For my 20,000th post, I will pose just one question.

[Bonobo]

The question I pose and the question I ask you to pose to yourself at all times is:

"Would you accept this (policy/position/comment/nomination, etc) if it came from a Republican?"

Ask yourself this question every time you are faced with an issue. It is the only way to be honest and check yourself to see if you are being consistent or if you are being a slave to a party that may be forcing you to shift your moral compass.

That is all.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

1. That is the baromete by which I decide an issue. Thanks for asking and

congratulations on 20,000 posts!

[TexasTowelie]

2. Congrats on 20K!

[Honeycombe8]

3. I don't think that's the right question.

The right question is, "Is this a good (policy/bill/proposal)?" It shouldn't matter which party it comes from (although a certain party's motives are always suspect). It DOES matter which PERSON proposes it. Can that person be trusted? Is that person on the same wavelength, policy-wise, as you? Is that a person who typically gets paid off to pass things (more so than other politicians - since all politicians are paid off in one way or another). Is this a person whose morals and philosophy generally jive with yours?

There have been in the past been some Republicans I trusted more than some Democrats or Independents. None I can think of these days, though.

[Bonobo]

4. Can you give an example of one instance where that matters?

Generally speaking, a policy decision and the effects that come as a result of them, do not "care" about the trustworthiness of the person that made them.

Maybe you could give an example of where something was okay if done by "our guy" but would have been bad of done by the "other guys"?

[Honeycombe8]

17. Because I'm not a lawyer and not privy to ALL info about a bill...

I pay attention to WHO proposes a bill. It's not the effect of the bill that relies on the trustworthiness of the politician; it's that I rely on that to judge the intracacies of the bill and what the ultimate effect might be. As we know, some bills have hidden purposes and long term effects.

As for your 2nd question, it must be meant for someone else. My post was making the precise opposite point...that the same bill would not be good simply because it's posed by "our guy," but bad because it's posed by "their guy."

I try to judge policies & bills on their own merits.

There have been bills/policies I've approved of that originated with Republicans. (the national park system by Teddy Roosevelt is one example; 401ks is another; the establishment of the EPA by Richard Nixon). Lots more that originated or were tweaked by Dems.

[graham4anything]

28. Anything President Obama does is great. Anything Ralph Nader did sucks.

[Common Sense Party]

29. Oy vey.

Good grief. Are you serious? I don't think you ever are. I think you are in full parody mode, all the time.

Here's my 44-ounce in-your-face-Bloomberg soda. Cheers.

[Bonobo]

59. .

[sabrina 1]

7. Then make it simple:

Did I oppose this policy when Bush was president?

It DOES matter which PERSON proposes it. Can that person be trusted? Is that person on the same wavelength, policy-wise, as you?

The results of bad policies do not change no matter how much you like the person who is proposing them. A bad policy is a bad policy. I opposed most of Bush's policies because they were bad policies, NOT, as right wingers always accused me of, because i did not like him. I still oppose them, even more now as we have seen how bad they were in practice.

[RobertEarl]

11. As an example

Take the voting machines. Please. And throw them overboard in Boston Harbor.

The voting machines were brought to us by the republicans - Bush, Rove, Cheney. Delay. HAVA. $4B in federal funds.

And look at how they ran the whitehouse and now run many of the state legislatures. Tea party power? Bzzzt.

Had the democrats offered up voting machines we would have had a much better, more fully audit able system. What we have is vote stealing from a keyboard. Cyber theft enabled. Enabled and controlled by republicans all over the country.

To those who say there is no difference between republicans and democrats, i say: Get educated.

[sabrina 1]

15. Of course there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Which is why there is no excuse for any Democrat voting for bad Republican policies, or extending them when there is a chance to let them expire. The bad policy doesn't become suddenly, a good policy just because Bush is no longer there. It is still bad.

As for voting machines, what have Dems done about them? Have they even tried to do anything about them?

Here's my point. I oppose voting machines run by private corporations. It is a ludicrous and dangerous threat to democracy.

I don't really care which party supports them. We need paper ballots, period.

[RobertEarl]

18. It's a tough game.

Am i totally happy with Obama keeping republican ideas in play? Nno.

We know that his/our opponents will stop at nothing to keep power. He can't confront them or even drone their asses <snork>. And there is a lot going on that none of us will ever even know about, much less hear about. And what about the stuff we have heard? It all gets thrown into the Tin foil camp.

