I need politics savvy people to weigh in here.

[December]

Alright, so this is almost embarrassing, but I am ready to deal with it, or at least try to deal with it.

There are a ton of things that I don't know in life, some of them require years and years of schooling, or life experiences I just do not have in order to have learned. I am ok with not knowing a lot of those kinds of things. Politics, however, is another story. You don't have to go to school to know something about politics, you don't even have to leave your house, and yet I know nothing about politics. I'm not saying I want to up and learn so much about politics that I could be a politician, or even enough that I could be a contender in the 50 million political threads full of bickering here at Lit. I think I should have some kind of basic understanding of politics, though.

I have always entirely avoided both the threads and posters that are all about politics. I've always found the subject boring and annoying, mostly because I didn't understand what was going on. The board is littered with more political posters and threads than ever, though. It's starting to bother me that I have no idea what so many people are talking about. It bothers me even more that I see a lot of people whom I would consider less than intelligent posting about politics and apparently having more of a clue than I do.

I have no idea how I've managed to so completely avoid this topic for so long, it's baffling to me exactly how little I know, but I am finally ready to correct that. I would like some of you to give me the basic run down, I need to know enough that I could mosey in to a political debate and have a clue what is being spoken about. I don't give a shit about choosing a side really, I have no idea what side I would be on or why, but I would like to be able to understand what is being debated.

For instance, if I were talking to someone and they said they were a lefty or they were from the right, what the fuck does that mean?

Then there are all these labels that I'm not sure about. I guess they are different parties, but I don't have any idea what they represent or why people may or may not follow them. Like, what in the bloody hell is a democrat? Republican? Are there others? Liberals? Conservatives? Are these all different from one another? Are there other parties? What do these parties stand for or believe in?

I need some basic answers. Yes, you can laugh and snirk a little, but before you come in here calling me harsh names, remember that nobody knows everything, and there are probably a ton of things you have no clue about too.

Thanks in advance for any serious responses that may end up here.

 

[John Doe]

Alright, so this is almost embarrassing, but I am ready to deal with it, or at least try to deal with it.

There are a ton of things that I don't know in life, some of them require years and years of schooling, or life experiences I just do not have in order to have learned. I am ok with not knowing a lot of those kinds of things. Politics, however, is another story. You don't have to go to school to know something about politics, you don't even have to leave your house, and yet I know nothing about politics. I'm not saying I want to up and learn so much about politics that I could be a politician, or even enough that I could be a contender in the 50 million political threads full of bickering here at Lit. I think I should have some kind of basic understanding of politics, though.

I have always entirely avoided both the threads and posters that are all about politics. I've always found the subject boring and annoying, mostly because I didn't understand what was going on. The board is littered with more political posters and threads than ever, though. It's starting to bother me that I have no idea what so many people are talking about. It bothers me even more that I see a lot of people whom I would consider less than intelligent posting about politics and apparently having more of a clue than I do.

I have no idea how I've managed to so completely avoid this topic for so long, it's baffling to me exactly how little I know, but I am finally ready to correct that. I would like some of you to give me the basic run down, I need to know enough that I could mosey in to a political debate and have a clue what is being spoken about. I don't give a shit about choosing a side really, I have no idea what side I would be on or why, but I would like to be able to understand what is being debated.

For instance, if I were talking to someone and they said they were a lefty or they were from the right, what the fuck does that mean?

Then there are all these labels that I'm not sure about. I guess they are different parties, but I don't have any idea what they represent or why people may or may not follow them. Like, what in the bloody hell is a democrat? Republican? Are there others? Liberals? Conservatives? Are these all different from one another? Are there other parties? What do these parties stand for or believe in?

I need some basic answers. Yes, you can laugh and snirk a little, but before you come in here calling me harsh names, remember that nobody knows everything, and there are probably a ton of things you have no clue about too.

Thanks in advance for any serious responses that may end up here.

