This is all because the Republicans are a remarkably disciplined party. They vote in blocs even when they disagree with the policy in question personally, and thus become a force of reactionary regression even if they individually might not be for such.
Yeah, fuck those gay bashing Republicans like Senator Roy McDonald who said:
You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, fuck it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing.
when asked why he supported gay marriage in NY...wait whut?
Thank god we have sensible leaders like Harry Reid who said:
When the clock strikes midnight tomorrow, we will be giving terrorists the opportunity to plot against our country undetected. Now, the Senator from Kentucky is threatening to take away the best tools we have for stopping them.
when trying to even prevent discussion of the Patriot Act to even occur.
Yeah, I get it. You hate Republicans and Christians, but I think there is more than a fair amount of confirmation bias occurring in this thread.
Yeah, I get it. You hate Republicans and Christians, but I think there is more than a fair amount of confirmation bias occurring in this thread.
The problem is most people and politicians are not pure conservative and liberal as defined in the US. So when some democrats happen to be conservative on some issues and liberal on others people start saying "What's the difference between democrats and republicans". It depends a lot on the individual politician.
A good example of this is the Tea Party (conservative neoliberal republicans) are pretty much burning any republican who is not ideologically pure. Thus the republicans are becoming more conservative with less "liberal" policies, while the democrats continue to be a pretty big tent party with various views.
To add a bit, a Southern Democrat is different from a Northeast Democrat or a Western One. Republicans tend to behave different regionally as well. Which is why the Teaparty has more issues in the Northeast.
Pro-tip: Democrats (on a whole) are more conservative now than they ever have been.
The democratic party just eat up nearly all the moderate republicans when the republican party started to be a purity contest, it would be only be natural they would become a bit more conservative. In PA alone there was a huge shift of voters away from the republican party, which is one of the reasons Spector jumped ship to the democrats finding his moderate base of support in the primaries had disappeared.
@Andrew: While I agree that a generalization about all Republicans in the title of this thread is wrong, I think it is rather hard to argue against the notion that currently the Republican party in the United States is a party filled with bigoted, know-nothing ass-clowns hellbent on doing pretty much everything and anything that devalues humanity while pretending or seriously diluted into thinking that they're helping. While not every Republican is that sort of person, the vast, overwhelming majority appears to be just that.
I'll just say that I originally had issue with the title of the thread talking only about Republicans. To say that the Republicans are the only people to scaremonger/lie is unbelievably disingenuous. Excuse me for wanted to hold both parties accountable for their rhetoric and positions.
When your Senate majority leader talks like this, it's hard to take the moral high ground.
Really you should look at each politician in relation to where they come from. A Conservative in New York City is going to look different from a conservative in GA and a Democrat from Iowa is going to look way different from one in NJ or CA. Harry Reid compared to Sharon Angle, was quite liberal, doesn't mean he compares to a senator from Vermont.
And seriously, are we suddenly trying to mask the fact that this forum does indeed have a heavy liberal slant? Cuz really, it does. Changing the title of this thread in particular changes nothing about our overall convictions.
Andrew, there isn't a day that goes by that I don't wish Russ Feingold had been reelected and Harry Reid had lost. However getting Sharon Angle instead would have been disastrous.
Really you should look at each politician in relation to where they come from. A Conservative in New York City is going to look different from a conservative in GA and a Democrat from Iowa is going to look way different from one in NJ or CA. Harry Reid compared to Sharon Angle, was quite liberal, doesn't mean he compares to a senator from Vermont.
Bullshit. At the national level, they all just vote party line. There is no real individual effort taken by politicians other than to grab more pork for their constituency and appease their lobbyists.
And seriously, are we suddenly trying to mask the fact that this forum does indeed have a heavy liberal slant? Cuz really, it does. Changing the title of this thread in particular changes nothing about our overall convictions.
Yeah, but changing the title does kinda lump all Republicans into a category that they don't necessarily fit into. Of course, over-generalization isn't exactly uncommon.
Bullshit. At the national level, they all just vote party line. There is no real individual effort taken by politicians other than to grab more pork for their constituency and appease their lobbyists.
13 Democrats and 4 republicans voted against the reop of the patriot act. (and one independent)
It really just comes down to the nature of each coalition. The Republicans are a remarkably disciplined body that acts in unison most of the time on most issues. The Democrats are a loose collection of everyone else. The most conservative Democrat is less liberal than the most liberal Republican, but the Republicans are much less likely to cross party lines on a vote.
