PDA

View Full Version : Opinions on Democrats and Republicans


Ping
08-25-2009, 10:03 PM
Title says it all, really. What are your opinions on the two main American political parties? I'll list mine:

Democrats: Well, they have good ideas (at the moment), but they seem to just be all talk to me, and get very little done. Then again, this is politics, where nothing runs correctly.

Republicans: Believe it or not, I actually had more respect for these guys when Bush was in office. This is due to the fact that they seem to disagree with the government on everything unless they have a majority, or have a guy as the president.

As you can see, I have negative opinions on both parties.

Thoughts? Comments?

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-25-2009, 10:06 PM
same **** different piles

Q
08-25-2009, 10:07 PM
^Brilliant. I concur.

Litofsky
08-25-2009, 10:09 PM
same **** different piles

:golfclap:

Ping
08-25-2009, 10:12 PM
same **** different piles

I obviously could not put it any better.

e-varmint
08-25-2009, 10:32 PM
Title says it all, really. What are your opinions on the two main American political parties? I'll list mine:

Democrats: Well, they have good ideas (at the moment), but they seem to just be all talk to me, and get very little done. Then again, this is politics, where nothing runs correctly.

Republicans: Believe it or not, I actually had more respect for these guys when Bush was in office. This is due to the fact that they seem to disagree with the government on everything unless they have a majority, or have a guy as the president.

As you can see, I have negative opinions on both parties.

Thoughts? Comments?

Brazen sociopaths; and

Gutless sociopaths.

JediAthos
08-25-2009, 10:47 PM
same **** different piles

:clap2: we have a winner Bob tell him what he's won: a lifetime of mud slinging campaign ads, and political rehtoric!!!!

Trench
08-26-2009, 12:51 AM
same **** different piles

I concur:golfclap:

o_Q

Lord of Hunger
08-26-2009, 01:49 AM
Uh...parasites and parasites? I don't see how they are anything other than that. All they do is make promises they obviously won't keep and convince people that they will keep said promises, get people as a result to give them campaign money when they haven't even done much of anything anyway, get elected to office, and then hang out with the elite of this country (corporate executives or political activists, depending on what alignment they pretend to have) in order to get ridiculous amounts of money for breaking their promises.

And really, Americans need to stop kidding around and pretending like these guys have any true ideological or moral stance on anything. The Republicans don't believe in turning America into a Fascist Christian Kingdom and the Democrats don't believe in turning America into the Union of American Socialist Republics. They group together into parties and pretend to believe in this Left vs. Right bull**** because it allows them to sell themselves. Bipartisanship is a joke.

What would you expect from a system that is not designed to put the best of the best in power? The Founding Fathers wanted to give everyone a chance to be in government. Well, everyone can, but the people who are the best at getting into government are C- students who got through school by cheating and sweet talking their way out of things.

They are simply good at lying. Parasites do that all the time.

Web Rider
08-26-2009, 02:28 AM
I find Democrats to be to focused on the details, and generally incapable of working together. They've usually got the right ideas at heart, but it gets lost in their attempts to cater to everyone who ever gave them a dollar.

Republicans tend to be obstinate and often ignorant to the concerns of others, though this often gives them a great ability for solidarity in their causes, some of which they hold on to for long after they should have been put to rest.

Also @LoH, Meritocracy is just another form of dictatorship combined with genocide.

Nedak
08-26-2009, 02:42 AM
Both are idiots.

I'm proud to be an Independent.

jonathan7
08-26-2009, 04:38 AM
same **** different piles

I don't think sweeping generalisations ever give a full picture of anything.

Both are idiots.

I'm proud to be an Independent.

My sig about sums up the issue with this; "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently." This thinking merely shows the following... (which is a Max Born quote I've amended) "The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, and that everyone should think the same under pain of force is the root of all evil in the world”

The question is too diverse to give an answer, a lot of my best friends are Americans of either persuasion, there are a lot of nice and nasty people on either side of the divide...

Darth Avlectus
08-26-2009, 07:33 AM
I think both parties are hot steaming piles of $%^@.

For all their worth, it's really just 2 sides of the same damn coin.

Sometimes we all wish at some point we were Vader locking all those scum-sucking weasels in the same room with ourselves while we had a lightsaber and laid waste to them.

Republicans: obstinate and selfish. Of late have been short sightedly throwing certain principles of their out the window. Bush was a headache and a disappointment--I'm rightward leaning, and yet I still didn't like him much. "Free Market" has become an excuse to sell your family down the river. Instead of solving a problem, they sit down for it. And that's not all, they don't even let it make them money anymore--disingenuous as it is. In all, have failed and driven their good away.

Democrats: Hyper focus on small things and don't care to see the big picture despite their claims. Bickering too much to get anything done. My family has a saying: I could visit my shed for a chill and smoke, come back and still not find any work done. Regarding how they handle it all. Good deas...sometimes, maybe. Maybe not. Disappointed my family some times. Get a little too stir crazy when it comes to discrationary privilege and overboard on regulation to a point of more admin. than actual workers. Lost its "for the little guy" quality a long time ago.

I am, however, of the mind that certain, less scrupulous, moderates and bi-partisans are conniving treacherous swines and/or tools. Not all of them, but there are the few who make a bad name for all of them. Those ones I am especially wary of. The rest not so bad; if a bit subjugated for my liking...

I am an independent because neither party represents me. I also resonate with those who are of the mind to be fiscally and financially responsible and conservative. Independence (from government and group think; of opinion and thought train) is the American ideal and the spirit of what drives all, even the underachieving, in this country...or at least it once did. It still should in my opinion.

same **** different piles

I totally concur. Y'know, you have your moments, and I am actually very proud of you in this one. (I can't believe I just said that!) :thmbup1:

Brazen sociopaths; and

Gutless sociopaths.

Seconded.

Uh...parasites and parasites? I don't see how they are anything other than that. All they do is make promises they obviously won't keep and convince people that they will keep said promises, get people as a result to give them campaign money when they haven't even done much of anything anyway, get elected to office, and then hang out with the elite of this country (corporate executives or political activists, depending on what alignment they pretend to have) in order to get ridiculous amounts of money for breaking their promises. I think I like you.

And really, Americans need to stop kidding around and pretending like these guys have any true ideological or moral stance on anything. The Republicans don't believe in turning America into a Fascist Christian Kingdom I's THUMP DAH bible!!!

and the Democrats don't believe in turning America into the Union of American Socialist Republics. I thought U.S(ocialist).S.A. was the spin? :xp:

They group together into parties and pretend to believe in this Left vs. Right bull**** because it allows them to sell themselves. Bipartisanship is a joke. OR it is the new extreme on the other side of the coin where the 2 extremes meet one another full circle, instead of benign moderate like it claims.