Like voting machines. In NC it was the democrats that got rid of the e-vote and made paper ballots happen. And what happened? A black man won the presidential election in NC in 2008. I should repeat that for emphasis.

It's a tough game. Obama, we hope, is really on our side. That's really all the change we ever needed. Someone on our side. The question is: Is he?

[sabrina 1]

22. Well, I know how tough a game it is. But should everyone who runs for office asking us

to give them the job of representing us.

What I would like to hear from someone running for office from now is, is the truth. I would like to have heard Obama say eg

'I would like to end many of Bush's policies as I believe they are bad for this country. Eg, I would love to prosecute those who lied us into war, who wrote torture memos. I would like to abolish the Patriot Act, the NDDA, the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy. But I have to be perfectly honest. I believe these are things that may be very difficult to do. I understand that the US has established certain policies, many of them very bad policies, over a long period of time. So while I will try to begin the process of changing those policies, I will have a very difficult time doing so.

However, one thing I will never do is to agree to cut SS, nor will I ever connect it falsely to the Deficit. This I know I can promise you. No one will ever be able to persuade me to even speak about SS in the same conversation as the Deficit and you can count on the fact that I will publicly expose any lies told by Republicans about SS every chance I get.

Instead we get promises that are either unrealistic or that the politician is too naive to know s/he cannot keep. It isn't that they don't accomplish a lot of things we want them to accomplish, it is that they are not honest when they are campaigning and then people become cynical, they don't vote anymore.

They become suspicious that their politicians lied to them in order to win, that they are beholden to special interests and care more about those who fund their campaigns than about the people who elect them.

It is possible that presidents, especially Democrats, get an awful shock when they actually get to the WH. But at this point in time, even we know that US policies, especially foreign policies, are bad, but that there is a power structure in place that will make changing them very, very difficult. And if we know that, so should anyone running for that office.

When a president goes back on promises made, people lose faith in him. That is just a fact. To slam the people for believing in someone then being disappointed in that person, is a wasted effort, it won't change anything and may even anger people more.

Just tell the truth as much as possible, don't pretend you are going to do things you should know may be impossible. DO promise the things you can achieve.

It's the lies and deceptions, and then the usual defenders that make people so angry they just give up on the whole mess.

[TeamPooka]

30. During the Bush lying years as he grabbed more executive power I would ask my RW Mom...

Would you want Hillary Clinton to have that power if she becomes President?
and then she would shut up about it...

[rhett o rick]

61. There are narrow minded people on both sides. I have asked so-called Democrats

if they didnt agree that we should dump the Patriot Act and domestic spying so the Repubs wont have the power, if they get elected in the future. The narrow minded wont answer. Their reality requires a leader they must trust. Their reality cant deal with the idea that it might be hard to find a politician that truly represents the 99%.

[TeamPooka]

68. +1

[eridani]

39. Can't think of a case where that would be true. I could care less if Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein,

--Howard Zinn and Arundhati Roy signed a proposal in their own blood. I'd still want to read it. Sure, I'd be willing to invest more time in evaluating it, but that is no guarantee of my final approval.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

48. My question first and foremost is: "Does this policy/bill/proposal affect me?"

If not and Democrats are supporting it, then I don't worry too much about it.

If not and Republicans support it, but it hurts Republicans during elections... then I am outraged.

If the policy does affect me positively, 99.9% of the time it's a Democrat proposing it.

And that's about as brutally honest as I'm going to get.

[L0oniX]

5. Truth over party ...always. n/t

[forestpath]

6. That is exactly what I do. As a liberal I will never compromise my standards

no matter who is president.

[Llewlladdwr]

8. Wise advice. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[liberal_at_heart]

19. I love that quote.

Our founding fathers warned us about parties and here we are beholden to a two party system.

[Gravitycollapse]

10. I refuse to give that much agency to the GOP.

[tavalon]

12. Yep, good gut check and I use it all the time

That's why, even though I voted for Obama both times, I am often called an Obama hater because I don't like that he hasn't rolled back the Unitary Executive, that he is too close to big corporate interests, that he condones drones and using them on the locals. I don't think Guantanamo should be open any more and each of those people should be given the right to a no longer speedy trial. I think we should get out of Afghanistan and I didn't think murdering Bin Laden needed to be a photo op.

