With such blindered responses is it any wonder the country is so divided?

Do you unbending (ok you bending ones, too ) Lib's think that all that is good in your life is the result of some Democrat?

*crickets*

Slab,

Not blindered at all. There's problems with far left liberalism in the form of 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, nanny state, and sometimes the belief that there is such a thing as a free lunch. I would have added spending like a drunken sailor, but Bushco co-opted that in the previous administration, so it isn't just liberal territory any more.

I'd identify more with conservatism if only it were conservative. The conservative propensity to interfere in social issues, contrary to their alleged "less gov't." philosophy like gay rights, abortion (if you're against them, don't get one), 1st Amendment, and the "there's no such thing as a bad defense expenditure" mentality turn me off. Then again is the pursuit of policies that favor the "have mores" or 1%ers and working to reduce if not eliminate the American middle class, and as previously mentioned destruction of the natural environment turn me off and make it hard to find a Republican worthy of support.

The upcoming governor's election may be tough. From what I know of Insley, he's pretty classic bleeding heart liberal. McKenna would likely be a significant improvement in financial management, and might be OK on environment, unless there's money to be made destroying it, in which case I expect he'll choose money. I'm not sure how he comes down on social issues, but I've heard him say a couple things that make me think he'll come down on the wrong side. I think a Republican candidate who stays out of people's bedrooms, doesn't try to re-write RvW, and values a natural environment would be a shoo-in. But then that candidate would probably be a Democrat.

Sg

Pot................kettle..................black.

Just like national politics back and forth, back and forth.

What we need is someone with fiscal responsibility and enough backbone to fund SS and medicare. Someone that is not beholden to DC lobbyists and can fight equally for us all, not just those with lobbyists, lawyers and politico's in their pockets.
Someone that can maintain the tax rates so that everyone prospers while avoiding making the US another caste society.
Someone with enough foresight to be proactive and not re-actively to the vagaries that will try and impede our progress.

These are but some of the things that this country needs, I pray to god I live long enough to see it happen!

Fishy

Aw crap.....common ground. Now doesn't that just suck?! (kidding.....I like)

What makes common ground good for policy setting anyways ? Especially when some sh1tstain like Slab Happy is standing on that ground ? The last thing anyone can say is that a phistphuck like him should have anything to say about policy making, it'd be like putting seals in charge of fish management, only the seals have a higher IQ.

The myth that 'bipartisan' is somehow good is just that, a myth, it is a logical fallacy to assume because somehow two groups agree, it is both right and proper to implement a given policy.... or that the resultant policy is appropriate in addressing the issue, or correcting the problem it was originally designed to .

In fact, as I have pointed out here many times, bipartisan has often led to poor policy decisions, and the complex tax code being one of the examples, perhaps the lowest hanging fruit of all.

The umpteen million pages of tax code are a direct result of 'bipartisan' legislation, with each side tagging on this and that to gain co-operation of one or more interest groups, thus bringing to fruition a 'bipartisan agreement', one resulting in the politicos crowing about 'common ground'.

Sometimes when I hear all this crap about 'bipartisan', and how 'good' it is, I wonder if anyone of the dolts spouting it have ever in their lives followed a piece of legislation from soup to nuts.

Yup. When your views are 100% whack job then meeting you half way still leaves a 50% whack job view.

Exactly, the list of things screwed up by wanting to be 'bipartisan' is pretty long.

Why anyone would want to compromise with the current GOP House is beyond me. They are reneging on the budget deal agreed to last summer. What makes anyone think they can be reasoned with, or have any honor ?

Do your dance, Kotex.
Noise, nothing but noise.

How are those "no compromise" relationships working for you?
Old ugly dog.....no tricks....pathetic you are.

What a fuking dolt......but that is not news, is it ?