What would you expect from a system that is not designed to put the best of the best in power? The Founding Fathers wanted to give everyone a chance to be in government. Well, everyone can, but the people who are the best at getting into government are C- students who got through school by cheating and sweet talking their way out of things.

They are simply good at lying. Parasites do that all the time.

QFET

I find Democrats to be to focused on the details, and generally incapable of working together. They've usually got the right ideas at heart, but it gets lost in their attempts to cater to everyone who ever gave them a dollar.

Republicans tend to be obstinate and often ignorant to the concerns of others, though this often gives them a great ability for solidarity in their causes, some of which they hold on to for long after they should have been put to rest.
Fair enough I guess.

Also @LoH, Meritocracy is just another form of dictatorship combined with genocide.

Hmm. Hadn't thought of quality control *quite* like that. I understand how it could be that way. But I'm not sure I 100% agree here. Interesting. Mediocrity seems to be part of the problems we face today does it not?

Both are idiots.

I'm proud to be an Independent.

Here here. Nothin' wrong there, even if we disagree. That's the wonderful thing about America: we can disagree and still live alongside each other. I respect you have an opinion especially that it is of your own.

I don't think sweeping generalisations ever give a full picture of anything.

Maybe not, but c'mon, you'd have to admit it is at least representative of the resounding palpable feeling that we're tiring of it all. :xp:

My sig about sums up the issue with this; "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently." This thinking merely shows the following... (which is a Max Born quote I've amended) "The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, and that everyone should think the same under pain of force is the root of all evil in the world”

Often that starts out as one wanting to identify with/belong to something. I'm not sure why so many feel that way but it is how group-think starts.

The question is too diverse to give an answer, a lot of my best friends are Americans of either persuasion, there are a lot of nice and nasty people on either side of the divide...

Respectable. There are times I meet extremists who make me wonder how much harm they are doing their side as opposed to the good they think they are doing. Alas, that is life and we have to play the cards we're dealt. <sigh> How anyone reasonable maintains faith in their side and continues to do so is beyond me.

e-varmint
08-26-2009, 10:01 AM
I am an independent because neither party represents me. I also resonate with those who are of the mind to be fiscally and financially responsible and conservative. Independence (from government and group think; of opinion and thought train) is the American ideal and the spirit of what drives all, even the underachieving, in this country...or at least it once did. It still should in my opinion.


Abso-Snarkin'-lutely!!!!

And you're not a jerk.

Jae Onasi
08-26-2009, 11:27 AM
I vote for whoever I think will do the best job, regardless of party affiliation. The party name has about as much meaning for me as it does for Arlen Specter.

Godric Volturi
08-26-2009, 11:36 AM
I vote for whoever I think will do the best job, regardless of party affiliation. The party name has about as much meaning for me as it does for Arlen Specter.


*is in agreement, that is if I could vote*
Mostly I campaign for the Republicans because they agree with the majority of my beliefs, however, the Democrats do have quite a few good ideas... (minus what Obama has in store for us now... heh... that man scares me O.O)

ForeverNight
08-26-2009, 11:41 AM
I vote for whoever I think will do the best job, regardless of party affiliation. The party name has about as much meaning for me as it does for Arlen Specter.

IIRC, the man was a bit of a RINO anyway.

As for me:

Republicans: They totally blew it at the election, and since then have been fighting a loosing battle and making themselves look like total d-bags in the process. The fringe extremists, quite frankly, scare me.... but so do the Dem's :xp:

Democrats: I'll admit my bias right here, I'm very much to the right as it is right now, so I rarely agree with the Dem's. I think that they're pushing for too much, too soon and it's hurting their mission. My opinion of them was damaged severely during Iraq and Afghanistan where it seemed they were only too eager to say: "I told you so!"

My biggest issue with the GOP is that they're jumping the gun on things and -surprise, surprise- getting things wrong, and making it 'bad' to be a Rightist.

My biggest issue with the Dem's is that they just can't seem to remember that there's a recession going on -despite how often they say it is- and are spending money faster then the entire crew of the USS Nimitz on Shore Leave... in a gambling/drinking town.

Basically: They both need to get their respective acts together and start acting like adults instead of kids on the playground.

Web Rider
08-26-2009, 12:56 PM
Hmm. Hadn't thought of quality control *quite* like that. I understand how it could be that way. But I'm not sure I 100% agree here. Interesting. Mediocrity seems to be part of the problems we face today does it not?
Of course it is, but Meritocracy doesn't seek to solve mediocrity. It simply avoids it to put "the best" in charge. "The best" usually being defined by some horribly abstract decisions or one of those number-crunching scientific algorithms that doesn't take anything about humanity into account beyond the numbers.

Eventually, once you've got the "the best" in charge at the top, you'll get them in charge everywhere. In a drive to maintain this system, the "not-best" will be barred from competing, and eventually, from being able to even find a job. At this point you've got a whole lot of "excess" people, who society has forced out and has no need for, they'll either die off or be killed off.

In the end leaving you with a new monarchy of people who weren't but in by divine right, but by some abstract decision that they were "the best". In theory a meritocracy can work, but it needs MASSIVE controls to keep it from becoming ugly. Because if "Joe Public" isn't one of "the best", why are "the best" he put in charge going to listen to him?

urluckyday
08-26-2009, 05:49 PM
I think the creators of South Park have the same opinion I do

They said something like this:
"We don't like republicans...but we reaaaaally don't like democrats"

I'm a republican, but I don't conform to the "rubber-stamping" mentality that members of both parties to partake in. I make my own decisions of right/wrong no matter what the rest of the party believes in.

Bimmerman
08-26-2009, 08:17 PM
Democrats want to take my money and give it to someone who hasn't earned it.

Republicans are hateful spiteful bigots.

No, I don't like either party, and I vote for whoever appeals to me most come election day.

Lord of Hunger
08-27-2009, 01:23 AM
Democrats want to take my money and give it to someone who hasn't earned it.
Or rather they pretend to take your money and give it to someone who hasn't earned it when they really just give it to themselves.
Republicans are hateful spiteful bigots.
Or rather they pretend to be hateful spiteful bigots when they are actually part of the same unnecessary class of parasites that their "opponents" belong to.

You know, I don't think the Democrats or Republicans hate each other at all. When they're together behind closed doors they are probably congratulating each other on how successful they have been at manipulating the tax payers and gleefully laughing at how manipulate-able the tax payers are.
No, I don't like either party, and I vote for whoever appeals to me most come election day.
But that's the problem isn't it? If people keep voting for either party, what changes? Hell, I disagree with the Green Party on some of their views, but I'd rather have them hold every seat in Congress and the White House than see a single Democrat or Republican having any influence on our nation's policies.

My advice to America: Either vote third party or do not vote at all. The latter would actually be awesome if only about 11% of Americans did vote. I hope someday it happens: Force apathy is awesome to watch.

