Explain it.Do you not see what is underlined?
You could have just said you don't comprehend the factors resultant of polarity, instead of opting for a level of sarcasm you're ill-equipped to pursue. Polarity will always be an intrinsic feature of the political landscape.As we are already polarized we do not need more separating us. Is that such a hard concept to understand?
It was done previously and there were no problems.
I have no need to explain the self explainable, especially to one who can not comprehend that which was asked and is ill-equipped to pursue.Explain it.
ANd we don't need more of it.You could have just said you don't comprehend the factors resultant of polarity, instead of opting for a level of sarcasm you're ill-equipped to pursue. Polarity will always be an intrinsic feature of the political landscape.
You are way over your head here implying what wasn't said. It is a further source of division that we do not need.Now explain exactly how a Con is more likely to embrace the welfare state, or a Lib the death penalty, based on a colour code. How might a revolution be discouraged by changing up the colours of flags or ribbons? You appear to have stumbled on a secret you could market to the intelligence community. lulz
Right. Well, cheers for reminding me precisely why I stopped bothering.I have no need to explain the self explainable, especially to one who can not comprehend that which was asked and is ill-equipped to pursue.
ANd we don't need more of it.
So again; Mr. noticeably ill-equipped to pursue, what is it you do not understand about that concept?
You are way over your head here implying what wasn't said. It is a further source of division that we do not need.
And there were no problems with it switching before, so there should be no problem now - that is, except for totally polarized folks like yourself.
Your verbosity doesn't save you.Right. Well, cheers for reminding me precisely why I stopped bothering.
Have a nice day, Excon. Soundly thrashed, I now flee from the insuperable. I know when I'm outclassed.
Well if the Dems wished to represent themselves with the color red then we have an issue of free speech.
If the Pubs wished to represent themselves with the color blue then we have an issue of free speech.
Or if a third party wanted to identify itself with red or blue then we have an issue.
No party should have a claim to a color.
Well if the Dems wished to represent themselves with the color red then we have an issue of free speech.
If the Pubs wished to represent themselves with the color blue then we have an issue of free speech.
Or if a third party wanted to identify itself with red or blue then we have an issue.
No party should have a claim to a color.
Green is an ideology.That ideology can still be represented by a different color.
Should we force parties to alternate colors every so many years, like every four or so?
:doh
Damn, messed this one up.
No poll options.
Speak your mind.
I do not believe any party should have a permanent claim on a color.
So I would be more than fine with forcing a switch.
Why?What would be the purpose of it?
Neither the Dems or Repubs have officially adopted any color. Had they and another wanted to identify itself with such color, that would be an issue of free speech.Those aren't issues of free speech. Those parties are free to try to identify with whatever color they want. The news media is free to co-ordinate the parties in whatever color they want too. The government shouldn't get involved in infringing on free speech for something so trivial.
How?
The television host would be telling you who the color represents, as well as any internet or newspaper source would also be telling you whom the colors represented.
Like they probably did when Republicans were Blue and Democrats were Red.
Was there any confusion noted when they switched previously?
So like I said; Only idiots would be confused by a color over a persons name or party designation.
You can be against it all you want. But really,only an idiot would be confused by a change.
I believe what you quoted explains it quite well. The green party is an ideology. While green may be preferred, that ideology can be represented by any color.Like Mauve, eh?That ideology can still be represented by a different color.
How about if we officiously change the Green Party to the Mauve Party, are you down with that idea?
:dohI'm totally down with the idea.
Congress should pass a law requiring this since it's not busy doing anything else.
It could be enforced by the Federal Election Commission.
Make them guys do something to earn their big salaries.
Are you sure you are not an anarchist at heart?That sounds like a good reason to change it.
No purpose whatsoever, we are just doing it because we can.
Not everything has to have a purpose.
What's the purpose of neckties?
Those aren't issues of free speech. Those parties are free to try to identify with whatever color they want. The news media is free to co-ordinate the parties in whatever color they want too.The government shouldn't get involved in infringing on free speech for something so trivial.
Neither the Dems or Repubs have officially adopted any color. Had they and another wanted to identify itself with such color, that would be an issue of free speech.
And while it is a 1st Amendment issue for the media, there is no reason to allow the media to cause or continue such polarization.
They should voluntarily bring it back to alternating.
When the U. S. government came up with the brilliant idea of color-coded alerts for terrorism it was the government that decided what the alert code color was at any particular time.
Did you like that system?
When the U. S. government came up with the brilliant idea of color-coded alerts for terrorism it was the government that decided what the alert code color was at any particular time.
Did you like that system?
I fail to see how that is in any way relevant honestly.The government coming up with colors for terror levels doesn't infringe on the media's right to report how they want.
Any media that adopted its own color code for terror alerts would probably have had a problem with the U.S. government.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?