Any Conservatives on E?

[Callie Del Noire]

Thanks, Kayleb...

What's the opposite of pink? Cos that's me!

Hmm.. The Tea Party?

[Miss Lilly]

Is that a kind of murkey gold colour? 

[Avis habilis]

Uh ... violet? Lilac?

I got nothin'.

[Miss Lilly]

I'll take....all of the above!!

[TheGlyphstone]

Pardon my mild sarcasm, but why is someone surprised that a forum dedicated to adult roleplaying, alternative sexual interests, and non-hetero-normative sexual orientations/identities - things the far right would see ground out of existence if they could - tends towards to attract more liberals than conservatives (a 'liberal bias')?

(That's not to disparage people like Calli or Zeitgeist, who I feel are the exceptions that prove the rule...you can have conservative leanings and still be a sane+tolerant human being. But considering how often 'conservative' and 'religious right' march in lockstep, it's hardly a shock that people with those attitudes aren't going to congregate here.)

[Callie Del Noire]

Pardon my mild sarcasm, but why is someone surprised that a forum dedicated to adult roleplaying, alternative sexual interests, and non-hetero-normative sexual orientations/identities - things the far right would see ground out of existence if they could - tends towards to attract more liberals than conservatives (a 'liberal bias')?

(That's not to disparage people like Calli or Zeitgeist, who I feel are the exceptions that prove the rule...you can have conservative leanings and still be a sane+tolerant human being. But considering how often 'conservative' and 'religious right' march in lockstep, it's hardly a shock that people with those attitudes aren't going to congregate here.)

Two Words: Modern Conservative. To quote one of the big men of the movement.. "I don't care if a soldier is straight or not, but that he shoots straight'. Barry Goldwater, in the EARLY 60s.

I'm for 'right sized' government, little of this social conservative crap that we've seen of late, and even less of this fear mongering attack on our rights. Tell me how being locked up indefinitely for opposing the government is a democratic government's 'best option'.

[TheGlyphstone]

Two Words: Modern Conservative. To quote one of the big men of the movement.. "I don't care if a soldier is straight or not, but that he shoots straight'. Barry Goldwater, in the EARLY 60s.

I'm for 'right sized' government, little of this social conservative crap that we've seen of late, and even less of this fear mongering attack on our rights. Tell me how being locked up indefinitely for opposing the government is a democratic government's 'best option'.

Yeah, I was just about to come back and edit my post to clarify after re-reading yours. But 'neo-conservative', as you put it, has become the definition most people use for 'conservative' in general.

[Callie Del Noire]

Yeah, I was just about to come back and edit my post to clarify after re-reading yours. But 'neo-conservative', as you put it, has become the definition most people use for 'conservative' in general.

'
I know.. which is while I see myself as a conservative in fiscal/policy matters.. (or used to given the grown 'head in sand/ass' about foreign policies that the neo-conservatives push as 'sensible' when they aren't calling for carpet bombing of oil exporting countries)

[Rolo]

I will throw my hat into the conservative arena.  I am a small business owner and could bore you to tears on the daily grind just to survive, but I want to raise a different issue.

It sickens me to no end that the two party political system is defined by inconsequential issues as cornerstones.  i.e. abortion, and gay rights.  My views on the two?  I am Pro-Life by choice.  Just because I do not believe in abortions, does not give me the right to tell others that they cannot.  As for Gay Rights, if my extremely basic understanding is correct, the primary issue is Gay Marriage, and the associated privileges that go with marriage.  I don't think that anyone is saying that someone does not have the right to be gay is my point.  I have no problem with Gay Marriage, I believe they should have the right to be just as miserable as heterosexuals.

The gist is this.  If abortions are stopped and Gays are allowed to marry in all 50 states, how the hell does that help the GNP, Foreign affairs, trillion dollar deficit spending, dwindling social security and a laundry list of other issues that are collectively causing the U.S. to go down the proverbial toilet?

Look deeper into your political parties.  Look for those that have the business of running America first at heart.  If you happen to agree with their ideas as to what is best for the country moving forward, then that should be your candidate regardless of their views on the inconsequential.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Just because someone disagrees with another's point of view does not make them hateful.  Far too often, the conservative right is considered nothing but haters or right wing nuts simply for diverging from what is considered 'politically correct' whether it be a belief in God to a disbelief in man made global warming.

This... kind of has a lot to do with their behaviour, though.