Neither does anyone else, especially politicians.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I've been involved in politics since the 60s; I learn things about politics every day.

The #1 essential truth about politicians is, theyre bad actors. Every pol I've known is a sociopath and pathological narcissist. My opinion comes from working with them up close and personally.

The 2nd essential truth about politics is, government exists to confiscate your property and give it to someone else. In theory politicians are supposed to cooperate to increase prosperity and security of the commonwealth, but since the days of the caesars what they do is increase their wealth, pay their legions, and buy time from their enemies.

Running for office is expensive. All of the money is used for bribes (endorsements), to buy the best talent (so the opposition cant hire them), and to lock up resources like commercial time and newspaper space.

Regardless of what its called, virtually every political system is the same: the elites ride in Mercedes, the peasants ride bicycles; the elites attend Harvard, the peasants attend Schlub State Teachers College & Affirmative Action Academy; the elites eat ambrosia and steak, the peasants eat leaky jars of pickled pig sphincters.

 

[Lost Cause]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjRXnN-YKMk

 

[Recidiva]

I can start with right and left.

From my perception (and politics is entirely about perception, not so often about facts) politics revolves around issues, real or manufactured.

Whether you fall on the left or the right depends on your ideals and your perception about what is the right way to go about resolving or addressing an issue.

Right: Conservative. Ideals for this viewpoint involve benefits for the individual.

Left: Liberal. Ideals for this viewpoint involve benefits for the group.

Now, both are needed. They can work together or they can work against each other. Take a broad comparison where you have a marriage, Yin and Yang. Mom and Dad. In a functioning relationship, each side takes different responsibilities and follows different strategies. One might be more strict or more permissive on certain subjects on the basis of believing they'll get better results.

When it works, it's good. Conservative concerns look after laws that benefit businesses, laws that benefit business owners, laws that make it easier to get businesses up and running and with a minimum of red tape and interference from the government. When it's bad you get rampant greed and deregulation and allows corporations to get away, literally, with murder.

Liberals look after social consciousness, the environment, group benefits, civil rights. When it's bad you get bloated entitlement budgets, hatred of the rich or privileged, and demonization of any private enterprise that doesn't benefit the group.

When it doesn't work, as it doesn't, really, right now, to its best benefit, they don't cooperate.

The American Government right now is like bad parents going through an awful divorce, asking the kids who they want to live with and making little attempt to compromise and make a livable home. When it works there's some give and take, some compromise, and an environment that allows individuals to pick and choose their path according to what suits their temperament best.

These roles need to be embodied, but the polarization of the roles are making it difficult to "reach across the aisle" - which means cooperate with someone of differing ideals - because to do so can give a cry of "traitor!" from your own ranks.

 

[December]

I can start with right and left.

From my perception (and politics is entirely about perception, not so often about facts) politics revolves around issues, real or manufactured.

Whether you fall on the left or the right depends on your ideals and your perception about what is the right way to go about resolving or addressing an issue.

Right: Conservative. Ideals for this viewpoint involve benefits for the individual.

Left: Liberal. Ideals for this viewpoint involve benefits for the group.

Now, both are needed. They can work together or they can work against each other. Take a broad comparison where you have a marriage, Yin and Yang. Mom and Dad. In a functioning relationship, each side takes different responsibilities and follows different strategies. One might be more strict or more permissive on certain subjects on the basis of believing they'll get better results.

When it works, it's good. Conservative concerns look after laws that benefit businesses, laws that benefit business owners, laws that make it easier to get businesses up and running and with a minimum of red tape and interference from the government. When it's bad you get rampant greed and deregulation and allows corporations to get away, literally, with murder.

Liberals look after social consciousness, the environment, group benefits, civil rights. When it's bad you get bloated entitlement budgets, hatred of the rich or privileged, and demonization of any private enterprise that doesn't benefit the group.

When it doesn't work, as it doesn't, really, right now, to its best benefit, they don't cooperate.

