Partisan bickering is what's tearing our country apart. This was not an issue during the Bush years, nor was it an issue for much of the Clinton years, with the exception of 96-98.

I identify as a Conservative Democrat, in the mold of LBJ. If you TRULY believe the GOP and Democrats cannot have bipartisan solutions on things, and believe that the GOP is always wrong and the DNC is always right (or vice versa), you're an idiot. Neither side is always right.

I agree.

The problem is we have a president that does believe that and is unwilling to lead in compromise and get Reid on board. Clinton and Bush were both able to work with congresses they didnt control and had really no issue doing so.

The problem is compromise means exactly that, not just do as I say. Shutting the GOP out of the Obamacare talks really set the tone for how the administration planned to deal with things going forward.

Liberal Logic 103 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree.
>
> The problem is we have a president that does
> believe that and is unwilling to lead in
> compromise and get Reid on board. Clinton and
> Bush were both able to work with congresses they
> didnt control and had really no issue doing so.
>
> The problem is compromise means exactly that, not
> just do as I say. Shutting the GOP out of the
> Obamacare talks really set the tone for how the
> administration planned to deal with things going
> forward.


I'm pretty much a moderate and tend more to the liberal side on most issues but I'd have to agree. He's the most partisan, party-driven President that I've seen in my lifetime. Which goes back a ways. Not that the Republicans aren't just as bad or worse these days, but in my book a President needs to try to stay above most of that crap and help bring things together versus pushing it apart.

Clinton did that pretty well after he figured out that he had to. Obama's main problem is that he has no experience doing that kind of stuff and doesn't even really have the personality or aptitude for it. He's a great preacher and advocate for various points of view. Not so great of an executive.

Liberal Logic 103 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is we have a president that does
> believe that and is unwilling to lead in
> compromise and get Reid on board. Clinton and
> Bush were both able to work with congresses they
> didnt control and had really no issue doing so.

Did you see the latest New York Times article? Regardless, I agree. Even average presidents are able to get a Congress of the opposing party to work with it. Bush had a little more of a problem, but even then, things were done. It wasn't like Bush was sitting in the White House and saying "The GOP is wrong." Yeah, the GOP is getting a bit extreme, and I don't think anybody is denying that. It's still not impossible to work with the Republicans. They're not as obstructionist as people would have you believe.

> The problem is compromise means exactly that, not
> just do as I say. Shutting the GOP out of the
> Obamacare talks really set the tone for how the
> administration planned to deal with things going
> forward.

The Democrats were able to do that due to an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate. When you don't have an overwhelming majority (i.e. 95% of the time), you can't do that.

I would say that the two of us (Liberal Logic and I) often have very different viewpoints on things. We believe that things can be handled in different ways, but we're willing to say "this is at least possible," rather than just claiming it's wrong by itself.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 103 Wrote:

> Did you see the latest New York Times article?
> Regardless, I agree. Even average presidents are
> able to get a Congress of the opposing party to
> work with it. Bush had a little more of a problem,
> but even then, things were done. It wasn't like
> Bush was sitting in the White House and saying
> "The GOP is wrong." Yeah, the GOP is getting a bit
> extreme, and I don't think anybody is denying
> that. It's still not impossible to work with the
> Republicans. They're not as obstructionist as
> people would have you believe.

I havent seen it but if even the times is saying it you know its bad with the free pass hes gotten from the media.

The GOP really isnt extreme at all, its more moderate than its ever been. Romney, McCain, and even Bush could have never been nominated from an extreme party.

Like the other poster mentioned yes theyve dug in their heels, but they have no other choice. When the President and the dems wont compromise at all and just constantly vilify you theres no reason to even engage with them. The GOP has made concessions on Taxes ect and gotten basically nothing in return, you cant compromise with someone who has no intentions of doing so.

There literally isnt a president in the last 30 years minimum thats had this problem. Clinton worked with Newt with a much more conservative congress than whats there now, Regan with Tip O'Neil ect. There really is no modern comparison of a president just refusing to budge an inch and trying to play politics with everything. You dont have to like doing it, but if you want anything to get done you have to do it.


>
> The Democrats were able to do that due to an
> overwhelming majority in the House and Senate.
> When you don't have an overwhelming majority (i.e.
> 95% of the time), you can't do that.

Exactly, they could have gotten GOP votes if they would have worked with them but they didnt need them so they just left them in the dark which set the tone for how Obama was going to run his administration. It was quite clear in all their meeting the GOP representatives were annoying Obama that they were even there and thats from day one before it was clear that it was going to be whatever the dems wanted. Even then though it was Reid and Pelosi who got it done.

Obama just isnt a good leader, he really doesnt know how to lead. Everything is partisan politics to him which isnt what the Presidency is supposed to be and isnt what it has been in a long long time. Hes not even very good at it either since his statements become such bold face lies theyre real easy to see through. He can give a good speech, thats about it.

> I would say that the two of us (Liberal Logic and
> I) often have very different viewpoints on things.
> We believe that things can be handled in different
> ways, but we're willing to say "this is at least
> possible," rather than just claiming it's wrong by
> itself.

Exactly, you can disagree and still work towards a middle ground when you need to if your willing too. If the party in power isnt willing to give an inch though theres no reason for the minority party to give a mile to try and make something happen.

It all starts at the top, Reid and Pelosi will be as partisan as theyre allowed to be. Id bet money is Obama was saying you know it takes two sides to get things done and weve been too partisan on things not willing to compromise lets work towards a middle ground they would do it. Right now none of the blame is being assigned to them so theyre free to hold their ground and hope they get a huge majority again. The second the felt the blame shift and that their jobs may be on the line they would get serious about getting a budget ect especially Reid whose the real power player in the party right now.

Deer

Pardon, but when Republicans say Republicans are voting against things simply because the President is for those things, then "obstructionist" is sorta the term to use to describe those anti-voting Republicans.

I'd also call that FAR BEYOND "extreme".

It literally is country-damaging behavior.

Obama is the most polarizing president since Gallup starting polling the issue like 60 years ago. The democrats seem to blame that on their fellow citizens. This is, of course, nonsense. How 50% of the country can suddenly become radicalized is ridiculous. But it does show how the party has been captured by a cult of personality mindset, much like North Korea. Obama is truly their Dear Leader.

Case and point, the Tea Party vs. OWS. The Tea Party broke no laws, assembled for a few hours in protests across the country and then went back home. There were no arrests, they paid fees as required and were made up of average folks who had a defensible POV. OWS was the opposite and based solely on class warfare and polarization. Yet the Tea Party was ridiculed by this administration and the press while OWS was either praised or ignored.

Both parties are now being seized by their base and the moderates are being squeezed out. As the bases become polarized, so to do their representatives. The country is at a fork in the road and both sides are trying to drive it towards their path. Both think they are right. But if you look at the crap that is being taught in our schools (from pre-K all the way through college), the crap that is on TV and in our movies and the crap that is passed as unbiased news coverage now days, there is no question that the left is bent on destroying "middle-American" and Christian values and sweep it from society.

Pubs and Crats used to argue about where they were going to spend the money. Much easier to compromise and the resolution was usually everyone got pretty much what they wanted - thus the massive deficit we have. A third view has emerged which questions spending, from nation-building wars to free cell phones. This is a more libertarian view. Hopefully, a viable third party will come out of this comprised of the sensible middle that just wants to be left alone and most government decisions and functions are happening at the state and local levels.

OK.

We will look forward to more boring ass posts like this over the next few years.

The Dems realize Obama is the past. He was re-elected and they will use him for what they can, but the next three years will be like Clintons long goodbye. Some dems will distance themselves from Obozo, others may outwardly criticize, all the while pushing for a similar agenda with a different face and figurehead on it.


"oh, oh lets COMPROMISE and get some things done!"


Do you "compromise" with an administration that lies frequently, that vilifies their fellow Americans, that favors the corporate sector while giving hate speeches against small business, ie "you didn't build that"?

Do you "compromise" with a shameless push to increase dem voter rolls like the "immigration reform" bill?

Do you "compromise" with a burglar in your house?

