Shared publicly  - 
 
Great overview of mental illness in Washington.
11
Randy Magruder's profile photoDavid Bicking's profile photoJose Franco's profile photoKevin O'Quinn's profile photo
70 comments
 
Sure. It's all the Republicans' fault.... The Washington Post says so. It MUST be true.
 
+Randy Magruder have you actually paid attention to politics since President Obama was elected? The GOP has gone to the complete extreme. The Democrats were at least willing to compromise on issues when the GOP had both houses and the White House, but the Republicans now refuse to compromise on anything.
 
I have paid very close attention. The Democrats' version of compromise means "surrender to us". The Democrat party is very extreme left and uncompromising.
 
You really have to live in the DailyKos/MSNBC bubble to believe that such an extreme view has any relevance to reality
 
+Randy Magruder No. The Post gives about 5,000 words why they think it's true. I read them all, and agree. Thoughts like something "must" be true because some entity or publication said so is part of the problem.
 
Google "confirmation bias" and learn. You agree with it because you are ideologically predisposed to agree with it. You won't even consider any other point of view.
 
+Randy Magruder actually I don't watch much TV anymore, but I do read a wide range of websites, including DailyKos, but I also read sites like WorldNetDaily
 
The article is full of assumptions. It states assumptions as if they are fact. And since you are already predisposed to agree with the assumptions you act as if there are "facts" in the article when a more objective person sees right through them to the underlying assumption. Learn to read more critically.
 
I bet the problem is much simpler then either would have you believe. They don't compromise because for the most part us voters don't care or pay attention.
 
Damien I avoid Fox News, MSNBC and NPR. Thanks for proving me right that you made assumptions without facts.
 
I'm going back to my Java programming and working on getting GPS working on my Transformer Prime
 
What is it with politics that makes it the touchiest subject to discuss? It's on the same level as talking about someones mom. LOL.
J Agnew
+
6
7
6
 
They are all to blame.
Didn't read article yet, just speaking generally
+Keith Mathews Your mom doesn't know squat about politics!
 
Everyone should marry a person who is their political opposite. I've found it teaches you how to see things through the eyes of your opponent and stops all the hate
 
I love how this article mentions "the rise of talk radio" "Fox News" , and "right-wing blogs" without mentioning that, prior to these institutions, the left controlled the media and propagated the party line. And then it goes on to talk about the ever-bending compromise of Democrats and the rigid Republicans... really? This is journalism? Seriously?
 
False left/right paradigm political theatrics.
 
+Damien Raine if being informed and not brainwashed by mainstream media..I'm the king of the morons. "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." ~Thomas Jefferson
 
I watched as our last President was lampooned for doing some idiotic things. He is not a stupid man, but he made many mistakes that just didn't seem fitting for a person holding that office. He was "elected" then re- elected (legitimate the second time). Next, as then-Senator Obama takes the Democrat primary to compete with McCain in the general, another unbelievably thoughtless choice by a Republican party supposedly trying to win an election, McCain and the party choose Sarah Palin for V.P.

The Republicans didn't really want McCain but they went with him because they didn't really like any of the other Republican candidates. They choose to pair him with someone so incredibly unfit to hold office that there was an impression left that they were trying to sabotage themselves. A question about newspapers sent this lady scrambling for help and they want that to have access to the White House?

The Republicans don't really want Mitt Romney. No one seems to want Mitt Romney, or Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, or the other candidates they used to keep their primary in the news. Why anyone would vote for a candidate chosen for them by their party leaders who also don't even want to support that candidate but are left with no other choice is beyond me. It doesn't make sense and I don't think they want it to make sense.

The goal of the Republican party right now is to make the job of the current President as difficult as they possibly can. Did anyone notice that the Tea Party didn't exist until President Obama was headed towards the White House? Remember how they "want their country back" and from whom they want it? Who took it? Where is it? Birth certificates? Criticism of a man because of his Christian preacher while claiming he is really a Muslim? Which is it guys? Opposing initiatives that they have supported in the past, under even the most recent Republican President? Why? Criticizing the President for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which began under the direction of the previous Republican administration with the support of the Republican congress, and neither of which were declared and budgeted for by either the administration or Congress?

These are not conservative actions. This is not respectable government. I'm lied to by damn near every politician that opens his or her mouth. They don't even speak for themselves. They need permission before they can tell you what they believe and they need to check their email to find out what they believe. Both parties.