All of those things I would and did excoriate the last President and Vice President for and will continue to argue against it now. Letters behind names mean little to me.

[liberal_at_heart]

13. very good, thoughtful post Bonobo. I am slave to no party.

[tblue]

14. Nope. Bad is bad.

Bad from a Dem is worse in my eyes. Because Dems get your hopes up and say what you want to hear. Republicans don't even try.

[rhett o rick]

56. I agree. nm

[flvegan]

16. Congrats on 20k, Bonobo.

You and I have been around the block a time or two, and I agree with you.

Good post. I hope you and your family are well.

[Bonobo]

42. Thanks fivegan.

And I wish the same for you.

[Jamaal510]

20. Depends

on what the specific policy/comment/position/nomination is. It would be foolish to support something just because Obama supports it, or oppose something just because it is supported by someone of the opposite party. That's essentially what the GOP has been doing with him. They're opposing policies that they once supported, whether it is health care reform or background checks, just to achieve some "get-back" at the President.

There are some things that Republicans did in the past that I agree with, such as how Nixon established the EPA or when Eisenhower's top tax rate was 90%. I think today's top tax rates are a farce compared to back then. And I even somewhat agree with Ron Paul's drug stance, where he wants the feds to stay out of what the states do with their drug laws, although I would take it to the next level and federally push to legalize all drugs, regulate, and tax them like alcohol and tobacco if I were president.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. that's a good question.

And I'm not perfect in that regard.

[delrem]

23. +1

[Spitfire of ATJ]

25. As a lifetime Liberal, I don't need to be told what is Liberal,...so,....

....any policy, no matter who or where it originates is irrelevant.

I'll know it when I see it.

[Demo_Chris]

26. The answer for many, regardless of the policy in question...

Is "NO!" if it comes from a Republican, and "HELL YES!" if it comes from this administration.

[gtar100]

31. Though in principle that's a problem, it's not really much of one in comparison to what's going on

in the republican party where that "HELL YES" brings us laws of discrimination, unnecessary corporate subsidies, idiotic wars, attacks on women's rights, stupid economic policies eschewed to the rich, and just one barrel full after another of the most insane bullshit. Republicans would like for us to believe we have a real problem with Obama worshippers, but there's just no comparison to the likes of what they have going on in their own party.

[OnyxCollie]

27. I would accept _ if it came from a Republican.

Under certain conditions, I would accept _ if it came from a Republican.

Those conditions are:

(1) If I were an eager, young apparatchik, equally arrogant and ignorant, getting paid to propagandize Internet forums using fallacies, condescension, and numerous annoying personality traits which made me deserving of every ass-kicking I received in junior high.

(2) If I were an emotionally insecure, desperately needy person who continuously scans the horizon for relationships, believing I am a personal friend of Barack Obama and attacking anyone who does not agree that President Obama is the Bestest President EVAH!

[graham4anything]

32. Statistically False question. Freedom is just another word to howl at the moon at what was lost

The true question would be are you better off today, than if today had John McCain and Sarah Palin in office?

Were you better off in 1952 tossing Adlai in the river and again in 1956 to have Reagan the First (Eisenhower, the original dufus puppet who smiled and was considered safe)

Were you better off selling LBJ down the river in 1968, to have Richard Nixon, to save some foreign policy principal, which in effect directly led to The Bush family, all of them.(as did Watergate, which after the investigation, actually didn't improve America, but made it worse, as it directly led to the Bush's).

Were Americans better off hating Jimmy Carter in 1980 and electing Ronald Reagan?
Directly led to the Bush's.

Were New Jersey people better off hating Jon Corzine and in protest electing Chris Christie?

I think the ones who are rebels with the cause of seeing someone lose, instead of seeing someone win, and taking America back is only looking to whine

Because anything President Obama does is fine by me as life is better, and social equality issues trump the humdrum foreign issues a zillion to one.

Would Gay marriage and immigration reform and woman's rights, be on the table had the republican party kept power?

Those are important things.

Everything else is just a political whine on a political chat board.

Because without equliaty, there is none of the other stuff.
And the other stuff would happen if the God Ralph Nader were in office.
(And come on, you all know Nader would be Reagan 3, both Ike, and Reagan were lazy, and Ralph proved to be just as lazy as those two. So anything Reagan did, Nader would have done.

