patrick.net

The thing I hate about Republicans the most is that when in power, they never seem to try to remove or rollback stupid stuff done by Democrats. Having said that, Democrats are no different. I don't see Obama getting rid of No Child Left behind.

Nothing has changed with women's issues. With the exception of debates about health care covering birth control.

And if you're thinking that democrats play political games with women's issues, to try to get more of the female vote, guess what ? It's true. They do.

Because the republicans can be counted on to say really stupid stuff about women and women's issues.

You can't blame democrats for exploiting this. That's playing politics fair and square. Unlike what republicans are willing to do to win elections.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XreSZvgdZwA

NO that's not where I was going at all.

Here's what the facts are and not the sound bytes, sit down Jr.

You see things have changed in Women issues, and Gay issues, the Governments injection of the Churches view against women's and gay issues, they have made great strides. Now lets give them a big round of applause everybody!!!!

BUT!

Here's the thing, while the Liberals have been running around the country creating the worst pieces of Legislation in History which has sailed right through and passed. They never seem to run out of reasons to blame Republicans for., when the Liberal legislation failures are exposed.

Obama has proven he can make anything at all happen.

Even the mythical beast that "obamacare" is supposed to be, someday, one day. Which here's another fucked up thing.
By every Liberal account, Obamacare from the get go, was some lose improvisationaly implemented bill, constructed adhoc and obfuscated with boons to the Insurance, big pharma, and the private Medical industry complex.
From the get go, after every Liberals argument was lost, the final retort was "Well it's meant to be fixed."

You guys do know some fixes are very simple?

Patient:"MY arm hurts when do this"

Doctor: "Well don't do that!"

If the democrats weren't ruining the earth, what is the fantastic ALTERNATIVE healthcare plan that the republicans would have enacted? It's a simple question, but one which you have never seemed able to answer. Let's say we repeal Obamacare. Then what?

Feel free to post twice if all the details of the fabulous republican healthcare plan takes you over the word count for a single post.

I can't stand repubs for not being an effective opposition. For not giving me a choice. I am so disgusted with both parties and yearn for someone to vote. I think I will sit out the next one-unless Hillary runs-then will vote against.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

IF I am elected dictator for life I guarantee you I will appoint Charles Manson as Chairman of the SEC and myself as Comptroller of the Currency.

For all your other appointees look no further then patnet.
I nominate captain as house speaker, as this thread shows, he likes to stir up trouble.

I hate how they are moving so far to the right that they are losing relevance in today's world.

I hate that they continuously say things that make me cringe (e.g., Richard Mourdock).

CaptainShuddup says

Liberals have been running around the country creating the worst pieces of Legislation in History

Again, we get it. You want to have Sean Hannity's children. Well, why don't you go ahead and make your move.

Homeboy says

what is the fantastic ALTERNATIVE healthcare plan that the republicans would have enacted?

The Republican alternative to Obamneycare (which was already the Republican alternative to ClintonCare) was also worse than nothing. Neither major party proposes anything that would actually help people, because both major parties represent the "stakeholders," i.e. the largest revenue recipients represented by lobbyists and offering both campaign finance and revolving door patronage opportunities. From their POV, the question how to reform healthcare translates to, "How can we extract even more revenue and power while talking about healthcare?" Some individual Republicans did propose sensible measures, e.g. requiring hospitals to accept the same amount as "full payment" from any payer instead of overcharging the uninsured, but those individual Republicans' ideas didn't get incorporated into the party's official proposal.

Spending

Republicanz is mean peoples.

They steal oil and won't give me free moneys.

So far just the constant attempts to sell social security off to wall street, or add some sort of "means testing"... which to me is another way of saying "you ain't getting it if you make over minimum wage".

lostand confused says

I am so disgusted with both parties and yearn for someone to vote.

You can't! You're not allowed to. I bet you're registered like most sane people in this country as NPA. We're not allowed to be heard in the Primaries, so the biggest dumbest Idiot line carry for both parties are the ones who make it past the first Asshole contest. That is a production brought to us by one Party with two marketing departments. Each put on a pageant with the deep pocket media sponsors. You and I, and the 1/3 of the country JUST LIKE US, do not get to participate while the Idiot left the retarded right suck each other off and boast about democracy. If any of the other 2/6th that's 1/3 republican or Democrat prospectively and the 1/3 that are no party affiliated. Unilaterally make the decision for us, the person that will become the President by just a cunt hair over 50%, and they'll then fawn all over them selves about what a major Victory it was, and how this pol and that pol got it right or wrong.

