Is the United States headed for a revolution?

[Mwhals]

The difference is that Romney failed on his health care law and told the government it was a bad idea. The government rammed ObamaCare down our throats anyway.

To make a mistake and acknowledge it is one thing, but for one to make the same mistake on a bigger scale with knowledge of the first is a fool.

I am not a fan of Romney or Obama. I just feel there was no good choice last election.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

I recall people talking about armed revolutions or insurrections in the US about 20 years ago. Race wars, or some such nonsense that were supposed to happen in that case. Naturally, the idea of armed rebellion is a topic that arises whenever discussing the 2nd amendment, since -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the whole idea of an armed citizenry is supposed to be that it cannot be easily suppressed by a tyrannical government, such as one that wants to impose benefits like health care on everyone.

It didn't come to anything back then, either, unless you count the OK bombing as an attempted instigation of some sort of 'war'. That was certainly a very big deal. But it never led to anything more. For whatever reason, as zealous as many right wing (or left wing) extremists can be, very few of them seem all that interested in actually murdering other Americans over a political disagreement.

 

[Dagmar]

Polls are meaningless products of an inexact pseudo-science. Anyone who has an understanding of the pollng process and doesn't have an agenda in promoting the polling industry can tell you this. The way polling "works" is it collects far too few data points based on far too little demographic information about those data points to draw highly questionable conclusions. If polls were more transparent about this fact people wouldn't pay them as much mind as they do.

The FDU poll which claimed the percentages of Republicans who believe revolution would be necessary to preserve civil liberties is based on 863 data points out of over 235,248,000. When presented accurately what that poll is really saying is:

"Out of over 235,248,000 possible viewpoints we collected responses from 863 individuals, for whom we know almost nothing at all except where they live and which party they're registered with, and who were randomly and arbitarily selected out of a field of hundreds of millions of possible respondents and here's how 44% of roughly half of that group answered to our loaded questions."

What they should also add is:

"By the way we completely discounted the number of Republicans that declined to answer this question because they thought we were a troll poll and that the question was simply batplops crazy and only meant to sensationalize an issue that's in the public focus so we can justify our own existence. Those numbers may have been well in excess of 863 but we'll just pretend it never happened and not disclose the actual numbers to you."

There won't be any revolution over Second Amendment issues. Historically, the only form of armed resistance that's been inspired by Second Amendment issues has been domestic terrorism. Regardless of party affiliation, most Americans are cognizant of this fact which is why you won't find mainstream America, Republican or otherwise, touching that with a ten foot pole.

 

[Zahn]

44% or republicans believe that an armed revolution may be needed in the near future to "protect liberties", compared to 18% of democrats.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/armed-revolution-44-republicans-article-1.1332621

I guess it depends on who is in charge of the White House, huh?

When Bush was president, we weren't allowed to criticize the government nor the presidency. At least that's what all the Neo-cons said. It was "unpatriotic" to criticize the president and his policies. You weren't a "true american" if you didn't support Bush. You "hated the troops" if you were against the war.

I guess the same rules don't apply when we have a democrat in office? Because now, the government is "pure evil", along with the president, and has to be overthrown, like yesterday. Right....

Do these people honestly ever smell the stink of their own hypocrisy?

Do they not realize that if Obama was the evil dictator they made him out to be, he would have them dragged out in the street and shot for making threats like this?

Let's discuss this lunacy.

Far left Democrats and Far right Republicans (as well as those only concerned about the next election cycle) ALL stink of their own hypocrisy. All of them. That said...

Polls are notoriously innacurate for assessing anything at all. Dagmar covered the details on that in a much shorter post than I would have been able to manage. I suggest to everyone that they do some research on methodology of polls and what they ACTUALLY reflect. More factual information only makes a voter stronger.

Yes, when Bush was president there was quite a bit of overblown BS about criticism being unpatriotic. I disregarded that blather just like I disregard the blather (accusations that I am a racist) that I get from not being an Obama supporter. One has to filter out the commentary of people who are only being reactionary/illogically divisive or whatever you want to call it. So the implication that "the same rules dont apply when we have a democrat in office" is nonsense. It is akin to putting on blinders because Democrats are just as good at that game as Republicans.

