Liberals Vs Conservatives

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I agree so much with this man.

Both sides betray the things that they claim to stand for and just do whatever is best for them.

Neither the left or the right appears to stand for the things that they claim to stand for, they are all just corrupt pricks.

What are your thoughts on his points?

You're right, neither the right nor the further right stand for what they claim.

However, saying that rich people should just give to the poor without waiting for the government to get involved is just naive. It ignores the internal contradictions of capitalism. The obscenely wealthy become obscenely wealthy by exploiting their workers. Instead of exploiting workers and then trying to give back that money indirectly, why not just stop the exploitation? But to stop exploitation you need everyone to stop or else your competitors will run you into the ground. That's where legislation comes in. You need to fix the inherent inequalities of capitalism.

Proposing that the rich give to the poor in the form of charity is like pumping all the blood out of someone's body, then replacing it with someone else's blood. I mean sure, the fact that you want to give something back is a good start, but you're doing it in the most harmful, roundabout way possible.

And for the last time "communist" Russia wasn't communist any more than the Democratic Rebublic of the Congo is democratic. Do you just believe any label someone chooses to apply to themselves without any critical thinking? The soviet union wasn't "too far to the left". It was just a different manifestation of the right under the guise of the left.

I applaud this ballsy and poignant video. Love it.

Only thing is, it's pretty safe and oversimplified to say "everyone's a prick". There are bright points, such as Republicans who don't care about the bible (me) and Democrats who don't constantly play the race/sex/class card in order to manipulate people.

manic_depressive13:

And for the last time "communist" Russia wasn't communist any more than the Democratic Rebublic of the Congo is democratic. Do you just believe any label someone chooses to apply to themselves without any critical thinking?

This applies to you also, you know.

Just because you claim to stand for "noble idea X" doesn't mean that you actually do anymore then the Soviets.

Hardcore_gamer:

What are your thoughts on his points?

He's kinda right, but oh my god this is such a tired opinion why are you posting it like it's new?

I actually facepalmed once I figured out the thrust of his argument:

1. Politics necessitates corruption.
2. X is a politician- he practices politics.
_______
C. X is corrupt

Which is correct, but ambiguous. It can mean that if he has 100 values, that he's sacrificed 1, 5, or all 100 in order to get into power. Conveniently, it means he can never be wrong, because these things do not exist in a binary fashion but rather on a sliding scale. It's almost certain he's had to sacrifice at least 1 value in order to get any power to enact the rest. Even if such an aim (99 values/100 achieved) is successfully achieved, the word "Corrupt" can still be applied. It's essentially a tautology.

What you are no doubt drawing from this is the following argument.

1. Practicing politics necessitates total corruption.
2. X is a politician- he practices politics.
_______
C. X is totally corrupt.

Which is clearly unsound because premise 1 is false, and so not a good argument. Probably because of that stupid phrase "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" which does not apply to any politician in any genuine Democratic country, and obviously doesn't apply to the government as a group, because it already has absolute power and is evidently not absolutely (ie 100%) corrupt.

Hardcore_gamer:

Just because you claim to stand for "noble idea X" doesn't mean that you actually do anymore then the Soviets did.

Not necessarily indeed.

But you also cannot say that he doesn't subscribe to an idea because he says he does. Because, in all likelyhood now-a-days, he probably does stand for his idea a great deal more than the soviets did for theirs, even if he's currently not having to do much about that alignment because his idea is merely a flavor of the status quo.

I can agree though, that if you want to fix Congress, you need to fix the way they're funded and paid.

That both sides of congress are Wall Street pawns, utterly submitted to the exploiter classes is nothing new.

Istvan:
That both sides of congress are Wall Street pawns, utterly submitted to the exploiter classes is nothing new.

I love it how you expect me to view them as being evil at the same time that you have STALIN as your avatar.

When a conservative is trumped in a debate they scream that you're immoral and run away. When a liberal is trumped in a debate they cry that you're ignorant and run away. Well, at least that's the way I see it.

ten.to.ten:

harmonic:
There are bright points, such as Republicans who don't care about the bible (me)

Jesus Christ. If you're the "bright point" of the Republicans (if you do say so yourself!) then they are fucked.