It's enough to make you want to sit out the next election for sure.
I would love to see a race where the disgusted people and those who have no emotional attachment to either candidate other than their reprogrammed hate and force fed sound bytes they have on the other candidate, Just sit out the election.

The turn out would be interesting, and I bet the loser no matter which party it was, would bitch about how they lost all of those Votes that they never fucking had in the first place.

NPA should occupy the next two elections polling stations, it's time we abolish the closed primaries, it is the biggest and greatest tool they have for fixing the election and setting the tone to Super Tuesday. After that it's just a slick skid mark all the way to the oval office. Whoooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhh

If the primaries weren't closed, then the Republican backers that the collective Patnet hates, and the agitating Liberal super pacs, would have to buy and pay off a lot more people. Buying and rigging elections aren't cheap.
And that's just the cost, for a two horse election.

Imagine if popular vote actually did chose our candidates for the presidential election. The electoral college would not be for sale, and votes would not be easily rigged or discarded. If the candidates were actual candidates that got there because the voters gave a fuck enough to chose him. Rather than they voted for him, and signed up for a Citi bonus reward card, for jumping in a van and voting for Candidate(x).

I think I will sit out the next one-unless Hillary runs-then will vote against.

Helmethair Clinton didn't even make a suitable Stormtrooper you want her to run a country?

Yes, for sticking by her man and promoting heterosexual marriage.

sbh says

lostand confused says

unless Hillary runs-then will vote against.

She's gotta be good for something.

the muslim brotherhood of America..

if what Repubs are saying or doing is done by others in other countries we'd call them right wing and religious fanatics..we call them conservatives here

nothin, cause hates a bad thing unless you see the destruction of our country based on the demise of the romens we are going down the same path and dancin in the streets oblivious to it all the while that fucker putin is on a path to start ww3 what the fuck is he thinkin we should park nukes in west gerogia and dare the bald hairless fuck to cross the line...

Only interested in out-fanaticizing each other.

Do exactly what they recommend, and they say you didn't do it conservatively and constitutionally enough. If you happen to not be Republican, you're also just a Marxist, anyway.

If this is what happens when you adopt their prescriptions, imagine the impossibility of compromise.

They're Religious nuts. They also are into stereotypes and generalizations.:)

turtledove says

I hate how they are moving so far to the right that they are losing relevance in today's world.

And the left hasn't been doing the same thing?

marcus says

Nothing has changed with women's issues

Nope, they still give birth.

marcus says

Nothing has changed with women's issues.

You mean the pretend feminist outrage of the left, with the only purpose to elect Hillary?

No, that's not what I meant. I meant pretty much what I said.

If Hillary gets elected President, it won't be because she's a woman.

Because close to as many will vote against her for that reason as will vote for her.

If by chance I'm wrong and there are more voting for her because she's a woman, that won't be about feminism per se.

There is a fine line bet peonage and slavery, the point of Patricks book is to avoid the prior.

True representative government is mathematically impossible. How is one congressman supposed to know what 690,000 people want? or a Senator 1/100(supposed to be 1/2 of a state)?

It really is a matrix with the people brainwashed into focusing their attention on what ever the matrix wants their attention focused on.

P N Dr Lo R says

turtledove says

I hate how they are moving so far to the right that they are losing relevance in today's world.

And the left hasn't been doing the same thing?

Not really. I don't see the left going out of its way to alienate large voting blocks of the population.

There are many people in this country who identify with the ideas of fiscal conservatism, but aren't especially religious and don't feel the need to legislate people's faith or sex lives -- who even prize personal choice! Rather than embrace these people, the republican party (as it stands now) shows little tolerance outside of it's narrow world view.

The republican party's voice has been hijacked by a very vocal minority. As long as they allow the Tea Party view to monopolize their platforms, they will continue to be limited to their voting base. And their voting base of the Christian right isn't enough.

