• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Issa says Obama administration is 'one of most corrupt'

Obama... corrupt? Not telling the truth? Lying? backdoor deals? Chicago School? Alinsky School? Wright School? Closet Marxist? The Uniter? Messiah Obama?
Naaaah. Can't be.

ROTFLOL... Hopefully while working to get the REAL Numbers down, he'll nail two birds with one stone. My bet is that's the plan. Severe Collateral Damage.

.

I think is was Issa who posed for this picture.

GOP-seal.jpg
 
I'll give you a B+ for humor but you get a D for unoriginality.
 
I'll give you a B+ for humor but you get a D for unoriginality.

I wish Issa would invent an alarm to warn the country when the government has been stolen by teabagger-idiots.

He's a bitter putz that resents not being elected Gov. (get over it, ya tool)

He's also apparently a car thief. (but he blames his brother)

Nice hair weave...
 
I wish Issa would invent an alarm to warn the country when the government has been stolen by teabagger-idiots.

He's a bitter putz that resents not being elected Gov. (get over it, ya tool)

He's also apparently a car thief. (but he blames his brother)

Nice hair weave...

The country wasn't stolen. The Republicans won a record number of seats, by the will of the American people.
 
Obama... corrupt? Not telling the truth? Lying? backdoor deals? Chicago School? Alinsky School? Wright School? Closet Marxist? The Uniter? Messiah

Alas, a regurgitation of talking points... well done.
 
This really is sad, nothing of real substance, just Obama-bashing.
 
Yeah we endured 7+years of it with Bush...Some of it was deserved, but hey, welcome to today's politics.


j-mac

How about instead of bashing people on the "other side" we abolish parties and actually work on fixing America?
 
How about instead of bashing people on the "other side" we abolish parties and actually work on fixing America?

Whose going to keep an eye on everyone else, if we abolish parties?

The best way to fix America, is for the government stop trying to fix America.
 
How about instead of bashing people on the "other side" we abolish parties and actually work on fixing America?


Abolish parties? Not likely. But, we can hold those accountable to their campaign rhetoric every election.


j-mac
 
Whose going to keep an eye on everyone else, if we abolish parties?

The best way to fix America, is for the government stop trying to fix America.

Well I think that abolishing parties would do well in the senses that it would not make it so that the situation was viewed through and "us VS them" lense, but rather politicians would see each other as people and fellow Americans.
 
Obama... corrupt? Not telling the truth? Lying? backdoor deals? Chicago School? Alinsky School? Wright School? Closet Marxist? The Uniter? Messiah Obama?
Naaaah. Can't be.

ROTFLOL... Hopefully while working to get the REAL Numbers down, he'll nail two birds with one stone. My bet is that's the plan. Severe Collateral Damage.

.
Anytime I hear someone say "such in such is the most corrupt president in modern times" I always roll my eyes. This douche bag just hopes to get in the spot light. If he really does intend to actually go after federal waste then I will applaud him when he actually does so, cause that honestly does need alot more attention than it's getting, but if he just goes after alot of wild goose chases then he deserves to be laughed at and ridiculed.
 
Whose going to keep an eye on everyone else, if we abolish parties?

Who keeps an eye on them now? It's not like the Republocrats actually do anything to keep each other in line. They just endlessly argue against themselves and then never do anything. No one is being kept in check, both sides are expanding their power and enlarging government (and our debt).

In the end I understand why there are political parties and that because of our system we'll have 2 major parties. However, the parties in and of themselves are not organizations bent on self-limitation and neither really does anything to police the other.
 
Well I think that abolishing parties would do well in the senses that it would not make it so that the situation was viewed through and "us VS them" lense, but rather politicians would see each other as people and fellow Americans.

It would be impossible to do. Anytime you have a group of politicians, making decision, factions will always grow within that group. It's inevitable.
 
Who keeps an eye on them now? It's not like the Republocrats actually do anything to keep each other in line. They just endlessly argue against themselves and then never do anything. No one is being kept in check, both sides are expanding their power and enlarging government (and our debt).

In the end I understand why there are political parties and that because of our system we'll have 2 major parties. However, the parties in and of themselves are not organizations bent on self-limitation and neither really does anything to police the other.