CommanderQ
08-27-2009, 01:44 AM
same **** different piles

I concur. You have gained a lot of awesome points from that statement:D

I vote for whoever I think will do the best job, regardless of party affiliation. The party name has about as much meaning for me as it does for Arlen Specter.

I hold the same opinion, party doesn't always matter if the candidate is able and willing to get the job done, and done well. Still, I do have my opinions on how that job should be done, but if the person has what it takes and has demonstrated their ability, I'd probably vote for them despite small differences of opinion.

Right now, though, both Republicans and Democrats seem a bit extreme, I cannot agree 100% with the things they say sometimes, we need more centrists:D

Darth Avlectus
08-27-2009, 05:43 PM
I vote for whoever I think will do the best job, regardless of party affiliation. The party name has about as much meaning for me as it does for Arlen Specter.
:rofl: O' the irony! That was pretty good. You made my day.

Of course it is, but Meritocracy doesn't seek to solve mediocrity. It simply avoids it to put "the best" in charge. "The best" usually being defined by some horribly abstract decisions or one of those number-crunching scientific algorithms that doesn't take anything about humanity into account beyond the numbers. Hmm. That is very true, you're right. Standards are not all encompassing or all seeing, so they could not hope to cover every circumstance--my own life growing up is evidence of this.

Eventually, once you've got the "the best" in charge at the top, you'll get them in charge everywhere. In a drive to maintain this system, the "not-best" will be barred from competing, and eventually, from being able to even find a job. At this point you've got a whole lot of "excess" people, who society has forced out and has no need for, they'll either die off or be killed off.

I can see how that could become reality but not sure how it necessarily does... Then again, I guess I need only look to history or just simply examples of theocracy, or something that runs like a penitentiary. I'm trying to more fully comprehend this, and I do think I get what you're saying but I just can't seem to put my thumb on it. Still the gist of it is "best" in one way may not be telling of the whole story otherwise. Unless I'm missing something...

In the end leaving you with a new monarchy of people who weren't but in by divine right, but by some abstract decision that they were "the best". Ah. That helps. I guess a specific standard misses many things in a broader picture. Which I do know to be true.

In theory a meritocracy can work, but it needs MASSIVE controls to keep it from becoming ugly. Because if "Joe Public" isn't one of "the best", why are "the best" he put in charge going to listen to him?
True. Probably not. Also, too much regulation and bureaucracy steps on itself aside from being just plain unwieldy and obstructive to be functional in a practical sense--as much we've both discussed here on LF numerous times.

As usual, great points. You have given me something to think about. Possibly a way to refine my thinking. Thanks. :thmbup1:

Or rather they pretend to take your money and give it to someone who hasn't earned it when they really just give it to themselves.

Which I believe to be the case more often than not, unfortunately.

Or rather they pretend to be hateful spiteful bigots when they are actually part of the same unnecessary class of parasites that their "opponents" belong to.

I've long suspected there is a connection between RINO and DINO--their similarities are too much in common. Most people see that as "Oh, so they are similar and bipartisan--GOOD!" But the thing here is that anything (even bipartisanship) could be "elitized". Not sure if it makes sense to any of you out there, but it makes sense to me.

In other words there are genuine bipartisan folks and there are elitist bipartisan folks. The latter of course are the ones to look out for.

Then there are moderates which are okay, save the fact that when they vote for the better of two, "better" may merely be an appearance which could be deceiving. The more extreme of any two could be that. (Not to say moderates are full of vanity!)

You know, I don't think the Democrats or Republicans hate each other at all. When they're together behind closed doors they are probably congratulating each other on how successful they have been at manipulating the tax payers and gleefully laughing at how manipulate-able the tax payers are. I could understand why people would think that.

But that's the problem isn't it? If people keep voting for either party, what changes? Hell, I disagree with the Green Party on some of their views, but I'd rather have them hold every seat in Congress and the White House than see a single Democrat or Republican having any influence on our nation's policies.

My advice to America: Either vote third party or do not vote at all. The latter would actually be awesome if only about 11% of Americans did vote. I hope someday it happens: Force apathy is awesome to watch.

Well, we've tried to insert a 3rd party into mainstream and it gets shut down every time either by being completely ignored, sabotaged anonymously, or retaliated against in some way. Or as I have noticed, CNN took the whole "independent party" theme and touted it and tweaked it in their image. This last election, calling themselves "The source for independents". :dozey: So the media relegated the wildcards to being "left" when in reality independents are all over the board. How insulting.

Most influential people seem to think they can "fix" the two party system and ridicule/berate/condescend any of their adoring fans or anyone who would *dare* suggest a third party.

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-28-2009, 11:04 AM
I don't think sweeping generalisations ever give a full picture of anything.

this is revolutionary. but oh wait, the thread is about groups of people with similar ideals and making generalizations is inherent in the discussion. hang on lemme throw in vague references to friends who have political opinions and some quotes so i can avoid answering the question i forgot this is kavar's.

Te Je'karta Mand'alor
08-28-2009, 03:41 PM
most democrats are insane. most republicans aren't.
enev though i prefer republicans i am indipendent

Totenkopf
08-28-2009, 03:49 PM
I think the creators of South Park have the same opinion I do

They said something like this:
"We don't like republicans...but we reaaaaally don't like democrats"


Seconded. :devsmoke:

Litofsky
08-28-2009, 06:49 PM
most democrats are insane. most republicans aren't.
enev though i prefer republicans i am indipendent

If that is the best you can muster, I truly fear for our political and education systems.

And, if you would, please show us your proof, of any kind. I'd be delighted to read it.

Jae Onasi
08-29-2009, 12:54 AM
most democrats are insane. most republicans aren't.


This is impolite, and it's a completely unfair mis-characterization of a broad range of people. Don't make flamey/baiting posts like this again, and do please learn the real definition of insanity in order to use it correctly before you call someone that. This also goes for anyone who's decided that calling an entire group 'sociopaths' or assorted other derogatory names is appropriate.

e-varmint
09-01-2009, 09:06 AM
......This also goes for anyone who's decided that calling an entire group 'sociopaths' or assorted other derogatory names is appropriate.

I was just trying to answer the OP's question. No malicious intent whatsoever. In defense of my position, allow me to submit these linkies from the wonderful world of "find data to support any claim, no matter how strange", otherwise known as the Internet:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/politicians-and-serial-killers.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef011571162e0c970 b

and this:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1961710/politicians_and_narcissistic_personality.html

Now, who could blame be for casting generalized aspersions after reading such startling commentary?

jonathan7
09-01-2009, 09:21 AM
most democrats are insane. most republicans aren't.
enev though i prefer republicans i am indipendent

Please could you show me the psychological and psychiatrical data which proves this, what also are you using as your definition of "insane"? Or are you making wild aspersions again based on nothing but your own prejudices which are in turn just based of the biased TV and websites you view?

