... visited Canada. You can have her back, and as a bonus we're willing to sent y'all the idiot that brought her into Canada...

You can only send her back if you agree to take all the lefties who promised to leave the U.S. if President Bush was elected and then reneged.

good one grunt, wait for it........here they come.....

You misspelled his name. It's Mann Coulter.

I don't like her but what happened in Ottawa wasn't right.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/785037--coulter-s-free-speech-right-defended?bn=1

And you would want another Bush (Dick Cheney) running the country, pillaging the earth, killing innocent people? I'm not saying that your foreign policy (or pretty much anything for that matter) has changed with the "black guy" in the "white house". But if it wasn't for leftists with a desire to make change, you'd have conservator whack jobs with half a brain, and nothing good to say, running amok. By the way, Bush wasn't elected, it was a fraud and he stole the vote. That's a good enough reason for me to stay and try to save my country. Rather than just say, something's fishy, but hey I've got my 401 K.

Leftists create change, it's a historical fact.

Aaaaaaand we're off!

Last time I'm looking at this thread...

Don't be fooled about how she got to Canada or travels anywhere. She got there the way she gets through customs everywhere---hitching a ride on an intestinal parasite. And I know that e. coli are hip to her now and will not punch her ticket.

eColi is an internet virus!

Dick Bush

As a progressive with some libertarian tendencies, I can respect people's political viewpoints, even if I disagree with them. It helps if the person has applied reason or at least some rational thought. Unfortunately, in today's political climate, Ann Coulter and many of her colleagues on the right - Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin leap to mind - stoke people's fears and paranoia, feed them misinformation, and appeal to their basest and increasingly violent instincts.

That said, Ann Coulter is simply vile. Odious.

Give people enough rope....

Ya…me too. It’s taken years for Peter and I to recover from the last one I participated in…..

Hilarious

Political discussions anywhere are tough these days. Other than with my wife, I personally have stopped having virtually any political discussion in any circumstance, unless it is more of a joking thing. I used to enjoy the debates, but now I find myself getting angry and making others angry if I'm involved in a political discussion. I've heard people tend to get more tolerant as they get older, but I've definitely been the opposite.

I wonder if anyone has done a study of political discourse and why, it seems, that these days it is very difficult to have a reasoned discussion on political matters. I'm sure there are a number of factors at play. Seems it would be an interesting sociological study for someone who knows how to do those types of things. (And it may have been done many times, I actually don't care enought to look.)

To loosely quote Voltaire:
If you can be convinced of their philosophies, you can commit their atrocities.

I always enjoyed Jack Germond's contributions to the McLaughlin Group. He always coughed so much, though, that I was in perpetual fear that he'd hack up a lung one day, right there on camera. He wrote a book that I've always wanted to read: Fat Man Fed Up: How American Politics Went Bad.

This is the gist, from Publisher's Weekly: "Tackling everything from empty campaign rituals and deceptive TV ads to misleading polls and shallow news coverage, rotund political pundit Germond (Fat Man in a Middle Seat) holds forth on political ills. Drawing on 50 years in Washington, he traces a pattern of decline in substance, civility and integrity among politicians and those who write about them, and spares no one, including voters."

This was in 2004. I wonder what he'd say now.

Or as George Carlin said (foul language alert).

Dick Colin

I miss George Carlin ... RIP Man!

Hope you called the fire department, I think we‘re gonna need them.

George Carlin is one of my prophets.

It's hard to defend Ann Coulter, as she cashes in on sensationalism, but the vile stuff folks dish at her while turning a blind eye to leftist loons is pure comedy.

Coulter is evil, but Maddow is OK? Rush is evil, but Rev. Wright is OK? There's far more deranged folks on the left than the right, IMO. And they never get called out for their insane utterances.

You hit it right on the head. I am amazed at how violent they get. Rarely is there ever a real thought provoking conversation. Instead, and yes it happens here too (read some of the posts to this point) that they are just angry words tossed out about how stupid someone is, or how psycho one side's beliefs are. Bash bash bash.

I know that I am a minority on the Axiom forums in that I am a conservative, but even the Republican party isn't conservative any more, and that doesn't mean that I listen to or blindly follow the banter of the right-wing media either.

I have learned to gather my information, and make my own decisions. If people want to have useful conversations about politics here, then at least step back and examine the "infallible" people that you are backing and consider that the government and political system (at least in the US) as a whole is corrupt and the idea of actually doing what is right for the greater good was lost decades ago. If you can see through your own political party's smoke and mirrors, then you are one step closer to adding a valuable contribution to a political discussion. I for one, am stepping out of this one. If someone would like to have a real conversation about politics some time, I am all for it. If you don't want Ann Coulter in your country, it doesn't mean that we want her back either. :-) Now I find no real offense in FredK's original post. In fact, it is fairly humorous. So I'm not really talking about him.

(note: Before people start freaking out at me, re-read what I have stated above. Nowhere did I bash one single party. The above statements are valid for "either" party in the US.)

Sure, I'll still tick someone off for calling them out for making these statement, and that isn't my intent. Heck, I see things on Axiom people's Facebook posts, and I just let them go as personal expression, etc. I just know how, on a forum where discussions are the whole point, things can get out of hand on certain topics.

OK. Flame away. Put me on your ignore list because I've offended you with my comments of being civil.

Maybe we should just set up a forum for Right Wingers and one for Left Wingers and people can say what they want and people from the "other" group can't see it. Then everyone can bask in their own party's glory without offending anyone else. Who knows.

To clarify a common misconception, The University Of Ottawa did NOT cancel Coulter's speech, Coulter and the organizers of the speech did. They're just spinning it so she can play the victim and get more attention.

Hey Nick. I think your post is bang on. I don't consider what Coulter spews political commentary. My post was half humour and half 'I can't believe this is taking place'.

It was one of those post first and then think about it after moments.

Politics seems to have turned into a team sport where you cheer for the home team no matter what. I have voted both conservative and liberal (Canadian Democrat) over the years based on who I thought made the most sense.

Coulter and Levant make no sense to me. They seem more like a Circus freak show than anything else: a bastard child of reality TV.

Sorry to those I may have offended.

Oh, thanks for taking Ann back. The offer on Levant is still open...

Yeah. I saw him live a couple of times. Now if people like him were foolish enough to get into politics things could get interesting...

I have seen Chris Rock and Lewis Black, and Bill Cosby was my college commencement speaker. That was pretty cool.

That is incorrect. Ann Coulter was informed that her appearance was cancelled because they could not guaranty her safety.

It's nice to see free speech is flourishing in Kanookistan.

In Canada you're free to speak as long as you tow the politically correct multicultural party line. If you deviate, then you risk prosecution under Canada's hate speech laws guided by their Human Rights Councils.

The OIC is pushing the UN to pass hate speech resolutions which would effectively criminalize any discussion of Islam which offends, and some folks are so easily offended.

So, those who are so quick to urge not only restrictions of Ann Coulter's freedom of speach but silencing her speech because she expresses contrary views in an intelligent and confrontational manner, will, if they have their way, see the end of freedom of speech in the USA for all of us.

Canada is a disgraceful cautionary example of political correctness on its way to leftist fascism.

JMO

That is incorrect. Fortunately we north of the border still have a few real journalists who actually pay attention to these things.

Its funny, Coulter comes up to lecture us about free speech, but then 'complains' when others freely express their feelings about her. The only free speach she cares about is hers.

Somehow it does not surprise me that you would accept Coulter at face value when it has been shown time and again that she is very, um, 'liberal' with the truth.

Edit: you do realize don't you, that in buying Axiom product you are supporting the leftist fachist Republic of Kanukistan? If I were you I'd burn those speakers right now. They are probably beaming subliminal fachist propaganda at you 24/7...

This thread somewhat suprises me, but oh well we all have our opinions.

Nick, I can't imagine anyone having a problem with what you said. After all, you weren't "talking politics", you were talking about the lack of many people's ability to have a discussion about politics these days.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think we can have a conversation here about politics without pointing fingers at our opposition and crying "foul"!

I'm an Independent, which is easy here in NH. We are SO inundated come election time. For those of you in Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida who know what it's like when your state becomes a pivot point...it's ALWAYS like that here. I've seen / met just about every candidate in the last 8 years, and I don't mean just at rally's. You literally run into them on the street or in a diner. When they become front-runners, they're surrounded by "their people" and Secret Service. But early on, you just see them as pretty much normal people. Last election cycle, Joyce and I met and talked a bit with Dennis Kucinich at the local mall. The mall was pretty much empty (there was a snowstorm) and it was no event.... he and an assistant were out looking for a gift for his wife for her birthday. The whole thing really gives you a good sense of who some of these people are BEFORE the whole thing gets overblown. It's like seeing a band in a club before they make it big.

I never used to be involved in politics until a decade or so ago. I've always voted, but would vote for a Democrat, Republican or Independent depending upon who I think the best person was... regardless of their affiliation. Unfortunately, I don't think that can be done anymore.

