Republican? Just scream and lie.

GreatTeacherMacRoss

I'm generally pretty quiet and/or brief when I post on the political forums. This is mostly because I get so angry that I damn near pass out when I see certain things going on in politics. But good lord, the health care debates have gotten obscene. I can not remember any time in my life where I have been paying attention to political news where I have seen such gross hypocrisy and outright lying by the conservative movement. Let me set this up for some of you who may be unfamiliar with US Politics by either being based outside the country or simply not really paying attention:

Back when we had our idiot king, they paraded him around to town hall meetings to answer questions from 'real Americans', most of which were softball questions planted by his administration, or worse not questions at all and simply praise of the awesome job he was doing. In reality, they were screening people going in, and banned anyone who might be critical or protest. In fact, they made 'no protest zones' near the town halls, so our illustrious leader wouldn't know that anyone disagreed with him. They even went so far as to stage an entire 'media event', complete with softball questions and praise from fake reporters.
Some examples:
Defending Bush's screening of attendees.
Critics barred from town hall meeting.
Two people arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts at town hall meeting.
3 protesters forcibly removed from public town hall meeting.
Arrested protesters look to the courts for justice.
Woman arrested for Bush=McCain sign.
Fake FEMA news conference.
So removing people who disagreed with you in a fairly normal fashion, holding signs or wearing t-shirts, and having them arrested was perfectly okay by the previous administration's standards. Apparently so was lying to the public outright. We're not talking state-secret sort of lies, we're talking lying through their teeth about every goddamned policy and every decision. That alone was enough to infuriate me.

But lo and behold, the latest bullshit move by the republicans is simply jaw dropping. The level of hypocrisy and lies has got to be hitting some kind of critical mass. The sheer amount of, as Pete put it, wharrgarbl being thrown at the Democrats and the American public in general is disgusting. The new strategy from the republicans is to send a screaming horde of detractors from states outside of where the town hall meetings on health care are being held, and have them scream as long and as loud as they can so that no one can ask any real questions or even speak. They're not there to discuss, or to protest even. They're there to be as disruptive and obnoxious as possible and to stop the democratically elected officials to even say anything. Examples:
Heckling and abuse in Ybor City
Big business is in on it also.
Obama administration trying to reach out to the angry mobs.
Protesters being flown or bused in to create appearance of larger resistance.
More asinine behavior.

But why would the Republican party want to stop public discourse with a pack of raging detractors? The answer is pretty simple: it would put an abrupt end to the ludicrous rumors and bogus talking points they've been peddling all over the internet and media. I can't believe some of the fantasy they're trying to sell people on, and most of it sounds like it's straight out of Logan's Run or Soylent Green. Examples:
Obama will put microchips in you.
Obama will replace doctors with bureaucrats.
Obama will create 'death panels' to decide when old people will die.
Intentional misrepresentation of the bill by a 'marine experienced in government double talk'.
Doctors will not be able to see patients because Medicare/Medicaid will screw everything up.

For a collection of the astonishing, sci-fi/fantasy level of hysterical bullshittery being thrown around, use this link: Pants-On-Fire lies about health care (and other things).

How dare they. How dare the far right on this country spend eight years arresting, silencing, and abusing the American public. How dare they, for eight years, call dissent unpatriotic, lie almost non stop, and the when the majority of the country disagrees create hysterical screaming mobs to drown out real democracy and public discourse, and shift the lie machines into full gear. I desperately want a real choice, a real two party system where I have a tough call to make every election. But no, the opposition minority in this country seems intent in throwing tantrums like spoiled brats, and taking to ludicrous acts of desperation to smear and drown out any voice that disagrees with them. Every single one of them should be disgusted with themselves, but if past behavior is any indicator, this insanity won't be ending anytime soon.

Σπεκωσποκ

Well said. I think that this is an indication that the Republicans are running out of steam. They're like the screaming child who's lost a game but won't admit defeat so they just scream and wail and throw a tantrum.

Cremlian

Nice post, thanks for putting the effort into linking to a whole bunch of articles showing what I consider some of the grandest hypocrisy around, if only the mainstream media would do even a little of this sort of research.

konistehrad

Wow man, excellent post. Got lots to read tonight ...

Nine Boomer

I desperately want a real choice, a real two party system where I have a tough call to make every election.