Principals are what you have to go to when you are bad in grade school.
Politics is life.

And everyone indeed has an angle, meaning no one actually has principals doesn't it?

Those that whine about President Obama use that as their angle.
The alt-media of course, makes a great living doing just that.

And those anglers against President Obama never have seen any good. Feel sorry for those that only see the rain on a hot August sunny day.

And of course, in closing,
the correct question is-

Which Supreme Court Justice would you rather have? Clarence Thomas or Justice Thurgood Marshall

because not liking and electing President Hillary Clinton will lead to more Clarence Thomas'
and electing President Hillary will lead to more Thurgood Marshalls.

The choice of course is yours to freely choose.
Like the good people of New Hampshire were free to choose Ralph Nader in 2000 and are of course therefore happy with Samuel Alito and John Roberts, as they directly nominated and put on the court both Alito and Roberts.

BTW, let's toast with another cup of whine.

[G_j]

35. Fine, however

that is all hindsight, and a lot of your own opinion.

[graham4anything]

36. Hindsight is history. And I for one don't want 52,56,68,72,80,84.88,2000,04 to repeat.

Opinion?
Adlai over Ike being better is not opinion
LBJ winning 1968 over Nixon, meant no watergate, no 41, no 43, no Jeb
Carter beating Reagan-no 41,43,Jeb, no 9-11, no 2 wars, no need for oil as we would have been free from oil and the military
No Nader- Gore winning, no John Roberts, No Sam Alito, no 2000 SCOTUS ruling

None of the above happening directly led to Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts

Which part of that is not true?
Every bad thing came from one of those things above.

Being that all the bad came from the Bush's, why would railing against Obama which only will lead to the Bush's back in power make any sense at all?

NO, whatever Bush did is NOT whatever President Obama does or will do.

So the entire OP question is 100% wrong.(however it is NOT a stupid question, as the OP is angling for 99.9% of the responses that were gotten, had I not done what he does to President Obama every single time(rain on the parade).

The OP question is as real as asking
There are 10 apples.
If Johnny has 7 apples, and Betty has 3 apples, how many oranges did Harold eat.

[zipplewrath]

46. Prove it

"LBJ winning 1968 over Nixon, meant no watergate, no 41, no 43, no Jeb"

The numbers might change, but demonstrate what stops Seniors rise without Watergate. He was very competetive against Reagan. No Nixon may have led to an EARLIER rise.

[graham4anything]

50. Reagan wouldn't have taken office. Why would the conservatives have advanced over the liberals?

but you would need to have backtracked from the first step.

but just from Nixon time,

LBJ had he won in 1968 would have led to Bobby winning in 1972 and 1976 and most likely Reagan would have been the Goldwater that got defeated.

(just like 2016 is going to again be a civil war in the republican party like 2012 was, so Hillary winning will be like 1964 all over again like 2012 was).

More likely would another republican moderate or liberal have been the challenger agaisnt Bobby in 1972, (remember had LBJ not left the race, Bobby would still be alive)

and remember something even MORE important- had Bobby not been killed, Ted would not have had the one minor thing on his resume, so he would indeed have been a major Presidential name himself without the one piece of baggage.

Remember too, without Bobby being killed, Rose would not have been so against another Kennedy running which stopped Ted in 1972 and 1976.

so one needs to have the entire timeline

The Democratic party could have been President a straight 83 years and counting now
(Since FDR's inauguration) were it not for all the distractions and deaths.)

Can you imagine how life in America how left it would have been without the distractions of the others?

Proof is what Bill Clinton had to go through just to get elected and have every single conspiracy theory in the world from day one, that SURPRISE SURPRISE same thing with President Obama and with Hillary.
Why is it only Democratic presidents get bombarded with conspiracy theories?

Yet, Dufus or doofus (both are acceptable forms of spelling btw) Eisenhower, Reagan and the man who played a dufus (but actually is smarter than given credit for but it sounds good to call him dufus and in a sad way play his game as that persona was created for him) W gets everything again and again

Ain't life strange?

[zipplewrath]

52. Because the post WWII economic expansion was ending

"Why would the conservatives have advanced over the liberals?"

The rise of conservatism is usually traced to the convergence of two phenomenon. The end of the cultural revolution, and the ending of the post WWII economic expansion.