The parties watch each other. That's the whole point of a two party system. Is it perfect? No. But it beats a single party system, where the right hand isn't watching the left hand, because everybody's in the same party. The Russians tried a one party system. It didn't work all that well.
 
The parties watch each other. That's the whole point of a two party system. Is it perfect? No. But it beats a single party system, where the right hand isn't watching the left hand, because everybody's in the same party. The Russians tried a one party system. It didn't work all that well.

We are essentially a one party system. The Republocrats have rigged the system well enough that their power will not be threatened. They just teeter-totter between who is in charge. They may watch each other so they can bounce talking points off each other; but they're not really doing anything to keep the other in check. They both operate in very similar manners (which is why functionally there is very little difference between Bush and Obama). If there were true competition and actual regulating of the parties by the other; then I may be inclined to agree with you. But what we functionally have today isn't some system where two parties are watching each other, making sure the other side is acting correctly, enforcing ethics and law on each other. It's a big circus now. A magic trick. They are not regulating each other, and have been successful at cutting out proper political competition to such a degree as to have secured their power. Sure, they'll endlessly bitch about the other side; but push comes to shove...they ain't gonna do a damned thing.

If you want a proper two party system, you have to have healthy debate, proper competition, and a system open enough so that if one of the main parties stagnates, it can easily be replaced.
 
We are essentially a one party system. The Republocrats have rigged the system well enough that their power will not be threatened. They just teeter-totter between who is in charge. They may watch each other so they can bounce talking points off each other; but they're not really doing anything to keep the other in check. They both operate in very similar manners (which is why functionally there is very little difference between Bush and Obama). If there were true competition and actual regulating of the parties by the other; then I may be inclined to agree with you. But what we functionally have today isn't some system where two parties are watching each other, making sure the other side is acting correctly, enforcing ethics and law on each other. It's a big circus now. A magic trick. They are not regulating each other, and have been successful at cutting out proper political competition to such a degree as to have secured their power. Sure, they'll endlessly bitch about the other side; but push comes to shove...they ain't gonna do a damned thing.

If you want a proper two party system, you have to have healthy debate, proper competition, and a system open enough so that if one of the main parties stagnates, it can easily be replaced.


On some of that in the past I am inclined to agree with you Ikari, however, this country is moving toward further polarization, even though Obama claimed to put partisan differences aside for the good of the nation, he has done the opposite. Would you say that furthering of the polarization that we experience now is a good thing?


j-mac
 
On some of that in the past I am inclined to agree with you Ikari, however, this country is moving toward further polarization, even though Obama claimed to put partisan differences aside for the good of the nation, he has done the opposite. Would you say that furthering of the polarization that we experience now is a good thing?


j-mac

We have been polarized for quite some time, extremely so. Obama didn't start the trend. Just carried forward with it in true Republocrat fashion. The extreme polarization of the political landscape is incredibly dangerous to the Republic. It's used for talking points, not action. It's used to discourage thinking by the populace at large. Look how bad the D is you have to vote for R, look how bad the R is, you have to vote for D. Blah blah blah. But behind it all is the fact that neither party is very good. Neither party is particularly interested in their proper constraints and regulations. They want people only to think well the other side is so bad, I have no choice but to vote for this one. And when you do so, you stagnate the political arena. It's slow death. And that's what is currently happening to the Republic...slow death. I don't want to have to vote for the lesser of two evils just because the main party rigged the system so its two halves cannot lose power. I want to vote for the guy who is best qualified, best able to do the job and whom adheres to my political platform. But the polarization of the political process, the rigging of the system by the Republocrats to close off proper competition has driven us to an area where we are essentially always voting for the lesser of two evills. But when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are left with evil.

The extreme polarization is manufactured by the Republocrats to remove thinking by the People.
 