The American Government right now is like bad parents going through an awful divorce, asking the kids who they want to live with and making little attempt to compromise and make a livable home. When it works there's some give and take, some compromise, and an environment that allows individuals to pick and choose their path according to what suits their temperament best.

These roles need to be embodied, but the polarization of the roles are making it difficult to "reach across the aisle" - which means cooperate with someone of differing ideals - because to do so can give a cry of "traitor!" from your own ranks.

Alright, so when you put it that way, my next question is why individual people must choose one or the other. The way you put it, wouldn't it be like choosing only 50% of what is needed to run things smoothly and standing behind only that 50%? That doesn't seem very wise.

 

[CaptainKirk]

I'll give it a shot. I've tried to break this down and cover the bases as best I could, but Wikipedia has so many divisions and definitions and it tends to get a bit long-winded.

This is the 'dictionary' (Wiki) definition of the major parties...

The Democratic Party has favored liberal positions (the term "liberal" in this sense describes social liberalism, not classical liberalism). Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The major influences for liberalism were labor unions (which peaked in the 1936–1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s. Since the 1970s, environmentalism has been a major new component.
In recent decades, the party has adopted a centrist economic and socially progressive agenda, with the voter base having shifted considerably. Today, Democrats advocate more social freedoms, affirmative action, balanced budget, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention (mixed economy). The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice and use a system of progressive taxation.

The Republican Party includes fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, neoconservatives, moderates, and libertarians. Prior to the formation of the conservative coalition, which helped realign the Democratic and Republican party ideologies in the mid-1960s, the party historically advocated classical liberalism, paleoconservatism, and progressivism.
Republicans emphasize the role of free markets and individual achievement as the primary factors behind economic prosperity. To this end, they favor laissez-faire economics, fiscal conservatism, and the promotion of personal responsibility over welfare programs.
The party opposes a government-run single-payer health care system, believing such a system constitutes socialized medicine and is in favor of a personal or employer-based system of insurance, supplemented by Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid. The GOP has a mixed record of supporting the historically popular Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs. Many Republicans support increased health insurance portability, laws promoting coverage of pre-existing medical conditions, a cap on malpractice lawsuits, the implementation of a streamlined electronic medical records system, an emphasis on preventative care rather than emergency room care, and tax benefits aimed at making health insurance more affordable for the uninsured and targeted to promote universal access. They generally oppose government funding for elective abortions.
Republicans are generally opposed by labor union management and members. Some Republicans are opposed to increases in the minimum wage, believing that such increases hurt many businesses by forcing them to cut jobs and services, export jobs overseas, and raise the prices of goods to compensate for the decrease in profit.
The Republican Party had remained fairly cohesive, as both strong economic libertarians and social conservatives opposed the Democrats, whom they saw as the party of bloated and more secular, liberal government. Yet, some have argued that the GOP's policies have grown increasingly restrictive of personal liberties, and has contributed to increasing corporate welfare and national debt. Some social conservatives have expressed dissatisfaction with the party's support for economic policies that they see as sometimes in conflict with their moral values.

According the some, the Republican Party is generally considered to be the party of conservatism, or 'right wing'. The Democratic Party is generally considered to be the party of liberalism, or 'left wing'. The 'wings' come from the fact that Republicans sit on the right side of the chamber in the House of Representatives (viewed from where you enter the chamber facing the Speaker's podium), while the Democrats sit on the left side.

Here's the definitions (according to Wiki) of the ideologies associated with the parties in question...

