>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What I intended to do in my rather strident initial comment was to smack some sense into folks who seemed to be [engaged in] a loathsome intellectual scavenging of misery. It could not go unchallenged.

To be honest, I have the same motivation behind about 80% of my comments. It the "someone on the Internet is WRONG" syndrome.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Are there people out there who are using violent and apocalyptic rhetoric? Not as many as are typically implied. I cannot name a SINGLE person who I would hold up as “the example” of a person that routinely uses ‘violent and apocalyptic rhetoric’. When such rhetoric exists it is typically very isolated.

Let me give two examples of something I found both pervasive, and an incitement to violence.

The first one is Sarah Palin's invention of the "death panel":

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

That was never something even remotely part of the Affordable Care Act, but you had it repeated and defended almost to a man by conservatives. Even the normally anti-talking point libertarians we have around here felt compelled to occasionally add "perhaps that's the basis for the 'death panels' the Republicans keep talking about..." to their criticisms of the ACA.

If you think that what liberals are trying to do is, as Senator Chuck Grassley put it, "pull the plug on Grandma", then it justifies trying to stop it by all means necessary. If talking about it doesn't work, intimidation, harassment, vandalism, and ultimately armed rebellion is okay, because it's all self defense against an unconscionable act of nihilistic genocide.

The second one is the talk about revolution and secession. The most famous are Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment remedies", Michele Bachmann's "armed and dangerous" about Cap & Trade, and Gov. Rick Perry winds up on TV a lot for talking about secession.

I'd also say that when I compare left vs. right on this topic, it's not so much about the quantity, but the quality and authority. The right-wing elected officials and candidates were talking about armed rebellion if they lose the election, while left-wing ones never did. Glenn Beck is making the case, night after night, that Obama and liberals aren't metaphorically taking us down the path of fascism and genocide, but literally doing so. That's qualitatively different from the average boisterous protester drawing a Hitler mustache on Obama or Bush's face, or some nobody like me calling him that in a comment.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'd just be a bit happier if they'd return the favor, and admit that liberal philosophy has a legitimate place in American politics, rather than talking about it like it's a cancer that must be completely eliminated.
Conservatives feel the exact same way. It’d be nice if liberals treated conservatives like human beings instead of vermin to be eradicated. Classic example: like how liberal pundits & politicians treat the Tea Party.

Okay, again, I think there's a big difference. The criticism of the Tea Party from the left has mostly been to call them:

• Racist
  
• Angry
  
• Incoherent/Stupid
  
• Believe a revisionist version of history
  
• Believe in a revisionist version of the Constitution
  
• Quick to resort to intimidation or violence
  
• Run by corporations
  

That's a pretty negative set of attributes. Well earned too, IMO.

Thing is, we don't really want them gone, we want them to snap out of it. We want to demonstrate to them the value of what we believe, and we want to show that the things we want and what they want aren't really so different when you come down to it.

Their criticism of us is:

• Elitist
  
• Incoherent/Stupid
  
• Weak (on terror/drugs/Ruskies/welfare parasites, etc.)
  
• Lazy
  
• Naive
  
• Run by special interests (mostly Unions and enviro-terrorists)
  
• Propagandist (we supposedly control all media, remember?)
  
• Unpatriotic
  
• Un-American
  
• Baby-killing
  
• Grandma-killing
  
• Job-killing
  
• Troop-hating
  
• Gay-loving
  
• Flag-burning
  
• God-hating
  
• Socialist
  
• Communist
  
• Fascist
  

I don't get the same sense of desire for outreach/reformation of liberals. I also don't get the sense of compatibility from them. They're not okay with a government that's part-conservative and part-liberal in inspiration. It's an all-or-nothing game to them.

I think that's less true in the broader right-wing movement, but the Tea Party-style of argument is in ascendance over there, and it seems like hardly anyone on the right thinks they should be trying to cool down that eliminationist streak.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But most of the time the reality is that the guy we want to believe is such a jerk is nowhere near as bad as we imagine in our head.

I agree.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
So when some politician says, “Hey – Limbaugh (or whoever) is poisoning our national discourse with their violent rhetoric”, all too many people are ready to lap up the demagoguery. Politicians who do so are manipulating us for votes. Pundits who do so are manipulating you for ratings.
Don’t be a dupe. We live in a free country, where speech – even speech you don’t like – is protected.

I agree with where you start here, but not where you end. Throughout, I am talking about condemnation, not criminalization.

I can condemn anything I want because I have free speech. I also think that there's a lot of validity to the idea that our national discourse has been poisoned with over the top rhetoric.

I think the kind of political junkies who come and get in my face here are kindred spirits, but I get so very, very tired of trying to break through the vitriol, and I mostly just write off responding to the people who seem to only speak to provoke.

To be frank, you have been a pretty borderline case in my book. You come across to me as someone who's commentary often only serves to raise the amount of heat and useless vitriol in conversations. I know I can dish it out myself, but I tend to dial it way back if I sense someone wants a real conversation.