There are small-c conservatives who are perfectly reasonable people. Often wrong, I tend to think, but still at least reasonable, and with reasonable and hard-to-dismiss points to make about contemporary society. There are compelling conservative arguments to be made against the Imperial version of the American Republic, against the increasing encroachment of the surveillance / police state mentality on modern life in so-called "free" democracies, against the merits of a society whose sky-high divorce rates imperil children and contribute to child sexual assault. Agree or disagree with those arguments, they're a legitimate part of serious debate. Even where socially dislikable views come up in this context, or where the "small government" shibboleth turns up (this meme was always sort of bullshit IMO), one at least has the prospect of interacting with and having an effect on those views through rational argument.

Then there are Conservatives, the Movement, the intact core of the furthest right wing that's been present since the days of Goldwater but now runs the Republican Party more completely than it ever did (likewise it now drives the "Conservative Party" in Canada). This sector of conservatism is disinterested in reason and critical thinking (literally; the Texas Republicans actually denounce "critical thinking" in a recent platform). It's authoritarian, with no real interest in intra-party dialogue or dialogue with anyone outside it. It foments actual hate against any part of society that is not part of the movement -- Treason and Slander and Liberal Fascism are how it views others -- and it's incapable of speaking to broader society without trying to shout opponents down in the ugliest possible fashion, because it's deeply insecure in the presence of narratives and truths not its own.

There's a reason this latter kind of Conservatism is viewed as hateful and crazy: because it is. It foments hate against gays and alternative lifestyles (despite its politicians' manifest penchant for rent boys), panders actively to White Supremacist "Patriot" groups and to their conspiracy-theory fantasies (that's why so much Tea Party rhetoric about Obama sounds so deranged and delusionally over the top), and most recently it foments actual hate for women with the nerve to use birth control. It inhabits and actively promotes an alternate fantasy universe -- regular Fox News viewers are substantially likelier than the rest of the populace to believe objectively false things about current events -- and works hard to substitute false and damaging fantasy narratives for actual fact and science, as with the climate change denialism that it promotes as "skepticism," or with Intelligent Design promoting itself as a "scientific theory," or with revisionist history textbooks designed to rewrite the GOP as the heroes of the Civil Rights Movement. 

There's no use at this point pretending that the second kind of Conservatism doesn't exist. It exists, and it's what a lot of people are reacting to under the "conservative" label, and they are right to regard it as pernicious. This doesn't change the fact that other kinds of conservatives exist and are deserving of respect.

[Callie Del Noire]

You want to know my take on things? Some of the best times in recent history, in my opinion, for getting stuff done was under Reagan to Clinton, when the parties still talked to each other. Before the radicalization of both parties in different ways. You got the gauntlet of special interests in the Democrats and the radical extreme social conservatism of the GOP. Before men like Newt Gingrich refused to talk, play, socialise with the other side and mandated EVERYONE in the GOP side of Congress do the same. Before the leaders of both parties made compromise, bipartian, and debate bad words.

The times weren't perfect, but the system worked. Today.. we've let our party and elected officials get away with actions that should require them voted out of office.

Let me say this.. I don't LIKE some of the people I voted for.. I won't like who I've GOING to vote for this cycle. I do expect them to be LEADERS vice Party members.

You don't have a hell of a lot of leaders these days.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I don't think the behaviour of both American political parties is equivalent, because their structures aren't. The Dems are a much looser coalition -- of necessity, they're a big tent of everyone from progressives on the left to conservatives who no longer want to identify as GOP on the right -- and they have lots of flaws, because managing the big tent is hugely unwieldly and requires lots of intra-party compromise before the question of "bipartisanship" ever comes up. If they're uninspiring, and they often are, that's a big part of why.

The GOP is a lot more tightly-controlled and organized, and is largely focused on spiting the opposition and exploiting the angers and insecurities of a specifically white and male demographic (they're quite open about this, in unguarded moments). It wants power, but no longer appears to want it for anything apart from lining the pockets of its biggest donors (which is why Mitt Romney got caught on tape writing off half of the American electorate). Only one of the two parties has ever shut down government as a political tactic, and only one of the two parties has proved more dedicated to spiting its opposition than dealing with the business of government (hence the surreal circuses over ObamaCare and the debt ceiling).

Both parties are flawed, but they are not equally responsible for the current state of America.

