[kobi]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/

God I love this.

Not only is Bush going to go down as the worst president in recent history, beating Carter, Reagan and Daddy Bush.

He's bringing down the GOP with him.

Between this blow and the report coming out in September about the "troop surge" in Iraq failing........your going to see a major shift in power.

Republicans will be running away from the GOP and Bush; more than they already are.

As I've said before, the GOP can't win in 08' with our troops still in Iraq. No way won't happen.

[shinji]

They won in '04 when we were already in a war built on false pretenses, and Fahrenheit 9/11 had already had a chance to explain that to mainstream America.

While Democrats were able to win in the Congressional elections, when push comes to shove I don't think enough Americans would vote for Hillary or Obama for reasons completely separate from the War in Iraq.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by shinji 

They won in '04 when we were already in a war built on false pretenses, and Fahrenheit 9/11 had already had a chance to explain that to mainstream America.

While Democrats were able to win in the Congressional elections, when push comes to shove I don't think enough Americans would vote for Hillary or Obama for reasons completely separate from the War in Iraq.

I'm sure you meant to say they barely won.

[Chuckit]

There is no such thing as barely winning. There's winning and there's losing. The Republicans did one, the Democrats did the other. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

[OldManMac]

I see. So the tens of millions who voted Democratic have no more say in the way the country is run. I'll have to try to remember that everything is black and white.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I see. So the tens of millions who voted Democratic have no more say in the way the country is run. I'll have to try to remember that everything is black and white.

Presidential election results are black and white, yes. We don't have half-presidents. That's the way the Constitution prescribes.

[tie]

There's definitely such a thing as barely winning. The president's accountability to the country is not limited to elections. Anyway, that's OT..

Voters in 2008 will realize that all Republicans aren't as bad as Bush. So he doesn't have to bring down the party. But, for this to work, candidates need to differentiate themselves from Bush. This will mostly help, but it will also drive them away from the hard Republican base. This is that 28% who still approve of Bush, despite his lies, Iraq, Katrina, etc. etc. That number won't drop because these people will support Bush no matter what he does.

In particular, Bush has argued that opposing his Iraq "stay the course until the end of my presidency" strategy is the same as supporting the terrorists. But to win people's votes, a candidate will need a real Iraq strategy. Therefore, the candidate will be seen as a terrorist by the Republican base. Of course, they'll still vote for him -- a Republican terrorist is better than any Democrat to these people -- but without much enthusiasm.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by kobi 

As I've said before, the GOP can't win in 08' with our troops still in Iraq. No way won't happen.

Quite possible. But what is more likely is that the democrats will lose in 08 if they run a man who is half black or a woman as their candidate for president. Because while they may draw many votes and attention it would result in a failure to capture the necessary electoral votes in the plains states and the South. Its not even worth saying there's way it can happen. Your front runners are VP names at best,
Neither party would win if they run a Mormon though. As it should be.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I see. So the tens of millions who voted Democratic have no more say in the way the country is run. I'll have to try to remember that everything is black and white.

Its called the plurality system. That is how representation is determined here. If you'd be happier with a system of proportional representation I am sure Germany would be happy to have you back. But the concept of one vote one voice is a myth.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Presidential election results are black and white, yes. We don't have half-presidents. That's the way the Constitution prescribes.

While Bush was elected again, and he is the president of ALL Americans, I do not feel he is a well person. His rule (err ... presidency) is most troubling.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Quite possible. But what is more likely is that the democrats will lose in 08 if they run a man who is half black or a woman as their candidate for president. Because while they may draw many votes and attention it would result in a failure to capture the necessary electoral votes in the plains states and the South. Its not even worth saying there's way it can happen. Your front runners are VP names at best,
Neither party would win if they run a Mormon though. As it should be.

Yeah, the nation was being relatively open-minded when we elected a Catholic president (our first and last one) in the '60s. It's asking a bit much of people to run a black man, a woman of any race or a Mormon.

[houstonmacbro]

So are you saying you're not open-minded enough to vote for someone of those stripes? Or the country isn't?