I'm glad to see you do that at least a bit here.

Like you said, don't be a dupe -- don't be one of these people who carries nothing but a burning hatred of people who disagree with you, especially if you like to hang out in a place you think is 90% people who disagree with you.

@blankfist I can't speak for every state (and BTW, this is almost entirely an issue left to the states to legislate on), but there's nothing legally stopping a divorce from being settled out of court in Ohio. You don't even need an arbitrator, if the parties can come to total agreement on the disposition of the custody of the children and all the relevant property disputes. In such cases, the state basically just acts as a witness to the agreement.

Almost no divorces happen that way, largely because the couple can't come to a full and wide-ranging agreement. Not only that, they usually can't even agree to binding arbitration. My parents couldn't, and instead went into the full legal food fight in civil court.

At no point in here do I see how taking civil court off the table helps.

As far as my own parents' divorce proceedings, my observation was that all the advantages went to my dad, largely because he was the sole income earner in our household. The only topic mom seemed to get preference on was with custody, and I think that was more a case of dad relenting than mom getting some sort of preferential treatment.

Even so, unfair laws aren't written in stone, and I'm sure you could cobble together a pretty potent PAC of pissed off rich men who're mad about how women get too much of a free ride when it comes to divorce. Bad judges can be impeached, and many state courts elect their judges anyways (we do here, and they even all have partisan affiliations -- the Ohio Supreme Court is 100% Republican again).

And as far as judges are concerned, I'm sure the voting blocs are driven more by abortion than anything else, and I guarantee you that the abortion-should-be-illegal crowd are a lot more likely to rule against agnostic parents over "proper" Christian ones in divorce proceedings.

In terms of actual statute, I suspect a lot of the stagnation of law in this area is because the law is set at the state level. Just about no one gets into the details of what their state legislature does unless it catches the attention of the national media (e.g. SB1070, Prop 8, Prop 19, Romneycare, etc.). Even a political junkie like me is hard pressed to say what issues my state legislature has even tried to address over its last session.

As far as some sort of anarchist state-free system, let me quote James Madison, who puts it far more eloquently than I do:

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

If you have improvements on the framework laid down by Madison and the other founding fathers to address that problem, I'm all ears.

I think the debt reduction is valid for some members. Canada didn't get hit nearly as hard as Americans or Icelanders did, so from our PM's perspective, debt reduction makes sense (I have political disagreements with the guy, but Canadians are generally proud of our Governments' fiscal responsibility - fake lake notwithstanding).

However, you guys could definitely use some more stimulus (and not to the banks). I hear Krugman warning against a relapse into recession and maybe even depression, and that is the last thing America needs right now (imagine what the Republicans would do with that?)

Environmental regulation would be nice - but Harper is a Calgary Tory, which means he eats crude oil for breakfast. Remember, he was the one who called Kyoto a Socialist Scheme to re-distribute wealth. I was frankly surprised Obama didn't go after him a little bit on that, but I have been hearing that the Americans are reluctant to criticize Canada too much on the oil sands fearing we may just say 'fuck it' and export to China instead. Even the European countries didn't really mention it too much - I figured Germany or France would at least bring it up.

Some would say that violent protest is the only way to make them notice - that they don't listen the other 900 days between G8/G20 meetings, and this is an opportunity to get their attention. After Montebello, I think it's safe to assume the cops wanted to bump some heads, and as agents of state authority who are funded by my tax dollars, it's our duty to oblige.

It does water down the message a bit - it is hard to discern their purpose or motivations sometimes. I think the purpose it does serve is reminding people that they are not alone in their disgust with 'The Man'. It's like what they say about France being the last place where Governments are still afraid of the people. >> ^NetRunner:

Apparently, the big theme for the meetings is Debt Reduction. Whaddya think?
What do you think the G8/G20 leaders should be focusing on? How would you go about solving the world's problems?
I think the Debt Reduction part of it is crazy stupid. I'm glad the US delegation is arguing for more fiscal stimulus, though I'm sad to say we seem to be the only ones.
What should they be focusing on? Fiscal stimulus, environmental regulation, and making the Chinese stop manipulating their currency.
Human rights would be nice too, but they're an economic group, they don't do the human rights thing. That's the UN's impotent jurisdiction.
How do you see the protests that have been taking place? Is violence ever justified? Pics.
Do the minority of the protesters who vandalize and attack security folks have just cause? Are they ruining it for the peaceful demonstrators? Do they only serve to tarnish the many causes of other protesters and groups?
I think the protests are totally ineffective. The G20 members don't give a shit, and regular joes don't ever hear what they have to say. Hell, even political junkies like me would be hard pressed to say who's doing the protesting, beyond the anarchists who seem to only exist to protest G8/G20 meetings.
There's no point in violence committed against security forces at the G20. People who do it tarnish the reputation of the protesters, and give any jackbooted statists (real or imagined) good propaganda to use to dismiss the protests.

Apparently, the big theme for the meetings is Debt Reduction. Whaddya think?