Yep, I am. Republicans who are socially liberal are the future of the party. So, are you going to do anything more than just pop in and ad-hom insult people?

harmonic:

ten.to.ten:

harmonic:
There are bright points, such as Republicans who don't care about the bible (me)

Jesus Christ. If you're the "bright point" of the Republicans (if you do say so yourself!) then they are fucked.

Yep, I am. Republicans who are socially liberal are the future of the party. So, are you going to do anything more than just pop in and ad-hom insult people?

Wouldn't a socially-liberal republican just be a Libertarian?

TKretts3:

Wouldn't a socially-liberal republican just be a Libertarian?

I'm careful around that word, as somehow it is associated with theocratic/authoritarian policies by hard leftists. But yeah, I'm a classical liberal. And we have to buddy up with whichever of the 2 entrenched parties whose anti-authoritarian views we prioritize the most.

harmonic:

TKretts3:

Wouldn't a socially-liberal republican just be a Libertarian?

I'm careful around that word, as somehow it is associated with theocratic/authoritarian policies by hard leftists. But yeah, I'm a classical liberal. And we have to buddy up with whichever of the 2 entrenched parties whose anti-authoritarian views we prioritize the most.

Hard leftists, in that respect, are like hard right-wingers who will call anything even remotely liberal, "Communist" or, "Socialist".

Hardcore_gamer:

manic_depressive13:

And for the last time "communist" Russia wasn't communist any more than the Democratic Rebublic of the Congo is democratic. Do you just believe any label someone chooses to apply to themselves without any critical thinking?

This applies to you also, you know.

Just because you claim to stand for "noble idea X" doesn't mean that you actually do anymore then the Soviets.

You're right, actions prove that. So if I work everyday to put myself in a position to further my own ideologies does that mean I can call myself a member of that illustrious group of anti-statists?

harmonic:

TKretts3:

Wouldn't a socially-liberal republican just be a Libertarian?

I'm careful around that word, as somehow it is associated with theocratic/authoritarian policies by hard leftists. But yeah, I'm a classical liberal. And we have to buddy up with whichever of the 2 entrenched parties whose anti-authoritarian views we prioritize the most.

I do not believe hard leftists are theocratic or authoritarian. In fact I believe all hard leftists are some strain of anarchist or anti-statist. Maybe we are working with different definitions.

Wow. This is just ignorance squared. I don't even know where to start on this. Nobody on the Left says what he's claiming they say. This is a Republican trying to trick you.

Hafrael:

harmonic:

TKretts3:

Wouldn't a socially-liberal republican just be a Libertarian?

I'm careful around that word, as somehow it is associated with theocratic/authoritarian policies by hard leftists. But yeah, I'm a classical liberal. And we have to buddy up with whichever of the 2 entrenched parties whose anti-authoritarian views we prioritize the most.

I do not believe hard leftists are theocratic or authoritarian. In fact I believe all hard leftists are some strain of anarchist or anti-statist. Maybe we are working with different definitions.

Please re-read what I said. I said Libertarians where somehow associated with theocratic/authoritarian BY LEFTISTS. Please tell me you understand now. Nobody, ever, ever, ever, has said leftists are theocratic. Ever.

By the way, the American left is rather authoritarian on all matters other than what happens in the bedroom.

Sean Renaud:
Wow. This is just ignorance squared. I don't even know where to start on this. Nobody on the Left says what he's claiming they say. This is a Republican trying to trick you.

No, this is someone thinking I said the opposite of what I actually said. And you guys accuse us of reading comprehension problems.

harmonic:
Yep, I am. Republicans who are socially liberal are the future of the party. So, are you going to do anything more than just pop in and ad-hom insult people?

Because I've seen your posts around here and I'm really scratching my head as to anything that would make you socially liberal.

ten.to.ten:

harmonic:
Yep, I am. Republicans who are socially liberal are the future of the party. So, are you going to do anything more than just pop in and ad-hom insult people?

Because I've seen your posts around here and I'm really scratching my head as to anything that would make you socially liberal.

Are you using some weird definition of socially liberal that no one has ever heard of?

What are you even talking about? Citation, substance, something that even makes sense, anything needed.

harmonic:
Are you using some weird definition of socially liberal that no one has ever heard of?

What are you even talking about? Citation, substance, something that even makes sense, anything needed.

For example you showed a belief in the arguments and thinking used by people who want abortion banned:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/528.398343.16300049

'things the left does wrong' is basically a list of things that require a belief in anti-abortion dogma to be correct, and the main point of 'things the right does wrong' (the right is also pro-choice you know, it's the US ultra-right wing that wants abortion banned) is that they fail to sell the smokescreen that's meant to justify an abortion ban.

