Can We Just DUMP all social issues?

[peggy]

But representatives used to at least talk to each other. Sure, there was fighting and disagreements, but they at least talked to each other, and the goal was to compromise and actually get something done. Soot, they even lived together in boarding houses. I'll bet the dinner table was a noisy and irksome place, but the point being they had dinner together. The climate IS different now days. Just because there have always been differences doesn't make it the same. And in the past there was some pretty bad behaviour, but everyone, on both sides recognized it as bad behaviour and acknowledged it. Now, negative advertising for one side is to accuse someone of ACTUALLY WORKING WITH SOMEONE FROM THE OTHER PARTY! Not only is bad behaviour accepted, but celebrated. If you want to get elected now days, just promise to never ever talk to them, work with them or compromise! Putting gun sites on your opponents head is cheered and laughed about, and wearing guns to political rallies is trumpeted as some sort of god given right! These yahoos, who by the way are NOT responsible gun owners/adults or they wouldn't wear a side arm to a POLITICAL RALLY,
just see Gabby Giffords as collateral damage in their war against the EVIL...other half of the country. Their countrymen. These inbred idiots without two grey cells to rub together have allowed the screamers, Rush Beck, Fox, and the political (so called) leaders who are trying to take advantage of this climate, into believing other Americans are their sworn enemies. Not political opponents, or ideological opposites, but ENEMIES to be eradicated! Literally!

[LDAHL]

But representatives used to at least talk to each other. Sure, there was fighting and disagreements, but they at least talked to each other, and the goal was to compromise and actually get something done.

When was that? When Burr shot Hamilton? When Brooks beat Sumner senseless on the Senate floor? I think you're idealizing the past. If I heard major politicians referring to their opposition as "those inbred idiots without two grey cells to rub together", or accusing them of wanting to eradicate them, I'd be more inclined to worry. But claiming these to be uniquely divided times strikes me as a bit of an overstatement.

[JaneV2.0]

This is by far the most contentious Congress in my memory. Politics used to be about the art of the deal, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill were famous for their collegial relationship, Lyndon Johnson was well-known for deft arm-twisting to get votes on both sides of the aisle, filibusters--or the threat of them--were never business as usual. A senate majority was 51 votes. Maybe we should just throw in the towel and carve up the country by socio-political zones into two or three new ones. I won't have to move, and there's a Cascadia flag all ready to go.

[creaker]

This is by far the most contentious Congress in my memory. Politics used to be about the art of the deal, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill were famous for their collegial relationship, Lyndon Johnson was well-known for deft arm-twisting to get votes on both sides of the aisle, filibusters--or the threat of them--were never business as usual. A senate majority was 51 votes. Maybe we should just throw in the towel and carve up the country by socio-political zones into two or three new ones. I won't have to move, and there's a Cascadia flag all ready to go.

There used to be these circles of idealogy that overlapped in an area called compromise. Over time I think the left has shifted right, but the right has shifted right so much more quickly those circles don't overlap anymore. And there is no overlapping area to compromise in anymore. What's worse is I think many structure their ideologies these days not so much on what they believe in but just so there is no area of overlap to compromise in.

[Midwest]

But representatives used to at least talk to each other. Sure, there was fighting and disagreements, but they at least talked to each other, and the goal was to compromise and actually get something done. Soot, they even lived together in boarding houses. I'll bet the dinner table was a noisy and irksome place, but the point being they had dinner together. The climate IS different now days. Just because there have always been differences doesn't make it the same. And in the past there was some pretty bad behaviour, but everyone, on both sides recognized it as bad behaviour and acknowledged it. Now, negative advertising for one side is to accuse someone of ACTUALLY WORKING WITH SOMEONE FROM THE OTHER PARTY! Not only is bad behaviour accepted, but celebrated. If you want to get elected now days, just promise to never ever talk to them, work with them or compromise!

Putting gun sites on your opponents head is cheered and laughed about, and wearing guns to political rallies is trumpeted as some sort of god given right! These yahoos, who by the way are NOT responsible gun owners/adults or they wouldn't wear a side arm to a POLITICAL RALLY,

just see Gabby Giffords as collateral damage in their war against the EVIL...other half of the country. Their countrymen. These inbred idiots without two grey cells to rub together have allowed the screamers, Rush Beck, Fox, and the political (so called) leaders who are trying to take advantage of this climate, into believing other Americans are their sworn enemies. Not political opponents, or ideological opposites, but ENEMIES to be eradicated! Literally!

I am not aware of anyone that cheered for what happened to Gabby Giffords. If they did, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Target is a figure of speech. I don't think anyone meant it in the literal sense except the distrurbed person who committed this unspeakable act. The talking heads on MSNBC were quite aware that no one meant it in the literal sense but were opportunistic in their hatred of wing when given the opportunity.

Why are law abiding citizens who happen to have a firearm suddenly irresponsible?

MSNBC and Air America are/were the left wing verions of Fox. This type of over the top journalism isn't a right wing thing or a left wing thing.

I value other opinons and try not to refer to others in derogatory terms. Refering to the other side as inbred idiots doesn't really further understanding in any manner.

Finally, if you are angry about the present state of political discourse in the this country, wouldn't it make sense to vote for someone besides the current President. He came in promising to unite the country and has done exactly the opposite.

[redfox]

If only our government came with a lifetime guarantee.

It's called the ballot box. Imperfect, but what human design isn't?

[peggy]

When was that? When Burr shot Hamilton? When Brooks beat Sumner senseless on the Senate floor? I think you're idealizing the past. If I heard major politicians referring to their opposition as "those inbred idiots without two grey cells to rub together", or accusing them of wanting to eradicate them, I'd be more inclined to worry. But claiming these to be uniquely divided times strikes me as a bit of an overstatement.

