The problem the GOP-faithful seem to have these days is they assume, because the news keeps reporting on the Republicans' failures, that it's a liberal bias. They never stop to consider that maybe the Republicans are actually out of control and need to be exposed.

Maybe if the Republicans moved back toward the classical conservatism that made them successful in decades past; maybe if they supported the citizens' freedom to make their own decisions about drugs, sex, religion, etc; maybe if they stopped this insane march toward Theocratic Authoritarianism; maybe then the media wouldn't have so many negative GOP stories to run.

As someone who leans toward classic conservatism on the majority of issues, it's plainly obvious to me how fucked up the GOP is. The Democrats are fucked up, too; don't get me wrong; they're just not on the same level right now. And no matter how fucked up one party gets, it doesn't justify the other party's fucked-up-ness.

She's not having a debate about the two party system here...she is talking in regards to the reality of the system we currently have.>> ^VoodooV:

Oh Rachel, so smart, but so dumb.
did it ever occur to you that the two party system is BAD. Our founders did NOT want Parties,
One party may be less bad than the other, but the system of parties is BAD. How many people, on both sides of the aisle, voted not for Obama or for Romney, they voted for democrat or republican.
Don't you see a fundamental problem with that....with the party being more important than the person...than the country.
The two party system needs to go. ban all parties. vote for the person, not the party

>> ^volumptuous:

Random Internet commenter calls Rhodes scholar dumb.
Ugh
>> ^VoodooV:
Oh Rachel, so smart, but so dumb.
did it ever occur to you that the two party system is BAD. Our founders did NOT want Parties,
One party may be less bad than the other, but the system of parties is BAD. How many people, on both sides of the aisle, voted not for Obama or for Romney, they voted for democrat or republican.
Don't you see a fundamental problem with that....with the party being more important than the person...than the country.
The two party system needs to go. ban all parties. vote for the person, not the party



Yes, because it's impossible for an educated person to say something dumb and perpetuate a system that continues to divide this nation. While I may agree with Maddow most of the time, she's still a pundit just like the others.

and to @hpqp nah, when you're electing anyone, you have to pick a person because of their character and convictions. If you're just voting on ideas, then you might as well go back to voting parties. Dem and Rep alike both represent an idea. How many people couldn't stand Mitt but voted for him anyway because he was a Rep. How many were disappointed in Obama but voted for him anyway because he was a Dem.

It's a shitty system. If you can't stand Mitt, don't vote for him, if you can't stand Obama, don't vote for him...write someone in. You have more options than just red vs blue.

Random Internet commenter calls Rhodes scholar dumb.

Ugh

>> ^VoodooV:

Oh Rachel, so smart, but so dumb.
did it ever occur to you that the two party system is BAD. Our founders did NOT want Parties,
One party may be less bad than the other, but the system of parties is BAD. How many people, on both sides of the aisle, voted not for Obama or for Romney, they voted for democrat or republican.
Don't you see a fundamental problem with that....with the party being more important than the person...than the country.
The two party system needs to go. ban all parties. vote for the person, not the party

The older I've gotten, the more importance I've placed on the character of the candidate, rather than his ideas. A candidate's ideas are the product of their advisers. I want to know if my leaders are honest or deceitful, brave or cowardly, rigid or flexible, ideological or practical. No one can fully anticipate what challenges a country will face, so you have to pick someone that you trust to tackle the unknown.

This isn't an absolute of course. I've still rejected the better man (I don't think I've voted against a major party woman) because he believed in an ideology I couldn't stomach.
>> ^hpqp:

>> ^VoodooV:
Oh Rachel, so smart, but so dumb.
did it ever occur to you that the two party system is BAD. Our founders did NOT want Parties,
One party may be less bad than the other, but the system of parties is BAD. How many people, on both sides of the aisle, voted not for Obama or for Romney, they voted for democrat or republican.
Don't you see a fundamental problem with that....with the party being more important than the person...than the country.
The two party system needs to go. ban all parties. vote for the person, not the party

No, vote for the ideas, not the person, nor the party. (but I think that's what you meant, amirite?)

