Let's just say it: the Republicans are the problem

[Hoss]

I don't understand why Liberals treat being called liberal as a dirty word unless they are secretly ashamed of being liberal.  Certainly Conservatives use it in that context because it does bother Liberals.  Liberals try to do the same thing to Conservatives but have not been as successful.  There are a lot of possible explanations for that depending on whether you are Liberal or Conservative.

They're not ashamed of being liberal, but the conservative media as well as the neutral media give it the connotation of being a 'dirty word'.  Focus groups tell liberals not to use it because it's negative.  I don't care either way really because all in all, it's just a label.  They could just as well be called progressive..I never understood why they didn't embrace that label instead.  It fosters a more positive tone evidently.  No one ever said members of the left have been too politically savvy recently.

[Red Arrow]

Guess what RA; I really do not need any of the members of this forum's affirmation of what I think.  I try not to involve myself too much into the meat of the political postings for just reason.

If you insist.

[Red Arrow]

They're not ashamed of being liberal, but the conservative media as well as the neutral media give it the connotation of being a 'dirty word'. 

I would hardly call it a neutral media if they are giving the connotation of liberal being dirty word.  Where is this neutral media?

[Hoss]

I would hardly call it a neutral media if they are giving the connotation of liberal being dirty word.  Where is this neutral media?

CNN is about as neutral as they get, although I'm sure the more hard-line right wingers won't think so.  To many, liberal=hippie.  Hippie=Occupy movement or any demonized group who happen to be progressives.

Also, NPR.  Although there, once again, you draw the ire of the right because to them NPR=gubmint funded.  They aren't.

[Red Arrow]

CNN is about as neutral as they get, although I'm sure the more hard-line right wingers won't think so.  To many, liberal=hippie.  Hippie=Occupy movement or any demonized group who happen to be progressives.
Also, NPR.  Although there, once again, you draw the ire of the right because to them NPR=gubmint funded.  They aren't.

I would say NPR leans left but not excessively.  I agree NPR is not directly government funded but there are some strings through the Corp for Public Broadcasting I believe.

Liberals/Hippies/Progressives.   All progress is change but not all change is progress.  Back to the same old personal evaluation of what's the right thing to do.

[Hoss]

I would say NPR leans left but not excessively.  I agree NPR is not directly government funded but there are some strings through the Corp for Public Broadcasting I believe.

Liberals/Hippies/Progressives.   All progress is change but not all change is progress.  Back to the same old personal evaluation of what's the right thing to do.

But still conservatives argue it's government funded.  It isn't -- directly.  The CPB provides them with some funding.  CPB also provides PBS with some funding if I'm not mistaken.  Grants/pledge drives, sponsorships, etc.  50 percent of its revenue or thereabouts comes from the member fees it charges it's affiliates.

NPR 20 to 30 years ago was nearly wholly funded by the government.  So in a sense they're a success story of getting off the gubmint teat, as it were.

[nathanm]

There are basic activities that government should/must provide.  Yes, the government needs the ability to tax its citizens.  Simple so far.  Now we get to the more nitty-gritty.  Should some get these services free?  Who are they?  What level of support is "fair".  Should the US Government tax George Kaiser to the level that he no longer feels like donating huge chunks of money to local projects?  I have no idea what that level may be for him or anyone with his level of wealth.  Bank accounts at his level are just foreign numbers to me.   Even one the liberals' favorite whipping boy, Bill O'Reilly says he would willingly pay more taxes if some conditions of accountability were met. 

Ok, so we agree in principle. Personally, I think representative democracy is the best way to make the decisions about where the line is drawn on taxation and spending. Within limits, of course. Like no owning people, guaranteed religious freedom, freedom of speech, that sort of thing. Basically, within our existing constitution. (although I wouldn't mind having one that was more explicit..the present one is seems more like reading tea leaves sometimes)

IMO, none of the rest really matters without solving the political crisis in this country. Debating how much tax to pay or what spending programs need to be cut or expanded and all of that is pretty much meaningless as long as our elected leaders refuse to represent us. I think most of us agree that we're not really represented by our government. That's where our attention needs to be focused, not on all the mundane crap we bicker about. We're fiddling while Rome burns. So how do we fix it?

I think we need to change how we vote, how districts are drawn, and I think we need to at least double the size of the House, if not more. I think last would be the most controversial. After all, who wants more sleaze? However, I think it'll prove to be much harder to buy a thousand votes than it is to buy 200. I'd also like to see a number of "at large" seats elected nationally and allocated amongst participating political parties in proportion to the votes received. Say 10 or 20, so even diffuse movements that have sufficient support on a national basis can at least be included in the discussion, even if it turns out to be more symbolic than anything. Combined with changes to our voting system that makes frequently competitive third and fourth parties not essentially mathematically impossible, it should be a lot more difficult for special interests to control the levers of government.