There ARE solutions but few are truly interested. Remove corporate financing for campaigns. Businesses don't vote. People do (or should). Mandatory debates and town hall style events...moderated and unsponsored...no commercials. Contribution limits. No exceptions. No super PACs. Overall campaign spending limits that are match for all candidates. These are just some ideas. There are many more, along with many more problems not addressed, but a good start for sure.

(I wrote way to much and I'm not going to both going through to edit on my phone! Sorry for errors as I'm sure there are some... Brought to you by SwiftKey!)
 
It's interesting the set of talking points you raised, bringing up the usual bad guys and good guys from your point of view. I can't help noticing that trial lawyers and unions are not mentioned....only corporations, for example. If the whole point is to achieve one-party rule, then fine, double standards are great. Otherwise, they fail to persuade and just tell me you are speaking to people who believe just like you and won't question anything you say.
 
"This is not respectable government. I'm lied to by damn near every politician that opens his or her mouth. They don't even speak for themselves. They need permission before they can tell you what they believe and they need to check their email to find out what they believe. Both parties."

Thank you, +Jason Miller, for this part especially.
 
how about people wake up to the fact that both parties are responsible for the endless shit creek storm america has been paddling through for a decade +.
 
Actually, +Randy Magruder you can include both trial lawyers and union leadership in that. In fact, there are many more lobbying groups to mention.

I mentioned nothing about one-party rule or anything that would lead to it. I also have not specified to whom I'm speaking/writing and I welcome debate. That's the point actually. Honest debate is what we need. Not sponsored debate. I don't respect what comes out of MSNBC or Fox News. I respected the CNN of the early 1990's but not some of the useless nonsense they offer now. Not every topic has two legitimate "sides" to it.
 
Its completely ridiculous to try and put blame on one party for the terrible things going on in DC.
 
It all comes down to what the role of government should be. All the rest is just details. As I see it, the left in this country has a very activist progressive government in mind and I see that as the road to tyranny. But that's just me, I guess.... And the Republicans are just as guilty of big government.
 
".... A very activist progressive government in mind and I see that as the road to tyranny."

That comment made my day. I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

Here are a couple of simple definitions:
Progressive- a movement to greater personal freedom.

Tyranny- a state with very few personal freedoms.

Sorry if I seem condescending, I don't mean to. It just tickled me is all.
 
+John Scarrott but the current progressive government figures are reducing personal freedom and stepping on civil liberties...
 
Interestingly enough, the purpose of dropping this on G+ was to see if folks who lean right would try to distance themselves from the kooks the Post has written about, or attack those who think differently.
 
Jerry as I said you need to read the article again slowly and underline each item that is taken as a given. For instance, if you say something is extreme and you take that as a given that no one would dispute. Then you build your castle on that assumption. See where it leads
 
I'll play along.

West Comments 4.10.12 Unedited

That's referenced in the article. No one has bothered to say they don't hold those views, or that most people who registered as a republican don't agree. I'm positive most people (regardless of political affiliation) don't agree with this, yet nobody cared enough to say so. Does this man, and his belief that 78-81 members of congress are members of the communist party reflect your belief?
 
+Jerry Hildenbrand No one will move away from that because politics has become, over the past ten years, professional wrestling. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Eric Cantor make divisive statements like that because they are attempting to fire up the non-political element of their base, and they've realized the way to do that is by making outlandish statements, and playing to that bases thoughts. In most cases, it's guns, Jesus, Gays & Commies. Problem the Republican party ran into is, they fired up that sect of their party so much, that they elected a bunch of wackos last midterm, and now they are making the entire party look like a bunch of asses.

I wish I could say the Democrats were any different though, but Obama rode a wave of black voters into office, and a lot of those voters wouldn't have voted at all if he wasn't the nominee. While I think the Dems could have nominated a broomstick and trounced the Republicans in that election, it doesn't change the fact that they absolutely played to their fare left base (young college kids, CHANGE, black voters, CHANGE, HOPE, YES WE CAN).
J Agnew
+
2
3
2
 
One wingnut does not an entire party ideology make.
fwiw I'm not a Republican
 
+Andrew Martonik If that were true they would not be progressive government figures they would be regressive government figures. Calling yourself progressive doesn't make it so, much like calling Syria a democracy doesn't make it so.

For some context I'm British not American, so all I know is the Republicans are batshit insane and the democrats are just your garden variety self-interested and devious politicians.

