[Buckaroo]

This is scary. What is going on over there in England? I can't believe this is for real. I thought all the real wacky crazies were in the US. What happened to the sanity of the English?


Toddlers who turn their noses up at spicy food from overseas could be branded racists by a Government-sponsored agency.

The National Children's Bureau, which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.

This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

The guidance by the NCB is designed to draw attention to potentially-racist attitudes in youngsters from a young age.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ay-report.html

[subego]

Since we've knocked down all other forms of discrimination, discriminating taste is all that remains to fix.

[Captain Obvious]

If that kid died I would slander his memory on an internet forum to show how PC i was.

[besson3c]

Republicans assemble *blows conk shell*

Gentlemen... place your bets as to how many posts will be needed before somebody says something derogatory about liberals. Winner gets their own autographed semi-nude poster of Robert Byrd!

[Shaddim]

bess needs a break, poor sod's coconut is cracked.

[besson3c]

My coconut has been cracked for a long time, son!

[subego]

Now I want some coconut conch fritters.

Mmmmmmm.



Edit: Never mind. I see Hannity bogarted them already. Republicans can't resist a luau.

[Kerrigan]

Liberals are such crackpots. Although as Besson pointed out, that really doesn't bear repeating because stories like these speak for themselves.

[subego]

****! Limbaugh's here! Someone hide the pineapple!

[Luca Rescigno]

God, I'm so glad I live in the U.S. where we don't have Muslim organizations holding the government hostage. If they had their way, everyone in the U.K. would be forced to convert to their religion, and they would have two separate legal systems in place in order to allow them to perpetuate violent crime among the populace.

American Muslims, on the other hand, are mostly intelligent, educated people that know their rights as citizens or residents of this country, and they do not demand special exceptions from our laws.

And before you conservative wackos start pinning this all on the liberals, know that I'm a big ol' lefty myself. Then again, politics in the U.K. seem to be pretty different (what Americans would call liberals are all limp-wristed pussies over there, moreso than here).

[Chuckit]

They're also going to outlaw kitchen knives. I don't know who's in charge over there, but they're apparently even crazier than what we have over here.

[Randman]

Mad cows indeed.

[Luca Rescigno]

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Republicans assemble *blows conk shell*

Gentlemen... place your bets as to how many posts will be needed before somebody says something derogatory about liberals. Winner gets their own autographed semi-nude poster of Robert Byrd!

Why don't you address the original post rather than a snarky comment?

I saw this article earlier today and thought of posting as well. Hopefully the guidelines won't be fully implemented. How can anyone defend this?

[Randman]

How did a story about the UK get transposed so quickly to the US and right wingers?

[BRussell]

I don't know which is worse, out-of-control political correctness, or newspaper stories that try to get people all riled up by falsely stating that this group said "Toddlers who dislike spicy food are racist." The way the article is written, it's pretty clear that they were searching for a way to say what was not said at all in this report. And what was actually in the report sounds pretty uncontroversial - don't call other kids racist names, etc.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

God, I'm so glad I live in the U.S. where we don't have Muslim organizations holding the government hostage. If they had their way, everyone in the U.K. would be forced to convert to their religion

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ray-Allah.html

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

American Muslims, on the other hand, are mostly intelligent, educated people that know their rights as citizens or residents of this country, and they do not demand special exceptions from our laws.

You mean "There's not enough of them to even dare to try and impose their will. Yet"

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I don't know which is worse, out-of-control political correctness, or newspaper stories that try to get people all riled up by falsely stating that this group said "Toddlers who dislike spicy food are racist." The way the article is written, it's pretty clear that they were searching for a way to say what was not said at all in this report. And what was actually in the report sounds pretty uncontroversial - don't call other kids racist names, etc.

You've never lived in the UK and seen how these initiatives pan out, have you?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

And before you conservative wackos start pinning this all on the liberals, know that I'm a big ol' lefty myself.