That's hardly thinking that complies with the basic tenets of liberalism.


Captcha: identity theft

Blablahb:

harmonic:
Are you using some weird definition of socially liberal that no one has ever heard of?

What are you even talking about? Citation, substance, something that even makes sense, anything needed.

For example you showed a belief in the arguments and thinking used by people who want abortion banned:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/528.398343.16300049

'things the left does wrong' is basically a list of things that require a belief in anti-abortion dogma to be correct, and the main point of 'things the right does wrong' (the right is also pro-choice you know, it's the US ultra-right wing that wants abortion banned) is that they fail to sell the smokescreen that's meant to justify an abortion ban.

That's hardly thinking that complies with the basic tenets of liberalism.


Captcha: identity theft

So basically your argument is that you're just paranoid, and when I say I believe abortion should not be outlawed, you simply don't believe me.

What, because I don't buy into absolutely everything the same exact way YOU do, that means that I'm anti-abortion? Yeah, I see abortion as a last resort. I see the Liberal viewpoint toward unborn babies as callous. I see the Liberal attitude toward this issue as exclusively a "mother's rights" as wrong, as there is also a father and a child involved. I see the obvious use of this relatively inconsequential issue as a political wedge. But I have never said it should be illegal.

What do you have to gain from trying to prove to ME what I believe?

So, find where I said abortion should be outlawed. You can't, I win. Bugger off.

Sean Renaud:
Wow. This is just ignorance squared. I don't even know where to start on this. Nobody on the Left says what he's claiming they say. This is a Republican trying to trick you.

I guess You must have missed the part where he also said bad things about the right and even said that they were in "even worse trouble".

He didn't exactly say anything new or novel, but I have to admit, he oozes charisma. It's almost unnerving. <.<

harmonic:
So basically your argument is that you're just paranoid, and when I say I believe abortion should not be outlawed, you simply don't believe me.

No, read what is says. You asked for an example of points where you didn't take a liberal stance, and I gave you one I just happened to remember.

Blablahb:

harmonic:
So basically your argument is that you're just paranoid, and when I say I believe abortion should not be outlawed, you simply don't believe me.

No, read what is says. You asked for an example of points where you didn't take a liberal stance, and I gave you one I just happened to remember.

And you still haven't pointed to an instance where I said abortion should be outlawed. You have no case, just drop it.

I'm thinking that the accusations of particular individual ideological inclinations should be kept to IMs, while the thread is kept for discussing the points made by the video.

Ohhh the irony in the video of the OP is delicious. It's always an easy thing to condemn whatever group one sees fit that might be used to induce the rabid rage of the common mob and, of course, purely incidently channels money, power or just positive-self perception in the direction of our little tribune of the plebs. It's one of the more transparent attempts at manipulation. How was that again in the video from 4:31 onwards: "Because until we hold politicians accountable they will be vying for power and none of the problems will really get solved." and only a split-second later "Don't unsubscribe yet! We have two new mind-opening shows coming this week". Funny.

And, gosh, interest groups try to serve their own interest while maintaining positive self-perception in whatever they do? My, I would have never thought! The sad truth is, that everybody manipulates and gets manipulated all the time, even if it's just for the sake to protect their own identity or viewpoints from proper scrutiny. And this is, per se, not even a bad thing: nothing ever works without a certain amount of persuasion behind it. Societal systems cannot work without a commonly (i.e. to a significant degree) accepted set of rules which must have been established previously by directed persuasion, manipulation or coercion. The successful manipulation of interest if you like. The political process in democratic systems rely mostly on the former to built consensus and then implement whatever change or rule needs to be implemented. What the video likes to call "corruption" or the "abandoning of one's principles" is especially when dealing with a system of interests as complex as politics and administering a state a fundamental necessity. "Corruption" only becomes corruption when the decisions are made in such a regard as to favour marginal interest groups (such as himself) with utter ignorance or disrespect to the rest. This difference of scale has not been properly acknowledged in the video, nor have the differences between politicians - a gross oversimplification.