Further more if you insist on making aspersions as to the mental abilities of others then you could actually put some effort in your typing opposed to appearing like an ignorant thirteen year old school kid, observe;

"Most Democrats are insane, Most Republicans aren't.
Even though I prefer Republicans I am Independant"

When your spelling and grammer gets picked up by a dyslexic, you know things are epically wrong!

El Sitherino
09-01-2009, 01:18 PM
Just to remind everyone, insane is a legal definition defining a level of mental health, outside of court it'd be appropriate to say "mentally unfit to make moral decisions".

Trust me, I used to be an "insane". :)

Edit: Since I seem to have not posted in here already, I personally consider myself someone that votes for a more rational approach. Since the last 12 years have been nothing but agenda pushers, I don't particularly favor any party and would say I favor no party. Republicans abandoned their party in the 80's when they jumped on Reagan's bandwagon of religious indoctrination and the Democrats have pretty much given up on enforcing their principles and settle for making everyone mutually upset (or as they try to put it, agreed upon ideals of happiness).
Neo-conservatives are the largest portion of the Republican party and as such they fill the system with a large vocal group screaming out blatant false conspiracies, usually as a backlash to the empowerment of a democrat or otherwise "progressive/socialist". Because so many people protested George Bush, they see it as their turn for mudslinging, much like a child who has hit a growth spurt making them larger than the kids that used to bully them or make them feel weak, otherwise. It's a common weakness in human beings to pick up the excuse of "Well they did it to me, now it's my turn!"
Observe how quickly publicity stuntsmen O'Reilly and Chris Matthews have flipped on their earlier positions from the last 8 years. O'Reilly is screaming like a raving hippie and Matthews is gloating/defending in the fashion of O'Reilly 5 years ago "Haha, we won now shut your mouth"
From there we have the democrats becoming weaklings with little to no spine to put their money where their mouth is, leaving a space to be filled by absurd people like these 9/11 for truth people.

Bottom line, our country is in a ****hole and has been for a while. People are finally seeing what people like myself have been saying was going to happen for a while. The economy cannot be supported by fake money, the easy-ride is over. It is time for change and sadly those that aren't ready for it are going to be left at the wayside, but things must be different from before. Healthcare needs to be addressed, so do our social policies in general. The government exists to protect the small man from the big one, not to protect the interests of the big man in exploitation of the small. Granted this hasn't always been the reality of the situation, but present reality should not invalidate idealistic reality, which is essentially the potential for things to not suck. Personally I have no problem getting 60% of my earnings taxed as long as these taxes are put to help invest in the nation. Give my military awesome armor so less of our troops die in ground combat, help my police remove dangerous people from the streets (ie. people who do harm to others, stop the senseless drug laws), let's give firefighters appropriate healthcare. I want my tax money to go toward fixing the highway system, give us those safety measures we were promised even well before I was born. Spend the money on educating kids so they don't grow up into being social retards with no sense (of history or reasoning).
The problem with democrats and republicans, neither of them tell us the truth that taxes are meant to be an investment in the nation. Instead they try and act as though it's some unknown government fatcat (usually eachother) sticking his hand in your pocket to pay for his next scoop of caviar. While somewhat true, it's usually because we fall for these people's party-based rhetoric, which to me is a rather old schtick.

Web Rider
09-01-2009, 01:19 PM
I was just trying to answer the OP's question. No malicious intent whatsoever. In defense of my position, allow me to submit these linkies from the wonderful world of "find data to support any claim, no matter how strange", otherwise known as the Internet:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/politicians-and-serial-killers.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef011571162e0c970 b

and this:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1961710/politicians_and_narcissistic_personality.html

Now, who could blame be for casting generalized aspersions after reading such startling commentary?

Considering the way in which "anti-social personality disorder" is defined these days, almost everyone shares traits with "sociopaths". And while yes, you could say that the important ones are the "not well adjusted" aspects, "not well adjusted" includes a good solid chunk of the teen population these days. Lack of specificity and a desire to be able to diagnose more people for the wrong reasons has lead to a generalizing of psychological conditions. Everyone has aspects of a variety of "disorders" simply because brain chemistry varies to some degree even in normal people.

I will also point out that the first article is a blog, and a very biased and poorly written one attempting to look scientific. And the second seems to lack any other backing other than "I read the DSM IV and it says..." which any good therapist/psychiatrist/psychologist knows is not the end-all be-all book of psychological truth. Consider that the DSM III said that homosexuality was a mental disorder.

Totenkopf
09-01-2009, 05:26 PM
Just to remind everyone, insane is a legal definition defining a level of mental health, outside of court it'd be appropriate to say "mentally unfit to make moral decisions".

Trust me, I used to be an "insane". :)

As you can note, that is only one interpretation.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insane


Edit: Since I seem to have not posted in here already, I personally consider myself someone that votes for a more rational approach. Since the last 12 years have been nothing but agenda pushers, I don't particularly favor any party and would say I favor no party. Republicans abandoned their party in the 80's when they jumped on Reagan's bandwagon of religious indoctrination and the Democrats have pretty much given up on enforcing their principles and settle for making everyone mutually upset (or as they try to put it, agreed upon ideals of happiness).

Hmmm...what are you talking about? Agendas are as old as politics itself and there has been nothing extraordinary about the last 12 years in that regard. As the Dems have been hijacked by an equally strident and extreme left wing outlook, I'm left wondering just what it is you think they've given up on.


Neo-conservatives are the largest portion of the Republican party and as such they fill the system with a large vocal group screaming out blatant false conspiracies, usually as a backlash to the empowerment of a democrat or otherwise "progressive/socialist". Because so many people protested George Bush, they see it as their turn for mudslinging, much like a child who has hit a growth spurt making them larger than the kids that used to bully them or make them feel weak, otherwise. It's a common weakness in human beings to pick up the excuse of "Well they did it to me, now it's my turn!"
Observe how quickly publicity stuntsmen O'Reilly and Chris Matthews have flipped on their earlier positions from the last 8 years. O'Reilly is screaming like a raving hippie and Matthews is gloating/defending in the fashion of O'Reilly 5 years ago "Haha, we won now shut your mouth"
From there we have the democrats becoming weaklings with little to no spine to put their money where their mouth is, leaving a space to be filled by absurd people like these 9/11 for truth people.

Anti-capitalist, eco-freaks w/a racial-politics pov have dominated the dems for at least as long. And they are every bit as disingenuous and toxic in terms of the ideals our country was built upon. But where exactly do you see them having no spine? Do you assume that the democrats are monolithic? I do agree with you, however, that the 9-11 truthers have little more than conspiracy to grasp onto.