What do you think the G8/G20 leaders should be focusing on? How would you go about solving the world's problems?

I think the Debt Reduction part of it is crazy stupid. I'm glad the US delegation is arguing for more fiscal stimulus, though I'm sad to say we seem to be the only ones.

What should they be focusing on? Fiscal stimulus, environmental regulation, and making the Chinese stop manipulating their currency.

Human rights would be nice too, but they're an economic group, they don't do the human rights thing. That's the UN's impotent jurisdiction.

How do you see the protests that have been taking place? Is violence ever justified? Pics.

Do the minority of the protesters who vandalize and attack security folks have just cause? Are they ruining it for the peaceful demonstrators? Do they only serve to tarnish the many causes of other protesters and groups?

I think the protests are totally ineffective. The G20 members don't give a shit, and regular joes don't ever hear what they have to say. Hell, even political junkies like me would be hard pressed to say who's doing the protesting, beyond the anarchists who seem to only exist to protest G8/G20 meetings.

There's no point in violence committed against security forces at the G20. People who do it tarnish the reputation of the protesters, and give any jackbooted statists (real or imagined) good propaganda to use to dismiss the protests.

>> ^dag:
I hate car culture. Especially deep-throated, sound-enhancing mufflers used as mating calls. Please evolve.

There is no monolithic car culture. And they're not mating calls, they're more like the antlers on a buck -- a passive challenge to everyone around them. Or they just get a kick from the sound.

>> ^Kreegath:
People who use the word "logic" interchangeably with the words "reasonable", "considerate" and "likely". Also, people who use the word "logic" in arguments and/or reasonings as some sort of validation for their own stance aswell as invalidation of the opposing side's.


Amen to that, though I don't encounter it much in "the real world."

My list:

I hate selfishness.
I hate dishonesty.
I hate arrogance.
I hate people who lack empathy.
I hate when people won't answer simple questions (bad for a politics junkie like me).
I hate when people don't pay attention to what they're doing.
I hate when people won't talk about the elephant in the room.
I hate how rarely people have the means to do what they want with life.
I hate how disrespectful humans are of nature.
I hate how disrespectful people are to each other.
I hate how often we find ourselves feeling all alone, when there are six billion people out there.
I hate when people act certain about things that they couldn't possibly be certain of.

Oh, and I hate parmesan cheese. That shit smells like puke.

Actually, I don't find Ron Paul or libertarians dangerous as a Democrat at all.

Scenario One: Libertarians and Paul fail to garner electoral success. No gain or loss for Democrats.

Scenario Two: Paul's Campaign for Liberty hollows out the Republican Party and turns it into the Libertarian (but still pro-Life) party. Big Democratic gains here -- no more problems with torture from the opposition, no problems with legalizing gay marriage, or marijunana. In theory, they'd also help with all kinds of anti-corruption measures too (lobbying limits, campaign finance, etc.), and the reasonable ones might realize the environment really is an issue, and needs to be addressed by the state. Cap & trade where the proceeds are used to cut income taxes might actually become a viable compromise.

Scenario Three: Libertarians break off a sizable chunk of the Republican base, and America becomes a 3 party system. Assuming the groups are roughly even in size, they'll have to work together just to reach bare majorities in Congress, and two fully united parties could break filibusters. I'm not sure how that would work in practice, but it'd be fascinating to see for this political junkie.

The implications of Rand Paul running for Senate in KY works out the same way from my point of view; it's only good news.

However, the DSCC is still hoping Bunning decides to run, because then it becomes a possible Democratic pickup.

>> ^Devicrom:
How is this sift worthy? God I can't wait till this election is over so we can stop with all this politics crap.


Since this has rec'd almost 50 votes now, apparently some of us think it's sift-worthy.

And don't expect politics to die after the election in the US. Some of us are fulltime political junkies, election year or not.

Hey NetRunner and other politics junkies (thinking of you ConstitutionalPatriot)what political blogs do you frequent?

On the left I go to:
huffpo
talkingpointsmemo
slate

In the center:
politio
realclearpolitics
drudgereport

Don't spend much time on the right ...

Oh and a upvote for strategic use of Buena Vista Social Club

I enjoy the plethora of election videos because I've become a political junkie of late, but this is a sound complaint -- Why not have a section of the site devoted to a more diverse top videos listing? Maybe a "Diverse" tab on the main page which acts much like the "Hotness" tab but devalues a video based on how many videos above it are in the same channels. That way if one channel is overrepresented videos beyond the top two or three will be pushed off the first couple pages, making room for other kinds of videos.

On the other hand, it didn't look to me like Top Sifts is dominated by political videos; maybe it already does something like this?

Perhaps people are missing the point because they're not a political junkie like me, but the Republicans made a huge deal about canceling the Monday night portion of their convention, and instead running a half-hearted telethon to raise money for Gustav survivors.

The convention hall was essentially empty, except for press, and whoever was on stage.

Then...they partied like it was 1999.