This is the only part that I disagree with. No where at all in the constitution does it say that we should vote either democrat or republican. Frankly, I'm tired of having to chose the lesser of two evils as no one at all represents my opinions. If I choose Democrat, it'll be violating some of my own beliefs, yet if I choose conservative I'll be violating some of my other beliefs. Frankly, many of the other parties we currently have are a joke, and I would love to see a proliferation of alternative parties that aren't wacko.

Sure, it's not possible to have a party that represents you perfectly. Even my favorite congressman holds certain opinions that I believe are untrue, yet I would have voted for him if I weren't underage. I just want proliferation of ideals and opinions that aren't stuck in this haphazard two party system we have right now.

HMTKSteve

I'm still waiting for the supporters of the Democratic Health Care Reform bills to come out and explain them and explain why the American people should support them. As long as Democrats remain silent on what is actually in the bills the opposition will be able to control the debate.

House GOP Solutions Group Outlines Health Care Plan to Increase Affordability, Accessibility, Availability Is there a similar document that explains the Democratic proposal?

This is where the "Death Panel" line comes from:



There are some parallels between the ObamaCare 'end of life' remarks and the policy of Lebensunwertes Leben.

Penn Jillette and John Stossel Slam Socialized Medicine on FNCI do seem to recall that both John Stossel and Penn Gillette are held in some high esteem by the FRC?

Σπεκωσποκ

1. There's not a formal proposal yet... Senator Baucus and others are drafting legislation, but it's still in the planning phases.

2. Penn Jillette, independent of being an awesome person, is also a crazy libertarian. 'Nuff said.

3. We should support healthcare reform because it is a universal human right and the status quo is to profit rather than to help people.

ElJoe0

I don't see why the Republican party is so opposed to universal health care, I mean aren't the core supporters of theirs are the evangelical community, yh'know the Christians, the ones with the holy book telling them "Give to the poor" Oh wait, I said Evangelical..............

HMTKSteve

3. We should support healthcare reform because it is auniversal human rightand the status quo isto profit rather than to help people.

I'm going to assume you are referring to article 25?

* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

According to the wording of the above right one could easily argue that governments are also responsible for feeding, clothing and housing their population.

Doesn't article Article 20 come into conflict with the current Health Care Reform proposal that includes forcing everyone to have health insurance whether they want it or not?

* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
* (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Doesn't article 29 have a bit of an escape clause in it?

# (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

If a doctor does not want to perform a procedure should s/he be compelled to perform it? (I'm not talking about denying care based on race/etc but based on belief where that particular procedure is not performed on anyone by that doctor.) Should a doctor be compelled to perform a procedure for less than the 'going rate'? Wouldn't that be depriving the doctor of his/her own rights? You have a right to access of health care but not a right to an unlimited amount of care.

I'm all for rights but your rights end at your nose, just as mine do. You have a right to free speech but not a right to a soapbox to stand on or an audience to listen to you. In the case of health care you can't have a right to health care unless you are a doctor because health care requires the services of someone other than yourself to fulfill that right. If the government wants to open clinics around the country where people can go and get care I'm all for it. If they want to take over the health care industry then I am against it.

As to the problem of insurance companies dropping people who use their coverage that should not be legal. As long as you continue to pay your premiums (and they should not go up an arbitrarily unfair amount) and do not lie about your health status you should not be booted. However, if you have a pre-existing condition then the insurance company should be free to refuse you as a customer or accept you with either a policy exclusion or a higher premium.

PS: Universal Health Care would actually be a huge benefit to big business. HUGE!!!

BrutishSaucer

No where at all in the constitution does it say that we should vote either democrat or republican. Frankly, I'm tired of having to chose the lesser of two evils as no one at all represents my opinions...

Amen, brotha. I've spent significant time in both heavily conservative and liberal areas of the US, and I'm always struck by how similar the thinking is. While their positions might be different, the means to which they get to their positions is often the same.

I would like to see what the US constitution would look like if current politicians were to draft it. Very likely, it would be impossible to compose because there would never be anything close to a consensus. One of the luxuries the founding fathers had was that they were able to think in more conceptual terms. Today, everything seems to be shaped around the the impact of a potential policy and not the policy itself. While this makes sense for that one particular area of interest, it neglects the overall structure of your laws which leads to hypocrisy and inefficiency.

I don't see any significant change being possible. I will just have to wait until we colonize the outer worlds to create our own independent government. This will of course spark an interplanetary civil war with diverging genetic trees where humanity will splinter into brutish ammonia breathers and wispy space-faring cyborgs. The laze-guns will be awesome, though.

