Bill Maher to Conservatives "Grow The Fuck Up."

This reminds me of the Ebert thread, where people don't want to use the word "atheist" even when it applies. Well, soon (or maybe already) you'll see the same thing, where no one will want to label him- or herself a "conservative" even if the description would be perfectly fitting and fair. So the only "conservatives" left will be the crazy ones. Like I said, maybe that's happened already. Maybe a while ago.

I'm a little surprised by the Right, really, though I'm not sure why. I'm relatively young (24) so I don't remember exactly how Republicans acted during the Clinton years, but I sort of thought that once the election was over things would settle down and Obama would be given a chance.

Perhaps this is because I'm a white guy in Georgia, but EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. I wear an Obama shirt in public some random stranger (white guy) comes up to me and says something like, "Are you kidding me?" or, "What's with the shirt man?" or "You know this is the first step towards communism, right?"

Once at a restaurant (on inauguration day, actually) one guy kept harassing me and nursing a drink while he pined over our loss of George W. Bush. "He kept us safe for 8 years," he said, wistfully. "Are you fucking kidding me?" I asked him, "The largest attack on American soil, of American civilians, happened on his watch!" "Well, I meant SINCE then," he said.

I'm not an extremely liberal person. I didn't vote Democrat in every single election last fall. But the current behavior of conservatives is driving me further and further towards liberalism. Matt Taibbi said something along these lines in the current Rolling Stone, but it's really a shame that conservatives are so batshit crazy because America sort of needs two opposing parties and could use a minority that could point out the completely reasonable questions about, and problems in, some of Obama's plans.

Part of the problem is defining what "Conservative" and "Neo-Conservative" mean.

I consider myself to be Conservative in the sense that I believe in a fiscally responsible Government that allows the largest possible range of economic and social freedom. "Possible' meaning I do not believe in Zero Regulation, Zero Taxes etc.

I voted Republican consistently until the 2000 election. From then on I've looked at the Republican party and I simply do not see what I consider to be Conservative values.

Instead I've seen a steadily growing radicalism that wants to force "Christian Values" (defined as outlawing abortion for any reason, outlawing Gay marriage, forcing pseudo-science into school curriculum) and a fantasy land concept of economics (reduce taxes, subvert and destroy government programs except the Military which must be used to kill and torture all "terrorists" wherever they may be)

So to answer your question, I think a lot of middle of the road Americans will vote Democratic while the Republican party becomes more and more radical and marginalized.

Actually, this is almost EXACTLY how the Republican Party acted with Clinton, completely obstructionist from day one.

I guess that is their backup plan as opposed to actually trying to come up with good ideas or win elections.

Like now, but less so.

Not a chance.

It goes both ways. When a Dem gets elected, the Republicans get all fucking nuts. When a Republican gets elected, the Dems shit the bed about everything.

It's politics as usual, on both sides, so don't act like the Republicans are crying any louder than the Dems do.

Certified bullshit.
Let me guess, libertarian?

Come on. When a Republican is in office, the Dems never cried about anything? They went along all smiles, happy to do whatever was asked of them? Some people will play ball, they will try and wok together to get things done, but they are the minority.

It always comes down to the people in power trying to stay in power. This administration and the ones before it are no different. They just have different buzzwords to work from.

It's not that they're whining too much, Electrichead, it's that they're doing it wrong. We need a legitimate adversarial relationship between the ruling party and the opposition, but the opposition isn't doing its job. It's complaining about things that don't matter, or aren't true, or don't fit into its own philosophy in the first place.

That's not to say the Democrats were better (I think they were, a little bit) but that shouldn't be an excuse. Doesn't change the fact that reasoned, thoughtful debate would be preferable to the current craziness, which just makes Obama seem right about everything except to the people who already hate him unconditionally.

You're so boring it beggars belief, Electrichead. The same shit every time you post. Let me explain something really simply to you. Those of us on the Left, across America and across the fucking WORLD, had every reason, for 8 torturous years, to abhor pretty much everything the Bush Cabal did. To 'shit the bed about everything' as you so blithely put it. Everything they fucking did was abhorrent. The world is paying dearly for those utterly repellent, disastrous years. Now, if after these last few months - looking at how Obama has conducted himself, looking at how pretty much the entire PLANET has responded to him, looking at the measures he is taking - if you can actually look at this Presidency and attribute some sort of equivalency to what he's doing and what Bush did (ie the INCREDIBLY TIRED 'it's just Politics as usual' nonsense) you are either delusional, a complete fucking moron, or the rather tragic combination of the two - a delusional fucking moron.

