The Republicans are the Problem

[1robin]

I found your desperate attempt to steer the conversation away from the compentency of Fox News amusing and threw in the towel. A man who uses the sign of Jesus as his avatar supporting liars and hate-mongers is funny, don't you think? Like a Democrat using a bill stamped 'Paid In Full".

This is unworthy of a response.

 

[Alceste]

This is unworthy of a response.

... he responded.

 

[Falvlun]

Republicans are the problem?

Only if you live under a rock.

I still recall the day when Janet Reno's Justice Department invaded the home of a man guilty of nothing more than being entrapped by said Justice Department. This same AG than stood by posing ignorance as an entire compound of an obscure religious sect was eliminated under the auspices of sexual abuse laid claim to after the fact. Now that prodigy of that same Justice Department is our current Attorney General.

Someone please tell me I am wrong given that court cases regarding both found in discovery serious malfeasance by the government.

Or am I supposed to focus on superficial ********.

Both parties suck.

The OP was primarily about the obstructionism and gridlock in Washington, and who is primarily responsible, a point which most responders unfortunately failed to notice. It also had to do with how the media goes out of its way to treat both (or more) sides of an issue equally, in order to avoid appearing "biased", regardless of whether a position is bat **** crazy and really shouldn't be given the time of day.

This tendency of the media has also been echoed in some of the responders here and many Americans: the idea that since both sides mess up we should either a) consider them to be equally bad or b) ignore the bad stuff since both parties engage in bad behavior. Your post exemplifies this.

I do not believe it is biased or partisan behavior to look at the issues separately and decide whether one party or the other tends to fall on the wrong side. I don't think that one bad deed should somehow cancel out another bad deed. I think that both should be held accountable for their positions on each issue, separately-- taking the wrong position on issue X should not somehow exonerate the other party from taking the wrong position on issue Z.

I also believe that there are levels of bad behavior. If Party A held up a bank and Party B stole a candy bar, both are guilty of being theives. However, one example of theivery is far worse than the other, and the theft of the candy bar should not somehow exonerate or allow us to ignore the bank heist, nor should we throw our hands up in despair and claim that both are equally as bad.

So, do you have anything to actually comment on regarding the OP? Do you think that one party or the other can be held primarily responsible for this gridlock, or do you believe (erroneously, imo; please see the article that is linked in the OP for my reasons) that both parties are equally guilty?

 

[Wirey]

This is unworthy of a response.

No, it's just true. Sorry about that.

 

[Revoltingest]

This tendency of the media has also been echoed in some of the responders here and many Americans: the idea that since both sides mess up we should either a) consider them to be equally bad or b) ignore the bad stuff since both parties engage in bad behavior.

How about other options?
c) Don't limit criticism to just the other side.
d) Rub bacon on it.

"D" is for Wirey.

 

[Falvlun]

How about other options?
c) Don't limit criticism to just the other side.

I'm not, nor did the article in the OP. The problem is that you are part of the people who think that the only way someone can correctly criticize one side is to temper that criticism by saying that the other side is just as bad, regardless of whether that is true or not.

 

[waitasec]

The data on the use of the filibuster is pretty straight-forward. The Rise of Cloture.

Besides, the whole point of the article was to dispense with bias... the bias against appearing to favor one party over the other by pretending that the tactics and policies of both parties are perfectly equatable in every way. That's just silly.

The Republicans are fighting more aggressively than the democrats, and the result is that nothing can get done in Congress. You might applaud their fortitude, but there is no reason why it should be off limits to point out that the gridlock is largely driven by republican fighting tactics.

And it also seems pretty clear that, as a party, Republians have shifted further to the Right, while the democrats have shifted closer to the center. Again, why should we lie in the name of fairness and say that both parties have polarized, when really, only one party, as a whole, has done so?

congress is just full of "debaters" the majority of congressmen are lawyers...we need, doctors and engineers and philosophers and artists and scientists to represent us...not people who get off on arguing and winning the argument for the sake of winning the freaking argument

 

[Revoltingest]

.....regardless of whether that is true or not.

No, I really do see about the same amount of agenda driven distortion from both sides.
Partisans will try to justify their righteousness by saying "The other side is worse! Here I have proof!".
Then they will cry "false equivalency", when the reality is that I oppose false differentiation. Moreover,
even the "proof" each side offers is biased. I observe the real motive to be demonizing the other side,
while sanitizing their own.

 

[Alceste]

No, I really do see about the same amount of agenda driven distortion from both sides.
Partisans will try to justify their righteousness by saying "The other side is worse! Here I have proof!". Then they will cry "false equivalency", when the reality is that I oppose false differentiation.
Moreover, & even the "proof" each side offers is biased. I observe the real motive to be demonizing the other side, while sanitizing their own.

You're pretty partisan yourself, you know. The "both sides are equally bad" camp is dogmatic enough to qualify as a political party of its own, I observe.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're pretty partisan yourself, you know.

I'm quite up front about being LIbertarian, & my bias in that direction.
But regarding left vs right in the US, I spread my derision quite "liberally".
Using Fox & MSNBC as examples, they both equally twist, spin & spread rancor.

