Rand Paul

[Tery]

This is a symptom of what American politics has come to. Basically the equivalent of college football. You have half the people rooting for one team, and the other half rooting for the other team. When things go bad, half the people blame the "other team", and when things are good, they heap praise upon "their team". Supporters of political parties give "their party" a pass when they do something that they normally would have been up in arms about if the "other team" did it. And shows like The O'Reilley Factor, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence ODonnel.. they are like the political version of ESPN sports programs (the more inane, annoying, juveline ones).

Plenty of Bush supporters gave Bush a free pass on the Patriot Act, drones, wiretaps, spening us into more debt... but only became against those things when Obama did them. I mean, really.. where was The Tea Party protesting Bush's trillion dollar tab in Iraq.

Same goes for Democrats who were against Bush and the Patriot Act, but turn a blind eye to Obama and his NDAA (as well as his renewal of the Patriot Act). I guarantee you, if the drone program had grown under Bush to the size it has under Obama, Democrats would have been up in arms. Now they are like... meh...

I am not perfect, but I stay close to my principles, which is why I pretty much despise most politicians in both parties

I think Ill go talk about SK now!

Well, I will give you most of your point. However, there were some Republicans who weren't very happy with some of the stuff Bush did just as there are some Dems (me included) who are having problems with some of the things Obama is doing.

But to say that there is no difference between the two parties (which is not the way it should be but that's beside the point in this case) is simply not true. The biggest difference is that one party despises the social safety nets that the other has put into place and has been trying to destroy them from the moment they were brought up, let alone when they were signed into law. One party believes that government can actually do some things that are important and do them well while the other says they hate government... yet they still want to be part of it. Go figure. One party believes that unions are an important way to protect workers, the other is only interested in protecting corporations. One party believes that a woman's reproductive health is between her and her doctor, the other wants to legislate forced birth (while complaining about "Big" government all the while. Hmmm...) Do I need to continue?

Perhaps it's best to read the two party platforms: http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/files/...s-Compared.pdf You know, compare them.

Are there Democrats who are in the pocket of lobbyists, who don't care about anything other than their bottom line? Oh, yes. (Looking at you, Mary Landrieu) Are there Republicans who care about their constituents? I can't think of any offhand but, yes, there must be. The thing is, with few exceptions, one party is for the 98% of Americans who don't make a million dollars a year. The other gets paid by that 2%.

So, no, the two parties are NOT the same.

And BTW, Rachel Maddow is not the same as Bill O'Reilly. One has only to fact-check both shows and the difference is clear. Rachel might focus on things that concern liberals - as O'Reilly does for conservatives - but the difference is that Rachel does not lie. I dare you - I double dog dare you - to find a deliberate lie spoken by Ms. Maddow. But I'll save you the time. She hasn't lied. Even when she makes a simple mistake, she corrects it as soon as she can, often after the break. O'Reilly, OTOH, knows that his viewers want to hear a certain philosophy and he provides it, whether he has to lie or not. He works for Fox so he has to.

I am not perfect, either. But I take the time and effort to make sure I know what I am talking about instead of just taking anybody's word for it. That's why I choose to be a Democrat but always keep an eye on my peeps.

[PatInTheHat]

I am not perfect, either. But I take the time and effort to make sure I know what I am talking about instead of just taking anybody's word for it.

Damn straight she does!..you can do my homework anytime darlin'

[unclelouie]

Well, I will give you most of your point. However, there were some Republicans who weren't very happy with some of the stuff Bush did just as there are some Dems (me included) who are having problems with some of the things Obama is doing.

But to say that there is no difference between the two parties (which is not the way it should be but that's beside the point in this case) is simply not true. The biggest difference is that one party despises the social safety nets that the other has put into place and has been trying to destroy them from the moment they were brought up, let alone when they were signed into law. One party believes that government can actually do some things that are important and do them well while the other says they hate government... yet they still want to be part of it. Go figure. One party believes that unions are an important way to protect workers, the other is only interested in protecting corporations. One party believes that a woman's reproductive health is between her and her doctor, the other wants to legislate forced birth (while complaining about "Big" government all the while. Hmmm...) Do I need to continue?

