We Come In Peace

Thanks for that. I'm definitely biased in the sense that I'm one of the fallen Republicans in search of a party. But I was trying to keep the (bloviated) answer to Rob's question about the GOP. The Progressive movement has done the same thing in their own way on the left. There's two ways to look at that. It's either the law of unintended consequences of the information age or it's been done by design. Of course the later only applies if you believe in a massive conspiracy. Either way, we're in a dark, dark place in terms of our national discourse. If we can't freely engage one another in an exchange of ideas -- even ones that challenge our perceived core values -- then our republic is done for.

There has been a massive shift to the extreme for the base of the GOP party. It drove an entire generation of voters under 35 away, and it's not getting them back. But it didn't happen over night and there wasn't a single cause. It was a slow slide down the slippery slope into the current muck that our entire political discourse is mired in currently. The reason you don't get one answer or even specific answers to your question is because it's was a multitude of events that led us here, not just one thing. And, because of the way the game is rigged now, you can't even question the GOP's moves without coming off as a progressive/socialist/democratic liberal/kitty. None of which I am. Except for the last one, probably. It started in the 90s when Bush 41 sought to solidify his base by cutting deals with evangelical Christians, a minority in the party with very deep pockets and an ever-growing voice. This trend continued while Clinton was in office with the impeachment trial and the rise of right wing talk radio pundits like Rush in their ability to actually affect national policy. The rise in cable news and the creation of Fox further cut off the extremists within the party from reality as they now had powerful voices in both radio and television catering ONLY to their views. (This is not just a GOP phenomenon of course, see MSNBC, Huffington Post, Air America etc etc) Like all entertainers, Rush and Fox news catered to their audience rather than pushed objective journalism, becoming every bit as biased, slanted and misleading as the mainstream media they pretend to rail against. This caused an ever escalating trend of "confrontation politics" -- this in both the MSM and the fringe. Why? Conflict sells. Why put a rational person on TV to talk about policy when you can have two lunatics whose views represent a tiny fraction of the GOP and Democratic parties on the air to stir up controversy? The problem is, after 10 years and counting of this, Joe-Public forgets what's entertainment and what's factual. We all have become so conditioned to this divisive and hostile version of full-contact politics that the entire notion of "truth" has been raped in the process. Now there are two sets "truths" presented each second. Look at discussions on this forum -- you will never see a rational discussion or one that doesn't end in name calling because both sides have their own "facts". Even in the presidential debates you had people claiming their facts were better than the opposition facts. Facts aren't debatable. There's no sliding scale with the truth. It's either true or it's not. But truth doesn't sell ad time on cable news, nor does it put money into Super Pacs and fundraising dinners. You don't get the middle's view on any issue because that didn't get ratings. What got ratings and eyeballs was, and always has been, CONFLICT. Put two extremists from opposing viewpoints on, pick your horse and watch the fireworks. That's what counts as political discourse these days. And after a decade and counting of constant bombardment (from both sides) we end up where we're at now -- f u c k e d. The effect has been to radicalize an already radical sect within the Republican party. You watch enough "news" coverage screaming at you that we're days away from being blown up by a "terrorist" or that the leader of the opposition party was really a closeted Marxist who has designs on destroying everything you know and love about the country and eventually the fringe viewpoint becomes the mainstream viewpoint. So much so that Joe-Public can't see the difference. Worse, if Joe-Public tries to find the "truth" on his own he has no where to turn. There's no truth on the internet, just someone's take on it. But back to the GOP... Suddenly the fringe has become the spokespeople for the party. Their views reinforced daily by entertainers pretending to be journalists. So much so that even the notion of working together across partisan lines, became a sin. Moderate GOP leaders had no where to turn. For evidence, go back through and look at how the voices within the party who dared to speak out against W's absolute betrayal of his conservative core by pushing through albatrosses like DHS, The Patriot Act, NDAA and 2 wars -- these guys and gals were not just removed from office by a vindictive electorate, they were flogged in the public square for weeks by the likes of Hannity, Rush, and Rupert Murdoch from 2001-2008. The message was received. The GOP, a party with a long tradition of bringing in outside voices to make their party better, started looking at any opposing viewpoint as a threat rather than an opinion. This has always signaled the intellectual death of a party. This is a centralist nation. Or at least it was. For decades the GOP had room for moderates -- fiscal conservatives who were socially liberal -- no more.

Four posts and not ONE comment about the absolutely fabulous mustache on Rep. Smith? This place is slipping.

Only because I'm sober. Wait until after noon.

Like the nation did with Obama who promised to dismantle the Patriot Act and the NDAA but instead made both stronger and more invasive into the average American's life? The point is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Bush and his cronies pushed through an agenda that completely redefined our civil liberties and the definition of privacy not to fight terror, but to make the federal government's power absolute. Obama, riding into office on a wave of hope and change did nothing to change the course the neo-cons put our nation on. Instead they reinforced it.