Do you "compromise" between chicken salad and chicken shit?

Fucking joke.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK.
>
> We will look forward to more boring ass posts like
> this over the next few years.
>
> The Dems realize Obama is the past. He was
> re-elected and they will use him for what they
> can, but the next three years will be like
> Clintons long goodbye. Some dems will distance
> themselves from Obozo, others may outwardly
> criticize, all the while pushing for a similar
> agenda with a different face and figurehead on
> it.
>
>
> "oh, oh lets COMPROMISE and get some things
> done!"
>
>
> Do you "compromise" with an administration that
> lies frequently, that vilifies their fellow
> Americans, that favors the corporate sector while
> giving hate speeches against small business, ie
> "you didn't build that"?
>
> Do you "compromise" with a shameless push to
> increase dem voter rolls like the "immigration
> reform" bill?
>
> Do you "compromise" with a burglar in your house?
>
> Do you "compromise" between chicken salad and
> chicken shit?
>
> Fucking joke.

Yes you are. And btw, pointing to romney and saying, see? Republicans are moderates is the most absurd of debates.

Who cares which not gonna win president you put up? Do you remember the other guys in the race? Santorum? Really?

Either way, it is the republicans in the house that are the partisan hacks, trying to scandalize every single thing so that the government looks bad all in their effort to end "big government" and by that they mean let oil companies own all of us.

You didn't build that? Seriously? Again with this shit. Dude get over it, you lost and you are gonna keep losing until you provide a message to the american people that is more than "we hate that guy" and "The US sucks and its because of freeloaders"

How about the fact that the US is still the worlds best and biggest economy? How about the deficit is shrinking? How about we are coming out of two awful wars? Seems odd that republicans can only talk about bad shit but for 8 years they painted the world in rainbows and butterflies under Bush. I don't recall any of the kind of animosity about government fuck ups when Bush was in charge.

Weird

Until you people stop elevating the Cantors, Pauls, and Bachmanns of the world to the tops of the party, I could care less whether you think you are or arent extremists. The answer is, you are.

Non-partisan Partisan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama is the most polarizing president since
> Gallup starting polling the issue like 60 years
> ago. The democrats seem to blame that on their
> fellow citizens. This is, of course, nonsense.
> How 50% of the country can suddenly become
> radicalized is ridiculous. But it does show how
> the party has been captured by a cult of
> personality mindset, much like North Korea. Obama
> is truly their Dear Leader.

Both parties have moderates and extremists. I believe the influence of the Tea Party is really waning, but the ultra-liberals seem to be gaining influence in the Democratic Party. Don't blame me, I supported Hillary in the 2008 primaries.

> Case and point, the Tea Party vs. OWS. The Tea
> Party broke no laws, assembled for a few hours in
> protests across the country and then went back
> home. There were no arrests, they paid fees as
> required and were made up of average folks who had
> a defensible POV. OWS was the opposite and based
> solely on class warfare and polarization. Yet the
> Tea Party was ridiculed by this administration and
> the press while OWS was either praised or
> ignored.

Most newspapers didn't have the balls to call out OWS. The Tea Party is distasteful in my mind, but so is OWS. You had people literally camping on public property (a crime, by the way), as well as having squalid conditions with no end in sight. Thank God Bloomberg actually did something in New York.

> Both parties are now being seized by their base
> and the moderates are being squeezed out. As the
> bases become polarized, so to do their
> representatives.

This. Look at all the moderate Democrats who have been kicked out of office. Look at all the GOP incumbents who fear being "primaried." Look at Indiana and the winnable race being lost due to polarization. I'm a moderate Democrat, and I find myself becoming increasingly disgusted with the party.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Partisan bickering is what's tearing our country
> apart. This was not an issue during the Bush
> years, nor was it an issue for much of the Clinton
> years, with the exception of 96-98.
>
> I identify as a Conservative Democrat, in the mold
> of LBJ. If you TRULY believe the GOP and Democrats
> cannot have bipartisan solutions on things, and
> believe that the GOP is always wrong and the DNC
> is always right (or vice versa), you're an idiot.
> Neither side is always right.


LoL, I was about to respond to the OP and comfort the OP as horribly uninformed and buying into the intentions of Republican obstruction. But, Young Curmudgeon, come on, these deceptive threads are above you I thought? Are you into playing stupid too for an objective?

Why can't people just playing stupid. How about stop playing stupid stupid. Stop thinking your cute, stop thinking you understand the basic thought process of the average American and how to appeal to it.

It's disgusting. Partisan bickering. It was present during Clinton he says. They tried to impeach him because of a blow job. He spent his whole second term getting hounded. His first term he was able to reach agreement on fiscal issue, the Republicans also decided to become penny pinchers during his administration, nothing new. The problems were much more manageable then. There's nothing new about Republican hypocrisy, partisan attacks and undermining of Democratic presidents.

This president has bent over backwards an unbelievable amount for the current Republican congress. There is absolutely nothing, not a single thing that this president could do outside of making complete concessions to everything the minority party demands.

That includes privatizing medicare and social security. That's what Republicans want or they won't do anything. They want to privatize medicare and social security. So lets take about the bread and butter of the matter here.

I don't even think these stupid fucking Republican obstructionists in Washington know what it is they want anymore.

They're just following Paul Ryan because he has Anne Rand ideological belief structure that forms an opinion for the future of this country for him. In contrast with the rest of Republicans not knowing their ass from a hole in the ground on fiscal issues.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 103 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The problem is we have a president that does
> > believe that and is unwilling to lead in
> > compromise and get Reid on board. Clinton and
> > Bush were both able to work with congresses
> they
> > didnt control and had really no issue doing so.
>
>
> Did you see the latest New York Times article?
> Regardless, I agree. Even average presidents are
> able to get a Congress of the opposing party to
> work with it. Bush had a little more of a problem,
> but even then, things were done. It wasn't like
> Bush was sitting in the White House and saying
> "The GOP is wrong." Yeah, the GOP is getting a bit
> extreme, and I don't think anybody is denying
> that. It's still not impossible to work with the
> Republicans. They're not as obstructionist as
> people would have you believe.
>
> > The problem is compromise means exactly that,
> not
> > just do as I say. Shutting the GOP out of the
> > Obamacare talks really set the tone for how the
> > administration planned to deal with things
> going
> > forward.
>
> The Democrats were able to do that due to an
> overwhelming majority in the House and Senate.
> When you don't have an overwhelming majority (i.e.
> 95% of the time), you can't do that.
>
> I would say that the two of us (Liberal Logic and
> I) often have very different viewpoints on things.
> We believe that things can be handled in different
> ways, but we're willing to say "this is at least
> possible," rather than just claiming it's wrong by
> itself.

Both of you are 100% spot on. Just look at how bad it is now with the current scandals. I can't find a single leftist article or congressman/woman saying anything negative or blaming their side for any of it, only spinning it some way or saying it's a witchhunt. And yet the entire voice on the right is blaming and assuming the worse in all the scandals.

I believe there is a middle ground as far as the blame goes and we don't know all the details yet.

Basically our government is completely broken now. It's obvious that both sides are toeing the party line on all issues and not allowing whistleblowers.

Obama provides some lip service to being non partisan but if you look at his actions in the last 5 years it is obvious he is the most liberal president we have ever had and doesn't seem like he will ever compromise. I feel he's changed the entire democrat party.

Can we stop jerking each other off and address actual realities?

"The GOP really isnt extreme at all, its more moderate than its ever been. Romney, McCain, and even Bush could have never been nominated from an extreme party."

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you live in a parallel universe?

You Are a Joke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The GOP really isnt extreme at all, its more
> moderate than its ever been. Romney, McCain, and
> even Bush could have never been nominated from an
> extreme party."
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you live in a parallel universe?

The GOP has become more extreme than ever before. When a stated goal is to make the sitting president a one-term president, you know there's going to be an obstructionist movement.

You Are a Joke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The GOP really isnt extreme at all, its more
> moderate than its ever been. Romney, McCain, and
> even Bush could have never been nominated from an
> extreme party."
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you live in a parallel universe?