The problem with this nation is not a difference of ideologies because that has been around since the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. None of this is new.

The problem is that we have far too many special interest groups (i include non corporate groups in this), we have far too many people paying attention to what passes for news media today, and they are far more concerned with what an entertainer thinks and does rather than educating themselves in the laws of our nation. In addition, they do not bother to think critically about the bigger implications of the legislation and how it will impact the nation as a WHOLE.

Voters need to educate themselves in something other than the "drama" of the day because I can almost guarantee you that the politicians and the "news" media are very content with you NOT seeing passed this "drama" of the day and will likely work hard to make sure you DO pay attention to that drama. And no I am not implying any form of conspiracy.

 

[Zahn]

You mean like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Anne Coulter......etc....etc...etc...? Yet they remain to be the face of the modern day republican party.

And just where did you get that statistic from?

I undermine the republican party where it deserves to be undermined. I'm not as biased as you might think. I don't agree with gun banning. I don't agree with political correctness. You seem to think I am out to get every conservative on the planet for some reason...No, just the stupid ones.

When I said this, I meant this kind of outrage never comes from the right when a republican president is in office.

Democrats have played rougher? Are you joking? The only republicans who even make it as candidates now are the extreme. Obama isn't even close to them for how extreme he is, otherwise he would've used executive orders every time he didn't get his way instead of trying to get the republicans on board with his ideas and letting them block/filibuster them time and time again. I WISH Obama was as extreme as the right thinks he is.

Those "people" are not the face of the modern day republican party. Those are only the entertainers (make no mistake that they ARE INDEED entertainers not informers or even reporters) that people pay the most attention to. They are nothing, can impliment nothing, and are not even TRYING to convert people to their way of thinking. They are preachers to a particular choir; fomenters of polarization. Nothing more. That is how they earn their income; what they are paid to do (by a corporation).

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/rethinking-public-opinion

Why do you feel motivated to undermine an entire political party? What do you base the decision to take that action on? Do you not think this kind of action only allows for continued polarization? At what point does your decision to undermine an entire group override your motivation to logically and factually discuss without ideological reactionism? What is your method to determine the intelligence level of a conservative before you decide that they are stupid enough to warrant "getting"?

I mean absolutely no disrespect, but our political system is not going to get any better when we seek to undermine rather than understand and compromise. In addition, I like to ask the difficult questions of anyone discussing one side exclusively to another.

As far as the Tea Party goes, I am of the opinion that they are the single most harmful thing to happen to the Republicn party. They are not a grass roots movement, and that is just about all I have to say about that. However, not all Republican candidates are Tea Partiers, and legally, even Tea Partiers have the right to voice their opinion and take part in our government.

Tea Partiers offend me as bad as Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid among others. I cannot belive some of the things that fall out of their mouths, but I usually ignore their inflammatory comments. And I do not think that I have any substantiative or legal reasons they should be silenced or undermined. My opinion is not reflective of an entire nation nor is it the holy grail of what others should think.

As far as Executive Orders, Obama has used his right to them just like any other President. Dont get me wrong, I dislike many things about BOTH parties and BOTH parties need to get their collective noses removed from being so far up the people's collective rear ends. But I would never seek to undermine an entire political group. Not even in a Rant. I just believe that we need fewer rants and more discussion/compromise.

 

[Dagmar]

Those "people" are not the face of the modern day republican party.

I beg to differ and so do many Republicans I know who acknowledge this to their own dismay. While they may not be representative of all Republicans, people like this and their Republican counterparts (Bachmann, Santorum etc.) are (or at least were) the face of the Republican party

They and other Republicans like them have controlled the message and direction of the Republican party for the last decade if not longer and are responsible for the perception, deserved or not, that the Republican party is largely out of touch with the majority of Americans. They are responsible for marginalizing and alienating far more intelligent moderate conservative voices within the party, are the inspiration of references likening the Republican Party to a "circular firing squad", and were the architects of the farsical Republican presidential primaries that led to the re-election of an incumbent President with unprecedented lack of popularity and low performance statistics regarding unemployment.

