GOP

[The Dark Lord]

American politics needs a radical change.

 

Right now you have a two-party system that is so incompetent and hell-bent to fight each other that they aren't productive.

 

Right now, the US needs to back out of the Middle East, rebuild its economy and withdraw some industries from overseas (so that there are more products produced in America), and re-assess the Special Relationship between the US and the UK. Culturally, we need reforms. We are losing our national identity, and our current "culture" is consumerist.

 

As far as the educational system, we are experiencing more and more 'dumbing down' as a way of passing those who aren't mentally capable or are too lazy to pass if the system wasn't sub-standard.

[fakeitormakeit2]

The majority of Americans want Public Health Care, but GOP has, on more than one occasion, pulled up false/biased statistics to "show" that the majority of Americans don't support it. I don't have proof, but I saw it on CNN.

 

Nice unbiased source, ha.

 

I find it sad I have to listen to a foreign news broadcaster (BBC) to not get opinions crammed down my throat.

 

As for that statement you made of majority of Americans want Public Health Care, that I won't even believe. I know many many Democrats who are against the idea. I know the "evil evil money wanting" doctors who provide free service 4months out of the year who oppose it because it will make medical technology scarce and harder to provide better service. We don't have the medical personnel to regular citizen ratio that can even support Public Health Care.

 

Furthermore I believe in helping people who are poorer, and socialism to some degree, but Public Health Care would work against benefiting society overall which some supporters fail to see because they say, oh well so and so does not have coverage so we must supply it. Fact: most people overlook, many doctors provide free services during the course of the year to those who fall under X economic classification. GOP are defending the common interests, but many people cannot see the broader spectrum of an issue and therefore blame those who oppose something that looks nice on paper but is impractical. The Democrats and Obama pursued populism and mud artillery (a level up from slinging), but even that is failing for them.

 

 

Edit: Plus Obama's "open-door debates" will never happen. He leads by trying to give the impression that he is the people's voice. The thing with "Democracy" is things tend to get "Mobocratic" and uneducated people sway sides very quickly, and the televising of Senate debates would only expedite the cycle of shifting back and forth between parties, and build government opposition. The Senate members might also discuss something as simple as raises for themselves and they would be put on the cross for doing so.

[Diesel]

The majority of Americans want Public Health Care, but GOP has, on more than one occasion, pulled up false/biased statistics to "show" that the majority of Americans don't support it. I don't have proof, but I saw it on CNN.

 

Public Health Care as in totally Government run or just more restrictions on Private Health care and a Public Option for competition?

 

If you mean totally government run, then I must wholeheartedly disagree. Same deal with a public option, but not to as great of an extent.

 

Rasmussen

 

And you can't blame the GOP for trying to stall the healthcare bill. It's something that they don't want and something that the Dems are trying to move quickly on.

 

If something is to happen, pass or fail, I'd like to see Obama come through with his promise to televise the debates. No closed door meetings on this thing. And read the bill too, dammit. Personally, I'd like to see GOP members stand on the floor of Congress and read the whole freaking thing. If it's going to pass, we might as well know what we're getting ourselves into.

 

On a side note, could you step back and take a breath before blaming everything on the GOP/Fox? Instead of being a die-hard Liberal, look at the situation as a whole. I admit that I'm a conservative, but if a liberal had a good idea, I'd vote for them. I hate people who dismiss a candidate or party just because they run opposite of your norm.

[Lenticular_J]

I smell revolution.

[The Dark Lord]

I smell revolution.

 

Shh... :-$

 

Lenin's reading this topic. Don't let him see that.

Don't give him ideas.

[SeanyTheSailor]

This is slightly off topic but has anyone noticed that the Gov't bying GM could easily be considered unconstitutional...

Amendment 10

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Buying out companies.... not mentioned in the Constitution.

[fakeitormakeit2]

^Although I personally don't find it constitutional it can always be argued that Article 1 Section 8 gives the government right to in the pursuit of the general welfare of the people, it was deemed necessary in a constitutional manner to buy out GM and that it completely saved the economy [which I do not agree with at all].

[Lenin64]

I smell revolution.

 

Shh... :-$

 

Lenin's reading this topic. Don't let him see that.

Don't give him ideas.

Please, we were just finally getting in some socialist ideas to government. No need for that now.

 

What's really fun is that I sit in the middle of about 10 Glenn Beck-loving, Fox-adoring super conservative people in my Government class. Hoh boy. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[RpgGamer]

Fox news sucks

Republicans are opinionated close minded fools

Democrats are liberal idiots that never cease to make mistakes

 

There is no lesser of all evils, they're all idiots. Not that anyone who complains about such things could do a better job.

