Sick of all of this - A Rant

[Sbee]

Actually this is just stereotypical crap that means very little. I'm sure you can find someone who will tell you the poor should have less access to food and health care, but that is vastly over-simplfied and actually a pretty dumb thing to say.

I could say the democratic party is made up of two sides, the tree-hugging environmentalists who value bird sanctuaries over human life, and elitist thugs who think they know better than everyone else - but then I would be just as guilty as you of spouting crap.

BTW ". . . act totally crazy, then try to shift to the middle to win independents." Isn't that how Obama won the election?

That?s a false equivalency that people like to argue but it simply isn?t true. the democrats at least have some cohesion within their party. Moderate republicans fear compromise with democrats and the white house because they?ll lose their seats, not to democrats but to tea party republicans. Having the term ?primaried? in our vocabulary is a problem.

Also, I?m not a democrat by any means. I have progressive views on some things but I don?t identify with either party. I just think one is crazy, the other simply has no backbone.

 

[Sbee]

Wow - when you have to explain, it probably loses something, don't you think?

BTW ". . . act totally crazy, then try to shift to the middle to win independents." Isn't that how Obama won the election?

The key here is "act totally crazy". The entire few months leading up to the election, it made no difference what the planks of the parties were anymore. I can't see how you don't think it was acting crazy - on both sides.

. . . and as usual, courting the independents, actually has been a winning strategy for at least the last two decades.

So, what I said actually makes perfect sense, to any SANE person.

you can't court independents when you call half the country "takers" and try to portray them as lazy. you can't get independents to vote for you when make outrageous comments about womens issues like abortion or birth control. you don't win the middle by being a bigot against homosexuals.

it's not far right bloggers and lunatic fringe types that say these things, it's the presidential candidate and senate candidates. to say that both parties do the same thing is simply false.

 

[KAWDUP]

it's easy to seem elitist when compared to some in the republican party nowadays. There are many intelligent republicans, but when a presidential candidate goes on to make a speech, calling the president a snob for thinking everyone should be able to go to college, it's not helping. Then, you get the wonder twins (bachmann and palin) that think only with their bibles and somehow seem to be the female leaders of the party. Add to that, morons that think rape almost never ends in a woman getting pregnant and that blacks should be thankful that slavery happened. Even worse, grown men who go on radio shows, calling a woman a slut because she wants to be able to use birth control as a part of her health care plan.

Sorry, bro. But the GOP better become the GOP again and start kicking out these idiots. I may not love the Republican party as you might, but I recognize we need them as a balance. And some of their ideas are very worthy.

The democrats, meanwhile, need to stop playing the fucking race card every time someone criticizes obama. it's not because he's black that you people hate him. It's because he's a very popular (or was) democrat that seems to want the same things the people want (even if he hasn't fulfilled all of his promises). I think there's also a huge amount of misinformation about him from the republicans. It scares the Hell out of all of you.

The war on women has to stop, too. It's not a war on women. It's a war on something that republicans feel is immoral and against their beliefs. I accept that, but when the vast majority of Americans support things like a woman's right to choose and birth control, they need to shut up and accept it.

It's give and take and all our politicians seem to do now is take. Can't get shit done in this country.

I disagree with a couple points, but on the whole, excellent post.

(one of the main points is using what that idiot said about her being a slut, as representative of anything but stupidity - find me something official the GOP has stated on that). There are plenty of Democrats who say and do just as stupid and ignorant things, but I certainly wouldn't paint the entire democratic party with that brush.

This is tacitly true and a shame that it is too:
"It's give and take and all our politicians seem to do now is take. Can't get shit done in this country."

E.g - I was never very fond of Ted Kennedy (mostly for his personal life), but when it came to compromising to getting something done, he was brilliant. Definitely, not enough of those around anymore.

 

[KAWDUP]

you can't court independents when you call half the country "takers" and try to portray them as lazy. you can't get independents to vote for you when make outrageous comments about womens issues like abortion or birth control. you don't win the middle by being a bigot against homosexuals.

it's not far right bloggers and lunatic fringe types that say these things, it's the presidential candidate and senate candidates. to say that both parties do the same thing is simply false.

