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.
The liberal Democrat platform as it is today works well on the neighborhood or community level. The problem is that they want to take it to the state level, and even worse the national level. You've seen what just happened in the elections and how the dawning of the negatives on the people have resulted.
It has been said before but worth repeating, the Federal government does big basic things well. When it comes to more complicated issues, its involvement usually turns into a "clusterfluck".
The Republicans have to learn to live with the neo-cons. The God damned rockheaded neo-cons. The Democrats have to learn to live with the Progressive Liberals. The God damned whackadoodle imbecile liberals.
The country has to learn to live with the legislative detritus that both produce. For better or worse.
The liberal Democrat platform as it is today works well on the neighborhood or community level. The problem is that they want to take it to the state level, and even worse the national level. You've seen what just happened in the elections and how the dawning of the negatives on the people have resulted.
It has been said before but worth repeating, the Federal government does big basic things well. When it comes to more complicated issues, its involvement usually turns into a "clusterfluck".
The Republicans have to learn to live with the neo-cons. The God damned rockheaded neo-cons. The Democrats have to learn to live with the Progressive Liberals. The God damned whackadoodle imbecile liberals.
The country has to learn to live with the legislative detritus that both produce. For better or worse.
When Republicans passed a bill that requires a doctor to read a script to woman before performing an abortion, I immediately thought of "A Handmaid's Tale". When you say for better or worse, that definitely sounds worse.
Actually, I prefer National Review for political opinion, they are much smarter than either Fox or CNN. I only read news stories and the occasional opinion piece on Fox - like Stossel or Juan Williams.
Why don't you try having a look at it instead of just parroting what garbage other people say? The real tragedy of our political system is the minds closed like bear traps on both sides.
You bring up some good points, points that do incline me to try to see things from your side - and then the idiot nonsense comes out and I start discounting everything else. You're just the flip side of the Fox Viewer coin that you hate so much. You do yourself a disservice.
Actually, I prefer National Review for political opinion, they are much smarter than either Fox or CNN. I only read news stories and the occasional opinion piece on Fox - like Stossel or Juan Williams.
Why don't you try having a look at it instead of just parroting what garbage other people say? The real tragedy of our political system is the minds closed like bear traps on both sides.
You bring up some good points, points that do incline me to try to see things from your side - and then the idiot nonsense comes out and I start discounting everything else. You're just the flip side of the Fox Viewer coin that you hate so much. You do yourself a disservice.
I provided a broader source since accused me of insanity. Hey, it's okay, I think Republicans are insane too so that's fair. Which is my point. It's like the country speaks in two different languages.
I posted a thread asking if Republicans would support ending Medicare. It would seem a logical conclusion after the past six years of Republicans saying government should not be involved in health care. Not many takers. Which makes it appear that the six year tirade was more about politics than sincere belief. I've reached the point where I think ending Medicare would be good for the country. Puts everyone on the same playing field.
You sound insane because your descriptions of Fox do not coincide with my observations of Fox - their website, not their tv programing.... Imagine what you might think if I applied that very same invective to CNN.
I find those two websites to be about on a par - reasonably accurate news, middling quality opinion pieces with the odd gem here and there, and absolutely awful culture stories - with Fox those are mostly religious, with CNN its whichever moronic cat video is viral this week.
I don't find the Canadian link terribly interesting because I don't feel the need to seek out negative reviews of a news service that I already find to be adequate. I can judge well enough for myself. I would take the same disinterested view of an article talking about how CNN was awful and inappropriate for some country's sensibilities.
You sound insane because your descriptions of Fox do not coincide with my observations of Fox - their website, not their tv programing.... Imagine what you might think if I applied that very same invective to CNN.
I find those two websites to be about on a par - reasonably accurate news, middling quality opinion pieces with the odd gem here and there, and absolutely awful culture stories - with Fox those are mostly religious, with CNN its whichever moronic cat video is viral this week.
I don't find the Canadian link terribly interesting because I don't feel the need to seek out negative reviews of a news service that I already find to be adequate. I can judge well enough for myself. I would take the same disinterested view of an article talking about how CNN was awful and inappropriate for some country's sensibilities.
