Democrats are scrubs

[SwastikaPyle]

Public policy, I've heard, is a high-paying field, and it isn't the field that it is because it's easy. It requires, I believe, a master's degree, for one, and that is beyond the means of most people.

Furthermore, as far as simple talk goes, I believe the mere mention of government overthrow/overhaul has been designated as suspicious activity in recent years, worthy of investigation by law enforcement. Attempts to disrupt the current system, even in the form of non-violent protests, have been shut down by police and federal agents, and people have been arrested for speaking their minds publicly.

Government overthrow is a rather valid thing to investigate. Government overhaul is what Obama is actively trying to do in congress.

If you're going to make these claims, put some links up.

 

[Spelt]

fox news sucks.

 

[Dr.Brawl]

Democrats and Republicans are like Coke and Pepsi,

Republicans are right about government, keep it small, keep it efficient, keep it cheap. Fact is ALL government run programs suck now(i.e. postal service, welfare, public education). And the Democrats are right about more social issues, gays should be able to marry(why the **** can't they? It doesn't even make sense?), abortion should be legal, I should be able to smoke weed, etc etc.

Look up Congressman Bob Barr, that man should be your president.

You can't really have a fair debate without both sides, so seeing as I am a liberal ...

I agree with you there that yes both are like coke and Pepsi although there are major differences in each which I am not willing to get into.

Back onto the subject that Democrats are scrubs, really what has the republican party done recently but fill the minds of Americans that Obama is going to pull the plug, ration health care, and so on and so fourth. What the bill actually said was that if you wish to receive end of life care then you have a right to do so. The Republican is like a little kid on its birthday if it doesn't get the super ultra rare toy it wants it throws a fit. Examples currently in the Republican party if you are not on the far right, you are instantly considered to be an enemy. Fox news has horrible reporting and some anchors should be fired such as Glen Beck, who ran a skit showing him poisoning the speaker of the house. In addition to that Fox news anchors have said that they wish an other terrorist attack should happen, and that Democrats should be terrorized. Republicans, have done little to advance the helpfulness of society, hell they were against medicare, in the late 70s. Medicare takes care of a lot of senior citizens. The Republicans are only against it because, they do not want to agree with Obama, many openly have said, that if we stop him here it would be his water loo.

I agree with the Republicans that yes we should stop spending because we are currently in a huge hole and how the hell are we going to get out.

I understand that Obama is not Christ and that he is not our savior in our time of need, he has helped greatly and has put in a lot of changes recently, the closer of Guantanamo Bay, with drawing from Iraq to go fight in Afghanistan. Obama in his time as a president has done a great deal however he has not done as much as he promised.

For the social plans that someone mentioned early you know that we would have to pay to get all of those and those were put in place like school, because in the 1830s many leading politicians noticed that hey were going to a poor country without public schools and from that point we built.

As for a tangible new from of government, keep the old one and build upon like the articles of confederation, and fix the loop hole and corruption.

 

[Melomaniacal]

As a liberal democrat, I completely, 100% agree with this.

Unfortunately, my party literally does not do what it takes to win. It's frustrating.

 

[Jaedrik]

Hell... Yes...

 

[El Nino]

Government overthrow is a rather valid thing to investigate.

My point is not to argue whether or not it is valid to investigate those situations. My point is that it happens. Therefore it is difficult to start a dialogue about system reform if the proposed solution targets flaws that are so deeply embedded into the socio-political structure that it is deemed destabilizing; it then becomes a security issue.

Government overhaul is what Obama is actively trying to do in congress.

Hardly. Things like this happen every four or eight years when one party comes into power after the other. The previous administration will have set up things their own way; the new administration will tear it down, especially if it is under the other party. For instance, if a Democratic leader sets up social programs that drain public funds, the incoming Republican leader may discontinue those programs. This also applies to making changes to certain procedures and other things. It only seems like an overhaul on the surface.

In another four or eight years, depending on how things go, the changes made today may be reversed.

If you're going to make these claims, put some links up.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/fbi-actions-at-1699052-uci-questioned

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94290417

The second article isn't the complete story, but I couldn't find a more updated entry. Those arrested at the protest were initially held on terrorism charges. Those charges were later dropped for lesser crimes.