For far too long this faction of Republicans have been "keepin' it real" for the Republican party....real stupid that is. It was very telling that arguably the most intelligent and qualfied candidate in the Republican party, Jon Huntsman, was unable to gain any traction at all during the primaries. Only now, after a humiliating defeat in the presidential elections, have mainstream Republicans gravitated towards his views on marriage equality, immigration and military foreign policy. If things continue to progress in this manner then maybe your position may eventually become true, but it hasn't been that way for years.

 

[Zahn]

I beg to differ and so do many Republicans I know who acknowledge this to their own dismay. While they may not be representative of all Republicans, people like this and their Republican counterparts (Bachmann, Santorum etc.) are (or at least were) the face of the Republican party

They and other Republicans like them have controlled the message and direction of the Republican party for the last decade if not longer and are responsible for the perception, deserved or not, that the Republican party is largely out of touch with the majority of Americans. They are responsible for marginalizing and alienating far more intelligent moderate conservative voices within the party, are the inspiration of references likening the Republican Party to a "circular firing squad", and were the architects of the farsical Republican presidential primaries that led to the re-election of an incumbent President with unprecedented lack of popularity and low performance statistics regarding unemployment.

For far too long this faction of Republicans have been "keepin' it real" for the Republican party....real stupid that is. It was very telling that arguably the most intelligent and qualfied candidate in the Republican party, Jon Huntsman, was unable to gain any traction at all during the primaries. Only now, after a humiliating defeat in the presidential elections, have mainstream Republicans gravitated towards his views on marriage equality, immigration and military foreign policy. If things continue to progress in this manner then maybe your position may eventually become true, but it hasn't been that way for years.

I stand by my "position" that news channel entertainers are NOT the face of the Republican party, they are mouth pieces preaching to an established choir in order to sell a product. They are NOT politicians, they are NOT lawers, they are not even factual information sources for heavens sake.

Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly... WHY would anyone consider any one of them a "face of the Republican party"? I know they each have their liberal counterpart, but I would not consider their liberal counterparts the face of the Democratic party in any way for any reason. To do so is ignorant as well as a good trope to put people on the defensive.

However, Bachmann, Santorum, et al ... THOSE are faces of the Republican party that must be washed out. I wholly agree that they are instigators and a part of the problem. I dislike the extremes of either end. But to minimize political extremists, the people have to STOP listening to freaking entertainers. Period. That includes both parties, libs and conservatives.

 

[Medea]

Those "people" are not the face of the modern day republican party. Those are only the entertainers (make no mistake that they ARE INDEED entertainers not informers or even reporters) that people pay the most attention to. They are nothing, can impliment nothing, and are not even TRYING to convert people to their way of thinking. They are preachers to a particular choir; fomenters of polarization. Nothing more. That is how they earn their income; what they are paid to do (by a corporation).

You might recognize this, but most republicans don't. John Stewart is an entertainer. Not any of the people mentioned in my post. They are modern day versions of Joseph Goebbels. They are propaganda ministers and you are kidding yourself if you think most right-wingers don't pay attention to them and believe what they say. I'm not saying that every republican believes every word that comes out of their mouth, or agrees with them down the line on every issue, but for the most part they look to them to get their information on political issues. That's why a republican candidate can't make it anymore if he/she isn't extreme enough. It sure seems to me that they have implemented something, and that's making sure moderate conservatives never make it as political candidates. I'd say that's quite an accomplishment over the course of 14 years.

Why do you feel motivated to undermine an entire political party? What do you base the decision to take that action on? Do you not think this kind of action only allows for continued polarization? At what point does your decision to undermine an entire group override your motivation to logically and factually discuss without ideological reactionism? What is your method to determine the intelligence level of a conservative before you decide that they are stupid enough to warrant "getting"?