Social liberals (modern liberals) and progressives constitute roughly half of the Democratic voter base. Liberals thereby form the largest united typological demographic within the Democratic base. A large majority of liberals favor universal health care, with many supporting a single-payer system. A majority also favor diplomacy over military action, stem cell research, the legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government, stricter gun control, and environmental protection laws as well as the preservation of abortion rights. Immigration and cultural diversity is deemed positive; liberals favor cultural pluralism, a system in which immigrants retain their native culture in addition to adopting their new culture. They tend to be divided on free trade agreements and organizations such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Most liberals oppose increased military spending and the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

Traditional conservatives strongly support traditional codes of conduct, especially those they feel are threatened by social change. For example, traditional conservatives may oppose the use of female soldiers in combat. Religious conservatives focus on conducting society as prescribed by a religious authority or code.
Fiscal conservatives support limited government, limited taxation, and a balanced budget. Some admit the necessity of taxes, but hold that taxes should be low.
Fiscal conservatives often argue that competition in the free market is more effective than the regulation of industry, with the exception of industries that exhibit market dominance or monopoly powers. For some this is a matter of principle, who believed that government intervention in the economy is inevitably wasteful and inherently corrupt and immoral. For others, "free market economics" simply represents their belief that it is the most efficient way to promote economic growth: they support it not based on some moral principle, but pragmatically, because they hold that it just "works."
Fiscal conservatism is the economic and political policy that advocates restraint of governmental taxation and expenditures. Fiscal conservatives since the 19th century have argued that debt is a device to corrupt politics; they argue that big spending ruins the morals of the people, and that a national debt creates a dangerous class of speculators. The argument in favor of balanced budgets is often coupled with a belief that government welfare programs should be narrowly tailored and that tax rates should be low, which implies relatively small government institutions.
Social conservatism is generally dominated by defense of traditional social norms and values, of local customs and of societal evolution, rather than social upheaval, though the distinction is not absolute. Often based upon religion, modern cultural conservatives, in contrast to "small-government" conservatives and "states-rights" advocates, increasingly turn to the federal government to overrule the states in order to preserve educational and moral standards.
Social conservatives emphasize traditional views of social units such as the family, church, or locale. Social conservatives would typically define family in terms of local histories and tastes. Social conservatism may entail support for defining marriage as between a man and a woman (thereby banning gay marriage) and laws placing restrictions on abortion.
Conservatives tend to strongly identify with American nationalism and patriotism. They denounce anti-war protesters and hail the police and the military. Conservatives hold that military institutions embody admirable values like honor, duty, courage, and loyalty. Military institutions are independent sources of tradition and ritual pageantry that conservatives tend to admire.

What some fail to realize is that you don't need to be associated with any specific party to be a liberal or conservative or somewhere in between.

Now... here are the basic definitions of the parties according to some of the more outspoken members of society, including the ones on this board...

Democrats definition of Republicans: "Republicans are money grabbing, gun toting, Bible thumping, tax dodging, bigoted, prejudice, narrow minded people who refuse to give up their 'tried and true', old fashion ways and stick to their 'Stay the course; business as usual' mantra. They're ruining this country!"

Republicans definition of Democrats: "Democrats are a bunch of money grabbing, peace loving, gun hating, tax dodging, tree hugging, hippie communist fascists who want to dismantle the economical 'big business' system and give everything away for free to everyone, regardless of class/status. They're ruining this country!"

...and some people wonder why we can't seem to get anything done in this country. With opinions and ideologies so diametrically opposite, it's a miracle we even made it this far.

 

[Recidiva]

Alright, so when you put it that way, my next question is why individual people must choose one or the other. The way you put it, wouldn't it be like choosing only 50% of what is needed to run things smoothly and standing behind only that 50%? That doesn't seem very wise.

Well, that's why I'm saying that it's like having to choose a parent in a divorce.

We don't vote for legislation, we vote for representatives, who have become polarized.

Lobbying is one of the biggest problems for this. We vote for representatives, but our government officials need lots of money to run for office, and they accept campaign contributions from so many interests that once they're in office, they owe too many favors to individuals and corporations. If an oil lobbying company gave that representative $50 million to run for office, then they are not going to be able to vote for legislation that might, say, make oil drilling a safe enterprise. Not if they want to be re-elected, anyway.

But ideally it means that you can choose what you want to do with your life without having choices eliminated by the government. Do you want to be an Empress of Industry? Go for it. Do you want to run a shelter for abused animals? Go for it.

