scary for the democrats

[annarborgator]

slide, I think it's interesting that you seem to fail to see that the issue is more fundamental than (R) or (D). It has more to do with the problem that arises when the already too powerful federal government can centralize power in its two most powerfully active branches. Any such centralization of force is inherently dangerous, which seems rather plain to see, IMO.

Thanks for at least attempting to be the voice of reason with your now patented "do you really want to go down this path?" question.

[G8RKyle]

I think everyone here knows that both parties have been screwing us. The Republican party says it stands for more of what I believe, but last
time they got elected, had the house, senate and Presidency they didn't do squat of what they promised. Now, what the Dems promise scares me.
So I lose either way.

[G8RKyle]

We somehow need to vote most of these bastard politicians out of there. Of course, the only people running
are for the most part bastard politicians. Bastards!

[AdGator02]

it seems like promises from either side aren't going to be fulfilled. it's hard to get stuff done in washington, especially with people who need to be reelected. as kyle said, both branches were republican and they weren't able to accomplish as much as republican voters would have liked.

i used to get really worked up about having the 'right' person in office or at least not having the 'wrong' one, but in reality i don't see mccain or obama doing worse than bush (yes, I know that offends some, sorry, but I think the man is a complete moron). I know people disagree with that statement, but that's why our country is great. we're all entitled to an opinion.

[RickySlade]

I share that opinion...one I did not have when it came to John Kerry.

[slideman67]

slide, I think it's interesting that you seem to fail to see that the issue is more fundamental than (R) or (D). It has more to do with the problem that arises when the already too powerful federal government can centralize power in its two most powerfully active branches. Any such centralization of force is inherently dangerous, which seems rather plain to see, IMO.

Thanks for at least attempting to be the voice of reason with your now patented "do you really want to go down this path?" question.

See, one thing we might disagree on is that I think it is the job of government to get something done. Unfortunately what we have now is a situation where party loyalty is more important than country. If we have the right people in there, something positive might get done. As opposed to now where Republicans are preventing cloture votes on many Democratic initiatives, in effect filibustering them. They have effectively been doing that for the majority of this current Congress.

And whatever we do, even if we agree to disagree, let's be sure to keep the conversation civil. I am a card carrying member of the DNC, and I have definite opinions about the Republican Party (let's just say I don't like them very much). I'd be happy to discuss them in a PM. But the last thing any of us want here is for this board to degenerate into Too Hot level idiocy.

[G8RKyle]

I disagree with you on one fundamental thing slide. I believe it is the job of government to get out of the way
to let the People get things done.

[G8rMom7]

Slide, I just wanted to let you know that I think we all have been doing a fine job of discussing political issues here in teh BA. You are always so concerned with it being like Too Hot and I have yet to see where people are bashing one another personally.

I personally think the BA has plenty of VERY intelligent and well-informed members who are both liberal and conservative (and some in the middle like AA) and as long as you can express your opinions and even sometimes facts without attacking someone personally (as we have done in this thread and others) then I fail to understand why your constant comments about the "idiocracy" of Too Hot has anything to do with it?

Are you personally able to discuss this without getting nasty toward other individuals? I would hope you could...so feel free to speak your mind. IMO.

[slideman67]

I can - its not a problem. I just know from experience that people can take things personally. I just wanted to point that out. No harm, no foul.

[G8RKyle]

I know I won't take things personal, and I don't like confrontation. I usually just say what I think, and try not to step on anyone's toes.
Everyone has their own reasons for thinking the way they do about politics. No one is going to really change someone else's mind unless
that person is open to coming around to a new way of thinking.

People in Too Hot are like the campus preacher. They will beat you over the head with something while they themselves have completely
missed the message. At least, the jerks are like that. Don't get me started on how much damage those campus preachers in Turlington
have hurt the cause of Christ, and given Christians everywhere a bad rap.

[wpfox16]

I know I won't take things personal, and I don't like confrontation. I usually just say what I think, and try not to step on anyone's toes.
Everyone has their own reasons for thinking the way they do about politics. No one is going to really change someone else's mind unless
that person is open to coming around to a new way of thinking.

People in Too Hot are like the campus preacher. They will beat you over the head with something while they themselves have completely
missed the message. At least, the jerks are like that. Don't get me started on how much damage those campus preachers in Turlington
have hurt the cause of Christ, and given Christians everywhere a bad rap.

Completely agree on both points... I can't believe that the people on too hot exist in real life... at least not like their internet personas... How could they function?

[annarborgator]

See, one thing we might disagree on is that I think it is the job of government to get something done. Unfortunately what we have now is a situation where party loyalty is more important than country. If we have the right people in there, something positive might get done. As opposed to now where Republicans are preventing cloture votes on many Democratic initiatives, in effect filibustering them. They have effectively been doing that for the majority of this current Congress.

And whatever we do, even if we agree to disagree, let's be sure to keep the conversation civil. I am a card carrying member of the DNC, and I have definite opinions about the Republican Party (let's just say I don't like them very much). I'd be happy to discuss them in a PM. But the last thing any of us want here is for this board to degenerate into Too Hot level idiocy.

Oh believe me, I think the government should get things done. The list of jobs I think the government should be responsible for is probably much shorter than yours, though. That's just a guess, given my stance compared to both parties.

I can completely understand any dislike you have for the Republican party as it currently stands. I disagree with the neocons pretty strongly and the neocons run the Republican party these days. I also disagree with the welfare state (i.e. the government takes care of citizens from cradle to grave) that our great nation has become, while the Democrats seemingly want to expand that mentality. I understand the motivations behind both parties' goals and I honestly think that many politicians (and citizens) on both sides of the aisle *believe* they have the country's best interests at heart.

That's why so many political discussions involve hurt feelings, because ultimately you are telling someone either (1) they are wrong or (2) their motivations are misguided (or both). Either of these things can be extremely difficult to express in a manner that's not taken personally. Part of the difficulty is the role played by each individual's mindset and level of security in their political beliefs and stances. I'm not very sensitive about this stuff to be honest. Given the inherent complexity in the federal government, it's easy to see that there's simply no way I can have all the answers. I do, however, employ strong rhetorical devices at times in political discussions because my ideas seem to diverge from the normal realm of today's political discourse. Given my somewhat different stances, in order for people to see that I'm serious about what I believe, strong rhetoric can become necessary. I don't attempt to employ personal attacks, although it's probably easy for my rhetoric to feel like personal attacks for someone like yourself who identifies closely with a political party. Just remember that I too believe that country must fundamentally come before any one party or idea.