NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I think it's time for the people of the United States to be brutally honest with themselves. There really isn't any difference between the Democrat Party, and the Republican Party. In fact, they're on different side of the same coin! Don't believe me, I'll prove it.

Democrats like to influence your way of life through taxes.
Republican like to influence your way of life through legislation.

Democrats think that they are the superior party and that the Republicans are a bunch of ol' white men.
Republicans think that they are the superior party and that the Democrats are just Hippies liberals who wants to raise our taxes!

Democrat only care about the poor and the downthroten
Republicans only care about the rich and the wealthy
and Middle Class get screwed with no lube.

Both parties have extremist on their side.

Both parties have annoying pundits on their side.

Both parties always try to claim the moral high ground.

Both parties haven't put out a strong candidate for almost 10 years now.

Both parties have moderates that try to play to both sides for the votes, yay whoring!

Which is why, America needs to either get rid of the electoral college and give third parties a chance, or they need to overthrow one of the parties and let one of the third party have a chance.

You know I'm right.

Democrat only care about the poor and the downthroten

*bursts into incredulous laughter*

Both parties have extremist on their side.

Name one extremist who supports the Democrats.

"They're marginally preferable to the crazed authoritarians in the Republican Party on occasion" doesn't count.

Name one extremist who supports the Democrats.

"They're marginally preferable to the crazed authoritarians in the Republican Party on occasion" doesn't count.

Go visit Moveon.org and Democrat Underground.

Ok, I think it's time for the people of the United States to be brutally honest with themselves. There really isn't any difference between the Democrat Party, and the Republican Party. In fact, they're on different side of the same coin! Don't believe me, I'll prove it.

OK then...

Democrats like to influence your way of life through taxes.
Republican like to influence your way of life through legislation.

How in the world to taxes influence your life? Yes they take some money, but how in the world does it tell you what to do with the remaining part of it?

Democrats think that they are the superior party and that the Republicans are a bunch of ol' white men.
Republicans think that they are the superior party and that the Democrats are just Hippies liberals who wants to raise our taxes!

Oh my god, you mean both parties think they are better than the other party? My god, I thought most political parties believed the other guys had it right.

Democrat only care about the poor and the downthroten
Republicans only care about the rich and the wealthy
and Middle Class get screwed with no lube.

Even if that were true, that would seem a very BIG difference, and in direct contrast with your statement of "There really isn't any difference between the Democrat Party, and the Republican Party"

Both parties have extremist on their side.

Wow, you mean political parties have extremists? This makes them exactly the same...in spite of the fact that republican extremists and democratic extremists aren't a thing alike.

The rest is pretty superfluous and can be dismissed with similar commentary.

You know I'm right.

Um, no, not really.

Name one extremist who supports the Democrats.
Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, George Soros, etc.

How in the world to taxes influence your life? Yes they take some money, but how in the world does it tell you what to do with the remaining part of it?

It's not the fact that they tax you, it's what they tax you for. Until recently, in North Carolina, aircraft, yatch, and sport cars owners actually got taxed more simply because they own those things. There's also the progressive taxes, I mean hey they make more, so tax them more! Also Carbon Taxes are now in the talk so that'll be interesting to see.

Oh my god, you mean both parties think they are better than the other party? My god, I thought most political parties believed the other guys had it right.

Still proves my point.

Even if that were true, that would seem a very BIG difference, and in direct contrast with your statement of "There really isn't any difference between the Democrat Party, and the Republican Party"

It shows is that both group panders to specific group when campaigning instead of taking America in as a whole.

Wow, you mean political parties have extremists? This makes them exactly the same...in spite of the fact that republican extremists and democratic extremists aren't a thing alike.

They really are alike, both in the way they talk about the other side, and the language that they use, the only difference is the R and the D.

Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, George Soros, etc.

Hillary's an extremist? Heh.

Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, George Soros, etc.

Add Michael Moore.

Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, George Soros, etc.
How do you define extremist?

Go visit Moveon.org and Democrat Underground.

Partisan liberals are not extremists.

But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in...

Hillary Clinton,

Um, yeah.

:rolleyes:

Dennis Kucinich,

Not even close. Liberal pacifist with social democratic tendencies.

Anti-war stances and advocacy of universal health care do not an extremist make.

George Soros

Um, how the fuck can an exemplar of the global capitalist system be a left-wing extremist?

Add Michael Moore.

Name one extremist position Michael Moore has advocated.

I don't even believe he's a socialist.

How do you define extremist?