Umm . . . I think you are making my point. Where was the shift to the middle to win independents then? If you ask me Obama shifted to the middle on several issues (immigration etc.) more than Romney ever did. My point is - that is why Obama won and Romney lost. Am I not talking English anymore?

 

[Sbee]

I disagree with a couple points, but on the whole, excellent post.

(one of the main points is using what that idiot said about her being a slut, as representative of anything but stupidity - find me something official the GOP has stated on that). There are plenty of Democrats who say and do just as stupid and ignorant things, but I certainly wouldn't paint the entire democratic party with that brush.

This is tacitly true and a shame that it is too:
"It's give and take and all our politicians seem to do now is take. Can't get shit done in this country."

E.g - I was never very fond of Ted Kennedy (mostly for his personal life), but when it came to compromising to getting something done, he was brilliant. Definitely, not enough of those around anymore.

Name some top democrats that say things that are just as ignorant. let's find some that deny evolution and climate change, let's find some with outrageous views on abortion and gays. Any presidential candidates or senatorial candidates that say this kind of stuff?

 

[Sbee]

Umm . . . I think you are making my point. Where was the shift to the middle to win independents then? If you ask me Obama shifted to the middle on several issues (immigration etc.) more than Romney ever did. My point is - that is why Obama won and Romney lost. Am I not talking English anymore?

the problem with your attempt at an argument is Obama may shift from left lean to the middle to win an election. a republican has to shift from such extreme views to the middle that it's laughable. you have to deny evolution, be 100% anti abortion, oppose marriage equality, support ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. it's hard to go back to the center after you need to be far, far right to win the primary.

the republican party needs to split with the tea party and evangelicals, then they wouldn't have this problem. of course they wouldn't get the votes for a number of elections but this current path isn't sustainable.

how they hell could they not win with unemployment as high as it was?

 

[KAWDUP]

That?s a false equivalency that people like to argue but it simply isn?t true. the democrats at least have some cohesion within their party. Moderate republicans fear compromise with democrats and the white house because they?ll lose their seats, not to democrats but to tea party republicans. Having the term ?primaried? in our vocabulary is a problem.

Also, I?m not a democrat by any means. I have progressive views on some things but I don?t identify with either party. I just think one is crazy, the other simply has no backbone.

A false equivalency in your own mind. You saying it, for the third time, gives it actually less credence.

BTW - what does cohesion have to do with anything in this discussion? I don't disagree with you there, but your original statement just proves you were probably talking off-the-cuff. I just called you on it.

Where was the shift to the middle to court independents even at the last minute, as you seem to imply?

 

[KAWDUP]

the problem with your attempt at an argument is Obama may shift from left lean to the middle to win an election. a republican has to shift from such extreme views to the middle that it's laughable. you have to deny evolution, be 100% anti abortion, oppose marriage equality, support ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. it's hard to go back to the center after you need to be far, far right to win the primary.

the republican party needs to split with the tea party and evangelicals, then they wouldn't have this problem. of course they wouldn't get the votes for a number of elections but this current path isn't sustainable.

how they hell could they not win with unemployment as high as it was?

Exactly!!!!!!

I think your problem with my attempt at an argument, is you have no clue what the agrument is about.

 

[byco42]

We have strayed so far from the primary principles of a Consitutionally Limited Republic that no one will ever be content with the so-called solutions that either party proposes to our substantial ills and the notion of reverting to the bare essentials of the government of 1789 is now perceived as treason.

My rant would have an entirely different sent of premises than those I am reading here.

 

[Sbee]

Exactly!!!!!!