Having advocacy for business owners is a reason why businesses are so diverse in America, compared to other governments where businesses are state run or state owned or state regulated and red-taped out of existence.

But it means there's no safety net. You can start your business however you want, but there's no safety net for failure.

 

[Recidiva]

What some fail to realize is that you don't need to be associated with any specific party to be a liberal or conservative or somewhere in between.

I identify myself as a moderate. I'm not affiliated with any party. I will tend to vote more Democratic because there are some things in the Republican platform I can't work with at all...particularly civil rights and religious rights issues. But by no means do I opposed Republican ideals.

Others tend to treat it as a team sport, picking a team and going with that.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Its a false choice because all the benefits accrue to the pols and their masters. The real fight is over control of your money.

 

[Recidiva]

Its a false choice because all the benefits accrue to the pols and their masters. The real fight is over control of your money.

It's not a false choice. There's a great deal more liberty in America due to this system, than has been historically available to individuals.

We do have a voice. Use it or lose it.

 

[CaptainKirk]

I identify myself as a moderate. I'm not affiliated with any party. I will tend to vote more Democratic because there are some things in the Republican platform I can't work with at all...particularly civil rights and religious rights issues. But by no means do I opposed Republican ideals.

Others tend to treat it as a team sport, picking a team and going with that.

I feel the same way. I'm not Rep, Dem, Lib, Con, or whatever label(s) people like to throw out. I'm me. I make up my own mind and choose what I believe is the right thing to do.

I agree with some of the ideals that both parties hold true to, I disagree with others. When I vote, I vote for a 'person', not a party.

:edit: ...oh, and sorry for the long post above, everyone. As I said, Wikipedia tends to get long winded.

 

[Recidiva]

I feel the same way. I'm not Rep, Dem, Lib, Con, or whatever label(s) people like to throw out. I'm me. I make up my own mind and choose what I believe is the right thing to do.

I agree with some of the ideals that both parties hold true to, I disagree with others. When I vote, I vote for a 'person', not a party.

That's what I do as well. For instance, if Christine Todd Whitman ran for president, I'd likely vote for her.

 

[December]

The 'wings' come from the fact that Republicans sit on the right side of the chamber in the House of Representatives (viewed from where you enter the chamber facing the Speaker's podium), while the Democrats sit on the left side.

Social liberals (modern liberals) and progressives constitute roughly half of the Democratic voter base. Liberals thereby form the largest united typological demographic within the Democratic base. A large majority of liberals favor universal health care, with many supporting a single-payer system. A majority also favor diplomacy over military action, stem cell research, the legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government, stricter gun control, and environmental protection laws as well as the preservation of abortion rights. Immigration and cultural diversity is deemed positive; liberals favor cultural pluralism, a system in which immigrants retain their native culture in addition to adopting their new culture. They tend to be divided on free trade agreements and organizations such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Most liberals oppose increased military spending and the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

Okay, thanks for defining where the "left and right" came from, that was really damn puzzling to me. Makes much more sense now.

Secondly, the other bit I left in there has more things that I would agree with personally. Both groups had things I would consider important, but this group above has more things over all. Is this how individual people decide to call themselves Left or right, Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal? If I were to take a stand and say with absolution that the above group fits me would I then just have to label myself the corresponding title and then start arguing my stance? Is it really that simple?

I still don't understand why there is such hate between these two sides, can only one party be in power at one time? I mean, wouldn't it make sense to have representatives from both sides in power to make sure all the bases are covered?

 

[Recidiva]

Okay, thanks for defining where the "left and right" came from, that was really damn puzzling to me. Makes much more sense now.

Secondly, the other bit I left in there has more things that I would agree with personally. Both groups had things I would consider important, but this group above has more things over all. Is this how individual people decide to call themselves Left or right, Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal? If I were to take a stand and say with absolution that the above group fits me would I then just have to label myself the corresponding title and then start arguing my stance? Is it really that simple?

