that occurs in the house and senate chambers. Vice President Dick Cheny may say to a senator on the floor of the U.S. senate, "F*** You". There have been vicious physical attacks inside the senate as well. A democratic governor of Kentucky was shot with the bullet being fired by his republican opponents. What are they trying to accomplish? Are they trying to convince people to change sides or merely presenting their views? To get to the bottom of this question could do a lot to heal the poltical divide. If you want insight into specific individuals you would have to ask them.

(was this question directed to Jim W.?)

Sometimes i do it believing i can change an opposing person's mind. Other times i do it just for fun. But the main reason i do it is to learn. I want to be proven wrong sometimes to actually find out if what i believe the best thing for me to believe.

Politics though is such a touchy topic along with religon because this is the basis for many people's lives. They live by these beliefs and are obviously angered easily because of other people telling them that they are wrong. Then these people usually will respond back with their own hatred. Its human nature to bash someone who utterly despises your beliefs. Hatred fuels more hatred

To be honest, I engage in it much to my own chagrin. Its a guilty pleasure for me.

I'm very educated on the issues and what not but sometimes rational debate takes a backseat to passioned pleas of "we're #1."

Anyway, thats just my reasoning. I post serious questions on here all the time and get answers that run from idiotic to educated (not to mention educated but subtly insulting).

your question while being valid is also another example of the bashing you are denouncing and that makes you a hypocrite.

you can deny it all you want but the reality is the liberal definition

of cooperation is for conservatives to give up their beliefs and to

cross over to liberalism, its also how the Shite Terrorists view the

rest of the world.

It is so sad that you wasted so many opportunities and an excellent

education just to spew garbage and call it something other than filth.

from you in my email inbox

do you want to see the evidence of the Demoncrats hypocrisy?

From: coragryph

Subject: Re: your answer

Message: It's sad that you're so delusional.

But if you won't accept reality, and refuse to believe me when I tell you what to think, then it's obvious that you are so wrapped in in your beliefs that no amount of rational discourse will have any effect.

So, go enjoy your little fantasy world. If you can't face reality, that's your defect.