The cutural revolution that started post WWII (really during WWII. Rosie the Riveter, major demographic shifts, GI bill, etc.) had basically run its course and the backlash was beginning. They couldn't get the ERA through, busing was being resisted everywhere it appeared, includine the north, and the "Drug War" was spinning up big time.

Also, the economic expansion that the US enjoyed since WWII basically was over. Europe was rebuilt, Japan was a rapidly growing industrial nation, the US steel industry was in severe decline due to international competition, Chrysler was going down the tubes, and the "Rust Belt" was just beginning to start.

Throw in that the Civil Rights Legislation of the early '60s started a MAJOR shift in the balance of party politics, and the conservatives were GOING to rise.

[graham4anything]

54. One thing that gets forgotten and is worth now remembering is 1 MILLION dead from AIDS

AIDS took place and a million plus almost assuredly 90% Democratic liberals were forever lost.
An entire generation killed almost, at the EXACT time of the phantom Reagan youth.
(including three of my close friends).

With LBJ winning in 1968, it might REPEAT MIGHT be said that a democratic president (possibly the 1976 victory by Teddy, could have meant INSTANT major health care effort to stop AIDS instead of the 7 wasted years by Ronald Reagan.

See what history brings?

all because the lesson that should be learned is, the foreign war stuff will happen with everybody and anybody as President

the domestic SOCIAL issues only happen with Democratic presidents

so in the end, LBJ winning in 1968 and not being driven out, meant a better life for all.

And many of today's still living 1960s protesters like say mark Rudd according to his website,
now believe that it would have been better to work from within, not from without and work WITH president Obama and not tear him and the party down to bring back what President Obama won from in the first place.

It MIGHT also be said that Gays, Blacks, Women and all other minorities would have long ago had equal rights, and that perhaps during the beginning of the AIDS crisis, the fear from Gays and AIDS and the firings from jobs leaving NO health insurance wouldn't have occurred.

For that matter, we probably would have had France's health care system long ago if ONLY democratic presidents been in office the whole time.

so it is just nuts to tear President Obama down and tear Hillary Clinton down, when getting the Bush's back in office will NOT achieve anything but increased $$$ for whine.

Every single bad thing that happened is because of either a bad event or a fracture within.
Reagan would have been another Goldwater.

[zipplewrath]

55. That's alot of extrapolation

And on very shakey assumptions.

The shifting of racial politics and the loss of the "solid south", combined with the rise of the "moral majority" and other social shifts (not to mention the slow demise of unionism due in part to the collapse of the industrial sector) would tend to suggest that a continuous democratic presidency was not going to happen.

[Bonobo]

57. This is fun to watch.

It's like watching a human try to hold a meaningful conversation with a cockatoo.

[graham4anything]

66. So, let the bird go.

[graham4anything]

58. one thing is for sure, LBJ was a master politician as is President Obama and Lincoln, Carter & HRC

whereas George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy Mike Dukakis Hubert Humphrey, Jimmy Carter John Kerry, were ALL honorable gentleman, nice guys, approachable, etc. but all had one trait in common-
they were NOT the best politicians. Maybe that is a good thing because you can say they are all pure(but nobody in politics is pure. (though many have phony snarkiness smiles like say the #1 biggest anti-populist saying he is a populist fraud in history John Edwards, who in his whisper campaign said was the great White Male hope to snag the 2008 election. THANK GOD that didn't happen.

Winners need to be both.
and Hillary is not a loser. She happened to run in a year 2008 when say it would have been equal to both Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods if Jack was in his prime.
Both are winners, in a world where only one can be #1 at the same time.

[zipplewrath]

60. So masterful

He was so masterful, he couldn't secure his own parties nomination for RE-election. Not to mention keep his own AG "in line". He also couldn't maintain support for his own war.

Hey Hey, LBJ, how many kids ya gonna kill today!

[graham4anything]

62. it misses the whole point. LBJ should have been begged to run. He would have won.

the rest sidesteps the issue.

And he had what already was thought of as 2 terms, so his would have been a 3rd term in effect, he would have been the second longest running President.
But it is immaterial to anything I said.

and well, the Naderistas spoke loud too and directly led to Bush winning and Nader becoming rich.

[zipplewrath]

67. Probably would have died

LBJ probably would have died in office, or had to leave. That would have left Humphrey is a very strong position to run for president.