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't think the behaviour of both American political parties is equivalent, because their structures aren't. The Dems are a much looser coalition -- of necessity, they're a big tent of everyone from progressives on the left to conservatives who no longer want to identify as GOP on the right -- and they have lots of flaws, because managing the big tent is hugely unwieldly and requires lots of intra-party compromise before the question of "bipartisanship" ever comes up. If they're uninspiring, and they often are, that's a big part of why.

The GOP is a lot more tightly-controlled and organized, and is largely focused on spiting the opposition and exploiting the angers and insecurities of a specifically white and male demographic (they're quite open about this, in unguarded moments). It wants power, but no longer appears to want it for anything apart from lining the pockets of its biggest donors (which is why Mitt Romney got caught on tape writing off half of the American electorate). Only one of the two parties has ever shut down government as a political tactic, and only one of the two parties has proved more dedicated to spiting its opposition than dealing with the business of government (hence the surreal circuses over ObamaCare and the debt ceiling).

Both parties are flawed, but they are not equally responsible for the current state of America.

True.. definitely. I wonder what some of the old statemen of the GOP like Senator Goldwater or even Jesse Helms would say about the current group in charge. Jesse was an old bastard, and possibly racist as his foes said (though I doubt it), but he DID step down from position on the Joint Arms Committee to hold one on the Joint Agricultural Committee.. Why? Cause it was more helpful to his constituents to be on the Agricultural comittee, he stood beside Bono (who he probably disagreed with on music lyrics) to forgive Foreign Debt owed us. He was a steadfast dixiecrat republican who got reelected REPEATEDLY in a democratic ruled state (this is the first time since the reconstruction the GOP has had control of both parts of the state house) because he was a Leader, a Statesmen..and honestly pursued the interests HIS voters.

Don't see folks like that anymore.  Imperfect people. Maybe. People who make mistakes. yeah. But ones who honestly try to do leading rather than the unelected leaders of the party.

[Devilyn Sydhe]

I don't think the behaviour of both American political parties is equivalent, because their structures aren't. The Dems are a much looser coalition -- of necessity, they're a big tent of everyone from progressives on the left to conservatives who no longer want to identify as GOP on the right -- and they have lots of flaws, because managing the big tent is hugely unwieldly and requires lots of intra-party compromise before the question of "bipartisanship" ever comes up. If they're uninspiring, and they often are, that's a big part of why.

The GOP is a lot more tightly-controlled and organized, and is largely focused on spiting the opposition and exploiting the angers and insecurities of a specifically white and male demographic (they're quite open about this, in unguarded moments). It wants power, but no longer appears to want it for anything apart from lining the pockets of its biggest donors (which is why Mitt Romney got caught on tape writing off half of the American electorate). Only one of the two parties has ever shut down government as a political tactic, and only one of the two parties has proved more dedicated to spiting its opposition than dealing with the business of government (hence the surreal circuses over ObamaCare and the debt ceiling).

Both parties are flawed, but they are not equally responsible for the current state of America.

So now ideological disagreement is merely 'spiting the competition'?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are Republicans expected to give up all they value because we have a Democratic president?  True, much of it has to do with a polarization in Washington but that did not begin on President Obama's inaugaration day.  Am I really the only one who remembers President Bush as that 'Dumbest man on the planet yet somehow 911 mastermind'?  I tend to believe accusing the Republicans of stealing two straight elections, of being Nazis, of being murderers of women and children overseas for oil tended to spoil the mood of Washington long before Obama.  Would anyone truly believe a Pelosi/Reid congress cooperated with Bush?  Not saying its the best either way, but it is the way of politics.  Other presidents haven't sat back and moaned about it, they did what was necessary to gain compromise, to find consensus.  I'd honestly ask what important measures have the Democratic Senate offered up only to have shot down by Republicans.

As for radical fringe elements, both sides can count them in their number.  I dont really need to count off all the left wing kooks, from Code Pink to the Occupy crowd, that I wouldnt hold all Democrats responsible for.  Also, to say that the GOP is such a tight knit community is a fallacy.  There is far more conflict between conservatives and establishment Republicans than any division I'm aware of in the Democrat party.  When anti-war protestors who were so vocal before fall into lockstep now that Obama runs the war in Afghanistan and keeps Gitmo open, I have to wonder just how divided they are.