I will say that I voted for Obama partly because I really thought that he would be able to unify the country and end the widening divide between parties. I don't see this as his personal failure, but the divide has only gotten worse. I think, to be a citizen who is politically aware these days, you almost HAVE to choose a side, which sucks. When both sides are busy slinging mud instead of doing their job, we all lose. They're too worried about making the other side look bad and not worried enough about doing their own job correctly.

I'm really beginning to think the system is broken. Maybe a two-party system can't help but disintegrate into this with today's "all media, all the time" technology. Someone says something in Kansas and within and hour, there's a soundbite of a rebuttal in Washington and two hours later somebody is ranting about it on their talk show for their ratings. It's insane.

After the big vote, some bricks get thrown through some Democrat Reps' windows, and when it's reported, the Republicans say that it's only being reported to make the Republicans look bad and the Dems are doing it for their gain. This struck me as so obviously "blaming the victim", but then the Dems send out a letter saying "send $$ to our party" so we can fight the Republicans.

They're ALL asses, and they've BOTH spun it so far that the original story is forgotten.

It's like gangs fighting for turf who don't even know why they're fighting...except something bad was done to them last week, so this week they have to do something bad back to the other side.

I seriously wonder what would happen if we voted ALL the Reps out and brought in new reps that aren't carrying all these old grudges.... though I guess that's not possible because anyone qualified to do the job will have already been poisoned by the divisiveness.

I've backed away from politics quite a bit in the last year, mostly because I'm disgusted with it all, and if I follow it closer I'll end up pissed off off the time.

I truly fear for this country. NOT because I think we're turning Socialist but because BOTH sides are just failing to work to get things done, and I don't know how it will get fixed. Neither side is backing off the "If you don't do it my way, I'm taking my toys and going home" attitude.

F**king children.

Grow up, get over it, and do the job you were elected to do. THAT's how you keep your job.

Politicians are supposed to put the country's well being in front of their own party or their own asperations, but it's clear they don't. Power at all costs?

Well, yeah...if you really want to boil paragraphs of blabber down to the real point or something...

"Don't blame me...I voted for Kodos"


Marge Simpson

Mark, your new material is not nearly as funny as your classic stuff. Trying out the new, darker edge stuff, eh?

Seriously, I think you nailed it. And that's a cool story about Kucinich, with a perfect analogy of seeing a band in a small club.

I can still be a Democrat fanboy at times, but I agree that they have their serious issues. They, too, are too beholden to lobbyists and special interest groups. Lewis Black reminded me of this when I saw him live. He enjoyed calling everybody numbnuts, an equal opportunity basher.

I do think that Obama got too caught up with the Lincolnesque "Team of Rivals" approach. I think he is honestly exasperated that he can't achieve much bipartisanship. Realizing that reality led him to have that final reach out to the Republicans. Eventually, though, he realized his best remaining option was to go ahead and push unilaterally for what he thought was right as far as the health care reform (HCR) bill.

One thing that chaps me is the cries of the Republicans that Obama and the Democrats are arrogant, that they are pushing this down the throats of the American public. As to the arrogance, I think the Democrats are no more arrogant than the Republicans. Each side has its view of what is right and what it wants to accomplish, and that's that. Leave the name-calling out of it. As a psychiatrist, it seems like too much projection when you call the other side arrogant. Either that or you're being a bunch of crybaby losers. But I guess that would be me name-calling.

As to the pushing of HCR down the throats of the American public, there's two things that bother me. (1) The right and the South basically said the same thing about the desegregation of the military and the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. (2) So much of what the opinion polls reflected was fueled by misinformation and fear-mongering from the right. When people were asked about the particular details of the HCR bill individually, they approved of them. When people realize that HCR is not going to be Armageddon, as Boehner claimed, then maybe things will calm down a little.

I think what we are doing here in this thread is a positive step towards civil public discourse.

Good posts Mark and Nick. I agree with you guys. (And, Nick, it appears you and I start with the opposite political views, as I am what I'd call "radical left.")

On the Ann Coulter thing, that itself even is a tough issue. I know people talk about free speech, but there are lines that need to be drawn and these are tough lines. A university certainly should be a bastion of discussion and alternative views--the ultimate place to fight against the tyranny of the majority if you will and express alternative views. However, I think there are limits. If a university for whatever reasons wants to invite an open racist or anti-semite to speak, do the students need to accept that or can they rally to stop the whole darn thing? I personally think the latter is the case (though the rally needs to be done in the right way). I'm not comparing Ann Coulter to a racist or anti-semite, I know little about her. My point is even statements such as "it's a matter of free speech" often aren't cut and dried. Yes you have a right to speak, but I also have the right to object to you and your speech.

Lines are drawn every single day on numerous issues. What I think often is missed is the fact that even with the hardest issues, the debate often is nothing more than a question about where you draw the line.

Nick, I'm in your camp.

Yeah, I would blame the media for that more than the politicians or the system though. I think most of the people political ideas polarized when the media became a source of ‘entertainment’ and not a source of unbiased information. I’m getting older and cynical now, but looks like the media is now controlled by big interests and that is getting scary. Once you control people’s opinions you control the country.

Inquisitive Foreigner: "Excuse me, sir. May I ask why you have that long heavy rope tied to your waist?"

Oppressed Canadian: "Why yes. I happen to be towing the politically correct multicultural party line."

IF: "Umm, I think you've got your idiom wrong."

OC: "What do you mean?"

IF: "The correct phrase is 'Toe the line' -- which is meant to be taken figuratively and should evoke an image of people standing in unison, all with their toes behind a line painted on the ground."

OC: "You mean I can untie this blasted thing from my waist?!"

IF: "By all means."

OC: "Great! Now, where's this line you're telling me about?"

IF: **facepalm**

Yes, of course, "toe the line," not "tow the line." Insufficient familiarity with prison culture on my part. My bad.

Well, so much for liberalism's former tolerance of contrary opinions. Now, liberalism is in favor of free speech so long as it is in step with the party lines announced by liberal elitists.

While liberals were once heard to say they will defend a contrarian's free speech rights to the death, liberal mobs now enforce 'right thinking' among those who would speak on campuses by threats of violence and violence. Ask Alan Dershowitz what it feels like to be surrounded and pummelled. Apparently, our Canadian friends had surrounded Ann Coulter's venue and some were waiting with stones.

As to the accusation that Ann Coulter lies, I am not aware of that. Would someone who makes that charge kindly provide some facts to support it?

I notice another trend in lib think, if someone disagrees, attack them personally. This tactic does not make for an agreeable public discussion.

As to my lib friends, I would remind them of the fate of the Gadarene swine. Just because they are in step and headed in the same direction, does not mean they are heading in the correct direction. BTW, by this reference to a fallacy that should be taught in every logic class I am not ascribing to liberals swinish qualities.

Let a thousand flowers bloom.

PS pmb, really, Axiom speakers are made in Canada? I am not ascribing to all Canadians the follies of their intolerant liberal elites, and I am not boycotting Canada, the place where I had my first great Onion Soup. and ... who can forget the Kanookie?

Thanks Canada!!

French Onion Soup does kick ass! You should also try our Poutine (fries topped with cheese curds and gravy)...to die for!

Funny Peter. I'm gonna go clean out my Igloo now...

JP. It may interest you to know that Canada had a similarly angry reaction when healthcare reform was introduced here. Tommy Douglas and his party lost power because of it. Yet, once the sillyness settled down, we kept healthcare and have a reasonable system.

Mark I agre with you, though I think that there is a solution. People need to tak a critical look at all things political and call bs when they see it, no matter the party affiliation. Sadly critical thinking is not something easily taught in a mass education system. There is also that horse and water thing.

By the way, if you want to feel better about US politics, take a look at Italy. Burlusconi really has his fachism mojo going!

Emily Latella: "What's all this talk about Violins?"

Absolutely. What Coulter types try to tell us is that there sort of like saying the right to bear arms gives you the right to shoot anybody you don't agree with. There is this thing called civility, and there are limits.

Peronally I would like to see a one on one debate between Borat and Coulter. If you're gonna do comedy...

http://mediamatters.org/research/200901040002

http://slannder.homestead.com/files/chapter2critique.html

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912310001

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906110005

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905220006

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905210033

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905010002

http://mediamatters.org/research/200902120016

http://mediamatters.org/research/200901120005

http://mediamatters.org/research/200901070005

http://mediamatters.org/research/200901060017

http://mediamatters.org/research/200412220007

http://mediamatters.org/research/200412230014

http://mediamatters.org/research/200502250002

http://mediamatters.org/research/200504200006

http://mediamatters.org/research/200508050003

http://mediamatters.org/research/200510060011

http://mediamatters.org/research/200509120002

http://mediamatters.org/research/200510270009


I'll stop there.

It's not just liberals who are guilty of this. The conservative movement/Republican party trumps the Democrat party in terms of groupthink. There were no Republicans who voted for HCR, but there were Democrats that voted against it. The Republican Party is the one in the lockstep. Another example of casting out those who beg to differ or even cast unfavorable light on you: ask David Frum why he was just booted out of his conservative think tank. The answer is here in his opinion piece. Some followup is here.