Healthcare needs to be addressed, so do our social policies in general. The government exists to protect the small man from the big one, not to protect the interests of the big man in exploitation of the small. Granted this hasn't always been the reality of the situation, but present reality should not invalidate idealistic reality, which is essentially the potential for things to not suck. Personally I have no problem getting 60% of my earnings taxed as long as these taxes are put to help invest in the nation. Give my military awesome armor so less of our troops die in ground combat, help my police remove dangerous people from the streets (ie. people who do harm to others, stop the senseless drug laws), let's give firefighters appropriate healthcare. I want my tax money to go toward fixing the highway system, give us those safety measures we were promised even well before I was born. Spend the money on educating kids so they don't grow up into being social retards with no sense (of history or reasoning).

Problem is, giving 60% of your money to the govt with the "hope" that they'll actually do what they're supposed to is forlorn at best. However, perhaps you should petition the govt to allow for a box on your tax forms that says you voluntarily donate 60% of your income to address the nation's need for "investments" in infrastructure. Or, I guess you could just write checks to various levels of govt for any money you have left >40% of your pretaxed income. Frankly, just like with healthcare apparently, we spend more money per capita on education than most other industrialized nations and the kids seem to be dumber and dumber...esp when you check national rankings in math and science. Seems we should probably ask for a refund or rebuild the public school system from the ground up.

e-varmint
09-01-2009, 05:31 PM
Considering the way in which "anti-social personality disorder" is defined these days, almost everyone shares traits with "sociopaths". And while yes, you could say that the important ones are the "not well adjusted" aspects, "not well adjusted" includes a good solid chunk of the teen population these days. Lack of specificity and a desire to be able to diagnose more people for the wrong reasons has lead to a generalizing of psychological conditions. Everyone has aspects of a variety of "disorders" simply because brain chemistry varies to some degree even in normal people.

I will also point out that the first article is a blog, and a very biased and poorly written one attempting to look scientific. And the second seems to lack any other backing other than "I read the DSM IV and it says..." which any good therapist/psychiatrist/psychologist knows is not the end-all be-all book of psychological truth. Consider that the DSM III said that homosexuality was a mental disorder.

*thumbs madly through reference material, produces the following gem*

Well, here's the way I see it. If large enough numbers of our politicians are going to behave in a manner similar to the riveting descriptions set fourth in said commentaries, I hardly feel that is a huge example of hougery or maldiligence on my part to lump them all together under neat, easily communicated label suitable for the purposes the OP's requested "Thoughts" and/or "Comments". That being said, I suppose that it is reasonable to expect a more thorough response than the one I hastily presented previously.

My "Keep Your Hands Off Of My Stuff" impression of democrats: Emboldened politicians who, under the guise of convincing us that the concept of "Equality Of Result" should become our driving principle of governance, have manipulated large segments of the voters to place them in positions of power. I further believe that these politicians are not sufficiently aware of the long term consequences of their agenda, and that such an agenda will have a distinct and lasting negative impact on our society.

My "No Wrath Like a Voter Scorned" impression of republicans: Gutless and/or deceitful politicians who, under the guise of convincing us that they would restore wrongfully-usurped federal powers to State and Local governments (not to mention the citizenry), have manipulated large segments of the voters to place them in positions of power. I further believe that these politicians are not sufficiently aware of the long term consequences of their failure, and that such failure will have a distinct and lasting negative impact on our society.

El Sitherino
09-01-2009, 07:41 PM
As you can note, that is only one interpretation.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insane

Other than the last two (slang based definitions), the first still fall in line from being a legal definition. (to translate, the origin of the word is as a legal definition, all other usage is based on embraced speech, kind of like business jargon)



Hmmm...what are you talking about? Agendas are as old as politics itself and there has been nothing extraordinary about the last 12 years in that regard. As the Dems have been hijacked by an equally strident and extreme left wing outlook, I'm left wondering just what it is you think they've given up on.

I'm talking about political figures not actually having reasons, simply a reason to argue. Further more, no agenda-pushing is not as old as politics, there was a time where politicians met and discussed the idea of mutual ground, whether you accept this fact is neither here nor there.
What have they given up on? Hmmm, perhaps logic and rationale for one, for seconds they seem to have given up believing in the things they speak about, now they're just talk boxes for whoever is taking in the money.


Anti-capitalist, eco-freaks w/a racial-politics pov have dominated the dems for at least as long. And they are every bit as disingenuous and toxic in terms of the ideals our country was built upon. But where exactly do you see them having no spine? Do you assume that the democrats are monolithic? I do agree with you, however, that the 9-11 truthers have little more than conspiracy to grasp onto.

I agree and I lightly addressed that by mentioning that they've been replaced with nuts who think the towers collapsing was an inside job, from there it trickles down to other odd rants and conspiracies.
As for them not having a spine, look at the current Healthcare Reform drama. It started out as a fight to get everyone coverage, now it's all about ever changing issues of payment plans. Usually when you fold on a point before it's even debated, that's a sign of losing ones spine.


Problem is, giving 60% of your money to the govt with the "hope" that they'll actually do what they're supposed to is forlorn at best.

You mistake desire for responsible government with willingness to hand over money without a proper system in place, clearly you're not paying attention. I don't like the current system, I'd like to see it change. While this may take time, I have plenty of it, and I fortunately have options to take in the mean time. What I was trying to get at with it, however, was that people are too petty and selfish to think that there's a possibility for taxes to be reasonable and justified. It's up to the people to change government and I think our government should do it's job. Do I think throwing money at everything will solve the problem? No, but I do think properly spending money will fix problems. Much like when you make home repairs, you can get the cheapest thing to throw your money at, but often it's best to make sure you get a solid investment. This doesn't really mean the most expensive option, just one that actually sees a worthwhile lifespan.

However, perhaps you should petition the govt to allow for a box on your tax forms that says you voluntarily donate 60% of your income to address the nation's need for "investments" in infrastructure. Or, I guess you could just write checks to various levels of govt for any money you have left >40% of your pretaxed income.

Cute.

Frankly, just like with healthcare apparently, we spend more money per capita on education than most other industrialized nations and the kids seem to be dumber and dumber...esp when you check national rankings in math and science. Seems we should probably ask for a refund or rebuild the public school system from the ground up.
Perhaps you should actually look into how that money is spent. In the mid-west alone 70+% of the money is spent on athletics and rebuilding poorly constructed systems. The school system is highly corrupt, if not the most corrupt.
Not to mention all the varying standards imposed through schoolboards by parents. There was a point in time where we actually taught kids, now we're trying to balance between educating and coddling ignorant fools who cling to flawed ideas.

People screw one another over for business interests and that's why people are wanting a change, in healthcare, education, and pretty much everything else. True healthcare is the top of the list right now because every ignorant redneck is at the townhall screaming about Barrack Hitler Obama and the death panels, but education is also on the list for reform.

