Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it was in the spring of 2012 (don't quote me on dates) when President Obama presented a bill for jobs similar to the one FDR (my favorite president, but not a fan of his domestic policies) used during the Great Depression. Congress wouldn't even vote on it. Forget whether or not it was good, why wouldn't they VOTE on it? Isn't that a part of their job?
Why are our congressmen and congresswomen so uncooperative? I thought that when they disagree on something that they were supposed to find a happy-medium. It makes me (a young college student) feel as if they enjoy watching our nation get worse and worse each day.
Duh! Because they are bot and paid for by The Powers That Be!
but to think someone is uneducated or any of us are better for using the term is ridiculous.
I agree. It is sufficient to simply state the facts of the matter, "respectfully" (a word I used in my message) and let the faulty rhetoric speak for itself in discrediting the comments that the plwhit made. Those who ridiculously rushed to plwhit's defense, instead, drew substantially more attention to the matter of the faulty comments, challenged for their own political reasons the implications made, making the matter a far more substantive part of the thread's discussion. Did you expect an unrebutted soapbox for your ridiculous defense of faulty rhetoric? That's ridiculous itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
An example of a perfectly partisan post. My side is completely right and your side is completely wrong.
Actually, I didn't say anything significant about "my side". Please read and understand messages before replying them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
Hardliners from both sides are identical twins.
No. While we both draw clear distinctions, the distinctions themselves are what is needed to make a rational choice between the options. And to think that either side is going to express their own side in a negative manner or the other side in a positive manner is naive: If someone wasn't confident in the positive attributes of a perspective, they would not voice it. The right-wingers are going to, very naturally, try to make social consciousness and civic responsibility look evil, because those things work against what they desire. They're going to make egoistic avarice look beneficent, because that is what they want. Left-wingers are going to, very naturally, present social consciousness and civic responsibility as absolute imperatives. They're going to present egoistic avarice as immoral, because the assessment of immorality of egoistic avarice is a reflection of their values. To assume that people would not support what they support is insisting on a contradiction, which is, again, ridiculous.
So keep tilting at windmills, as you wish, condemning people supporting what they're supporting, but understand that that too is a hardline position that won't have an unrebutted soapbox.
obama is the problem.
hes not a politician, hes a spoiled brat who doesnt understand how negotiations works.
for some reason, he thinks his word is law, and normal political paths of passing laws does not apply to him.
when the cry-baby-in-chief doesnt get his way, he turns into a little girly man, calling people names and being a butt-hurt community activist.
look at the damage obama caused in the first two years when he had a majority in congress.
now our dept is $17 trillion and climbing, obama-case is destined to ruin our nation.
there are more free-loaders sucking the govt teet than ever imagined.
even the famous sexual predator and deviant slick willy know who to work with congress.
if you want to know what the problem is w/our govt, obama is your answer.
Denial doesn't support your cause. It just underscores your unwillingness to admit the parallel.
Republicans are not "standing together on an issue". If the "issue" is spending, then the time to stand together is during the budget process. When you lose a vote, you've lost the vote. Don't hold the nation hostage to your frustration and petulant demand to get your way despite having lost the vote, because, again, that's the domestic political analog to terrorism.
You insist on dictatating what the issue is, and categorize the points that repudiate the result you want as "emotion" and "not the issue". How convenient.
I agree. It is sufficient to simply state the facts of the matter, "respectfully" (a word I used in my message) and let the faulty rhetoric speak for itself in discrediting the comments that the plwhit made. Those who ridiculously rushed to plwhit's defense, instead, drew substantially more attention to the matter of the faulty comments, challenged for their own political reasons the implications made, making the matter a far more substantive part of the thread's discussion. Did you expect an unrebutted soapbox for your ridiculous defense of faulty rhetoric? That's ridiculous itself.
Actually, I didn't say anything significant about "my side". Please read and understand messages before replying them.
No. While we both draw clear distinctions, the distinctions themselves are what is needed to make a rational choice between the options. And to think that either side is going to express their own side in a negative manner or the other side in a positive manner is naive: If someone wasn't confident in the positive attributes of a perspective, they would not voice it. The right-wingers are going to, very naturally, try to make social consciousness and civic responsibility look evil, because those things work against what they desire. They're going to make egoistic avarice look beneficent, because that is what they want. Left-wingers are going to, very naturally, present social consciousness and civic responsibility as absolute imperatives. They're going to present egoistic avarice as immoral, because the assessment of immorality of egoistic avarice is a reflection of their values. To assume that people would not support what they support is insisting on a contradiction, which is, again, ridiculous.
So keep tilting at windmills, as you wish, condemning people supporting what they're supporting, but understand that that too is a hardline position that won't have an unrebutted soapbox.
LOL Case in point, yet another hardliner post.
A rational person regardless of political ideology can respect while disagreeing. A rational person can confront, recognize and admit the short comings of their political party. A rational person will at the very least hold their own party equally accountable and in fact hold their own more accountable so that they may hold the moral high ground.
A hardliner is neither rational nor reasonable. The hardliner enables the two party monopoly. Hardliners are exactly the same regardless of party affiliation, only their talking points and rhetoric is different. Chane a name and the rhetoric is often the same.
Only my party can be right. Only my party has the answer. Only your party is evil. Only your party is the problem.
I honestly believe that the 2 parties are one entity. They play the american people like a violin. Look at the blatant lies that both parties spew. Then LOL, the hardliners scream liar at each other. you guys kill me. You act like sports fans. ignorance is by choice. When you refuse to see any flaw in your own party that is ignorance and there really is no excuse for it. It is you hardliners that are destroying this great nation. You refuse to think for yourselves.
I wonder how many of you have ever traveled outside of the country?
Did you miss the point that your post was just as much a hardliner post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
A rational person regardless of political ideology can respect while disagreeing. A rational person can confront, recognize and admit the short comings of their political party.
I posted some pretty nasty stuff about Nancy Pelosi about ten minutes ago, and categorically condemned the left-wing's desire for imposition of their preferred brand of single-payer, universal healthcare. Does that qualify? Or does it only count if I post nasty stuff about the party I generally support when it serves your personal political perspective? How convenient?
Gosh you are such a hardliner!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
A hardliner is neither rational nor reasonable.
Don't come down so hard on yourself.
Now can we stop with the inanely nonsensical meta-discussion? Or do you plan on doubling-down on vacuous, self-serving rhetoric.
Why are our congressmen and congresswomen so uncooperative?
The GOP has been taken over by the teabagging religious right and that's where the problem lies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are our congressmen and congresswomen so uncooperative?
