Benghazi hearing?

[Fellrike]

I could compare the misdeeds of Democratic Presidents against those of Republicans, and we could spend all day arguing about which party is more deserving of the stewardship of our country, but it would be pointless. You all know as well as I do that Presidents of both parties have done some bad things and that this behavior will probably continue. We won't ever agree on which party is more honest, and which more corrupt, or on which party promotes policies that will benefit most Americans and safeguard our security, and which cares nothing for anything but its own interests and those of its supporters. This dispute is unending and therefore meaningless. But there's still a line we can't dare to cross, wouldn't you agree, otherwise we'll lose our ability to deal with each other respectfully and resolve disagreements in a more or less friendly manner, as we usually have in the past. If we can no longer do that, how are we supposed to sort things out? I agree - things have gotten much nastier since 2012. But the GOP aren't the only ones to blame for that. And both parties are going to have to go the extra mile to make things right.

[New Chalcedon]

It's about trying to demolish Hillary's Presidential prospectives and if Jesus is in a good mood getting the Uppity Negro impeached or forcing him to resign.

I think Hillary is not going to run, generally you find some government or high profile public service field if your planning to make a run for something.
Taking 3 years off would not be viewed well.

When she's spent the last 20 in the public eye? Idk about you, but I consider her time off well-earned. I may also remind you that Ronald Reagan had held no public office for six full years before taking office as the President - his term as Governor of California ended on 06/01/1975, and he entered the WH on 20/01/1981. Prior to him, Richard Nixon had held no public office for eight years (from his loss in 1952 to his win in 1960).

It doesn't seem to have gotten in their way.

[New Chalcedon]

I could compare the misdeeds of Democratic Presidents against those of Republicans, and we could spend all day arguing about which party is more deserving of the stewardship of our country, but it would be pointless. You all know as well as I do that Presidents of both parties have done some bad things and that this behavior will probably continue. We won't ever agree on which party is more honest, and which more corrupt, or on which party promotes policies that will benefit most Americans and safeguard our security, and which cares nothing for anything but its own interests and those of its supporters. This dispute is unending and therefore meaningless. But there's still a line we can't dare to cross, wouldn't you agree, otherwise we'll lose our ability to deal with each other respectfully and resolve disagreements in a more or less friendly manner, as we usually have in the past. If we can no longer do that, how are we supposed to sort things out? I agree - things have gotten much nastier since 2012. But the GOP aren't the only ones to blame for that. And both parties are going to have to go the extra mile to make things right.

You're missing the point. Democrats are, with some exceptions, generally more respectful toward Republican Presidents than vice-versa. Consider Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, both widely (and, AFAIK, correctly) understood to be very charismatic and charming people who held the Presidency while the opposite party held Congress for at least part of their term.

Did Tip O'Neill push the US into government shutdown simply to spite Reagan, as Newt Gingrich did with Clinton? No.
Did the Democratic Congress spend tens of millions of public money to investigate every little detail of Reagan's personal life in the hopes of finding something impeachable? No - but that's exactly what the Republican Congress did to Clinton
Did the Democratic Congress even once hold impeachment hearings against Reagan? No.

And likewise, with George Bush (Jr) - when the Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress after 2006, was their first move an effort to investigate Bush's affairs and repeal his signature legislative achievements? No. Did the Democratic Congress hold the nation's finances hostage to make Bush look bad? No.

You're setting out a standard for behaviour in the political spectrum that has two problems:

First, it has always been honoured more in the breach than in the observance, meaning that even when everyone acknowledged in the abstract that it was a good thing to do, they would find some reason or another why they got an exception and got to portray their political opponents as "un-American" (a tradition that goes back at least as far as the prebellum era and the slavery issue).

Second, you're demanding that both parties uphold the same standard - and claiming that both are equally failing to do so - when one party is making significantly more effort than the other to meet the standard involved.

In short, you're claiming a false equivalence of the two parties' efforts to maintain a standard that has never really been maintained at all.

[Disserbia]

How many embassies were attacked under Bush, how many of those resulted from the Democrats trying to cut support to programs that could have prevented those attacks? Yeah, this is a non-issue.