Again, my point is not to argue the validity of the investigation in the first, nor the arrests and investigation in the second. My point is that it happens, and any active form of dissent puts you on the radar.

Furthermore, the Republican party is playing hard ball, I would guess, in order to put a dent into Obama's populist appeal. The fallout of the previous administration left them in a worse position than the Democrats, so they have more reason to act out. So far, their strategies seem very desperate.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

My point is not to argue whether or not it is valid to investigate those situations. My point is that it happens. Therefore it is difficult to start a dialogue about system reform if the proposed solution targets flaws that are so deeply embedded into the socio-political structure that it is deemed destabilizing; it then becomes a security issue.

It is perfectly acceptable to talk about changing our form of government. There is a whole population of people who want to get rid of the Electoral College. There is an insane network of anarchy clubs across the country, as well as communist and socialist groups.

These are all perfectly within your rights to discuss. If the group DOES represent some kind of security risk, I think you can hardly blame the government for questioning people. Timothy McVeigh was a hardcore anarchist, and he caused the deaths of 178 people.

If you're interested in preventing these kinds of incidents, I don't think you should blame defense agencies for being suspicious of them. They are not out to stop you from even thinking about it.

Hardly. Things like this happen every four or eight years when one party comes into power after the other. The previous administration will have set up things their own way; the new administration will tear it down, especially if it is under the other party. For instance, if a Democratic leader sets up social programs that drain public funds, the incoming Republican leader may discontinue those programs. This also applies to making changes to certain procedures and other things. It only seems like an overhaul on the surface.

In another four or eight years, depending on how things go, the changes made today may be reversed.

Many, many programs set in place by presidents are often held their over time. Ever heard of the FIDC? The Fair Labor Standards Act? Social Security? It would be unthinkable to undo any of these programs, because they are necessary. Just like healthcare reform.

Universal healthcare isn't something you can just reverse like a tax cut. Once the system is in place, it's going to stay. The rest of the entire free world uses universal healthcare. Europeans laugh at us because of our current healthcare.

http://www.pluralofanecdote.com/

They laugh at us for how we let our own flesh and blood go bankrupt or die. They laugh at the way we're willing to spend billions of dollars a week on a war but the idea of spending money to keep people alive is 'socialistic.'

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/fbi-actions-at-1699052-uci-questioned

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94290417

The second article isn't the complete story, but I couldn't find a more updated entry. Those arrested at the protest were initially held on terrorism charges. Those charges were later dropped for lesser crimes.

Again, my point is not to argue the validity of the investigation in the first, nor the arrests and investigation in the second. My point is that it happens, and any active form of dissent puts you on the radar.

Furthermore, the Republican party is playing hard ball, I would guess, in order to put a dent into Obama's populist appeal. The fallout of the previous administration left them in a worse position than the Democrats, so they have more reason to act out. So far, their strategies seem very desperate.

Dissent is fine, as I've already explained above.

Try to look at things from a cop's perspective.

When your job is to look for people who are trying to overthrow the government, who would you rather search? A pro-islamic rule club? Or a soccer club?

Oh sure, we can quibble that 'they are perfectly within their rights,' (and they are), but the fact remains that if you're trying to stop people from overthrowing the government, odds are you're going to be watching groups like these.

The questions being asked are about whether the anarchist group plotted to do more than protest at the convention. Police raided the group's headquarters over the weekend. The police say they had informants in the group who reported plans to kidnap delegates and disrupt the convention.

I'm sorry, but what is wrong with this?

The police had information about a kidnapping plot. They tried to prevent it. If the cops knew about this and didn't do anything(because ANYONE is allowed to dissent), I would be pissed off. You and I rightfully would be. But you apparently think they were wrong. This is somehow an abuse of power?

I didn't see anyone in those articles get arrested or abused purely for their beliefs.

You call what the Republicans are doing 'hardball.'
I call it 'lying.'

 

[El Nino]

But you apparently think they were wrong. This is somehow an abuse of power?