Perhaps it's best to read the two party platforms: http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/files/...s-Compared.pdf You know, compare them.

Are there Democrats who are in the pocket of lobbyists, who don't care about anything other than their bottom line? Oh, yes. (Looking at you, Mary Landrieu) Are there Republicans who care about their constituents? I can't think of any offhand but, yes, there must be. The thing is, with few exceptions, one party is for the 98% of Americans who don't make a million dollars a year. The other gets paid by that 2%.

So, no, the two parties are NOT the same.

And BTW, Rachel Maddow is not the same as Bill O'Reilly. One has only to fact-check both shows and the difference is clear. Rachel might focus on things that concern liberals - as O'Reilly does for conservatives - but the difference is that Rachel does not lie. I dare you - I double dog dare you - to find a deliberate lie spoken by Ms. Maddow. But I'll save you the time. She hasn't lied. Even when she makes a simple mistake, she corrects it as soon as she can, often after the break. O'Reilly, OTOH, knows that his viewers want to hear a certain philosophy and he provides it, whether he has to lie or not. He works for Fox so he has to.

I am not perfect, either. But I take the time and effort to make sure I know what I am talking about instead of just taking anybody's word for it. That's why I choose to be a Democrat but always keep an eye on my peeps.

I respect your point of view. I used to be a Democrat in fact, because, in theroy, their platform most represented what I believed in. However.. I believe their platform (what they say they are going to do), and what they actually do.. is 2 different things. Now One thing you and I can certainly agree on... neither of us are going to be volunteering at GOP fundraisers or Tea Parties anytime soon.

My problem is this. I never liked the GOP. It's not conservatism that bothers me... it's this whole notion that giving the uber rich special tax exemptions and tax breaks somehow is supposed to ultimately benefit the poor man in the long run. However, you do realize that many huge corporations do not, and will not be forced to pay corporate taxes (ie. GE, Boeing, Verizon, et al). Obama's tax increases are more likely to affect a successful small business owner (remember, taxes are based on gross, not net income), than the coroprate monsters who control our government behind the scenes. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue... and these corporations who are tax exempt, they are all heavy donors to the GOP and Democratic Party.

As far as civil liberty, both parties, for the most part, have the same stance on The Patriot Act, NDAA, the drone program, wiretaps, CISPA/SOPA, et al. Yes, the Democrats have a better track record on social issues, but President Obama never really even breached the subject of marriage equality until VP Biden came out in public support of it (I support marriage equality, btw).

Yes, there are differences between the 2 parties... but IMO, not enough difference to make a postive change for America. We need more statesmen like Bernie Sanders, and less career politcians like Harry Reid, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham (my Senator, but lord, I didnt vote for the man!).

PS- Reading Everything's Eventual (short story) this morning. Love that Dinky Earnshaw!

[Tery]

unclelouie, I can guarantee that we won't be at any Tea Party events!

As for The PATRIOT Act, NDAA, etc. which you mentioned... remember how I said I had some problems with my Prez? Yup. You pegged 'em!

[jimson2]

And BTW, Rachel Maddow is not the same as Bill O'Reilly. One has only to fact-check both shows and the difference is clear. Rachel might focus on things that concern liberals - as O'Reilly does for conservatives - but the difference is that Rachel does not lie. I dare you - I double dog dare you - to find a deliberate lie spoken by Ms. Maddow..

http://www.nationalreview.com/media-...greg-pollowitz
http://www.newstalk1160.com/rachel-m...perry-tax-plan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNoNuUiJcJU
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.co...ies-about.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...-contributions
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/lie...rachel-maddow/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...budget-surplus
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2012...nest-last.html

This is why I stopped posting here and am pretty much starting to avoid any political discussion and that is because even what is perceived to be fact is shaped by the individuals bias.

If it were truly possible to find someone who is objective rather than one who is lying about being objective, they would likely find a relatively equal level of lying on both sides.