[Chuckit]

The country isn't. I wasn't actually old enough (or born enough) to vote in the '60s either.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Its called the plurality system. That is how representation is determined here. If you'd be happier with a system of proportional representation I am sure Germany would be happy to have you back. But the concept of one vote one voice is a myth.

I'm well aware of hour the system works. My point was that the 40+ million who voted Democrat still have a voice, and representation. Just because Bush was barely elected president, doesn't make him the defacto ruler of the U. S.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I'm well aware of hour the system works. My point was that the 40+ million who voted Democrat still have a voice, and representation. Just because Bush was barely elected president, doesn't make him the defacto ruler of the U. S.

Assuming there are enough of them in given areas, then they have representation in Congress, yes. But you seem to believe that losing by a narrow margin entitles them to more than losing by a large margin, which does not jibe with U.S. law as I know it.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Presidential election results are black and white, yes. We don't have half-presidents. That's the way the Constitution prescribes.

Actually that's not true. Originally the Vice President was the second place winner of the election, so you could actually have "half presidents" of sorts.

[Chuckit]

You had second-placers getting positions, sure, but you're smoking something if you think the vice president is half as powerful as the president.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You had second-placers getting positions, sure, but you're smoking something if you think the vice president is half as powerful as the president.

I don't think goMac was saying that the Vice-President was half as powerful, I think he was pointing out the fact that before there were running mates; the candidate who got 2nd place in the Presidential election then became the Vice-President. There used to a line of succession of some sorts, Secretary of State usually became President, Vice-President usually became President etc....

Now in the case of the Bush Administration power struggle, the Vice-President and Rove and the lobbyists are the ones calling the shots.

Bush is just the mouthpiece.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Assuming there are enough of them in given areas, then they have representation in Congress, yes. But you seem to believe that losing by a narrow margin entitles them to more than losing by a large margin, which does not jibe with U.S. law as I know it.

I don't know why you're talking about U. S. law, as it has nothing to do with my point. Just because one party wins an election doesn't mean that every one on the "losing" side is suddenly disenfranchised. Everyone has the right to make their feelings known, via contacting their representatives, and/or participating in policitcal activities, or via a number of other venues. That's how things are done, and it's one of the reasons why the Republicans lost the elections last year, and will lose the White House in the next presidential election. More people are concerned over the Iraq fiasco and the economic fallout that's it's going to cause in the near future, and the physical and emotional distress that it's causing on our military and their families, than they are about any other issue, and that's what's going to ensure that the next resident of the White House is a Democrat. The Republicans are extremely naive by catering too much to the extreme fringes of the far right (which most people realize isn't right, or correct), and they're out of touch on issues such as abortion and homosexuality and the growing disparity between the haves and the have nots, and they're going to demonstrate that displeasure by disconnecting the Republicans from power.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Just because one party wins an election doesn't mean that every one on the "losing" side is suddenly disenfranchised. Everyone has the right to make their feelings known, via contacting their representatives, and/or participating in policitcal activities, or via a number of other venues. That's how things are done, and it's one of the reasons why the Republicans lost the elections last year, and will lose the White House in the next presidential election. More people are concerned over the Iraq fiasco and the economic fallout that's it's going to cause in the near future, and the physical and emotional distress that it's causing on our military and their families, than they are about any other issue, and that's what's going to ensure that the next resident of the White House is a Democrat. The Republicans are extremely naive by catering too much to the extreme fringes of the far right (which most people realize isn't right, or correct), and they're out of touch on issues such as abortion and homosexuality and the growing disparity between the haves and the have nots, and they're going to demonstrate that displeasure by disconnecting the Republicans from power.

Really? That's what you meant when you pointed out that Bush barely won? You're going to have to be much more explicit about this sort of thing in the future, because I didn't get any of that. It sounded like you were saying Bush's margin of victory somehow affected anything.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Really? That's what you meant when you pointed out that Bush barely won? You're going to have to be much more explicit about this sort of thing in the future, because I didn't get any of that. It sounded like you were saying Bush's margin of victory somehow affected anything.

It sounds like you're saying the margin of victory in an election makes no difference for anything. That's crazy talk.

