Their own agenda is what they think is good for the country. They disagree because their opinions on what is good for the country are different. Both have power because enough people have wanted representation for the viewpoint they express. Sure they don't get anything done but that's the beauty of democracy.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But it's selfish and stupid. The thing is that there are definitive things that are best for the country. You can't just stroll in with some preconceived notions of what is best and expect to run a good country. We have to go on data that proves facts, and people of either party are rarely willing to compromise if the truth contradicts their values. It honestly doesn't matter if their agenda is what they think is best for the country, they're oftentimes just wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Everyone thinks there are definitive things that are best for the country, thats why they believe in their viewpoints. It may be true that one point of view is genuinely, definitively better, but no one knows what that viewpoint is. It's not selfish to believe your viewpoints are the best thing for the country. Closed minded, yes, however there's nothing selfish about it; it's human nature. The fact is statistics mean very little because in the real world of uncontrolled experiments, there are too many factors to possibly cite one cause as the origin of some effect. In addition to that, some people value things differently. Some people would value security over freedom, low taxes over social benefits, etc. Any government, any system has to be a balance. I'm not saying that type of democratic system is the best, I simply mean to say that it's rude to call the people who are trying to make this country a better place ass holes. It's not a matter of putting aside differences for "the greater good" because part of their differences are their respective definitions of the greater good. To say there is one definitively right solution is just naive.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But so many things can be proven as better. I wonder why people still try to take away guns when it's been proven time and time again that a higher amount of registered gun owners in an area leads to a lowered crime rate in that area. That correlation has been observed repeatedly and almost without fail the whole world over. It's been shown that gun-owners tend to be more law-abiding than citizens who don't own guns. Gun-owners put a stop to more violent crimes in progress than the police could ever hope to, preventing literally millions of fatalities per year. With that kind of evidence presented, it can't really be called anything but selfish to try and take away the right to bear arms as many people are trying to do. They may think they're doing the right thing, but they can be proven wrong. It can be proven that their position and reasoning are false. Not everything can be seen so definitively, but the things that can should no longer be up for debate. That's what I meant by this post. Political parties should be able to disagree with the issues that aren't quite so obvious, but the thing is that there are issues that are this obvious. Those should not be up for debate.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Then show me a study where a neighbourhood with more registered guns has lower crime rate. I'll tell you why it's irrelevant and I'll show you a study where the opposite is true. The fact is those studies are not controlled and they can't be.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

All political parties are selfish to an extent, but not having separate parties to vote for would remove our only chance to really influence what goes on in government. Democracy out of the window.

by Anonymous 11 years ago