Such sentiments put you decidedly in the non-lefty category, IMO.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Such sentiments put you decidedly in the non-lefty category, IMO.

That's because you're stereotyping liberals as all believing the same things on all issues. I generally agree much more with liberal than conservative politics, especially on social issues. But that doesn't mean I never cut against the grain. The main area where I disagree with most liberals is the issue of gun control (the less the better). That's unfortunate because the people I vote for often support gun control measures, but it's not an important enough issue for me to change sides.

But getting back to what I was saying, I think there's a big difference between religious tolerance and religious favoritism. Everyone who lives in a particular country must operate entirely within that country's laws, and to argue otherwise is insane. If Muslims want to practice Sharia law, they may, but it can never be a replacement for the government's justice system, and the penalties handed out through Sharia law must all be legal.

It's basically the same issue as the FLDS cult. They're free to do what they want until they start raping kids, and at that point it's the government's duty to step in and stop that from happening. They can't argue that it's "part of their religion."

Believing this doesn't make me a non-liberal, it makes me a rational person.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

That's because you're stereotyping liberals as all believing the same things on all issues. I generally agree much more with liberal than conservative politics, especially on social issues. But that doesn't mean I never cut against the grain. The main area where I disagree with most liberals is the issue of gun control (the less the better). That's unfortunate because the people I vote for often support gun control measures, but it's not an important enough issue for me to change sides.

Can I ask what Dem policy areas you do agree on?

I'm asking because a lot of the time US Dems are actually libertarians but don't realise it (due to the media machine insisting on there being only two choices).

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Can I ask what Dem policy areas you do agree on?

I'm asking because a lot of the time US Dems are actually libertarians but don't realise it (due to the media machine insisting on there being only two choices).

Ha! Sometimes I wish I were Libertarian. But I'm not. I like them, but they go a bit too far. It doesn't help that most people in their party represent such extreme viewpoints when I'd really like to see more of a middle ground.

I support the Democratic party more because I am afraid of the Republican party than because I just love the Democrats. The Republicans scare me for the following reasons:

- Deficit spending. I know McCain is saying he wants a balanced budget, and that's commendable, but given that all the Republican presidents going back to Reagan have put us in gigantic deficits, I have a hard time trusting him on this. Both parties are big spenders, with the only differences being what they want to spend the money on, and that the Democrats actually want to have the money before they spend it.

- Religion in politics. I know this isn't universal, but there are still a lot of Republicans that scare me for the amount of support they have for incorporating religion into all sorts of stuff where it shouldn't be. As an atheist, I'm just as concerned about the government promoting religion as many Christians are about the restriction of religion. There has to be a balance and a lot of Republicans are not very balanced in that regard. This also ties in to...

- Morality in politics. I don't think it's any business of the government to legislate morality. In this regard I'm actually not sure which party is responsible (probably both, to some degree), but I get the impression that the Republicans push for these laws harder than the Democrats. There are the big issues, like abortion (I'm strongly pro-choice), stem cell research (which I support), capital punishment (which I am against, though I can make a possible exception if we were to forbid it except in the case of having DNA evidence), and gay marriage (which I support). There are also small ones, mainly tying into how many politicians seem afraid of certain bedroom practices. Some states ban sex toys (who the hell does that protect?). Some ban "sodomy," the definition of which varies. Some even ban fornication. Again, no one is hurt if you decide to get a little creative with your partner, so why are these laws on the books? I'm also against most drug and prostitution laws, and I believe if those things were legal, the government could regulate them much more effectively and actually fix the root problems instead of just cracking down equally on everyone. Not that any Democrats are going to try to legalize prostitution anytime soon, but maybe someday... I doubt the Republican party will ever get there, though.

- Civil liberties. The Democratic party is schizophrenic in the way it rails against government surveillance while simultaneously promoting gun control, but the Republican party is equally schizo in how they try to push expansions of government power at the cost of individual freedoms while slapping crazy names on their bills like the "Patriot act" and the "Protect America act."

