Because legislative deadlock is not the same ****ing thing as keeping the ruling party in check.

God damn vbulletin is a bug riddled piece of trash.

Joncy wins again!

Fiscally, I see Republicans on the same level as Democrats - Republicans just spend it elsewhere. However, Democrats differ (in my mind, for the better) ideallistically from Republicans. Neither may balance the budget, but the Democrats may accidentally improve social issues, which at least puts a step ahead than the latter.

I agree entirely. I didn't mean to imply that anti-intellectualism was somehow spawned by the right: that's clearly not true. But that won't stop me from loathing a political movement that's chosen to celebrate one of the ugliest aspects of my country's culture.

What.

(As in, what you complaining about now?!)

I have a political agenda....


....IN MY PANTS

The Republican party is essentially the party of people that are either too dumb or too apathetic to consider "socio-economics". In other words, if you can't make it on your own (as if anyone ever has), you & your family can just go **** yourselves. They'll claim that any assistance that one needs should come from some form of charity (e.g: churches or something else that they won't donate to anyways). Anything more than this would be "socialism" or "evil". However, there's a ****-load of them that have no problem w/ receiving Social Security &/or Medicare benefits. Even the southerners love their subsidies (e.g: corn & fuel). There's also a huge lump-of-terd portion of them that are anti-intellectual (if it isn't in the bible it isn't important), anti-science (yet they all go to the doctor when they're dying) & ethno-centric (they don't hate Mexicans because they're tan, they merely don't like them stealing all of the jobs that they didn't want to begin w/). They love to ridicule the George Clooney's & Sean Penn's in the world but they're quick to embrace the Sarah Palin's (quite possible one of the most retarded ***** in the history of politics). They also love to blame the Democrats for the issues that they're at least partially if not totally responsible for (e.g: the deficit [no one seems to notice them when Republicans are in power] & unemployment [they're more concerned w/ Obama saying that it wouldn't go above 10% than w/ the fact that the last guy that they voted for & his party were at least partially responsible]). They don't think that we can afford &/or manage a social healthcare system for our citizens but they're perfectly fine w/ throwing a trillion dollars or more towards leveling & then rebuilding foreign countries (Iraq is apparently more manageable than the U.S.). The modern Republican party (including the ones masquerading as tea-baggers) are really nothing more than Anarcho-Capitalists (they like to suck corporate dick [it's awesome how this word isn't censored]). One of them just won in my state (Rand Paul, son of the Anarcho-Capitalist Ron Paul, who thinks he's a Libertarian but says he's a Republican). They've made us the laughing stock of the world & are essentially a party of pots calling kettles black.

There's an awful lot of Democrats as well but at least they manage to "accidentally" do some good on occasion (as someone above mentioned). Many of them may really just be out for themselves (most people are when it comes down to it), but they tend to embrace policies that actually help everyday people when they're not at the top of their game, instead of policies that **** them in the ass. They tend to believe in concepts such as "fairness" & "equality" instead of just pretending that since those things can't be accomplished 100% that they aren't worth striving for at all. If you're interested in voting for the lesser of 2 evils this is the party for you.

...& then there's the rest of us. The people that are either too extreme to be a member of either party or are just a bit too moderate to choose. We're basically a bunch of cynics that are constantly rolling our eyes, biting our tongues & putting our palms to our foreheads in frustration. We have an emergency fund that's enough to pay for plane tickets & to start over again in another country just in case a revolution occurs (presumably started by Republicans trying to put Atheists & homosexuals in concentration camps).

While we're flinging stereotypes: way to fit the selfish conservative stereotype. You are gross.

Hey, I can psychoanalyze people over the internet, too!

Can government employees actually be libertarian? JM's pretty much the most absurd and self-contradictory person on this forum, and that includes those of us who do it in purpose...

Pagination bugs.

There's, ahem, a reason for that one here.

(That is to say, technically, it wasn't bugged/wrong)

I don't know. I try pretty hard to be all of those things. He might have me topped, though.

ohhhh

Well, some of the angry posts here are pretty reminiscent of MSNBCs coverage of the election last night. I wonder if anyone here caught any of it. I clicked over and have to admit, it didn't disappoint. A panel of five angry liberals "discussing" the election. Univision's coverage was pretty good too. Jorge Ramos looked like he was going to cry and they had staffers reading email or chat comments about how amnesty was out of the question now.

Ironically, I'm perfectly consistent if you assume my normal posts and my troll posts are posted by two different people.

Incidentally, vBulletin is a bug ridden piece of ****.

keep your nerd bs out of my political thread

Keep your political bs out of my nerd forum

.

Mentat, I think you can guess that I have participated in a few radical forums over the years, and I just thought I'd point out that your thoughts, although in a different direction, are by far the most I have seen.

