Four student biologists were assigned the task of doing a field study on the biology of a nearby pond. Each student approached the pond from a different direction; one from the north, one from the east, south, and west.<br /><br />The first bio student to hand in their report stated the pond was full of weeds and just weeds all the way up to the ponds bank, and no fish or frogs.<br /><br />The second student stated the pond didnt have many weeds at all, but was full of rocks with tadpoles that would turn into frogs.<br /><br />The third student said the pond had turtles, fish, and frogs among the muddy marsh grass.<br /><br />The forth student
well, you get the point. Each student reported on what they saw from where they saw it, and presumed it applied to the whole pond. Although none of them agreed, each was correct for what small part of the pond they saw. But each was also wrong.<br /><br />The same thing goes for any political opinion. From the perspective where the opinion is coming from, it is going to be correct, and will appear as such to everyone else with the same perspective. But in the grand scheme of things, any political opinion makes presumptions about the rest of what is in the pond of life, and ignores how the pond is viewed by the people from the other sides.<br /><br />So, if anyone takes exception with any of my political opinions (and they are nothing more than that, just opinions) grab your beers and come on around to my side of the pond. You can see clearly from here.<br /> 