[1230abcz]

I'm not die-hard liberal, and I think both parties are idiots when it comes to fair debate, but GOP has been getting on my nerves lately. I remember a bill that Al Franken tried passing. It was something about women workers not being able to sue male workers (and vice versa) for being raped by their co workers. I was watching this on CNN (yes, not unbiased by a long shot, but I tried watching FOX and MSNBC, and they're both a lot worse), and it turned out that GOP basically opposed the bill because they thought it would go against their defense contracting business. Personally, I found this a load of bull crap. They obviously opposed the amendment because it was passed by Democrats. If they didn't, then WTF? I don't know why anyone would opt for business over rape, and I can't even believe that those kind of people are running the country.

 

I'm also opposed to closed door debates. I'm pretty sure it was openly argued against when it was first proposed.

[Saru Inc]

To the best of my knowledge the founding fathers (at least in america) did not design it to be a two party system. While I may be wrong there is no mention of the number of parties (aside from I think there has to be more than one) in the constitution or any other legal documents. My guess is that this system sort of happened off of two parties getting large amounts of funding and telling people what they want to hear.

 

As a matter of fact many of them explicitly warned against "factions," i.e. political parties. Probably because they figured something like what we have now would happen. Smart dudes.

On the note of a 2 party system, our government wasn't crafted to be one and in George Washington's farewell address he warned against political parties. If I recall correctly the 2-party system really formed under Andrew Jackson with the Democratic-Republican party and the Whig party. Normally I'm pretty good with history but this is kinda foggy so if someone has the facts to prove me otherwise by all means do so.

 

 

Also said steer clear of alliances with countries. Gf UN.

 

 

Edit: Yes I know the UN isn't an alliance, but in George Washingtons' eyes it's like we're all one country.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Saruman44

[fakeitormakeit2]

^Much agreed to. Such an alliance is only good to be temporary and for war.

[stonewall337]

Well, before this happened, I sure didn't see ANY of that bipartisan cooperation Obama was talking about.

 

Also, to say a different political party "sucks" or is "[developmentally delayed]ed" is rather childish. One of the great benefits of living in the US is the freedom to disagree with others. If you don't like what one party is doing, run for the other, or support yours or something. Personally, I am planning on running for a place on the board of our county soon.

 

Also, FOX doesn't "Suck" just because you disagree with them. Matter of fact, I was quite surprised that Obama would bash Fox. So much for freedom of speech?

 

TBH, Obama even promised numerous times that the HC debate would be broadcasted on C-Span. Well, we all (should) know what became of that promise.

[Grim_]

Well, before this happened, I sure didn't see ANY of that bipartisan cooperation Obama was talking about.

 

Also, to say a different political party "sucks" or is "[developmentally delayed]ed" is rather childish. One of the great benefits of living in the US is the freedom to disagree with others. If you don't like what one party is doing, run for the other, or support yours or something. Personally, I am planning on running for a place on the board of our county soon.

 

Also, FOX doesn't "Suck" just because you disagree with them. Matter of fact, I was quite surprised that Obama would bash Fox. So much for freedom of speech?

 

TBH, Obama even promised numerous times that the HC debate would be broadcasted on C-Span. Well, we all (should) know what became of that promise.

Stone first off what is your point about freedom of speech? Obama while president has the freedom to bash fox news just as they have the freedom to say whatever they want (within reason) and it is not harming fox's ability to broadcast what they want. Furthermore I would like to remind you that bipartisanship is a two way street and it is rather hard to shake anothers hand if they are busy trying to chop it of with an ax. To your point about fox news all I can say is while I don't really know that much about them I don't particularly like any network that hosts Glenn Beck on it. On your point about the complaining of people I whole-heartedly agree that you should instead of [bleep] actually do something about it.

[Giordano]

Both parties are [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]ed. Comes with the territory of a two-party system.

The most accurate post about politics in TIF history.

 

Our government's really pathetic. *shame*

[1230abcz]

Both parties are [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]ed. Comes with the territory of a two-party system.

The most accurate post about politics in TIF history.

 

Our government's really pathetic. *shame*

 

 

Obama is half black. I win.

[Lenin64]

Both parties are [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]ed. Comes with the territory of a two-party system.

The most accurate post about politics in TIF history.

 

Our government's really pathetic. *shame*

 

 

Obama is half black. I win.

Is the Obama half black, or half white? Chew on that awhile.

[Lenticular_J]

Or is he four Latino midgets under a trench coat. We could go on about this all day, dontchaknow.