Arguably, for a politcian, occupation with such and the inevitable clash with the issues that underpin the discussions would even serve to confront the politician in question with data and proper arguments behind them, making them more adept at actually assessing and countering the problems a state faces. This is also my personal reason why I'm more inclined to trust a politician than the common person on the street or the rambling, zealous spokesmen of random tribe X who are such a common sight on the Internet.

In conclusion, there are a lot legitimate points to be made with regards to the disfunction of the american political system, but reducing said to "all politicians are totally corrupt and only we the courageous, knowledgeable masses can change that" is at best a gross oversimplification and at the worst the exact thing the video ostracizes: corruption.

Chromatic Aberration:
Ohhh the irony in the video of the OP is delicious. It's always an easy thing to condemn whatever group one sees fit that might be used to induce the rabid rage of the common mob and, of course, purely incidently channels money, power or just positive-self perception in the direction of our little tribune of the plebs. It's one of the more transparent attempts at manipulation. How was that again in the video from 4:31 onwards: "Because until we hold politicians accountable they will be vying for power and none of the problems will really get solved." and only a split-second later "Don't unsubscribe yet! We have two new mind-opening shows coming this week". Funny.

And, gosh, interest groups try to serve their own interest while maintaining positive self-perception in whatever they do? My, I would have never thought! The sad truth is, that everybody manipulates and gets manipulated all the time, even if it's just for the sake to protect their own identity or viewpoints from proper scrutiny. And this is, per se, not even a bad thing: nothing ever works without a certain amount of persuasion behind it. Societal systems cannot work without a commonly (i.e. to a significant degree) accepted set of rules which must have been established previously by directed persuasion, manipulation or coercion. The successful manipulation of interest if you like. The political process in democratic systems rely mostly on the former to built consensus and then implement whatever change or rule needs to be implemented. What the video likes to call "corruption" or the "abandoning of one's principles" is especially when dealing with a system of interests as complex as politics and administering a state a fundamental necessity. "Corruption" only becomes corruption when the decisions are made in such a regard as to favour marginal interest groups (such as himself) with utter ignorance or disrespect to the rest. This difference of scale has not been properly acknowledged in the video, nor have the differences between politicians - a gross oversimplification.

Arguably, for a politcian, occupation with such and the inevitable clash with the issues that underpin the discussions would even serve to confront the politician in question with data and proper arguments behind them, making them more adept at actually assessing and countering the problems a state faces. This is also my personal reason why I'm more inclined to trust a politician than the common person on the street or the rambling, zealous spokesmen of random tribe X who are such a common sight on the Internet.

In conclusion, there are a lot legitimate points to be made with regards to the disfunction of the american political system, but reducing said to "all politicians are totally corrupt and only we the courageous, knowledgeable masses can change that" is at best a gross oversimplification and at the worst the exact thing the video ostracizes: corruption.

The really infuriating part is that the major problem is all of us. You're right, we can be manipulated and persuaded through appeal to our emotions and our values, and because they are so intrinsic to our being, we don't always notice how easily swayed we can be. Often it's the only way people can be convinced to vote - we are not always rational beings, and with many individuals comes complexity. Conservative politicians seem to know this better than liberal politicians, and if the US Republicans or the Canadian Conservatives are any indication, they're using this flaw well: how often do we see conservatives appealing to concepts such as 'family values', or using weasel words such as 'job creators' instead of calling them what they are: rich capitalists. The trouble lies in that we sometimes convince ourselves that we can't be manipulated, that attack ads don't affect us, that we are more rational, wise, and experienced: we 'know better' than everyone else, and thus are capable of making our own decisions.

If we could not be manipulated, politicians wouldn't rely on corrupt tactics. Tactics that work continuously tend to become tactics that are used continuously. If people really want to fix the world, they should start with what they can do with themselves. Read from multiple sources, analyze the facts and opinions carefully, use skepticism towards others and your own knowledge, ask questions, don't assume you know shit about a field you have no expertise in, etc. We are all responsible for how our countries are governed - blaming only the politicians (not that they are any less responsible) is nothing more than an affirmation of our incompetence and willingness to let others run our lives for us.