But I thought your point was that he was a "masterful politician". Seems kinda an odd claim for a guy that couldn't get the nomination of his own party for RE-election.

[graham4anything]

70. He didn't quit because he couldn't win. He quit because it broke his heart and he was a good man.

The parallel would be 2004 and if Bush were a man of integrity, that honorable man his people always called him, he would not have run, and said he was a one term and would do anything he could to secure the peace.


Remember, the first years of Vietnam were NOT argued against.
It was the later years when the heavy protests occured, and there was suppose to be peace in 1968, but Nixon it was proven sabatoged.

As for your, he might have died, he lived til after his term would have ended.
And the point is, he would have kept nixon out of office.

And HHH was a great person, perhaps had he taken over during a term, it would have been enough (and had the war ended say 1970, HHH could have run on domestic social issues and taken the credit of LBJ's social issues, so he would have run from a totally different position.
(Plus there would have been massive sympathy had LBJ died and had the war ended in 1968.)

But remember, MacNamara was hired by JFK, not LBJ.and it was Mac that lied.
And losing was not an option then, Later it didn't matter.
(Add Muskie and Eagleton to the later mix too).

BTW, for all one knows, had my scenerio been there, how do you know Mayor John Lindsay couldn't have been a stronger non-war candidate, as JVL was the biggest liberal and biggest union man there was. He also got more votes than McGovern in the primaries and was far to the left of McGovern.
(Irony is-LBJ was far to the left of both McGovern and McCarthy and JFK and RFK).

There really was no difference between JFK and RFK and President Obama in any major way
just 40 years apart.
And I bet the detractors of President Obama would have NOT voted for either Kennedy either
(let alone because that would be considered royalty, dynasty, blah blah blah).

[zipplewrath]

72. He was a bully

He didn't run because he knew he'd lose. I also suspect that he knew he was sick. Staying in office may have hastened his decline.

And I am no particular Kennedy fan. He made a rash of mistakes and really was slow on the uptake on civil rights, much like Obama was on gay marriage. And as you say, he put Mac in office, and left Hoover in office as well.

[sabrina 1]

51. Since no one can win election without the independent vote and democrats

generally get the left leaning Independent vote, when they lose, it is generally because they have disappointed Independents who have no party loyalty and tend to vote only on principles. Blaming voters for what politicians do or do not do, is ignoring the basis for the OP's question. When a political party strays from the principles that attracted voters to them in the first place, it is they who get us into the mess we are in.

What is striking is how the defenders of their parties regardless of principles, cannot face the reality of politics. Which is, the base of the party will for the most part, regardless of how disappointed they may be, vote for their party. But to win, a party needs the Independent vote. That is what happened in 2010. Democrats did not lose the party vote, they lost the Independent vote.

And so long as people refuse to face reality, to live in the reality based community, there will be many more 2010s.

Stop defending those who stray from the principles of their party, replace them with people who do represent the people and you will not have to worry.

2010 was a perfect example of the blindness of partisanship. The complete refusal to acknowledge the reasons for that loss also lost us control of Congress in the last election. 'Blame the voters'. It's like blaming customers when they don't buy a product rather than acknowledging that a better product would solve the problem.

[Bonobo]

37. It looks like you threw your life into the crazy-blender and pressed start.

It is irrelevant to the question which I posed and which I ask everyone to pose.

All the nonsense you wrote is nothing but a farcical attempt to rationalize a failure to maintain a coherent perspective.

[graham4anything]

38. That is telling and showing the angle you are playing. BTW, I don't pose. This ain't Vogue.

[Bonobo]

41. When you follow your own compass, there are no angles.

Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)

And the word salad you have to spew and the gnarled tangle of rationalization you have to spin shows the truth of that.

[Dragonfli]

45. forget the glass of whine, your word salad needs a spritzing of balsamic vinaigrette

I am trying to make more sense of it, but your post reads like a c novel about time travel and this bit is a first draft of dialogue warning of the evils of corrupting a timeline.

Do you possess the cognitive development necessary to answer the OPs question?
A simple direct answer that those of us without PHDs in time travel paradoxes can understand?