I still don't understand why there is such hate between these two sides, can only one party be in power at one time? I mean, wouldn't it make sense to have representatives from both sides in power to make sure all the bases are covered?

It's not that simple. You can tailor politics to suit yourself. You can be a party of one as a constituent or not give a damn one way or the other.

To win, though, as a candidate, you need a coalition.

There are always emotional, unresolvable issues that are deal breakers for most people.

For me it might come down to - can I vote for someone that might try to reverse Roe V. Wade? Can I vote for someone who demonizes immigrants?

For others the deal breakers come down to - can they vote for someone who will weaken defense and put security at risk?

There's hate because people are deeply passionate about their deal breakers.

 

[December]

It's not that simple. You can tailor politics to suit yourself. You can be a party of one as a constituent or not give a damn one way or the other.

To win, though, as a candidate, you need a coalition.

There are always emotional, unresolvable issues that are deal breakers for most people.

For me it might come down to - can I vote for someone that might try to reverse Roe V. Wade? Can I vote for someone who demonizes immigrants?

For others the deal breakers come down to - can they vote for someone who will weaken defense and put security at risk?

There's hate because people are deeply passionate about their deal breakers.

Well, I guess if I had to choose, I don't think I could vote for someone who might ban gay marriages. Is this what you mean by a deal breaker?

 

[CaptainKirk]

It's not that simple. You can tailor politics to suit yourself. You can be a party of one as a constituent or not give a damn one way or the other.

To win, though, as a candidate, you need a coalition.

There are always emotional, unresolvable issues that are deal breakers for most people.

For me it might come down to - can I vote for someone that might try to reverse Roe V. Wade? Can I vote for someone who demonizes immigrants?

For others the deal breakers come down to - can they vote for someone who will weaken defense and put security at risk?

There's hate because people are deeply passionate about their deal breakers.

^ This.

And add to the fact that the mainstream media doesn't help. All they're interested in is getting ratings and money by taking simple events and issues and blowing them all out of proportion (this is done mostly by those 'talking bobblehead', so-called 'news' programs hosted by Glenn Beck and Rachael Maddow and such).

People tend to listen more to the blowhards on the radio and TV, and believe them, rather than getting involved with and studying the actual issues at hand. Some would rather listen to the hype than get to the truth.

 

[Recidiva]

Well, I guess if I had to choose, I don't think I could vote for someone who might ban gay marriages. Is this what you mean by a deal breaker?

Right.

So when you get deeper into the idealism, Conservatives can see liberals as baby killers and Liberals can see Republicans as gay-bashers and war mongerers.

Policy does reflect actual issues that impact deeply into people's lives and livelihoods. So the people that become involved, that think they do make a difference and what they do matters and counts, they are passionate about it.

The hatred is a reflection of the helplessness people experience in their lives to make the changes they want to see in the world. And "the other side" provides the target for that.

 

[Recidiva]

^ This.

And add to the fact that the mainstream media doesn't help. All they're interested in is getting ratings and money by taking simple events and issues and blowing them all out of proportion (this is done mostly by those 'talking bobblehead', so-called 'news' programs hosted by Glenn Beck and Rachael Maddow and such).

People tend to listen more to the blowhards on the radio and TV, and believe them, rather than getting involved with and studying the actual issues at hand. Some would rather listen to the hype than get the truth.

Right. It's helpful to watch all the outlets and find all the facts you can and make the most educated choice that can be made.

Educated, pragmatic politics is hard work. Angry politics is easy.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Alright, so this is almost embarrassing, but I am ready to deal with it, or at least try to deal with it.

There are a ton of things that I don't know in life, some of them require years and years of schooling, or life experiences I just do not have in order to have learned. I am ok with not knowing a lot of those kinds of things. Politics, however, is another story. You don't have to go to school to know something about politics, you don't even have to leave your house, and yet I know nothing about politics. I'm not saying I want to up and learn so much about politics that I could be a politician, or even enough that I could be a contender in the 50 million political threads full of bickering here at Lit. I think I should have some kind of basic understanding of politics, though.

