Opinions on Democrats and Republicans

[Totenkopf]

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.

[Litofsky]

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]

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]

......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=6a00d8341c630a53ef011571162e0c970b

 

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]

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]

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]

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=6a00d8341c630a53ef011571162e0c970b

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

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]

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"

 

 

 

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]

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]

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]

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).

 

 

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]

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."