Hap2:

The really infuriating part is that the major problem is all of us. You're right, we can be manipulated and persuaded through appeal to our emotions and our values, and because they are so intrinsic to our being, we don't always notice how easily swayed we can be. Often it's the only way people can be convinced to vote - we are not always rational beings, and with many individuals comes complexity. Conservative politicians seem to know this better than liberal politicians, and if the US Republicans or the Canadian Conservatives are any indication, they're using this flaw well: how often do we see conservatives appealing to concepts such as 'family values', or using weasel words such as 'job creators' instead of calling them what they are: rich capitalists. The trouble lies in that we sometimes convince ourselves that we can't be manipulated, that attack ads don't affect us, that we are more rational, wise, and experienced: we 'know better' than everyone else, and thus are capable of making our own decisions.

A small qualification: I don't think "manipulation" should be just seen as appeals to emotion. They are as well the specific use and presentation of data to foster a certain viewpoint. I'd guess it all comes down to the psychological desire to try to reduce cognitive dissonance i.e. clashes between viewpoints, social environment and apparent reality. Manipulation in such a sense is simply trying to
make reality fit to the viewpoints in such a way that this dissonance is reduced. Consider for instance a particularly empathic individual who is always reluctant to endorse measures that might lead to physical harm to other people - a pacifist if you like. Manipulation in this regard would then for instance be to paint the opposition during wartime in such a negative light that it surpasses the threshold of our person in question to endorse the use of violence. It's important to emphasize that this does not necessarily mean the construction of a straw-man as the "facts" that underpin the presentation might very well be accurate in describing the group.

This is also the reason why I'd not simply conclude that appeals to emotion should be more employed by the liberal part of the US political spectrum to successfully persuade the audience: that little optimistic and philanthropic core that I keep and protects me from descending into utter cynicism, usually tells me that reality or rather the best fit to it eventually wins out. The use of data, even with the inevitable distortion and ambivalence that goes into contested issues is always preferable, since those always imply a sort (regardless how small) of scrutiny for the conclusion. Even better, if those fit with observations done by the individuals themselves (such as gay people not being the sinful, corrupted spawns of evil that some fundamentalist Christians like to paint them as) I like to think they will be more persuasive than the alternative.

If we could not be manipulated, politicians wouldn't rely on corrupt tactics. Tactics that work continuously tend to become tactics that are used continuously.

I don't think this possibility needs to even be contemplated - like I hinted at: manipulation is part of human nature to some degree. Evilthecat put it wonderfully in another thread (I hope he doesn't mind the quote):

evilthecat:
To nail my colours to the wall on this, you seem to be arguing that language can be used to distort truth for political gain. I would argue that what is far more powerful and insidious is using language to create truth for political gain, in fact I'm creating (or re-creating) truth right now by telling you this. I'm shutting down countless alternatives, I'm rejecting countless hypotheses with every choice of words in this sentence, with the whole purpose being to enact my will upon the social world, to persuade or influence other people. If that isn't political, then what is?

Therefore those tactics will always work. The only question is the degree to which it does which depends on a variety of different structural, cultural, topical and temporal factors.

Hap2:
If people really want to fix the world, they should start with what they can do with themselves. Read from multiple sources, analyze the facts and opinions carefully, use skepticism towards others and your own knowledge, ask questions, don't assume you know shit about a field you have no expertise in, etc. We are all responsible for how our countries are governed - blaming only the politicians (not that they are any less responsible) is nothing more than an affirmation of our incompetence and willingness to let others run our lives for us.

Amen to that.

Sean Renaud:
Wow. This is just ignorance squared. I don't even know where to start on this. Nobody on the Left says what he's claiming they say. This is a Republican trying to trick you.

Im not quite sure if you're joking or not.

OT: He hasn't said anything particularly new or interesting. Though he is right that both sides can be hypocrites.

"Liberal" vs. "Conservative" is a false dichotomy and just adds up to a tribalist us vs. them mentality. People can disagree on all sorts of things, but blaming all society's problems on the so-called other side is a sure way to become blind to your own fallibility. It's very narrowminded thinking, and is part of the reason US politics is so screwed up. There are more than two ways to think about a problem. More than two sets of questions and answers. And all too often, such labels become ideological prisons, that ironically restrict freedom of thought. Can't do that, it sounds too [other side].

LetalisK:
He didn't exactly say anything new or novel, but I have to admit, he oozes charisma. It's almost unnerving. <.<

Only if your not listening. He starts off with the false equivalence that both parties are just as crazy which is demonstrably false. The closest thing the Left has to an extremist in office would probably be Elizabeth Warren who isn't a fraction as far to the Left as Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum or Hermain Cain are just to stick with Presidential Candidates. Then he brings up things like Liberals wanting equal outcomes, not equal opportunities. The video (not the OP) is a Republican trying to trick you.