Because they have moved so far to the right we have to undermine them. Letting poor people starve and go homeless by taking away social welfare, letting poor people die because they don't like socialized healthcare, letting corporations take poor people's jobs and ship them to China and Mexico because they are against unions and worker's rights. Their agenda is simply Marie Antoinette "let them eat cake" economics. Meanwhile, the democrats have proposed a simple 4% tax increase on the wealthiest individuals in the country and it gets blocked/filibustered. Any tax increase or closing of tax loopholes on the rich would help, but we're not seeing it happen, because of two things: The incompetence of the democratic party to get anything done, and the corporate-owned republican party that will block any attempt at such a law being passed.

A recent example of republican extremism is Benghazi. There was no outrage at all over the 13 embassy attacks we had under Bush. None. Back then, everyone just assumed that things like that happened. Now, it has to be because the Obama administration "had something to do with it". Anytime ANYTHING bad happens, the Obama administration "had something to do with it". I'm sure it won't be long before they blame the tornado that hit Oklahoma on Obama too.

 

[Cylos]

I'll undermine any political party, if they give me reason to undermine them. The 'Labour' party in Britain, which is considered by the public to be left wing, is one that I will regularly attack or undermine and I am left wing, I criticise politics because it should be criticised, the political elite need to receive criticism otherwise they will continue.
The issue with American politics is that you're told, mainly by media broadcasters such as fox news, that it is a political battle between left (Democrats) and right (Republicans) when actually the political parties are right wing and very right wing. I don't want to sound biased towards or against either party.
America the best democracy that money can buy- as evidenced by the sheer number of lobbyists you have.
I'm not saying that the British political establishment is any better, I could write an entire series of books criticising it, but hostility towards political parties is that they are either incompetent enough self-interested enough to receive hostility.

 

[Zahn]

Warning: This response is LONG

Let me take a second right now to clarify that I am a moderate that does not vote strictly Democrat or Republican. I vote for the candidate I believe is best for the job. I am also neither 100% liberal nor 100% conservative. I would venture to guess that no one is completely one or the other to be honest. I, like many I would assume, are conservative on some issues, liberal on others. I voted Obama the first time, but not the second time. I thought I should get that out in the open so that you understand that I hold no emotional or intelligence investment in either side.

I think too many generalizations are being asserted here. I don't know "most" Republicans just like I don't "know" most Democrats. So I will refrain from refuting any generalization because that is pointless. Also, that feels like group stereotyping behavior to me and I cannot bring myself to do that.

Moving on, Gobbels held a government position in the Nazi party, and so I see a difference between Nazi propoganda and Beck, Coulter, et al . Funny though how that Nazi thing keeps getting thrown around by some. As a Jew, I find that unsettling for a few reasons that do not merit discussion. I will only say it might be wise to review the history and actions of the Nazi party before insinuating a comparison. This is exactly the kind of statement that is designed to do nothing but create a knee jerk reaction and is something I don't belive is productive or accurate. Nor does it motivate constructive discussion in others. (self fulfilling prophecy)

I personally, would not insinuate that "most" voters of either political side are so gullible that they allow themselves to be led by the nose by the viewpoint coming from an entertainer. Though I do understand that there are voters on both sides that are ill informed for whatever reason.

If you are truly concerend about voters being well informed or allowing the media to influence them, I suggest that you apply that to both parties voters. Though the video I am posting only covers Obama voters, there are videos of equally embarassing McCain voter interviews. I just cannot find a link to one right now.

This video shows that not only are some voters critically ignorant, but that yes, entertainment is somehow confused with news by at least some people.

This covers a Sarah Palin/SNL skit confusion as well as an enlightening reveal about an Obama statement being attributed to Palin at 4:29 which I find pathetically sad, but the lack of knowlege shown on several key political leaders is astounding.

***I do NOT subscribe to the idea that Obama got elected because of ignorant voters***

Because they have moved so far to the right we have to undermine them. Letting poor people starve and go homeless by taking away social welfare, letting poor people die because they don't like socialized healthcare, letting corporations take poor people's jobs and ship them to China and Mexico because they are against unions and worker's rights.

And do you not see that there is a faction of far left leaning liberals that exist as well? Do you apply the same litmus test to them? Do you work to undermine them with the same vigor? When they cross the line? No one has taken away the social welfare system, the US has never had socialized health care, and we don't have it now. Democrats are not going to even TRY to impliment a socialized system so don't insinuate that Republicans have prevented it. Allowing corporations to export production is the fault of both sides not one or the other, but we do need to give corporations incentive to keep it here.