[jimson2]

One other thing we might remember is that O'Rielly apologized for the Shirley Sherrod video, but even though it doesn't directly involve Maddow as far as I know, you will never see a retraction or apology from MSNBC for showing this "white people carrying guns" video that was deliberately doctored to conceal the fact that the guy with the gun was actually black.



http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/1...ism-narrative/


http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/1...a-rallies-now/

[PatInTheHat]

http://www.nationalreview.com/media-...greg-pollowitz
http://www.newstalk1160.com/rachel-m...perry-tax-plan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNoNuUiJcJU
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.co...ies-about.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...-contributions
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/lie...rachel-maddow/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...budget-surplus
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2012...nest-last.html

This is why I stopped posting here and am pretty much starting to avoid any political discussion and that is because even what is perceived to be fact is shaped by the individuals bias.

If it were truly possible to find someone who is objective rather than one who is lying about being objective, they would likely find a relatively equal level of lying on both sides.

Yeah *SNRT!* 'k.

[PatInTheHat]

One other thing we might remember is that O'Rielly apologized for the Shirley Sherrod video, but even though it doesn't directly involve Maddow as far as I know, you will never see a retraction or apology from MSNBC for showing this "white people carrying guns" video that was deliberately doctored to conceal the fact that the guy with the gun was actually black.



http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/1...ism-narrative/


http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/1...a-rallies-now/

Shirley Sherrod was with him then, was she packin' heat too, I mean personally I don't think so, so why would she need the apology?
Ya know even if that was a 110% correct accusation, and I ain't sayin' it's not, that ain't even apples & oranges by comparison, O'Reilly apologized, in a manner of speakin', to an individual, you know, just before he raked her over again.
But ya know somethin' else, MSNBC also showed clips with black tea party peoples strapped, and their spin was more of a 'Well howz about them lil' green apples, ya commies??? , where as another more fictional channel, one what actually makes big bold claims about being an actual big cheese real deal actual news gathering organization, was more like, "See See See We Told Ya's so We Told Ya's so, Yeah Ain't No Racism Here Uh-Uh No Way We Got The Proof Just LOOK LOOK LOOOOOK, A BLACK GUY WITH A GUN, um or two, yeah three maybe, but um, y'all see we're justa big ol' rainbow o' love, right?"
Unless maybe your a documentary filmmaker at a Rand Paul rally and get your punkin' head stomped, then not so much love...hmm, too damn bad that film makin' gal wasn't a Nubian princess with a Glock huh, oh, and cruisin' 'round in a Get Your Hands Off My Medicare brand, Hoveround, of course...well, this my very own nutbag senator Rand Paul's thread after all, so I just wanted to share all that warm & fuzzy.

[jimson2]

Shirley Sherrod was with him then, was she packin' heat too, I mean personally I don't think so, so why would she need the apology?
Ya know even if that was a 110% correct accusation, and I ain't sayin' it's not, that ain't even apples & oranges by comparison, O'Reilly apologized, in a manner of speakin', to an individual, you know, just before he raked her over again.
But ya know somethin' else, MSNBC also showed clips with black tea party peoples strapped, and their spin was more of a 'Well howz about them lil' green apples, ya commies??? , where as another more fictional channel, one what actually makes big bold claims about being an actual big cheese real deal actual news gathering organization, was more like, "See See See We Told Ya's so We Told Ya's so, Yeah Ain't No Racism Here Uh-Uh No Way We Got The Proof Just LOOK LOOK LOOOOOK, A BLACK GUY WITH A GUN, um or two, yeah three maybe, but um, y'all see we're justa big ol' rainbow o' love, right?"
Unless maybe your a documentary filmmaker at a Rand Paul rally and get your punkin' head stomped, then not so much love...hmm, too damn bad that film makin' gal wasn't a Nubian princess with a Glock huh, oh, and cruisin' 'round in a Get Your Hands Off My Medicare brand, Hoveround, of course...well, this my very own nutbag senator Rand Paul's thread after all, so I just wanted to share all that warm & fuzzy.

[PatInTheHat]

Mmmm hmm, yeah I get that a lot, butt most probably only because I'm so very damn special, and yeah, yeah it is pretty freakin' grvy, I mean we very damn special folks, we got ourselves a "K", an Olympics, some badazzzz forces, sales (and of course the ubiquitous, bins), education, our own midnight, and don't forget them super duper special secret agents, I mean we're awful proud of those, and then there's them yummy blue plates, and.....