Ick. If this stuff is indicative of how both sides of the ideological coin deal with each other, we’re fucked. In case anyone doesn’t remember American history, this country was built and made great by compromise. Each side repecting or at least tolerating the others’ point of view, and working to find solutions that we can all at least live with. Both sides are guilty of whipping up the froth these days. It’s incredibly short-sighted. While our polarized factions are bickering, the rest of the world is laughingly sopping up our gravy. We have to be Americans first, Democrats and Republicans second, or it’s around the bowl and down the hole.
Keep in mind that nearly 80% of Republicans continue to express support for an administration that is by any objective measure an abject failure, and which continues to do things that are horribly detrimental to America. As one who does love America, what do you propose that I do about that? Offering no opposition has been a strategy that has led us to where we are today. The present Republicans have not shown that they are willing or able to compromise or work together, have they? In fact, they write books called “Treason” and so forth. If there are reasonable Republicans, they have remained silent and have failed to check the runaway corruption and failed policies of their party. And how can Democrats engage in partisan bickering and whip up the froth in some substantial way when they have no political power?
I’m much more inclined to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them than I am wiling to continue to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Republicans.
Finally, it isn’t about partisanship - it’s about what works versus what doesn’t. When they’ve run their mouths and run their shit for a decade, and its clear that we are in serious trouble, its not the time to say “Gee, we’re both to blame for this.” It’s not like I was born with a Democratic uniform on, so I play for that team. I look at what works best for the most people and who supports that and fights for that.
I was being generous; it’s obvious that the GOP is much more culpable in terms of unwillingness to compromise. But the ultimate responsibility lies in the voters. We are lazy and stupid and selfish and unwilling to make difficult choices and sacrifices. I have no solution for that; if I did, I reckon I’d be in politics. I have no idea how to make voters take their responsibilities more seriously. Radical campaign reform and penalties for misrepresentation by politicians (yeah, I know that’s hard to do) might be a start. We have to take money out of the equation because it’s the cause of the corruption. I say we federally fund all campaigns for federal office. No corporate contributions, no special interest contributions, nothing. I realize this stuff sounds unrealistic, but it’s also unrealistic to think we can continue as we are.
I agree with everything you’ve said here. I wish I had an idea how these proposals could be enacted.
ROTFLMAO! You are such a self-deluded shitbrain!
That’s the embarrassing thing about making a pronouncement that you are leaving. When you keep showing up, you prove yourself to be a pathetic asshole. (And so venemous! Yikes.)
Remember, fear Jim Davison!
When did we rescind the representation of rural states in Congress again? Oh yeah, and don’t they have a disproportionate influence in Congress due to the vagaries of the system?
And Republican policy. Really, any rural representative’s policy, no matter which side of the aisle he sits. In any case, Democratic representatives from those states tend to be pretty conservative.
They “take” more money in that their representatives have the clout to block budgets until they get their money due to their disproportionate representation in Congress. Although I will happily grant that it’s not due to Republican policy.
My point is that these red staters sneer at the blue states as a bunch of welfare sucklers and tout their rural work ethic and independence, and then stick out their hands and demand and outsized portion of federal spending.
The national party (mostly) came to its senses when it occurred to them that, if not for the political albatross of gun control, Al Gore would be president.
There are states where it’s legal to shoot out people’s windows?* I learn something new on the SDMB every day…
*Petty vandalism by gunshot is about the closest gun-based analogy I can think of to trashing someone’s reputation with libelous statements.
But at least I’m just a pathetic asshole and not a pathetic lying asshole like you.
Really? This intrigued me, since I couldn’t recall Al Gore pushing some sort of radical agenda on gun control.
Here’s Wikipedia’s take on Al Gore’s campaign positions regarding gun control, for what it’s worth.
Are any of these issues particularly noxious to gun owners/proponents of gun ownership? Which ones and why? For my money, I think these are pretty straightforward and no-brainer positions. Given that I think the Democrats hurt themselves by running scared from issues, I would prefer that we adopt such proposals clearly and forthrightly. I think that the political problem comes from a lack of a clear stand. If people knew that this was exactly what the Democrats stood for in terms of guns, it would be harder to convince them that the Democrats are gonna come and take your guns out of your cold dead hands.
Republicans have proven that when it comes to campaign issues, they are going to push a mischaracterization or outright lie about the Democratic position anyway. The only way to counter that is to manage the message better. Rather than avoiding it, say what we believe in and why.
Remember the part about the bulk of money coming in farm grants? Remember the part about farmers being almost always Democrats? Remember how I mentioned the Congressional delegation are all Democrats?
I know you do, but it means you have to realize what you’re bitching about is in the hands of the Dems. I don’t see a dime of any of that money. Idjit.
Where do you get your information? Seriously. Are you a willfully ignorant person? According to this site, North Dakota received a total of $465,026,443 in USDA subsidies in 2004. According to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report, North Dakota received $6,034,799,466 in Direct Expeditures or Obligations and another $3,782,350,462 in Other Federal Assistance.
How is $465 million the “bulk of” $9.8 billion? You could consider crop insurance, which apparently was $2.2 billiion. Of course, one would typically consider “the bulk of” to be at least half.
I would be willing to wager that you do benefit in some way from some of that $9.8 billion as a resident of North Dakota. Don’t you do something related to the military? Also, don’t you drive?
I’ve never seen anybody so shit-all stupid as you. Of course, I’ve only gathered this information from a couple sources on the internet. Feel free to correct where I’ve made any errors.
The House is controlled by Republicans, the Senate is controlled by Republicans, the White House is held by a Republican, and yet you still blather that Democrats are sending all this unwanted cash to North Dakota? To say you are as dumb as a bag of hammers is an insult to hammers everywhere.
Yes, I know. The Democrats have no power or influence whatsoever. Jesus, you’re dense. Were you bitching about the subsidies those 40 years the Dems had control? You’re wrong on this one, and I’m tired of trying to get you to see that.
Just keep signing the fucking checks and we can all be happy.
Except that the farm subsidy program was set under the Clinton administration.
A: What the fuck is this fetish with farm subsidies? B: Farm subsidies have existed since at least the 1930’s. Clinton was not president until 1992.
And as we all know, any policy set by a Democrat six years ago is inviolate, and a Republican Congress and President is powerless to change it. :rolleyes:
Look, the point is, no one expects frugality and self reliance from Democrats; we are the profligate tax-an-spend party of nanny state wastrels. Republicans are the ones who have billed them selves as the party of fiscal responsibility, out to slash government spending an slay the evil dragon of big government. So when Republicans reap the political trifecta and control both houses of Congress and the Presidency, there is an expectation of change toward fiscal responsibility. Only it turns out, Bushco is all hat and no cattle, and Republicans are just as prodigal as Democrats when it comes to cutting spending, or, in the case of North Dakota, just as willing to continue gorging themselves at the public trough at the expense of the blue states who are productive enough to pay not only their own way, but that of the red states as well.
duffer, you know the drill. A short quote (with link, if necessary) is fine. Just because it is, presumably, an anonymous piece does not mean that you can post it in its entirety.
Uh, that was me. Mea culpa. I blame irrational exuberance.