[Hawks]

Well, before this happened, I sure didn't see ANY of that bipartisan cooperation Obama was talking about.

 

Also, to say a different political party "sucks" or is "[developmentally delayed]ed" is rather childish. One of the great benefits of living in the US is the freedom to disagree with others. If you don't like what one party is doing, run for the other, or support yours or something. Personally, I am planning on running for a place on the board of our county soon.

 

Also, FOX doesn't "Suck" just because you disagree with them. Matter of fact, I was quite surprised that Obama would bash Fox. So much for freedom of speech?

 

TBH, Obama even promised numerous times that the HC debate would be broadcasted on C-Span. Well, we all (should) know what became of that promise.

C-SPAN actually was filing a Freedom of the Press request about that. Which is funny because they're in the slightly liberal category (and should therefore be biased towards Obama... One assumes they're trying to get their ratings up.)

 

Obama also made some sort of statement banning Fox from the White House; I'm not sure how long that lasted or if it's still happening.

 

I have also decided that if I am ever elected to the Senate/House I shall stand up and read the full text of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. BECAUSE I CAN! And it's more entertaining and useful than any other crap that ends up in there.

 

And being a person who generally likes FOX I must say Glenn Beck disturbs me.

[Zierro]

Both parties are [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]ed. Comes with the territory of a two-party system.

 

Maybe they have a secret alliance and all these controversies are just to suck people into the debate, so the people will be too distracted to think about a third option. :unsure:

[Range_This11]

When will people realize that politicians are only in it to preserve their own careers. It's their JOB to be re-elected and they are going to do whatever it takes (filibuster, pushing legislation, you name it) to keep that job. Once you get past that, it's easy to see that it's all smoke and mirrors.

[Racheya]

Both parties are [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]ed. Comes with the territory of a two-party system.

 

Maybe they have a secret alliance and all these controversies are just to suck people into the debate, so the people will be too distracted to think about a third option. :unsure:

Yeah, as a Brit I've NEVER heard of there being any more than just two parties over there. Are there actually other parties? Cuz I've never heard of them O_o

 

Over here we have (New) Labour and Conservatives, then kind of Liberal Democrats. Then you have the smaller parties like the green parties and the so called BNP. I remember my mum telling me about the Monster Raving Lunatic Party once when I was young too :lol:

[Zierro]

There are tons. Everyone's only interested in Democratic and Republican though.

[Alg]

Both parties are [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]ed. Comes with the territory of a two-party system.

 

Maybe they have a secret alliance and all these controversies are just to suck people into the debate, so the people will be too distracted to think about a third option. :unsure:

Or it's like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and they're distracting us from the real leaders... :ohnoes:

[magekillr]

No one could have predicted that the GOP would do this :roll:

 

Lol, and now Obama has adopted Republican talking points about the deficit. Everyone knows the real problem with the deficit is health care; fix the health care crisis, you solve the deficit problem. Of course, the GOP won't hop on board to solve this issue--although about 10 of the Democrats aren't much better because they're just as moronic and corporate--and the two ideas they do have, state-competition across state lines and tort reform, are both fail ideas. Even if you adopted those ideas, they still wouldn't support anything the Democrats want to do, and the Democrats continue to get rolled. Maybe they want to continue it on like this, at least blue dogs like Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh. They want more power, and the Republicans' continuous use of the filibuster makes them important, as they have more leverage. Now that we're going reconciliation (like I said to do in the beginning), they're announcing how much they hate it. Why? Because their widdle feelings are hurt, as they're now irrelevant to the process.

 

The GOP: the bat[cabbage] insane, far-right nationalist party, and the Democrats: the party with no spine. It's been this way since Ronald Reagan, except by now Ronald Reagan would probably be too liberal to be in the Republican party (he's against torture, after all, and he raised taxes).

 

Anyway, prediction of what will happen unless the Democrats grow a f***ing spine and call the conservatives out (this includes the conservatives like Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and the other blue dog corporate hacks in the House):

 

GOP blocks everything Obama wants to do

Democrats lose their majorities in 2010-2012 due to bad unemployment and nothing coming from Congress

Obama loses in 2012 to someone who is farther to the right than George Bush

Person that's farther to the right than George Bush increases the debt by another couple trillion to the point of doubling it

Person that's farther to the right than Bush gets ejected from office by 2016 or 2020, and we repeat the cycle again until Democrats stand by their principles and stop adopting Republican ones

 

Time and time again, Republicans only get into office because the Dem base's enthusiasm is deflated because our party lacks a spine to embrace liberal policy. Grow a back bone.

 

I'll be watching the SOTU, watching Obama become the best Republican president since Bill Clinton.