[The Emerald Dawn]

How many embassies were attacked under Bush, how many of those resulted from the Democrats trying to cut support to programs that could have prevented those attacks? Yeah, this is a non-issue.

2002 US Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, 10 were killed

2004 US embassy in Uzbekistan, 2 killed, 9 injured

2004 US Consulate in Saudi Arabia, 8 killed

2006 US Embassy in Syria, 1 killed

2007 US Embassy in Athens, 0 dead, 2 injured

2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire

2008, US Embassy in Yemen, 10 killed

[Disserbia]

How many embassies were attacked under Bush, how many of those resulted from the Democrats trying to cut support to programs that could have prevented those attacks? Yeah, this is a non-issue.

2002 US Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, 10 were killed

2004 US embassy in Uzbekistan, 2 killed, 9 injured

2004 US Consulate in Saudi Arabia, 8 killed

2006 US Embassy in Syria, 1 killed

2007 US Embassy in Athens, 0 dead, 2 injured

2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire

2008, US Embassy in Yemen, 10 killed

I think you've mistaken the message I was trying to convey by post that...

[Fellrike]

There's no end to this! Some will say the Republicans are rotten, and the Democrats good, others, the reverse. Of course, you say Democrats have treated Republican Presidents respectfully, while Republicans have failed to show Democratic Presidents the same courtesy. And Republicans, who believe in their cause just as strongly as you believe in yours, will say the opposite. It's a dispute that can't be resolved. And you can't defend your own party, and bash the other, without expecting those on the other side of the aisle to do the same to you. That's just a part of politics. There's no call for bad manners though, or accusations of treason, or anything like that. That just guarantees that the other party will do the same back to you, and so the discourse becomes even uglier. This uberpartisanship has kept our country from moving forward, and I can see no end to it.

[The Emerald Dawn]

There's no end to this! Some will say the Republicans are rotten, and the Democrats good, others, the reverse. It's a dispute that can't be resolved. Of course, each side believes theirs is the "right" side ; how can it be otherwise? You can't defend your own party, and bash the other, without expecting those on the other side of the aisle to do the same to you. It's a given that there are Republicans who hold the Democrats in just as low regard, and would feel insulted at the suggestion that their own party is no better than the other. That's just a part of politics. There's no call for bad manners though, or accusations of treason, or anything like that. That just guarantees that the other party will do the same back to you, and so the discourse becomes even uglier. This worsens the partisan divide and the resultant gridlock that keep us from moving forward.

"Bipartisanship is Democrats voting for Republican initiatives."

[Fellrike]

And, likewise, Democrats will define bipartisanship as the willingness of Republicans to accept their own proposals. Like Disraeli, we all consider a man agreeable, who agrees with us.

[The Emerald Dawn]

And, likewise, Democrats will define bipartisanship as the willingness of Republicans to accept their own proposals. Like Disraeli, we all consider a man agreeable, who agrees with us.

Uh, no. Actually, Democrats have constantly considered bipartisanship to be something where both parties compromise to accomplish mutual gain.

[Disserbia]

And, likewise, Democrats will define bipartisanship as the willingness of Republicans to accept their own proposals. Like Disraeli, we all consider a man agreeable, who agrees with us.

Uh, no. Actually, Democrats have constantly considered bipartisanship to be something where both parties compromise to accomplish mutual gain.

Because democrats have no spine.

[Fellrike]

So you say! But Republicans, for their part, say the Democrats are at fault, and that they themselves have gone out of their way to compromise. They believe in their cause as strongly as you believe in yours, and they'll argue its rightness with equal vigor. How can you expect anything else? This back and forth gets us nowhere.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Uh, no. Actually, Democrats have constantly considered bipartisanship to be something where both parties compromise to accomplish mutual gain.

Because democrats have no spine.

Insofar as to say that they are willing to compromise because they understand that if everyone gains, things get done.

[Gauthier]

Uh, no. Actually, Democrats have constantly considered bipartisanship to be something where both parties compromise to accomplish mutual gain.