I'll grant you that there are some loud, annoying ultra-liberals out there. The PETA types can be holier-than-thou and antagonistic. I don't sign on with them. They're too far out there for me. Each side has its wingnuts. Those of us who like to think that we are closer to the middle of the spectrum than the extremes don't do ourselves any favors when we puff ourselves up by doing a little downward comparison to the wingnuts. Rather, a discussion like this one can be more productive, I would hope.

Another thing I find interesting about the claim from the right that the left is intolerant of dissenting views. Think about that: the left being intolerant. If anything, I guess you could accuse them of being intolerant of intolerance.

Other than the aforementioned PETA wingnuts, what kind of intolerance are you talking about? The "I disagree with you/don't share your vision" intolerance? Because that's not intolerance, that's just a difference of opinion.

2x6: I'm not sure who you are responding to when you state that "liberalism is in favor of free speech so long as it is in step with the party lines announced by liberal elitists." In this thread, I've not seen anything close to that type of opinion. I think it's been an interesting discussion in this thread. Perhaps you are speaking to the specific article and what happened with Ann Coulter. But I took it more as a reply to opinions being stated in this thread, and as I mentioned I just don't see what people said here as warranting the characterization quoted above. I'm curious what you were referring to.

In any event, free speech simply does not mean the right to say anything at any time in any place. (You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater and then say it is a matter of free speech). I think people often misunderstand what free speech really means. I'll give an example. A friend of mine recently was attacked by her husband brutally (he was charged with attempted murder). Because of who he and she are, the story ended up on a legal blog where people could comment. Some people thought it would be funny to post what they considered humurous comments about the victim. When those comments were removed from the blog, these people screamed that their right to free speech was being violated. They could not have been more incorrect, and sadly given the blog at issue they likely were either law students or lawyers.

Even issues of "free speech" often are difficult to deal with; it is not always black and white. That being said, I tend to agree that people get more into a "free speech" type of mood when the person who wants to speak is going to say something they agree with. I can't say I am above that. However, I don't believe it is limited to the "liberal elitists."

And medic8r, I support a lot of PETA's positions (though not all). How dare you call me a wingnut! (I am kidding. I know my views are pretty extreme on many things, and don't take offense to people characterizing me as a wingnut or anything else. It's probably a fair characterization. Of course, it doesn't make me wrong . . . .")

Did you read the news link provided above in response to your previous post? There were no threats of violence. There was none mentioned on any "blogs" or "lefty" Facebook pages. The police were there, keeping an eye on the crowd. Most of the people there were waiting outside to be let in to the building. The line was backed up as they were making every person sign in to be admitted, and more people showed up then the venue could hold. Again, most were there to hear her speak. Of the people outside, a minority of those were there in PEACEFUL protest. The police did not see, did not find, or were not aware of any threat towards Ms. Coulter. There was no one there clutching rocks or sticks. She and her people cancelled the speech, likely to create a media frenzy, like what has occured, so she can keep her name in the media as a relevant "talking head", and sell more books and do more paid speeches to line her own pockets, which seems to be her single priority.

I will credit her with this, she is a master media manipulator.

Well Fred, I see you're the one who is doing comedy. Ann Coulter never said that, now did she? It is easy to rebut another's arguments when you make them up. She is much better at making her own points than you.

Show us some facts instead of overheated mischaracterizations.

Just a suggestion of course.

Hi Ray,

Well, I had the pleasure of attending Daniel Pipes discussion here at UCI and watched as he was shouted down by the local Muslim Brotherhood student organization thugs and leftists of unknown label. Same for the Israeli Ambassador Oren. Same for Dershowitz at Berkely...

I saw Ann Coulter on O'Reilly yesterday. She reports she was drinking coffee in the waiting area when she was informed by security that her appearance had been cancelled because of security concerns. I also saw an interview with a Canadian journalist, a close cropped lady who looked like she shaves, who informed us that Canada's hate laws criminalize Ann Coulter's speech and that Canada does not have a first amendment and does not need nor want people to express opinions like Coulter's in public places.

How nice.

As to the report in a Canadian newspaper that Ann Coulter voluntarily refused to go forward, well, forgive me, but I take that report with more than a grain of salt.

O'Reilly!! Lol!!

I'm not sure why the woman's appearance matters, but I do agree that it would be unfortunate if it were true that: "Canada's hate laws criminalize Ann Coulter's speech." I am no scholar on Canadian law (hell, I'm no scholar on American law), and I truly know very little about Ann Coulter's past statements, but I tend to doubt this woman's views are correct. In any event, unless this person saw what Ann Coulter was going to say, she simply could not determine whether her speech would have violated any law.

By the way, even though you clearly are a conservative wingnut (joking), I like your penguin avatar.

OK, since we're talking politics now anyway.... why don't we see what the group is comprised of?

I lean towards food and beer, whoever is serving it.

Both main parties in Canada are left of the Democrats in the US, so it might skew the #'s.

If you force me, I'll vote for Kodos though.

I'm leaning towards using cable elevators. Man these things sound SWEET!

Or none of the above. I am most definately a fiscal conservative. I hate governments that spend like drunken sailors for no return, be they left wing or right wing.

In the 70s and 80s I thought I was slightly right of center on social issues. 2x6 would probably consider me communist.

I noticed none of you have actually voted yet.

FIRST!

You missed the part about a blog post suggesting dipping Coulter in gravy and locking her in a room with a wolvereen on angel dust: serious threat, that.

I won't. Politics is much more nuanced than left/right, and that is the big issue with 'modern' politics.

That's why I gave you FIVE choices instead of two. you wingnut!

Sorry football-head-guy, I didn't see wingnut on the list.

We're getting so many posts here, that soon if someone Googles "Ann Coulter" the Axiom forum will come up first!

I am curious why one category is Liberal but the opposite end of the spectrum is "Ultra" Conservative. Was that intentional? Really just curious what the thinking was, if it was intentional.

I voted.

Does anyone remember, was Kodos a Democrat or a Replican?

Honestly, Ray, I wasn't sure of the correct terminology.

I started with the center choice and thought if you go right, you're a Dem and if you go farther to the right, you're a liberal.

And if you go left, you're a Republican..... but then I couldn't figure out what was "further left" than that...i.e., opposite of liberal on the spectrum.

Is Ultra-Conservative incorrect? I honestly don't know....(?)

And, yes, in case it's not clear, it WAS intentional, albeit possibly incorrect?

I honestly don't know either. It's just the lawyer in me--whenever I see a difference in wording on similar concepts I am curious what the motivation was. That was the only reason I asked.

I voted independent because I'm an anarchist.

That said, I'm curious to know who Nick was directing his comments to. I have a feeling it was me, which I don't have a problem with (I agree with what he said). But if that's the case, I find his points made about my comments erroneous and I'd be happy to elaborate.

I heart you wheelz

Wow, there's no emoticon for that.

it's funny how liberals think conservatives stupid. i find the converse to be true. hilarious how the little commie dweebs become what they're fed.

Stupid is not the domain of any one group political or otherwise.

Politics is just authority for adults and that is why it invokes such reaction and fear. The same way children/teenagers react to their parents - how adults react to politicians and political ideologies/government intervention.

Personally, I am a fan of the Joker .

Mark, how insensitive of you, using a word like dweeb in mixed company!

Stop making Ivanka Trump jealous.

heheheheheh

"A conservative is a man that sits and thinks. Mostly sits."
--- Woodrow Wilson

As bad as (some) of the corporate Dems can be, 30 years of Republican and conservative ideology have almost destroyed the US (and large portions of the world) and have been roundly rejected by the American people in our last two elections.

It's kind of fun (and a bit scary) to watch the death throes of a failed ideology and political party. Their whole worldview has finally come crashing down into reality. This whole Teabagger movement is the result of years of Fox news and right-wing talk radio. These "patriots' are ignorant, misinformed and angry that a 'black" man is in the white house because their boy GWB screwed the pooch so bad. America has finally rejected the "party of ideas" (lol) and their mantra of "less taxes" (for the wealthiest) and 30 years of FAIL.

It must kill these racist a-holes who have been taught their whole life that blacks are inferior to them to have a black man, who is way smarter and more accomplished than they could ever hope to be, governing our country. And doing it well. And as a centrist for Christ sake! I wish he were more liberal, then maybe we could have single payer. But I'm patient. And Obama is, without a doubt, the best president we have had in a long, long time.

All this yelling about "socialism" and "fascism" and "communism" (yes, wingnuts confuse these terms) by the teabaggers is hilarious. Not only can they not define these terms, they usually can't spell them either.

And all these Ayn Rand fanboys (horrible writer of wingnut fantasy for infantile minds) hate any form of socialism and worship at the alter of free markets but cannot tell me how society can function without all of the "socialism" that we already have (police, fire dept, roads, water/sewage etc.) and dream of a perfect, unregulated free market. They could always move to Somalia I suppose.



I respect you Grunt, but really? What do you hate about us "liberals"? You really think that Republican rule has brought good things to this country? And aren't you ex-military? I have a kook uncle who is ex-military. Rails against everything liberal or progressive and watches Fox new constantly, but has been sucking on the tax payer tit his whole miserable life. I think he mostly just hates minorities, gays, women etc. Loves his guns and bible though.