I am against the existence of any union that has so much power it can demand cradle to grave benefits AND insanely high wages from a corporation and get them. I agree there needs to be collective bargaining but many unions hold some accountability in creating a situation that is not sustainable. To blame Republicans alone is not sufficient and BOTH parties are "owned" by the corporations. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Google Democratic Leadership Council and select one with the membership list and financial backers. You'll see at a glance that many of the same big corporations that back the DLC also back the Republican Party.

A recent example of republican extremism is Benghazi. There was no outrage at all over the 13 embassy attacks we had under Bush. None. Back then, everyone just assumed that things like that happened. Now, it has to be because the Obama administration "had something to do with it".

As far as my reasearch tells me, the two situations are different. At the time, the attacks under Bush were not blamed on "protests", they were clearly blamed on terrorism without the accompanying bizzare behavior that happened under the current administration (note that I am not blaming Obama specifically because of other key facts). In addition, there was no "stand down" order given during the Bush administration, nor were there victim/witness accusations of "inaccuracies". When accusations are made by the people that were there, an investigation is in order. I make no judgement since I (nor the general public) have ALL of the factual truth and I dont assume that I do.

I am sorry, but the whole idea that Democrats are saints and Republicans are evil is just plain nonsense. It took more than one party to create this mess. I MUST be getting old, gone are the days of "question your government regardless of party", "never give your complete blind trust and faith to a politician", "Demand and expect the truth" etc etc. People have the right to free speech in the US. I get worried when people imply that though that may be true, only the people their side approves of deserve it. Bad trend no matter where it comes from.

What I have posted are my own views, and I do not think MY views alone are 100% perfect or infallible. I also do not accuse any one party for this nations issues. Demonizing will not get us very far in this world.

But you still did not tell me exactly what determines for you the intelligence level of an individual that merits you "getting" them as you stated.

Namaste

 

[Doctor Langstrom]

tl:dr
I'm riding on my high horse.

 

[Zahn]

LOL that's okay. I expect that kind of thing. Besides, you gotta really wanna be involved in the particular topic to read something that long!

 

[Dagmar]

Google Democratic Leadership Council and select one with the membership list and financial backers. You'll see at a glance that many of the same big corporations that back the DLC also back the Republican Party.

The DLC was a nonprofit corporation completely unaffiliated with the United States Democratic Party. It's explicit agenda was to change USDC policy and move it from the left to the center so using its membership list doesn't support your premise. If anything it undermines it. Aside from that, large corporations and investment banks do contribute to both of the parties but that's simply hedging, a concept and practice widely used in both industries, especially the latter. It does nothing to support your premise as it hardly dismisses the fact that it's the Republican Party that generally supports deregulation and the Democratic Party that generally supports maintaining or increasing regulation.

Here are some things that do support your premise. It was a Democratic presidential administration that oversaw the most significant deregulation that arguably was the linchpin for allowing the financial crisis to occur (when Clinton supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall). When Obama selected his financial advisors for his administration, they were all Rubinites. Robert Rubin who was the supervisor, Lawrence Summers who was famous for having undermined regulation of derivatives, one of the main causes of the financial crisis, and Tim Geithner who was at the New York Stock Exchange. Obama not only failed to appoint people that were critical of the practices of the financial sector that plunged us into the Great Recession, he retained the very people that had a hand in creating the financial crisis to address it, and, predictably, their solutions were ones that actually rewarded those same institutions for their bad behavior.

 

[Zahn]

I re-looked at what I posted in my long winded diatribe and you are of course, correct. Thank you by the way! I have no idea where I was going other than trying to address far too much at once on top of being wrong about DLC. However I do find it fascinating that a Democratic non profit had donors who gave to the other side too. Strange befellows in politics.