Diagoras

In the case of health care you can't have a right to health care unless you are a doctor because health care requires the services of someone other than yourself to fulfill that right.

Let us assume that health care is to a doctor what protection from criminals is to a policeman.

"In the case of protection from criminals you can't have a right to protection from criminals unless you are a policeman because protection from criminals requires the services of someone other than yourself to fulfill that right."

Does that make any sense?

Jay

Debating morality and positive and negative rights relating to health care is going to end badly. At the end of the day philosophy doesn't put food on the table and doesn't stop your country from going into massive debt. Your dealing with an area where people WILL die and is also very expensive. We do not have limitless resources and, as with many things, there is a diminishing returns on investment. So at best we can have an health care system that efficiently uses its resources. Different systems have different methods of determining how those limited resources are allocated. No matter what at the extreme cases SOMEONES gonna get screwed. It's inevitable. All you can try to do is screw as little people as possible and have sustainable costs.

As well referenced in the Barack Obama thread the United States is paying twice as much for roughly the same health outcomes as other countries or even doing a little worse. That's a pretty bad deal no matter what kinda double talk you try to use to sell it. As I stated before, this tells of either incredibly inefficiency OR there is something fundamentally different about the U.S that causes prices to be higher. Under the assumption that something can be done (which I much prefer over the "where screwed" hypothesis) the major example from these other more efficient countries is a more socialized system. Is this a air tight case for socialization? No. Is there a market way to deal with this problem? Maybe. But there is allot more data to work off of with the public schemes.

As for the topic of this thread. This is really, really sad. It shows of a method of thinking that is not "doing what is best for the people" but instead "doing what is most likely to return power to our party". It's dirty, is pitiful, and it should be more widely known. Though, dirty players win allot. The worst part is this may also be very effective.

BrutishSaucer

I think the concept of universal human rights is flawed. There is no objective criteria from which to say that a person has an inherent right to anything. Additionally, if we suppose that a US citizen should be granted US health care on the basis of a human right, then we must also suppose that a Nigerian resident has an equal claim to US health care. What we can base rights on are the agreed upon standards by which a community is formed, a social contract. If the society as a whole says that it grants the right to life, liberty and property, then that society as a whole must provide these rights to its citizens, lest it invalidate itself. So the crux of the problem becomes one of defining these broad terms; what exactly does the right to life entail?

It seems basic enough; a person has a right to food, shelter from the elements, and medical care. It doesn't have to be any more elaborate than that. If you focus only on life, and not quality of life, I don't think you'll have to worry so much about people sponging off the system instead of providing for themselves. No one is going to eat the protein mush instead of an actual meal if they can help it. No sane person is going to sleep in the community cot room if they can afford their own apartment. Would this mean that state-provided medicine will be inferior to privately owned medicine? Probably, but at least it's medicine. And while you may not be as cool as the kid that has the name-brand drugs, at least you'll be alive, which is the key requirement in improving your circumstances.

jlawson70

What bothers me more than anything is how the Republican party has de-evolved in the past 20 years. Back in 1988, when I came of voting age, I voted Republican because I liked their stance on fiscal responsibility and national defense. In 2009 it scares me that Sarah Palin has become the idoru for the Republican party.

Funfetus

While their positions might be different, the means to which they get to their positions is often the same.

I'm interested in hearing more about this.

HMTKSteve

In the case of health care you can't have a right to health care unless you are a doctor because health care requires the services of someone other than yourself to fulfill that right.

Let us assume thathealth careis to adoctorwhatprotection from criminalsis to apoliceman.

"In the case ofprotection from criminalsyou can't have a right toprotection from criminalsunless you are apolicemanbecauseprotection from criminalsrequires the services of someone other than yourself to fulfill that right."

Does that make any sense?

No.

A "right" is something inherent to each of us. We are born with rights, they are not granted to us. An entity more powerful than we are can limit or deny our exercise of these rights, but they are intrinsic to each of us. We are born with intellect and free will, meaning we are able to learn to form our own opinions. An outside source cannot prevent formation of opinions, but can crack down on the expression of those opinions, and can attempt to coerce agreement with the party line. But everyone has a fundamental right to his or her opinions. Rights require no infrastructure.

A right is never granted, it is only infringed upon.