>> ^VoodooV:

Oh Rachel, so smart, but so dumb.
did it ever occur to you that the two party system is BAD. Our founders did NOT want Parties,
One party may be less bad than the other, but the system of parties is BAD. How many people, on both sides of the aisle, voted not for Obama or for Romney, they voted for democrat or republican.
Don't you see a fundamental problem with that....with the party being more important than the person...than the country.
The two party system needs to go. ban all parties. vote for the person, not the party


No, vote for the ideas, not the person, nor the party. (but I think that's what you meant, amirite?)

Oh Rachel, so smart, but so dumb.

did it ever occur to you that the two party system is BAD. Our founders did NOT want Parties,

One party may be less bad than the other, but the system of parties is BAD. How many people, on both sides of the aisle, voted not for Obama or for Romney, they voted for democrat or republican.

Don't you see a fundamental problem with that....with the party being more important than the person...than the country.

The two party system needs to go. ban all parties. vote for the person, not the party

Oh Bob. Seriously, you need to improve those reading comprehension skills. My post just went right over your head, didn't it.

>> ^bobknight33:

Republicans are the party of Lincoln. Vodoov, You are correct. For once.
Democrats are the party of KKK.
One party wanted to free the slaves and the other wanted to keep them on the plantation.
Why would a Black man vote Democrat or be Democrat is beyond me.

>> ^VoodooV:
Republicans are fiscally responsible.
Another myth....BUSTED!
Republicans are the party of Lincoln.
Another myth....BUSTED!
Republican have lots of ideas
Another myth....BUSTED!

Republicans are the party of Lincoln. Vodoov, You are correct. For once.
Democrats are the party of KKK.

One party wanted to free the slaves and the other wanted to keep them on the plantation.

Why would a Black man vote Democrat or be Democrat is beyond me.



>> ^VoodooV:

Republicans are fiscally responsible.
Another myth....BUSTED!
Republicans are the party of Lincoln.
Another myth....BUSTED!
Republican have lots of ideas
Another myth....BUSTED!

SO.

two parties ? I only brought enough cake and POP for one party.

I sort of agree with TED assertion that the talk wasnt spectacular, and that it relied perhaps too much on truisms, and didnt really contribute with anything new, its basically a rich guy pleading to be taxed more.

That said, I dont understand the accusation that the talk is "Partisan". Clearly its only partisan in the context of current american politics. After all: either its true that tax breaks for the rich are creating jobs, or it isnt. What different political parties think of the matter, is irrelevant to the truth of the matter. For instance, if a global warming denier held a talk, he'd basically be pushing GOP policy, where as if someone from reality held a talk on global warming, some republicans would just accuse them of giving a "liberal hippie treehugger" talk.

As Stephen Colbert so aptly put it; "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

With TEDs logic, you could hardly give a talk on any issue relating to reality without being "partisan" then, especially when one party (Who Shall Not Be Named For Fear Of Partisanship, But Maybe You Can Guess) is half corporate propaganda tool and half superstitious, reality-denying, conspiracy-driven madhouse.

Its a bit like saying "The F-Word" really, you're technically not saying "Fuck" but we all fill in the blanks.

There's a TON wrong with the US public school system. Special-needs kids are getting lumped into classrooms where their needs aren't being met. Considering how Autism diagnosis is on an upward trend, I expect to hear more stories like this father's.

A good solution would be to train more teachers that specialize in tending to Special-needs kids. Unfortunately, one party here in the US would rather try to figure out how to get taxpayers to pay for their kid's private education instead....

It's not my list, (though it tends to be accurate) But that's exactly why I'm calling for more active moderation on this site. I'm sick of the logical fallacies. When it goes unchecked, you get people who fed up and fire back. So it cuts both ways. It stops QM from making his ad homs and it stops people from making ad homs against him. Win win.

I'm also sick of EVERY GODDAMNED THING being turned into a left v right shitfest. I consider myself to be a left leaning centrist and I think both parties are full of shit (sure I think one party is more full of shit than the other, but that's not really the point) but I think the founding fathers were right to not like parties and this two party system is killing this country.