Clearly you are a huge Fox fan. That's great. I'm not. Watching Fox and Friends would make me ill. Watching Hannity and Sarah Palin, more ill. And Glen Beck with the whole caliphate business when he was on? Seriously, I'm glad you have a news source to like but not for me.
Clearly you are a huge Fox fan. That's great. I'm not. Watching Fox and Friends would make me ill. Watching Hannity and Sarah Palin, more ill. And Glen Beck with the whole caliphate business when he was on? Seriously, I'm glad you have a news source to like but not for me.
Clearly you need to classify me as something I'm not in order to delegitimize anything I might say. Wouldn't want to challenge your biases, now would you.
I told you I don't watch it - I read it. News and selected opinion pieces that are non-crazy. The left has crazies as well, which I also ignore.
I say it again, you do yourself a disservice. I don't mind the closed minds on the right so much, because so many seem to stem from lack of education and broader experience in the world. But the ones on the left seem such a waste - people who are generally well educated yet too bloody lazy to try to see the world from any perspective by their own myopic little view.
This is totally untrue. The people who hate Obama are the same people who impeached Clinton, and shut down the government TWICE. The degree of hate has been building for decades. Obama is just the latest recipient from right wing lunacy and hypocrisy.
My memory may be short because I'm relatively young (late twenties), but the only times I can remember politics being more partisan than post ACA were for a very short while after the supreme court ruling on Bush/Gore, and around the Iraq war - where the divide wasn't nearly so clean. If something has been building for decades it must have taken the 90's and 00's off.
Anyway, America has been less divided than now in the past, and more divided than now in the past. Would you seriously argue that the divides now are worse than they were around desegregation and Vietnam, to pick out two post-war examples? Periods of strong partisan splits in this country generally have had an underlying policy basis -- one political group does something that another absolutely hates and then often goes about it in a way that makes things even worse (in terms of triggering anger on the other side of the issue). This is actually cause for reassurance on partisanship in the long term -- the current atmosphere will dissipate either when the irritant causing it is gone/changed, or after the passage of enough time that the future current state feels like the way things have always been (not that attempts to change things will end, but the anger driving the political divide will drain out).
Of course, one of the parties could in the interim do something new to make people who support the other absolutely flip (for example, it's not implausible the Republicans could completely refuse to play ball on any compromises when the SSDI trust fund runs out, and unless my read on the Democrats is wrong the response wouldn't be pretty. Obama could try to legalize all the illegal immigrants by executive order, etc.), so nothing is guaranteed, but if they don't the partisanship will eventually go away.
My memory may be short because I'm relatively young (late twenties), but the only times I can remember politics being more partisan than post ACA were for a very short while after the supreme court ruling on Bush/Gore, and around the Iraq war - where the divide wasn't nearly so clean. If something has been building for decades it must have taken the 90's and 00's off.
Anyway, America has been less divided than now in the past, and more divided than now in the past. Would you seriously argue that the divides now are worse than they were around desegregation and Vietnam, to pick out two post-war examples? Periods of strong partisan splits in this country generally have had an underlying policy basis -- one political group does something that another absolutely hates and then often goes about it in a way that makes things even worse (in terms of triggering anger on the other side of the issue). This is actually cause for reassurance on partisanship in the long term -- the current atmosphere will dissipate either when the irritant causing it is gone/changed, or after the passage of enough time that the future current state feels like the way things have always been (not that attempts to change things will end, but the anger driving the political divide will drain out).
Of course, one of the parties could in the interim do something new to make people who support the other absolutely flip (for example, it's not implausible the Republicans could completely refuse to play ball on any compromises when the SSDI trust fund runs out, and unless my read on the Democrats is wrong the response wouldn't be pretty. Obama could try to legalize all the illegal immigrants by executive order, etc.), so nothing is guaranteed, but if they don't the partisanship will eventually go away.
Considering you said you wish death on the president over ACA, I don't think it will ever get better.
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.