Anyway, this poll is a bit of an outlier. Most of the other head-to-head polls between the leading Repub and Dem candidates show a much more mixed picture. This should be very scary for Democrats. I believe Bush is about as unpopular as a president can get, I believe mot people reject Republican positions on most things, and yet it's not coming through in the polls for Democrats. Our leading candidates should be trouncing the leading Republican candidates, but they're not. That's not good news.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I believe mot people reject Republican positions on most things, and yet it's not coming through in the polls for Democrats. Our leading candidates should be trouncing the leading Republican candidates, but they're not. That's not good news.

This is where I think you're mistaken. Many people believe the recent elections were a referendum on conservatism which is patently untrue. Most of the country is conservative and align with traditional Republican ideals. They are angry with Republicans because the Republicans have not been acting very traditional, but this doesn't mean they're dropping conservative ideology. They'll still look to a Republican President especially with the lack of any action coming out of the new House and Senate.

Coupled with the fact that the strongest Dem runner (IMO) is black and historically Dems are 12% less likely than Republicans to vote for a black.

[besson3c]

ebuddy, there is really no way to verify the accuracy of your statements since the majority of Americans do not vote at all. Several different political scientists state that 10% of the country are ideologues, 20% are swing voters, and the rest are apolitical.

The truth, according to history, is that our collective political compass swings back and forth like a pendulum. If it is a constant that Americans are conservative, why have there been so many Democrats elected? These things are not constant, and making generalizations and pointing to numbers oversimplifies the complexity of proving what you are trying to prove.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is where I think you're mistaken. Many people believe the recent elections were a referendum on conservatism which is patently untrue. Most of the country is conservative and align with traditional Republican ideals. They are angry with Republicans because the Republicans have not been acting very traditional, but this doesn't mean they're dropping conservative ideology. They'll still look to a Republican President especially with the lack of any action coming out of the new House and Senate.

I don't know. I believe that on virtually every issue, with a few exceptions of course, Americans side with the Democratic party. Look at this page, and it shows that people agree in mostly huge proportions with the Democratic Congressional agenda, and that they have more confidence in Democrats than Republicans on virtually every issue that they believe is important. I really wasn't talking about the recent elections.

And if your theory about conservatism is true, why are the leading Republican presidential candidates liberals like Giuliani and Romney? It seems to me that, if you look at the polls, the more conservative, the less well they are doing in the Republican primary polls.

Coupled with the fact that the strongest Dem runner (IMO) is black and historically Dems are 12% less likely than Republicans to vote for a black.

Is there even a single black Republican in the House, Senate, or a Governor? Not as far as I know. If 100% of black elected officials are Democrats, and 0% are Republicans, I don't know how you get from 100% - 0% = 12%.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It sounds like you're saying the margin of victory in an election makes no difference for anything. That's crazy talk.

Explain.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy, there is really no way to verify the accuracy of your statements since the majority of Americans do not vote at all. Several different political scientists state that 10% of the country are ideologues, 20% are swing voters, and the rest are apolitical.

The truth, according to history, is that our collective political compass swings back and forth like a pendulum. If it is a constant that Americans are conservative, why have there been so many Democrats elected? These things are not constant, and making generalizations and pointing to numbers oversimplifies the complexity of proving what you are trying to prove.

Americans Conservative
Americans lean Conservative

There are a number of polls to establish this issue. Your argument assumes there is no such thing as conservative Democrats. Listen to their speeches and watch how they try to maneuver themselves to the right at election time. I don't recall hearing anything about how healthy abortions are for society, how important gay marriage is for society, how big government is good for society, or how tax increases are good for society. Your argument assumes voters make their selection only "for" something as opposed to acknowledging a host of reasons why people vote including simply voting "against" something else.

Where your point has merit is that most people are slightly right of center. Centrist candidates do well from both parties and in many cases we're simply voting for the lesser of two evils. The reason for my post was to explain to BRussell why he's not witnessing as staggering a blow-out in favor of Democrats as he had expected. I could be wrong, but evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Explain.

Oh come on. The more people you have behind you, the more support there will be for your policies, and therefore the more likely you will be to enact them.