- The Bush administration. Bush has tried at every turn to disproportionately increase the power of the executive branch, because apparently he missed the 8th grade civics lesson on checks and balances. You can pretty much take every issue (other than the space program, which is a teeny-tiny issue), take the exact opposite, and that's my viewpoint. I could not find someone with more opposite political views to my own if I tried. The good thing here is that most Republicans are now moving away from the neoconservative horsesh*t that Bush brought to the front and have moved towards more traditional conservatism, which I don't love but I don't really hate either.

Economically, my views are a lot less strong but I generally support progressive taxation but at the same time free trade. I'm kind of cynical in terms of the free trade thing - I figure that it can only hurt us in the long run, because ultimately the majority of the people in the world are going to have pretty crappy lives and putting conditions on trading with other countries isn't going to stop that. It just reduces the number of jobs for those people in other parts of the world. As I mentioned earlier, I think deficit spending is irresponsible and as such I'm wary of Republicans because they seem to all do it to a huge extent. I am generally against tax cuts for large businesses because the returns from them are pretty poor - give a rich person a bunch of money and what's he going to do, share the wealth? No way, he's going to keep most of it for himself because that's how everyone thinks. On the other hand, I know from experience that small businesses are constantly getting the shaft, and neither party is going to help them no matter how much they say they will. My mom has run her own freelance business for almost 20 years. Her taxes are through the roof and so are her health insurance costs. Even though she typically makes $100,000 a year or more, she's still having lots of trouble because things cost so much.

In short, you are right that neither party is quite right for me, but the Democrats hit a lot closer to the mark than the Republicans.

[Atheist]

And getting back on topic...

...thanks Buckaroo, I needed my Daily-Dose-of-Outrage™

What's living without feeling indignant about something.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

Ha! Sometimes I wish I were Libertarian. But I'm not. I like them, but they go a bit too far. It doesn't help that most people in their party represent such extreme viewpoints when I'd really like to see more of a middle ground.

I support the Democratic party more because I am afraid of the Republican party than because I just love the Democrats. The Republicans scare me for the following reasons:

- Deficit spending. I know McCain is saying he wants a balanced budget, and that's commendable, but given that all the Republican presidents going back to Reagan have put us in gigantic deficits, I have a hard time trusting him on this. Both parties are big spenders, with the only differences being what they want to spend the money on, and that the Democrats actually want to have the money before they spend it.

- Religion in politics. I know this isn't universal, but there are still a lot of Republicans that scare me for the amount of support they have for incorporating religion into all sorts of stuff where it shouldn't be. As an atheist, I'm just as concerned about the government promoting religion as many Christians are about the restriction of religion. There has to be a balance and a lot of Republicans are not very balanced in that regard. This also ties in to...

- Morality in politics. I don't think it's any business of the government to legislate morality. In this regard I'm actually not sure which party is responsible (probably both, to some degree), but I get the impression that the Republicans push for these laws harder than the Democrats. There are the big issues, like abortion (I'm strongly pro-choice), stem cell research (which I support), capital punishment (which I am against, though I can make a possible exception if we were to forbid it except in the case of having DNA evidence), and gay marriage (which I support). There are also small ones, mainly tying into how many politicians seem afraid of certain bedroom practices. Some states ban sex toys (who the hell does that protect?). Some ban "sodomy," the definition of which varies. Some even ban fornication. Again, no one is hurt if you decide to get a little creative with your partner, so why are these laws on the books? I'm also against most drug and prostitution laws, and I believe if those things were legal, the government could regulate them much more effectively and actually fix the root problems instead of just cracking down equally on everyone. Not that any Democrats are going to try to legalize prostitution anytime soon, but maybe someday... I doubt the Republican party will ever get there, though.

- Civil liberties. The Democratic party is schizophrenic in the way it rails against government surveillance while simultaneously promoting gun control, but the Republican party is equally schizo in how they try to push expansions of government power at the cost of individual freedoms while slapping crazy names on their bills like the "Patriot act" and the "Protect America act."

