At least in the United States:

That's why. Freedom of speech doesn't mean only when it's convenient for _you_.

Well said. I could not have said it any better. (and in fact, I didn't).

Those are two very different things. Paying down the debt regularly is not the same thing as keeping deficits to less than the rate of GDP growth. Both parties were spending more money than they were taking in.

Further, a reduction in deficit is not a reduction in debt. Slowing the growth of the debt is not what we needed then, or need now. And no, reducing the deficit is not an acceptable intermediate step, like Bush's "cut the deficit in half in five years." That's like telling your creditors, "I'm going to cut my credit card spending in half next year."

Yes, the debt was reduced under Bill Clinton's watch, with a surplus near the end. Remember though that the Congress makes the budget (controlled by the GOP during the surpluses). Also remember that the end of Clinton's 2nd term was the dot-com bubble.

Bush's deficits pale in comparison to Obama's (who has a majority in both houses).

Federal Deficits 1990 to 2015

Keep? How do you mean keep? And as for Obama's spending, are we better off?

That is an unfortunate quote. Maybe not politically in the short term, but deficits do matter. Debt matters. Both parties share the blame. Both parties have grown the size of government. If we don't turn it around, we'll go the way of Greece.

The real problem though isn't discretionary spending, it's entitlements. On the present course, there will be a day when the revenue of the federal government will not be enough to service the entitlements, and neither party wants to admit it (at least while the other party is in power).

Absolutely, and in my experience, most so-called "moderates" really are this way. They often act as though they are above the fray, but when pressed, they don't seem to have any real knowledge of the issues. They are often people who are just going to complain regardless of who is in power, and they think that makes them "the middle." (I'm not saying _every_ moderate is like this, but I've met my share. There are those, however, who genuinely _are_ moderates. I believe them to be in the minority.).

Ideology is not a bad word. People try to make it one, though. Ideology is simply a world view. "I believe that the world operates this way." If you believe a certain ideology (and everyone does), then the wise move is to find candidates who see the world the same way you do. Most of it comes down to a person's answer to a single question: Is who you are mostly determined by things within your control or by things beyond your control? If you answer "within your control," then you are likely a conservative, and have ideology which believes that success comes from hard work and should not be punished or demonized. If you believe the answer is "beyond your control" then you are likely more liberal, and believe things like the wealth should be spread around or shared, that those at the top often had "unfair" advantages over those at the bottom. Both viewpoints have merit, and are the basis of the two political parties we have in the US. The rest is just details, but they are important details.

I believe that the free market, with controls, is the best system in the world. Our system is not perfect, but I don't know of one that is better.

I'm not sure about being wrong half the time. Most issues are multi-dimensional, and time is one of the dimensions. What's good for the short term is not always good for the long term. That was one of the goals in the design of our legislative branch. A house of representatives which held elections every 2 years (considers the short term), and a senate in which senators serve 6 years (and considers the long term).

You know the old saying, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others which have been tried." (we don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic, but you get the idea :) )

Great post. You have my respect.

sure..

http://firedoglake.com/2007/10/15/breaking-news-hillary-pledges-to-end-war-immediately-upon-taking-office/

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeech2/a/HillaryIraq.htm

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1213724783

Or alternatively, it's all political. D's protest R's and R's protest D's.

In 2008 the D's ran on pulling out of Iraq immediately. Now that they're in power, they realize it's not so simple (kind of like the GOP was saying all along).

Not sure how he's "getting us out of the wars" when he sent 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan.

You can't have it both ways and say that "there are still protests," AND "they're not protesting because Obama's better."

You are right. There have been some protests. I'd like to see some numbers on how many people actually show up now vs before. They haven't been news since Obama took over though. The talking heads on the left don't bring them up anymore either.

[E]xtremists in both party seem to out shout the pragmatists.

Don't take this as a personal attack. I don't know anything about you, and this may not apply to you necessarily (but it applies to many), but your one line above got me thinking...

I don't buy the argument that "both sides are extreme, and moderates are good." What does moderate even mean? Where is the real middle? If one party moved to where the middle is right now, then some would call the new "middle" to be between the new positions of the parties. I don't think it makes anyone sound intelligent to say "I'm a moderate, I hate them both."

Political preferences should be about ideas, real ideas about real issues, not about parties. Part of the way the human mind works is that it tries to simplify things. Many issues are not simple. Politicians can sit across from one another and say two opposite things, and often both have some bit of merit. Figure out what _you_ believe on real issues, not "which party you are or hate." Then, vote for the candidate which believes these things.

Why the name calling? Serious. Can't anyone have a serious conversation here about politics without being called a "teabagger?"

You say there were no protests until Bush was out of office. Fine. There should have been. You do have to admit that Democrats are worse on the Tea Party crowd's issues (spending and deficit), than the Republicans though.

So to your comment about the timing of the whole thing, I'd like to know where the anti-war protesters are now? Where are the "close Gitmo" people now? Where is Cindy Sheehan? They all shut up as soon as Obama took office. That's the way it goes. Protests come out of frustration.

As to your last point, how about some proof. Who says that it was created by the establishment? Just because someone has a different political opinion than you do doesn't meant they're a shill or an "easily-led moron" or anything else. People on the right have been crying out for real conservative leadership for ages. Instead they have gotten RINOs. Tea Party people want the Republicans to wake up and return to conservative principles.

The Tea Party, is not a political party. Tea Parties started as local demonstrations of people concerned about the direction of our country, and about the agenda that the Democrats in Washington DC were and are pushing. Tea Parties were born out of a frustration with the complete lack of conservative representation in the legislature and in the White House (as both chambers and the White House are controlled by Democrats). The name Tea Party is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, where colonial Americans demonstrated against Taxation Without Representation.