Oh yeah, Romney won that nomination hands down as the establishment candidate easily. He had to spend millions and get the whole media on his side in scare tactics to even try to take Iowa, ended up going to Santorum, then he got he went scorched earth in South Carolina, lost, and Florida, Florida is expensive, he prevailed. The GOP base came kicking and screaming to accept another losing candidate.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You Are a Joke Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "The GOP really isnt extreme at all, its more
> > moderate than its ever been. Romney, McCain,
> and
> > even Bush could have never been nominated from
> an
> > extreme party."
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you live in a parallel
> universe?
>
>
> Oh yeah, Romney won that nomination hands down as
> the establishment candidate easily. He had to
> spend millions and get the whole media on his side
> in scare tactics to even try to take Iowa, ended
> up going to Santorum, then he got he went scorched
> earth in South Carolina, lost, and Florida,
> Florida is expensive, he prevailed. The GOP base
> came kicking and screaming to accept another
> losing candidate.


Naaa. There was never any question that Romney would be the candidate. Just have to go through the process so that every group within the base gets to feel like they have some say.

Just wait. Your side will be going through exactly the same thing soon. And it won't be pretty. You forget about all of the nut case groups on the Left since they've been more quiet lately. They're still out there and out just as far to the extreme as any on the Right. The Transsexual Socialist Eco-Warriors for Peace and Universal Free Internet Service! are just waiting to make their power move. lmao

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You Are a Joke Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "The GOP really isnt extreme at all, its more
> > moderate than its ever been. Romney, McCain,
> and
> > even Bush could have never been nominated from
> an
> > extreme party."
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you live in a parallel
> universe?
>
>
> Oh yeah, Romney won that nomination hands down as
> the establishment candidate easily. He had to
> spend millions and get the whole media on his side
> in scare tactics to even try to take Iowa, ended
> up going to Santorum, then he got he went scorched
> earth in South Carolina, lost, and Florida,
> Florida is expensive, he prevailed. The GOP base
> came kicking and screaming to accept another
> losing candidate.


Gerry, you're the dude who justified the IRS' actions against conservative groups. Even your Dear Leader has condemned it and so far two people have lost their jobs and there will be at least a dozen more. Yet you think that is was OK. You're a partisan fool and should be ignored.

you gotta be ferfux. He was the only other poster I've ever seen who was this dumb, this committed to the radical left's propaganda and this dumb (yeah it was worth repeating)

Gerry = The Problem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Gerry, you're the dude who justified the
> IRS' actions against conservative groups. Even
> your Dear Leader has condemned it and so far two
> people have lost their jobs and there will be at
> least a dozen more. Yet you think that is was OK.
> You're a partisan fool and should be ignored.
>
> you gotta be ferfux. He was the only other
> poster I've ever seen who was this dumb, this
> committed to the radical left's propaganda and
> this dumb (yeah it was worth repeating)


Give the guy a break. They hadn't put out talking points yet at that point so he didn't know what he was supposed to think. You can't expect a mindless parrot like Gerry to do any real thinking on his own.

Gerry = The Problem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You Are a Joke Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > "The GOP really isnt extreme at all, its more
> > > moderate than its ever been. Romney, McCain,
> > and
> > > even Bush could have never been nominated
> from
> > an
> > > extreme party."
> > >
> > > HAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you live in a parallel
> > universe?
> >
> >
> > Oh yeah, Romney won that nomination hands down
> as
> > the establishment candidate easily. He had to
> > spend millions and get the whole media on his
> side
> > in scare tactics to even try to take Iowa,
> ended
> > up going to Santorum, then he got he went
> scorched
> > earth in South Carolina, lost, and Florida,
> > Florida is expensive, he prevailed. The GOP
> base
> > came kicking and screaming to accept another
> > losing candidate.
>
>
> Gerry, you're the dude who justified the
> IRS' actions against conservative groups. Even
> your Dear Leader has condemned it and so far two
> people have lost their jobs and there will be at
> least a dozen more. Yet you think that is was OK.
> You're a partisan fool and should be ignored.
>
> you gotta be ferfux. He was the only other
> poster I've ever seen who was this dumb, this
> committed to the radical left's propaganda and
> this dumb (yeah it was worth repeating)

After him spamming his butthurt thread with pictures the same way ferfux lost his shit in a thread yesterday and the same way Gordon Blvd always communicates I think its blatantly obvious that ferfux is indeed gerry and gordo.

He really is the dumbest of the dumb, honestly the only person that gives Chris Mattews a run for his money. Im guessing his parents dressed him up in dresses his whole life and constantly complained how disappointed he was that he was white. You know youre an extremist when you think that Obama is conservative

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The GOP has become more extreme than ever before.
> When a stated goal is to make the sitting
> president a one-term president, you know there's
> going to be an obstructionist movement.

Thats the goal of every party when the other has the White House. The GOP is far from more extreme, you can keep repeating it but their leaders suggest otherwise. The handful of people youre probably thinking about arent leaders of the party nor are they all of them. Not to mention the only choice you have is to block things when the other side doesnt believe in giving an inch to come to mutually agreeable deals

Regardless even for the sake of argument we say thats true, any push to the right that may have happened can be blamed directly on Obama making everything partisan and the left turn he brought the dem party too. Whenever one becomes more extreme the other reacts. The real truth is that the dem leaders are so far left it makes anything conservative look extreme by comparison.

The house clinton worked with was more conservative than the current one. Guaranteed if Obama believed in compromise things would be getting done. Is the GOP perfect, absolutely not. But the fact is that their moves have all been reactive to just having things rammed down their throats the first two years

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can we stop jerking each other off and address
> actual realities?


Some of us are realistic in that both parties share some of the blame. Unlike you with your ridculous blue tinted goggles. The left is above any criticism whatsoever right? You are part of the problem. Never seen you do anything but blame every single thing on the other party.

The real problem is this:

Too many people treat partisan politics like a sport. It's entertainment. Their "team" is never wrong, the other "team" is never right. Ethics and principle do not matter. Winning is all that matters.

How can you debate legitimately with people (on both sides) that are 100% convinced that anyone on the other side is either DIABOLICALLY EVIL or IRRETRIEVABLY STUPID?

Because I'm a conservative I enjoy tweaking the die-hard lefties for amusement but I'm a lot more middle-of-the-road than people would think from my postings.

Gerry = The Problem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Gerry, you're the dude who justified the
> IRS' actions against conservative groups. Even
> your Dear Leader has condemned it and so far two
> people have lost their jobs and there will be at
> least a dozen more. Yet you think that is was OK.
> You're a partisan fool and should be ignored.

Gerry knows deep down that Obama is only paying lip service to the media. He knows Obama and the dems campaigned for the IRS to attack conservatives and like most die-hard lefties he supports using the IRS to attack conservatives.

Neither party or ideology is perfect.

The question becomse: Which party/ideaology is less imperfect?

It comes down, I believe, to what you believe. To wit:

Guest Editorial
How to Tell a Democrat from a Republican
by Leon Felkins

Conservative, n. - A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
-- Ambrose Bierce

Many of you have expressed great confusion, in these troubled times, in trying to tell a Republican from a Democrat. Sure, we know what they say they are; most of them have well displayed nameplates. But could you tell one from the other in a blind test? That is, without prior knowledge and access to his/her nameplate, could you determine which was which simply by his/her actions? Probably not. The purpose of this essay is to assist you in making such an identification. In the following paragraphs, I will list the major issues of our times and clearly identify the differences between the Republican and Democrat approaches to these issues.


Abortion
Democrats are generally for abortion. Unwanted pregnancy is -- like addiction to drugs or alcohol, tardiness, and procrastination -- an affliction and therefore needs to be treated by the government.

Republicans are generally opposed to abortion unless of course it is one's own daughter that got knocked up, in which case the decent thing to do is to ship her off to some distant city where private but expensive medical care can be provided and the local community is spared the details.
Animals
Democrats believe that wild animals should have all the rights of humans, protected from any harm and allowed to die slow and agonizing deaths like most of the world's humans do.