MammothBlade:
"Liberal" vs. "Conservative" is a false dichotomy and just adds up to a tribalist us vs. them mentality. People can disagree on all sorts of things, but blaming all society's problems on the so-called other side is a sure way to become blind to your own fallibility. It's very narrowminded thinking, and is part of the reason US politics is so screwed up. There are more than two ways to think about a problem. More than two sets of questions and answers. And all too often, such labels become ideological prisons, that ironically restrict freedom of thought. Can't do that, it sounds too [other side].

I don't disagree with this attitude per se. However very rarely does anybody present a third (or fourth,fifth so on an so forth) option. There are the two options on the table and that's what we work with. In today's world (the last four soon to be five years) how can you be honest and not blame the other tribe? Either the Republicans are being obstructionists and thus they are clearly in the wrong or America was intentionally set up to be dysfunctional and it's their duty to deny the majority of voters their will because if you don't have 60% of the vote you didn't really win did you?

Sean Renaud:

LetalisK:
He didn't exactly say anything new or novel, but I have to admit, he oozes charisma. It's almost unnerving. <.<

Only if your not listening. He starts off with the false equivalence that both parties are just as crazy which is demonstrably false. The closest thing the Left has to an extremist in office would probably be Elizabeth Warren who isn't a fraction as far to the Left as Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum or Hermain Cain are just to stick with Presidential Candidates. Then he brings up things like Liberals wanting equal outcomes, not equal opportunities. The video (not the OP) is a Republican trying to trick you.

Except he outright said that the right is worse, didn't bring up any equal outcomes vs equal opportunities dichotomy, and his video wasn't about who is crazier, but rather about the hypocrisy in the parties. So yeah, I was listening and this Social Democrat agrees with that Republican on this issue.

Sean Renaud:

MammothBlade:
"Liberal" vs. "Conservative" is a false dichotomy and just adds up to a tribalist us vs. them mentality. People can disagree on all sorts of things, but blaming all society's problems on the so-called other side is a sure way to become blind to your own fallibility. It's very narrowminded thinking, and is part of the reason US politics is so screwed up. There are more than two ways to think about a problem. More than two sets of questions and answers. And all too often, such labels become ideological prisons, that ironically restrict freedom of thought. Can't do that, it sounds too [other side].

I don't disagree with this attitude per se. However very rarely does anybody present a third (or fourth,fifth so on an so forth) option. There are the two options on the table and that's what we work with. In today's world (the last four soon to be five years) how can you be honest and not blame the other tribe? Either the Republicans are being obstructionists and thus they are clearly in the wrong or America was intentionally set up to be dysfunctional and it's their duty to deny the majority of voters their will because if you don't have 60% of the vote you didn't really win did you?

Thank you for giving us an example of exactly what MammothBlade was talking about. Yes, the Republicans are all evil bogeymen coming to eat you. You just keep ignoring the heavy-handed incompetence, broken promises, and ideological dissonance of your own tribe, thinking it can do absolutely no wrong.

MammothBlade:
"Liberal" vs. "Conservative" is a false dichotomy and just adds up to a tribalist us vs. them mentality. People can disagree on all sorts of things, but blaming all society's problems on the so-called other side is a sure way to become blind to your own fallibility.

Problems with a first past the post voting system aside, I think you're wrong. It's quite obvious where the political problem is in regards to the US' financial trouble, and that blame falls squarely on the shoulders of one party, the republicans.

They're the ones pushing dogma in a time when that's unaffordable, and even going so far as to hold the entire US hostage to get their way. The democrats would have to work hard to pull as much shit as that.

harmonic:
Thank you for giving us an example of exactly what MammothBlade was talking about. Yes, the Republicans are all evil bogeymen coming to eat you. You just keep ignoring the heavy-handed incompetence, broken promises, and ideological dissonance of your own tribe, thinking it can do absolutely no wrong.

Now you must be being purposely obtuse. There's no way you'd have been able to miss the republican sabotage around the debt ceiling crisis, the fiscal cliff, and now the new debt ceiling crisis. They're holding the US hostage over something fairly trivial because they want to push more special privileges for their rich backers, and the citizens of the US are going to pay for that.

Not a thousand accusations thrown at the democrats can change that.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked