we have one party running the executive branch, both halves of the legislative branch and 7 out of 9 supreme court justices were nominated by republicans.

To me this seems like the part that really bothers you. You do not like the fact that your ideals are not the voting majority in this country right now.

The left-based vitriol is going to flare up in particular when the left is losing most of its battles, for what it's worth. I understand it without condoning it.

pretty much. i've been trying to read more conservative columnists and townhall.com and such lately to get some more perspectives, and my big problem with it isn't the content but that there's a lot of it that's framed in the "liberals v conservatives" paradigm and that rhetoric is just so BORING. i think that i'm pretty much repulsed by team-based politics at this point.

but michael moore is not sean hannity.

do they both grate on the "other sides" nerves? yes....

its just my opinion that sean hannity's propaganda is more dangerous as he is a mouthpiece for an administration that i find to be doing a disservice to its country and a majority of its citizens.

when michael moore's books and movies start calling for the elimination of civil rights and defending idea's like dick cheney having secret meetings with evergy companies.....then yes i will be just as vocal against michael moore.

i complain when Micahael Moore makes shit up, or doesn't check his facts enough. (and i want to agree with most everything he says)

i often make the mistake of reading Ann Coulter, just because i know she'll get a rise out of me. And every single one of her columns is an attack on the mysterious all encompassing "Liberals" and how when one "liberal" does something it's proves how all "liberals" support that action and are likely to repeat that action.

it's maddening and counter productive.

I realize I'm an idiot for even reading her drivel, but I'm a sucker.

i do it too, man. occasionally she'll have a column that, in short, really says "these people are bitches", and i want to agree with her, but it's framed in so much name-calling and self-adulation that you have to struggle to get anything from it.

So it's the message you have a problem with?

since when can people not have an opinion that's not yours, and other people read it. Basically it boils down to if you think they are wrong then they must be, and nobody else is entitled to think otherwise? HMMM...what current political climate does that sound like?

not at all. what i don't like is when the majority uses its power to further cement their power.

this is my original point. they are in power yet they are considering this "nuclear" option that will eliminate minority desent in the senate.

they are in power and still seek more.

they claim this sort of "persecution" because bush can not get 10 judges up for a vote in the full senate. but they refuse to point out that bush has a higher percentage of judges get nominated than the previous administration.

i've never once said that people can not have a right to their opinion. or that they can not right books or do radio shows or make movies..

i do have a problem, however, when that opinion is one of limiting civil rights.

I think it might also be useful to define what a conservative or a liberal is these days. It seems that one party is center-right (democrats) while the other is far-right (republicans) and that makes the debate even more frustrating for those of us either in the middle or far-left. Many of us don’t even have a voice in the two-party system except for a handful of politicians.

Michelle Malkin is another columnist who devotes most of her columns to making fun of "liberals"

Both are women so far to the right they often use the word "feminist" as a pejorative.

To make a long essay short, I'll say this: I think it obvious that all politicians and/or political parties are trying to increase their power all the time. I am not huge on global political history, but I do know this to be true in this country since our founding fathers. Everyone is trying with all their means necessary to gain more power. Reppublican, Democrat or Communist.

i agree.....

and reguardless of who it is "consolidation of power" shouldnt be an option in a democratic republic

I think that to some extent that's a mischaracterization. I think that nearly all members of Congress, for example, are probably toward the center compared to the prototypical member of their party. The president represents a further-right position, and the far right are the most vocal in supporting him, but don't necessarily have more voice in the rest of government. But it's these people to whom most liberals are responding, and it's the liberals/democrats who care enough to protest or form lobbies (that is, the further-left) that Conservatives respond to.

I think both parties encompass alot more than those labels. The problem is the other side is always trying to label the other side. "You call yourself republican, then you must hate minorites and want to destroy the world or you call yourself democrat than you must be some communist who secretly wants to destroy this country".

I think there lies the real problem. We make opinions on other views before we've heard them, and immediately cast off their intentions, and completely distrust the other side.

i think that the nutballs on either side are listening to their high-priests validate the ideas that they already hold, and that the majority of the country is relatively pretty moderate. if kerry had won instead of bush, would our daily lives be much different? i doubt it. i wish that bush wasn't appointing all these other dicklickers to positions of authority and that he didn't take it as "gospel" that the majority of this country's moneymakers are violently christian, but hey, what are you gonna do.

I still think that both parties are far to the right of most Americans in general, regardless of what a handful of unusual politicians believe. One of the major reasons someone like Bush can even win in America is because of the unique nature of our country's high level of religious fundamentalism. Survey after survey people agree with Bush on gay marriage, but they have no idea what he stands for economically or on international issues like the Kyoto Protocol. You have to hand it to the republicans - they know the market and play it well.

but the bush administration has a 4 year track record

Thank you.

Yet, if comparisons were made to the left (the Nazis were, after all, socialists), or to the power-grabs made by leftie icons (with how many Justices would you like to stuff the court Mr. President?), all hell would break loose.

If you broke down most of the Nazi policies, the likes of Borg would be happier than pigs in shit. Nationalized industry, education, health care, etc; an inflationary policy to destroy the upper and middle classes, etc. Sounds pretty great, don't it?

yeah, screw that...we shouldnt have a level playing field. the rich should be able to buy power and use that power to obtain more wealth while keeping the poor down

and health care shouldn't be universal either.... we should continue to live in a system where the rich have access to healthcare, were the poor die earlier...

do you not see that these measures are also moves to centralize power, as is the "nuclear option," and that you're playing into Billzebub's hands by saying that one move to centralize power like the Nazi's did is worthy of the comparison, and that the other is not because you like it?

A progressive and redistributionist fiscal policy does not constitute a level playing field. It is, in fact, quite sloped in favor of lower earners, and sloped most in favor of the non-earners.

I would be most happy were the playing field truly "level".

haha