- The Bush administration. Bush has tried at every turn to disproportionately increase the power of the executive branch, because apparently he missed the 8th grade civics lesson on checks and balances. You can pretty much take every issue (other than the space program, which is a teeny-tiny issue), take the exact opposite, and that's my viewpoint. I could not find someone with more opposite political views to my own if I tried. The good thing here is that most Republicans are now moving away from the neoconservative horsesh*t that Bush brought to the front and have moved towards more traditional conservatism, which I don't love but I don't really hate either.

Economically, my views are a lot less strong but I generally support progressive taxation but at the same time free trade. I'm kind of cynical in terms of the free trade thing - I figure that it can only hurt us in the long run, because ultimately the majority of the people in the world are going to have pretty crappy lives and putting conditions on trading with other countries isn't going to stop that. It just reduces the number of jobs for those people in other parts of the world. As I mentioned earlier, I think deficit spending is irresponsible and as such I'm wary of Republicans because they seem to all do it to a huge extent. I am generally against tax cuts for large businesses because the returns from them are pretty poor - give a rich person a bunch of money and what's he going to do, share the wealth? No way, he's going to keep most of it for himself because that's how everyone thinks. On the other hand, I know from experience that small businesses are constantly getting the shaft, and neither party is going to help them no matter how much they say they will. My mom has run her own freelance business for almost 20 years. Her taxes are through the roof and so are her health insurance costs. Even though she typically makes $100,000 a year or more, she's still having lots of trouble because things cost so much.

In short, you are right that neither party is quite right for me, but the Democrats hit a lot closer to the mark than the Republicans.

For some reason you're well spoken lately.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

For some reason you're well spoken lately.

Holy hell, after I posted that I realized just how long it was.

WHAT THE CRAP

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

WHAT THE CRAP

I take back that well spoken bit.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I take back that well spoken bit.

[Dork.]

Yeah, the original article is a bit over the top, and especially the bit about spicy food, but there is one nugget in there that's worth discussing:

Nurseries are encouraged to report as many incidents as possible to their local council. The guide added: "Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution. In fact, the opposite is the case."

Let's ignore the "spicy food" thing -- that's a red herring. There are still plenty of things a kid can say that appear to be racist. The thing to remember about kids (especially pre-schoolers) is that they will repeat anything they hear. If, while walking around the city with their parents, they heard some bad things, they're likely to repeat them. If we want a civil society, the proper response on the part of the parent or day care provider would be to calmly correct them, and let them know that type of language isn't polite.

So can a Brit please explain to me why these incidents need to be reported to the local council? It seems like all that does is stir up a controversy where none exists in the first place, since these kids are not saying these words out of malice, but simply because they've heard them before.

[TETENAL]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/t...ers/large.html

[Uncle Doof]

Ahhh. I had you pegged as libertarian until you typed this:

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

I generally support progressive taxation

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

So can a Brit please explain to me why these incidents need to be reported to the local council? It seems like all that does is stir up a controversy where none exists in the first place, since these kids are not saying these words out of malice, but simply because they've heard them before.

It's an incredibly complex subject if you really want to know the truth. It's social conditioning without the gulags (well, not yet anyway), but at the same time it's something else:

Since this administration came to power, they've done all kinds of things to stay in power. There's the simple stuff like redrawing constituency borders to suit themselves, but there's also something else they've been doing: Jobs for the boys.

Essentially, they've been expanding the public sector. Massively. Over 25% of the UK workforce now work for the government. And they've largely been expanding the sector via useless jobs, for example "equality co-ordinator". Under the guise of everything politically correct, they've now filled the entire country with prefects, or "hall monitors" as they may be known to you.

Upshot of this is, they've created a bunch of self-important jobs for a bunch of people who'd otherwise be cleaning toilets. Since these jobs will cease to exist if a sensible government gets into power, it's in the employees' best interests to keep voting for the idiots we have in at the moment. Bingo, job done - retention of power for the idiots.