Mildly left of center?

America needs to either get rid of the electoral college and give third parties a chance

the one will have no impact on the other

It shows is that both group panders to specific group when campaigning instead of taking America in as a whole.

Yeah, but DIFFERENT GROUPS.

Functionally the only things you've defined as somewhat similar between the two parties are things that are pretty much universal about all political parties. You could use the EXACT same comparisons to "prove" that Republicans and New Labour are the same, or Democrats and the Christian Social Union.

All you've done is basically show how a political party is like...a political party.

Yes, very good, Republican and Democratic Parties are political parties.

Mildly left of center?
Oh, and here I was under the impression that an extremist was someone who bombed something they disagree with or scream that something they don't like is evil/the work of satan. Silly me. :(

Um, how the fuck can an exemplar of the global capitalist system be a left-wing extremist?

i guess by acknowledging that the market isn't the personification of god

Hillary Clinton is not an extremist

"I support revolutionary agitation and violence to smash the capitalist state and replace it with a free organization of syndicates and communes operating according to socialist and anarchist principles."

That's extremist.

"I really, really hate Bush and the Republican Party" is not.

Nor is "I want to have sex with Barack Obama."

Nor is "I want to have sex with Barack Obama."

unless it's gonna be extreme™ sex.

unless it's gonna be extreme™ sex.
Extreme™ sex with Obama has been known to cause head asplode syndrome. Also, you could injure your head on his washboard abs.

In an interview with The Washington Post on November 11, 2003, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death."

Hillary Clinton's "It takes a village to raise a child." It doesn't really, it takes good parents and some peer interaction, not the whole local adult community.

And Kucinich filed impeechment charges against the VP despite him not committing any crimes, a move that no other Democratic presidential candidate is supporting. He's also drafting legislation to completely ban handgun ownership by civilians, which is also receiving little support from his fellow dems.

In an interview with The Washington Post on November 11, 2003, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death."

So? How is that "extremist"?

Again, "Bush is really, really bad" is not an extremist statement.

And removing Bush back in '04 was a matter of life and death... assuming Kerry would have had a saner Iraq policy, anyway, which post-election experience seems to suggest would have happened.

Hillary Clinton's "It takes a village to raise a child." It doesn't really, it takes good parents and some peer interaction, not the whole local adult community.

Um, right or wrong, that has nothing to do with extremism.

Obviously she did not mean that every single person in a community should have as much a role as the parents... she meant that effective child-raising must be backed by a supportive community.

And Kucinich filed impeechment charges against the VP despite him not committing any crimes

Using legal means against high officials in the government is not extremism. Especially against a member of an administration as corrupt, contemptuous of legality, and authoritarian as this one.

An extremist would ask why he thinks impeaching Cheney will change much of anything... pointing out that, if anything, all it will do is show that a fundamentally unjust and corrupt political system "works" at removing "a few bad apples", obscuring the fact that the entire basket is rotten.

He's also drafting legislation to completely ban handgun ownership by civilians, which is also receiving little support from his fellow dems.

Handgun bans exist in lots of places. That is not an extremist proposal.

OH MY GOD


This is the most original thought ever posted on NSG.

How did you think this up?

Call the NEW YORK TIMES

CALL WOLF BLITZER

DIANE REHM... TOMORROW!


What is your next revelation, o sage, o seer????

Water is wet?

Forests have trees?

Bears shit in the woods?

In an interview with The Washington Post on November 11, 2003, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death."


Sorry I missed that. Couldn't hear him talk due to the never ending droning about President Clinton by conservative republicans.


Hillary Clinton's "It takes a village to raise a child." It doesn't really, it takes good parents and some peer interaction, not the whole local adult community.

Still makes a great deal more sense then poppy Bush's "Thousand points of light"


And Kucinich filed impeechment charges against the VP despite him not committing any crimes, a move that no other Democratic presidential candidate is supporting. He's also drafting legislation to completely ban handgun ownership by civilians, which is also receiving little support from his fellow dems.

Still better then bring up charges over a blowjob.

You will see dicks crimes when he returns to Halliburton after 2008

<<In an interview with The Washington Post on November 11, 2003, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death."

Hillary Clinton's "It takes a village to raise a child." It doesn't really, it takes good parents and some peer interaction, not the whole local adult community.

And Kucinich filed impeechment charges against the VP despite him not committing any crimes, a move that no other Democratic presidential candidate is supporting. He's also drafting legislation to completely ban handgun ownership by civilians, which is also receiving little support from his fellow dems.>>

None of this is 'Extremist'

OH MY GOD


This is the most original thought ever posted on NSG.