I have to say though it does make for some very black comedy watching some borderline lunatics actually viably compete for the presidency. Scary stuff.
 
+Jason Jones I wish blacks could take credit for showing up to vote in large enough numbers to have been the deciding factor in electing the first black President to office but that just isn't what happened. Blacks talk a big game about supporting President (then-Senator) Obama but as usual did not show up in the numbers most of us might have expected. Youth voting, supposed independent voters, and otherwise uninterested voters who normally don't participate made a difference as did a lack of Republican support for whatever that McCain run was...aimless comes to mind.
 
+Jason Miller I was referring more to the fact that the Clintons were destroyed in the black vote by Obama, despite the fact that they had enjoyed huge support from that minority for years and years. And, I agree, the vote may not have been as large, but, it was absolutely larger than in previous elections. Combine that with playing up to the young voters who wanted to be part of something historic, and the catch-phrase-apalooza that went on during that election. Again, I don't think anyone could have won for the republicans in that year.
 
+Jason Jones Fair enough. Plus, Clinton kinda hurt himself in numerous ways, during and after his Presidency, especially in regard to black support. I don't mind a savvy campaigner. It is necessary in order to get the attention of people who need to be involved. All the catch-phrase heavy hope and we shall achieve and love and sing togetherness was effective.

I contrast that with what Gingrich tried to do in the southern States, basically race-baiting (debate with Juan Williams for example) or those demanding for their country to be given back. Unless, Putin, Sarkozy, or Hu have it then who is they want it back from?

Gosh, I am way too politically engaged for a Saturday!
 
I guess I'll wade in here. I've got my kevlar and fireproof suit on.

As someone who watches what actually happens in politics from various angles (and I look at news from a foreign news outlet's point of view as well), I find it amazing that anybody can look at what the Republicans have done in the last 12 years and seriously believe they have the best interest of the nation at heart.

For a recent example, Mitch McConnell said point blank, on the record, that his most important goal and his party's most important goal is to make Obama a one term president. He's followed through on that. Damn the people who're suffering due to his party's prior actions.

Take a look at the bills proposed by the Democratic party and supported by Obama, and see what actually received a vote all the way back to 2009. Bonus points - identify the policies first demanded by Republicans, then filibustered when raised for vote by Democrats. Extra credit - compare congressional filibuster performance in the last 10 years to the rest of American history, taking note of which party is filibustering. Here's a hint - both the "death panel" provision (the right to talk to your doctor about living wills) and "healthcare mandate" were Republican demands in order to get their support - and they still voted against it.

The fact that anybody in power believes that Democat = Marxist is truly frightening. Anybody who can believe Obama is both Fascist and Marxist at the same time shouldn't be allowed to have a driver's license, never mind run for office.
 
+Jason Miller I was also bringing up the way Obama campaigned to compare to the way the Republicans have campaigned. Didn't want to make it appear I was being one sided.

+David Bicking Thank you for the McConnell quote. This is my biggest issue with Republicans (and politicians in general). I don't understand how a politician can be elected by what usually ranges from a 60-40 to 70-30 split in voters from their district, and then go out and vote with the far right, or far left of their party. Yes, they are elected by the Republicans, but it's their DUTY to represent all 100% of their district. That fact in itself should make compromise unavoidable. But, neither side does that. The Republicans have embarrassed this country for the past three years by being completely irrational on every front.

However, as much as I hate to admit it, the Democrats made it possible by forcing the health care bill through. It was way too divided of an issue with the PEOPLE, and it basically handed the Republicans all the ammunition they needed to decimate the Dems during the midterm elections. Hopefully next time they'll be a little smarter about it.
 
+David Bicking

"I find it amazing that anybody can look at what the Republicans have done in the last 12 years and seriously believe they have the best interest of the nation at heart."

I find the same to be true of the Democrats. Why is my contention less valid than yours?

"For a recent example, Mitch McConnell said point blank, on the record, that his most important goal and his party's most important goal is to make Obama a one term president. He's followed through on that. Damn the people who're suffering due to his party's prior actions."

Let's dissect this interesting statement. There are two reasons I can think of he would say something like that. First, he just wants his own party to be in power to benefit himself and his buddies. This seems to be your opinion. The second, equally valid, explanation, is that he wants him to be a one-term president because he believes Obama is doing huge damage to this country, and the only way to undo it is to make him a one-term president. If you believe that the President is out to "fundamentally transform America" (his own words) and you don't WANT that "fundamental transformation" then you would be silly to do anything BUT want to see the man be a one-term President. It's not about this bill or that bill....it's about the entire ideology of what 'transformation' looks like to Obama. Then you follow it with "Damn the people who're suffering due to his party's prior actions". This gives away the whole ball game. You have already assigned prior blame for everything on one party, so pretty much anything else you type is just going to make you a partisan...not someone open to examining all sides, as you boast that you do. Not a flame, just dissecting your assumptions.

