Lovely!

You represent what America used to be Debbie. Now we're a country of Chicken Littles....."the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The Republicans are just going through the stages of grief. They know this stiff Romney isn't going to win. The salient question is; When the dust settles on the election will the Republicans be able to set aside their fragile girly-man egos and have the courage to find common ground on the issues that confront this country.

Debbie,

I respectfully disagree. Mr Obama does not know how to spell or pronounce compromise. It has been and will continue to be his way or the highway. The world is a big "give and take". He needs to get with it , we as a nation will not be able to hold on much longer.. PEACE!

Thank you!

Thanks.

I think of myself first and foremost as "independently curious." As someone who also has a degree in Media/Telecommunications, I'm pretty aware of how bias and gatekeeping works in the media, so I make a serious effort to check multiple, multiple sources for everything. It's a bit ridiculous, actually.

Still, people could decide I am part of the "problem." I do blog on here once a week, and my blogs are mostly left-leaning, satire-based rips on the right. I do consider myself liberal-- but part of that is being open-minded to different opinions and ideas. It's also dictates that I might be proven wrong.

My problem is I am now "unwillingly entrenched." I feel forced to side with the Democrats. I don't want to-- and I get verbally abused on here every time I say that I'm not a Democrat-- but I see a total abdication of (what I consider to be) fact-based truth and a willingness to compromise on the part of the right. I was much more open to Republican ideas in the late 90s and early 00s, when they were more moderate and talking about compromises between government and private enterprises; things like cap-and-trade, and what eventually became "Obamacare." Now, the Republicans pretend those were not their ideas-- and that sucks for someone like me, because I thought they were solid ones.

So, I'm on the record with my opinions. But there's a lot of curiosity, effort, history (and yes) independent thinking that had to be done to arrive at them.

Patrick, at times you seem reasonable and sane. Being for both Obamacare and Cap and Trade makes me question my assumptions.

I would point out that the democrats, including Obama, haven't reached across the isle in any meaningful way. They have been as partisan as the right including the passing of major legislation without any bipartisan support and resorting to bribes to get it accomplished.

I haven't been reading your stuff very long but have read what you have written recently. I often read opposing viewpoints to challenge my assumptions, your posts fall into this category. It is clear that you are not trying to change anyone's viewpoints and are just having some fun with your posts. Your satire is apparent, but your arguments are not convincing, although I doubt that is what you are intending to accomplish.

I would challenge you, perhaps in a future post to describe why you think either Obamacare or Cap and Trade are even remotely good ideas. I have yet to hear a compelling arguement for either program. Perhaps you have already done this in the past, again I don't pretend to read everything you write or have written.

MZ-
Well, I pretty much already threw my hat in the ring with a satire on the "radical parts" of Obamacare (that's here: http://lakewood-oh.patch.com/blog_posts/the-truth-about-obamacare), but I have yet to do much on cap-and-trade. Maybe I'll save that for later.

I mentioned those to you because I think those are good examples of Republican ideas. They're not maybe what I would do, personally, but I respect them as compromised solutions.

I understand that right-wingers want to bad mouth these two things, but that is because their party has moved so far right that the discussion makes those seem like left-leaning ideas. They're not. And that, to me, is the problem. People are so entrenched in what they believe that they can't see that both really are right-leaning solutions.

A true, socialist idea would be a government-run, no insurance companies allowed, system. A more right, but still left-leaning system would have been the public option (which is in keeping with most systems we have: education, law enforcement, libraries, etc). A right leaning solution is a government-oversight exchange system ("Obamacare"). A far right solution would be insurance companies doing whatever they want in the free market, without any regulation. So, as controversial as it is, the Affordable Health Care Act is, historically and politically speaking, a right-based solution. It's just not accepted that way in our current political climate.

(More)

There's this theory that the Democrats forced this legislation down the Republican throats, and jammed it through without their help. And I can understand that perspective, but there is some responsibility to bear for the Republicans not coming to the table to allow for compromise on what ultimately was their idea (on at least a state level). Frankly, I think fans of the current GOP should consider themselves lucky that the Democrats didn't use the opportunity to force their own idea through. Then we would be discussing either single-payer, or the public option, as the reality of the situation. At least this way the plan is still on GOP end of the political spectrum.