How did you think this up?

Call the NEW YORK TIMES

CALL WOLF BLITZER

DIANE REHM... TOMORROW!


What is your next revelation, o sage, o seer????

Water is wet?

Forests have trees?

Bears shit in the woods?
Yeah...but just about everything pertaining to politics that can be said has been on this board at one time or another. Repetition is only natural given enough activity over enough time, especially when the focus of discussion in on the American political scene where there are only two choices with a chance of winning, each claiming to be the diametric opposite of the other. The more time I bother to interest myself in politics, the more I see how pedantic all those involved are and how tired the logical fallacies that sevre as their argumets have become.

Do I even know what pedantic means?
...Perhaps...:D

Still better then bring up charges over a blowjob.

You will see dicks crimes when he returns to Halliburton after 2008
Firstly, he was officially charged with lying under oath, which he did, though they only go after you for that if they really hate you and can't get you for anything else. Especially if no real crime was committed before the investigation. Second, I didn't like that either, they only do it when they can't get you on something else, something real. Oh the shock and horror!

And second, what crimes? Why is Halliburton so evil? What did either Tricky Dick 2: Electric Boogaloo or Halliburton do that was in violation of the law?Can you name even one thing? I thought not.

There is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. It was best summed up by Lewis Black:

Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas.

Why is Halliburton so evil? What did either Tricky Dick 2: Electric Boogaloo or Halliburton do that was in violation of the law?Can you name even one thing? I thought not.
Halliburton hasn't done anything thats against the law, their completely unethical practices however, are criminal (sadly, not actually illegal).

Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of stupid ideas.
Corrected.

Yeah...but just about everything pertaining to politics that can be said has been on this board at one time or another. Repetition is only natural given enough activity over enough time, especially when the focus of discussion in on the American political scene where there are only two choices with a chance of winning, each claiming to be the diametric opposite of the other. The more time I bother to interest myself in politics, the more I see how pedantic all those involved are and how tired the logical fallacies that sevre as their argumets have become.

Do I even know what pedantic means?
...Perhaps...:D

This is the 10th or 12th "no shit sherlock" thread wilgrove has graffiti'd the forum with.

There is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. It was best summed up by Lewis Black:

Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas.

Ha...I like that.

My father was a lifelong Democrat. My mother jumped from left to right in the 80's and became a Republican, as did my sister. My brother could care less about politics. He just wants his beer cold, his pizza hot, and baseball, football, hockey (depending on the season) each weekend, and God help the politician that interrupts him. I've come to regard both the Dems and GOP with equal disdain. I've been a true independent from the hour I submitted my voter registration papers, nearly 20-years ago.

I take the time to scrutinize the candidates and issues and (usually) vote for a third party candidate whose vision and goals best represent the America that I want to live in and leave for my children.

well quite simply we have a system in america that makes running for, with any real chace of getting elected, a wee bit too depended upon the favor of vested largesse. particularly that of major economic interests.

so naturaly you have a situation where the major parties, and they've somehow managed to tie it up, will the election proceedure as outlined in the constitution helps keep it that way too, where they've pretty much squezed out any opportunity for real alternatives to arise, so you see them both kissing the ass of corporate interests. generaly of their both having to.

i think the dem's still have SOME intrest in the general well being as a mater of posture and even to some limited degree, policy. the repubelocraps on the other had, have never made any bones about what side their bread is buttered on. a refreshing honesty perhapse, but of negative bennifit over all.

with the growing dictatorial hegemony of corporatocracy the question of whether they have become for all practical purposes one party with two names is a not unreasonable one. sturcturaly, on paper at least, they are still entirely seperate entities. but i can see where from a great many perspectives they may seem merging toward indistinguishability.

there is however a clear dicotomy, even if it isn't along party lines.
between the best entrests of every actual living organizm, and those of conscousless economic interests which neither represent nor bennifit anyone other then themselves.

i still think there is are good reasons for voting against what pseudo-conservatism blatently and openly stands for. but i do conceed however, that simply voting a democratic party line is no guarantee of doing so.

this is why my intrest is more in issues then personalities, and i love being able to vote on ballot measures, even if it means having to do a lot of head scratching research to do so intelligently.

=^^=
.../\...

Ok, I think it's time for the people of the United States to be brutally honest with themselves. There really isn't any difference between the Democrat Party, and the Republican Party. In fact, they're on different side of the same coin! Don't believe me, I'll prove it.