Did I mistype something? I believe I specifically stated that I was not going to argue about the validity of the investigations in either case. Doing so adequately would require inside knowledge that I don't have, and if I did have that knowledge, I wouldn't be at liberty to expression my opinion on a public forum unless the investigations or trials had run their courses.

For the record though, if I empathize with one side, I also have to empathize with the other, usually in equal measure, which just puts me in a neutral state of perfectly balanced cognitive dissonance. This is assuming that I am not already, by nature of my birth, predisposed to one side rather than the other for reasons beyond my control. If you think that law enforcement agencies are forced into a corner, you're right. But so are a lot of other people.

Maybe you were looking for a heated, passionate debate? Sorry, don't know what to tell you.

Once again, my point has only been an observation that dissent draws the attention of security agencies. End point.

No established state tolerates any form of dissent that threatens the social order. Discussion is tolerated because talk is cheap, and it doesn't go anywhere. Complaints are also tolerated for the same reason. Reforms and changes are limited to what is allowed by the state, and so they are limited to surface level alterations.

As for the rest, talking will be as far as it goes as long as the state remains stable and its power base is secure. End point. No inference. No value judgment is meant by that statement as to whether the status quo is right or wrong. Because I don't f*cking know if it is or not.

Europeans laugh at us because of our current healthcare.

Lots of people laugh at us for a multitude of different reasons.

The only real issue I have with the concept of universal healthcare is the possible problem of having the state as the provider of a service that it itself also serves as the authoritative regulatory body for. When private companies are regulated by government agencies, they are subordinate to the state's authority. When the government provides a service, it has to regulate itself. I'm not sure how that would work out under the pre-existing structure in the U.S.

I call it 'lying.'

No sh*t.

EDIT:

They laugh at the way we're willing to spend billions of dollars a week on a war but the idea of spending money to keep people alive is 'socialistic.'

On the war:

The previous administration gambled on the idea that there would be high returns in having influence over the second largest oil field in the world, considering that it already has influence over the first largest. I don't know if that gamble will pay off.

I highly suspect though, that the view from ground zero has looked the same for the past twenty years, under different U.S. presidents and parties and the dictators they supplied with weapons and training.

On socialism:

The U.S. has a long motherf*cking history with communism and anything that resembles it. That history is now raising its head on multiple fronts, both internally and externally.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I think people who are really against the government and against politics are unfair. This whole process is why things work like they do in the US. Let's consider some of the facts of how things work in the US.

I have never at any point in my life considered that I would not have access to any of the following: food, clean water, climate controlled shelter (heat and air conditioning). My family is definitely in the bottom half of income in the US so it's not because I'm rich.

I have never had any weapon pointed at me, and I have never feared I would be violently attacked. I can sleep soundly at night.

Whenever I am dissatisfied about pretty much anything, I complain about it. I am free to criticize whomever I want. I have a lot of ideas that are unpopular or uncommon, and I express them often. I am not only allowed to carry on like this, but the government protects my right to do this.

Even though I don't really make much money at all compared to most people, I still have pretty much everything I need to live comfortably.

Life is great here, and it's uncommonly silly not to give our political system a lot of credit for it. Sure the government tends to run a lot of inefficient programs, and it tends to drag its feet on everything. This is by design; the government is bound in red tape to minimize its ability to restrict our freedom. If anything, I think certain branches of the government could use a little less efficiency and little more red tape...

The Democrats and the Republicans are pretty different, but it's hard to tell for some people because of the deliberate by design permanent paralysis in our government. The pessimism so many people, especially of my generation, have over a system that has always worked and continues to work as intended is always depressing...

 

[cutter]

And the Democrats are right about more social issues, gays should be able to marry(why the **** can't they? It doesn't even make sense?), abortion should be legal, I should be able to smoke weed, etc etc.

This is where liberals and conservatives are pretty much backwards when it comes to social issues like this.

You would expect liberals to be against legalizing weed, for banning gay marriage, and for banning abortion because liberals want increased government action (ie, government telling what you can and can't do).

Consequently, you would expect conservatives to be for legalizing weed, for allowing gay marriage, and for women to have the right to have an abortion because conservatives want the government to meddle in our lives in the least amount possible.

Oh well. I guess that's where morality and ethics come in.