I have found it unfortunate since the very beginning that the term "Tea Party" shares the word "Party" with term "Political Party." The Tea Party is not a political Party. There is no "The Tea Party." It is independent groups of people who demonstrate for (largely) fiscally conservative principles. Some surely hold up signs for social issues, foreign policy issues and other things, but that doesn't seem to be the main thrust. The main thrust is fiscal. (I'd like to point out that the media likes to take pictures of the nut-jobbest people and signs they can find. I've personally seen them do it at a FairTax rally, where they found the one guy holding a non-tax-related sign. You can't believe that the pictures you see in the media are necessarily an accurate representation of what goes on at a Tea Party rally).

Unfortunately, many unscrupulous types have used this confusion arising from the word "Party" to their advantage, to try to use the name "Tea Party" for profit and or political damage. In Florida, for example, someone did actually register a political party named "The Tea Party." Some accuse Democrat Alan Grayson for doing this to split the conservative vote between the GOP (Republicans) and the Tea Party candidate. I don't think anyone has any proof of a conspiracy, but the net effect is a help to the Democrats (and Grayson).

Further, there are multiple separate national groups that use the Tea Party name. One is the Tea Party Express, a national bus tour. Another which gets national press is the Tea Party Patriots. There is a list of others on Wikipedia. These organizations are all separate from one another, and sometimes even endorse different candidates from one another. Further, the people who attend the rallies don't necessarily consider any one group or another to be their leadership. Tea Party rallies are often organized at the local level. They occur in large cities, and even in small towns. (I'm not saying that every single Tea Party rally is local. No, I don't have a percentage).

The aim of the Tea Party is _not_ to create a national political party. The aim is largely to reform the Republican Party. Tea Party attenders largely believe that the Republican Party failed them during the Bush years, increasing the size of government, and increasing the national debt. Tea Party-goers favor voting out RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), and replacing them with true fiscal conservatives who want to reverse the current trends of deficit spending and government increase.

Note that everything I say is a "by-and-large" assessment of Tea Party-goers. I don't want to hear "well not EVERY Tea Party-goer believes that, etc. I'm sure there's at least one who believes just about any side of any issue, and I'm sure that one has been written about in the press.

All that to say, it annoys me no end that even Fox News seems to get it wrong all the time by saying things like "Tea Party Candidate." when they should be saying something like, "Tea Party-endorsed Republican Candidate," or "Tea Party Favorite," (which they do say sometimes and is slightly less confusing).

In summary, the Tea Party is NOT a political party.

[btw: I tried to make this post understandable to those not necessarily familiar with American politics, hence some of the "obvious" (to Americans) stuff.]

Obligatory Douglas Adams, "From So Long and Thanks for All the Fish"

Copied from: http://www.squidoo.com/douglasadamspage

Wow, you certainly put a lot of words in my mouth, and did some name-calling to boot! Let's go through it.

I said, profit is not inherently bad. I didn't say that all profit is good.

I think _you_ don't get the point. Thrift and second-hand stores are _not_ entirely about poor people. Some are for-profit businesses. Most are selling donated merchandise to raise money for their organization (Hospice, etc). Turns out, it _is_ all about profit for _them_. It's about how much money they can make from the stuff that was donated while spending the least amount of money to do it. I resubmit my argument that if there was any real money in selling books on Amazon, the thrift stores would do it themselves, because thrift stores _are_ in the business of profit.

Agreed. No argument there. There are scumbags in every line of work. It doesn't mean that everyone who cares about profit is a scumbag.

Are you saying that it's bad to do a job which is easier than to do a job which is harder? By your logic, everyone not working road construction is a "scumbag" because anyone doing anything "easier" is doing it because "ultimately it's easier than getting a real job." Clearly that kind of logic is faulty. Jobs are easy and hard in different ways.

I want to run a business where people come to my house and hand me dollar bills. Turns out though, that people don't want to come hand me cash. The point is, you don't get to stay in business just because you run a the kind of business you want to run. To stay in business, you have to do something that people _want_. Because of the internet and Amazon, what people _want_ in the book-buying world is changing. A business owner can either get on board, or go out of business pining for the good old days.

I never said any of that. But that's quite an accusation. A food pantry is different from a thrift store. A food pantry has food that has been donated by individuals to be given to the poor, free of charge. Taking food from a pantry if you don't need it is clearly wrong. Thrift stores on the other hand (well, most anyway) have items which have been donated by individuals so that they can be _sold_ to raise money for the organization running the store.

Buying books from a thrift store and selling them on Amazon for a small profit is a lot different than taking food from a food pantry.

[citation needed]

Tithing is also talked about in Malachi 3, starting at verse 8:

What's wrong with profit? If it weren't for profit, nobody would do anything. That's what makes capitalism and the free market strong. People want to make profit, so they find something to do which will generate a profit, which corresponds to making things people want/need or providing services people want/need. Oh yeah, that takes _work_, and lots of it.

Buying items in a thrift store doesn't take advantage of anybody's generosity. You're buying items for the price they are marked. Do you go into stores and pay more than what they are asking? If a thrift store thought they could be making more money on Amazon, they would hire their own person with a barcode scanner to scan the books in their store, then post them on Amazon, then ship them to customers if and when they sell for a dollar or two more than their sticker price in the thrift store to begin with. Why don't they do this? Because this process takes _work_ and hiring people to do work is expensive. The reason people do this on their own is because it's something they enjoy doing on their off time. And if they make a couple of bucks off all the effort they put into it, then so be it, good for them. Have you considered also that maybe the thrift store is selling books that they might not otherwise sell (at least sell soon)?