[quote]SirenSong61 wrote:
…abhor the Dem/Repub US vs. THEM crap that has polarized this country. Nero fiddles…[/quote]
Whip out a history book and you just might find that this “crap that has polarized this country” started in the 1780s. It continued in the 1790s. And throughout the 19th century. Then the entire 20th century produced this abhorrent polarization too. In fact, it can easily be proven that politics today is a relatively calm, peaceful enterprise. In the past it was much more vicious.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Polarization especially in politics can be a good thing. Without poles you have no equator.
[/quote]
I have never , ever heard a conservative complain about polarization of negative campaigning. Only liberals who realize their guy is a goof. Then we have this " politics is negative, blah, blah stuff".
It’s like arguing with a woman, she could saw in half a busload of nuns with a rusty chainsaw and the event will be " our" problem.
As you have pointed out, politics has always been about a battle of ideas and beliefs
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
I pretty much agree with SD about gridlock being favorable. When you have political gridlock neither party can try to pander to their most extreme wings because they have little chance of getting things through.
Until both parties move away from the loudest, and most radical members of their parties, gridlock might be the best we can hope for.[/quote]
Good points, Joe.
Mufasa
[/quote]
I agree that gridlock can be good. The government doesn’t need to runnin’ 'round “doing something” all the time. The Constitution was engineered the way it is precisely to prevent it from doing so.
If the USA were a true democracy there would be “something” getting done all the time. As it is there is too much the federal government is doing. The constitutional republic with all it’s checks and balances provides the equator betwixt the poles.[/quote]
Personally, I think we’d be better off if there was enough snow to shut them down for 6 weeks.
Other than necessary, and I mean necessary running the country stuff, would we be worse off if we made no new laws for six months? a year? Two years? Maybe then people would realize how unnecessary our elected officials actually are.
[quote]howbad wrote:
Palin IS an idiot. Biden just says crazy shit every once in a while (OK, maybe a little more than that). There’s a huge difference. Biden over Palin as CIC all day.[/quote]
How bad can one’s first post be?
"The vice president also took credit for the troop drawdown.
“You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer,” he said. “You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”
But the drawdown was negotiated in the Status of Forces Agreement before the Obama administration took office.
“The reduction in U.S. forces that is under way right now is in fact important and it’s largely the continuation of the policy that President Bush had set in place when he negotiated the drawdown schedule with Prime Minister Maliki at the end of 2008,” Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution told Fox News."
I’m still shocked that people voted for these shit eaters. America, where is your soul?
[/quote]
OUCH. Come on! I already conceded that he says a lot of crazy shit.
Seriously, do you really want me to start posting the even more ridiculous George W and Sarah Palin quotes?
Where is America’s soul? I think many of independents that were on the fence decided that Palin being a heartbeat away was not a bet they were willing to make…
[quote]howbad wrote:
Palin IS an idiot. Biden just says crazy shit every once in a while (OK, maybe a little more than that). There’s a huge difference. Biden over Palin as CIC all day.[/quote]
Tremendous first post. In PWI. On a bodybuilding website.
EDIT - HH beat me to it.[/quote]
Thank You. Oh wait, that may have been sarcasm on your part. I guess I’d rather discuss something I have an opinion on than post some crazy shit about a topic I’m not an expert on. I would like to avoid a “squats and milk” reply to one of my messages. Uh Oh.
[quote]SirenSong61 wrote:
<<< I’m not one of you, neither am I one of them.
The end.[/quote]
Okie dokie.
Who would have ever seen that comin?[/quote]
She reminds me of this woman or rather the character this woman played.
Now the question is, Tirib, do you give a damn?[/quote]
I certainly haven’t talked to everybody in the country, but in my experience a series of relevant questions followed by honest answers reveals these people for the liberals that they are. Honest answers usually means they don’t realize how liberal how they are. Refusal to answer usually means they know how liberal they are and are attempting to avoid the fitting label.
A further diatribe about how counteproductive labels are seals the deal.
Of course there are always a fair number of truly confused individuals who are thoroughly exposed by exit polls. This first hit me between the eyes in the 92 election. Parades of people who declared their demand for less government, less spending, lower taxes on and on who then say they voted for Clinton. The WSJ (I think) had a write up at the time reporting on the exit polling. I sat in the library staring at the page in dumbfounded wonderment at what galaxy these people must have just arrived from.
Then again the media absolutely carried Clinton into office on their shoulders, just like they did Obama.