Right wing media portrays socialist countries as hell holes. When the truth is so much different. I would love for the US to become as horrible as Canada or Sweden. Most of these yahoos have never even traveled to Canada or Europe though.

Oh, and the myth of the "liberal media". The "media" is only as "liberal" as the corporations that own them.

And Ann Coulter is a vile piece of trash and St. Ronnie Reagan is dead and was a shitty president.

Dean's specifying the "lefties" who threatened to leave the US and didn't. I doubt he wants to be rid of every single person with liberal views, but maybe I'm wrong.

If you want to avoid reading my rant then:

What CV said!


I respect you too, for being a tad off beat and willing to speak your mind. Let me ask you one question (and pardon me if I’m reading to much into your post) but why if I hate “lefties” (my words) does it mean that I like “righties?” I despised the last Bush administration, their “neo-conservative” world view. Getting us into a completely stupid war in Iraq that violates all military principles I’ve learned for 40 years (yes I studied strategy/tactics as a kid). I had no problem with the Clinton administration (save his public disrespect of the office (I also liked Nixon save his criminal disrespect for the office)) because, despite the right-wing rhetoric it was about as middle of the road as it gets. President Clinton along with Prime Minister Blare were “Third Wayists” neither “conservative” nor “liberal.” I am a “leave-other-people-aloneist.” I don’t need people craving power or validation telling others that they can better run my life than they can. I hate modern “liberals” and modern “conservatives” equally. They are all IMO cut from the same cloth of authoritarianism despite some of their claims otherwise.

The intent of my comment was to highlight the inordinate amount of attention that people give to “talking-heads,” (not the band) who have no reason to be listened to save their “celebrity” status. Sometimes my mind connects dots like this “What’s her name we’re talking about” and all the Hollywood stars who were proclaiming that they would leave the country if G.W. Bush was elected. Their opinions are all equally worthless.

Sorry if my reaction seems over done but growing up in Arizonan culture in the 1960 I was raised to be a fiscal conservative and social liberal (Goldwater) and all the crap some of you are arguing about here now pollutes my state to a great degree because of the short sighted “liberal” policies that drove businesses out and cost of living up in the states that all these left and right wing nutcases that now live here baled from and came here to avoid. And now guess what they are doing here?

Just for reference I watch/listen to almost no “news.” When I did watch Brit Hume on FOX years ago I would change the channel when “What’s her name” came on I found her that disgusting. Now most of my news comes form NPR driving to work. They are decidedly biased to the left but at least try to present opposing viewpoints and do a much better job of it than the BBC IMO, sad because I use to really respect the BBC.

Cheers,
Dean

P.S. I support the secession of Arizona from the U.S. We held out, being the last of the 48 contiguous states and should never have given in.

P.P.S. I know, not gonna happen.

Cheers,
Dean

Well said Dean. The good thing about those middle of the road guys is that they are pragmatic. You compromise to get the important stuff. To get the right compromise you need to take a cold hard look at what it is you really want to accomplish.

The mid 60s to early 80s were the heyday of liberal ideology in Canada and it took us until the mid 90s to tighten our belts enough to begin to pay for that binge. From there we took a hard right into conservative ideology and massive debt yet again.

To me, the lesson is simple. Ideologically driven government = BAD. BAD = more debt.

I know the pitfalls of political threads, but I do enjoy them when they come up and people present perspectives I never considered. Thanks to the people providing intelligent, thoughtful discourse.

I agree but IMO it’s even worse than that. Historically representative governments always over extend themselves fiscally in order to buy the happiness or patriotism (votes) of the people in order to get or stay in power. It’s always been that way and always will because it plays to human nature on both sides those in power and those seeking their largess.

Sadly ideologically driven government tends to become driven by the “true-believers” who are often willing to do anything to see their utopian ideals realized.

Here's a famous political joke that I thought some in this thread would appreciate-

A journalist goes around and asks a Russian, a Pole, and an Israeli the same question.

He first goes to the Russian, "excuse me, what's your opinion of the meat shortage?" The Russians says, "what's an opinion?"

The journalist then goes to the Pole, "excuse me, what's your opinion of the meat shortage?" The Pole replies, "what's meat?

He then goes to the Israeli, "excuse me, what's your opinion of the meat shortage"? The Israeli replies, "what's excuse me?"

I would figure Grunt to be a “leave-other-people-alone-ist” anti-authoritarian type, lol. Anyone who has that avatar (Donald Sutherland, a fine Canadian liberal actor btw.) is gotta be anti-authority! I'm kinda that way myself. Used to think that I was a libertarian (with bleeding heart tendencies) until I realized that being a libertarian is like being a communist: They both sound good on paper, but in practice...

No man is an island. And now I'm more of a liberal/reluctant capitalist type (you should be able to make as much damn money as you want, just not by screwing your fellow man). I believe in personal freedom but I also know that I can't process my own sewage or have my own army and need a functioning society so that I can pursue my own brand of "freedom".

While I have thrived, and continue to thrive, living in the good ole' USA, there have been a few times that I was broke enough to qualify for food stamps/government assistance. But did I? No. I never even considered it. I'm a white male who was raised in a nice middle class family who's had plenty of opportunities. But I also know that many are born into lesser means than I and may need extra help. Does that mean I think it's ok to mooch off of my taxes? Hell no! But when I worked for the state (mental health) way back in the day, one thing I noticed: No one likes to be on welfare. Most of the recipients were (contrary to popular belief) white. And most (that I've known) would have gladly taken a job rather than be humiliated by the grinding poverty that being "on the dole" leaves you trapped in.

I think a part of being a liberal means that you care about the least fortunate (even when you are prosperous) and believe that society is better off if those people have a little help when they need it. I choose to see the "better" in people. A lot of the current crop of "conservatives" see the worst in people and think that you should just pull yourself up by the bootstraps. But you have to have "boots" first to do that!

I pay a crap load of taxes. In fact, I have to write a big check for Uncle Sam very soon (Grrrr!). I'd rather that money goes to helping than hurting (make speakers, not bombs!). But I am not naive, I know that a lot is wasted on crap. I, myself, am actually pretty fiscally conservative. I am not all about tax and spend. I do think the voters should have more say in where "our" money is spent and the only way to do that is by electing better people to govern on both sides of the political spectrum. I would rather my taxes go to improving the lot for "everyone" rather than the wealthiest and corporations. An educated and working populace is a safe and happy one. I pay a lot in home owners taxes as well. And you know where most of that goes? To help fund the schools in my county. And I don't have any freaking kids! But hey, I'll help fund your lil' snowflakes edumacation so Johnny can learn to read and get a good job so he isn't out robbing me at 2:00 am at an ATM.

I actually hope that the Republican party can get it's shit together and get back to it's stated principals (for which I share many) of smaller (but smarter, more efficient and less intrusive) government and non-interventionist foreign policy. We need their yang to the Democrats ying. There are many good conservative ideas that should be embraced, but the Coulters and Limbaughs and Hannitys and Fox News etc., bring nothing to civil discourse. They lie and demonize the left. They also will never debate their "ideas" with others who believe differently. Of course, they are entitled to their own "opinions", just not their own "facts" (truth has a liberal bias you know ). They are just an echo chamber playing to the fears of the ignorant and scared and convincing them to vote (and I find this to be so ridiculous) against their own best interests. Every. Single. Time.

I'm a Bill Hicks liberal (no, not full of psilocybin and ranting... well... sometimes!). I'd like to love all you motherfu#kers but it's hard sometimes when I see some of these dumb sumbitches and what they believe (on both sides) messing up my country. I hate political correctness taken to extreme. I would love to see all guns disappear (all you hunters can use cross bows dag nabbit!) tomorrow, but that ain't gonna happen. And as long as the bad guys, police and military have 'em, I want the right as well. I don't believe in the death penalty. The state should not have that right. Does no good anyway. And I hate war. A waste of human lives. But I am not a complete pacifist. I would kill in self defense or to defend or protect the rights and freedoms of every peace loving individual anywhere.

Truly, I think we should not be so divided as a people. I think the danger is the corporations, who have vested interests in both sides, to keep us oppressed and fighting each other. They are the true enemy of the people.

I concur wholeheartedly!

Audiosavant. Its a damn shame more people have not come to the same realization. In a democracy, we get exactly the government we vote for and right now that does not reflect very well on your average voter.

I think the founding fathers of the US had an expectation that its citizenry would have a great deal more common sense than they are now showing. That common sense thing applies equally here in Canada. I don't think that we are any better at holding our politicians to account.

Don’t confuse me with a libertarian as I ascribe to political belief system that I’m aware of. I agree with you that libertarianism and communism and would add socialism, anarchism and any other political philosophies sound good on paper, but in practice . . . .

Because as Fred pointed out they become government driven ideologies at which point they stop being a means to and end and become an end unto themselves, and w/o a reality check (competition for power or threat thereof) become willing to do whatever it takes to see the fruition of their version of utopian ideals.

The framers of the constitution understood this writing it to dived government powers between what they believed were the three most successful forms of ancient government Monarchy (President), Oligarchy (Senate) and Democracy (House) each having it’s own strengths and weaknesses balance out by completion. The powers were divided in such a way as to try to prevent any one branch from being dominant and for each branch to derive from different sources thus having divided loyalties preventing to much collusion. Unfortunately things immediately began happening to undermine the foundation (initially these things were not unanticipated by the founders).

