Not Obstructionist At All!Follow

I'm going to go pretend to be someone else in a video game.

For lulz? It's like you think that our job on the forum is to sow the seeds of peace and solve problems.

Where else is that going to happen in today's society?

Real solution #1: convince people to stop buying in to the left/right crap.

Real solution #2: focus those same people on changing our government. Meaning, stop electing sheisters who keep stringing us along on these pointless talking points while working to line their own pockets.

At this point I don't even believe we have a multiparty system, but a bunch of high school cliques. All doing the same thing but trying to be unique about it.

Damn. Does this mean we could have impeached Bush for getting us mired in an unwinnable war against an intangible concept in an inhospitable region? Or is impeachment only for the more severe, world-shaking crimes against humanity like getting some action from that cute girl at the office?

Oh! I know! it's only for butt-hurt Republicans to use when they don't get their way and would rather bring the entire country to ruin than try to work out a compromise.

The problem is that voter "education" is often really voter "indoctrination". When your education consists of "Vote Democrat or <insert some scary thing here> will happen to you!", you're not really educating people, are you? You're just scaring them into voting the way you want. And when you take federal dollars conveniently handed to you by the very party you're "educating" people to vote for, I'd call that corruption.

Wouldn't you agree?



Why single out large corporations? Why is a chunk of change used to express political opinions bad when it's spent by a for-profit organization, but good when spent by a non-profit? It's still about speech. The people collectively represented by a corporation's money have just as much right to be heard as the people collectively represented by a non-profits money. It's completely arbitrary to treat them differently. If anything, it's more of a conflict of interest and potentially corrupt if the non-profit receives public money, isn't it?




And? This is true of all national campaigns. The Tea Party is just one organization. Are you seriously arguing that they should not support any candidate who accepts funding from any other organization at all? That seems somewhat... unfair. Do I now get to point out that Obama took more money from big oil companies, and big deep pocket corporations than his opponent did in the last election? Does that mean that you'll fight against his re-election now?

If that argument doesn't work for you, why expect it should work for anyone else? It's BS rhetoric.



No one's hiding anything. I agree that some sort of campaign reform is needed. However, it's a problem that crosses partisan lines pretty completely. It's more than unfair to hold one "side" to a higher standard than another or to use the issue of campaign finance to take cheap shots at just the other "side". It's a far far more complex issue than that, and we do it a disservice by simplifying it down to "that politician I don't like took money from <group I also don't like>".

This goes both ways. I don't know how many times I heard "If you don't vote Republican, the terrorists are going to win"

Exactly. Abortion, who needs that? Women, right? So no people are affected. It's just an unimportant scrap of meat for the plebs to squabble over.



It's nice that, despite a set of circumstances universally deemed pathetic by our culture, you've managed to convince yourself you're above both.

Let me be frank. You've fallen pretty much peg-perfect into this stereotype, so I can see why you'd want us to fall into yours, but I don't really think most of the people here are massively into politicians of either party. I guess what's saddest about this is this transformation was brought about by some eight minute video. Congrats, really. You are the youtube prophet.

In summary:

If you're trying to create and exploit loopholes in the democratic process because YOU think an agenda is harmful, then it absolutely is a bad idea. But thinking was never your strong suit, I guess.

Honestly, what needs to quit is the fucking moronic failure to acknowledge the plausible viability of EITHER side's economic policies. We don't have economics completely figured out, obviously, and pretending like half the country are rabid brainwashed loons rather than being of a different mind is childish and destructive.

I'm a liberal. I think the government can do a lot of valuable things that you can't leave up to the free market. I don't think that there can never be too many taxes, government can never be too big, spending can't be too high, etc. I just know that this implicit compromise between the left and the right that, "Fine, the left can have their spending, as long as the right gets their tax cuts," is asinine, and EITHER side being completely stubborn isn't going to accomplish anything. Representatives NEED to start promoting more centrist views.

And if it were the left that were making a policy--hell, a mission-- of stubbornly obstructing attempts at compromise, I'd be calling them out on it, too.



Frankly, those things are and should be important to everybody. You're not going to find many liberals that won't fervently insist one way nor many conservatives who don't insist the other (aside from the laughable religious examples you included, which is just depressing).

Edited, Aug 11th 2011 6:47am by Kachi

Dude, I've always wanted a timber wolf as a pet. He would hunt deer for me and we'd eat venison steaks together!

What if Obama got a ********? That'd be worth a totally non-politically-motivated impeachment process, right?

Well, it is against UCMJ ...