We are in a thread about how badly the right and left talk to each other and ASH gives a great demonstration of what the problem is. I suppose he could use another person like you who are apparently unable to figure that out. I do feel sorry for you kiddies though.
Heck, even use of “the left(ies)” and “the right(ies)” can and have been used as an insult to people on these boards if someone dares agree/disagree with the wrong thing. “You lefties all…”, “The righies are all like…” I don’t really participate much in political threads, though I do read them, and I often get annoyed at the blanket statements attacking the ideas of “the Left/Right”.
Up here in Canada, the two most common ones I’ve encountered are the CONservatives (“cons”) and the LIEberals.
Again, I’m not arguing that name-calling is helpful, but when I hear arguments like the one in the OP, I can’t help but be put in the mind of High Broderism. A “pox on both their houses” approach to political issues is naïve and stupid.
First, the fact that people pay attention to the name-calling rather than the substance is how Fox News and Karl Rove have had success. Name-calling catches the attention of the simple-minded, even if it is to decry such name-calling. Data and facts do not catch these people’s attention. Believe me, I’ve tried. Really, if you cannot be arsed to get past the name-calling, you’re probably also one to respond well to Swiftboating, and not very well to a table of figures regarding the performance of economic indicators under contrasting political conditions.
Paul Krugman has an example of this with the support for austerity measures that the Serious people have been all over, despite the fact that austerity measures demonstrably don’t work, and an alternative economic model has been incredibly successful at predicting outcomes. Yet, people go for what other people are saying is a good idea, regardless of the evidence behind it.
Secondly, when people who want a third party actually describe what they want that third party to do or to be like, they typically describe… the Democratic Party.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/its_called_the_democratic_part032442.php
Speaking randomly, I find the American partisan approach to be very strange.
I think there is a different mindset over here. It seems that in America, if your “side” doesn’t get in, then you think that you are screwed for four years, that because the other side is in power that they are not working for your interests.
Here, parties compete to get into power and people hope for their own party to win. But once a party is elected, they then become our party. They are our government now, and we treat them as such.
The man on the street doesn’t really care what the background of the party is, their main concern is the current performance. In America, it seems that the performance doesn’t matter, what is more important is the background of the party.
Just my perception, and I find it very strange.
The thing is tho’, Gonz, you being a big bag of stupid has absolutely nothing to do with politics. It is not respective of left, right, socialist, communist, conservative, or fundie. This thread is about political sniping. You are just simply a moron. Lord Ashtar was simply stating a fact that has no political bearing in and of itself.
Wealth redistribution is a basic function of government? Perhaps since FDR but that doesn’t mean it should be, especially to this extent.
Obamacare…whats wrong with a simple term that identifies the healthcare changes Obama achieved?
“hope and change” used sarcastically… I guess that suggests there is an important use for it. Your list should provide an exemption for empty campaign slogans.
I’m somewhat dubious about the degree to which you adopt the party in power as your party, but overall I think you’re on target.
I think this is a relatively recent development. It seems to me just a few decades ago that things were different. If the Republicans won office, it meant that a slightly different perspective on matters would be undertaken, but it wouldn’t mean a drastic and unsettling change.
I think that Glenn Greenwald described recent American politics pretty well in his book “A Tragic Legacy.” He described Bush adopting a Manichean worldview that shaped his decisions and administration. Political discourse responded similarly, with things taking a very us versus them approach.
But Bush took the country in a very different direction as well, vastly expanding the powers of the President and challenging the very structure of the government. Things that people did because there was an understood agreement about how things worked were no longer “understood.” We got involved in a war of aggression, and beliefs about individual liberties and about safety changed dramatically.
So, yeah, both the tenor of things and the sense that a very great deal hinges upon the outcomes of elections has changed over the past few decades in America. And not for the better.
It seems to me, you have, in your White House, at this moment, a politician who does not slag on his opponents, as enemies and brings the very thing to political discourse you’re all craving. He is reasonable and able to compromise, seeking a middle way, trying to fix the broken machine.
And he has done nothing but lose support from the American people.
He has managed, during his term, to find Bin Laden, toss Gaddafi, wipe out a tier of Al Qaida, a couple of things that, you’d think, the Right would be giving him props for, no they dislike him too.
Y’all seem somewhat hard to please, to me.
In a nutshell… You’ve ALMOST got it. You still need to toss in a big handful of arrogant assholedom, plug your ears, put on a blindfold, put your brain into neutral, open your mouth wide and spout (shout?) talking points and gibberish…then you’ve got one of our beloved partisan hacks down to a T
And, btw I’ve seen film clips of your parliament in action… it’s a circus too.
As Rush Limbaugh said, they wanted him to fail and had every intention of helping him to fail.
Offered without comment.
Requoted for unfortunate truth. You are too goddamn on target, elbows
There is nothing that Obama could do to get Repub support for any program he offers. They are determined to destroy his presidency. When he does things the Repubs love, they will not give him any credit at all. They are petulant children, pissed off because a Dem took the office that belongs to them.
They desperately want to get a Repub in to appoint the next Supreme Court justices. What a horror that would be. I doubt they would permit Obama to appoint one. They would filibuster and then refuse to seat someone. They will halt the government to get their way.
Christ, you are stupid. Obama has already appointed two Justices to the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayer and Elena Kagan. Both were confirmed by the Senate with only token Republican opposition. This was before the Republicans took back the House, true, but the House doesn’t matter as it is the Senate that confirms Justices and the minority party in the Senate (Republicans) had two previous opportunities to block Supreme Court Nominees and passed both times. Fuck, Kagan was confirmed just 14 months ago. Did you forget?
But Sotomayor and Kagan replaced center-left justices (or radical-left-activist justices, depending on your point of view). I think what gonzomax had in mind was the possibility that Obama might have an opportunity to replace a right-leaning (or strict Constitutionalist) justice, and thereby change the balance of the court. To the Republicans, this is The Thing That Must Not Be Allowed To Happen.
I think you’re giving him too much credit; he never got within a stone’s throw of making that distinction. Besides, the only one that might retire any time soon is Ginsberg. None of the conservatives are going to retire in the near future.
I agree. I am also concerned about increased tensions and war of words between the administration of the SS and Police leader for the Warsaw area Ferdinand von Sammern-Frankenegg and the opposition from within the Judenrat headed by Adam Czerniaków (why is this increasingly unstable and paranoidal nutjob not on suicide watch anyway?). Clearly, both parties should abandon acrimony and work together in a spirit of bipartisanship and unity in diversity to implement the vital Grossaktion Warschau agenda - the key to a just and sustainable peace and prosperity for the common good.
None of this has anything to do with the OP.
I would say that they don’t do it equally, but when they do it it is most certainly “equally bad.”
In my opinion it doesn’t matter who does it more. “They started it” or “They do it more” are not valid excuses for bad behavior, and I think there is something seriously flawed in the assumption that avoiding deliberately inflammatory behavior is somehow a sign of weakness or capitulation.
“Barry” doesn’t bother me any more that “Jack” Kennedy, or “W,” for that matter. But “Shrub” is a deliberate derision of W’s name, meant to make him sound small and inconsequential.