Quite frankly though, if someone makes some quality posts, you don't earn the right to make some ad homs and otherwise make some shitty posts. if someone ad homs you, you don't get to ad hom them. It's not a tit for tat system.
>> ^Payback:

Oh, believe me, I know his "Kenyawaiian" schitck by heart. As "The Obamanation" isn't here as a participant, I guess I am just drawing too fine a line, but I have yet, in recent memory, to see QM attack someone personally for their views.
However... HE gets attacked, ad hominem, CONSTANTLY.
Also, the others on your list barely contribute BEYOND their political rhetoric. QM comes up with some brilliant, actual-lol-worthy AND NON-POLITICAL comments quite often. I guess that's his saving grace with me, his sense of humour.
>> ^VoodooV:
I'm sure I could probably find one if I looked hard enough, but it's not me that QM does his ad homs to. It's anything associated with the left or especially the man in your avatar pic. Or have you forgotten his favorite nickname for Obama? I have yet to see QM make a rational argument in regards to politics without resorting to a strawman or an ad hom or some form of logical fallacy
>> ^Payback:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^Payback:
>> ^vaire2ube:
BillO or Choggy
starring as Winstonfield_Pennypacker
as Bobknight33
Here on Psychos Of the Sift.
Don't worry kids, Quantum Mushroom is still in there as well, go figure!!

Please don't include QM with that list. Of all of them, QM doesn't argumentum ad hominem. He might be out to lunch, but it's a classy lunch.

where have you been? QM argues Ad homs all the time. It's his bread and butter.

Show me a post where he tries to deflect what you say by attacking you personally. That's what ad Hominem is. Attempting to discredit someone to win an argument, rather than debating their view.
VoodooV: I believe (place anti-rightwing-wacko argument here).
QuantumM: Your feet stink. Look everyone! VoodooV's feet stink!

Just some history of the 2 parties......Setting aside the fact the the KKK was formed by the all inclusive tent of the Democrats...to scare the southern brother who remained Republican up until the 60s.



The Democratic Party was formed in 1792, when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. It adopted its present name during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina.

Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas as their candidate, and Southern Democrats adopted a pro-slavery platform and nominated John C. Breckinridge in an election campaign that would be won by Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party. After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights.
The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control. Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.

The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats.
One of the consequences of the Democratic victories in the South was that many Southern Congressmen and Senators were almost automatically re-elected every election. Due to the importance of seniority in the U.S. Congress, Southerners were able to control most of the committees in both houses of Congress and kill any civil rights legislation. Even though Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democrat, and a relatively liberal president during the 1930s and '40s, he rarely challenged the powerfully entrenched Southern bloc. When the House passed a federal anti-lynching bill several times in the 1930s, Southern senators filibustered it to death.

Link

>> ^VoodooV:

proof that conservatives will put aside their supposed morality at the drop of a hat just to oppose a black man



So who is opposing the Black Man? Which party enslaves the Black Man today? Democrats use the welfare system which keeps many enslaved into poverty. Republicans want to help those get out and become free men and women to make free choices for themselves.

If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime. Democrats want to feed the poor fish-sticks. Republicans want to teach how to fish.

yeah it seemed all even-handed and what not, but at the end it was just an ad for Ron Paul.

The frustrating part is just...at the end of the day, you never have a guarantee. Let's argue for a moment that that somehow the far right makes a resurgence and a far right religious crackpot like Bachmann gets elected. Like the guy alludes to, I really don't think a whole lot would change. The nation just does not turn on a dime.

We've had 8 years of Bush and then we get Obama in and guess what. The nation did not turn on a dime. All those morons who went out and bought a ton of guns and ammo out of fear just wasted their money.

The same thing happened when Bush was elected. The far left was certain Roe v Wade would get overturned and abortion would become illegal. It didn't happen. All that panic and worrying for nothing.

Now i'm not saying that things wouldn't change over time if one party or the other would stay in office for a more sustained amount of time. So I'm not saying the presidency doesn't matter. But we as a nation, left and right, put way too much stock in the Office of the President. It's Congress that really has the power, but despite that, all the scrutiny goes to the President. Congress does not have their activities under a magnifying glass like the President does.

Anytime someone argues that something is going to cause a radical shift left or right, they're typically full of shit. If a change does occur, it's going to be slow and gradual. That's assuming they can even make the change.

And quite honestly, I don't mind that. It would be insanely chaotic if things shifted radically every time power changed hands. I'm OK with change being slow. It swings both ways, If we're changing for the worse, it gives us the chance to make changes before things get too bad and if we're changing for the better, then it gives a chance for the opposition to understand why it's better so that everyone can be on board.