[shinji]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Oh come on. The more people you have behind you, the more support there will be for your policies, and therefore the more likely you will be to enact them.

Well Bush barely won..twice..as has been pointed out here, and he has largely done what he was going to do anyway regardless of how much support there has been for his policies.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I don't know. I believe that on virtually every issue, with a few exceptions of course, Americans side with the Democratic party. Look at this page, and it shows that people agree in mostly huge proportions with the Democratic Congressional agenda, and that they have more confidence in Democrats than Republicans on virtually every issue that they believe is important. I really wasn't talking about the recent elections.

They agree with the Congressional agenda. Of course as I glance down the list of the agenda I see;

- Iraq
- War in Iraq
- Iraq situation
- Iraq War
- Do you want senior citizens to starve to death?
- Do you think there should be Congressional oversight
- Investigating charges of impropriety or wrong-doing by members of Congress? Which of course, has got to be liberal ideology at it's finest right? Does that include their own now?

- I also like how discouraging "lobbying" is an exclusively Democratic or Liberal ideal now. I won't patronize you with the laughing face. I can see the list of hand-picked questions and polling data, plus I think you already know how pleased I am with myself.

And if your theory about conservatism is true, why are the leading Republican presidential candidates liberals like Giuliani and Romney?

They are both right of center as I mentioned before.

It seems to me that, if you look at the polls, the more conservative, the less well they are doing in the Republican primary polls.

I'm not so sure. I seem to recall a Dr. Guy (name escapes me) who basically espoused all the Dem talking points and I'm not even sure what he was doing on the stage. Again, the popular ones are right of center. I mean, we could bring up some interesting facts about Obama being a centrist also. Lieberman has also done very well among his Democratic constituency against the liberal power-play and we all know how Hillary is pedaling. You can do better than this right?

Maybe not;

Is there even a single black Republican in the House, Senate,

Most Democratic right?

or a Governor? Not as far as I know. If 100% of black elected officials are Democrats, and 0% are Republicans, I don't know how you get from 100% - 0% = 12%.

I can't make any sense of what you're trying to say with the above at all. Conde, Powell, Thomas, Rod Paige...

[BRussell]

I think you can make sense of what I'm saying ebuddy. Out of the dozens of federal or statewide black elected officials, 100% are Democrats and 0% are Republicans. How can you then claim that Democrats are less likely than Republicans to vote for blacks?

And it's interesting that the "Dr. Guy" that you talk about as espousing Dem talking points was actually Ron Paul, who I think is universally recognized as the most conservative of the Republican candidates on that stage.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I think you can make sense of what I'm saying ebuddy. Out of the dozens of federal or statewide black elected officials, 100% are Democrats and 0% are Republicans. How can you then claim that Democrats are less likely than Republicans to vote for blacks?

That could just as easily reflect the proportion of candidates — if only 40% of Democrats will vote for a black man while 67% of Republicans will, but there are 25 black Democratic candidates and only 5 Republican, you'll wind up with way more elected Democrats. And last I heard, blacks actually do tend to be Democrats (no racism intended here — I'm not speculating as to why, just regurgitating stats), so that makes sense.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That could just as easily reflect the proportion of candidates — if only 40% of Democrats will vote for a black man while 67% of Republicans will, but there are 25 black Democratic candidates and only 5 Republican, you'll wind up with way more elected Democrats. And last I heard, blacks actually do tend to be Democrats (no racism intended here — I'm not speculating as to why, just regurgitating stats), so that makes sense.

That doesn't make any sense. Republicans are more likely to vote for Blacks than Democrats, but they just haven't found any to vote for? But Democrats seem to find them to vote for? And if only 40% of Dems will vote for a black candidate, how do Democrats keep electing so many blacks into office?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Conde, Powell, Thomas, Rod Paige...

...were appointed not elected.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Americans Conservative
Americans lean Conservative

There are a number of polls to establish this issue. Your argument assumes there is no such thing as conservative Democrats. Listen to their speeches and watch how they try to maneuver themselves to the right at election time. I don't recall hearing anything about how healthy abortions are for society, how important gay marriage is for society, how big government is good for society, or how tax increases are good for society. Your argument assumes voters make their selection only "for" something as opposed to acknowledging a host of reasons why people vote including simply voting "against" something else.