Add to that the fact that they aren't even fiscally conservative! So now we have the worst of both worlds, with respect to appealing to larger voting blocks. Over the last 15 years, Republicans are proving to be fiscal liberals and social conservatives. It's like a bad joke.

turtledove says

There are many people in this country who identify with the ideas of fiscal conservatism, but aren't especially religious and don't feel the need to legislate people's faith or sex lives -- who even prize personal choice! Rather than embrace these people, the republican party (as it stands now) shows little tolerance outside of it's narrow world view.

Interesting... There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans and plenty of pro-gay marriage Republicans (and even more who are fine with full equal rights under the law with the exception of having the government actually get involved by defining the term "marriage" since the Fed government does not define "marriage" now). They may not be the majority of Republicans, but a Republican politician can be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.

Now... What would happen to a Democrat today who ran for office but was openly pro-life and anti-gay marriage?

Answer that question honestly and you'll see which side is sliding more to the extreme than the other. It might not be what you thought it was.

And yet here I am still responding... You can't even reply to the specific implications of the law itself that I detailed. Why is it that you think small, non-profit corporations that people form for the purpose of political speech should not have any first amendment rights, but you are a-ok with large corporations that are wealthy enough to have PACs or own media to have first amendment rights? Do the large, wealthy corporations better represent the "collective?"

Paralithodes says

They may not be the majority of Republicans, but a Republican politician can be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.

Now... What would happen to a Democrat today who ran for office but was openly pro-life and anti-gay marriage?

Answer that question honestly and you'll see which side is sliding more to the extreme than the other. It might not be what you thought it was.

This refers to what many moderates call "tolerance."

Pro-choice isn't about being for abortion, it's only about not being so against it that you believe in taking away the individual's choice.

Similarly being what you call pro-gay marriage isn't as much about thinking homosexuality and gays getting married is great, as it is about not imposing my preferences or beliefs on these people who have preferences I can not necessarily relate to.

So suggesting that since some republicans can have these (basically libertarian views) and be accepted, where as democrats having the opposite views ("pro-life" (ie wanting to outlaw abortion), and against giving gay couples marriage rights) are therfore more extreme, is ludicrous.

You assume that the two sides of these coins are equally extreme. Why? Just because they are opposite positions on issues ? Do you have any idea how silly that is?

Regardless of whether you agree with the following, you have to agree that if it is true, then your point is absurd.

I would hold that being tolerant regarding "choice" and regarding gay marriage are both moderate middle of the road points of view. Whereas the opposite views are more extreme (and are both associated primarily with fundamentalist religious crowd).

marcus says

I would hold that being pro-choice and tolerant of gay marriage are both moderate middle of the road points of view.

Sure. "Tolerant" of gay marriage means nothing less than having the federal government create a definition of "marriage" as a social construct. Anything less than that is intolerant.

OK and willing to vote for gay marriage in your state, but don't want the federal government defining the term "marriage"? Intolerant.

But fully supportive of the federal government passing laws making gay "marriage" fully equal under the law in all respects but without using the term "marriage" for the current time being? Still intolerant.

Yep, You are either 100% with more federal involvement in social issues beyond just ensuring equality under the law, or you are 100% against them... That's today's liberal "moderate"

Paralithodes says

Sure. "Tolerant" of gay marriage means nothing less than having the federal government create a definition of "marriage" as a social construct. Anything less than that is intolerant.

To not even particularly care about this issue (my position), is what I call tolerance. And what's more middle of the road then not caring about an issue ?

If gays can get married and have all that marriage legally entails, I don't mind at all. I could give a fuck. Yeah, that's what I call tolerance.

Only if you make me choose, for or against gay marriage, do I choose for. But then that's only because I'm not against it. I see no reason to deprive people of what I see as rights, that benefit them and harm nobody.

Maybe you can see why I frame it as tolerance.

marcus says

To not even particularly care about this issue (my position), is what I call tolerant.

If gays can get married and have all that it legally entails, I don't mind at all. I could give a fuck. Yeah, that's what I call tolerance.