You're right, they are going about it the wrong way, worrying about stupid shit. Both parties are doing it. They both need to stop screwing around with each other and work on the things that matter right now.

Get the economy going, fix that problem. Stop worrying about gay marriage and whether we should prosecute someone who gave the go ahead for extra torture methods. Those things don't matter as much to you or I when we are worrying about paying our mortgage or feeding our families, but both sides are fighting over silly things that can wait.

Obama's stimulus package and so called tax cuts are not helping, so don't try and convince me that they are. He may be trying, but Bush did the same thing when he tried to push his bills through, and got crapped on for it. Both administrations are not doing well enough right now.

Edit: This was in reply to James.

Phil, you're blowing this guy when he has done nothing. He can talk a lot, and a lot of people are behind him for it, but he has done nothing. He hasn't had the time to, so I'm not acting like he should've solved the world's problems by now, that's impossible for anybody.

He getting a lot of love, deserving or not, but we will have to wait and see. I hope he pulls this shit together, someone needs to, I just don't think that he is bringing the "change" that was promised. I still see a lot of people that he is involved with carrying on business as usual.

Bush was garbage, but he wasn't the global villain that you guys paint him as. There are thousands of people dying all over the world, being repressed by various political figures, yet they must all be taking their orders from Bush and Cheney. That sounds to me a little delusional.

And Phil, I am not just talking about the latest Bush. The political parties have been fighting each other over silly things for years before he showed up.

Cylon's last point is totally right, by the way. There are lots of reasonable people who want to support the Republican party but simply can't at the moment, because the Republicans do insane things like argue against science, lie about taxes, and put Sarah Palin on the ballot.

(I wouldn't use the phrase "middle of the road," though, because I think these voters feel strongly about all kinds of issues. Just because your set of beliefs doesn't line up with one big party or the other, doesn't mean you're a weak, suggestible moderate.)

It's really hard to be a grown-up when the other side (i.e., the GOP) is completely batshit insane.

That's largely out of the government's hands. The Congress/President can set policy they think will be pro-business and lead to economic expansion, but after that it's in the hands of the businesses and people themselves. The problem is no one agrees on what policy is best to get the economy back on track. This is not a simple problem and the same tired GOP bullshit (Tax Cuts! Less regulation!) will not solve it, nor will conventional monetary policy. Obama and his advisors know this so they're trying Keynesian policy. Which means means injecting a lot of money into the economy to stimulate demand.

So, in short, there's plenty of time to do other things while the policy works or doesn't work.

I agree. It's fucking stupid. Tell that to the GOP.

Now here's where you're wrong. This is not a trivial matter. The President and his advisers broke the law. The job of the Executive is to enforce the law, not to follow the ones it likes. The President must follow the law, or our philosophy of government means nothing. Perhaps we should wait a bit (I'd prefer not to), but to brush this off as trivial is wrong, stupid, and, frankly, UnAmerican.

Again, there's not much the Government can do on this end that will work immediately. And again, characterizing Presidential law breaking as silly is just plain dumb.

Actually, according to the CBO, things would be much, much worse had the stimulus not been passed. The economy is so bad right now, all we can hope for in the near term is stabilization. That's what he's trying to do now.

I wish I had a dime for every ______ does it too so that makes it moot.

Jesus Christ.

I imagine the conservatives will find way back in to power without any assistance from Bill Maher. A few years of one-party rule has a way of bringing out the worst in either party.

Wow, this is such a tired and ignorant arguement.

THEY HAVEN'T EVEN GONE INTO EFFECT YET! Christ, turn off FOX NEWS and give them a chance to fail before making idiotic proclamations.

Truth.

It doesn't make it moot, it just makes the other side terrible hypocrites in a lot of respects.

The sad fact is that a number of old school conservative values aren't totally twisted like what gets collected under the "conservative" banner these days, like nature conservation, non-adventurism internationally, etc.

I'm a conservative. I think the federal government's core purpose is to do two things. First, it should fulfill the Hobbesian contract, in which citizens sacrifice resources and some freedoms in return for protection from those who would threaten their lives and/or property. Examples include the FBI, the SEC, and the Navy. Second, it should, as Lincoln envisioned, undertake functions that are too big for individuals or localities to execute, but redound to the benefit of all. Examples include the Interstate Highway System, the Air Traffic Control System, and the FDIC.

Today's Republican Party doesn't speak to this at all. Its definition of conservatism is a combination of government intrusion on the private lives of individuals, incoherent foreign policy, and Red baiting.

