re: OT: Really?

quote:

---

The one person? isn't this exactly what Michelle Obama has been peddling since they got in the White House, all the while she is eating fat dripping ribs at bar-b-qs? LINK / I mean, wasn't the mayor of New York wanting to ban 32OZ soft drinks (as if people could not buy two 16oz drinks if they wanted) LINK Bloomberg even banned food donations to food shelters because the government can't assess the salt content. LINK This isn't "the only person". This is becoming a widespread thing by top government officials.

---

So a former mayor in New York City attempted to ban large soft drinks and it's a widespread issue? And what's the problem with Michelle telling your kids to eat more carrots? I thought you conservatives liked telling other people what they should and shouldn't do with their bodies?

quote:

---

And fox News didn't create this. they reported it. Big difference. What you SHOULD be asking is why the other news outlets did NOT report it. Hiding more stupid stuff said by liberals, maybe?

---

Maybe they didn't report it because it's not newsworthy? Tell me why I should care what one person thinks about Bubba eating at a waffle house.

quote:

---

People have the ability today to only read or watch news that confirms their opinions. This is why opinionated tv and radio shows are so popular. This is also why the country is so polarized. Few actually have the courage to challenge their own beliefs.

---

If I didn't already know you to be a moron, I'd add you to my smart person list.

quote:

---

If I didn't already know you to be a moron, I'd add you to my smart person list.

---

Reasonable people, democrat or republican alike, govern from the center my bortha. But the republican party has been infiltrated with a bunch of tea bagger assholes. They represent an intolerant closed minded 1percenter elite. long live the moderate politician!!

quote:

---

I've always wondered how you define a moderate politician and what politician on the national scene today would you consider as moderate?

---

McCain

quote:

---

Litigator poses a good question though, the more I think about it. What exactly is moderate?

---

There's no such thing......

It's Orwellian newspeak.

Meant to catch bored housewifes, low-info morons, chowderpops, and assorted other droolers in the net. To make them feel like they are participating in "democracy".

quote:

---

There's no such thing...... It's Orwellian newspeak. Meant to catch bored housewifes, low-info morons, chowderpops, and assorted other droolers in the net. To make them feel like they are participating in "democracy".

---

you're confusing one's personal philosophy with the actual physical act of governing. Think about it like a marriage. You recognize it's value, it's importance. But you also recognize that you have to make sacrifices to make it work. Governing shouldn't be any different.

quote:

---

a blood-thirsty war-mongering neocon liberal

---

Neocon Liberal

quote:

---

I've always wondered how you define a moderate politician and what politician on the national scene today would you consider as moderate?

---

We should all let Thomasss answer since.....He is clamoring to this "Moderate" view.

quote:

---

So a former mayor in New York City attempted to ban large soft drinks and it's a widespread issue? And what's the problem with Michelle telling your kids to eat more carrots? I thought you conservatives liked telling other people what they should and shouldn't do with their bodies?

---

To be fair, drinking softdrinks and eating unhealthy foods only directly affects the person eating and drinking those things.

Those who are against abortion view it as affecting someone other than the woman making the choice. Not exactly the same thing.

quote:

---

Reasonable people, democrat or republican alike, govern from the center my bortha. But the republican party has been infiltrated with a bunch of tea bagger a-holes. They represent an intolerant closed minded 1percenter elite. long live the moderate politician!!

---

Funny. I thought the "tea baggers" were a bunch of poor rednecks, not the 1% elite. They don't "represent" those that are the 1%, either.

What you and those "reasonable people" you mention seem to lack are convictions. There are plenty of non-issues that most people can take or leave and compromise on, but there are a lot of core issues that are based on strong convictions that should not be compromised.

In an ideal world, voters would be voting for candidates based on their convictions that they won't waver on, but that doesn't happen. Voters don't base their votes on anything of substance anymore and politicians don't hold anything as sacred with any sort of conviction anymore, except maybe those things their donors want.

quote:

---

you're confusing one's personal philosophy with the actual physical act of governing. Think about it like a marriage. You recognize it's value, it's importance. But you also recognize that you have to make sacrifices to make it work. Governing shouldn't be any different.

---

I get the analogy, but where it breaks down is that in marriage, you would hope that you married someone who was philosophically similar to you, so that you don't compromise your convictions and you can get along on the important things (a lot of marriages end in divorce because people don't think about those sorts of things while dating). Where the compromise comes in is on those lesser decisions like where to eat. Sometimes bigger decisions are compromised upon, but you get into life-changing decisions and you really start fighting if you and your spouse don't see eye-to-eye.

In politics, you are talking about two parties with (traditionally) two different philosophies on social issues and two different philosophies on economic issues. When politicians have strong convictions on these things, there usually isn't a lot of compromise. That's why the big changes only tend to happen either in times of crisis or when one party has all the legislative (and executive) power. Obamacare is a good example of this. The Democrats didn't have to compromise because they could just ram it through (without reading it) without a single vote by the Republican party.

If you want compromise in politics, stick with the lesser issues. Frankly, I don't want a representative who will throw me under the bus on important issues so he can get new traffic lights put in place to make it look like he did something while in office.