Totenkopf
09-01-2009, 09:53 PM
Other than the last two (slang based definitions), the first still fall in line from being a legal definition. (to translate, the origin of the word is as a legal definition, all other usage is based on embraced speech, kind of like business jargon)

Irrelevant. The point is that the term insane isn't restricted to legal definitions. Insane, like many words in English, has multiple meanings.



I'm talking about political figures not actually having reasons, simply a reason to argue. Further more, no agenda-pushing is not as old as politics, there was a time where politicians met and discussed the idea of mutual ground, whether you accept this fact is neither here nor there.

:raise: Actually, that's not true. Further, your observation is merely conjecture about other people's motives. Never contended that mutual ground wasn't a facet of politics, nor (as you seem to) that there isn't an element of that in modern times either. Not really sure where that's coming from.



What have they given up on? Hmmm, perhaps logic and rationale for one, for seconds they seem to have given up believing in the things they speak about, now they're just talk boxes for whoever is taking in the money.

So, you're contending that this has apparently never been a trait of politics, in America or anywhere/time in history except now?



As for them not having a spine, look at the current Healthcare Reform drama. It started out as a fight to get everyone coverage, now it's all about ever changing issues of payment plans. Usually when you fold on a point before it's even debated, that's a sign of losing ones spine.

But your position seems to suggest that the democrats were of one mind on this from the outset. It's quite clear that the divisions w/in the democrat party are such that there is no universal intraparty agreememnt on his topic.


You mistake desire for responsible government with willingness to hand over money without a proper system in place, clearly you're not paying attention. I don't like the current system, I'd like to see it change. While this may take time, I have plenty of it, and I fortunately have options to take in the mean time. What I was trying to get at with it, however, was that people are too petty and selfish to think that there's a possibility for taxes to be reasonable and justified. It's up to the people to change government and I think our government should do it's job. Do I think throwing money at everything will solve the problem? No, but I do think properly spending money will fix problems. Much like when you make home repairs, you can get the cheapest thing to throw your money at, but often it's best to make sure you get a solid investment. This doesn't really mean the most expensive option, just one that actually sees a worthwhile lifespan.

Actually, no, I don't miss the point or even conflate the issues. I, unlike you it seems, do not find it desirable to hand money over to the govt and hope that it has the maturity and foresight to spend it in an efficient and responsible manner. I believe such a system is merely a pipedream. First, b/c people are too flawed (call me a cynic) and second b/c I do not wish to cede that much authority and power over to a government. I do agree with you that throwing money at a problem doesn't really do anything except probably waste gobs of it. As to what's reasonable and justified will naturally vary in accordance with how much you actually want the government to do for you. So, I don't agree that people are too inherently petty and selfish to agree on there being such a thing as a reasonable and justifiable tax, b/c that will largely be determined by what role they see the govt as having in their lives.

Cute.
thanks. ;)



Perhaps you should actually look into how that money is spent. In the mid-west alone 70+% of the money is spent on athletics and rebuilding poorly constructed systems. The school system is highly corrupt, if not the most corrupt.
Not to mention all the varying standards imposed through schoolboards by parents. There was a point in time where we actually taught kids, now we're trying to balance between educating and coddling ignorant fools who cling to flawed ideas.

You're basically playing to my point. We spend an inordinate amount of money on education in this country, get poor results and then are asked to dig deeper into our pockets for ever greater amounts. Where's the accountability? Clearly we are not getting our money's worth from the system as it is currently organized. Which flawed ideas? Flat earth? Man-made global warming? Creationism? The current public system is badly in need of overhaul before it's even given anymore money.


People screw one another over for business interests and that's why people are wanting a change, in healthcare, education, and pretty much everything else. True healthcare is the top of the list right now because every ignorant redneck is at the townhall screaming about Barrack Hitler Obama and the death panels, but education is also on the list for reform.

And governments have been (and still are) screwing people over from time immemorial. Besides, "true healthcare" was at the top of the list regardless of the public reaction. BO was clear about that from the beginning. I do find it funny, though, that the very kinds of people who flung Hitler comparisons around for the better part of 2 terms now have to deal with it themselves. That said, it is rather unfortunate that the level of public discourse gets reduced to shouting matches from either side, regardless of the issues.

El Sitherino
09-01-2009, 10:38 PM
Irrelevant. The point is that the term insane isn't restricted to legal definitions. Insane, like many words in English, has multiple meanings.

Actually I'm pretty sure those all said it has the same meaning. "mentally deficient"



:raise: Actually, that's not true. Further, your observation is merely conjecture about other people's motives.

So far of all the town hall meetings I have seen, neither party has anyone genuinely laying down the details, instead it's a constant stuttering of "this bill I believe..."



So, you're contending that this has apparently never been a trait of politics, in America or anywhere/time in history except now?

I don't believe I said that, what I'm speaking of is the increase in this tactic.



But your position seems to suggest that the democrats were of one mind on this from the outset.

Actually I think I was pointing out the opposite.


Actually, no, I don't miss the point or even conflate the issues. I, unlike you it seems, do not find it desirable to hand money over to the govt and hope that it has the maturity and foresight to spend it in an efficient and responsible manner. I believe such a system is merely a pipedream. First, b/c people are too flawed (call me a cynic) and second b/c I do not wish to cede that much authority and power over to a government.

Then what exactly is the purpose of a government? I assume you back this up by refusing to pay taxes. If not, then you're just as gullible as you're attempting to make me out to be.

I do agree with you that throwing money at a problem doesn't really do anything except probably waste gobs of it. As to what's reasonable and justified will naturally vary in accordance with how much you actually want the government to do for you. So, I don't agree that people are too inherently petty and selfish to agree on there being such a thing as a reasonable and justifiable tax, b/c that will largely be determined by what role they see the govt as having in their lives.

I believe the role of government is to protect the citizens, which is what our taxes are supposed to go to, sustaining the government and it's bodies that defend us. I'm sure you've read the Declaration of Independence, it has quite a bit of everything lined out rather well in there.


You're basically playing to my point.

Perhaps because we have the same point, I just merely wish to push for a system that works rather than refusing to let anyone fix it, which appears to be your position.

We spend an inordinate amount of money on education in this country, get poor results and then are asked to dig deeper into our pockets for ever greater amounts. Where's the accountability? Clearly we are not getting our money's worth from the system as it is currently organized. Which flawed ideas? Flat earth? Man-made global warming? Creationism? The current public system is badly in need of overhaul before it's even given anymore money.

Which is why people use the words reform and restructuring. Myself being one of them.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm a fool, I guess with all of my cynicism I'm still willing to believe things can get better rather than resigning to a "bah, I'll get mine and you can get yours" kind of attitude.

And governments have been (and still are) screwing people over from time immemorial.

So we shouldn't try to improve it?

Besides, "true healthcare" was at the top of the list regardless of the public reaction. BO was clear about that from the beginning.