Because democrats have no spine.

Because Republicans had enough spine to destroy America's Triple-A credit rating.

[The Emerald Dawn]

So you say! But Republicans, for their part, say the Democrats are at fault, and that they themselves have gone out of their way to compromise. They believe in their cause as strongly as you believe in yours, and they'll argue its rightness with equal vigor. How can you expect anything else? This back and forth gets us nowhere.

Republicans in Congress have proven that they'll block anything that would support a Democratic president.

Prove the same obstructionism during the Bush years, and you'll have a leg to stand on.

[Disserbia]

Because democrats have no spine.

Insofar as to say that they are willing to compromise because they understand that if everyone gains, things get done.

I'm a registered democrat...I like their policies for the most part, it's a bit of the whole "nice guys finish last" thing.

[Disserbia]

Because democrats have no spine.

Because Republicans had enough spine to destroy America's Triple-A credit rating.

Like I said I'm registered democrats but republicans do some things better, those things just aren't policies.

[Fellrike]

What proof could I provide, that you'd accept? If I cited the American Spectator or the National Review, you might say these publications are nothing but rightwing propaganda written by people who make up their own facts to prove the truth of things they've already decided we believe in. And if you used some liberal/progressive sources, I'd probably say the same thing. We get our news from different media, and this reinforces what we already believe. It's a problem. But what can be done about it? Sometimes I think Americans haven't been so far apart since the Civil War and the slavery dispute, except maybe for during the Sixties, when we were at odds over several issues that we're all familiar enough with that I don't need to mention them.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Insofar as to say that they are willing to compromise because they understand that if everyone gains, things get done.

I'm a registered democrat...I like their policies for the most part, it's a bit of the whole "nice guys finish last" thing.

The old trope is that Republicans march while Democrats herd. You'll see less of the "lockstep" now that the Tea Party and its offshoots have joined the monkey house.

Doesn't mean that getting all of the Democrats on board will be any less like herding cats, just that the Republicans will have similar problems.

[The Emerald Dawn]

What proof could I provide, that you'd accept? If I cited the American Spectator or the National Review, you might say these publications are nothing but rightwing propaganda written by people who make up their own facts to show the truth of things they've already decided are worth believing in. And if you used some liberal/progressive sources, I'd probably say the same thing. We get our news from different media, and this reinforces what we already believe. It's a problem. But what can be done about it? Sometimes I think Americans haven't been so far apart since the Civil War and the slavery dispute, except maybe for during the Sixties, when we were at odds over several issues that we're all familiar enough with that I don't need to mention them.

So you admit you have nothing?

[Mike the Progressive]

And, likewise, Democrats will define bipartisanship as the willingness of Republicans to accept their own proposals. Like Disraeli, we all consider a man agreeable, who agrees with us.

Uh, no. Actually, Democrats have constantly considered bipartisanship to be something where both parties compromise to accomplish mutual gain.

Mutual gain is strong. Compromises are usually Democrats selling their souls, and Republicans giving up some pocket change.

[Fellrike]

Neither of us have anything. Or at least, nothing the other would accept as valid. We're the same. Come on, admit it!

[The Emerald Dawn]

Neither of us have anything. Or at least, nothing the other would accept as valid. We're the same. Come on, admit it!

No, I've given evidence. You've dodged and derped.

You have nothing.

Ball's still in your court.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Uh, no. Actually, Democrats have constantly considered bipartisanship to be something where both parties compromise to accomplish mutual gain.

Mutual gain is strong. Compromises are usually Democrats selling their souls, and Republicans giving up some pocket change.

I'm not saying that they're GOOD at compromise. Just that they've shown willingness TO compromise.

[Disserbia]

I'm a registered democrat...I like their policies for the most part, it's a bit of the whole "nice guys finish last" thing.

The old trope is that Republicans march while Democrats herd. You'll see less of the "lockstep" now that the Tea Party and its offshoots have joined the monkey house.

Doesn't mean that getting all of the Democrats on board will be any less like herding cats, just that the Republicans will have similar problems.

Yeah I just wish that the Democrats didn't need the help...