Democrats like to influence your way of life through taxes.
Republican like to influence your way of life through legislation.

Democrats think that they are the superior party and that the Republicans are a bunch of ol' white men.
Republicans think that they are the superior party and that the Democrats are just Hippies liberals who wants to raise our taxes!

Democrat only care about the poor and the downthroten
Republicans only care about the rich and the wealthy
and Middle Class get screwed with no lube.

Both parties have extremist on their side.

Both parties have annoying pundits on their side.

Both parties always try to claim the moral high ground.

Both parties haven't put out a strong candidate for almost 10 years now.

Both parties have moderates that try to play to both sides for the votes, yay whoring!

Which is why, America needs to either get rid of the electoral college and give third parties a chance, or they need to overthrow one of the parties and let one of the third party have a chance.

You know I'm right.

If you don't like taxes you can be glad that you don't have any left wing party in USA. The republicans are extreme right wingers while the democrats are moderate right wingers.
I agree with you that you need to get rid of the electoral college in USA since it makes it impossible for candidates that actually believe in something and have an own agenda to come through.

The difference between the parties: The Dems want to screw us leftwards, and the Repubs wants to screw us rightwards.

Um, how the fuck can an exemplar of the global capitalist system be a left-wing extremist?

But there be the point!

They're not left-wing, are they?

No! They're both right-wing!

Corrected.

You don't correct Lewis Black. It's unpossible. :eek:

I agree. It's simply this problem: the Democrats betrayed true Liberals, and the Republicans betrayed true Conservatives.

But there be the point!

They're not left-wing, are they?

No! They're both right-wing!

They're not ANYTHING. Except selfish.

Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, George Soros, etc.

And what is extreme about their views?

Kucinich is a moderate liberal, the only thing extreme about him is the diminutiveness of his standing in the polls.

Clinton is a moderate Conservative, the only thing extreme about her is her profile.

Soros is a liberal but, the only thing extreme about him is his money.

Hillary Clinton is not an extremist

I guess right wingers gauge extremism by how much they don't like it. They hate communism, so communism is extreme. They hate gun control, so gun control is extreme. They hate Clintons, so being a Clinton is extreme.

Like that I could argue that the CSU is the same as the Linkspartei:

The CSU is a party which only matters in a part of Germany.
The Linkspartei is a party which only matter in a part of Germany.

The CSU is a corrupt bunch of losers.
The Linkspartei is a corrupt bunch of losers.

The CSU is primarily a party for those who think times change too fast.
The Linkspartei is primarily a party for those who think times change too fast.

The CSU mourns the loss of old values.
So does the Linkspartei.

In an interview with The Washington Post on November 11, 2003, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death."

Hillary Clinton's "It takes a village to raise a child." It doesn't really, it takes good parents and some peer interaction, not the whole local adult community.

And Kucinich filed impeechment charges against the VP despite him not committing any crimes, a move that no other Democratic presidential candidate is supporting. He's also drafting legislation to completely ban handgun ownership by civilians, which is also receiving little support from his fellow dems.

None of that is extremism.

Opposing a president is not extremism unless he's raising a mercenary force to do it by violence.

Clinton pointed out that most parents need the support of other parents in raising their children. This is not political extremism. It is reality. My wife and I both work. I don't know what we'd do without the support of our parents, and friends who watch our daughter from time to time. Parents without that support rely on daycare, which is not a safe, nor supportive environment for a small child, and constitutes a rented "village." If this is political extremism, it isn't left-wing extremism. She's pointing out that the extended family structure of the 19th century had advantages to the nuclear family of the twentieth. That makes her more conservative than the conservatives, who argue for legislative promotion of the isolated nuclear family, but only do so as a disguised homophobic agenda.

Bush lies to Congress repeatedly. That is a crime. Contempt of Congress is a crime, and he has said publicly when Congress subpoenas records he refuses to turn them over. He lied to the country to start a war. Hell, a jaundiced eye would observe that he has committed hundreds of thousands of cases of "conspiracy to commit murder."

I always chuckle at the idea of americans believing they have any mainstream "extremist" left-wingers. In america you have right wingers, and occasionally some of them approach the centre, but you don't have left wingers. And yes, that includes the democrats.

But despite the similarities between the american parties, you should probably see how bad the two main UK parties have gotten.

Labour: We'll fight terrorism!
Tories: We'll fight terrorism... more!

Labour: We'll fix climate change.
Tories: We'll fix climate change... better!