Where your point has merit is that most people are slightly right of center. Centrist candidates do well from both parties and in many cases we're simply voting for the lesser of two evils. The reason for my post was to explain to BRussell why he's not witnessing as staggering a blow-out in favor of Democrats as he had expected. I could be wrong, but evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

Polls are by definition snapshots. They don't provide basis to make a sweeping timeless generalization.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

That doesn't make any sense. Republicans are more likely to vote for Blacks than Democrats, but they just haven't found any to vote for? But Democrats seem to find them to vote for?

How does that scenario not make sense?

Originally Posted by BRussell 

And if only 40% of Dems will vote for a black candidate, how do Democrats keep electing so many blacks into office?

Those weren't actual numbers. I was saying that just because there are fewer black Republicans in office doesn't necessarily mean that Republicans are less willing to vote for blacks — it could just reflect the fact that there are fewer black Republicans to vote for.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Is there even a single black Republican in the House, Senate, or a Governor? Not as far as I know. If 100% of black elected officials are Democrats, and 0% are Republicans, I don't know how you get from 100% - 0% = 12%.

Their have been a few black republicans here and there.

Black candidates tend to run in predominantly black districts, which are statistically what…95% or so Democrat? Even if a black republican does manage to get some recognition they are LAMBASTED as "uncle Toms" or "not black enough" or even "race traitors" because they dare to deviate from the Official Party of Black People™.

I'm not trying to say that Republican's are more likely to vote for black candidates, I have no way of knowing that, but I don't think that it is an anti-black attitude in the Republican party as much as it is an anti-republican attitude amongst black people.

[tie]

Maybe. That's pretty speculative. Overall, the most concrete evidence -- elected politicians -- stands against ebuddy's original claim.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by tie 

Maybe. That's pretty speculative. Overall, the most concrete evidence -- elected politicians -- stands against ebuddy's original claim.

Eh, maybe a little.

I think that the anti-republicanism in the black community is well known.

As to ebuddy's claim: how many black republican candidates have any of you ever heard of? It takes a lot of courage to be black and on the right in an atmosphere where Condi is called "Bush's pet negro" and Clarence Thomas is called "Uncle Thomas". There is a social stigma and "fear of ostracism" to overcome in order to deviate from the Dems, both for the voter and any potential candidate.

[ebuddy]

We were discussing this some time ago and OAW posted a new thread to the effect of;

White Republicans 25% less likely to vote black

Then... you pop open the thread to find a quick;
white Democrats are 38 percent less likely to vote for their party's candidate if that candidate is black.

You can either ask OAW why this was important to him or consult Yale who authored the study. From the study;

Both black and white voter turnout increases up to 3 percentage points with each African-American Democratic Party candidate on the ballot, but does not increase significantly when the candidate is a black Republican. *From the below, you'll quickly find out that white Dem voters are turning out in greater numbers to oppose the black candidate.

• Whites of both the Republican and Democratic parties are less likely to vote for their parties' candidate when he or she is black, regardless of the politician.

• Nationally, white Republicans are 25 percent less likely to vote for their party's senatorial candidate when the GOP candidate is black.

• In races for the House of Representatives, white Democrats are 38 percent less likely to vote for their party's candidate if that candidate is black.

The moral of the story is that whites of both party's are less likely to vote for the black candidate of their own party. While Democrats seem to hold the monopoly on "equality", statistics show this is not so. What you have argued is "how do black candidates win elections" and the answer is; black voters. Obviously. That said, Chuckit and Smacintush have already indicated why blacks of the GOP do not experience as much success. It takes a very particular and rare black to rail against the stream and run on the GOP ticket. Folks like Alan Keyes. Loved his politics, but his delivery was too abrasive for most. The tide is turning folks, give it time. The black constituency is now starting to realize that they've been duped, bamboozled, and hornswaggled. Mezmorized by talk with little action behind it.

BTW, Did I say Dems are 12% less likely than Republicans to vote for a black? I meant to say 13%. Thanx for holding my feet to the fire on this one guys.