"Take a look at the bills proposed by the Democratic party and supported by Obama, and see what actually received a vote all the way back to 2009. Bonus points - identify the policies first demanded by Republicans, then filibustered when raised for vote by Democrats. Extra credit - compare congressional filibuster performance in the last 10 years to the rest of American history, taking note of which party is filibustering. Here's a hint - both the "death panel" provision (the right to talk to your doctor about living wills) and "healthcare mandate" were Republican demands in order to get their support - and they still voted against it."

Extra credit goes to you if you go back to the prior administration and look at the similar filibustering and blocking tactics used by the Democrats in Congress. Or is it only a problem when Republicans are using the tactics? I see a gross double standard in your analysis....a very serious blindness to the hypocrisy.

"The fact that anybody in power believes that Democat = Marxist is truly frightening."

Really? Define Marxism. What would you say about Obama's "We need to 'spread the wealth around' behavior? Obama's own autobiographies discuss the Marxist company he kept in his formative years, and the churches he went to. Once you decide that the government's job is to play Robin Hood with taxpayer money..how is that not Marxist? Maybe you and I have a different definition of Marxism. Instead of throwing around ad hominem attacks, please draw distinctions between the philosophies of Marx and the stated goals and platforms of the leading Democrats.

"Anybody who can believe Obama is both Fascist and Marxist at the same time shouldn't be allowed to have a driver's license, never mind run for office."

I would suggest you read the book "Liberal Fascism" for a really good refresher course about what the Left in this country thought about Italy's Fascism before WWII. It would be eye opening for you to do, but it would require putting away the cliches and the insults and doing some learning.
 
By the way, bonus points to anyone who can explain why the Senate has not brought a budget to the floor in 3 years. Why are we paying these people again?
 
+Randy Magruder It is not McConnells job to make Obama a one term president. The fact that he is allowing that goal to influence how he is voting in his office makes him unfit to govern. There are branches of government for a reason. It should be used as a check on each others power, not in a childish attempt to make the president a lame duck in order to win the next election. I understand not wanting to let laws pass that go against your basic ideology, but being absolutely unwilling to compromise out of spite and pure partisonship is unacceptable.

I realize that I will not affect your opinion anymore than you will affect mine. These elections are not won or lost at the hands of anyone commenting on these posts, because despite what any of us say, we are mostly set in our political affiliations.

At this point I would love to get vack to the days of hating each other, but still being able to compromise enough to get things passed. Unfortunately, unless we are able to term limit all govenment, thats probably not going to happen.
 
Man I hate politics, but that W.P. article sounds just like every other democratic propaganda blame everyone else, even when at a point they held majority in senate and the house the couldn't get anything done.... I'm so use to it its kind of sad.... The blame game has gotten old and in the position of power over the last 4 years you have done nothing.....
 
+Randy Magruder You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You don't want people who disagree with you to make assumptions, yet you make assumptions on what the President has in mind for "FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE." Assumptions on top of assumptions, wrapped in assumptions.

"Spread the wealth around behavior" - To borrow a favorite saying from an '80s Republican (who would be considered a liberal nowadays), "There you go again..." Do you literally think that means to take out of one's pocket to put into another?

I bet people paying their fair share is too extreme?
 
+Jeremy Huijon Look up 'filibuster' when talking about a Democratic majority in Congress "not getting anything done"
 
+Jose Franco i stand by what i said from clinton leaving a strong Economy and a weak front that allowed internal harboring of Radicalism, to the current war... Democrats dont accomplish anything, not because they cant but because they spend to much time blaming others... while obama Bounces the same issue around, Mr. chavez continues to tighten his grip on Venezuela, as for what you have stated regarding assumptions, I've been approached by any that see eye to eye with Obama, You folks wanted change well im sure you will get some kind of change....
 
+Randy Magruder , wow. just wow. I'll address a couple of your counter points and try to drop this. I can see it's not going to go anywhere good.

"I find the same to be true of the Democrats. Why is my contention less valid than yours?"