Labour: We'll grow the NHS!
Tories: We'll grow the NHS even more!

Wow, real choice there.

Of course, you could argue that neither of them tend to do what they say, so comparing them based soley on their propositions seems like a wasted exercise.

It's just another lib dems/greens vote from me I guess.

Recent events in the US should highlight why it absolutely DOES matter which party is in power.

A Democratic Congress would not have passed the disgustingly unconstitutional "partial birth abortion" bill. A Democratic president wouldn't have signed it. And the Supreme Court ruled AGAINST banning abortion procedures without exceptions for women's health, back when O'Connor was still on the bench. But now we have a troop of Republican-appointed justices making blatantly UNconstitutional rulings in favor of Republican-pushed legislation that violates the fundamental human rights of 51% of the American population.

Firstly, he was officially charged with lying under oath, which he did, though they only go after you for that if they really hate you and can't get you for anything else. Especially if no real crime was committed before the investigation. Second, I didn't like that either, they only do it when they can't get you on something else, something real. Oh the shock and horror!

And second, what crimes? Why is Halliburton so evil? What did either Tricky Dick 2: Electric Boogaloo or Halliburton do that was in violation of the law?Can you name even one thing? I thought not.

Evil is not defines as a violation of the law. Plenty of evil can be done that lawyers can keep you out of jail for. And just because you can buy enough politicians to keep you out of trouble, does not mean that you haven't committed a crime. Deep pockets buy a lot of government (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/23/iraq/main595277.shtml) forgiveness, but that doesn't make what you did right.

Recent events in the US should highlight why it absolutely DOES matter which party is in power.

A Democratic Congress would not have passed the disgustingly unconstitutional "partial birth abortion" bill. A Democratic president wouldn't have signed it. And the Supreme Court ruled AGAINST banning abortion procedures without exceptions for women's health, back when O'Connor was still on the bench. But now we have a troop of Republican-appointed justices making blatantly UNconstitutional rulings in favor of Republican-pushed legislation that violates the fundamental human rights of 51% of the American population.

Quoted for truth. And let's expand it. A Democratic Congress wouldn't have passed the resolution allowing the Iraq War, and President Al Gore (who would have been in charge at the time) wouldn't have asked for it. A Democratic Congress has passed a law raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, and a Republican president is about to veto it (along with a bill that would fund the Iraq War). And we haven't even gotten into global warming legislation or Social Security privatization or the hundreds of other issues on which there are significant differences between the two parties.

And second, what crimes? Why is Halliburton so evil? What did either Tricky Dick 2: Electric Boogaloo or Halliburton do that was in violation of the law?Can you name even one thing? I thought not.
Well, as far as Halliburton is concerned, there's all those cases of overcharging the US military for gas in Iraq, along with the billions of dollars in reconstruction funds that have gone unaccounted for. The investigations are just beginning, my friend.

Partisan liberals are not extremists.

But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in...

So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal!

I never took you for an Ochs fan. Shows what I know (that or you listen to one of the artists who ripped the song off :p ).

My band used to perform that song in jest (being, all of us, liberals of some degree or another).

They're not ANYTHING. Except selfish.

That might actually be a better way of looking at politics :p

"So, are you left-wing or right-wing?"

"Me? No, I'm selfish"

Firstly, he was officially charged with lying under oath,

Lying under oath is not a crime.

Lying under oath is not a crime.
per·ju·ry (pûr'jə-rē)
n.
pl. per·ju·ries
Law The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.

Perjury is a crime because the witness has sworn to tell the truth and, for the credibility of the court, witness testimony must be relied on as being truthful. Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law provides for a prison sentence of up to five years, and is found at 18 U.S.C. § 1621. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

http://www.hlcomic.com/images/frohwnedspray02.jpg

back when O'Connor was still on the bench. But now we have a troop of Republican-appointed justices

I understand where you're coming from...but don't forget that O'Connor was appointed by Reagan.

The problem with both parties is that the vast majority of members of those parties place the welfare of their own party over that of the nation as a whole. The term "bi-partisan+ gets tossed around a lot these days but can anybody remember the last time there was a true and meaningful bipartsan vote? (Well there was the war, but Democrats like to pretend otherwise.)

Republicans are more interested in doing what it takes to try and get a popular candidate and to hell with what the country needs.

Democrats are intereste din consolidating their power base and getting the Republican out of the White House and to hell with what the country needs.