So you were a fan of BM before 9/11. Before the fundamentalists took over the GOP and drove the party off the crazy cliff, taking over 6 thousand American soldiers lives and our economy with it -- not to mention our civil liberties and privacy. Did Bill go hard left to pander to a new audience or did it merely appear he went hard left simply because the right's agenda changed so drastically over the past decade? It's an honest question. Bill was forced off the air for asking a question that made the country uncomfortable. It wasn't a scandalous question by any stretch of the imagination nor was it any more controversial than his normal debate topics but it was enough to get him labeled public enemy number one by the GOP, who for all their alleged love of the constitution are never more happy than when they get to abuse the 1st amendment rights of people who disagree with them. His HBO show is no different from Politically Incorrect. He chose sides, but no more so than the rest of the country did after 9/11. Bill went to the left of the trend as Dennis Miller went to the right. 9/11 changed a lot of things in this country, including comedy -- and people's abilities to think for themselves.

Help me out here and explain this further. Not the definition of semi automatic but why you continue to treat urban violence as being a separate issue.

So you believe Obama has no say whatsoever in his policy?

Dude, you joke, but I got sources. Everyone's right. There is a conspiracy, there is a cover up, there is a master plan -- but everyone's blaming the wrong people for it. Saying this is Obama's plan is as laughable as saying it was Bush or Cheney's. Think I'm joking? Look back over the past 20 years. In just two short decades we have witnessed the complete dismantling of your privacy and civil liberties in the name of an over sensationalized threat to your national security. We've seen the powers of the federal government grow in ways never before seen in American history. Billions of your tax dollars going to fund the newly minted Department of Homeland Security and a highly sophisticated federally run surveillance program. A program which has become alarmingly more autonomous. Putting absolute power in the hands of an ever shrinking number of people. Not surprisingly the 20 somethings, who grew up never knowing anything but this current surveillance state, are the least alarmed demographic about this trend. They see it as the norm. They use the internet more than any other demographic yet seem resigned to the fact that there's nothing they can do about it. Every email, every text, every tweet is logged and stored by the NSA and no one cares. More and more your lives move into the domain of the digital with an ever increasing dependency on a bunch of 1s and 0s that make up this new world. A world of 1s and 0s that is entirely controlled by the powers that be. A world where there is no privacy, there is no free expression. A world They can turn off at any moment and plunge the majority of you into chaos. Or, perhaps more alarmingly, They could focus on any individual they like and obliterate them with a flood of information -- or disinformation. With a media that caters to an audience rather than the truth there's no way to fight back. Not that anyone is listening anyway. The national attention span is so unfocused and ever shrinking that it's easier than ever to control the masses. Or at least distract 'em. Get everyone fighting about the latest episode of The Bachelor or sound-byte from the floor of the United States House of Representatives (both of which are equally ridiculous and staged for dramatic effect) and no one will ever bother looking at the big picture, let alone the giant baby grand piano dangling above their heads. ...Then again, I'm real high.

How do you convince your all powerful executive to give away powers his or her predecessors had? Especially one as fun as an entire robot army?

Certainly not. Because LA's post was utterly ridiculous and untrue. But don't let facts get in the way.

You realize under 5% of the nation's population is receiving welfare benefits, correct?

That is outrageous libel and downright slander!

Just a delay with the hyper drive.

You will soon know first hand.

Do you really believe all these closed door sessions and emergency meetings are really about something as pedestrian a self imposed economic doomsday scenario? You people will believe anything. You must look beyond to see the truth. And truth is, they are readying themselves for what lies ahead. And it has nothing to do with the economy.

A "space-superiority platform"? BWAHAHAHA! :lol: It's too late for such nonsense.

Is it not a fundamental human instinct to seek answers to the unanswerable?

"they" do not know their elbows from a dark matter converter cell.

Your currency will be worthless in a short amount of time. We are all living in the quantum hologram and when the hologram flickers and you see what's behind the curtain, all your troubles will be forgotten.

Despite that, it is just not enough to get the job done.

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/59/98/599802_2f3fca78.jpg

Only if you trust NASA... Which would be a mistake.

Are those the same models that showed Romney winning the election? Because if they are, you might need some new model guys.

Nelson is a slot WR who struggles on the outside and has a limited skill set. Jones drops too many balls and struggles against physical corners too much to be a reliable #2. TJ could develop but it's too soon to judge. This team has absolutely no WRs who strike fear into any opposing defenses. Not even Stevie, who is great but a possession receiver. Of course, it's moot since there is no QB on the roster who can deliver a catchable ball past 12 yards. Sooooo