That is a fact. But the GOP began to cast aside it's conservation legacy back in the 80's with Reagan and his appointment of James Watt as Interior secretary. Just as Nixon decided to embrace the segregationist Dixiecrats that had left the Democratic party, Reagan embraced the so-called "sagebrush rebellion" that opposed many of the conservation policies that had previously been supported by the GOP. The result is that today's GOP has repudiated and jettisoned the conservation legacy of Theodore Roosevelt.

Relk,

Don't confuse those Sleazbaggers and Repunants with facts, it goes completely against all the rhetoric coming out of their masters mouths!

Fishy

Yeah, don't pay any attention to conservatives or whatever they call themselves. We want the USSA and it's taking too long.
Vote for Barack Hussein Lenin Obama.

Well this certainly should make the teabaggers head explode!


http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/soaking-poor-state-state


Enjoy,

Fishy

Teabagger, another dumb label for those that cannot remember the
various segments of the politcal parties.
Got me a cup of Earl Gray. pretty good.

Sleazebagger= someone we would like to forget.

Another look into reality!

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph


Fishy

I sure dont. But when I think of the major governmenal initiatives the Ds sure win. Want a partial list?

Womens Right to Vote
Social Security
Civil Rights
Medicare
Peace Corps
National Health Insurance

The list is a lot longer. Show me some R accomplishments of equal weight.
Then ask if any of them would be acceptable to todays Rs. Hint EPA.

Dave,

You have forced me to investigate some. I'm not an addict on this kind of stuff, so I'll leave that to those who are.

That being said, I could find little evidence that the Republican Party, per se, has done much of anything in recent times which advocates the overall promotion of well-being of the general populace. Some of your list is also claimed by the Republican Party, however, but all of that was some time ago.
I'm on the fence as to whether that is a good thing, or a bad thing, or something of little or no importance. I know that that is a "set-up" statement, so before the opportunists jump (as many are eager to do, I'm sure......and some are probably peeing their pants in glee ), let me say this: I don't trust either Party. There are as many rich Democrats as there are rich Republicans in power positions, and that alone skews the truth to the point of un-recognizability. Knowing that either or both will willingly use misleading statements to promote themselves in politics, makes them all unbelievable. Just because something sounds good at first blush, does not necessarily make it a good thing. Even at the very ground level of consideration, doesn't one need to ask, "Can we afford it?" Considering our present mode of spending without regard to afford-ability, it seems to me to be a legitimate question. The answer is not nearly as simple as many would purport it to be, either, especially when part of the cost/benefit analysis involves questionable claims, and the effects of proposed changes.

Long story short, I guess I'm not as easily enamored as some, and am un-trusting of most forces in government when it/they reach beyond what I consider "helping". IMO, government is supposed to be there to assist, not control. I think that is consistent with my distaste for "law enforcement officers" over "peace officers".

edit: forgot to add this interesting recent article concerning recent EPA "strong-arming"....... contractors beware

Women's right to vote...A Republican wrote the 19th Amendment in 1878. It wasn't until the R's had majorities in the House and Senate in 1919 that it was passed.

Social Security...Passed with a majority of R's in favor.

Civil Rights...RNC Chairman opened the 1864 convention with a call to end slavery. The principal author of the 14th Amendment was a Republican. Republicans passed the 15th Amendment. Republicans outlawed the KKK. There was Republican Opposition to Plessy v. Ferguson in SCOTUS. In March 1875, the Republican-controlled 43rd Congress passed the most comprehensive civil rights legislation ever. In 1940, the Republican National Convention approved a plank in its platform calling for racial integration of the armed forces. FDR refused to act on it and Truman didn't integrate the services until 1948. Republicans passed the 1957 Civil Rights Act and the 1960 Civil Rights Act.

Medicare...Passed with a majority of Republican votes.

Peace Corps...Passed with a majority of Republican votes.

National Health Insurance...Republicans had the presence of mind to vote against it.

The list is a lot longer...and they would be acceptable today.

sshhhh libtards always get their panties in a crack when presented
with facts they don't like.