He also discussed it as "healthcare for all"

I do find it funny, though, that the very kinds of people who flung Hitler comparisons around for the better part of 2 terms now have to deal with it themselves.

To be fair Bush actually started a war based upon rather biased terms and had many cities bombed to ****. While far from the level of horror Hitler inflicted, it's a much easier correlation to make than Obama, a half-black man with an equal rights background.

That said, it is rather unfortunate that the level of public discourse gets reduced to shouting matches from either side, regardless of the issues.
Perhaps I'm not alone in thinking that these people should be getting mad about getting shafted, rather than believing misrepresentations of the truth.
You and I are likely not that different in opinion on the way the government works, but I prefer to try injecting a bit of optimism in my aggression. Why bother fighting to make things worse for the country?

Totenkopf
09-02-2009, 12:03 AM
Actually I'm pretty sure those all said it has the same meaning. "mentally deficient"

You're missing the point. You were putting undue emphasis on the legal interpretation of the word, even going so far to offer your past up as an example of why your pov should be taken for granted. But extreme and absurd don't necessarily mean mentally deficient, and certainly not in a legal or clinical sense.


So far of all the town hall meetings I have seen, neither party has anyone genuinely laying down the details, instead it's a constant stuttering of "this bill I believe..."

Two things. One, as there is not an official bill, but rather several versions that are circulating, it's a bit difficult for either side to make a definitive and honest proclomation of what will be in the final draft of whatever legislation emerges. This is merely people expressing their opposition to ideas that are in circulation for inclusion into a final bill, to people they view as completely unresponsive no less. Second, politics goes beyond a bunch of town hall meetings over the fate of healthcare legislation.


I don't believe I said that, what I'm speaking of is the increase in this tactic.

But that is a very subjective call. An increase from when? 12 years ago? 50years ago?


As for them not having a spine, look at the current Healthcare Reform drama. It started out as a fight to get everyone coverage, now it's all about ever changing issues of payment plans. Usually when you fold on a point before it's even debated, that's a sign of losing ones spine.

Actually I think I was pointing out the opposite.

Not quite. Your initial postion implied that the dems were solidly locked onto the idea of "universal comprehensive healthcare", but that unity has collapsed under the weight of "drama", thus demonstrating a lack of spine or willpower. In fact, the goal may have been to "reform" the healthcare system, but it's clear that the dems were divided over how to do it and that fact has become glaringly clear over the course of the "drama".



Then what exactly is the purpose of a government? I assume you back this up by refusing to pay taxes. If not, then you're just as gullible as you're attempting to make me out to be.

First, who said taxes were unnecessary? I'm not making you out to be gullible. I do believe you are perhaps overly idealistic. Optimism is fine, but no substitute for recognizing the hard cold slap of reality. The question wasn't over whether there should be taxes, but rather how much and what for in the end.


I believe the role of government is to protect the citizens, which is what our taxes are supposed to go to, sustaining the government and it's bodies that defend us. I'm sure you've read the Declaration of Independence, it has quite a bit of everything lined out rather well in there.

The role of govt is to protect the nation and its citizenry. Unfortunately, the DOI is not the foundation of our Republic. The Constitution is.


Perhaps because we have the same point, I just merely wish to push for a system that works rather than refusing to let anyone fix it, which appears to be your position.

I don't necessarily share your definition of what constitutes "fix", not your recognition that something be done.


Which is why people use the words reform and restructuring. Myself being one of them.

You'll find that people you butt heads with on the subject don't disagree as much on the problem as they do the solution. They even talk about some of the same ideas. Reform and restructuring don't mean govt takeover.


You seem to be under the impression that I'm a fool, I guess with all of my cynicism I'm still willing to believe things can get better rather than resigning to a "bah, I'll get mine and you can get yours" kind of attitude.

Actually, no more than you are of me. As I said to mimartin in the healthcare thread (and noted above), just b/c people differ in their solutions doesn't axiomatically mean they don't see the same types of problems.


So we shouldn't try to improve it?

Yes, but our concepts of "improvement" obviously diverge.


He also discussed it as "healthcare for all"

Right, but he unfortunately has decided to reinvent the wheel in the form of a massive govt controlled program and that is where he has run into a lot of trouble. Again, the solutions thing getting in the way.


To be fair Bush actually started a war based upon rather biased terms and had many cities bombed to ****. While far from the level of horror Hitler inflicted, it's a much easier correlation to make than Obama, a half-black man with an equal rights background.

For someone of your political persuasion, I don't doubt that. However, remember that Hitler wasn't only about war and conquest. He, like Obama and the people who share BO's vision, was a statist. Why not go for Ghengis Kahn or Atilla the Hun? Maybe even Napolean? Perhaps Tojo (as the Japanese did start the war over access to oil and other raw materials).


Perhaps I'm not alone in thinking that these people should be getting mad about getting shafted, rather than believing misrepresentations of the truth.
You and I are likely not that different in opinion on the way the government works, but I prefer to try injecting a bit of optimism in my aggression. Why bother fighting to make things worse for the country?

Why assume that people who don't see the govt as the answer to life's problems are fighting to make things worse? Seems unduly pessimistic given your stated optomistic outlook. ;)

El Sitherino
09-02-2009, 09:05 AM
You're missing the point. You were putting undue emphasis on the legal interpretation of the word, even going so far to offer your past up as an example of why your pov should be taken for granted. But extreme and absurd don't necessarily mean mentally deficient, and certainly not in a legal or clinical sense.

Any use of it outside the legal definition is informal and unscientific, any proper use of the word is within legal definition. And I'm sorry you couldn't take a joke.


Two things. One, as there is not an official bill, but rather several versions that are circulating, it's a bit difficult for either side to make a definitive and honest proclomation of what will be in the final draft of whatever legislation emerges. This is merely people expressing their opposition to ideas that are in circulation for inclusion into a final bill, to people they view as completely unresponsive no less. Second, politics goes beyond a bunch of town hall meetings over the fate of healthcare legislation.

First point, I'm well aware of the multiple bills being drafted, however everyone has their own.
Second, sure it does, but regardless it's the same with every issue that's being presented. No one is working for the same thing, they all already have their mind made up and are trying to convince people they're wrong. (context, I am of course speaking about those that are actually talking about these reforms. All others are excluded from this argument as they do not make up the largely vocal majority and are outside my criticism at this time)


But that is a very subjective call. An increase from when? 12 years ago? 50years ago?

Okay, we'll agree to disagree that party rhetoric has increased in it's hardline approach since the fading out of Clinton's presidency.


Not quite. Your initial postion implied that the dems were solidly locked onto the idea of "universal comprehensive healthcare", but that unity has collapsed under the weight of "drama", thus demonstrating a lack of spine or willpower. In fact, the goal may have been to "reform" the healthcare system, but it's clear that the dems were divided over how to do it and that fact has become glaringly clear over the course of the "drama".