I have always entirely avoided both the threads and posters that are all about politics. I've always found the subject boring and annoying, mostly because I didn't understand what was going on. The board is littered with more political posters and threads than ever, though. It's starting to bother me that I have no idea what so many people are talking about. It bothers me even more that I see a lot of people whom I would consider less than intelligent posting about politics and apparently having more of a clue than I do.

I have no idea how I've managed to so completely avoid this topic for so long, it's baffling to me exactly how little I know, but I am finally ready to correct that. I would like some of you to give me the basic run down, I need to know enough that I could mosey in to a political debate and have a clue what is being spoken about. I don't give a shit about choosing a side really, I have no idea what side I would be on or why, but I would like to be able to understand what is being debated.

For instance, if I were talking to someone and they said they were a lefty or they were from the right, what the fuck does that mean?

Then there are all these labels that I'm not sure about. I guess they are different parties, but I don't have any idea what they represent or why people may or may not follow them. Like, what in the bloody hell is a democrat? Republican? Are there others? Liberals? Conservatives? Are these all different from one another? Are there other parties? What do these parties stand for or believe in?

I need some basic answers. Yes, you can laugh and snirk a little, but before you come in here calling me harsh names, remember that nobody knows everything, and there are probably a ton of things you have no clue about too.

Thanks in advance for any serious responses that may end up here.

The dedication of Don Juan was the product of an ongoing bout of insults between Lord Byron and Robert Southey. Southey called Byron 'His Satanic Majesty' while Byron replied with the worst insult he knew: 'Tory.' It was excluded when the first two cantos were published anonymously as Byron would not, in his own words, 'Kick the dog in the dark.' It was, however, included with subsequent editions.

Bob Southey! You're a poet — Poet-laureate,
And representative of all the race,
Although 'tis true that you turn'd out a Tory at
Last, — yours has lately been a common case;
And now, my Epic Renegade! what are ye at?
With all the Lakers, in and out of place?
A nest of tuneful persons, to my eye
Like 'four and twenty Blackbirds in a pye;'

'Which pye being open'd they began to sing'
(This old song and new simile holds good),
'A dainty dish to set before the King,'
Or Regent, who admires such kind of food;—
And Coleridge, too, has lately taken wing,
But like a hawk encumber'd with his hood,—
Explaining metaphysics to the nation—
I wish he would explain his Explanation.

You, Bob! are rather insolent, you know,
At being disappointed in your wish
To supersede all warblers here below,
And be the only Blackbird in the dish;
And then you overstrain yourself, or so,
And tumble downward like the flying fish
Gasping on deck, because you soar too high, Bob,
And fall, for lack of moisture, quite a-dry, Bob!

And Wordsworth, in a rather long Excursion
(I think the quarto holds five hundred pages),
Has given a sample from the vasty version
Of his new system to perplex the sages;
'Tis poetry — at least by his assertion,
And may appear so when the dog-star rages—
And he who understands it would be able
To add a story to the Tower of Babel.

You — Gentlemen! by dint of long seclusion
From better company, have kept your own
At Keswick, and, through still continued fusion
Of one another's minds, at last have grown
To deem as a most logical conclusion,
That Poesy has wreaths for you alone:
There is a narrowness in such a notion,
Which makes me wish you'd change your lakes for ocean.

I would not imitate the petty thought,
Nor coin my self-love to so base a vice,
For all the glory your conversion brought,
Since gold alone should not have been its price.
You have your salary; was't for that you wrought?
And Wordsworth has his place in the Excise.
You're shabby fellows — true — but poets still,
And duly seated on the immortal hill.