I said there was bad behaviour, but these idiots weren't cheered on by their colleagues. For the most part they did get along and they DID compromise. They never ran on 'I'm not working with the other party no matter what" They didn't actively try to divide America like the 'leaders' today. The last time our country was divided like this we paid the price in hundreds of thousands of lives. but apparently many don't see it that way. I guess we don't learn from history, do we.
And never has a President been shown such little respect as President Obama. Just another symptom of the corrosive nastiness that's accepted today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1239247.html

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...rty/?mobile=nc

[ApatheticNoMore]

It disturbs me to see the riots about austerity measures in Europe. Clearly those populations view their good Nanny G as the granter of swell genie wishes. Awful.

Things like NDAA pass and there is a total lack of riots (or much less even protests). That disturbs me more. Blind obedience and looking the other way is scarier to me than politically aware hell-raisers. And I don't know, I think a society is either prone to one or the other and I'm not sure you can slice and dice it so finely to have only the good without the bad. In some socities the reason the people are very obedient is of course because it's been scared into them (by totalitarian measures).

[peggy]

I am not aware of anyone that cheered for what happened to Gabby Giffords. If they did, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Target is a figure of speech. I don't think anyone meant it in the literal sense except the distrurbed person who committed this unspeakable act. The talking heads on MSNBC were quite aware that no one meant it in the literal sense but were opportunistic in their hatred of wing when given the opportunity.

Why are law abiding citizens who happen to have a firearm suddenly irresponsible?

MSNBC and Air America are/were the left wing verions of Fox. This type of over the top journalism isn't a right wing thing or a left wing thing.

I value other opinons and try not to refer to others in derogatory terms. Refering to the other side as inbred idiots doesn't really further understanding in any manner.

Finally, if you are angry about the present state of political discourse in the this country, wouldn't it make sense to vote for someone besides the current President. He came in promising to unite the country and has done exactly the opposite.

I"m sorry, I guess you misunderstood me...or you didn't read what I wrote. I suspect the latter.
Target may be a figure of speech, but an actual cross hairs target on Representative Giffords district, is a target.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD0GRCSWlwU

I never said law abiding citizens who happen to own guns were irresponsible. I said inbred idiots who think it's ok to carry side arms to a political rally are not responsible citizens (in response to the oft presented argument that people who carry are such well trained, responsible citizens) Again, more careful reading would help you avoid these misunderstandings.

no, nasty, over the top (I won't call it journalism as that insults real journalism) is clearly a right wing thing. MSNBC has maybe 5 political opinion shows during the broadcast day, and they regularly have conservatives on for REAL balanced journalism. (OK there is one or two that don't regularly have conservatives on) compared to Fox 24/7 anti liberal, anti-Obama, anti anything that even appears to be something liberals are for. I swear if liberals came out for apple pie and mother hood, they would find a way to be against it. Oh, wait, I have an example. Think these good, god fearing people are for family and the sanctity of marriage? Well, not so much!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...sident-really/

Boy, you just can't make this stuff up!

I didn't refer to the other side as inbred idiots. I referred to the IDIOTS as idiots. They know who they are..Well, maybe they don't. They are idiots after all!
There are plenty of conservatives on this board and I don't think they are inbred idiots.

As far as this President being divisive? Well, only people who think fox is fair and balanced and all the information they need would think so. But anyone who actually followed what was going on in Washington, and how this President has practically bent himself into a pretzel accommodating the republicans would know different.

[Midwest]

I"m sorry, I guess you misunderstood me...or you didn't read what I wrote. I suspect the latter.
Target may be a figure of speech, but an actual cross hairs target on Representative Giffords district, is a target.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD0GRCSWlwU

I never said law abiding citizens who happen to own guns were irresponsible. I said inbred idiots who think it's ok to carry side arms to a political rally are not responsible citizens (in response to the oft presented argument that people who carry are such well trained, responsible citizens) Again, more careful reading would help you avoid these misunderstandings.

no, nasty, over the top (I won't call it journalism as that insults real journalism) is clearly a right wing thing. MSNBC has maybe 5 political opinion shows during the broadcast day, and they regularly have conservatives on for REAL balanced journalism. (OK there is one or two that don't regularly have conservatives on) compared to Fox 24/7 anti liberal, anti-Obama, anti anything that even appears to be something liberals are for. I swear if liberals came out for apple pie and mother hood, they would find a way to be against it. Oh, wait, I have an example. Think these good, god fearing people are for family and the sanctity of marriage? Well, not so much!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...sident-really/

Boy, you just can't make this stuff up!

I didn't refer to the other side as inbred idiots. I referred to the IDIOTS as idiots. They know who they are..Well, maybe they don't. They are idiots after all!
There are plenty of conservatives on this board and I don't think they are inbred idiots.

As far as this President being divisive? Well, only people who think fox is fair and balanced and all the information they need would think so. But anyone who actually followed what was going on in Washington, and how this President has practically bent himself into a pretzel accommodating the republicans would know different.

I read what you wrote and am quite aware of the crosshairs. Neither were meant in the literal sense. I suspect both you and MSNBC are aware of that.

It someone is obeying the law, they are not idiots for bringing an object to a political rally.

I watch both MSNBC, Fox and CNN. Neither MSNBC or Fox are fair and balanced. MSNBC is every bit as hateful as Fox.

With regards to Obama bending over backwards, I don't perceive it that way.

Respectfully,

Midwest