@Kasz and others, and this is going slightly off topic. I feel that the Republicans are currently running a "we're going to go against anything that the Democrats put forth" kind of war right now, and that seems to be counter productive to progress. What do you say to a claim like this?

CommonMan said: @Kasz and others, and this is going slightly off topic. I feel that the Republicans are currently running a "we're going to go against anything that the Democrats put forth" kind of war right now, and that seems to be counter productive to progress. What do you say to a claim like this?

I think that's what they've said. I don't thing that will actually be the case though. If legislation passes through that some republicans want, those republicans will vote for it. It would be too damaging to them in their campaigns otherwise. Is it counter productive? If it's something they would normally vote for. Republicans seemed more then willing to vote for the portions of the healthcare bill they agreed with, leaving the rest for a second bill however. i think there statement is more just a "We're not going to blindly vote for your stuff" statment... with false bravado like they actually even have any power to stop the democrats. They may try and stall until mid term elections. Which has always been the weakness of congress and senate and generally a common theme among both republican and democratic minorties. If the polls look good, stall until we have more senators and can get more seats. I think it's why the biggest changes always seem to happen right after one party is upended.

Zucas said: So instead of giving people the benefit of the doubt, we let paranoia take over and assume the enemies are at our doorsteps.  As one that wishes they were an intellectual, maybe you and I should both crack open that book.  Had more in the post, but I'll PM the rest to ya.  Don't want to deride the topic further than it already is.

One can only receive the benefit of the doubt if there is a doubt.

Although then again republicans and democrats are argueing over the extension of unemployment benefits.

Neither party wants them to not be extended. However now the republicans are demanding and offering bills that pay for the legislation, because they want it paid for rather then to run up the national debt more.

It used to just be one guy who wanted that. A guy Manus I believe accused of "not supporting our troops", because he had a similiar problem with Military spending, while ignoring the fact that said senator proposed a bunch of cuts to programs to pay for it.

Cuts that were mostly ones Obama himself said he wanted made. Said cuts still remain undone.  Of course regulatory reform is expected to pass though.  It just seems like a matter of "will they actually try and be bipartisan?

Hey, I don't like socialists, or any other left wing ideologies for that matter, but for some reason I actually hate the conservatives in USA lol. But then again politics in the USA makes me sick anyway.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

Rath said: Comparing it to Kristallnacht = bad idea. Also threats of violence and acts of violence against lawmakers (or anybody, but especially lawmakers given their responsibilities) is extremely bad. It's even worse when it's being done by other lawmakers. Also I've decided that my opinion on the American government is that the entire system is shit =P and no I'm not another states rights supporter I just think the system is broken from the top down.

How about comparing it to the burning of the Reichstag?

Cause... a democratic congressman just did that.

Funny stuff.  I so hoped the Democrats were going to play the middle, accomplish what americans want and force the Republican party to fall, hopefully to be replaced by libretarians.

Instead they're just doing everything they can to strengthen back the Republicans.

This is related to this article on conservative extremism:

American Christian Militia plots murdering police officers and using IEDs

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/29/michigan.arrests/index.html?hpt=T2

I have a general question.

Our Constitution gave us the right to bear arms to uprise against an unjust government. When do we do that? At what point, is it ok?

I head a congressman say that violence against political leaders is NEVER the right thing to do. He is 100% wrong. When it's the right time, it's absolutely the right thing to do.

Do I think now is the right time? No. But I bet everyone of the people who founded this country would say the right time was years ago. I can see how the fringe could think now is appropriate.

ManusJustus said: This is related to this article on conservative extremism: American Christian Militia plots murdering police officers and using IEDs http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/29/michigan.arrests/index.html?hpt=T2

The fruit of violence is grown in the soil of all worldviews...

 

Christianity: the Crusades, abortion bombings, "Christian Militia" murder plots, etc.

Islam: 1993 Bombay bombings, 9/11, Mumbai train bombings of 2006, recent train bombings in Russia, etc.

Atheism: Josef Stalin (killed between 20-60 million), Mao Zedong (killed between 50-70 million), Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, etc.

Buddhism: Sri Lanka Civil War (between 80,000 and 100,000 dead in one of the longest wars in modern Asia)

Judaism: on-going violence against Palestinians in the Middle East (over 2 million Palestinians killed in warfare since 1948)

 

There is something in the human heart that is so prone to violence and oppression that it can twist any philosophy, worldview, or belief about God into a warrant for violence. Liberals aren't "bad people". Conservatives aren't "bad people". People are bad people.

I would say that we take up arms when the government tries to take them along with many other freedoms.

I don't think we're at that point, but 5, 10, 15 years down the road, that could very well be the case.