Your bays may hide the baldness of your brows—
Perhaps some virtuous blushes; — let them go—
To you I envy neither fruit nor boughs—
And for the fame you would engross below,
The field is universal, and allows
Scope to all such as feel the inherent glow:
Scott, Rogers, Campbell, Moore, and Crabbe will try
'Gainst you the question with posterity.

For me, who, wandering with pedestrian Muses,
Contend not with you on the winged steed,
I wish your fate may yield ye, when she chooses,
The fame you envy and the skill you need;
And recollect a poet nothing loses
In giving to his brethren their full meed
Of merit, and complaint of present days
Is not the certain path to future praise.
...

Meantime, Sir Laureate, I proceed to dedicate,
In honest simple verse, this song to you.
And, if in flattering strains I do not predicate,
'Tis that I still retain my 'buff and blue;'
My politics as yet are all to educate:
Apostasy's so fashionable, too,
To keep one creed's a task grown quite Herculean;
Is it not so, my Tory, ultra-Julian?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It's not a false choice. There's a great deal more liberty in America due to this system, than has been historically available to individuals.

We do have a voice. Use it or lose it.

Cant disagree more. Your real choices are 1. Become an anarchist. 2. Become a fascist like me, or 3. Bend over. The middle-class, and most Americans are middle-class, opt for bending over if one party or the other tosses them a bone.

 

[December]

You know, Recidiva, you are one hell of a wonderful human being. I'm not sure I've ever told you, but I admire you greatly. I gather this doesn't mean much coming from some stranger on a forum, but I'm putting it out there anyways.

In my opinion, you have always handled yourself very well. You've always stood your ground when you were right, apologised when you were wrong. You've fought battles for the underdog time and time again. You've remained true to who you are, the entire time you've posted here. You're highly intelligent, incredibly quick witted and you have a fantastic vocabulary. You're very well educated on a wide variety of interesting topics, and you have a huge heart full of compassion. Your sense of justice is keen, while your temper remains calm and effective. I think you're great, thanks for being exactly who you are. You're one of very few posters here that I can honestly say I have the utmost of respect for.

Also, I am going back to bed. Goodnight, beauty.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Well, I guess if I had to choose, I don't think I could vote for someone who might ban gay marriages. Is this what you mean by a deal breaker?

What you do depends on how hungry you are. If youre starving, and Hitler comes along promising you work and a house and plenty, but he's gonna murder all the Jews, you'll usually go along with him.

 

[Spider Rand]

I feel the same way. I'm not Rep, Dem, Lib, Con, or whatever label(s) people like to throw out. I'm me. I make up my own mind and choose what I believe is the right thing to do.

I agree with some of the ideals that both parties hold true to, I disagree with others. When I vote, I vote for a 'person', not a party.

:edit: ...oh, and sorry for the long post above, everyone. As I said, Wikipedia tends to get long winded.

That's what I do as well. For instance, if Christine Todd Whitman ran for president, I'd likely vote for her.

I lean right-of-center, so I tend to usually vote Republican; but I have voted for Democrat and Independent candidates when I felt they were the best choice available. The problem comes in when those individuals are given the strong-arm treatment by their party to toe the party line.

I was very disappointed at the number of moderate Democrats, including two I supported, who caved to party pressure over Obamacare; totally reversing themselves from prior statements. Too often party loyalty replaces loyalty to the very constituents who elected them in the first place, and you end up with ideological moderates who have extremist voting records. Supporting Obamacare cost a number of those people their office, and if the Right had had better candidates, the losses would have been even greater.

 

[Recidiva]

Cant disagree more. Your real choices are 1. Become an anarchist. 2. Become a fascist like me, or 3. Bend over. The middle-class, and most Americans are middle-class, opt for bending over if one party or the other tosses them a bone.

I'm a female with disabilities. I am very aware that in previous eras I would have no civil rights and would have died chained to a wall in an insane asylum.

I have the right to vote, I have the right to work, I will not be burned as a witch or exorcised by the town. I have a country that has advanced medical directives and research. I'm damned grateful.

There are more issues than money.