Republicans believe that wild animals were put here for the sport of hunting, provide a little expensive but gamy and tough meat, and an occasional fur coat for the missus.
Both think that domestic animals and the raising thereof need massive government support. This often results in an excess of such animals, which are then killed, burnt or buried instead of being shipped off to starving humanity around the world because to do so might upset the local economy.

Capital Punishment
Democrats
Because Democrats are genetically compassionate, they are opposed to capital punishment especially if it is someone who has tortured and molested 27 women and children to death as it is self evident that such a person has had a bad childhood, probably having his pacifier forcibly taken before he was nine years old. However, Democrats do make an exception to this opinion, if the victims were actually a close friend or part of the family. That family includes the family of government employees such as those that were blown up in Oklahoma City. In cases like that, the guy ought to be hung out in the sun by his testicles and left to die a slow death.


Republicans
The Republican's position on this issue is clear and is based upon the Judeo/Christian bible: an eye for an eye. That we are not always completely sure that we have the right dude before we send him on his way to St. Peter is not really all that serious of an issue. "God will sort it out" is their most commonly stated rationale for slaughtering a group of people that from their very looks it is obvious that they are guilty -- of something. Actually God really only gave us a hint as to the real possibilities: how about a lopped head for a mashed finger, for instance? That certainly should work even better. I understand that there are now over 50 offenses for which you can be given a quick dispatch to meet your maker.

The Children!
Democrats love children as a group but find individual children a pain in the butt. "We do it for the children" is an extremely effective slogan for the populace whether the particular program at issue is robbing the tobacco companies or grabbing more land in Colorado. The annoyance of individual children is easily appeased by hiring illegal aliens for house nannies.

Republicans love individual children but find supporting the class of children as not part of God's plan (see Jeremiah 18:21: "So give their children over to famine; hand them over to the power of the sword.")
Crime
Democrats know that when someone commits a crime, it is society that has failed and should have to pay -- in the form of higher taxes and reduced freedom.

Republicans believe that every person inherently knows right from wrong, whether they were raised by harlot on the mean streets of East St. Louis or by a wealthy Episcopal minister in the ritzy 'burbs of Germantown. They know that the solution to violent crime is to beat the hell out of the perpetrators.

Drugs
Democrats
Democrats have no qualms about about recreational drugs. In fact they think the use of such drugs is cool. However, medicinal drugs are another matter. Since they think of the general populace as children, they want these drugs highly regulated.

Republicans
Recreational drugs are absolutely verboten according to the Republicans. It is rumored that many folks actually have great fun with such drugs, therefore they are opposed, of course, as it is a basic principle of Conservatism that having too much fun is bad for the character.

On the other hand, Republicans would allow you to prescribe and buy medicinal drugs without constraint as the drug industry is quite profitable. If you use the wrong drug or a bit too much, then the subsequent repairs to your body will again raise the national income just a bit.

Republicans support the consumption of vast quantities of alcohol even though it kills more people by a factor of ten than all the "illegal" drugs combined. This makes sense because while it may get you high and out of control, technically it is not a "controlled substance".


The Drug War
Strangely, while Republicans oppose the use of recreational drugs and Democrats are much more tolerant, they both support, with great enthusiasm, the so-called War on Drugs (WOD). That is because the WOD has little to do with drugs but is big business with large profits and incentives as well as an expression of political agendas and control.
Making a distinction between Republicans and Democrats with regard to the WOD is difficult for several reasons that are fundamental to what government is all about. I list a few:


The WOD allowed that time-honored tradition of governments -- the seizure of private property -- to be re-instated (amazingly, with citizen approval!). History tells us that in ancient times, governments satisfied their desire for accumulating wealth by simple and honest plunder and property seizure. As governments got smarter, they organized the theft, provided a stable environment for its culture and labeled it "taxation" (See Mancur Olson's essay, "Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development", American Political Science Review, Sept. 1993). I quote Olson (discussing the successful evolution of Chinese warlords): "The warlords had no claim to legitimacy and their thefts were distinguished from those of roving bandits only because they took the form of continuing taxation rather than occasional plunder." (In these modern times, the plunder sometimes has even more sophisticated titles such as "surcharge" as used by the recently imposed fee on anyone who has more than one telephone line.)

The WOD allows the meddling in the affairs of small defenseless countries at will.

The WOD provides another great opportunity to collect and spend great quantities of taxpayer's hard earned cash without any serious opposition. The reason for this is that the Drug problem is very close to being a natural disaster -- which governments love as they can spend freely without complaints.

That said, there are small but helpful differences:

Democrats
The Democrats, as well as the Republicans, support the WOD, if for no other reason, because to do otherwise would result in the loss of votes. However, Democrats also support the concept as it allows the U.S. to act as the world policeman. Socialism is never going to work without one-world government.


Republicans
The Republicans love the WOD because it allows us to build up the military, throw a lot of people in jail that don't come around to the prescribed religious/moral values, and is very profitable.

Education
Democrats are for universal government provided education and to make it fair, all educational institutions must be equally bad. Of course that only applies to the general population -- politicians send their own children to private schools so that when they graduate they might actually be prepared to make a decent living and they will not be biased against the values of public education for the masses.

Republicans support private education but do not see any reason why the institutions shouldn't be government funded. They particularly like the idea of religious or military schools that are better equipped to teach a state of perpetual obedience.

Environment
Democrats see the "environment" as another means to control the masses. Even if "Global Warming" only exists in the heads of some out-of-work pacifists, it is certainly a powerful tool to keep the masses towing the line. Further, it is an unbelievable sink hole for public funds. Have you ever looked at what the asbestos scare cost?

Republicans were a little late in appreciating the merits of environmentalism and have therefore had to live with some bad press. However, someone finally showed them how much money could be made by simply declaring Freon 12 as the main cause of Global Warming from which billions were made developing and selling a new coolant. This brought them around and now they frantically trying to find the next common household product to ban -- like toilets that use too much water.

Government Spending
Democrats
Democrats make no excuses about massive government spending. For the government to provide a happy, healthy, shameless, and even exciting society, for everyone, regardless of their personal means, requires a massive amount of cash from the citizens as well as all you can borrow. Further, to make sure that no citizen gets into trouble and is in bed each night at a reasonable hour, a huge government staff is a necessity. This, in turn, requires every dime the public can spare and just a bit more.


Republicans
Republicans, in their hearts, and especially at campaign time, really would like to cut back on government spending -- especially such luxuries as the social, environmental, and health programs. But there are necessities that it would be irresponsible to avoid. Such things as National Defense, which requires a military budget far greater than any we have had in any major war, can no more be cut back than you can cut back on helping the folks back home that need a superhighway to the new park out in the country. These are essential expenditures unlike the "feel good" stuff of the Democrats. When Iraq threatens our shores by such hostile actions as flying one of their planes over the southern half of their country, we better be ready for action.

Individual Liberty
Democrats
Democrats are great believers in the concept of Liberty for all of humanity. It's just that individual humans need to be restrained -- for their on good of course. It would be irresponsible to let an individual endanger their health by eating greasy theater popcorn or drinking water from a mountain stream that some fish has peed in (and hasn't been tested by a government agency). Sadly, when you face the reality, every aspect of human activity must be controlled by the superior knowledge of the government bureaucrat. That government bureaucrats themselves are sometimes accused of being human is a fallacious argument as their holistic association results in superior knowledge.


Republicans
Republicans would like to give people lots of freedom especially those that are economically active such the officers of large corporations and farmers. However, some aspects of human nature just cannot go unpunished. There must be law and order. Violence must be stopped if we have to kill every one of the sorry bastards. Republicans feel that they have the monstrous responsibility of enforcing God's word. It is not a matter of public vote. People who have unapproved sex, get high on anything (including testosterone) except approved drugs such as alcohol, cigarettes, and caffeine, don't regularly go to an approved church, allow their kids to kiss before they get married, and talk smart to policemen that are dutifully beating the hell out of them, must receive appropriate punishment.

Military
Democrats are very fond of the military as it is a vast receptacle of funds and the defense industry has the reputation of being basically a giant welfare program for mostly engineers and scientists, without which millions of them would have to get a real job.