In order to answer that question, I would have to bring up a list of the bills the Democrats attempted to bring to the floor and a list of the ones the Republicans brought to the floor combined with the list of cloture votes. Now, if you believe that government should do something to help "the least of us" in times of need, you would agree with "my contention" that Republicans just don't have any interest in "the rest of us". You'd also see that even as they rant and rave about the debt, all their proposals make it worse while taking from those who need the most help. You'll have to actually look at the data for that. I can't afford to waste my time pulling it together for you.

However, I will supply one tidbit that exemplifies my point:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/29/454789/senate-republicans-protect-big-oil-subsidies-as-their-gasoline-profits-soar/

+Jason Jones put it well concerning your justification for McConnell's behavior. If you believe in the constitution and the right of citizens to choose their leaders, then you will not subvert the system. He and the other Republican leaders were all about "if you speak out against the President, you're treasonous" when Bush was president.

"Extra credit goes to you if you go back to the prior administration and look at the similar filibustering and blocking tactics used by the Democrats in Congress. Or is it only a problem when Republicans are using the tactics? I see a gross double standard in your analysis....a very serious blindness to the hypocrisy."

Sure, no problem:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-cloture-how-gop-filibuster-threats-have-changed-the-senate.php

This one doesn't have a chart, you'll have to read it. The Filibuster history starts around paragaph 4, if you're willing to read it.

For good measure, here's a very recent documentation of the filibuster hypocrisy:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204230012l

You might "see" gross double standard, but that is only because you refuse to actually look. You appear to be like the fellow in 1984 who eventually "saw" six fingers on his torturer's hand.

"Define Marxism"

Okay: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marxism

For good measure, here's "Fascism"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

The "World English Dictionary" one is pretty clear.

"Once you decide that the government's job is to play Robin Hood with taxpayer money..how is that not Marxist? Maybe you and I have a different definition of Marxism. Instead of throwing around ad hominem attacks, please draw distinctions between the philosophies of Marx and the stated goals and platforms of the leading Democrats."

You start with a "straw man" and "Poisoning the Well", and assert that this is what Obama stands for - very typical Fox tactics. Look up "ad hominem", I think you will find I didn't "attack an opponent's character rather than answering his argument." If that is what you think this is, you have larger issues.

We have a long history as a nation of helping the less fortunate. Even the bible says "what you do to the least of these, you do to me". Comparing the use of society's resources to help those in need to Marxism is wrong headed. If at the same time you agree with the Republican stance of protecting Oil/Gas company subsidies, that is hypocrisy - I hope you aren't doing that, like the Republicans in congress are.

"I would suggest you read the book "Liberal Fascism" for a really good refresher course about what the Left in this country thought about Italy's Fascism before WWII. It would be eye opening for you to do, but it would require putting away the cliches and the insults and doing some learning."

What a group of people believed 90 years ago, at a time Communism was a new experiment and had little track record, is irrelevant to today. I wouldn't claim the current Republicans are environmentalists and abolitionists because Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln had those philosophies. I would claim just the opposite due to their consistent ACTIONS of the last 40 years. Let's discuss what people are saying and doing NOW. Please refrain from the logical fallacy of "Biased Sample". However, I just might go get that book. Thanks for the suggestion.
 
+David Bicking the fact that you use links from discredited ultra left propaganda sites like ThinkProgess, Talking Points memo, and omg Media Matters pretty much demonstrates where you get your "facts". Keep on living in the echo chamber . These sites have been caught lying and distorting for so long no one takes them seriously anymore. It's as if I were using the Rush Limbaugh site, heritage and Fox News to debate with you. How would you react?
 
Guys I am punting this thread. Rereading the comments has reminded me that G+ and Facebook along with other forums and social networks are doing nothing at increasing the level of discourse nor is it persuading anyone to rethink their position. It is just pushing each side to further extremes. I'm as guilty of this as anyone else. If anyone is going to be persuaded to change their mind it will be driven from within and from one's own research, not at the point of the proverbial rhetorical gun used here. So I will respectfully disagree with those who oppose my point of view and try to resist the temptation to jump into the put again. It's just all too futile and just created stress for no reason. Adieu
 
I'll let Randy have the last word since he's ending this discussion. I have some rather pointed rebuttals of his parting shots, and will share them if people are interested. I am curious to know who discredited all these news sources I referenced. I hadn't heard about it or the lies they were all so frequently caught publishing. If any of you know, plz send me some links.
Add a comment...