The last election was a precipice moment for the Party. John McCain was supposed to be the leader who could bring it back, but he tragically allowed Sarah Palin to become the face of the rush over the cliff.

I don't know what the future of the party holds. If it can't come to grips with the fact that the Fox Effect is killing it, it'll spend a long time in minority status.

This is nonsense. During the Clinton Administration, the Republicans insisted Janet Reno investigate every little alleged controversy they could dream up. I seem to remember Ken Starr's investigations cost more money than the 9/11 Commission. Bush started a war on false pretenses to the detriment of the war he should have been fighting and initiated a program of torturing prisoners, and the subject of impeaching him was not breached. Now Republicans are having their propaganda outlets declare Obama a fascist. People are whining because Obama was polite to a king, because he gave his wife a Terrorist Fist Jab, blah blah blah. Republicans go ballistic over things that would be trivial if they happened to be true. Which they generally aren't.

Bush got a lot of heat, yes, but that's because his policies were awful and his administration's behaviour beyond the pale and as a bonus he was a real clown in terms of public presence. When a Republican who doesn't absolutely suck in all conceivable ways and a few no one else thought of before as well is in power, Democrats are civil. I don't remember Democrats acting toward George H.W. Bush the way Republicans behave towards Democrats. Not even close.

Just saying it's so doesn't make it so.

A lot of political scientists argue that the current era of partisanship really didn't begin until Newt Gingrich's Contract for America. It upped the ante of political positioning and partisanship in Congress. Also, the pro-life movement and other lobbying organizations vying for power helped the partisan divide grow. I wouldn't compare what happened to G HW Bush to anything that happened during Clinton or Bush. It's a completely different animal.

There are problems with the rancor, however. With Newt and the GOP in the 90s, we saw legitimate policy disagreements along with the partisan rancor. Today's party has nothing of the sort. It's all no. But it is not all no because they don't have ideas only. It's also all no because there's multiple factions within the party grasping for power.

What seems to lead to so much of this insanity is the way you identify with your political parties not as two options from which to make an educated choice, but rather two sports teams who you give your undying allegiance.

It's weird just the way you'll say I'm a republican or I'm a democrat. I don't of anyone here who would label them selves under a franchise banner like that. Here it'd be more like I usually vote democrat or I'll probably vote republican, there's not nearly so much vested interest in having your team win. Too much devotion in your voting.

But that doesn't mean Democrats are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to character assassination, it just pinpoints when the Republicans went mad.

I'm not disagreeing with you that Republicans are better at character assassination than Democrats. I'm just saying that Republicans aren't the only ones to actually try it.

But the issue here isn't whether or not Democrats are above reproach, it's whether or not they're the same as one another as Electrichead suggests. I don't see it. I saw Bush getting mocked now and then for trying to open scenery and things like that, but that's because Bush was, as I pointed out earlier, a clown.

When Bush grabbed Chancellor Merkel's neck, he was made fun of. If Republicans and Democrats were alike, Democrats would have branded him a rapist and a criminal and argued that doing so made him unfit for office. I say that because of the Republican reaction to Obama being nice to a king. Cries of 'he's giving away America' and 'no true American bows to anyone! He's forfeiting our sovereignty!' and the like. Really, Republican behaviour doesn't make me think "'Hmmm. We have ideological differences". It makes me think "Hmmm, paint chips must be a staple for some down there". Democrats may get just as angry, but they get angry over non-trivial matters. Democrats aren't nearly as crazy as Republicans, nor are they as petty or as intellectually dishonest.

This. Christ, I could not believe my ears when I started hearing this.

Didn't they watch JOHN ADAMS? Didn't they?

I'm sorry Seabass. I know we must look like awful fucking retards down here. But it's only 45% of us.

Every time i think about the problems of the American political system, I remember that at least you guys have proportional representation.

Our guy didn't even get the majority vote...

Been there, done that

Side note, what the hell is what all those dutch angels.. Is every episode in the series filled with these?

Does anyone else remember when Al Qaeda bombed those two American embassies in the late 90's?

And then Clinton bombed the shit out of Al Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan?

And then Gingrich and his buddies in Congress and his tools on talk radio all accused Clinton of wagging the dog, of ginning up a phony war to distract us from the important and serious business of finding out where the President's dick had gotten to?

Ah, good times. Good times.

In fact, one of the (admittedly many) reasons why Clinton didn't send in a strike force to take out Osama when he had the chance (an Uzbeki commando unit the CIA had trained for that task) was for this very reason.

To be entirely fair to him, Descent was a pretty good game.

And an even better film.

Naked Voldemort!