The Republican support of deregulation, is one of the things I do not like about that party (among several others) and is a prime example of their attachment to Business. I was attempting to avoid bringing up Clinton but thank you for doing so. Every time I have brought him up the conversations always end up badly. And I am afraid I have used up all the "goodwill" I had with this community for even participating in a political discussion and I do not want to end up tarred and feathered.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall was a bad idea and shows collusion with Corporate America on the side of the Democratic party, but I never paid enough attention to Clintons cohorts to realize that they were ALL Rubinites. Funny what I pay attention to and what I do not once I make up my minid about a politician. I end up simply shrugging my shoulders and thinking "better luck next time". Which in truth, might be just as bad as being an ignorant voter.

On the subject of Corporate donors, I think they do matter. I think it is a bit revealing what Corporations donate to what party, though not revealing of any wrong doing.
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php

 

[DrunkenMage]

Has the American Constitution ever been updated? I mean, when they wrote in people are allowed to carry firearms, they probably didn't see much of a threat since it took like half an hour to reload the bastard. Now days you can kill 18 people in less than five seconds with a cheap pistol.

 

[Medea]

I'm getting a very familiar feeling in this debate. The feeling of someone thinking I am some looney liberal extremist. So.....


Reasons why the democratic party disgusts me:

Calling people racist for disagreeing with their views.

Gun Banning (which is different from gun control).

Thinking that Obama is the next coming of Christ. Obama is ineffectual and not nearly as good as public speaking as the liberals make him out to be. Bill Clinton is a good public speaker and a true leader. Not Obama.

For thinking that all republicans are bad people. I have said before that while I think most republican policy nowadays is inherently evil (because it takes all power away from people that have little to begin with), that doesn't mean I think every republican is evil. Republicans are just drastically more extreme in their policy than they ever have been, and I see them as the greater of two evils.

For being Muslim apologists while bashing Christianity. Personally, I am agnostic, and I'm against ALL organized religion. It just gives people an excuse to kill, torture, segregate, crucify, etc.... because they are doing it in the name of "The Giant Invisible Man in the Clouds". Personally, I wish Christianity would die in a car wreck on the way to Islam's funeral.

I wish democrats were a little tougher.



Reasons why the republican party disgusts me:

Calling people socialist or communist for disagreeing with their views.

They refuse to compromise. Watch C-Span sometime. Democrats vote with republicans far more than the other way around. To say democrats are just as extreme as republicans now is a fantasy.

They are anti-union. Seriously, what is more corrupt than taking away worker's rights while helping the rich get richer? If unions were so corrupt and powerful, they wouldn't be disappearing. The second we get rid of unions, we are going back to the times of 60+ hour workweeks with no benefits or wage increases, slave labor, child labor, worker abuse, etc, etc. How can someone be against unions and worker's rights, and for CEOs making billions? Doesn't make any sense to me.

They use religion to fight same-sex marriage and other things they don't like, but ignore what their religion tells them about rich vs. poor. Jesus made Stalin look like a capitalist.

For changing what libertarianism actually was and turning it into a corporate-owned "grass roots" party, that is really for nothing more than eliminating all government control so the corporations can get away with whatever they want. Poor and Middle Class libertarians/conservatives that vote republican are cutting their own feet off while attempting to tie their shoe laces. Simple as that. Sorry, but the democrats are the only ones fighting for the poor right now. To think otherwise is the apex of ignorance. Trickle-Down doesn't work. It should be called "Suck-Me-Up" economics.

They are taking food off of my family's table (and other families like mine) and shoving it down their own gluttonous gullets, and with an obnoxious smirk on their face:

They make wonderful bullies. They sure can dish it out, but if you punch one of them back in the face they whine like no one else, or go run and tell the moderator.

On EVERY issue, republicans ROBOTICALLY, in LOCK-STEP, take big business's side. Environment, healthcare, social issues, etc....EVERY issue. You can't say the democrats and republicans are "both owned by corporate interests". If the democrats were as big of corporate whores as the republicans, they wouldn't be voting against corporate control.



I also hate both sides, for the mentality of "you're either with us completely, on every issue, or you're against us".



SIDE NOTE:

I am sorry for using Goebbels and Hitler and comparing them to the modern-day republican party. I am not an anti-semite, and I don't mean to offend anyone by doing so. I just think we need to look at what happened in history and not repeat the same mistakes. Besides, I am a liberal and I'm always on the side of the "underdog". Nazis and Neo-Nazis, and racists in general, fluffing disgust me.

