The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Real cost of partisanship

Sinij, we can have this devolve into a he said she said bullshit. Everytime says what about Bush, that is what is happening. The fact is Bush is out, Obama is in. It is his ship no matter how you look at it, you can no longer blame Bush.

Next on the Affordable Healthcare Act, it was passed by a dem controled congresss, senate, and white house. They only included the bare minumal so they can have fanboys sit on the side line and say see, we tried to be bipatsain, we tried to include repub ideals in it also, but it is nothing but a smoke screen. It was forced thru. No one wanted it. It is a broken peice of legsigaltion. dont forget Ohio where the voters supported unions but shot down the healthcare law. IMHO it needs to be redone, reworked, and fixed.

And lastly, I have said this before and I will say it again. Both parties are fucking us over, both parties have been lyeing to us for generations. Thier power comes from setting us against each other. We are all on the same side, the day we stop with this petty fan boy apporach for one party or anthoer, is the day we can start takeing the steps needed to return the power of this country back to people, of the people, and for the people.

Ok

Its not grandstanding when they are doing what millions of their constituents called, wrote and told them to do.


You must be joking. You claim to want civility in our discussions and then you whip out your flame thrower and proceed to liquify your credibility. Obamacare is such a "bipartisan compromise" that they couldn't even legally pass it out of the Senate without resorting to tools that are reserved for passing budgetary measures.

Senator Max Baucus takes credit for writing Obamacare and he admitted in an interview that he hasn't even read it, he "hire[s] experts" for that kind of "menial task." Whoever these "experts" are, they are obviously not Congressmen.

No, but they knew that the American people would not allow that to happen. Even their "compromise" garnered such public outcry as has seldom been heard over legislation in this country.

You're deflecting but... When have you read any of us defending Bush's spending? But just for shits and giggles, what do you propose that "check" consist of?

You're right Red, and the parties do try to keep us contentious with each other so they can do what they want while we're busy tilting at windmills.

But, and this is a pretty big but, as a people we do fundamentally disagree on the best way forward. Sinij would have the government assume control of large swaths of our lives because we're just not capable of taking care of ourselves or our neighbors. Derid would have as small a government as possible to allow us to succeed or fail by our own devices and still be big enough to protect us from outside forces. There are myriad viewpoints in between and many even on the fringes of those two.

Too often here (Derid is least likely to be guilty) we, myself included (hell, just look at my previous post), attack each other or each other's political affiliations without addressing the actual subject of debate. I think we should stop blaming the parties and start discussing what change we would like to effect and why. We should debate OUR ideas rather than the latest attempt by the politicians to keep us from thinking or looking behind the curtain. Assessing, challenging and reassessing our ideas is how we will grow and how we can truly compromise.

I have tried that in the past kaotic, even with jetstar, but alast, a conversation of that sort can happen when 2 people want to do it, with just one person, I am talking to a brick wall.

You are projecting and/or assuming your opinions are representative. As to healthcare legislature - even bill to approve rainbows and smell of fresh laundry on a sunny day would have generated "outcry" from Fox nation.

Obama's mistake was to actually attempt to follow on his election promise and to reach his hand across the isle. It got bitten.

So you make a general assumpation and statement against a whole selection of people? This is what I am talking about.

If his opinions were not representative of a larger section of the population then why the massive landslide of 2010?

A major section of the population does not like the job Obama has done, they do not like his policys. It has nothing todo with the party he is in. It has nothing todo with race.

If he had done a good job his first 4 years then I would vote for him. But he has not, he has failed. He has changed his tactics from hope and change to mud slinging. Its time to rotate the next guy/gal in. Give them 4 years, and if they fail bring in some one else. Americans want leaders not what we have at this time.

No, I'm simply recalling what was being reported on in EVERY news outlet in the country.

If you're going to continue to simply be part of the propaganda machine for the Democrat party then I'm not sure what the point is in having conversations with you. I can get that same (bullshit by the way) talking point by turning on the television.

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldnt. My point is that instead of giving them the opportunity to do so, or to not do so - the Dems have seized on the media meme of some years back painting the GOP as obstructionist and ensured that nothing can happen either way. The epitome of passive-aggressive politics.

Rhetorical grandstanding is a mainstay of both parties. Who knows what would happen today, years later, if the Dems were willing to deal? Maybe you are right and the GOP would not, maybe you aren't -honestly we will never know. I am not trying to say the GOP is awesome, but rather am pointing out that the media perception being floated is just that - a perception, and not one particularly reflective of reality.


As far as picking up the political tab for Bush spending... well, did not that happen in 08? Isnt that how we got Obama and Obamacare in the first place? If The Dems had made any effort to help the situation when they had total control, then I would be temped to agree with you. However the debts have accumulated even faster under Obama than under Bush. Obama has basically been Bush++ in most regards , not just spending. I find it hard to keep wanting to stick the GOP as a whole with the political bill when the Dems have embraced and expanded upon the same policies that got us here.

Now, if we were to get more granular and target specific Bush loving politicians during their re-election then I am all for that. Few things make me happier than seeing a Bush-flunky congresscritter get ousted during a primary by a Tea Party or Liberty candidate, even if the Dems go on to win the seat.

Also, a +1 for civility as well. I forgot to mentioned that in my quoted post.

Things are more interesting when they are civil.

We can argue until we are blue in the face as to who is more representative of the population, but lets wait until election results are in and we will know for sure.

More objective response: Both of us are not very representative because we are informed and can formulate our political opinions, majority of population is not and won't ever move past voting based on 1-2 sound bites. In effect this is failure of democracy due to apathy of broader voter base.