The real problem isn't the Republicans, it's that the moderates essentially have no representation at present. Similarly, the far left has essentially no representation now. (Bernie Sanders, mainly, most of the rest vote against the leftists on almost everything except gun control) I think that excluding large segments of society from representation is one of the biggest causes of the idiocy we are presently drowning in. When we have a functional system, the sticky issues can be debated openly and the will of the people will prevail.

Healthy elections are a prerequisite to a healthy government.

Also, there is no such thing as neutral media. All media, indeed all people, have a set of innate assumptions as a lens through which they view the world. We almost all agree that republicanism is the best way to run a political system. We almost all agree that a market economy is the best economic system. We've even come to accept in the last 30 years the idea that the strictures of the market should govern outside the directly economic sphere. These unspoken assumptions are in and of themselves a bias. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm glad we don't have media seriously questioning the prohibition of murder. However, that doesn't make me or the media any less biased.

[erfalf]

So this thread goes something like this.

The left is upset that the Democrat party seems to be moving to the right.
The right is upset that the Republican party seems to be moving to the left.
And moderates have no one to vote for cause both parties are leaving them?

Something isn't adding up.

I have heard conservatives/libertarians saying for years that the Republican party is "leaving them". Only recently have I heard the same sentiment from the left. And not that the left is going too far left, that they are going too far right.

Just my opinion, but I think they are both moving left. The gridlock is just for show, they just do it to get reelected.

[MrsConan]

There are only two political philosophies: liberty and power. Either people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they respect the equal rights of others, or some people should be able to use force to make other people act in ways they wouldn't choose.

Democrats and Republicans participate in different flavors of power, but either way, they act contrary to liberty. Because of that, they will always strive to act contrary to one another, even when those actions are ridiculous, the policies damaging, and the outcomes devastating to the people.

Neither party is interested in the principals this country was founded on.  Both are guilty of selling to the highest bidder and buying votes with pillage.

The two party struggle is no more than a team sport that we pay to watch.  They should serve beer, hot-dogs, and foam fingers in the gallery of congress.

Well, said G. 

Something else I'd like to see in the gallery.......electric chairs.

[Gaspar]

Well, said G. 

Something else I'd like to see in the gallery.......electric chairs.

Watch out.  Agreeing with me could get you branded as "too simple" to function in this complex and scary world. 

[Townsend]

Watch out.  Agreeing with me could get you branded as "too simple" to function in this complex and scary world. 

Well said G

[nathanm]

Watch out.  Agreeing with me could get you branded as "too simple" to function in this complex and scary world. 

You're the one that refuses to acknowledge that your system prevailed in this country for a fair number of years before failing and being replaced with the federalist system.

[Teatownclown]

Well, said G.  

Something else I'd like to see in the gallery.......electric chairs.

Keep your head down. This forum is a man's world, unfortunately.

Be careful around the Gaspar and try to be sensitive to Conans' desire to play on the computer during the week....

How long before this gets messy?  

Here's to our 2016 candidate and hopefully first woman President!

4 more years and the GOP will be drowning in their waste.

[Teatownclown]

Pretty weird thread. Take religion out of the equation: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/01/study-atheists-more-compassionate-than-highly-religious-people/

Study: Atheists more driven by compassion than highly religious people

Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than atheists, agnostics and less religious people, according to a new study.

Research from University of California, Berkeley published in the most recent edition of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science found a stronger link between compassion and generosity among non-religious or less religious people.

"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," UC Berkeley social psychologist and study co-author Robb Willer explained. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."

Lead author Laura Saslow recalled she became interested in the topic after an atheist friend said he had only donated money for earthquake relief in Haiti after watching a touching video of a woman being pulled from the rubble.

"I was interested to find that this experience – an atheist being strongly influenced by his emotions to show generosity to strangers – was replicated in three large, systematic studies," she noted.

In one experiment, researchers analyzed a 2004 survey of 1,300 American adults to find that non-believers and the less religious were more likely to participate in random acts of kindness like giving food or money to a homeless person.

"These findings indicate that although compassion is associated with pro-sociality among both less religious and more religious individuals, this relationship is particularly robust for less religious individuals," the study said.

Two other experiments also confirmed that more religious participants seemed to be less generous.

"Overall, this research suggests that although less religious people tend to be less trusted in the U.S., when feeling compassionate, they may actually be more inclined to help their fellow citizens than more religious people," Willer concluded.

There's a damn good reason the founding father's insisted on separating the idolatrous from the practicable thinkers.

[Gaspar]

I really like this thread.  No matter what direction you come at the problem, it leads to the same conclusion. 

We have corrupted the political system by diverting the law from it's true purpose.  Bastiat warned of this over a century ago.  He was, of course, talking about France.  During his life, and to this day, he was consistently correct.  We are too arrogant to learn from the great thinkers of the past.  The progressive's natural inclination is to demonize them for their shortcomings or the purity and simplicity of their thought.

As long as the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting to gain access to the legislature as well as fighting within it. -Bastiat