Incidents like this will be reported to some prat on the council who would otherwise be cleaning toilets but is now working under the title of "food racism in toddlers supervisor" or something like that.

[Railroader]

The majority of kids we work with in our charity organization are minorities (did ya catch that?). A couple weeks ago my daughter (4.5 year old) was mixing up the names of two Liberian (very black skinned) girls who look quite a bit alike. They are the same size, same build, same hair style, and same very deep accents. One was named "Marina" and the other "Marie". I kept encouraging her to really look at the girls before saying a name and making sure she was using the right name for the right person. She replied "but they look so much alike". Racist? No, but I but under this guideline. She also doesn't like Liberian food after trying it numerous times. She also doesn't like barbeque (gasp!) sauce. Does that name her racist?

These kinds of things are just more attempts to allow the state to raise the child and take control out of the parents hands. Don't get me wrong, I abhor racism, but parents have the right to raise their children as long as they obey the law. And I hope law are never made about freedom of thought.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

- Religion in politics. I know this isn't universal, but there are still a lot of Republicans that scare me for the amount of support they have for incorporating religion into all sorts of stuff where it shouldn't be. As an atheist, I'm just as concerned about the government promoting religion as many Christians are about the restriction of religion. There has to be a balance and a lot of Republicans are not very balanced in that regard. This also ties in to...

- Morality in politics. I don't think it's any business of the government to legislate morality. In this regard I'm actually not sure which party is responsible (probably both, to some degree), but I get the impression that the Republicans push for these laws harder than the Democrats. There are the big issues, like abortion (I'm strongly pro-choice), stem cell research (which I support), capital punishment (which I am against, though I can make a possible exception if we were to forbid it except in the case of having DNA evidence), and gay marriage (which I support). There are also small ones, mainly tying into how many politicians seem afraid of certain bedroom practices. Some states ban sex toys (who the hell does that protect?). Some ban "sodomy," the definition of which varies. Some even ban fornication. Again, no one is hurt if you decide to get a little creative with your partner, so why are these laws on the books? I'm also against most drug and prostitution laws, and I believe if those things were legal, the government could regulate them much more effectively and actually fix the root problems instead of just cracking down equally on everyone. Not that any Democrats are going to try to legalize prostitution anytime soon, but maybe someday... I doubt the Republican party will ever get there, though.

Quiz time: Which president's signature is on the Defense of Marriage Act, which says no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state and the Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Quiz time: Which president's signature is on the Defense of Marriage Act, which says no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state and the Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states?

Guess which party controlled both houses of Congress at the time. Clinton wasn't pushing for the act — he just didn't want to veto it in an election year.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Guess which party controlled both houses of Congress at the time. Clinton wasn't pushing for the act — he just didn't want to veto it in an election year.

And his Veto would have meant squat. So he took advantage of it and signed it, even though he was against it.

[Kerrigan]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4297283.ece

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Europeans are indeed ahead of us here in the US. I say that because whatever beyond-nutty, ultra-loony, P.C gone haywire madness the Brits ever get up to, it's merely a glimpse of the very same thing in store for the US, give or take about 15 to 20 years.

The same bunch of self-important, busybody political hack nitwits we have in this country -that aren't even fit to clean toilets properly- are standing by to do their best to implement the same sort of nonsense here too.

Just give us enough time to catch up. Every nutty thing the Euros ever do, there are plenty of Americans standing by going "Oh! Oh! Can we pleeeeeease have that here too!!??!"

No worries, we'll get there.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Europeans are indeed ahead of us here in the US. I say that because whatever beyond-nutty, ultra-loony, P.C gone haywire madness the Brits ever get up to, it's merely a glimpse of the very same thing in store for the US, give or take about 15 to 20 years.