Republicans also love the military for its capacity to absorb unbelievably large quantities of money. Even more they appreciate the importance of importing American Justice to sometimes unreceptive countries by means of our military.
Privacy
Democrats believe in the sacred right of privacy as guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. Unless, of course, it involves money, children, or your conversation on the phone (it is well known that phones are sometimes used by terrorists).

Republicans see no particular reason why you would want privacy. What's the matter: You got something to hide? If you are not doing anything criminal, then privacy should not be a concern, according to them. Too much privacy is a real hindrance to getting every one in jail that ought to be there.

Private Property
Democrats believe that all property should be shared equally among the people and enough to the animals to ensure their welfare (which they can't do for the people as there is just not enough). To insure the proper usage of property, the government, of course, must be the actual custodian of the property. What you think is yours is actually only on loan to you and may be recalled at any time. The whining of property owners that lose up in the millions of dollars when the government declares that a piece of property is needed for R&R for traveling geese is misplaced as it never belonged to these so-called property owners in the first place.

Republicans, on the other hand, definately believe in the right to private property as clearly enunciated by our Founding Fathers. But there is one small catch: The Bible is older than the Constition and trumps it. The bible points out very clearly, "When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox must be stoned; the flesh may not be eaten. The owner of the ox, however, shall go unpunished", Exodus 21:28. That means that if your house or your car or your bank account is in any remote way associated with a crime, then it must be "stoned to death". The modern translation of "stoned to death" is "given to the government".

Surprizingly, an amazing amount of property is in someway related to a crime. For example, let us say that some pot dealer is driving down the street and decides to turn his car around using your driveway. It is obvious that your property has now aided in a crime for if it had not been there, the druggie's auto would have fallen into a bottomless pit. Case closed.

Racial Issues
Democrats believe all "minority" races to be "disadvantaged" and to need government help. An exception is made for the Orientals because they stubbornly insist on doing quite well for themselves and refuse to suck up. They see minorities mainly as large block votes at bargain prices. Classes should not be encouraged to mix as we need to retain each of their cultures.

Republicans have always been fond of the people of color as they have been very well behaved house servants every since Lincoln freed them from slavery. Classes should not be allowed to mix as an inferior offspring will result. Some claim that hybrids in the animal world are usually superior to their parents but this is easily answered as humans obviously are not animals!

Religion
Democrats think religion is cool especially if it is "New Age", ancient Native American superstitions, Far East shamanism, or African witch doctors. What they can't stand are the low class, red neck religions like Church of God and Southern Baptists.

Republicans are in full support of religion and see it as every citizen's duty -- as long as it is "main line". The definition of "main line" is left up to the politicians, of course.

Sex
Democrats are in full support of sexual activity, especially if it is a little kooky. The concept of the old fashioned "male-female" sexual interaction is best left to the lower animals.

Republicans know that the purpose of sex is for procreation and not pleasure. If you must have pleasurable sex, which by definition would be outside of the marriage, then for God's sake have the decency to lie about it!

Smoking
Democrats consider any form of smoking of tobacco that is produced by the large corporations to be evil. The only material acceptable for smoking is marijuana or Native American ritual tobacco. If you are invited to the home of one of your cool friends and are handed a joint, do not think you have to eat it just because there is a sign on the wall that says, "Thank you for not Smoking".

Republicans think smoking is fine as long as it provides the opportunity to ship large quantities of money to the subsidized tobacco farmers and producers. Of course the smoking of any "controlled substance" is not permitted even if tobacco kills far more people. Because, it is the law, you idiot. Republicans are for law and order. Lots of both.

War and other "World Cop" Activities
Democrats, the "Peace Party", are strongly against war and other police actions and will attempt to create legislation to limit presidential powers and to influence public opinion -- during Republican administrations. Of course, if the Democrats happen to be in charge, then such activities are OK because their purpose is to stop violence and to "prevent further suffering and bloodshed".

Republicans, on the other hand, have no hesitation in bombing any recalcitrant country (those that refuse to accept aid in return for submission to U.S. control) "back to the stone age", unless, of course, the Democrats are in power. In that case, they are opposed to such acts because Democrats rarely have a decent "exit strategy". ("Exit Strategy" is a term often used in discussions of sexual activity. It is sort of the opposite to "foreplay".)

Wealth
Democrats believe in the concept of "equal distribution of wealth" even if they happened to be hoarding quite a pile of it. They justify this by the fact that to do their job requires that they live in a certain high class style that allows them to associate with the influential.

Republicans believe that hard work and the economic "invisible hand" will make sure that anyone who deserves it gets it or the reverse as the case may be. By definition, if you are broke and living off the street, you deserve it.

http://www.americanpolitics.com/030499dictionary.html

That's cute ferfux is now posting under my name. Must really be getting to him

liberal logic 100 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's cute ferfux is now posting under my name.
> Must really be getting to him


Sure thing there champ. Its all one guy, keep thinking that. If you are worried about your dumbass name being ripped, why not make it official. Afraid the secret police will come get you you tin hat wearing nut job?

Yucky24 is a gay

DERPS DERPS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> liberal logic 100 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's cute ferfux is now posting under my name.
>
> > Must really be getting to him
>
>
> Sure thing there champ. Its all one guy, keep
> thinking that. If you are worried about your
> dumbass name being ripped, why not make it
> official. Afraid the secret police will come get
> you you tin hat wearing nut job?
>
> Yucky24 is a gay

You're a special kind of stupid if you think I'd post that hackmenship of backhanded republican insults. Everytime a real conversation breaks out on of you ffu ultra liberals loses their shit and resorts to 3rd grade tactics. That's why people treat you like children especially ferfux/gerry/gordo/mhk

There is no way that I'm another chatter, I'm too original and effective for that to be the case.

I don't think the IRS should be targeting any organization based on their political positions. But I do think that certain political groups may have a much higher probability to be tax dodging organizations than others. The fraudulent astro turf Tea Party POLITICAL organizations being one of those types. You guys do understand that these Tea Party groups claim they are not political organizations right? An outright lie to avoid tax obligations to begin with. Their number one gripe with their fraudulent tax status is they were not allowed to use the term "ObamaCare." It's a joke.

Now, lets talk about this issue. The Republican party put us into a mess of massive debt, yearly deficits, low interest rates and a crashing economy in financial crisis with a loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs on a monthly basis.

Then, they opposed the stimulus, opposed in the recession the tax cuts that caused the deficits, opposed the ending of the wars, lets just say, pretty much opposed anything to help fix the problem. From the get go, tell me when and how did Obama's actions force those Republicans to become nothing more than obstructionist losers with no accomplishments?

Now, I don't like all Democrats. I don't like both parties, they don't represent the utopia I dream for America. It's a corrupt system. I don't like Nancy Pelosi, I hate her actually. I don't like abortion, I don't like Harry Reid, I don't Chuck Schumer, I don't like Max Baacus, I don't like a lot of those dirty crooked Democrat politicians.

But, I can't find a single Republican to like. They're all crooked and bat shit crazy with a complete inability to govern. The Republican majority leader says the party's number one goal for the last four years was to make Obama a one term proposition, not save the economy, yet Obama doesn't court these shy Republicans enough is the problem?

The reason I oppose the Republican party with such passion is, they represent all that is wrong with the system when it comes to the incompetent politicians both D's and R's. They want super pacs, they want to abolish limitations on campaign finance. They want the rich to have disproportional influence on who gets elected to congress. They in essence want to make themselves beholden to their rich donors. They are the masters of the gerrymandered district. They control a house they lost by 2 million votes nationwide by a good majority.

Gerrymandering is what causes these incompetent congressmen to have such job security in their positions with no turn over on their seats. It's what reduces compromise and bipartisanship. So which party I ask is most responsible for the policies and positions responsible for the current political impasse. That is the Republican Party. They are a tried and true absolutely disastrous establishment and their efforts over decades of rigging elections and creating outrageous districts and combating campaign finance reform and now inventing the super pac have turned Washington into what it is today.

The capital of the worlds super power is now completely paralyzed. Now, we can sit on this thread and try to blame this party or that party with partisan intent. But the facts speak for themselves.

