patrick.net

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?

indigenous says

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

The ends (and the end) justify the means.

Paralithodes says

How would Kennedy do in today's Democratic party re. taxes?

If the top rate was 90% as it was back then, then I'm sure he would do fine.

Some "conservatives" at that time were against lowering taxes then because of the risk of deficits, which we had fought to overcome (WW2 deficits).

I guess we can both agree that a lot has changed. But I find it fascinating that with the exception of certain social issues, the interests of the wealthy and corporations are now practically the one and only definition of "conservative."

As far as I can tell, the only purpose of the social issues is to get the Christianists on board so that they stand a chance of winning elections.

Chalk it up to demographics ?

marcus says

As far as I can tell, the only purpose of the social issues is to get the
Christianists on board so that they stand a chance of winning elections.

Chalk it up to demographics ?

Yup, that's the strategy, but even that strategy has not worked in the last 2 general elections.

marcus says

Paralithodes says

How would Kennedy do in today's Democratic party re. taxes?

If the top rate was 90% as it was back then, then I'm sure he would do fine.

From what I understand, Kennedy's often taken out of context. The right believes that he meant "cut taxes for rich people", when he discussed rising tides. I believe he was actually focused on the demand side of the curve, and middle to low income workers.

The co-opting of christians for the benefit of wealthy elites technically should never work as jesus had absolutely no love for the connected wealthy and money changers. In the end, it cost him his life. He did mention something to the effect how it will be easier to fit camel through the eye of the needle than for a rich person to get into heaven. Now we can debate literal/symbolic meaning of this, but it's nonetheless ironic how christianity has been coopted by the wealthy elites in united states to completely invert the message. But then again, so has buddhism with concepts of "mindfulness, paying attentiong and being present in the moment."

Arguing over which party is best is like arguing about which slaver beats you less. They clearly both suck, are clearly both owned by the wealthy, and neither represent the people in any sense.

There's one problem with America. We have completely lost control of our government.

Quigley says

We have completely lost control of our government.

Yes because clearly we are standing in lines for bread, being herded up for concentration camps, and beaten with hoses for say Obama is not our Exalted Leader. Truly this is just like Soviet Russia!

Claiming both sides are corrupted and all government is bad, is just a page the GOTP fringes ripped from Glibertopainism.

I say everyone should vote for the person they never heard of on every ballot this year.

There's way too much interest and money being spent on informing and educating everyone on who to vote for or who NOT to vote for. I say vote for the unknown. If he was important enough to be ignored by the media and too small to even register in the political noise then that is probably the best candidate for any post.

Vicente says

Quigley says

We have completely lost control of our government.

Yes because clearly we are standing in lines for bread, being herded up for concentration camps, and beaten with hoses for say Obama is not our Exalted Leader. Truly this is just like Soviet Russia!

Claiming both sides are corrupted and all government is bad, is just a page the GOTP fringes ripped from Glibertopainism.

Just because they've stolen away control doesn't mean they want to make that fact obvious! That wouldn't be nearly Machiavellian enough to hold on to power. If they made it so obvious that EVERY dipshit in America could clearly see it, they'd lose power again.
On an aside, I'm glad you're not in charge Vicente, if those are the first things you could think of doing to the people.

CaptainShuddup says

Tell me anything that you hate about Republicans the most.

No sense of humor about themselves, or anything else.

I believe my anger is properly placed. I direct it at the dems, because, if we all know that the republicans are the evil within, then the dems are the ultimate failrue for not ever offering anything of value as a counter.

Why else do you thi.nk it is that all the dem voter can ever do is bash palin and bush, joke about benghazi, and scream racism at any of the few remaining rational folk amongst us that point out all of ppaca/heritagefoundationcare failing?

If they had a point worth making, or a candidate worth backing, they would have done it by now, no?

The republicans are evil and worthless, and the dems are even more so

Bitcoins' point is well taken.

I have only slightly higher regard for Rs than Ds.

The lesson of the ages that most do not get is that conflict is caused, ALWAYS.
It is caused by those who benefit from conflict. Defense contractors, banks, politicians (most deified politicians, were deified because of war).

In this particular flavor of conflict it is politicians and lobbyists.

The back and forth between Ds and Rs is a waste of time.

Politicians ONLY care about reelection period. They get this by contributions. Until the citizens blow through this ether and TAKE responsibility for their current situation NOTHING will change, if not already too late.

How about we gang up on the I's then?
Fresh meat!

indigenous says

The back and forth between Ds and Rs is a waste of time.

SoftShell says

How about we gang up on the I's then?

Fresh meat!

How about the politicians?