Consider the myopia of the thread's title. The Republicans are only a problem
if one wants Democrats to prevail. From the opposite perspective, the Dems
are the problem. This looks pretty sort-of-equal to me.

The "both sides are equally bad" camp is dogmatic enough to qualify as a political party of its own, I observe.

Both sides comprise humans, which exhibit both the best & worst of our nature & tendencies.
Tis hardly "dogmatic" to say what can be observed by anyone willing to take a hiatus from apologetics.

But I realize that my perspective is a minority one. I don't believe in inerrant universal truth or moral
absolutes. For those who do, they would believe that they have the truth, so one side (theirs) is right
& the other is wrong. I don't have "the truth". I can understand why we would disagree.

 

[Falvlun]

No, I really do see about the same amount of agenda driven distortion from both sides.
Partisans will try to justify their righteousness by saying "The other side is worse! Here I have proof!".
Then they will cry "false equivalency", when the reality is that I oppose false differentiation. Moreover,
even the "proof" each side offers is biased.

You are doing precisely what I think is a problem. Rather than consider issues separately and come to a reasoned, fact based conclusion, you take a short cut and act as if two wrongs automatically cancel each other out.

You are making up two columns: Democrats are wrong on issues T, U, V, W, and X. The Republicans are wrong on issues G, H, I, J, and K, and then you gleefully point out "Look! They were wrong on the same amount of issues thus, there is really no difference between them!" This is lazy and uninformitive.

Try actually comparing the two parties on a single issue-- like the one the OP is about perhaps!-- and then show me how you come to the conclusion that both parties are equally responsible for the poor outcome.

I observe the real motive to be demonizing the other side,
while sanitizing their own

You are just parroting the media's handbook. I'm afraid liberal sentiments are largely to blame as well: Liberals tend to want everyone to feel good about themselves, don't want to point fingers, or harm someone's self-esteem. Everyone is equal. In such a framework, pointing out wrong-doing must be a partisan and nefarious affair, because a truly objective and intelligent observer must only see equality.

I hardly think that pointing out problems within one party or the other equates to demonizing. Once, it was just considered damn good reporting.

 

[YmirGF]

I hardly think that pointing out problems within one party or the other equates to demonizing. Once, it was just considered damn good reporting.

I tend to agree, but when the media goes after one party so consistently, while giving the other major party a pass on virtually every issues, if not outright singing praises, is a bit less than "damn good reporting". If only Obama had been vetted as well as Romney has been, but I suppose that is a racist thing to say nowadays.

 

[Falvlun]

I tend to agree, but when the media goes after one party so consistently, while giving the other major party a pass on virtually every issues, if not outright singing praises, is a bit less than "damn good reporting". If only Obama had been vetted as well as Romney has been, but I suppose that is a racist thing to say nowadays.

I hear conservatives rail against the liberal media and the liberals rail against the conservative media. I do tend to see a conservative bias in the media, which would make sense from the standpoint of where the money comes from, but I do acknowledge that this is probably colored by my own bias. In general, I just think the media sucks at reporting either side.

 

[Alceste]

I'm quite up front about being LIbertarian, & my bias in that direction.
But regarding left vs right in the US, I spread my derision quite "liberally".
Using Fox & MSNBC as examples, they both equally twist, spin & spread rancor.

Consider the myopia of the thread's title. The Republicans are only a problem
if one wants Democrats to prevail. From the opposite perspective, the Dems
are the problem. This looks pretty sort-of-equal to me.

Both sides comprise humans, which exhibit both the best & worst of our nature & tendencies.
Tis hardly "dogmatic" to say what can be observed by anyone willing to take a hiatus from apologetics.

But I realize that my perspective is a minority one. I don't believe in inerrant universal truth or moral
absolutes. For those who do, they would believe that they have the truth, so one side (theirs) is right
& the other is wrong. I don't have "the truth". I can understand why we would disagree.

It's pretty ironic that you point the fingers at others for thinking they have "the truth" after making such a valiant effort at arguing for the truth of your own opinion. Especially since you seem to prefer the phrase "I observe" to the phrase "in my opinion", implying that you are somehow gifted with a scientific impartiality and objectivity while everyone else sees the world through red or blue goggles.

You seem to be making the assumption that people who vote democrat actually like the democrats. It seems to me, from actually listening to them, they are simply doing their best to differentiate between dumb and dumber.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are doing precisely what I think is a problem. Rather than consider issues separately and come to a reasoned, fact based conclusion, you take a short cut and act as if two wrongs automatically cancel each other out.

This post misses my theme. I don't support cancellation of partisan wrongs.
I only oppose that keen sense of outrage being blind to one's own side.

You are making up two columns: Democrats are wrong on issues T, U, V, W, and X. The Republicans are wrong on issues G, H, I, J, and K, and then you gleefully point out "Look! They were wrong on the same amount of issues thus, there is really no difference between them!" This is lazy and uninformitive.

But this isn't what I believe. Moreover, I'd say that the word "wrong" seldom applies.
I lean towards "prefer", which is not as black & white as you present.