The question is, at what point do you start caring about your country and really thinking about what lead us here. Not being outraged by filibusters or exercising the Hastert Rule. Not voting on legislation from half of the House is literally named after the Republican Speaker during Bush's time. And everyone's responsible right?

Getting a Republican in the White House won't fix these problems, they'll make it worse. The Republican Party is in desperate need of serious reform. I know who's responsible, the question is, do you? What are your expectations of your Government? There's a reason Republicans want to drown government in a bath tub. They have no expectations of their government. They have accepted it's corrupt nature and their corrupt politicians. I know very well who is responsible and how they are responsible, the question is, do you?

When the Republican Party suffers massive continuous defeat leading to reform and bipartisanship. This country will be productive again with its legislation. How long and how much failure you want to partake until that eventual reality. That's up to you.

Republican(s) ...[are] all crooked and bat shit crazy with a complete inability to govern.

Thanks for making my point.

Most recently I did support Rand Paul's filibuster on the rights of Americans as it relates to drones. Although now I am sure his intentions were purely political. Rand Paul isn't as principled as his father. He just plays the part. I wish I could point to another Republican that actually tried to do some good. If you had one Republican going after banks like Elizabeth Warren I'd throw my partisanship away tomorrow. I just don't understand what ordinary middle class Americans see in the GOP.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just don't understand what ordinary middle class Americans
> see in the GOP.

Neither did ordinary middle class Americans - Obama won - everywhere - twice.

You do realize that your boring dissertation is all factless pablum?

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/11/23459-red-states-blue-state/

I'm wondering why blue states are so much more prosperous than red States. Also wondering why the Appalachian states that were left behind economically became red states. Jim Webb said those red states vote red because of economic resentment. Now your link is reflective of a snapshot of the economy at one point in relation to election results. There's a lot more history than that one can reference. We're talking about partisan bickering, causes and responsibility though.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm wondering why blue states are so much more
> prosperous than red States. Also wondering why the
> Appalachian states that were left behind
> economically became red states. Jim Webb said
> those red states vote red because of economic
> resentment. Now your link is reflective of a
> snapshot of the economy at one point in relation
> to election results. There's a lot more history
> than that one can reference. We're talking about
> partisan bickering, causes and responsibility
> though.


States with the largest deficits:

1. California (blue)
2. Illinois (blue)
3. New Jersey (mixed)
4. Texas (red)
5. New York (blue)
6. Connecticut (blue)
7. North Carolina (red)
8. Ohio (red)
9. Oregon (blue)
10. Florida (red)

spending money you don't have isn't prosperity Ger. You are not too smart. Zing!

Liberal Logic 103 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Thats the goal of every party when the other has
> the White House. The GOP is far from more
> extreme, you can keep repeating it but their
> leaders suggest otherwise. The handful of people
> youre probably thinking about arent leaders of the
> party nor are they all of them.


Explain to me why GOP leaders are in fear of making votes that might irritate the ultra-conservatives in their states. Lindsay Graham is going to get PRIMARIED for not being conservative enough. Mourdock (sp?) was nominated in Indiana over someone who would have won. The leadership isn't painfully extreme, but I'm talking about the party as a whole. When you're threatening to replace Republican senators or representatives with more conservative ones, your party is becoming extreme.

> Regardless even for the sake of argument we say
> thats true, any push to the right that may have
> happened can be blamed directly on Obama making
> everything partisan and the left turn he brought
> the dem party too. Whenever one becomes more
> extreme the other reacts. The real truth is that
> the dem leaders are so far left it makes anything
> conservative look extreme by comparison.

I would contend that the Democrats are more liberal than they used to be. The gay "marriage" support and things like the stoppage of deportation would never have happened under Clinton; the Democrats still had moderates. However, once the South went almost completely Republican, many Blue Dogs were voted out. When combined with the fact that most Democrats are from relatively liberal states, it's not tough to see why the Democrats have become more liberal. The Democrats became more liberal, so the Republicans became nearly reactionary. It's basic cause and effect.

> The house clinton worked with was more
> conservative than the current one. Guaranteed if
> Obama believed in compromise things would be
> getting done. Is the GOP perfect, absolutely not.
> But the fact is that their moves have all been
> reactive to just having things rammed down their
> throats the first two years

The House is not more conservative than it was; the Republicans as a whole are. The lack of compromise stems from a lack of experience as well as the fact that Obama has polarized the nation.

John Appleseed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some of us are realistic in that both parties
> share some of the blame. Unlike you with your
> ridculous blue tinted goggles. The left is above
> any criticism whatsoever right? You are part of
> the problem. Never seen you do anything but blame
> every single thing on the other party.

This. People have some strange belief that the GOP is always wrong, but the DNC is always right. Or the other way around. Simply put, that's lunacy. The Democrats are right more often than not on some issues, and the Republicans are right more often than not on some issues. For example, the Leahy amendment to the proposed immigration is where the Democrats are wrong. Conversely, the Toomey-Manchin bill for background checks was where the Republicans were wrong.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most recently I did support Rand Paul's filibuster
> on the rights of Americans as it relates to
> drones. Although now I am sure his intentions were
> purely political. Rand Paul isn't as principled as
> his father. He just plays the part. I wish I could
> point to another Republican that actually tried to
> do some good. If you had one Republican going
> after banks like Elizabeth Warren I'd throw my
> partisanship away tomorrow. I just don't
> understand what ordinary middle class Americans
> see in the GOP.


He wasnt the only one to filibuster it Rubio for instance was right there with him. If you applaud the effort of Paul you have to applaud them all.

Rand is probably better than his father actually, so far he doesnt seem to take everything a step to far with his desire to set the clock back to 19 aut 10 like Ron does. Also while the filibuster may have been good for him politically if you know anything about libertarians you would know he would have done that regardless

Rubio was an opportunist wanting to get in on the action. Those other fuckface Republicans made me sick with their opportunism. I don't know these fake Republican bastards I can see right through. I suppose not everyone has that ability. One thing Republicans can do is act and recite. The only two subjects 90 percent of them believe in when they speak about is abortion and gay marriage. The rest is just group think recitation of News Corp talking points for the powerful elite doner base. Empty faces is all I see.

Krazy Komrade Kook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm wondering why blue states are so much more
> > prosperous than red States. Also wondering why
> the
> > Appalachian states that were left behind
> > economically became red states. Jim Webb said
> > those red states vote red because of economic
> > resentment. Now your link is reflective of a
> > snapshot of the economy at one point in
> relation
> > to election results. There's a lot more history
> > than that one can reference. We're talking
> about
> > partisan bickering, causes and responsibility
> > though.
>
>
> States with the largest deficits:
>
> 1. California (blue)
> 2. Illinois (blue)
> 3. New Jersey (mixed)
> 4. Texas (red)
> 5. New York (blue)
> 6. Connecticut (blue)
> 7. North Carolina (red)
> 8. Ohio (red)
> 9. Oregon (blue)
> 10. Florida (red)
>
> spending money you don't have isn't prosperity
> Ger. You are not too smart. Zing!


This is the irony of the argument, all those states you list, are also the states that provide back the most per capita funds to the federal government compared to what they take in. In fact California's economy is one of the reasons why the US economy is the worlds biggest and best.

And yet you dumb shits point to their deficit as if its a victory for republicans. Im sorry but I would take californias standing as the 8th largest economy of the world any day over the bum fuck welfare state that is Alabama, Louisiana, or Arkansas any day. Yes I know they arent in deficit, thats because they steal all of the rest of the states money to pay for lazy ass people who sit around sweating all day being dumb fuck backwater assholes.