[Elias]

So now ideological disagreement is merely 'spiting the competition'?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are Republicans expected to give up all they value because we have a Democratic president?  True, much of it has to do with a polarization in Washington but that did not begin on President Obama's inaugaration day.  Am I really the only one who remembers President Bush as that 'Dumbest man on the planet yet somehow 911 mastermind'?  I tend to believe accusing the Republicans of stealing two straight elections, of being Nazis, of being murderers of women and children overseas for oil tended to spoil the mood of Washington long before Obama.  Would anyone truly believe a Pelosi/Reid congress cooperated with Bush?  Not saying its the best either way, but it is the way of politics.  Other presidents haven't sat back and moaned about it, they did what was necessary to gain compromise, to find consensus.  I'd honestly ask what important measures have the Democratic Senate offered up only to have shot down by Republicans.

As for radical fringe elements, both sides can count them in their number.  I dont really need to count off all the left wing kooks, from Code Pink to the Occupy crowd, that I wouldnt hold all Democrats responsible for.  Also, to say that the GOP is such a tight knit community is a fallacy.  There is far more conflict between conservatives and establishment Republicans than any division I'm aware of in the Democrat party.  When anti-war protestors who were so vocal before fall into lockstep now that Obama runs the war in Afghanistan and keeps Gitmo open, I have to wonder just how divided they are.

Beautifully said.

[Callie Del Noire]

So now ideological disagreement is merely 'spiting the competition'?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are Republicans expected to give up all they value because we have a Democratic president?  True, much of it has to do with a polarization in Washington but that did not begin on President Obama's inaugaration day.  Am I really the only one who remembers President Bush as that 'Dumbest man on the planet yet somehow 911 mastermind'?  I tend to believe accusing the Republicans of stealing two straight elections, of being Nazis, of being murderers of women and children overseas for oil tended to spoil the mood of Washington long before Obama.  Would anyone truly believe a Pelosi/Reid congress cooperated with Bush?  Not saying its the best either way, but it is the way of politics.  Other presidents haven't sat back and moaned about it, they did what was necessary to gain compromise, to find consensus.  I'd honestly ask what important measures have the Democratic Senate offered up only to have shot down by Republicans.

As for radical fringe elements, both sides can count them in their number.  I dont really need to count off all the left wing kooks, from Code Pink to the Occupy crowd, that I wouldnt hold all Democrats responsible for.  Also, to say that the GOP is such a tight knit community is a fallacy.  There is far more conflict between conservatives and establishment Republicans than any division I'm aware of in the Democrat party.  When anti-war protestors who were so vocal before fall into lockstep now that Obama runs the war in Afghanistan and keeps Gitmo open, I have to wonder just how divided they are.

Gitmo will never get relocated. Who is going to be the congressman/senator that lets the Feds set up a Supermax with those folks in their backyard. It was a non-issue from day one. Notice that a LOT of the presidents anti-war and instant fix issue with Iraq and Afganistan ended the week he got the nomination of the party. After he got his full intel brief he had to realize what he was selling wouldn't work.

Just like the crazies, on both sides I might add, who want us to pull up EVERYTHING and pull back to our borders.

Can't be done. Unless you want your kids back there in ANOTHER 30 years. Charlie Wilson started the Taliban.. but it was us abandoning them without helping nation build that created the problem.

THAT is the difference between supplying weapons to the Muyahadeeen and what we did with Europe after WW2 with the Marshall Plan. If you don't buy that example..

Simply compare Eastern Europe and Weastern Europe after WW2. We 'nation built' and the Soviets built a line of 'Buffer states' which are florishing today and which are still crawling up after 70 odd years.

[Valerian]

Other presidents haven't sat back and moaned about it, they did what was necessary to gain compromise, to find consensus.

Republicans don't do that anymore, though.  Compromise is a dirty word.

Tommy Thompson is a conservative, the current Republican candidate for a U.S. senate seat from Wisconsin.  He called himself a conservative when he was governor of Wisconsin, too, when he was governor of Wisconsin for many years.  This was in the late 80's up to about 2000, I think it was, back when it was still all right to talk to the other side.  Back then, he did compromise.  Things got done.

Now he wants to be a U.S. senator, and he's remade himself in the image the Tea Party extremist types want to see.  He practically froths at the mouth whenever he speaks and has publicly vowed to end Medicare.  He's turned himself into the most uncompromising person imaginable because that's the only way he can get party backing.  It's a truly startling and saddening transformation.