Let's not forget this fight originally started well over 40 years ago.



First, who said taxes were unnecessary? I'm not making you out to be gullible. I do believe you are perhaps overly idealistic. Optimism is fine, but no substitute for recognizing the hard cold slap of reality.

Then perhaps this country shouldn't have even been started in the first place, what with government being incapable of achieving the nearest human level of perfection.



The role of govt is to protect the nation and its citizenry. Unfortunately, the DOI is not the foundation of our Republic. The Constitution is.

And your point is? I believe the point of the Declaration was that it announces the goals of providing a just government, a more perfect union.


I don't necessarily share your definition of what constitutes "fix", not your recognition that something be done.

I don't recall stating what I define as fixing.


You'll find that people you butt heads with on the subject don't disagree as much on the problem as they do the solution. They even talk about some of the same ideas. Reform and restructuring don't mean govt takeover.

I don't believe I said anything about government take over, simply that it is the responsibility and the very reason for a governments existence to protect the citizens.



Yes, but our concepts of "improvement" obviously diverge.

I haven't stated my concept of improvement other than we shouldn't be trying to pass things that single people out.


Right, but he unfortunately has decided to reinvent the wheel in the form of a massive govt controlled program and that is where he has run into a lot of trouble. Again, the solutions thing getting in the way.

Which is my point about the democrats. So tell me again why you decided to try and tell me my opinions and views are wrong?


For someone of your political persuasion, I don't doubt that. However, remember that Hitler wasn't only about war and conquest. He, like Obama and the people who share BO's vision, was a statist. Why not go for Ghengis Kahn or Atilla the Hun? Maybe even Napolean? Perhaps Tojo (as the Japanese did start the war over access to oil and other raw materials).

People have a bad habit of bad white guy = other bad white guy. Some people did do the Bush>Hitler>Napoleon leap.


Why assume that people who don't see the govt as the answer to life's problems are fighting to make things worse? Seems unduly pessimistic given your stated optomistic outlook. ;)
You assumed I wanted the government creating this odd new public option.

Totenkopf
09-02-2009, 10:15 AM
Any use of it outside the legal definition is informal and unscientific, any proper use of the word is within legal definition. And I'm sorry you couldn't take a joke.

I got the part where you jokingly refer to yourself as having been insane, but the old saying....1/2 in jest, all in earnest applies here. You were focusing on one context of a word, repeated it and then tried to use your joke to disarm. Nice try.



First point, I'm well aware of the multiple bills being drafted, however everyone has their own.
Second, sure it does, but regardless it's the same with every issue that's being presented. No one is working for the same thing, they all already have their mind made up and are trying to convince people they're wrong. (context, I am of course speaking about those that are actually talking about these reforms. All others are excluded from this argument as they do not make up the largely vocal majority and are outside my criticism at this time)

So, you have a problem with not everyone being on board? The legislators in most cases haven't read the bills that they are defending to the public, but it's largely the public that's being disagreeable? Or are you lamenting that the president and his allies in Congress have done a poor job of articulating how they intend to accomplish this task they're trying to galvinize everyone over, which naturally leads to al ot of confusion? You know full well that "democratic" govt is messy and plagued with competing agendas.



Okay, we'll agree to disagree that party rhetoric has increased in it's hardline approach since the fading out of Clinton's presidency.

I, unlike you, don't see party political rhetoric being any more hardline since Clinton. We just might be more publically aware of how intransigent the parties actually are b/c of the 24 hour news cycle and more alternate sources of information. I'm sure the dems party rhetoric was quite muted when they went after people like Judge Bork (pre-Clinton).:rolleyes:



Let's not forget this fight originally started well over 40 years ago.

Actually, it precedes that even. The concept of govt universal healthcare goes at least as far back as FDR, not TK.




Then perhaps this country shouldn't have even been started in the first place, what with government being incapable of achieving the nearest human level of perfection.

Why? But it seems that your idealism is again getting the better of you. Besides, what is the "nearest human level of perfection" anyway but a nebulous piece of rhetoric?




And your point is? I believe the point of the Declaration was that it announces the goals of providing a just government, a more perfect union.
I don't recall stating what I define as fixing.
I don't believe I said anything about government take over, simply that it is the responsibility and the very reason for a governments existence to protect the citizens.
I haven't stated my concept of improvement other than we shouldn't be trying to pass things that single people out.
Which is my point about the democrats. So tell me again why you decided to try and tell me my opinions and views are wrong?

It's a little hard to treat this as anything other than disingenuity. You spend time trying to pick my points apart, engaging in a few strawmen, the very thing you appear to be charging me with. It's clear from what you've written, as well as your support of BO, that you believe that govt needs to take a more proactive role in running our society b/c it's somehow in the best interests of the people, who you've labled too stupid and petty to recognize a reasonable and justifiable tax (assuming quite likely that said govt is probably a progressive liberal dem one). Many of the comments you've made throughout have been derisive about the private sector or even reps and conservatives. If you have solutions that you think are credible, feel free to post them. I'll give them a look.



People have a bad habit of bad white guy = other bad white guy. Some people did do the Bush>Hitler>Napoleon leap.

Including you, apparently. You didn't make mention of anyone other than Hitler in your comments, though you acknowledged the comparison was somewhat overblown.....mainly b/c Bush hadn't killed 50 million people, I suppose.



You assumed I wanted the government creating this odd new public option.

You don't give people reason to believe otherwise, unfortunately. Afterall, legislation comes from the govt and that legislation is what would create a "public option". As I said earlier, feel free to actually spell out your solutions so that people are clear on where you claim you stand. ;) I'll further add, if you wish to continue this, perhaps we should resort to PM as this is now going off-topic.

Tommycat
09-04-2009, 01:35 AM
ANYWAYSSS!!

Sheesh.. people the debate over healthcare is in another thread. Please take it there...(I am not a mod, and that is merely a request(before someone says "You are NOT a MOD. Quit acting like one"))

As to the two parties... I tend to agree with jmac on this one. different piles....

Now... if you want to talk about what I feel about their "ideals"... I tend to agree more with the Republicans. Not that I totally disagree with the Democrats entirely. Lets face it they have good ideas. So do Republicans(to a degree). Republicans tend to be more in line with me.

Both parties though... are really steaming piles of poo. It's just which one stinks the least to you. Neither one is really about their ideals anymore. Republicans are supposed to be about smaller government... to that I say USA PATRIOT Act. Increases in government spending. Then the Dems... lets balance the budget... ONE TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT!!!! Come on...

As for the health care... I don't think they really WANT to get it to pass. I think they want to have it fail so they can blame the other side for not doing their part. They want us at eachother's throats to ensure that we don't band together and say "Lets recall the whole lot of them."