Julius, please don't lie about me. That I do not like. I stated I skimmed the article. And I did. You wrote that I stated I read the article. Let's try and be honest, OK? Thanks, I really would appreciate it.
BP doesn't drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, do drugs, nor stay out late out night. D'oh! unless he's headed down to the Burger King late-night drive-thru.
I'm basing that on this post. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and admit that you could have meant the "read the article" in a sarcastic tone, but you didn't make it clear.
I figured out that both parties are rotten quite a few years ago. The republicans were in the minority for over 40 years and were the loyal opposition. Reagan got elected, and the democrats became the witch hunt party, and that hasn't changed. The country tired of failed progressive politics and policies - that's how Reagan got elected. Clinton failed in his reelection bid as governor of Arkansas after pursuing those policies. He became much more of a centrist, even right-leaning on some issues, and became wildly popular and successful. The progressivism wasn't restricted to the democrats. Nixon was a liberal republican, as were the two Bush men. The odd thing is the right-leaning democrat was hated by republicans and the left-leaning republicans were hated by democrats. This might be the clue that it is party over policy, party over principles, and party over country. The only important thing I found in your post is the rant against the Koch brothers. There's always some bogieman who is a lot worse in feverish minds than in real life. I am not swayed to vote out of fear of such bogiemen or other wild claims.
The point isn't what the writer says, since we've read these opinions before. He is moderate, like a moderate Democrat or what is now considered a liberal Republican, a mainstream Republican before the party went radical right under Gingrich. The point is that although he has been a professional Washington Republican for decades working for Republican congressmen, the radicalism that has taken over his party has now driven him out of Washington and he's quitting. The point is the context of his opinions, not the content. It's similar to when a Republican poster says, "Obama did X!" and I say, "What's wrong with X? It's almost Republican" and he says, "Nothing, but Obama said he would bring CHANGE, so I gotcha on something." Get it? It's the context, not the content.
I'm not so sure I'd use the term "rotten", but I do think both sides have continued to sell out to their special interest entities. Each party have some excellent people who are striving to make things better. It's just that things have been allowed to get so bad and there are many more overly partisan politicians that we need a lot of fresh blood before the ship will be righted. Eventually, when things get worse (if that's possible) my hope is that voters will start demanding more from their representatives and corrective changes will be made.
both parties are absolute crap, so i guess their main objective, voter apathy, has finally been accomplished
There's a reason why I'm not a Republican. Thirty years ago I would have definitely been a member of the GOP, but I don't agree with the religious bullshit taking such a strong hold on the party and I think the GOP has lost a lot of its original platform.
I can't recall a time in the last 30years when "religious groups" had less authority in the GOP. Also, what was the GOP "original platform"?
Libertarianism, Anti-Communism, and Traditional Values. That describes Conservatism. Republicans' original values were civil rights. Freedom for the black slaves.
Yes it is, considering it was all tongue-in-cheek. Poor grammar, or not. That's why it was italicized. Wise guy.
What are you talking about? You think religion is MORE of an influence in this country or on either party compared to 30 years ago? Try again.
I think Natebishop3 is correct in that, 30 (more like 50) years ago, religion (and "morality" as a whole) was more part of our overall culture, as opposed to being tied to either political party.
Correct. The only reason the right looks like it does now is that they've held on to more of that compared to the left. It isn't as if the right as become much more religious. It is just that the left has become less.
Very true. Progressive liberalism supports legalization of drugs, prostitution, child porn is freedom of speech, denial of constitutional rights to Christians, abortion, assisted suicide, same sex marriage... That said, the contemporary church in North America has also declined in morality during the same time frame, but in proportion to the general slide in morality overall.
