What if I support food stamps but do want children to starve? What am I then?

I shit you not, she had four kittens that same night. ON MY CHEST. WHILE I SLEPT.

But, you know, other than that we got along alright.

I had white sheets, too.

"had" being the key word there?

On the plus side, waking up with slimy, blood-coated kittens on your chest is a little like creepy Christmas.

I was not apathetic about that, at least.

how long were you sleeping while kittens were birthed on your chest?

In hindsight, i've decided stips comment to me was pretty mean.

"Despite the fact I hate everything about you, I don't hate you"

I was wondering why you thrice throbbing-hearted him

Not more than seven or eight hours.

I think she recognized that I was disengaging emotionally from our relationship, and decided that children were the answer. We'd only known each other a few hours, but that's women for ya.

White albacore - and it wasn't dolphin free.

that's love for you

I see that you posted an (at best) tangentially related rant.

that's why you've got to make one.

Politics is war. We're pretty good at making sure people don't die, but that is where we're at. And it's understandable why no one wants to be a nameless foot soldier but the fact that people quit when it gets hard, or when they're losing, is one of the reasons why things are so horrible right now.

Im'ma totally friend you with my real facebook.

I can only hope you'll do this for me one day.

pfft. you have the ability to basically text message me.

Informed apathy for me. Just tell me the rules and leave me alone. I'll figure out a way to make them work for me, my family and friends. Just please stop changing the rules.

Of course this is from someone who thinks the Republican party has gone more conservative. So HW and W are more conservative than Reagan?

And the Democrat party is only slightly more liberal than 20 years ago?

I beg to differ, my friend.

HW is why we got Clinton. The Republican party 2002-2006 (W and Congress) is a major reason we got Barry O.

Oh, plus they're both really cool.

Me? Idealistic.
You? Naive.

I'm not sure I followed most of this.

At any rate, you can beg to differ all you like, but you are incorrect. That you might prefer this not be the case is irrelevant. I can cite the researchers who explore this if you're interested (chapter 1 of Off Center by Hacker and Pierson is particularly good on this), talk about the data they use, their methodology, etc. It is highly regarded within the field. They came up with their assessment by looking at how far the policies and voting records of the parties have differed from where they were 30 years ago and how far they have pulled from the center of American political life (which has changed little over the last decades). The movement on the democratic side also reflects the abandonment of the conservative elements in the party. Dems aren't more liberal than they were before. They just aren't sharing time with conservatives within the party. The republicans, on the other hand, have dramatically shifted what it means to be conservative.

If you want some recent tangible examples, Obamacare and Cap and Trade were both conservative ideas within the last 15 years.


This is an argument about the broad direction of the parties (their bases and officials), not particular people. Reagan may or may not be more conservative than other important party figures since him (although even Reagan repeatedly raised taxes and while bush's rhetoric is softer than Reagans, in terms of policy he has had far more success making the welfare state much more conservative, social policy as well). But the stance of the party itself, and the policies they pursue, has changed.

I disagree that the Republican Party has changed what it means to be Conservative inso much as I don't believe the Democratic Party has a monopoly on what it means to be liberal.


Like others here I'm not sure where I fit anymore and I have a distrust of most of the media I consume.

I think the parties have become obsessed with riding whatever they think the masses want in terms of getting them to vote for them.

I do not believe there are many politicians that are very principaled anymore. They may pay them lip service but they don't believe it. If I describe myself as conservative, I do not want in the least to be associated with what the Republican Party has become, namely a wishy washy bunch tied in to some sort of religious dogma and people shouting ridiculous quasi historical slogans while pretending to be the party that watches the purse strings tightly.

The democrat party behaves similarly paying again lip service to what they feel the people would like to hear. The reason why speeches (and Television in general) have become so important to the electoral process.

What they should be doing is talking to us like adult humans describing plans they think will work, and then after the election, instead of spending 3 months talking about mandates from the public, get in the room, discuss the issues and then act on them.

There is way to much divisive talk not enough substance. We are making our issues more difficult than they really are. We should be working on solutions to issues not creating larger problems.

Our government is bogged down in worry about whom they will offend if they act. Campaigning and becoming an elected official is not the job. The job comes afterward, but the job has become a side show.

The party that is not in power should not spend the entire term refusing to negotiate. That has been the last 12 years of American Politics.

I don't think it's going to get better until we stop treating this issue like it's a sporting event. We treat lots of social issues like that. Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Origin.... it's silly.

There are good ideas and policies that get passed by both parties. Even if I disagree with some of the ACA there's a lot of good in it, ok, lets find out how to fund it and still grow the economy.