An "entitlement" is something that is not inherent to each of us, but which is granted by an outside entity. We are not born with good-paying jobs waiting for us: we have to get educated and then go out and get those jobs. Thus, employment is not a right (although the freedom to seek employment is.) Entitlements require infrastructure.

An entitlement is always granted, according to the whim of the entitling body.

How does this pertain to health care? Very simply, we are not born with free and ready access to doctors and clinics. Those things are made available by parents, governments and whatnot.

Whether universal health care should be an entitlement is a valid question. But please don't call it a right, because it's not.

Σπεκωσποκ

In other words, other rights granted by the state are only upheld by the services of someone else.

Should we not have a right to bear arms because it depends on the weapons dealer's services to obtain guns? No. Should we not have a right to no unreasonable searches and seizures because it depends on the government's and police's services to prevent them? No. Should black people not have a right to vote because it depended on police protection to uphold it? No. Should we not have a right to a free, public education because it depends on the services of a teacher? No.

All rights are ultimately dependent upon the services of another, so an argument that universal health care can't be a right because it requires a doctor's services doesn't hold weight.

HMTKSteve

In other words, other rights granted by the state are only upheld by the services of someone else.

Should we not have a right to bear arms because it depends on the weapons dealer's services to obtain guns? No. Should we not have a right to no unreasonable searches and seizures because it depends on the government's and police's services to prevent them? No. Should black people not have a right to vote because it depended on police protection to uphold it? No. Should we not have a right to a free, public education because it depends on the services of a teacher? No.

All rights are ultimately dependent upon the services of another, so an argument that universal health care can't be a right because it requires a doctor's services doesn't hold weight.

O RLY? Are you talking about rights or entitlements?

Who are the real astroturfers?

***ORGANIZE FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM $11-16/hour*** (Downtown)

Job opportunites working on urgent grassroots campaigns

This summer we have the opportunity to make huge gains on critical issues, from repowering America with clean, renewable energy and reducing our dependence on oil, to fixing the high cost of health care, to winning the battle for equal rights.

AmericaÂ’s leading advocacy groups are gearing up to meet these challenges this summer. In order to win, they need citizen support and grassroots action. ThatÂ’s where we come in.

At the Fund for the Public Interest, weÂ’ve been organizing campaigns to protect the environment, stand up for the public interest, and defend human rights for more than 25 years. We've helped cut global warming pollution with Environment America. We've helped pass laws that require drug companies to disclose more of the dangerous side-effects of their drugs with NJPIRG. And working with the Human Rights Campaign, we helped organize the grassroots opposition needed to defeat the discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment.
Now is the time to work for change

We need people like you—lots of people like you—to go out in communities around the country this summer and help make change happen. And you can earn money doing it. Earn $4,000-$6,000 this summer.

* Get skills. Learn vital campaign skills including how to fundraise, run a news conference and mobilize activists.
* Know the issues. Learn about the issues from some of the nation's top advocates, organizers and experts.
* Be part of a winning team. Work alongside other motivated staff who share your passion for change. Make lasting friendships.

Leadership Opportunities: We also have opportunities for additional responsibility as a Field Manager or Campaign Coordinator. Gain great experience—like an internship, but you get paid.

* Field Managers work with the director to meet the office goals and increase the impact of our campaigns. Field Managers make an additional $500-$1,000 over the summer.
* Campaign Coordinators work closely with the directors to develop and implement winning campaign tactics, such as organizing the media, building coalitions, and writing letters-to-the-editor.

To apply for a job this summer, visit our website—www.JobsThatMatter.org—or call Chris at 646-473-0905


* Compensation: $11-16/hour
* This is at a non-profit organization.
* Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
* Phone calls about this job are ok.
* Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.



PostingID: 1310483183

HungryJoe

In the case of health care you can't have a right to health care unless you are a doctor because health care requires the services of someone other than yourself to fulfill that right.

Let us assume thathealth careis to adoctorwhatprotection from criminalsis to apoliceman.

"In the case ofprotection from criminalsyou can't have a right toprotection from criminalsunless you are apolicemanbecauseprotection from criminalsrequires the services of someone other than yourself to fulfill that right."

Does that make any sense?

No.

A "right" is something inherent to each of us. We are born with rights, they are not granted to us. An entity more powerful than we are can limit or deny our exercise of these rights, but they are intrinsic to each of us. We are born with intellect and free will, meaning we are able to learn to form our own opinions. An outside source cannot prevent formation of opinions, but can crack down on the expression of those opinions, and can attempt to coerce agreement with the party line. But everyone has a fundamental right to his or her opinions. Rights require no infrastructure.