Try actually comparing the two parties on a single issue-- like the one the OP is about perhaps!-- and then show me how you come to the conclusion that both parties are equally responsible for the poor outcome.

I've extensively covered my take on the economic crash, & blame both parties for creating the initial
conditions, for the crash, & for its continuing. (It's too long & involved to present here.)
Perhaps you confuse me with another poster?

You are just parroting the media's handbook.

This is an empty barb. I hardly fit in any neat category in the media.
Let's be nice now....no accusations that we aren't thinking for ourselves, eh?

I'm afraid liberal sentiments are largely to blame as well: Liberals tend to want everyone to feel good about themselves, don't want to point fingers, or harm someone's self-esteem. Everyone is equal. In such a framework, pointing out wrong-doing must be a partisan and nefarious affair, because a truly objective and intelligent observer must only see equality.
I hardly think that pointing out problems within one party or the other equates to demonizing. Once, it was just considered damn good reporting.

Even what was once "damn good reporting" was just the same old spin & casting of blind eyes....it was just less shrill than what we see now.
Frankly, I prefer the Battle Royale we have today. Within the cacophony, we have access to info which would've previously been denied us.

 

[Alceste]

I hear conservatives rail against the liberal media and the liberals rail against the conservative media. I do tend to see a conservative bias in the media, which would make sense from the standpoint of where the money comes from, but I do acknowledge that this is probably colored by my own bias. In general, I just think the media sucks at reporting either side.

That's because there is no liberal bias in American media, unless you are talking about something like Harper's magazine. On every one of the mainstream networks, conservative guests outnumber progressives by a HUGE margin. Something like seven to one. All the networks are owned by members of the American political and economic elite, and so have a vested interest in defending and maintaining the status quo.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's pretty ironic that you point the fingers at others for thinking they have "the truth" after making such a valiant effort at arguing for the truth of your own opinion.

Oh, dear...you missed it.
I have only my opinions.
They are not true.
Rather, they are only fodder for discussion.
If I don't change anyone's mind, then that is OK.

Especially since you seem to prefer the phrase "I observe" to the phrase "in my opinion", implying that you are somehow gifted with a scientific impartiality and objectivity while everyone else sees the world through red or blue goggles.

You infer more than I imply.
We are all gifted with the ability to observe & form opinions.
Mine are no truer than yours or the lemur's.

You seem to be making the assumption that people who vote democrat actually like the democrats. It seems to me, from actually listening to them, they are simply doing their best to differentiate between dumb and dumber.

Again you infer too much.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's because there is no liberal bias in American media, unless you are talking about something like Harper's magazine. On every one of the mainstream networks, conservative guests outnumber progressives by a HUGE margin. Something like seven to one. All the networks are owned by members of the American political and economic elite, and so have a vested interest in defending and maintaining the status quo.

If one is left of all the media, then they would appear conservative.
For those of us who are all over the political map, we will see otherwise, ie, a mix of agenda driven coverage.
There is no truth, only perspective. (Note: Even this isn't true.)

 

[Alceste]

If one is left of all the media, then they would appear conservative.
For those of us who are all over the political map, we will see otherwise, ie, a mix of agenda driven coverage.
There is no truth, only perspective. (Note: Even this isn't true.)

They don't all appear conservative. Rolling Stone, Harper's, Mother Jones, Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald... there is lots of progressive content in American media. It's just that the major networks won't touch any of it without first parading an average of seven conservatives across the screen.

 

[Falvlun]

You misunderstand my theme. I don't support cancellation of partisan wrongs.
I only oppose that keen sense of outrage being blind to one's own side.

Okay, then your response apparently had nothing to do with my post. However, based upon your rather consistant knee-jerk response that both parties are just as bad as the other whenever something is pointed out that the republicans have done wrong (you rarely, it seems, ever go to bat for the democrats), I think my impressions are justified.

Maybe your goal is to only oppose biased outrage, but the result misses the mark.

But this isn't what I believe. Moreover, I'd say that the word "wrong" seldom applies.
I lean towards "prefer", which is not as black & white as you present.

I know that's how you like to phrase it, but I think it ends up meaning the same thing.

I've extensively covered my take on the economic crash, & blame both parties for creating the initial
conditions, for the crash, & for its continuing. (It's too long & involved to present here.)
Perhaps you confuse me with another poster.

I've seen you blaming Obama and regulations, but not so much the conservatives or their policies. No doubt I've missed it.

I'm still more interested in the issue of gridlock and obstructionism per the OP, though.

This is an empty barb. I hardly fit in any neat category in the media.
Let's be nice now....no accusations that we aren't thinking for ourselves, eh?

In this particular issue I have with the media, and with the growing trend among how Americans view politics, I think you exemplify precisely what I have a problem with. It was not an accusation; it was an observation.

Even what was once "damn good reporting" was just the same old spin & casting a blind eye....it was just less shrill than what we see now.
Frankly, I prefer the Battle Royale we have today. Within the cacophony, we have access to info which would've previously been denied us.

Real news reporting is a lost art. We've replaced it with fluffy opinion pieces and sensationalism masquarading as fair and balanced news.