I don't hate or think them, or anyone, "evil".
Then you're on a tangent, seeing as the qualification for this not being one, which you say is exactly what you meant, specified modern political divisiveness as being caused by the right being "inherently evil".
I don't think it's a spotlight effect, but I don't think it's caused by the right itself being inherently evil (or, as a whole, inherently anything but conservative). I think it's because a lot of them are dangerously unstable, but I don't impute motive to a rabid dog. Some of them are just exploiting mania (which IS morally dubious, but I'm not singling anyone out; it's ONLY suspicion), but some seem genuinely infected by it, and IMHO that means they should be put in a rubber room, not Congress, and certainly not the White House. Not all or even most Republicans, and not even in government, but some whose removal from power should be a civic duty, if not a mission of public safety. You noted before that I haven't thrown "personal insults at" you; I try to never do that to anyone, and believe (perhaps wrongly) my statements now and in the past few days accurate: The reason I haven't directed similar ones at you is because they would not be accurate, but consider the possibility that those toward others were born of more than pique or emotional stress.
Yes, it's worse now than it was. When the VP responds to greetings in the Senate with "go f--k yourself" and House members interrupt a Presidential address to Congress by shouting, "YOU LIE!" it's bad, worse than any time I can think of since a Representative beat a Senator on the Senate floor. I think we both know how that bit of partisanship ended, and neither of us wants it repeated.
I think a lot of them are dangerous radicals catering to an unstable fringe. I further think John Boehner agrees with me; it's just so vicious now he's afraid to say so publicly. I'll keep to the fiscal policy side of that since that's what we're discussing, but it's DEFINITELY applicable in OTHER areas. Rejecting radicals who share much of your ideology isn't rejecting your principles. Disgust with their rhetoric and disagreement with their ideology doesn't mean I disagree with Palin and Bachmann on 2 and 2 being 4 (though atm I'm not sure we even do math the same way... ). Keep the ideology and we'll debate policy, but dump the radicals before they bankrupt the country.
You've got a pretty low bar for radical, and vicious one considering how you've been talking about radicals of late. At this point I'm going to recommend to you what several others have, take a break from posting on politics. Find a new hobby for a while.
An ironic statement, since that's what I'm suggesting certain Congressmen do, and why.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 31/07/2011 at 02:35:08 AM
Reid/Democrats cave, Republicans win debt ceiling debate -
25/07/2011 07:29:17 PM
- 1025 Views
Why must it always be us against them
25/07/2011 08:12:48 PM
- 536 Views
Two-party system = us vs. them
25/07/2011 09:00:31 PM
- 525 Views
fuck you
26/07/2011 03:17:04 AM
- 595 Views
HA! HA! - I think I broke moondog's mind.....
26/07/2011 04:09:59 AM
- 516 Views
it's not about support, it's about getting *some* of what you want
26/07/2011 06:31:26 AM
- 525 Views
I am only getting "some" of what I want.....
26/07/2011 03:01:28 PM
- 646 Views
when your position is intractable, don't be surprised when people refuse to work with you
26/07/2011 03:55:28 PM
- 515 Views
It generally isn't
25/07/2011 09:30:36 PM
- 559 Views
It formerly wasn't.
25/07/2011 10:22:47 PM
- 593 Views
That's mostly BS
26/07/2011 12:57:26 AM
- 643 Views
Boehner was onboard with Obamas initial deal but cited his caucus as the reason he backed out of it.
26/07/2011 01:39:06 AM
- 721 Views
I'm sorry, did I mention Boehner in my message somewhere? Or the deal?
26/07/2011 03:11:40 AM
- 542 Views
Re: I'm sorry, did I mention Boehner in my message somewhere? Or the deal?
29/07/2011 08:26:12 AM
- 678 Views
Is there some lack of understanding about 'tangent' maybe?
30/07/2011 04:57:15 AM
- 582 Views
Not at all; you stated exactly why I wasn't being tangential.
30/07/2011 12:47:08 PM
- 485 Views
You're making overtly contradictory statements now, so I think we're done
31/07/2011 01:57:37 AM
- 515 Views
Half tangent then, according to the terms you set.
31/07/2011 02:24:15 AM
- 700 Views
It's not just about his reelection. Can you imagine having this circus again next year?
25/07/2011 09:16:17 PM
- 559 Views
or he is worried that with and election coming more dems will break ranks
25/07/2011 10:00:56 PM
- 529 Views
Yeah, pretty much.
25/07/2011 10:12:03 PM
- 730 Views
Reid didn't cave as much as you might think
25/07/2011 11:58:08 PM
- 516 Views
I agree with that.
25/07/2011 11:59:41 PM
- 540 Views
to bad we have a media more interested in hyping the drama than they are in cutting through BS
26/07/2011 01:42:39 AM
- 527 Views
we need a law like they have in canada that you can't lie during a newscast
26/07/2011 03:58:38 PM
- 529 Views
Yeah, but any tax hikes, and any Dem leverage, is gone now.
26/07/2011 01:51:04 AM
- 686 Views
the tax cuts are set to expire on their own, they don't need to vote to cancel them.
26/07/2011 02:04:58 PM
- 463 Views
Yes, but they voted to extend them last winter, which you insist was the Dems fault.
27/07/2011 03:30:33 AM
- 548 Views