I think your problem with my attempt at an argument, is you have no clue what the agrument is about.

still waiting for you to list some extreme views by high ranking democrats

 

[Michchamp]

Name some top democrats that say things that are just as ignorant. let's find some that deny evolution and climate change, let's find some with outrageous views on abortion and gays. Any presidential candidates or senatorial candidates that say this kind of stuff?

that's exactly the false equivalency emblematic of how stupid some people can be. and it's irritating that KAWDUP could defend them, and why he insists that the other side's points are also "crazy." maybe he just can't stand to admit he's wrong. Or maybe he really believes god floats over us and creates new species, tweaks existing ones, kills others off, and put dinosaur bones in the ground to "test our faith," and women are raped because of "God's Plan" or whatever that guy said.

but when one party is insisting that evolution is not a fact as well as a theory, denying climate change is occurring, a desire for a college education is "elitist" and the abortions and rapes and all that... it's just not "the other side of the argument." They are objectively wrong, and their views should not be presented as such. The press should point out to viewers when there's no objective evidence to support a claim.

when Michelle Bachmann claims Islamic militants have infiltrated the White House, her "evidence" should be presented for scrutiny. she shouldn't just get a sound bite.

when Rush claims he called Sandra Fluke names as a "joke" he shouldn't get a pass; his repeated use of the term and backpedaling only when sponsors pulled back their advertising should be mentioned. this isn't bias... it's what journalism is. it's presenting the whole story so viewers CAN make up their minds. and if "the facts" cause viewers to abandon Rush Limbaugh... well, that's too bad for him, but it's not an example of a "biased liberal media."

and it's not media "bias" to call one side out for being WRONG. Yet the press is so conditioned to avoid the GOP's whining and labeling them "liberal" they let these nutjobs have their say and present it with equal airtime to provide "balance"...

...but the balance we get drives us further away from logic and reason, further toward superstitious nonsense and accordingly bad domestic and international policies that result from an inability to think rationally based on an objective analysis of the facts.

 

[tinselwolverine]

still waiting for you to list some extreme views by high ranking democrats

Well, you mentioned opposing marriage equality as an "extreme view."

Okay, up until about a year ago, Obama was a right wing extremist on that issue, just like all the Republican wack jobs.

So there's one.

 

[Monster]

I disagree with a couple points, but on the whole, excellent post.

(one of the main points is using what that idiot said about her being a slut, as representative of anything but stupidity - find me something official the GOP has stated on that). There are plenty of Democrats who say and do just as stupid and ignorant things, but I certainly wouldn't paint the entire democratic party with that brush.

This is tacitly true and a shame that it is too:
"It's give and take and all our politicians seem to do now is take. Can't get shit done in this country."

E.g - I was never very fond of Ted Kennedy (mostly for his personal life), but when it came to compromising to getting something done, he was brilliant. Definitely, not enough of those around anymore.

Well, it's not so much that the GOP supports what Rush said about that woman. It's more about, he's kind of a voice of the party. When he speaks, people listen. At least the ones who are a bit more gullible.

Yes, we have some members of the democratic party that say a few silly things, but you're not going to hear them saying something so blatantly stupid like the all stars of the GOP/tea party. Perhaps it is my bias, but I've never heard of a democrat saying anything nearly as stupid as the "legitimate rape" comment.

 

[Michchamp]

Well, you mentioned opposing marriage equality as an "extreme view."

Okay, up until about a year ago, Obama was a right wing extremist on that issue, just like all the Republican wack jobs.

So there's one.

I thought that too, but he apparently did pay lip service to equality and has been consistent in that over time, though he didn't exactly move on the issue until it became more politically acceptable.

he's also waffled a bit.

he also opposed the Bush-era widespread warrantless wiretapping and immunity for the telecoms from lawsuits from consumers who's privacy was violated (which is a violation of law), and then voted for it all anyway when he was becoming a serious candidate for president.

but again, with the Democrats, they're saying things that are accepted to progressive views (on equality, the law, science and all that..) then doing the opposite. republicans are saying things repugnant to progressive views... and well... sorta being consistent in practice, if not as extreme once they get elected.

 

[Monster]

I thought that too, but he apparently did pay lip service to equality and has been consistent in that over time, though he didn't exactly move on the issue until it became more politically acceptable.

he's also waffled a bit.

he also opposed the Bush-era widespread warrantless wiretapping and immunity for the telecoms from lawsuits from consumers who's privacy was violated (which is a violation of law), and then voted for it all anyway when he was becoming a serious candidate for president.

but again, with the Democrats, they're saying things that are accepted to progressive views (on equality, the law, science and all that..) then doing the opposite. republicans are saying things repugnant to progressive views... and well... sorta being consistent in practice, if not as extreme once they get elected.