First was the formation of national political parties pulling elected officials loyalty away from there constituents self interest and toward the parties collective interest. Which due to the presidential (winner takes all) system (as opposed to a proportional parliamentary system) lead to only two political parties being viable. Now add in mass communication and the free flow of campaign money with it’s corresponding impact on elections and you now have people living in New York heavily influencing elections in Colorado. This removes the intent of the House being elected to look out for the self interest of the individual members districts in at least partly in favor of the party line.

Formation of a national currency and ensuing need for a National Bank to regulate it ensured all economic activity would ultimately be influenced by the central government. Not claiming this is bad or good just that it is.

The 16th Amendment allowing for a federal income tax furthered the pulling of power away from localities to a central authority. Now the central government can take money away from people/states and threaten not to give it back unless certain standards are met.

The 17th Amendment proscribing the direct election of senators destroyed the constitutional division of powers by making all branches of government popularly elected. The founders understood that more “democracy” (mob rule) is not always a good thing.

The rise of the judiciary to become in many ways the dominant governing (a modern version of high priests if you will) branch by legislating through judicial fiat.

All these things point in one direction, the consolidation of power, something political theorists from every culture, time and place throughout human history have warned against. I have no delusions that minus government we would have far worse, corporate oligarchy, anarchy (which often becomes dictatorship by people seeking protection from the anarchy).

Baring major social upheaval (or at least the threat of it) power will centralize. It seems an inevitable aspect of human nature at least for groups to large for face-to-face relations between all members and often for those groups too. My political philosophy is simply that power seeking (be it individual, group (militias, corporate, political parties. . .) or governments) should be resisted at all times since in the long run it can’t be stopped w/o social unrest (causing it’s own problems), thus postponing the inevitable social upheaval necessary to break up to strong a power and start the whole process over again.

One saving grace in the long run is that the very powerful be they individuals or even nations become complacent. They loose their hunger and drive that brought them to dominance decaying from within and collapsing under their own weight.



Money does not equal education. The children I met in West Africa were better educated than most U.S. children I meet at pennies on the dollar for what we spend because their parents valued education. Significant others in a child’s life who care about education equals educated children. You want to make a difference in their lives keep your money and go down to the neighborhood and knock some sense into the parents who are allowing their kids to be on the street at 2:00 am. If more people volunteered with themselves rather than other peoples pocket books we could shape this country up most ricky tick.

Believe me I’ve extensively studied poverty (both urban and rural in many countries) even editing the education section of a report to congress on rural poverty for one of my professors. Money really doesn’t equal education, nor does education equal life success (when controlling for other factors). The single most determining factor in the success (social economic status) of a child are the expectations of significant others (parents, teachers, priests, community leaders. . .). Money is easy (behavioral change isn’t) and makes it look like something is being done.

BTW living in WI I was a volunteer firefighter. Here in Phoenix I help local JROTC programs (mostly underprivileged kids). I help train local high school kids to be A&P mechanics through a program my unit sponsors with a local high school. Two of the kids I’ve personally trained are now full time employees in my unit and many others are aircraft mechanics in the Air Force, Navy and a few at airlines. Best thing is none of what I’m doing is lining the pockets of some federal or local bureaucrat.


I completely agree but it won’t happen. Funny how the Democrats use to be the interventionist. Now with the neo-conservative influence on the Republican party they are the ones who want to march off to war. This was an inevitable outgrowth of the ending of the cold war which validated the neo-conservative ideal that government can solve problems through military force. Couple that with the relative ease with which the First Gulf War was prosecuted and more foreign interventions became inevitable.

Eventually the religious right will push for more and more intervention in domestic policy making so I don’t see any chance that the republican party will ever be able to get back to being the party of small government not that they ever have been in my lifetime due to their support of the military industrial complex.

Ok way too long but you wrote some interesting stuff which I wanted to share my opinion about. There’s much more but we could talk about but. . . .

Cheers,
Dean

You guys are all smart and stuff..... ::kicks dirt with shoe::

Dean. Consolidation of power seems to be a natural consequence of maturing societies. It has happened consistently throughout history. When you look at the variants of democracy around the world, none of them seem particularly effective in maintaining any semblance of a balance of power. Damned depressing, that is.

You just toppled my government.

I rest my case.

Funny, though, that the more liberal one is, the more time one has to write nonsense on the internet (or crackpot letters to the paper).

I have no time to read more than bits and pieces of this thread, and barely any time for this little bit of posting.

At least you had the little bit of time to put us all in our place. Thank you!

And it shows...

I'm on the fence with most of the politcal opinions in this topic (many of which seem to be giving Ann Coulter a good run for her money, LOL). I am however, a little confused with the above statement. Statistics on donations and support put "liberals" quite some distance behind "conservatives". Try do a little digging into "who gives more to charity liberals or conservatives" and let me know what you find. I would call myself an independant and enjoy researching both sides of the discussion here. So far, I'm discovering it more difficult finding evidence to support many of the liberal type comments although many of the "arguments" do come across as convincingly strong. Much like Coulter and her "right-wing" rhetoric.

"Canada is a disgraceful cautionary example of political correctness on its way to leftist fascism."

The U.S does not have a good record for free speech either. Don’t believe me; just ask the Dixie Chicks, and all she said was that she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas. [sic] I would be too! (I'd be embarrassed to be from Texas actually)


I don’t believe that all conservatives are terrible people; for that matter I know that not all liberals have good intent, but I never hear liberals talking about killing others based on opposing opinions, truly this is more of a right wing ideal.

Only if you choose to have a short time horizon.

History of Terrorism: Where Did Left Wing Terrorism Go?

Good point Dean. To me Violence fits hand in hand with ideologically driven movements. Once a group believes they have the absolute high moral ground the end justifies the means.

To tie this back to Coulter and her backer in Canada Levant, the very same Levant was quite opposed to allowing British MP George Galloway entry into Canada because of his views on the Middle East. The government Levant works for denied Mr. Galloway entry into Canada. Mr. Levant is on the record as stating that Mr. Galloway was not a Canadian and as such should not have the same rights of free speech here as Canadian citizens should. Yet now he insists that certain groups in Canada are intolerant to free speech when they show up to protest his foreign 'beacon' of free speech.

The same government has denied access to activists with differing views on more than one occasion.

To me, the reality is that Coulter is being used by our current government to discredit 'the left' as being intolerant when, by action it is the current government that is most guilty of muzzling free speech.

If you take into consideration how free speech is curtailed in other countries, it's truly not even worth mentioning when referring to its limitations here or in the U.S.

If this was truly the case, anyone that has posted in this forum with antithetical views to the state, would be locked up for sedition.

I'm an anarchist, and the "crocodile tears" for freedom of anything in North America is unjustified. It's my opinion, that if there's any concern in a matter, it's better directed elsewhere.

-------------------

Against the state = Terrorist

Power structure propaganda.

There's a historical universal propaganda model that states use -

If we're doing it, its counter-terrorism. But if you're doing it, it's terrorism.

This was NAZI propaganda (an example of the most horrific crime), and has been adopted by the current leading terrorist states.

The U.S. and Britain currently use this model to justify the occupation of Afghanistan.

That’s a very shortsighted political view (not to say U.S. doesn’t suffer the same in the area of immigration “reform”). A major reason England became such a strong economic power in her heyday (despite her small size) was that the English government tried to ensure a level playing field even for foreign companies doing business their. The English courts were seen as fair even to foreign competitors which made it a trade friendly environment. Nationalism scares investment away though not as much as instability does.

Sadly my experience dating back to the 1960s is that the lefties are just as quick to try and silence their opposition as the righties. As you said:



Unfortunately the true believers of any side don’t only think they aren’t doing anything wrong but are actually doing good. True believers make me sick be they political idealists or brand fanboys. Sadly human nature is difficult even for the “educated” to overcome.

It's funny. I realize I don't know much about the day too day machinations of Canadian politics.

And I'd like to consider myself more curious than the average American punter (USA!!! #1!!!) about politics outside my own borders.

Other than French Canadian concerns over independence and the fact that Trudeau got lots of poon back in the day, most of my knowledge (these days) of current political stuff comes from Da Vinci's Inquest (yes, I know it's fiction)! A fine show btw.

I just assume that most Canadians are pretty cool. High literacy rate. Decent universal healthcare. Relaxed attitude towards marijuana. Friendly people. Clean cities (I love Vancouver). Shitload of guns, yet violent crime is no where near what the US has to deal with, great speakers, etc.

Canada has one of the better reputations for a western country.

In fact, during George W. Bush's reign of (t)error, I would joke about traveling abroad: "If any body asks, we're Canadian!" Mainly because you guys don't piss off as many people as some of us "ugly Americans" do.

And btw, much appreciation for the service and sacrifice you have given from your military over the years. America has a great ally in Canada and can learn quite a lot on how to have a civil society in the 21st century from your example.

(cue O Canada and get me a brew, eh?)

bigwill2 told us not just "No!" but "Hell, NO!"