A right is never granted, it is only infringed upon.

An "entitlement" is something that is not inherent to each of us, but which is granted by an outside entity. We are not born with good-paying jobs waiting for us: we have to get educated and then go out and get those jobs. Thus, employment is not a right (although the freedom to seek employment is.) Entitlements require infrastructure.

An entitlement is always granted, according to the whim of the entitling body.

How does this pertain to health care? Very simply, we are not born with free and ready access to doctors and clinics. Those things are made available by parents, governments and whatnot.

Whether universal health care should be an entitlement is a valid question. But please don't call it a right, because it's not.

Steve, you must have plagiarized your little speech from somewhere else because you show you don't understand it when you say that linktothepresent's analogy makes no sense.

If you really understood and believed what you just wrote, you would see that what linktothepresent suggested, that we have no right to protection from criminals, is a valid conclusion from your description of rights. In your little system, protection from criminals would be an entitlement, so what linktothepresent said makes perfect sense within that system.

I'm interested to hear whether, if rights require no infrastructure, people have a right to vote.

Σπεκωσποκ

What? Red herring? That post makes no sense. I'm talking about rights... as in ones that come from the Bill of Rights (at least, those were my examples). What are you talking about?

Moreover, you didn't even address the whole point of my post (rights are dependent upon other people).

I am very confused. If that was your strategy, it worked.

EDIT: This post was directed at Steve, not at Joe.

trogdor9

It seems we have some disagreements about positive and negative rights. HungryJoe brings up an interesting question, however: Are voting rights positive or negative? Another interesting point: The Wikipedia article states that freedom from violent crime is a negative right, however police protection of person and property is a positive right. What's the difference? Why is the right to a fair trial a negative right? My research on this subject is beginning to make my head spin.

HungryJoe

With regards to the "your rights stop at the tip of your nose and can't require me to perform or refrain from performing any action" cliche, has anyone heard of these rumors that people may have the right not to be discriminated against in the workplace or when they seek housing? Don't those rights require action or restraint of action from others? Should one's right to not be discriminated against in the workplace extend beyond one's nose and force one's employer to do or refrain from doing certain things? Do these rights require any "infrastructure"?

Do Americans have the right to attend grammar school and high school? Do they have the right to then be free from discrimination when they attend college? Do these rights require others to perform or refrain from performing any action? Do these rights require "infrastructure"?

GreatTeacherMacRoss

::video::

Aside from having bad pictures of Clinton while having the audio of her talking about the Bush administration, I donÂ’t understand why you posted that there. SheÂ’s saying exactly what I said referring to what was going on at the time.

IÂ’m still waiting for the supporters of the Democratic Health Care Reform bills to come out and explain them and explain why the American people should support them. As long as Democrats remain silent on what is actually in the bills the opposition will be able to control the debate.

The bill is still being worked on, as mentioned in a post above. Although I do recall the plan being released to the public, and it being around a thousand pages long. Pretty hefty, but health care isnÂ’t a simple issue. ItÂ’s not like you can make a plan and cram it into four pages or something.

House GOP Solutions Group Outlines Health Care Plan to Increase Affordability, Accessibility, AvailabilityIs there a similar document that explains the Democratic proposal?

ThatÂ’s because the democratic proposal isnÂ’t FOUR FUCKING PAGES. Did you take the time to read that little document? They want everyone to have affordable coverage? Great. How are the poorest going to pay? The only suggestions I see in there to achieve the goals that are somewhat similar to what Democrats want are TAX CUTS and DEREGULATION. ThatÂ’s worked real well the past decade, letÂ’s do more of that.

This is where the "Death Panel" line comes from:::video::

Clearly that is not where “death panel” came from. No one says those words in there. In fact, no one even SUGGESTS that in the video. Anyone watching that who thinks, “Death panels are gonna kill grandma!” or “Obama doesn’t want old people to get the care they need!” is either a moron or being intentionally dishonest. What the right wing, and YOU I might add, are doing is taking a bold faced lie and trying to make it float among people who aren’t smart enough to figure it out on their own.

There are some parallels between the ObamaCare 'end of life' remarks and the policy ofLebensunwertes Leben.