And seriously, are we suddenly trying to mask the fact that this forum does indeed have a heavy liberal slant? Cuz really, it does. Changing the title of this thread in particular changes nothing about our overall convictions.
Newsflash, every single politician lies. The good ones just don't get caught.
13 Democrats and 4 republicans voted against the reop of the patriot act. (and one independent)
31 Democrats voted for the Patriot Act. How come during the Bush era they overwhelmingly voted no but not now?
Also, Obama lied about closing Guantanamo. Guess that makes him a Republican.
Of course, over-generalization isn't exactly uncommon.
Not by any means. I'm pretty sure that we already know how most of the forum may think/feel about American politics, despite the fact that the thread's title isn't exactly accurate as to how we feel about generalizations. I don't know who we're trying to impress.
“There is nothing stopping the president from ordering the Department of Justice or Homeland Security to send planes to Guantánamo to transfer detainees to the United States for prosecution or to foreign countries for repatriation or resettlement.â€Â
EDIT: Furthermore, if you mean tried by looking to send illegally detained people to prisons in other countries which *gasp* might release them after a couple weeks and then deciding you don't want to do that, sure.
“There is nothing stopping the president from ordering the Department of Justice or Homeland Security to send planes to Guantánamo to transfer detainees to the United States
To where? Most states have denied the government the ability to transfer any of those detainees to their state.
or to foreign countries for repatriation or resettlement.â€Â
If you read the first article you'd see the trouble with doing that. Sending them to most places either will have them killed or tortured and in some cases released which we also don't want in some cases.
If you read the first article you'd see the trouble with doing that. Sending them to most places either will have them killed or tortured and in some cases released which we also don't want in some cases.
Nothing in the first article mentions torture or killing them.
Saleh would, in our judgment, be unable to hold returning detainees in jail for any more than a matter of weeks before public pressure -- or the courts -- forced their release
Do some democrats lie? Certainly. Wiener's shameful debacle is pretty disappointing. But jumping-jesus-h-christ-on-a-ritz-fucking-cracker, look at the number and sheer grade of lies on each side. And look how loud each side is about their lie. I really do want to see proof of democrats moving so often against the best interests of humanity, and either scaremongering or outright fabricating everything about it. There's lying about posting dirty photos, and then there's fabricating numbers so you can justify cutting money that goes to feeding poor people so you can water your god-damned flowers.
Why not just release them to where ever they want? The majority of them were illegally detained with little to no evidence anyways. And if you say "But they might come back and attack us!?!", who is fear mongering now? Furthermore, Obama has started up the military commissions to start prosecuting them. Isn't that what everyone was upset with Bush about? Where is your outrage? I'm just sick of this political dual nature that people have depending on which "side" they are on. Piss on Bush for being an evil-mad right wing king for running Gitmo but when it's Obama's turn in the hotseat things are all the sudden more nuanced and difficult now. Please, give me break.
scaremongering
Look no further than the aforementioned rushing of ALL the Patriot Act provisions. Because before there is even time to debate about the actual act, the Democrats rushed it through.
If somebody wants to take on their shoulders not having provisions in place which are necessary to protect the United States at this time, that’s a big, big weight to bear.
Look no further than the aforementioned rushing of ALL the Patriot Act provisions. Because before there is even time to debate about the actual act, the Democrats rushed it through.
I would note that they temporarily extended it three months so they could debate it then since it was running up against a hard deadline. They could have just made them go on for ever...or 6 years.
Comments
If someone stabbed someone else, would they force that be be settled in arbitration, too?
Thank god we have sensible leaders like Harry Reid who said: when trying to even prevent discussion of the Patriot Act to even occur.
Yeah, I get it. You hate Republicans and Christians, but I think there is more than a fair amount of confirmation bias occurring in this thread.
When your Senate majority leader talks like this, it's hard to take the moral high ground.
The more liberal, more likely to vote no.
Also, Obama lied about closing Guantanamo. Guess that makes him a Republican.
Congress placed limits on Gitmo transfers
From your second linked article EDIT: Furthermore, if you mean tried by looking to send illegally detained people to prisons in other countries which *gasp* might release them after a couple weeks and then deciding you don't want to do that, sure.
an interesting overview of the issues
There's lying about posting dirty photos, and then there's fabricating numbers so you can justify cutting money that goes to feeding poor people so you can water your god-damned flowers.