[BRussell]

ebuddy I vaguely remember this, but I'd like to see the study. First, you said Democrats and Republicans in general, and now you're saying whites, which I think you'd agree are extremely different when you account for the fact that 80%+ of blacks are Democrats to begin with. Second the study, if you've portrayed it accurately, compared the extremely infrequent occurrence of a black Republican candidate with the frequent occurrence of a black Democrat. That's, to put it mildly, comparing apples to oranges.

Third, and most importantly, you claimed that Democrats couldn't nominate a black man (Obama) because Democrats allegedly don't vote for blacks. But that doesn't square with all of the black elected officials who are 100% Democrat (nor with the fact that Obama is an elected senator in the first place).

And I certainly disagree that blacks are so stupid that they've been fooled by politicians. I think they know who they're voting for just as much as you do.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

ebuddy I vaguely remember this, but I'd like to see the study.

I can only find a blasted abstract of the study. I'll keep looking.

First, you said Democrats and Republicans in general, and now you're saying whites, which I think you'd agree are extremely different when you account for the fact that 80%+ of blacks are Democrats to begin with.

I never said Dems and Reps "in general", but my problem is that I didn't specify and indeed, it makes a difference. I assumed others would know which study I was referring to.

Second the study, if you've portrayed it accurately, compared the extremely infrequent occurrence of a black Republican candidate with the frequent occurrence of a black Democrat. That's, to put it mildly, comparing apples to oranges.

Given the fact that a Black running on a GOP platform is comparatively rare, I have also seen criticism of the small sampling used for the study. This in fact makes a difference. Apples to oranges? Not sure. I'm looking for the actual study also.

Third, and most importantly, you claimed that Democrats couldn't nominate a black man (Obama) because Democrats allegedly don't vote for blacks. But that doesn't square with all of the black elected officials who are 100% Democrat (nor with the fact that Obama is an elected senator in the first place).

Obama won over Keyes. Have you listened to Keyes? His problem is that he literally came off as insane. Way too abrasive. Virtually unelectable. It's tempting to infer that Obama was also "less-black" than Keyes, but that's complete speculation admittedly. I'm telling you, Obama will not be lifted up as the Democrat Presidential contender. If I'm wrong, I'll publically apologize. I have long believed that white Dems are more capable of racism than white Republicans. This study is one that intrigued me because it seems to suggest the same thing. Regardless, the white constituencies of both parties obviously have a ways to go in acceptance of blacks into mainstream politics and my point is that Dems do not hold the monopoly on 'acceptance'.

And I certainly disagree that blacks are so stupid that they've been fooled by politicians. I think they know who they're voting for just as much as you do.

I was railed on by many in a couple of other threads for twisting kobi's verbiage yet immediately, have it done to me by one who did the railing in the other thread. Right? I mean, that was you who accused me of twisting kobi's words. Please point out where I said "blacks are so stupid they've been fooled".

Originally Posted by BRussell

The most important factor, IMO it's damn close to 100%, is party affiliation.

I would say you've been bamboozled, but I'd certainly never say you're stupid. Look, in one instance you would say most Americans including most Democrats were duped on the WMDs threat that Saddam posed right? Does this necessarily mean that most Americans as well as most Democrats and Republicans are all necessarily "stupid" because they were duped by faulty intelligence? Being duped is being duped. There's a reason why I've been saying these things;

- I'm tired of racists pointing out racism
- I'm tired of homophobes pointing out homophobia
- I'm tired of xenophobes pointing out xenophobia
- I'm tired of mean-spirited people pointing out meanness
- I'm tired of capitalist pigs indicting capitalism
- I'm tired of partisan shills accusing me of being partisan
- I'm tired of people twisting my words while accusing me of twisting the words of others.

I'm tired of partisan politics and hypocrisy. I'm tired of right and left. I'm tired of divisive rhetoric for nothing more than to get the quick high five from the like-minded as if we're all a bunch of chattering gibbons. I think we're so consumed with (D) and (R) that we've entirely lost our sensibilities. I think this country is in dire need of enlightenment in general. Both parties, two heads of the same snake period.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Both parties, two heads of the same snake period.

QFT