LMAO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpOUctySD68

Yes, we can, but I imagine we won't.

"If you take into consideration how free speech is curtailed in other countries, it's truly not even worth mentioning when referring to its limitations here or in the U.S."

I entirely disagree! U.S refers to themselves as the liberators of free speech. We’re not talking about countries we know to be repressive. Canada has her Charter of Rights and Freedoms; the U.S has its constitution. These are the countries we’re discussing.

“I'm an anarchist, and the "crocodile tears" for freedom of anything in North America is unjustified.”

You must live in a bubble. How can you call yourself an anarchist and use the term “crocodile tears” in the same sentence. Rebels have a cause, and it’s freedom.

Interesting discussion. I am too far behind to try to comment on much of what was discussed. However, audiosavant, your longer post above expressed many of my views quite well.

As a number of you have said, a lot of alternatives to a Democratic government sound good on paper, but don't work in practice. The problem is that Democracy also doesn't work. As Shaw stated, "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.” I think the George W. Bush regime is a prime example of the truth of that statement--the U.S. got what it deserved. I will never forget, my wife and I were overseas during the Bush-Kerry political campaign. We were watching international TV coverage of the US election, which is interesting to do when you are an American. The news was interviewing a "group of housewives from St. Louis" (how the news referred to the group, not my characterization). One woman stated, and this is a virtual quote: "I am voting for Bush because when I go to the mall, I feel safer knowing that he is President." For some reason, when I heard that I thought that there was no way Bush was going to lose. I also concluded that the U.S. political process simply is hopeless, that we frankly don't deserve much as a group, and that we would in fact get what we deserved. (And lest anyone think this is just the reaction of a liberal opposed to a Republican, I feel the same exact way about the Obama administration. I was so offended by the Democratic primary in 2008 that when my wife and I moved I did not register to vote. After the way the DNC and press acted with regard to the Democratic primary, I decided I simply want nothing to do with the U.S. political process.)

Given my negative view of humanity as a whole, I am not optimistic that over the long-run things will get better. To the contrary, I think things will only get worse in the long-run, and that as technology "improves" we only will do more and more damage to ourselves. While there occasionally are exceptions to the rule, people in power always will do what is necessary to stay in power, and that rarely (and only by mere coincidence) will match with what is "right" or what is best for the population as a whole. I think that applies to all forms of government in all places (and extends well beyond just government to business, religion, etc.). It is not unique to the U.S. The U.S. just happens to be the predominant super power at the moment, and is still relatively young. I think the U.S. is in many respects just the loudest and most noticeable about its stupidity (though I do think at the same time that we American are as a group uniquely dumb about a number of things).

To show just how much if a misanthrope I am, I think the biggest shame is how much damage we are doing to the planet and the animal kingdom as humanity slowly destroys itself.

The bottom line is, extremism in any form, whether it be political left/right, religious, sexist, racist, environmentalist or any other, only succeeds in instigating, alienating and dividing amongst other things. To me, extremist, are a sorry and fearfull bunch who can't be trusted.

So how do we wrest control of politics from the 'extremists'?

Ray. Success is only in the grasp of those who refuse to give up. In a number of ways I agree with your assessment, but the future is not yet written.

"Success is only in the grasp of those who refuse to give up." Nice statement Fred, and very true. Of course, I hope I'm wrong in my pessimistic and dire assessment of things. And my pessimism doesn't mean I've given up. I now just focus my energies more on a micro level, as well as macro issues that I care passionately about and think I can help (specifically, animal welfare and rights).

On the point about "extremists," I think people need to be careful even there. I am no historian, but I would venture a guess that many important changes and advancements in human knowledge occured because of the bravery of what were considered exremists. I feel like I read all the time about people who were shunned in their days but history has shown to be exceptional people. A position can be "extreme" and right at the same time. I would venture a guess, based on previous posts, that I think this can occur a lot more often than others do. As those brilliant philosphers Rage Against the Machine have stated: "f the norm"!

Take the power back!

Exactly! (Actually, that probably summarizes the general feelings on this thread pretty well.)

Regarding extremities, errr, extremists. There are people who have/had what would be considered extreme views in their time, such as Eratosthenes many years BC, who proved that the Earth was a sphere and that it lay tilted on it's axis. This would have been considered risky in his time to be sure, and although he proved his 'extreme' belief, it really wasn't accepted for hundreds and hundreds of years when explorers started taking to their epic sea voyages. He presented his findings, and it was up to the people to accept or discard them.

Now, where these modern extremists(political, religious ect) are coming from, there is only ONE truth, and that is theirs. They would see you as an obstacle to conquer, because you do not follow their path. No compromise.

I consider myself something like 2/3 Conservative and 1/3 Liberal, though when I find any particular party starts abusing their power(seems to be human nature), I always tend to vote against them. We get a mixture of Canadian and American TV broadcasts in Canada, so we see some of these Coulter and O'Reilly types, and there's another kind of flakey guy with a bowtie as well. These people are sooo far to the right, I feel I need to place a level on my TV to staighten it out again. That doesn't mean to say there aren't legitmate concerns brought up by them....as far as the 'extreme' left goes,I shake my head when they think they can negotiate with people who blow up busfulls of innocent men, women and children amongst many other atrocities.

Fair enough, Adrian. I'm not sure we really are disagreeing all that much, if at all. I continue to believe that some views, even views that could be considered extreme today, are so fundamental that they should not be the subject of compromise by politicians or otherwise. (Rather than raise a host of examples that themselves could be controversial, I'll leave it as a general statement.) I also don't think views should be rejected simply because they are extreme by today's standards. I don't think you are necessarily disagreeing with those notions, but rather are pointing out that extremists as you've defined them are, shall I say, problematic. I agree with you on that. The "extremists" certainly have the right to express their views, they just tend to do more harm than good in trying to reach solutions to the most pressing problems of the day. Kind of gets back to many of the original points folks were making.

I just realized that in my first post in this thread I proclaimed that I don't engage in political discussions anymore. However many posts later, here I am! I got sucked in because folks were making interesting points in intelligent and constructive ways. You all are more informed than I am on many (most) of these issues, which has made this thread an interesting read. I've enjoyed the discussion so much, I'm going to start separate threads to get people's views on (a) abortion, (b) Israel, and (c) the right of homosexuals to marry! (I kid, of course.)

Just don't start a thread on all three combined....there's a Springer Show Raht Thar I say!!!

Ray, actually I aggreed with what you said, I just wanted to point out that society needs "free thinkers" or people who, I actually hate the term...."think outside the box" because it presents alternative views, or new ideas, hence my reference to the acceptance, eventually, of the world being flat.

I'm sure saying something like "the world is NOT flat and it is NOT the centre of the Universe" during the middle ages more than 1500 yrs after Eratosthenes and other mathematicians had proven so, would have gotten you in some deep doo-doo because the extremists of that time refused to listen. Like people with extreme viewpoints in any century, the extremists were doin' the talkin' when they shoulda been doin' the listenin'. Perhaps, it was just to maintain power over the people....what's the saying?....like mushrooms?....kept in the dark and fed sh*t.

I actually thought about trying to combine my joke issues in one big issue--the mother of all issues if you will--but couldn't think how. I was thinking something to the effect of a thread to address "whether Israel's occupation of certain lands is justified given that Israel, as opposed to Palestinians, supports abortion rights and homosexuals' rights to marry." I just don't know if the facts assumed in that question are correct!

Just use the old "according to our sources", you should be OK.

If we all took a turn on medic8r's couch and talked about politics for an hour my guess is that even the most "extreme" among us would end up agreeing on most of the issues.

IMO the "right wing vs left wing" divide is always trivialized in the terms of the last issue in the news, so even the most like-thinking people find themselves scattered all over the political map based on specific issues and our willingness to accept specific flaws in the current crop of candidates.

The only real continuum I see might be described as "realist" (right wing) vs "idealist" (left wing) if you want to say it nicely, or "cynical vs utopian" among friends, based on your degree of belief in the "universal goodness of humanity".

I think everyone agrees that we should help those in need, but not go so far as to encourage dependence or abuse. The hard part is that into practice and scaling concepts that work in small groups up to massive size. Our society has a sufficiently wide range of people that any "one size fits all" policy is either going to under-support the people who do really need help or over-support the people who aren't motivated to help themselves.

EDIT - of course the last sentence clearly positions me over on the realist/cynic end of the political spectrum

It shouldn't be possible to do "both" (under-support people in need *and* build a culture of dependency), but it seems that with a sufficiently large bureaucracy and an unlimited supply of taxpayer money many of our governments manage to do it anyways.

Even worse, our countries are big enough that the definition of "enough support" changes with the climate and is not consistent across the country. The first time I vacationed somewhere warm I was shocked to realize that with a bit of land you really *could* live a grasshopper life - hang out in front of your shack, pick fruit from the trees, do a bit of fishing, keep a couple of goats & chickens, and get by doing odd jobs for beer money. In the northern US and much of Canada the grasshoppers tend to freeze to death without government support and you end up with proportionally more ants... so it becomes almost impossible to agree on political direction across the country at the best of times.