Where in ObamaÂ’s plan are they going to use euthanasia on homosexuals and the mentally handicapped? See what you just did there? You took something that had nothing to do with the real plan and said there are similarities, when a glance over that very, very brief wikipedia document pretty clearly shows that what THE NAZIS were doing has not one shred of similarity, or even relevance, to the health care debate. You just did exactly what I was pointing out in my original post, took some bullshit fantasy argument and were intentionally dishonest, using fear as a bludgeon to try and scare people into agreeing with you. Neocons have been doing that for decades and itÂ’s not fooling anyone. Well, anyone smart anyhow.

Penn Jillette and John Stossel Slam Socialized Medicine on FNCI do seem to recall that both John Stossel and Penn Gillette are held in some high esteem by the FRC?

Penn is an entertainer and a “big L” Libertarian, which means while I love watching him, his opinions are not gospel and his political views are very very different from mine. The same goes for Stossel, journalist whose opinion I understand, but do not necessarily agree with all the time. Also, I think I speak for the FRC when I say that if you think our opinions fall in lockstep with some celebrity or even each other simply because we like the person, you haven’t got a fucking clue about any of us. We form our opinions using facts, not based solely on the opinions of celebrities.

I think Bruno from West Wing put it best:

Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, leave it to beaver trip back to the fifties.

GreatTeacherMacRoss

However, if you have a pre-existing condition then the insurance company should be free to refuse you as a customer or accept you with either a policy exclusion or a higher premium.

So if you are in your thirties and get some kind of cancer while you are not covered, you can either go into crushing debt or die. Yup, great idea.

Nine Boomer

A right is never granted, it is only infringed upon.

Says who?

TheWhaleShark

Very simply, we are not born with free and ready access to doctors and clinics. Those things are made available by parents, governments and whatnot.

Yes, and protection from criminals is made available by government through the police. I fail to see how this is any different from health care. The analogy can be applied to any service provided by an authority figure.

* (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

If you're using that to say that people shouldn't be forced to have universal health care, then people should not be made American citizens upon birth on American soil. We shouldn't compel the unemployed to get jobs, because then they'd be joining the association of the employed.

I really don't understand your reasoning here. Do you see the deep flaws in your logic?

HungryJoe

Regarding the argument that we should fall into lockstep with John Stossel and Pem Jillette, isn't that the Appeal to Authority fallacy? Oh wait . . . the only one of those fallacies that Steve can name is the ad hominem, which he incorrectly invokes whenever someone disagrees with him.

Cremlian

Penn Jillette and John Stossel Slam Socialized Medicine on FNCI do seem to recall that both John Stossel and Penn Gillette are held in some high esteem by the FRC?

Penn is an entertainer and a “big L” Libertarian, which means while I love watching him, his opinions are not gospel and his political views are very very different from mine. The same goes for Stossel, journalist whose opinion I understand, but do not necessarily agree with all the time. Also, I think I speak for the FRC when I say that if you think our opinions fall in lockstep with some celebrity or even each other simply because we like the person, you haven’t got a fucking clue about any of us. We form our opinions using facts, not based solely on the opinions of celebrities.

Yea, we respect Penn Jillette for his out and out skepticism and atheism and his willingness to discuss some of his crazy ideas, we don't agree with him on all those libertarian ideas. Half the time I think Penn disclaimers saying he himself is a wacko for believing some of the things he does :-p

Luke Burrage

This thread is great. Mr. MacRoss outlines what he hates, then Mr. Tick comes along to provide a perfect example.

GreatTeacherMacRoss

This thread is great. Mr. MacRoss outlines what he hates, then Mr. Tick comes along to provide a perfect example.

Funny how that works, eh?

GreatTeacherMacRoss

I desperately want a real choice, a real two party system where I have a tough call to make every election.

This is the only part that I disagree with. No where at all in the constitution does it say that we should vote either democrat or republican. Frankly, I'm tired of having to chose the lesser of two evils as no one at all represents my opinions. If I choose Democrat, it'll be violating some of my own beliefs, yet if I choose conservative I'll be violating some of my other beliefs. Frankly, many of the other parties we currently have are a joke, and I would love to see a proliferation of alternative parties that aren't wacko.

Sure, it's not possible to have a party that represents you perfectly. Even my favorite congressman holds certain opinions that I believe are untrue, yet I would have voted for him if I weren't underage. I just want proliferation of ideals and opinions that aren't stuck in this haphazard two party system we have right now.

Hey, more than two would be awesome. If I had to pick from a selection of four or five candidates that I really liked and thought had a serious chance at winning, that'd be even better.