So fuck off douche

Anyone who thinks that New York and California are any problem for are economy have no fucking idea what makes this country different than the rest of the world. Those are the only states where shit actually gets invented. You think the south or upper north has anything to provide? 250 of the worlds largest 500 companies are located in those 2 states you morons. There is a reason for that, and it isnt because of tax rates; otherwise Kansas with its 0% tax rate would dominate the world and US as the biggest economy

So ironic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Krazy Komrade Kook Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I'm wondering why blue states are so much
> more
> > > prosperous than red States. Also wondering
> why
> > the
> > > Appalachian states that were left behind
> > > economically became red states. Jim Webb said
> > > those red states vote red because of economic
> > > resentment. Now your link is reflective of a
> > > snapshot of the economy at one point in
> > relation
> > > to election results. There's a lot more
> history
> > > than that one can reference. We're talking
> > about
> > > partisan bickering, causes and responsibility
> > > though.
> >
> >
> > States with the largest deficits:
> >
> > 1. California (blue)
> > 2. Illinois (blue)
> > 3. New Jersey (mixed)
> > 4. Texas (red)
> > 5. New York (blue)
> > 6. Connecticut (blue)
> > 7. North Carolina (red)
> > 8. Ohio (red)
> > 9. Oregon (blue)
> > 10. Florida (red)
> >
> > spending money you don't have isn't prosperity
> > Ger. You are not too smart. Zing!
>
>
> This is the irony of the argument, all those
> states you list, are also the states that provide
> back the most per capita funds to the federal
> government compared to what they take in. In fact
> California's economy is one of the reasons why the
> US economy is the worlds biggest and best.
>
> And yet you dumb shits point to their deficit as
> if its a victory for republicans. Im sorry but I
> would take californias standing as the 8th largest
> economy of the world any day over the bum fuck
> welfare state that is Alabama, Louisiana, or
> Arkansas any day. Yes I know they arent in
> deficit, thats because they steal all of the rest
> of the states money to pay for lazy ass people who
> sit around sweating all day being dumb fuck
> backwater assholes.
>
> So fuck off douche


Hey lib, your gayness is showing. LOL

 
Attachments:

We're the ones that are gay but you're the one that has searched for, saved and loaded a gif animation of two half naked men kissing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2013 08:42PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Arguing with conservatives is exasperating, futile, and ultimately unnecessary. Their's is a party and an ideology in decline, the result of failed policies and a shrinking demographic. At worst, this bickering will end after the next Census in 2020, when even the most precise computer aided gerrymandering will not keep Texas and Arizona from flipping to blue. You could hermetically seal the borders tomorrow (as if American Agribusiness is really going to let this happen), and it would have no impact.

Conservative hissy fits stem from their unwillingness to embrace or even accept a world largely of their own making. The coconsummate proof of this is their blind, unchecked hatred of Obama, a man who, because he doesn't fancy himself the descendent of Irish kings, personifies the shift they so fear.

The second term of the second Bush's presidency was the high water mark of conservatism, its reckless and self-serving squander of American blood and treasure its copse of trees. And what a sad little struggle it turned out to be.

There is so much evil in this goverment and it's astounding how many people just beat their heads against the wall on partisan bullshit.

Even the self righteous faggot above me couldn't stop from taking jabs and mentioning a president who hasn't been in office for six years now.

Will the next (D) presidency be the one that people finally realize being on the "winning" team means nothing when our goverment has eroded away most of our rights to the point where they're almost laughable?

People don't understand when you surrender your rights, whether it be out of fear, stupidity, or apathy, you're not getting them back, and the baby boomer generation will be known as the party that was too busy to care, and too cowardly to stand up for those rights. The only chance the American people has to rectify any of this shit, ever, is to stop being so easily divided. Divide and conquor? ring any bells? Fuck I wish I lived in Canada.

But there is no reasoning with the lying, cheating, stealing, raping, filthy limousine-liberal hypocrite scumbags. Liberals are just such lying pieces of filth. Obama's runaway Secret Service hiring whores, his military officers sexually abusing women, his IRS lawlessly victimizing political adversaries, his Guantanamo prisoners being held illegally and on and on. The failed policies of scumbag liberals are on full display and Americans hate it.

Among the litany of crimes and lawlessness you cite, which flow m the ignorance and incompetence of TNITWH (Obama-figure it out) how did you miss the deaths he caused of the Americans at Benghazi?

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rubio was an opportunist wanting to get in on the
> action. Those other fuckface Republicans made me
> sick with their opportunism. I don't know these
> fake Republican bastards I can see right through.
> I suppose not everyone has that ability. One thing
> Republicans can do is act and recite. The only two
> subjects 90 percent of them believe in when they
> speak about is abortion and gay marriage. The rest
> is just group think recitation of News Corp
> talking points for the powerful elite doner base.
> Empty faces is all I see.

Your meds must have worn off again

ItWillBeOverSoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arguing with conservatives is exasperating,
> futile, and ultimately unnecessary. Their's is a
> party and an ideology in decline, the result of
> failed policies and a shrinking demographic. At
> worst, this bickering will end after the next
> Census in 2020, when even the most precise
> computer aided gerrymandering will not keep Texas
> and Arizona from flipping to blue. You could
> hermetically seal the borders tomorrow (as if
> American Agribusiness is really going to let this
> happen), and it would have no impact.

It's cyclical. The GOP has had points in which it couldn't win, and so have the Democrats. With regard to Texas and Arizona, I think we're going to see political realignment in the South and Southwest as time goes on. However, I would not be tremendously surprised if some northern states started voting Republican again.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We're the ones that are gay but you're the one
> that has searched for, saved and loaded a gif
> animation of two half naked men kissing.

Logic is not friendly to many of them.

Good point Freedo. Liberals are afraid of truth and reason. They react to both like the devil does to Holy Water.

Sassa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good point Freedo. Liberals are afraid of truth
> and reason. They react to both like the devil does
> to Holy Water.

Both sides are afraid of truth and reason. The liberals are good at mobilizing people with empty promises. The conservatives are good at using selective facts.

Quote

The GOP really isnt extreme at all, its more moderate than its ever been.

you've outdone yourself with that one.

http://fpwatch.com/?p=1838



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2013 12:49AM by Curmudgeon.

_Eyedea_ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is so much evil in this goverment and it's
> astounding how many people just beat their heads
> against the wall on partisan bullshit.
>
> Even the self righteous faggot above me couldn't
> stop from taking jabs and mentioning a president
> who hasn't been in office for six years now.
>
> Will the next (D) presidency be the one that
> people finally realize being on the "winning" team
> means nothing when our goverment has eroded away
> most of our rights to the point where they're
> almost laughable?
>
> People don't understand when you surrender your
> rights, whether it be out of fear, stupidity, or
> apathy, you're not getting them back, and the baby
> boomer generation will be known as the party that
> was too busy to care, and too cowardly to stand up
> for those rights. The only chance the American
> people has to rectify any of this shit, ever, is
> to stop being so easily divided. Divide and
> conquor? ring any bells? Fuck I wish I lived in
> Canada.


Did this man just raise alarm over the degradation of our civil liberties and attempt to protect as being in the distant past the same administration that brought us the Patriot Act?

Can someone tell me if he actually pulled that off? Did he also say others whom don't stand up for those rights that are being lost "now" are "cowards." These people either live in an alternative universe or their so called knowledge of matters only began at the election of Barack Obama and from right wing sources of disinformation.

Agreed Sassa. These liberals live in castles in the sky. Complete frauds, liars, and phonies.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Did this man just raise alarm over the degradation
> of our civil liberties and attempt to protect as
> being in the distant past the same administration
> that brought us the Patriot Act?
>
> Can someone tell me if he actually pulled that
> off? Did he also say others whom don't stand up
> for those rights that are being lost "now" are
> "cowards." These people either live in an
> alternative universe or their so called knowledge
> of matters only began at the election of Barack
> Obama and from right wing sources of
> disinformation.

Probably my own fault for not mentioning this earlier, but the ironically named "Patriot" act was THE catalyst for the next ten years of privacy invasion bullshit, for CISPA and all the rest. Once the goverment(corporations, elite, etc) realized fear was enough to get the public to hand in their right to privacy in exchange for being pacified, it was pretty much game over. I'm not preaching in support of either party, because unchecked power is dangerous whether it has a (D) or an (R) attached, that's really the point I was going for.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> disinformation.


You know you want it.