In Canada one problem is that we just have too much government. I pay taxes to municipal, county, regional, provincial and federal governments, all pulling in different directions, and that seems like at least 2 layers too many. IMO for a country like Canada all we really need are regional and federal governments, where a region might be a large city plus the surrounding area (bedroom communities, water supply etc..) or a larger area outside the major cities.

The US has roughly the same number of layers but 10x the population, so maybe only 1 layer too many there, but "government for the sake of government" is still a problem and is generally considered the downside of a left-ish (ie Democrat / Liberal) government. The opposite of that should be "just enough government" or even "too little government", but we get the stereotype Republican / Conservative "government for the sake of our business buddies" instead, and it's hard to say which is worse.

One obvious problem is that upper level government jobs are just too damn cushy, so they tend to attract the wrong kind of people and discourage them from leaving, but saying things like that could start the kind of argument that we all swore to never get involved with again so maybe I'll stop here

Post deleted as per use of profanity policy

JP!! WE NEED SOME MEDS QUICKLY!!!!!

Sounds like a good reason to stop going to Ottawa universities, I'll grant you that, but aren't most of the people here American anyways, with a smattering of slightly right-wing Canadians ?

Mark,

Please put down the teabag and back away slowly.

Sincerely,
A fellow American who was, up until this point, enjoying the civil nature of this thread.

People seem to forget that it takes two wings to fly.


Where's that eyeroll emoticon when you need it...

Wow, a real compassionate open-minded guy. No wonder the country is in such a mess.

By the way, the value of your money is "shrinking" by the day, just ask the Chinese.

Yeah, but usually those wings need to be attached to the same object.

Funny, but I don't think of most people here as right wing or left wing, just folks with some common ground (audio) and some differing opinions. Must be somthing wrong with me...

Yeah! Take that you filthy Canucks!!! USA! USA! Lol.

Snow bound buffoons? I think I have one of their albums!

Seriously though, this is where the right has taken political discourse since Rush Limbaugh and Fox news became the de facto voice of the Republican party.

I don't know where all that vitriol and anger comes from.

The saner conservatives/Republicans need to wrestle back their party from that ilk (and the religious fundamentalists as well).

They are becoming the American Taliban. Intolerant of differing views.

And I really resent that Republicans question my patriotism cause I have different views than them.

We get a decent, centrist president after 8 years of war criminals and incompetence and they freak out because he ain't a god fearing (white) Republican.

Man, we got a long way to go...

Ha ha. I actually do want to chant "USA!" now.

Now, I don't see the above statement being any different than what Will posted and these two posts highlight one of the major problems we have in politics: us vs them.

I really don't see you guys as 'them'.

The reason politicians like us/them categories is that it taps into anger and anger is a strong short term motivator. Get your base pissed at 'them' and they are much more likely to come out and vote.

Political parties don't like people who think for themselves. People who think are highly unpredictable in the voting booth.

People act like this is the first time there has ever been vitriol in politics and that it’s all the fault of one side or the other. People you don’t even have to study history just watch the History Channel once and awhile.

As for unbiased news, you all are kidding right? Historically news papers often had direct affiliation with a political party. Often being named in accordance with their political beliefs like the “such and such Democrat” or how about the “The Arizona Republican” now “The Arizona Republic.”

From the U.S. entry into WWII into the 1960 U.S. media was decidedly right of center (Hollywood too) with the changes accelerated in U.S. culture by WWII (civil rights, exposure of many American to foreign cultures, mass higher education (GI Bill), mass migration to the suburbs, the coming of age of the baby boomers) much of the media swung decidedly to the Left. For the longest time there was really only one national conservative voice William F. Buckley.

With the success of the Republican “Southern Strategy” in the later half of the last century the Republican Party became for the first time a truly national, not just regional, party.

It was inevitable that with nationalizing of the Republican Party and large conservative and “right wing” (not the same to me) segment of the population feeling voiceless at the national level that someone like Rush Limbaugh et. al. would tap into it (markets abhor a vacuum) and bring the voice of the “Right” to the national stage. However, rather than a swing back to the “Right” being the main national political view we have moved back to what has been the norm for most of U.S. history, a news media that is divided between two major political ideologies. Though I would say that the rise of the “right wing” on the national stage has pulled the rest of the mainstream media back from the Left as they try to stave off loosing market share. MSNBC being the exception.

People this is nothing new. It’s much more like the norm but everyone is biased by the times they live in to think that’s how things just are, or should be. The post WWII world is an aberration in the history of the world especially the Western World. Things are changing and it will be interesting to see how the various players in the Western world adapt to their continuing loss of dominance. Things are going to get a lot worse if we continue with policies that stop growing the pie bigger for everyone as more and more of us turn to fighting each other for our “fair share.” Much worse, methinks.

I take solace that I no matter who’s in power I’m on the side with the biggest guns.

Dean. You continue to surprise me with the depth of your knowledge in this area.

You are correct that, from a historical perspective, a very very few control all the wealth and power. The rest have always lived in near starvation and abject poverty: much worse that what passes for poverty these days in North America.

Empires and civilizations have always imploded on themselves once they exhausted the resources available to them. Communist Russia is just the most recent example and it was not a particularly bad implosion because it was more an inability to effectively use the resources available.

Hear, hear!



Interesting how the “educated, thoughtful” Left and the “ignorant, reactionary” Right seem to fall for this in equal measure. Funny thing that “human nature.”

Thomas Sowell in his book A Conflict of Visions uses the terms “constrained” and “unconstrained” visions but I think is trying to get at the same thing you are describing.

I am having trouble figuring out what led to bigwill's reaction. To the extent there was any bashing of the USA going on, and I don't think there really was, my guess is that it was actually being done more by Americans than Canadians. The fact is, when you are perceived to be (or perceive yourself to be) the "biggest and the baddest," you likely are going to get the most attention and be subject to the most criticism. There are examples throughout society--sports, business, celebrity, etc. Politics and government is no different. And frankly, in the case of politics and government, I'm not sure that it should be different. What the US does typically will have more significant global implications than, say, what Slovenia does. Discussing things on a bulletin board isn't going to change anything directly, of course, but reasoned discourse nonetheless is important, especially with people who you disagree with.

Let me add to how impressed I am by Dean's knowledge as well. (I am assuming what you are saying is factually correct!) I don't actually agree with some (many) of your conclusions, but they clearly are based on an impressive base of knowledge and experience, and thus are interesting to read.

bridgman: nice post above. Well stated, and I agree with much of what you said.

Political discussions are so much fun

BigWill seems to be suspicious of long rambling posts on any subject. It's hard to fault him for that.

Incorporate room temperature butter and maple syrup. Spread maple butter on pancakes. Enjoy!

Now that I think about it, I do have a pretty serious gripe with Canada. And it's a lot more important than the nonsense we've been discussing.

It relates to the Toronto Maple Leafs. Many years ago my wife and I went to a Capitals-Leafs game. About midway through, she looked at me and asked: Why are they the Maple Leafs, not the Maple Leaves. I had no idea. (Of course, this is the same woman who, after going to literally dozens of baseball games with me over the years, one day looked over to me and asked why the guy on third base never runs. She was referring to the third base coach. It's good a thing I still think she is adorable after all of these years. . . .) Though she is not a sports fan, it's amazing how many references to the Maple Leafs we've heard over the years, and she raises it every time.

So, my friends to the North, can you please explain why they are the Maple Leafs and not the Maple Leaves? Then the next time she asks I actually will have an answer.

The most common explanation is that the team was named after the Maple Leaf Regiment (Conn Smythe's regiment in WW1), and for that reason "leafs" is correct although the precise grammatical reasons are beyond my understanding.

Well, it's like this Ray....if they were called the "Leaves" that would imply a group of "Leafs", but since most players on Toronto seem to play as individuals and not as a team, we call them "Leafs". Ok, not buying that? ummm....

I think taken literally, the word leafs means a collection of individual leaves, where leaves means the group of leafs. Does that make any sense?

Soon they will be "leaving" to play golf anyway....

Either spelling is grammatically correct. If that's what your referring to.

Thanks guys. The explanation doesn't need to make sense, I just need to have one in my back pocket.

I'm no longer mad at Canada. In fact, since you were nice enough to provide answers, you are free to hop on the Capitals bandwagon as we make our way to the Stanley Cup. Boy do I hope we face and beat beat the friggin' Penguins.

If you meet the Penguins, make sure OV says "hello" to Matt Cooke

No thanks. I can't stand ovechkin.

I can't stand Cooke more, though. Avery's another one, and Carcillo on the Flyers who only fights little guys.

I agree Adrian. They are dirty hockey players and when they try to start stuff they are quite selective who they go after. You never seen that with the "tough guys" of the past like Probert, Domi etc - they would take on anyone, anytime.

Doc, do you remember Stan Jonathan from the Bruins back in the 70's? Pound for pound, I've never seen a tougher fighter(in just about any sport) than him....little guy but built like an army tank.

I wasn't even born yet.

:::feeling old now:::

This will clearly indicate where I grew up--the enforcers I remember most are Clark Gillies (of my then-beloved Islanders) and Nick Fotiu. I never liked the fighting, but to this day I like physical and chippy hockey the best.