We have been polarized for quite some time, extremely so. Obama didn't start the trend. Just carried forward with it in true Republocrat fashion. The extreme polarization of the political landscape is incredibly dangerous to the Republic. It's used for talking points, not action. It's used to discourage thinking by the populace at large. Look how bad the D is you have to vote for R, look how bad the R is, you have to vote for D. Blah blah blah. But behind it all is the fact that neither party is very good. Neither party is particularly interested in their proper constraints and regulations. They want people only to think well the other side is so bad, I have no choice but to vote for this one. And when you do so, you stagnate the political arena. It's slow death. And that's what is currently happening to the Republic...slow death. I don't want to have to vote for the lesser of two evils just because the main party rigged the system so its two halves cannot lose power. I want to vote for the guy who is best qualified, best able to do the job and whom adheres to my political platform. But the polarization of the political process, the rigging of the system by the Republocrats to close off proper competition has driven us to an area where we are essentially always voting for the lesser of two evills. But when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are left with evil.

The extreme polarization is manufactured by the Republocrats to remove thinking by the People.


Not a whole lot to disagree with there, except a question....How would you define the system as "rigged", and what is the answer to fix that so that everyone has an equal chance to get their message out?


j-mac
 
Not a whole lot to disagree with there, except a question....How would you define the system as "rigged", and what is the answer to fix that so that everyone has an equal chance to get their message out?


j-mac

Things like McCain/Feingold and such did wonders to close down the system. If you're independently wealthy, you can run third party (as Perot showed...man was crazy but because he was rich he was able to get coverage and ended up with 10% of the vote); but otherwise it's Republocrat or go home. Additionally, the "debates" are nothing of the sort. It's completely closed off to third party candidates, it's nothing more than a show put on with pre-determined questions and stump speeches at hand. It does nothing for us. I would make it so individuals can contribute money as they see fit. Corporations are not entities with rights, but the individual is. I'd like to see the League of Women Voters take over the Presidential debates again and I'd like there to be proper coverage of third party candidates and a system open to their participation. I use this example a lot. During the Bush/Kerry elections, Michael Badnarik and David Cobb (libertarian and green party candidate respectively) were arrested outside the Presidential debates. Handcuffed, put in the back of a police cruiser, and taken off to jail. 2 Presidential candidates were arrested outside the Presidential Debates. Does that sound like a good thing? Does that even sound American? We're arresting political candidates because they aren't in the "right" party. Wow. It blows my mind that there wasn't coverage and outrage at this. How can you say we legitimately have a democratic Republic when we're arresting Presidential candidates outside the Presidential Debates?

I understand the notion that we can't let everybody in because if we have 15 candidates at a Presidential debate, we can't get any real information. However, we currently cannot get any real information anyway. And there's no reason why the number has to be limited to 2. Maybe 5, those 5 being the 5 which had the highest popular votes in the last election. That's a bit better. What we truly need is proper political competition. Without competition things will stagnate and parties will entrench themselves. Because of the winner take all system we have, we will be stable at 2 main parties; and that's fine. So long as those parties understand that they are there only for as long as they can remain a competitive and proper political party. We can always have parties waiting in the wings to take over, and we'll have to cycle parties often because all parties will corrupt over time.

If we want to control the government, then we need to have control over the parties as well. Which means informed voting decisions, and data on all the candidates involved. The rules must be set up to allow the individual to participate, and to allow proper political competition and debate.
 
We are essentially a one party system. The Republocrats have rigged the system well enough that their power will not be threatened. They just teeter-totter between who is in charge. They may watch each other so they can bounce talking points off each other; but they're not really doing anything to keep the other in check. They both operate in very similar manners (which is why functionally there is very little difference between Bush and Obama). If there were true competition and actual regulating of the parties by the other; then I may be inclined to agree with you. But what we functionally have today isn't some system where two parties are watching each other, making sure the other side is acting correctly, enforcing ethics and law on each other. It's a big circus now. A magic trick. They are not regulating each other, and have been successful at cutting out proper political competition to such a degree as to have secured their power. Sure, they'll endlessly bitch about the other side; but push comes to shove...they ain't gonna do a damned thing.

If you want a proper two party system, you have to have healthy debate, proper competition, and a system open enough so that if one of the main parties stagnates, it can easily be replaced.

They teeter-totter, with thelp from the people. Were you watching the news on November 3?
 
Back
Top Bottom