[Bonobo]

49. LOL! +1 nt

[rhett o rick]

65. Yes our daily rationalization of "20 lashes are so much better than 50".

Or call it the good politician/ bad politician tactic. See how easy it is to manipulate people? Just make sure the repuks run someone horrible so we can rationalize that we have it good.

And we cant end w/o our daily dose of ridicule, "let's toast with another cup of whine."

I didnt like the Patriot Act when Bush pushed it thru and I dont like it now.

[Hissyspit]

69. You are arguing election decision by election decision.

OP is arguing issue by issue.

While they may connect, they are not the same.

And quit calling people whiners. It fucking sucks.

[DonCoquixote]

33. No I would not

However, I would also realize that I could not just vote third party and pretend the GOP is not ready to make quick work of my choice.

[DollarBillHines]

34. I don't care. I live my own life.

Who cares what the Others decree?

Fuck all of that.

I live my own life.

Pretty effing simple.

Easy, too...

I like to sleep late in the morning...

[AsahinaKimi]

40. 20,000

omedetou Bonobo san, honto ni.

[Bonobo]

43. Arigatou, Kimi-san. nt

[AsahinaKimi]

44. dou itashimashite

Ganbatte kudasai!

[WillyT]

47. Congrats !!! - K & R !!!

[Dragonfli]

53. I accept policies based entirely on whether I believe they are sound policies

I believe in the social and financial well being of my country mates, so social programs are important to me, specifically programs that will lead to an eventual realization and implementation of FDRs second bill of rights or something of the same spirit and intent.
I consider that to be sound policy. Nearly all Republicans are disdainful of the social and financial well being of their country mates and so work to weaken, privatize or destroy social programs, I oppose them in this and will also oppose any Democrat trying to to do the same, so I would not support this coming from a Republican or a supposed Democrat.

The same is true of me regarding all (policy/position/comment/nomination, etc) the ones I consider to be sound were once proposed largely by Democrats and the rare Socialists and largely opposed by Republicans and the rare libertarian, with so Many Republicans in our party rebranded as DLC/Third way, much of the policy I consider to be sound is receiving little oxygen from the Dems that once championed them, worse than that they are joining Republicans in opposing them and even working with them to propose bad policy. I believe that new reality has led to your asking yourself that question.

My answer is if it is a policy I oppose when a Republican proposes it, it could be proposed by a Democrat, an Independent, or a sentient talking fish and I would still oppose it (but I must admit, it would be gobs of fun to watch the fish communicate his position, I would oppose it sure, but would also pay just to see a talking fish)

[rhett o rick]

63. Those that you are addressing wont answer. When I posed that question to Repubs

during the Bush Fiasco, they simply wont answer. When I pose that question to the so-called Centrists here, they simply deflect the question. Some people have a need to follow a leader. And they will rationalize that it's ok to follow a leader simply because that leader is a better choice than other choices.

For some, rationalization is the key to happiness and they will fight like hell to maintain their rationalized world.

Since someone already introduce the N word in the thread (Nader), I want to add that Nader was very wrong when he said the two parties were the same. One is worse, which makes the choice easy for the so-called Centrists.

Congrats on 20k and go for 50k.

[Bonobo]

64. Thank you. I'm afraid that it seems to be that is the case.

It is disappointing and disheartening but it appears that that is the long and short of it.

[Shankapotomus]

71. Congrats on 20,000!

As for the question, it can get complicated for me when republicans start advocating for things they normally wouldn't as a chess move to box good democrats into corners or to call out a perceived hypocrisy. Example: "Why are environmentalists still driving cars?" meanwhile they themselves couldn't give a damn about the environment.

[limpyhobbler]

73. K&R Makes sense to me. nt

[treestar]

74. Why does it matter who it comes from?

We should decide based on the policy itself.

Occasionally, amazingly, a republican will be on the side we agree with about something and vice versa.

So for your 20000 post you are Democrat-bashing.

[Bonobo]

75. Yes, it does not matter. We agree.

And how, despite that agreement, you come out with the idea that I was "Democrat bashing" is very, very telling.

[MotherPetrie]

76. K&R and thank you. That is what I do. It makes life a lot simpler.

I refuse to twist, spin, and backpedal in order to justify Republican-like Democratic behavior. Dems who act like Repugs NEED to be vilified.

[Bonobo]

77. Kicking because it is as true now as it was yesterday and

as true as it will remain...always.

"I'm praying to you. Look in your heart."