Trottier was a tough player for his size too.

To get the thread back on topic, I'd like to see any of these players slug Ann Coulter.

Whackjobs?

http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=12208009

Thank you Harry Weisiger.

I rest my case!

and speaking of whackjobs bigwill2. From all of us in Canada, blow it out your ass buddy boy!!

So...What brand of food does everyone feed their dog?

Of course it's not the first time. But the recent (last 40 years or so) of right-wing violence and anger is what I'm talking about.

There was a time when the far left was a spawning ground for political violence ... But for the most part, far-left violence in this country has gone the way of the leisure suit and the AMC Gremlin. Unless you count PETA as a terrorist group...

The right has had a monopoly on being the "bad guys" here in the states in the latter half of the 20th century.

I give you two "recent" examples:

1. MLK assassination
2. Timothy McVeigh

Couple that with the Bush/Cheney administration getting away with openly advocating torture as policy and...

In the United States, the "both" sides are equally bad argument is a false meme.



Lol. Those who don't watch the History Channel are doomed to repeat it?

I'm not talking about the Nazis or Pol Pot. I'm talking about the current political climate (hot and partly crazy).



Not really. There was a time that "news" was supposed to be reported accurately and political slant was saved for the editorial section.

Unless right wing revisionism has somehow turned Walter Cronkite into a commie pinko, I was raised that news, to quote Sgt. Friday was "Just the facts, ma'am...", not a certain sides version of the facts.



Yellow journalism, William Randolph Hearst etc. But there was still a consensus that a story had "facts" and the job of reporting the news was stating those "facts".

And yes, news papers were often a reflection of who owned them. But today the media has been consolidated and very few of them are truly independent anymore. That's become the domain of the internet. The day they shut down the intertubes is the day we are screwed. The internet is probably the biggest "freedom fighter" around. It's getting harder to lie, distort and repress news (except in China perhaps), and the whole world is the better for it imo.

Look, I remember that one of the reasons the American people stopped supporting the Viet Nam war was the endless footage of carnage and death. Today the American public is shown sanitized versions of the events and "news" has devolved into short "sound bites" with little or no regard to the integrity of the journalistic pillars of "who", "what", "when" and "how". This has dumbed down the population imo.

Like I said before, the idea of a liberal media is bs. The media is only as liberal as the corporations that own them.



That's a very interesting and accurate insight there. But still, there needs to be a separation of "news" and "opinion". Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not their own version of the facts.

Like the civil rights era. The fact was, a race of people were being attacked by police, dogs, water hoses etc. because they had the audacity to march for equal rights, an opinion would be that they deserved it because they were being funded by communists in a plot to destabilize god's chosen country.

Only one of those statements is "true", the other is propaganda.

God, I really do miss having the commies to blame stuff on though, lol.



Man, I miss them old school conservatives. You could do business with those s.o.b's! They made valid (if sometimes horribly wrong), rational arguments. Rush Limbaugh? Not so much. Listen to him for five minutes and then do an unbiased fact check on what he says. He is a propagandist, as is Murdoch and Fox news.

Hell, I even kinda miss Nixon! At least those old school conservatives seemed to respect laws and put the good of the country before ideological concerns. Mostly...

I think it started to go downhill after Watergate. And Ronald Reagan.

"Facts are stupid things" --- Ronald Reagan



Interesting perspective there Grunt. I would say that the Republican's made their deal with the devil then (and later with the religious right in the early 80's) by absorbing the Dixiecrats and their racist beliefs/fears. It seems before that, the kooks were more "fringe" on the right ( eg. John Bircher) and not so open about radical beliefs. The McCarthy era was denounced by both the left and the right. Now the right marches in rigid lockstep while the left, well, the left is like herding cats. A lot of different views within the ranks of the left. We have very conservative Democrats to very liberal ones. Dissent is common place in the Democratic party.

Back in the good ole' days you could be a socially liberal and fiscally conservative Republican. Not anymore. Now you have to kiss the ring of Rush and bow down to the Christian conservatives. Witness the recent tea party kooks for further evidence that the grand old party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt has devolved into the party of "HELL NO!".



Amen brother.



That's why we Americans need to wake up to who our real enemies are...

I'm talking about that evil, sleeping giant right on our border... CANADA!

That's right, we know you guys are just waiting to take us over!

What, with your reasonably priced speakers and godless bacon and all...

Better dead than Maple, eh...

Yet you dismiss the Left wing violence.

History of Terrorism: Where Did Left Wing Terrorism Go? [/quote]

Of course you could restrict your time period to about the last 25 years and have little left wing violence but then if one picks and chooses time periods to make a point then any point can be made.


Context! The entire comment was referenced to political vitriol seeming to be a new thing to so many nothing about history repeating. . . .



Your right there was a time before the mid 60s when the Right believed that the “news” was reported accurately and there was a time between then and the 90s when the Left wing believed the same. So I guess for each of them it was in that time. Doesn’t make it so for everyone.


The internet makes it much easier to lie and distort due to the shear overflow of information. While it is true that now you or I could log in and see live what’s happening on the scene through cell phones etc. . . the reality is most news we receive is still collected and filtered for us and most people don’t take the time to check primary sources even when available. IMO lies are much easier to perpetrate and more prevalent simply because of the illusion of “accuracy” given by the internet which most people just don’t have the time to verify. So while the “Big Lie” is more problematic lots of “Little Lies” have taken it’s place. Decapitation or death of a thousand cuts leads to the same end.


There is bias not just in the opinions given but also in the language used and even the “news” that’s reported on. There is plenty of evidence showing this throughout history. The last 50 years are no different than the last 500 or 5000 humans haven’t evolved significantly in that time. Why do you think “politically correct” speech codes developed in education since the 60s. Who controls the language controls thought (Newspeak?). You and others can choose not to see it and/or dismiss it as absurd but sticking ones head in the sand doesn’t make it go away.


Politically correct education coupled with “social promotion” has dumbed down the U.S. population. Citizens today don’t even have the most basic skills to spot bogus “facts” in “news” reports because of this. News doesn’t make people stupid being under/miss educated does.


There can never be a separation of “news” and “opinion” which is why good historical authors explain their personal biases in the forwards of their books and why the cite verifiable primary sources in the text. Most new persons/organizations do neither.



When I say that I’m on the side with the biggest guns I’m referring not to foreign enemies but the domestic ones. I’m in the military so whether we become a Right wing or Left wing dictatorship I’d still be on the side with the biggest guns, the government.

It may be a false impression, but my opinion is that in the U.S. the vitriol around politics became noticeably greater beginning with the Clinton administration. And I don’t mean that the Clinton administration itself increased the rhetoric and nonsense, but the general discussion became more emotional and hateful.

Also, and I don’t know when this changed, but I also think the ability to get the actual news from newspapers decreased significantly in the not-too-distant past. I will readily admit that this may simply be the result of the fact that for the first time I probably disagree with the most basic underlying views of the editors and reporters of the newspapers I used to read, and thus I just recently noticed the fact that newspapers rarely report on political news without including some sort of bias. The primary between H. Clinton and Obama really gave me a new sympathy for long-running complaints by Republicans about media bias. I had to stop reading the Washington Post entirely, and never started again, because the coverage was so biased I couldn’t take it.

Finally, one day I am going to try to understand what phrases like “'politically correct' speech codes" mean. I imagine that is not a topic for this thread, but whenever someone uses the term "politically correct" I immediately think "hmm, I'm not going to agree with that person on too many things."

There are various forms of “politically correct” depending on ones political viewpoint. What is often now referred to and what I was referring to is the “political correctness” that developed in Western academia to offset what was (I believe correctly) seen as a “Dead White European Male” bias in academics perpetuated by the language used. The intent was to introduce a more neutral language (gender, ethnic, cultural etc. . .) thus allowing for a more holistic approach to academics. In theory it could be a good idea, in practice to much of a good thing can often be bad IMO.

In many school this politically correct speech developed into “speech codes” which rather than broaden the scope of debate sought to limit it to only what the writers of the codes approved.

If you want a good example of media manipulation, take a look at the life of a fellow by the name of Cecil Rhodes and his activities in South Africa. Media manipulation is not a recent invention. Rhodes would be proud of Fox.

Dean. The internet is an interesting thing. It allows anyone to publish anything. It also allows anyone, places like China excepted, to also research anything. I've been having a lot of fun pointing out embarrassing facts to 'would be' political pundits on another site, and there are others who are similarly arming themselves. Sadly, critical thinking is not something our mass education system has much concerned itself with once you step outside of those 'damned left wing ivory towers.'

Speaking of which. I find it amusing that some on the right condemn universities en mass, yet praise private enterprise, which in turn is populated by leaders educated at those very same left wing ivory towers. Propaganda at its finest!

We have a leader of the opposition who taught at Harvard and has been pegged by some as an elitist intellectual, yet that very same institution is where the business elite go to educate themselves and to network.

Like I said, critical thinking is not a widely used tool.


Of course it has changed. We have WAY better sticks to beat each other about the head with and WAY more free time to consider who to beat upon next. Not to mention the beer is much better.


Its nice to have friends in the right places.