Call me Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > disinformation.
>
>
> You know you want it.
>
>
> src="http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.
> php?40,file=93031,filename=1268x3o.gif">


way to shitpost pal.
meanwhile, this is happening in New Jersey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Hi5Yh1kVU

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We're the ones that are gay but you're the one
> that has searched for, saved and loaded a gif
> animation of two half naked men kissing.


Can't take your eyes off it can you homo? And yes, you're the ones who are gay. It's science homo-boy.

 
Attachments:

You still don't get it do you? No one likes you. Your whole character and attitude as being this, scream at the empty chair animation of a person is so emblematic of the GOP today. Any time facts stand in your way, like the fact that the republicans started the war in Iraq drummed on total crap to create a legacy that ultimately failed, they fall back on excuses ("we never intended to nation build it was thrust upon us" - Good ole Don Rumsfeld)

The fact is, the country is moving on without you. We think of you as the old man party that thinks gay people are a disease, that black and white people shouldn't marry, that all the other countries are out to get us, and that anything new and progressive is communist. Its one of those things we put up with because 1) its funny as hell 2)because we know you are dying and we are patient people

Continue to stand in the way of progress and time; like the neocons before you ultimately it is a failed position. The truth and progress will always continue, you are destined to lose.

GOP Logic 103 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You still don't get it do you? No one likes you.
> Your whole character and attitude as being this,
> scream at the empty chair animation of a person is
> so emblematic of the GOP today. Any time facts
> stand in your way, like the fact that the
> republicans started the war in Iraq drummed on
> total crap to create a legacy that ultimately
> failed, they fall back on excuses ("we never
> intended to nation build it was thrust upon us" -
> Good ole Don Rumsfeld)
>
> The fact is, the country is moving on without you.
> We think of you as the old man party that thinks
> gay people are a disease, that black and white
> people shouldn't marry, that all the other
> countries are out to get us, and that anything new
> and progressive is communist. Its one of those
> things we put up with because 1) its funny as hell
> 2)because we know you are dying and we are patient
> people
>
> Continue to stand in the way of progress and time;
> like the neocons before you ultimately it is a
> failed position. The truth and progress will
> always continue, you are destined to lose.


TL:DR, but coming from a fag it was no doubt a bunch of BS pretzel logic anyway. LOL


 
Attachments:

You still don't get it do you? No one likes you. Your whole character and attitude as being this, scream at the empty chair animation of a person is so emblematic of the GOP today. Any time facts stand in your way, like the fact that the republicans started the war in Iraq drummed on total crap to create a legacy that ultimately failed, they fall back on excuses ("we never intended to nation build it was thrust upon us" - Good ole Don Rumsfeld)

The fact is, the country is moving on without you. We think of you as the old man party that thinks gay people are a disease, that black and white people shouldn't marry, that all the other countries are out to get us, and that anything new and progressive is communist. Its one of those things we put up with because 1) its funny as hell 2)because we know you are dying and we are patient people

Continue to stand in the way of progress and time; like the neocons before you ultimately it is a failed position. The truth and progress will always continue, you are destined to lose.

No. The real problem is that both political movements in America are completely retarded.

They both support mass non-White immigration.

They both want to stand around like morons while China rips the torch of world leadership from our hands.

And neither side lives moral and respectable lives anymore. The list of so-called "social conservatives" embarrassing themselves with general trashy behavior is seemingly endless.

Your notion that the Republicans and Democrats didn't hate each other until Dear Leader Hussein came to power is completely wrong. As is your diagnosis of what's really screwing up America.

Yucky24. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. The real problem is that both political
> movements in America are completely retarded.

I wouldn't say "completely," but your point is valid. Both sides are full of idiots.

> They both support mass non-White immigration.

The system permits mass non-white immigration. We don't have quotas anymore, as they're "discriminatory."

> They both want to stand around like morons while
> China rips the torch of world leadership from our
> hands.

China isn't ripping that torch out of our hands any time soon; it has too many internal problems.

> And neither side lives moral and respectable lives
> anymore. The list of so-called "social
> conservatives" embarrassing themselves with
> general trashy behavior is seemingly endless.
>
> Your notion that the Republicans and Democrats
> didn't hate each other until Dear Leader Hussein
> came to power is completely wrong. As is your
> diagnosis of what's really screwing up America.

You tend to blame too many things on race and racism. Not every societal ill is the result of race or racism.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no way that I'm another chatter, I'm too
> original and effective for that to be the case.
>
> I don't think the IRS should be targeting any
> organization based on their political positions.
> But I do think that certain political groups may
> have a much higher probability to be tax dodging
> organizations than others. The fraudulent astro
> turf Tea Party POLITICAL organizations being one
> of those types. You guys do understand that these
> Tea Party groups claim they are not political
> organizations right? An outright lie to avoid tax
> obligations to begin with. Their number one gripe
> with their fraudulent tax status is they were not
> allowed to use the term "ObamaCare." It's a joke.
>
>
> Now, lets talk about this issue. The Republican
> party put us into a mess of massive debt, yearly
> deficits, low interest rates and a crashing
> economy in financial crisis with a loss of
> hundreds of thousands of jobs on a monthly basis.
>
>
> Then, they opposed the stimulus, opposed in the
> recession the tax cuts that caused the deficits,
> opposed the ending of the wars, lets just say,
> pretty much opposed anything to help fix the
> problem. From the get go, tell me when and how
> did Obama's actions force those Republicans to
> become nothing more than obstructionist losers
> with no accomplishments?
>
> Now, I don't like all Democrats. I don't like
> both parties, they don't represent the utopia I
> dream for America. It's a corrupt system. I
> don't like Nancy Pelosi, I hate her actually. I
> don't like abortion, I don't like Harry Reid, I
> don't Chuck Schumer, I don't like Max Baacus, I
> don't like a lot of those dirty crooked Democrat
> politicians.
>
> But, I can't find a single Republican to like.
> They're all crooked and bat shit crazy with a
> complete inability to govern. The Republican
> majority leader says the party's number one goal
> for the last four years was to make Obama a one
> term proposition, not save the economy, yet Obama
> doesn't court these shy Republicans enough is the
> problem?
>
> The reason I oppose the Republican party with such
> passion is, they represent all that is wrong with
> the system when it comes to the incompetent
> politicians both D's and R's. They want super
> pacs, they want to abolish limitations on campaign
> finance. They want the rich to have
> disproportional influence on who gets elected to
> congress. They in essence want to make themselves
> beholden to their rich donors. They are the
> masters of the gerrymandered district. They
> control a house they lost by 2 million votes
> nationwide by a good majority.
>
> Gerrymandering is what causes these incompetent
> congressmen to have such job security in their
> positions with no turn over on their seats. It's
> what reduces compromise and bipartisanship. So
> which party I ask is most responsible for the
> policies and positions responsible for the current
> political impasse. That is the Republican Party.
> They are a tried and true absolutely disastrous
> establishment and their efforts over decades of
> rigging elections and creating outrageous
> districts and combating campaign finance reform
> and now inventing the super pac have turned
> Washington into what it is today.
>
> The capital of the worlds super power is now
> completely paralyzed. Now, we can sit on this
> thread and try to blame this party or that party
> with partisan intent. But the facts speak for
> themselves.
>
> The question is, at what point do you start caring
> about your country and really thinking about what
> lead us here. Not being outraged by filibusters
> or exercising the Hastert Rule. Not voting on
> legislation from half of the House is literally
> named after the Republican Speaker during Bush's
> time. And everyone's responsible right?
>
> Getting a Republican in the White House won't fix
> these problems, they'll make it worse. The
> Republican Party is in desperate need of serious
> reform. I know who's responsible, the question
> is, do you? What are your expectations of your
> Government? There's a reason Republicans want to
> drown government in a bath tub. They have no
> expectations of their government. They have
> accepted it's corrupt nature and their corrupt
> politicians. I know very well who is responsible
> and how they are responsible, the question is, do
> you?
>
> When the Republican Party suffers massive
> continuous defeat leading to reform and
> bipartisanship. This country will be productive
> again with its legislation. How long and how much
> failure you want to partake until that eventual
> reality. That's up to you.

Reading my stuff from the past reads like fucking Nostradamus. I'm just going to read myself for kicks from now on.