Meanwhile, both parties are slowly legislating us to death with law after law after law, all usually based on the latest 6 o'clock news story, all designed to make them appear to be acting in our interest by saying "See! I helped pass tougher laws to hammer drunk drivers/illegal aliens/sex offenders/terrorist suspects/hate criminals/gun owners! Re-Elect me!" While an election opponent promises to do the exact same things.

George Washington was right to want to avoid political parties, but I think he was a little naieve in thinking there was a chance they wouldn't get formed. Even so, it's time to put these two out to pasture and bring in something new and relevant. Everytime I hear terms like "Reagan Conservative" or "JFK Democrat" I want to gag. This is 2007, not 1985 or 1962.

Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, George Soros, etc.

Okay, let's do a little bit of schooling in politics. Hillary Clinton sits in the dead center of the political spectrum. Kucinich is hardly extreme, he sits barely outside "mainstream" in politics, and George Soros is very centrist in his politics.

Now, if you want to look at an "extremist" then take a look at me.

I am an extremist and proud of it. My Political Compass scores are Economic Left/Right: -9.88, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.21. That is the domain of extremism.

per·ju·ry

Which is not the same thing as lying under oath. One of those things they taught us lawyers back when we were in lawschool. As much as I trust the verasity of....some random online dictionary, I do believe I'll stick with Black's

and is found at 18 U.S.C. § 1621

18 U.S.C. § 1621 huh? Well let's see what 18 U.S.C. § 1621 has to say shall we?

Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true

http://www.hlcomic.com/images/frohwnedspray02.jpg

Here, you might want to have that back.

Lying under oath is not a crime.

Committing a deliberate fraud on the United States Congress is. (18 U.S.C, 371)

Committing a deliberate fraud on the United States Congress is. (18 U.S.C, 371)

1. Who is accused of doing that?

2. No. It isn't that simple. Simply lying to Congress doesn't qualify.
18 U.S.C. § 371:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.


See also, United State's Attorney's Manual, 923 18 U.S.C. § 371 -- Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00923.htm)

Committing a deliberate fraud on the United States Congress is. (18 U.S.C, 371)

um...yes, yes it is. How is that of relevance?

Name one extremist who supports the Democrats.


Ruth Ginsburg and Bill Clinton for supporting her.

I never took you for an Ochs fan. Shows what I know (that or you listen to one of the artists who ripped the song off :p ).

Both, actually.

I listen to Phil Ochs... but I listen to Evan Greer (http://www.evangreer.com/x/evan/liberal.html), too.

Ruth Ginsburg and Bill Clinton for supporting her.

How is she an "extremist"?

Ginsburg is extremist? WTF?

Both, actually.

I listen to Phil Ochs... but I listen to Evan Greer (http://www.evangreer.com/x/evan/liberal.html), too.

A good listen. Thanks.

Ruth Ginsburg and Bill Clinton for supporting her.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is only an extremist if treating women like people counts as extremism.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is only an extremist if treating women like people counts as extremism.
Women aren't people, they're property! Daddy makes the rules and mommy makes a sandwich.:p

um...yes, yes it is. How is that of relevance?

A former US prosecutor used that statute to build a case to impeach Bush & co. for misleading the US congress about WMDs in Iraq.

There is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. It was best summed up by Lewis Black:

Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas.

How dare you simplify this topic with such a quote Why I am a strong supporter of the...*head explodes*

Won't add anything to the debate, as I got nothing to do with your parties over there... I'll just quote Sage Francis.

Republocrat, Demoncran, one-party system.

Well, I agree that both parties are more or less exactly the same, but most definately not for any of those reasons.
I personally am a moderate conservative and live in the United States, and before you get all uppity about it, I'm also an informed voter. I'm also very pessimistic about political structure in the United States, especially since all my concerns were only magnified after taking my Freshman (college) Government course.

Reality:
Democrats and Republicans in Congress are the same because their all politicians with no idea what they're doing. Their one main goal is to keep getting voted for, and as long as they make it look like they're trying to fix 'problems' they will be. Even if all they do is horrendously screw everything up.

Possible Solution?
In an ideal world, citizens of the US would just vote all the idiots out and vote for people who care. Considering no person of real character runs for a Federal public office, we're all screwed.

I agree fully agree with what Neo Bretonnia has said at least up until this point.

There is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. It was best summed up by Lewis Black:

Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas.

I'd have to vote Democrat then.

Although there will be no new ideas, doing nothing seems to cost less than fueling bad ones. :cool:

So no change but no massive debt. At least if we go out, we go out with some money in our pockets.