Yeah, that's the really funny thing about the issue. You're actually more indifferent about it than I am. I actually support full equality under the law, even at the federal level, which need not step into the social argument of what it is actually called. I simply don't think the federal government should take the step of actually creating a federal definition of the term "marriage," not even because I object to a gay marriage being called a "marriage" (I don't) but because I object to more unnecessary federal intervention in divisive social issues.

And there's the rub... Many people who claim they want the federal government to stay out of social issues and NOT legislate them really mean the opposite: They specifically want the federal government to interject in an issue it's not involved with, and decree in their favor.

But clarifying or codifying the definition of marriage is only about preventing people from using the law to prevent gay marriage. IT's easy to argue that not doing this is a form of intervention in to social issues (that is at this point, since a lot of gays are asking for this symbolic, but also very real form of acceptance).

MY point was that your original argument that dems are more extreme than republicans was ridiculous.

marcus says

Regardless of whether you agree with the following, you have to agree that if it is true, then your point is absurd.

You must admit that it can be argued that the fundamentalist religious backed side of these issues is the more extreme side.

Besides, I'm sure you can find plenty of pro-life democrats in the south.

marcus says

But clarifying or codifying the definition of marriage is only about preventing people from using the law to prevent gay marriage. IT's easy to argue that not doing this is a form of intervention in to social issues (that is at this point, since a lot of gays are asking for this symbolic, but also very real form of acceptance).

No, clarifying or codifying the definition of the term "marriage" is only about making the federal government take a stance on a divisive social issue and construct when it doesn't have to. It is also specifically about giving the federal government even more power to interject into everyones' lives.

I don't think it's easy at all to argue that not creating a federal definition of marriage is actually the same as intervention. Where is the federal definition of marriage now?

If you can find one: A Constitutional federal law that specifically claims that "marriage" in general across the land (i.e., not defined in the specific scope of a very narrow application in some obscure regulation) is defined as x, y, z, then sure, I could buy that argument.

You see, there are plenty of Republicans or Conservatives who support gay "marriage" (including the term) in their states, support full, equal rights for gays in federal law, but for whom having the federal government create a definition of "marriage" is an issue that ultimately is not about gay marriage at all, but about the federal government grabbing ever more expansive power. Agree or disagree with that argument, that's the perspective.

But regardless, anyone now who claims they are for gay marriage but it should be left up to the states (President Obama's last public position on the issue) is "hateful," "intolerant," etc.

No, marcus, your position is not more "moderate" or "tolerant."

marcus says

MY point was that your original argument that dems are more extreme than republicans was ridiculous.

More or less is relative... The Reps have moved to the right, and the Dems have moved to the left. Anyone who claims that only one side has moved further is either not paying attention or is blinded by their own bias. But regardless, on these two issues, a national level Rep politician could be on either side, a Dem: Not so much allowance for contrary views. Is that not true?

marcus says

You must admit that it can be argued that the fundamentalist religious backed side of these issues is the more extreme side.

10 years ago, 5 years ago - absolutely. Today: They've got some very serious competition. An all or nothing position is not more or less extreme just because it's on the other side.

marcus says

Besides, I'm sure you can find plenty of pro-life democrats in the south.

Likewise, there are plenty of pro-choice and pro-gay marriage republicans (and gasp, even "conservatives" and even some who are "religious") all over the place. I am talking about our elected representatives or leaders of the respective parties. Are there really plenty of pro-life Dems serving in the government or at notable lead in the party?

Paralithodes says

And there's the rub... Many people who claim they want the federal government to stay out of social issues and NOT legislate them really mean the opposite: They specifically want the federal government to interject in an issue it's not involved with, and decree in their favor.

Incorrect, the supremacy clause exists to allow federal statute to supercede any state statute.

Advocating for a federal definition of marriage (one way or another, either prohibiting gay marriage or allowing it) is really advocation for a universal law to be applied across each state.

And they can keep on hating, but so long as they look to the federal government for the solution to every problem of human existence, they're going to be disappointed. The federal government is never going to provide social justice or equality no matter how hard it tries.

Paralithodes says

I don't think it's easy at all to argue that not creating a federal definition of marriage is actually the same as intervention. Where is the federal definition of marriage now?

