1. Because fanatics are illogical.

2. Possibly, but I think it's more probably indicative of a country that's coming apart at the seams. Such a large and diverse country could get along a lot better if power weren't so centralized in D.C. But it is, and whichever bunch of assholes happens to be wielding it at the moment, they both seem only too happy to use it to tell everyone else how to live. The downturn only aggravates this situation.

I think we get the best (for what it's worth) governing from DC when the presidency and congress are split, republicans have one and democrats have the other. I hope this happens in the mid-term elections personally. I hope we can balance it before we do actually come apart at the scenes.

I agree, but I think the best option of all (and maybe the only chance of saving the union) is to restore states' rights. People have a lot of wildly different ideas, and with 50 states, there should be 50 laboratories in which to experiment. "One size fits all" simply does not work for a nation as big and diverse as the U.S.

If Manus had said, "Republicans should rein in these extremists just like the Democrats did!" there may be more room to argue here. But he was just referring to this specific time, not over the years. I understand where you're coming from, but I think that you might be a little too harsh on him. Unless Manus is known for just completely overreacting one way, sort of like a bizarro Mafoo.

badgenome has the right idea.

If you could weaken government control, in favor of better states' rights, you wouldn't have the problems that we have today.

Stupid hillbillies could migrate to a state (TN or WV perhaps), while the fanatical libs could stay in NY or CA. Every other state would have your various flavors, making these types of stupid clashes less likely. I live in Ohio, so it can get brutal in some cases.

Not only that, it'd help intra-state competition. Each state could be a testing ground for new education methods, health care, social rights, and the like to see just what works the best, prior to it becoming national law, or propagated to other states.

I don't know, Mafoo isn't beholden to any lame ass political party. If Manus possesses the ability to hold a heterodoxical opinion, I have yet to see it manifest itself.

Good point about Mafoo, he's just generally conservative. Not the same thing. I didn't know that Manus was one sided all the time. Well, I still stand by most of my points.

I'd say Mafoo seems more libertarian or objectivist.

I like the hypocrisy of the story, "Cantor Says Campaign Office Was Shot At, Accuses Dems of Exploiting Threats."  So I guess Democrats shouldnt say when they are being threatened and vandalized, but its okay for Republicans?

In any event, though this is a horrible act and I cant let it show, let me think of a good response...

This is terrible! Don't these lazy left-wingers know that politicians should be allowed to let Americans suffer in our country with impunity?

Just so this doesn't go over anyone's head (again), this is nearly exactly what badgenome said earlier in the thread.

Wow this is pathetic. Someone makes a post concerning some radicals that are obviously doing things that are damning upon not only their cause but Americans in general. It's something we all agree is dangerous to our freedom and to others' liberties and rights. Yet all people can do is say well the other side does it too so I question the poster's reasons for doing this.

Seriously, that's the main issue right now affecting America. It's always one side versus another. Can't we just agree that their are morons and move on. We all know there are extremists on both sides. We know there are openly biased people to one side that talk in here. But for god's sake, it's not always about that. Don't be so paranoid all the time. Everyday I have to see so called libertarians who come off more as anarchists and it embarrasses me. But I don't go out and say, "well on the other side blah blah blah".

There has got to be a point when even both sides, or many sides, can agree when something is bad or good without using it as a way to damn the other one. Founding fathers found a way to do it and so should you.