All I'm saying with this whole thing is that people need to take a step back and understand where things fall on the political spectrum before decrying them as radical, or-- as you said-- failing to discuss them as issues that need solving before losing our minds and acting like children. Whether you like Obamacare or not-- and there are people on both sides who don't like it-- if you can't discuss it in rational terms and work together towards solving the problem, nothing gets solved. And I think that's what we're seeing with the current deadlock in Congress.

So, that's where I'm at. And I'm sure I've just opened the door to fifty people calling me a Socialist, or a "libtard," or any of the other myriad names I've been calling while blogging on this site. But... the heck with those people.

Patrick, state level laws and federal laws are not equal. A law in different state doesn't impact me in this state. It is easier to change state laws. There is a similar effect when comparing state laws and local laws. It is easier for me to have a say in Avon Lake than Columbus, and Columbus is easier than Washington. That is why I prefer a limited Federal government.

If Avon Lake does something I disagree with, for instance passes a 9.2 mils emergency levy, I can move out of the city if I so chose. I can much easier run for local government, or at least make sure my voice is heard. If Ohioans thought it was a great idea to vote for a single payer system, I could move to a state that had a majority of people like me that think it is a terrible idea. Sure moving out of state is harder than out of a community, but still very doable.

I further believe that the more local the tax dollars stay, the better they are used. This isn't true in every case, but the politicians can be held accountable much easier for poor decisions. I can't understand why it is a good idea to send money to Washington to be filtered through a bureaucracy (department of education) then sent back locally to be filtered through and additional bureaucracy. By e time the money gets back to Avon Lake (if it does at all) it must be pennies on the dollar.

So again, I don't necessarily disagree with a government health care program, I disagree with a federal health care program. People in Washington don't care about Avon Lake. People in Avon Lake care about people in Avon Lake. People in Washington only care about Ohio because it is a "battle ground" state. After the election, neither Romney, nor Obama will worry about Ohio.

MZ-

That perspective is COMPLETELY fine with me. We don't have to agree on that (federal vs. state) element of it, and I think you make a completely compelling argument. That is a totally acceptable to rationale to me; and I believe that anyone who understands the situation, and articulates their position as you just did, should voice that opinion (and use their vote as their voice) to get behind the candidate that best espouses that philosophy.

What is not acceptable to me is when people call the Affordable Health Care Act "socialist" (when it's not), or feel that somehow an angry rhetoric full of hyperbole and name-calling is somehow a logical argument against any issue.

Unfortunately, those people's voices are drowning out the respectful dialogue, and preventing any progress in this country; so I have no problem having a little fun at their expense. And, yes, those people are on both sides. But-- and this is my perspective-- I just see a lot more of it coming from the Right than the Left. I see the Right on the attack using that rhetoric, and the Left playing defense. And, again, I have tried to take in as many perspectives as possible before arriving at such a judgement. But that's generally my focus when I start in with the sarcasm and satire: I'm much more against attitudes of radicalism and hyperbole than I am Republicans who are willing to bring good ideas to the table and compromise.

Incidentally, thank you for having a rational, intelligent conversation with me. If you happen to scroll through some of the blogs I've written, you'll notice that I end up with a lot to the contrary.

Patrick, do keep in mind that if you we're to write a conservative leaning post you would see as just as much vitriol from the left. I have been called a homophobe, racist, woman hater, etc...on the patch. I am none of those things, but reality is often irrelevant.

Anyway, I'm off to wage war on women, work to ban contraceptives, plot on how to screw he poor, the elderly, the children, and ruin the environment at the weekly super secret evil conservative meeting. I would invite you, but you don't know the secret handshake.

MZ-
Understood. And I would invite you to our liberal meetings; but we meet in a secret, EPA-protected forest where we are currently drawing up this year's War on Christmas, and finishing our investigation of W. for planning of 9/11.

Patrick, exceptional reply. Touché!

BOOM!

I like this very much.

Brandon