What if the federal government had NOT given women the vote? What if the federal government had not inserted itself into public school integration questions? Yes, every so often, when public opinion gets to a certain place on an issue, not intervening is (maybe not the same as intervening) might as well be an implicit form of meddling to prevent the natural (good) progress that is inevitable.

Paralithodes says

The Reps have moved to the right, and the Dems have moved to the left.

This is just wrong. IF it were true, there would be a hole in the middle.

The truth is that both have been moving to the right for decades.

Only a blind insane person could disagree with this:

The typical republican in today's govt is far to the right of the typical republican in 1975. Most honest republicans will acknowledge that Bob Dole, even Ronald Reagan would be labelled Rinos today if they did not march more in step with the hard right. Although I will acknowledge that also the definition of conservative has changed a lot since then! In 1975, taxes being too low, was not a "conservative" position.

Likewise, there are far less "liberals" in the democratic party today than there were in 1975. Even you seem to define a liberal, only by what right wing social issue positions they reject.

Look no further than talk radio and fox news, and all the number of retards out there who claim that Fox is no more biased than CBS, PBS, or CNN, to understand where things are at.

control point says

Incorrect, the supremacy clause exists to allow federal statute to supercede any state statute.

Sure... Where in the Constitution does it provide Congress the authorization to define a social construct such as "marriage?"

control point says

Advocating for a federal definition of marriage (one way or another, either prohibiting gay marriage or allowing it) is really advocation for a universal law to be applied across each state.

The distinction is between the rights, and interjection for pushing a social construct (the social definition of a term). Nuance. One could be completely for the former (including a universal law across the land providing the rights), yet not supportive of the latter. One could be completely supportive of gay "marriage" accross the entire country, yet still not want a particular federal intervention in defining a social construct (beyond the rights) for other specific reasons unrelated to gay marriage itself. I know... intolerant and hatful...

marcus says

This is just wrong. IF it were true, there would be a hole in the middle.

AKA Libertarians

Paralithodes says

The distinction is between the rights, and interjection for pushing a social construct (the social definition of a term). Nuance. One could be completely for the former (including a universal law across the land providing the rights), yet not supportive of the latter. One could be completely supportive of gay "marriage" accross the entire country, yet still not want a particular federal intervention in defining a social construct (beyond the rights) for other specific reasons unrelated to gay marriage itself. I know... intolerant and hatful...

Very good Paralithodes I went to school on this thread.

Ironic that the very group pushing for individual rights, are the ones vilified by those pushing the collective, in the name of individual "victims".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRXcaWVr_uI

marcus says

What if the federal government had NOT given women the vote? What if the federal government had not inserted itself into public school integration questions?

Once again... We're not talking about providing or denying any rights... Not you and me at least - we are on the same page. And certainly the federal government DID insert itself into issues like integration before... It was the states that defied the federal government on issues like slavery, NOT the federal government that lead the way.

Do you really believe that validity for a "marriage" should come from the federal government? Do you really think that the Federal government providing completely equal rights to gays in all respects including what is typically under the construct of marriage, but without defining "marriage" itself (meaning that it does not define what it is, and does not define what it isnt) is literally the same as denying someone the right to vote, or denying someone the right to use the same water fountain?

marcus says

This is just wrong. IF it were true, there would be a hole in the middle.

The truth is that both have been moving to the right for decades.

Only a blind insane person could disagree with this:

Yes of course, "only a blind insane person." Typical Patnet type response.... There can be no reasonable discussion or disagrement... Every issue is totally black and white.

marcus says

The typical republican in today's govt is far to the right of the typical republican in 1975.

Probably so.

marcus says

Likewise, there are far less "liberals" in the democratic party today than there were in 1975.

Really? Let's go farther back.

How would Kennedy do in today's Democratic party re. taxes?
How would FDR, or LaGuardia do in today's Democratic party re. public sector unions, etc.?

The examples are endless....

marcus says
Even you seem to define a liberal, only by what right wing social issue positions they reject.

Do I? I'm not sure where you would get that idea from. I'm pretty sure I define them in terms of economic issues as well. Phrasing it in terms of "what right wing social issue positions they reject" is an interesting and particularly partisan way of phrasing it by the way... Are you able to discuss issues without name calling, extreme bias, etc?