The same bunch of self-important, busybody political hack nitwits we have in this country -that aren't even fit to clean toilets properly- are standing by to do their best to implement the same sort of nonsense here too.

Just give us enough time to catch up. Every nutty thing the Euros ever do, there are plenty of Americans standing by going "Oh! Oh! Can we pleeeeeease have that here too!!??!"

No worries, we'll get there.

I had no idea conservatives had accepted the idea that they'll be wiped out in 20 years.
(Not that I actually believe that)

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I had no idea conservatives had accepted the idea that they'll be wiped out in 20 years.
(Not that I actually believe that)

I've heard Pat Buchanan express precisely this sentiment, even down to the part where you can get a preview by looking at Europe.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've heard Pat Buchanan express precisely this sentiment, even down to the part where you can get a preview by looking at Europe.

Yeah, but I don't think they actually believe it. Just a scare tactic to try and push people to their side. Parents use the same tactic when dealing with their kids.

California and Texas are two legitimate frames of reference if you want to scare people to your side.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Yeah, but I don't think they actually believe it. Just a scare tactic to try and push people to their side. Parents use the same tactic when dealing with their kids.

Well, I believed him. It was an oddly poignant moment for the McLaughlin Group. Even Eleanor Clift was a bit taken aback.

Likewise, considering how critical he's been of the Republicans, it's not an inconsistent sentiment the way it would be if had been expressed by "they" (by which I assume you mean O'Reilly/Hannity/Limbaugh etc.).

Pat might be batshit, but I don't think he's a liar.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by subego 

Pat might be batshit, but I don't think he's a liar.

Well, I guess that's the other side of the coin, then. Being crazy.

But do you think he's right?

[mattyb]

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/..._10013610.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7357435.stm

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

But do you think he's right?

Considering how badly the Republicans have sullied themselves over the past 8 years, the only thing that would stop it is the Democrats' gift for having everything stacked in their favor yet somehow still losing.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by subego 

Considering how badly the Republicans have sullied themselves over the past 8 years, the only thing that would stop it is the Democrats' gift for having everything stacked in their favor yet somehow still losing.

Interesting. I don't know, I never hear people claiming how the US, now, is like Europe 20 years ago. So why would it follow that we suddenly become Europe in the next 20?

Granted, I'm not denying that many European notions appeal to the Democrats -- quite the opposite. But the phrasing around here makes me imagine some kind of carbon copy. I just don't see that happening, at the very least in the Red States/Mid-West.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I just don't see that happening, at the very least in the Red States/Mid-West.

The Red States are afeared of being ridden over roughshod by Federalists.

Not necessarily an unfounded concern.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by subego 

The Red States are afeared of being ridden over roughshod by Federalists.

Not necessarily an unfounded concern.

Actually that follows an unspoken thought I had that I don't see State's Rights eroding to the point where the US could even become a "European Utopia".

[Uncle Doof]

In many ways, you guys are leading the way into dystopia.

For example, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008. Sounds reasonable, no? But hidden in there is a little gem of an exit tax which basically prevents you from giving up your citizenship without paying to do so. Unanimously approved by both houses too. And you thought the US had abolished slavery... No no no - you simply extended it to everyone. You're owned by your government unless you buy your freedom.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Actually that follows an unspoken thought I had that I don't see State's Rights eroding to the point where the US could even become a "European Utopia".

I would agree, but going back to my original point I'd say this is in no small part due to the Democrats' inability to get their act together and/or go for the jugular.

Don't get me wrong, the fact they don't tend to go for the jugular is one of the things that makes them tolerable in my book.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by subego 

I would agree, but going back to my original point I'd say this is in no small part due to the Democrats' inability to get their act together and/or go for the jugular.

Don't get me wrong, the fact they don't tend to go for the jugular is one of the things that makes them tolerable in my book.

Dude, lefties (i.e. Dems) never go for the jugular. They always go for "death by a thousand cuts". This is why the general population almost never sees the dystopian state being born. Boiling the frog, so to speak.