"it's the Democratic party"

shut up!

demoCRAP party more like

demoncrat

liberals in the US have traditionally been much stronger proponents of military intervention abroad. Think about which administrations were behind various wars the US has been involved in. The phenomenon of the militaristic conservative is more of a recent thing. The masturbatory attitude neocon types have towards the military was probably shaped by the Cold War. Irrelevant to either side of this argument, but just something else Starla doesn't know shit about.

If your heads in the sand, your ass is the target.

haha fuck yeah

hard to hear the truth when you're drowning in obama's cum

Is this a double entendre?

The dems are not pro war? How many speeches did kerry give about how we just HAD to attack Syria right away, before allowing the UN to complete investigations? How many dems said they supported it? Pelosi and Boxer were so adamant that bombing Syria was the right thing.

How about Feinstein who is the worst, calling for Obama to release more stats on civilian deaths due to drone strikes yet he resists releasing the info so no one knows the most recent tally.

Yes they are leftist authoritarian war hawks. Lets give them all a nobel peace prize.

We looked ridiculous thanks to kerry just begging to attack Syria.

if it was bush they'd be saying the exact opposite

he said the exact opposite

I protested bush as well. There is no point in debating who is worse anymore when they are all horrible. This dem vs repub is all a waste of time. Bush and obama are both war criminals. Obama should be charged with war crimes for violating international laws. Too bad bush will not be because obama made sure it wouldn't happen.

well said

Here's an interesting article about this i read the other day...http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...kes-war-crimes

its funny how they cry about iraq but they could care less about obama bombing syria and drones

there are just no words, starla. :noway:

waaaaaaah somebody doesn't like obama and i has a sad waaah

protest everybody! cause if you're against all of them sooner or later you'll be right.

also, it's not as hard as taking sides

I know i am wasting my breath because Starla will either ignore the following or purposely interpret it in a reductive way that is very easy for her to dismiss without critical thinking, but for the hundredth time:

The flaw I see in attitudes like hers is not that she thinks both parties are terrible. It's that she believes that she is making some kind of difference by protest voting. It's very self-serving because all you do by protest voting is give yourself a pat on the back. Good job me, I avoided voting for either evil! Beyond that, she has made zero difference to anyone's life or to the government, or to anything. A protest vote is a vote in the trash thanks to the Constitution. So why isn't Starla vehemently advocating electoral reform? She could join a group that wants to amend the Constitution to do away with the EC. Hell, she could at least be arguing here for the needed reform. At least you are exposing people to ideas on the only solution to the two party system. She isn't though, she wants to bitch and moan incessantly about the way things are without taking a single meaningful step to contribute a helping hand or voice to the necessary changes that need to be made to our government to do away with the two party system. I have become convinced that her purpose is completely self-serving even more so by her inability to listen to or comprehend anything anyone else has to say. She isn't here for a discussion, she is here to perform a monologue and pat herself on the back.

can we get like a 1 sentence version of that

I was responding to eulogy.... and on my kindle at the time which doesn't like me using the quote feature.

Eulogy also said the exact opposite
He was scoffing at the idea that dems being pro war is a new thing, not the idea that they are pro war

You assume a lot about me, which I find interesting. But yes, I really do think both parties are awful. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to understand that.

Since I didn't want to vote for Obama or Romney, who should I have voted for?

It's the same stuff he posted prior to the last election. Nothing new.

god fucking damnit can you LISTEN to what another human being is saying before you open your mouth? It's like it is physically impossible for you to respond to what someone has actually said

redbregull is saying that voting outside the system doesn't help anybody

starla is saying it is morally repugnant to vote for people who are awful just because there is no viable alternative

either way, there's the same result as in the government continuing on until it gets overthrown in some way, which would probably not be an improvement anyway. are we not past the point of no return? redbregull, the same way you say starla needs to offer up an alternative, what is your alternative? voting with your morality for dems who don't even give a fuck anyway? (which is what i do, btw)

we are fucked.

I don't believe that right now there is a better alternative. Obama is pretty much the best we can do. I can put forth a fantasy scenario in which the GOP continues to implode allowing liberalism to diversify within the democratic party (or outside of it) eventually leading to a system with three major parties (GOP/conservative, democratic, progressive), or perhaps just two parties in which left wing dems gain more clout, but none of those really seem likely. As I've said, the only real way to do away with two party politics is to amend the constitution, and that is very, very unlikely to happen in the near future. So I do in fact believe Obama is just about the best we can do in America in 2013, no matter how morally incensed and petulant you want to be about it.

If the EC were done away with, I would vote for a third party candidate in a heartbeat (as long as there was a better choice than what the dems offer)

starla is a humanist and I appreciate her empathy for other people, but she takes it to the point where she is unable to entertain any argument that is not a sob story. I feel like if I showed her statistical proof that more people will gain insurance under Obamacare than will lose it, she would still side with the people who have come out on the bad side of the law, as long as they can shed some tears on camera

I guess one component of what I can't stand about her reasoning (beyond the fact that her responses to me never make sense or touch on anything I've said beyond misrepresenting my positions) is that she seems to reject utilitarianism. The good of the greatest number of people is not as much a concern to her as one impassioned person with a sad story