Keep in mind I live in Oklahoma, a place with a higher portion of neo-conservatives than probably any other state except maybe missouri. I also currently reside in a college town full of people reacting against that neo-conservativism with super-liberalism, AND I am from California AND I grew up in a large city in Arizona AND my dad is Canadian AND I am a Libertarian (not exactly, but while we're throwing out labels it'll have to do) gun enthusiast police officer wannabe.

So, I feel like I have seen (and in my life been a part of) a pretty fair cross section of american political thought. I just want you to know all that, before I reiterate: you ->

And so ANGRY, too. Wow.

Yeah, actually I agree with a lot of what Mentat said there.

Please direct me to the part of my post where I said left wing voters are any more intelligent. They're just as stupid, they just have different opinions. The main difference between the left and the right is as follows: The right believes things should be like the "good old days" which they can't identify, which is accomplished by eliminating all regulations except when it comes to moral issues. Also, preventing immigrants from coming into the country. And killing the ones who come over. The left believes the country should be like EU or Commonwealth countries, which are obviously utopias. Only problem is they have no idea how to accomplish that goal or how to communicate their ideas except calling their opponents fascists.

Worst of all are the "undecided," "undeclared," "independent" or "swing voters." They're basically Republicans who for whatever reason haven't declared their allegiance. The Democrats waste all their time trying to get them to vote for them, which they almost never will. Some of them believe the Republican Party isn't far enough to the right. Those, I believe, call themselves moderates.

The worst crime of the swing voters is that they haven't aligned themselves with one of the corrupt, lumbering political parties, one of which people are supposed to gravitate towards because they vaguely coincide with our interests. If we have to do it to participate in the electoral process, so should they.



I'm not daft. You are. You are an extremely cloudy-headed individual with a cerebral cortex that resembles a baby's ass (alternately, frog brain). Are you saying in order for the President to be bipartisan he must become a Republican? Yes, he is trying to "pull people over to his side." I don't really understand what you mean by back over, since that implies people originally had his viewpoints.

You see, bipartisanship is working between parties to accomplish common goals. Bipartisanship is not when a Democrat becomes a Republican and follows the Republican Party line.

What I really don't understand is why, in your mind, it is mandatory for a Democrat to do everything the Republicans want to work across the aisle, but Democrats trying to get Republicans to vote for something is telling them to "shut up and (goose)step in line." Honestly, where do you even get the idea the President is saying that? All I've ever seen from him is appeasement tactics.

Also, it's "aisle." An "isle" is a bit of land surrounded by water, you troglodyte.

Massassi is pretty much the only forum I know where people can call each other morons and pretty much make whatever personal attacks they want without ever being banned.

And herein lies the schizophrenic appeal of the place.

Republicans want to reduce government regulations because they want less government controlling our lives, not to get back to the "good ol' days"....

Yes, and the Democrats want more government control to ensure equality. Don't be silly, zanardi~~

Politics this.

you blithering tit! fisrt of all... good call on the "aisle vs. isle" thing. but other than that i am specifically NOT, NOT, NOT[/u] saying that bipartisan means doing whatever the other side wants. i am saying it is this to quote... you. i am also saying that neither side is wlling to be bipartisan. not the republicans and certainly not the democrats.

I'd say the Democrats are making more than a good faith attempt at bipartisanship considering how much they're watering down their legislature and selling themselves for any kind of cross-party support. Too much of an attempt, considering that the Republican strategy is to go against absolutely everything the Democrats put forth. They could put forth Republican policy down to the letter and still get opposition. The Republicans are playing politics while the Democrats and the Obama Administration are living in a fantasy world where they think if they just put forth the right ideas in the right manner they'll get support for it.

It's like the high school dork trying to hang out with the cool kids. He can emulate everything they do, but they'll never get accepted.

The arguable point there is whether or not "the democrats" are putting forth "the right ideas" regardless of the manner.

It's not the arguable point. The Democrats could figure out a process to turn illegal immigrants into high-paying jobs and clean coal and the Republicans would still filibuster it to death.

I don't exactly disagree, but I think it's unfair to play into the game by assuming you know what "the republicans" would do in that completely hypothetical situation. The reason I'm putting the parties in quotes is because all you're doing by making arguments like this is perpetuating the "us vs. them" mentality that is ruining our system.

Careful because while the major offenses are ignored you MAY get banned for something minor such as "mini Modding"

Or disagreeing with CoolMaty about anything

I'm special. :downs:

I bet I can give him a run for his money.



I wouldn't go that far. From what I see, they have no problem soliciting the help of the government to preserve their wealth and status. That's just an idea they use to appeal to people so they can get in power.

pretty much this.

Didn't the state sprawl under the previous 8 years of Republican rule? Certainly that was when the deficit sky-rocketed.

Maybe something gets lost in translation over the Atlantic but when I see all this talk about smaller govt. in American politics it also tends to be tightly coupled with a kind of social conservatism that wants the government to regulate people's behaviour and private lives.

Curious, how so?