If you want a preview of what Romney would do to the country if he's elected and has a reasonably cooperative house and senate, take a look at what Scott Walker has done to Wisconsin.  Walker is the darling of the extremists in the GOP and in four years he'd love to be where Romney is now.  (I'm hoping the FBI will arrest him well before then, since the John Doe investigation is still going strong.)  But the point is that Walker is entirely a party man, doing exactly what his wealthy backers ask of him, following party lines every step of the way.  The fact that he's also managed to ruin the state and left us in the dust as far as economic recovery goes doesn't matter one bit to him.  His backers are a little wealthier, he has the power he loves to show off, and as far as he's concerned all's right with the world.

Romney has and will also toe the line, unthinkingly.  He becomes whatever he thinks he needs to be at that moment to get what he wants.  That isn't what any leader should do.

[Devilyn Sydhe]

Gitmo will never get relocated. Who is going to be the congressman/senator that lets the Feds set up a Supermax with those folks in their backyard. It was a non-issue from day one. Notice that a LOT of the presidents anti-war and instant fix issue with Iraq and Afganistan ended the week he got the nomination of the party. After he got his full intel brief he had to realize what he was selling wouldn't work.

Just like the crazies, on both sides I might add, who want us to pull up EVERYTHING and pull back to our borders.

Can't be done. Unless you want your kids back there in ANOTHER 30 years. Charlie Wilson started the Taliban.. but it was us abandoning them without helping nation build that created the problem.

THAT is the difference between supplying weapons to the Muyahadeeen and what we did with Europe after WW2 with the Marshall Plan. If you don't buy that example..

Simply compare Eastern Europe and Weastern Europe after WW2. We 'nation built' and the Soviets built a line of 'Buffer states' which are florishing today and which are still crawling up after 70 odd years.

I completely agree with Gitmo remaining where it is, I only meant it was odd to hear such outcry in one moment then not hear anything from the same people now, makes it seem far more about politics than any concern for those inmates.

I completely agree with nation building in places that actually want our help like post war Europe.  I think that's what we were trying to do in Iraq though I dont know how well its working.  I question in Afghanistan though if they truly want our help and also if we can continue to afford to build them up.  I think as long as we have defined goals there then we should stay.  I just hope we aren't there having our soldiers shot at for what might end up a lost cause.  Guess I just dont like the feeling of just spinning our wheels.

I'd also agree that the cold war led us to making alot of mistakes, focusing more on how we could fight Russia than what we were doing to the bystanders.  That's how we got associated with Iraq, Iran and Iraq sort of becoming surrogates for Russia and America.  That said, there isnt much we can do about mistakes of the past except do our best not to fall into the same traps again.

[Cyrano Johnson]

So now ideological disagreement is merely 'spiting the competition'?

No, merely spiting the competition is spiting the competition. When a party is willing to employ political scorched-earth strategies to defeat a health-care plan that was Republican in origin, you're beyond ideological disagreement and into territory where the only ideology is "spite the opposition."

Would anyone truly believe a Pelosi/Reid congress cooperated with Bush?  Not saying its the best either way, but it is the way of politics.  Other presidents haven't sat back and moaned about it, they did what was necessary to gain compromise, to find consensus.

Ummm, Bush had all three houses of Congress during most of his tenure; and this nonsense about how Obama is supposed to have "sat back and moaned" without trying to find consensus is pure fantasy, right up there with "Obama is a socialist." The partisan behaviour of Democratic as opposed to Republican Congresses is not similar. The Democrats are capable of partisan stands, but have not shown a willingness to compromise the business of government to spite the opposition. The Republicans have. They're different mentalities.

Bush had (and deserved) many furious detractors, in large part because his government behaved outrageously and essentially crashed the American ship of state. Some of those detractors -- your 9/11 truthers and what have you -- were crazy or mean, but that's not an excuse for attempting to disappear objective differences behind a haze of false equivalencies. The falsehood and incompetence surrounding Iraq, Katrina, and Wall Street were real, the catastrophic failures issuing from all those policies were real, the outrage they drew was justified (in contrast to the manufactured, purely strategic outrage over ObamaCare).  The suspicion of vote-stealing came about because of genuinely suspicious Republican behaviour in two successive elections, accusations we can tell hit close to home because the GOP now spends inordinate amounts of time trying to distract from them by speciously accusing anyone else in range of "vote fraud" (yet funnily enough I don't remember the President of Diebold publicly promising to deliver the '08 election for Obama as he did in Ohio for Bush in '04).