 

[Cylos]

Calling people socialist for disagreeing with their views.

Let them do that, I can give them a damn good argument from my side of the political spectrum.
I don't get why people are so anti welfare, its a lifeline for most people, for those where its a lifestyle they are a minority. 1945-79 was the British socialist years, we had a more equal society, full employment, a tolerant society with order and one of the most happiest societies in Europe. The American right demonise the left, implying that they're Stalinist or Fascist, to the point where American society is against a political ideology that they generally know little about.
I just get annoyed with American politics as a whole, we have enough problems over here for me to be complaining about it.

 

[Zahn]

I'm getting a very familiar feeling in this debate. The feeling of someone thinking I am some looney liberal extremist. So.....

Please please do not think that I am under the impression or opinion that you are a "loonyy liberal extremist". I lean towards the liberal side of moderate myself and I can see the basis of your frustration/anger/irritation with the Republican party. Your Nazi comparsion to the Republican party in no way was an anti-semitical statement, and I did not mean to imply that it was. It is just a common comparison made when political discussions arise and in truth, is grossly inaccurate. Care should be taken (imo) when making that comparison just like care should be taken with comparisons to socialism (among others) to the Democratic party.

In actuality, I am enjoying the conversation. I think it is important for everyone to review their own opinions/ideas and the manner in which they discuss them. I have learned a lot about effectively communicating ideas with others by having political discussions in a forum format. My discussions used to be filled with inflammatory statements arguing my viewpoint, which ended up alienating anyone with an opposing viewpoint. And that is exactly what we need less of in this country. It is also one of the things that people throw around as an accuasation, without realizing that they are doing it themselves. Pot-Kettle-Black.

That is why I question statements with words such as "most", "undermine", "always", "never", et al. when applied to one side. And I question the people that I see as roughly on the same side I am the hardest. I mean no disrespect by it. I just think that if we are going to talk the talk, we need to be able to walk the talk. Then again, my world view is a strange purple carnival. LOL

As for the individual liberal political ideas on healthcare, welfare, etc. these things are wonderful on the surface. They are also needed and no one should be arguing against them on the surface. The concern I have is in how they are implimented, regulated, paid for, and what "hidden" special interest pork is inserted into the bill. Like it or not, these details are important. (See the Bailout Bill for pork bloat) I am not entirely sure I would assert that Democrats are actually fighting for the poor. I don't think either side is.

As for religion... people tend to use religion for many nefarious reasons which is indeed silly. But I have no problem with the existence of religion/s. I do wish an end to people using it against others, or to show why they need to tell me what I should and should not be doing. I believe in freedom of religion but I also believe in freedom FROM religion.

I think there are too many directions this thread has branched out to, and so I won't address them all as it is too wide a net for a shorter constructive post. But I am willing to discuss them. Let me conclude with: Nothing will get better in this country unless both sides realize that the truth and progress are usually found somewhere near the middle rather than at the extremes of either side.

 

[Zahn]

Has the American Constitution ever been updated? I mean, when they wrote in people are allowed to carry firearms, they probably didn't see much of a threat since it took like half an hour to reload the bastard. Now days you can kill 18 people in less than five seconds with a cheap pistol.

Research "Constitutional Amendment".

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

Let them do that, I can give them a damn good argument from my side of the political spectrum.
I don't get why people are so anti welfare, its a lifeline for most people, for those where its a lifestyle they are a minority. 1945-79 was the British socialist years, we had a more equal society, full employment, a tolerant society with order and one of the most happiest societies in Europe. The American right demonise the left, implying that they're Stalinist or Fascist, to the point where American society is against a political ideology that they generally know little about.
I just get annoyed with American politics as a whole, we have enough problems over here for me to be complaining about it.

It's interesting that when you ask Americans how much wealth redistribution they believe is fair, their answers come much closer to conditions in the far more 'liberal' countries of Northern Europe that they would deride as 'socialist'.

Americans desire socialism, as long as it isn't labelled that way.