Obama has waffled. That pisses me off enough, but it makes me laugh when people call him hitler or stalin or whatever. The guy has been a moderate on most issues. The problem is that nobody on team red will do anything to help him. How many times has he supported a bill that would normally be supported by republicans only to have them kill it? Even wayne lapierre (the NRA guy) had supported background checks during the bush presidency. Obama comes into office and suddenly a background check means he is a ruthless dictator, trying to "take muh guns".

 

[Sbee]

I thought that too, but he apparently did pay lip service to equality and has been consistent in that over time, though he didn't exactly move on the issue until it became more politically acceptable.

he's also waffled a bit.

he also opposed the Bush-era widespread warrantless wiretapping and immunity for the telecoms from lawsuits from consumers who's privacy was violated (which is a violation of law), and then voted for it all anyway when he was becoming a serious candidate for president.

but again, with the Democrats, they're saying things that are accepted to progressive views (on equality, the law, science and all that..) then doing the opposite. republicans are saying things repugnant to progressive views... and well... sorta being consistent in practice, if not as extreme once they get elected.

agreed, republicans are crazy and proud of it. they walk the walk.

I've got a million problems with Obama including no public option in the affordable care act, no financial services reform, gitmo still open, and over 200 children killed by drones. Dems would be all over Bush if we were killing so many civilians with drone strikes. it's just as wrong as it would be with a republican in office.

all of that being said, it's still much better than a McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan white house would have been.

 

[Sbee]

Obama has waffled. That pisses me off enough, but it makes me laugh when people call him hitler or stalin or whatever. The guy has been a moderate on most issues. The problem is that nobody on team red will do anything to help him. How many times has he supported a bill that would normally be supported by republicans only to have them kill it? Even wayne lapierre (the NRA guy) had supported background checks during the bush presidency. Obama comes into office and suddenly a background check means he is a ruthless dictator, trying to "take muh guns".

that gun bill was watered down garbage, a total joke.

ask a real socialist what he/she thinks about Obama? he's corporate centrist, he's let liberals down.

if you don't fall in step with all far right views, you must be equal to Hitler.

 

[tigersofjustice]

I did not start as more left leaning, in fact, I was definitely more right leaning and cast my first vote for republicans. However, that party is no where close to where it was 10-20 years ago when it was dominated by more reasonable moderates. I have gradually become more left leaning as I got older. Ultimately, it shocks me that so many people staunchly support a party that, to me, no longer represents what should be their overriding best interests (aka not gay marriage, abortion, or guns). I would like to see more moderate people with at least some of their fiscal views, and I would like it if those fiscal views were not being used to platform specific targeting of programs that, on the underpinning, are based far more on ideological views. Who knows if they will change though. It seems unlikely.

Frankly, I think most people in either party suffer from these effects:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

That's the only explanation I can come up with for why republicans are maintaining even as much support as they currently are. Frankly, it seems as though they will only find out if they are right/wrong in the eyes of the public as more young people become eligible voters and more older persons die off because people are so set in their ways.

 

[byco42]

agreed, republicans are crazy and proud of it. they walk the walk.

I've got a million problems with Obama including no public option in the affordable care act, no financial services reform, gitmo still open, and over 200 children killed by drones. Dems would be all over Bush if we were killing so many civilians with drone strikes. it's just as wrong as it would be with a republican in office.

all of that being said, it's still much better than a McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan white house would have been.

There's no reason to make a relative comparison between two converging degrees of statism.

 

[Mitchrapp]

it's really simple mitch, there are two sides to the republican party. there is the true mental patient side who are the bible beaters and gun nuts. there are also the republicans who think that what the country needs the most is for the rich to pay less in taxes and for the poor to have less access to food and health care.

you have to act totally crazy during the primary, then try to shift to the middle to win independents. this is not a winning formula

That's just dumb.