As for radical fringe elements, both sides can count them in their number.  I dont really need to count off all the left wing kooks, from Code Pink to the Occupy crowd

I'm really not impressed by attempts to describe "the Occupy crowd" as "left-wing kooks," either. This is more false equivalency, and morevoer the framing here is based on a fallacious notion that the Republicans have some sort of "fringe" problem. The Republicans don't have a problem with a right-wing "fringe." All the behaviours I described above are the core of the party now, they aren't "fringe" behaviours, and they actually don't have substantial left equivalents. (To clarify, these behaviours didn't begin with Obama. They were all in evidence, in fact, during the Clinton years well before Bush ever came to power -- the political bloody-mindedness that fueled the Clinton impeachment and Newt Gingrich's tenure as Speaker were previews of contemporary Republicanism. It's just that it's gotten even worse over time.)

[Callie Del Noire]

Then we got folks like Tom DeLay who set your time with him strictly by how much you donated to him and the GOP. He snubbed the Dems and anyone who wasn't in his little black book of sponsors and supporters.

Does that sound like someone who is willing to work with rivals?

And those sort of practices STILL carry on. You have people in the GOP who would refute gravity is they could and these are the folks who are setting priority and policy.

I've watched over the last four years as more rational and moderate men are pushed out.. and how they push what few Statesmen we had in the party into silence and accommodation in return for continued support.

Can  you honestly say the folks who use men like Karl Rove have the country's interests over their own? No.. I'm sorry, I can't in good conscience say that I'm a republican anymore. I didn't leave my party.. it deserted me.

[Stattick]

I'd honestly ask what important measures have the Democratic Senate offered up only to have shot down by Republicans.

Well, here's a partial list from the last two years of Bills in the Senate that have been filibustered. Do any of these look important to you?

Veterans Jobs Corps Act
Cybersecurity Act
Middle Class Tax Cut Act
Bring Jobs Home Act
A bill to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities
Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act
Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act
Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act
Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012
Paycheck Fairness Act
Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012
Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act of 2012
Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012
Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act
Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies Act of 2011
Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs reauthorization
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011
A bill to create jobs by providing payroll tax relief for middle class families and businesses
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
3% Withholding Repeal and Job Creation Act
Rebuild America Jobs Act
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2011
Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act of 2011
American Jobs Act of 2011
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012
Authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya
Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011
PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011
Patent Reform Act
Termination of Taxpayer Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns
FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act

Cite: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/112.htm

[Elias]

Veterans Jobs Corps Act- Died in the senate. (Republicans supported the bill but only if Democrats figured out a way to pay for it which they couldn't)

Cybersecurity Act- Was bipartisan being pushed by republicans most notibly (Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)  )

Bring Jobs Home Act- More useless regulations, Government should spend less time looking into company choices and more on the billions sent overseas by GOVERNMENT to support corrupt dictatorships AND foreign companies (Which it did in the case of Brazil and drilling)

Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act- The Republicans were happy to negotiate on this bill and requested a SINGLE amendment which was refused causing this bill too falter (Once again a sign of Democrats NOT negotiating)

Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act- The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), signed into law on July 9, 2012, gives FDA the authority to collect user fees  (Absolutely horrible law allowing gov't to take even more money from the pockets of private companies)

Those are only the first 5, I am sure every single one has the signs of democratic mismanagement labeled on it somewhere.

[Stattick]

I am sure every single one has the signs of democratic mismanagement labeled on it somewhere.

Does that, in your mind, justify doubling the number of filibusters annually, virtually shutting down the senate, and threatening to shut down the US Government if the Republicans don't get their way?

[Elias]

The Republicans represent half the country, they have the right to as much a voice as the democrats.

Obama arrogantly said elections have consequences as he rammed bills down our throat with his majorities. America answered and robbed him of the majority in the house and weakened him in the senate.

So to answer your question, yes I think they are doing the right thing and since he didn't learn his lesson like Clinton he deserves to be made a sad foot note in history like Jimmy Carter.

[Stattick]

The Republicans represent half the country, they have the right to as much a voice as the democrats.

Obama arrogantly said elections have consequences as he rammed bills down our throat with his majorities. America answered and robbed him of the majority in the house and weakened him in the senate.

So to answer your question, yes I think they are doing the right thing and since he didn't learn his lesson like Clinton he deserves to be made a sad foot note in history like Jimmy Carter.

So, when the Republicans were in charge, why do you think it was that the Democrats didn't try to shut down every bill, and shut down the US Government?