[What does the 2010 Midterm mean for you?]

If you really believe that Bansky, I'm sorry. You've made me a sad panda

[What does the 2010 Midterm mean for you?]

Must be why he took a swipe at the supposed NON PARTISAN supreme court when they made a ruling he did not agree with, during his sotu address. Also why democrats held closed door meetings and locked conservatives out, during the healthcare drafting earlier this year.

Do try to take credit where credit is due folks. Afterall, we wouldn't be here, in this era of "Change", if not for you!

[What does the 2010 Midterm mean for you?]

It's hard to take video footage of people's own words out of context. I suppose we should simply ignore the Van Jones characters out there. Afterall, he was taken completely out of context.

Further, spare me the liberal diatribe of corporate greed. Corporations and banks got just as much support from democrats, as republicans. Even after the white wool of "main street" was pulled over the eyes of voters. I support candidates, not parties. I voted for a democrat in this election, because he supported what I thought was best.

If this debate has taught me one thing, it's that partisan politics is the real enemy. The sooner Obama can see this, the easier it will be for congress to get back to work.

[What does the 2010 Midterm mean for you?]

That's be a good argument if not for the fact that the republicans have ran on a platform of no compromise, and they are not interested in governing. They are interested in politics, and nothing more. You won't see anything of value that does not favor corporations or the wealthy coming out of congress, (if you see anything at all). The senate has never been a bastion of liberalism anyway, so your worries about the senate democrats needing to be dragged right are unfounded. It's the republicans who are the obstacle to bipartisanship, always have been.

First, I apologize about the statement regarding the military. I misunderstood you, and It lead me to believe in what I wrote, but I digress. I didn't mean to insult your patriotism or belief that our men and women do good works around the world, and defend our rights at home.

I really see no point in continuing this discussion. You obviously drink the kool aide enough to realize that no matter what I say, it's not going to change your mind. The facts are available to the American people, and it's unfortunate that reasonable democrats are consistently being co-opted by radical marxists and fabian socialists, hellbent on destroying this great nation.

[What does the 2010 Midterm mean for you?]

You can't possibly be serious, nothing is going to get done because of the filibuster. We are going to have nothing but deadlock, until the house tries to shut down government (which they have talked about doing), at which point things will get even worse for everyone. The filibuster has destroyed the ability of the senate to compromise. There will be no meaningful legislation, things will stagnate.

I am deadly serious. With the threat of the filibuster, that means that democrats will either have to moderate, or face the fact that they will be unable to push their agenda through. If you look at history, this country has usually had a divided government and that minus a few hiccups, that's generally how we operate. Divided government doesn't cause stalemate. It forces both parties to come to the center and work together. We saw with Bush, and now with Obama, that when either party retains full control over both chambers and the white house, bad things happen.

[What does the 2010 Midterm mean for you?]

In my opinion the pundits and many people are over thinking it. I'm hearing things on television and written online that because there the Dems are the majority in the senate and that the GOP is the majority in the house that the American people want a dead locked congress. Or that they want Obama to be more moderate, etc etc. In most cases voters weighed the results of the incumbent against the vision and ability the challenger had to offer. This year the economy is bad and so people voted against the party in power. There isn't some change in beliefs of the people from 2008, and there is no specific for desire for any complicated dead lock scheme.

Actually, if anything, this election has shown a return to normalcy in American politics. Traditionally, America works best under a divided government. The elections of 2006 and 2008 were aberrations to that historical fact. What we saw is a return to the normal state of affairs in the US.

[What does the 2010 Midterm mean for you?]

The alleged character of those around him does nothing to detract from the fact that his policies have been more right wing than, say, Nixon. He is an idealistic moderate, not an avowed socialist or Marxist.

The modern republican party is still trotting out the same ridiculous economic principals of the establishment republicans of old. Namely that you can tax cut the nation into prosperity. Their policies are identical, they have no ideas to solve the big issues facing the nation beyond "cut taxes on the rich, hope for the best" and "deregulation==good (What subprime mortgage crisis?)". They have no intention of tackling the deficit or else they would end the top 1% tax cuts. They have no intention of cutting the ballooning military spending which threatens us far more than Al Queda (Not that the pansy modern day democrats would ever think of trying to cut it either, mind you, but if you want to get serious about deficit reduction without raising taxes, there's where to cut).

They have no new ideas, they just have louder old ideas.

He's been co-opted by the marxists around him. I truly do not believe he is a radical, however it is no secret that his administration is filled with mostly radicals similar to Van Jones in scope. The president does nothing alone, and the democratic legislative branch and the white house have moved this country to the left in a significant shift within the last 21 months. I would argue that Nixon wasn't as left as Obama and that's a rationalization of the trillions of dollars that have been spent with TARP/Stimulus and Obamacare spending. Unfortunately, I think most Americans don't understand the truth about Barrack Obama and the louder voices are the nut jobs that think the Tea Party are racists and fascists.

Also, I dislike how you can conservative ideology into misnomers and fallacious one liners. "Tax Cutting into prosperity" is an inappropriate representation of the conservative platform. It would be best served with "not spending money faster than we can print it". How does that suit you? Conservatism is more about being fiscally responsible with our money, that is given to the federal and state governments, by us. It's not so much about cutting taxes, but that is a big deal to conservatives. I think most conservatives realize that it's time to lessen taxation, yes, but it's more important to be frugal with the money we have and to let certain institutions fail as opposed to spending billions in bailout packages. That has contrasted sharply to the traditional "establishment" republicans you're claiming these newcomers are. The traditional GOP died in 2006, and it was buried in 2008. The new party is that of the Tea Party or derivatives thereof, and to claim they have no new ideas, is ignorance of the facts. The new GOP represents as close to a libertarian ideology than it ever has since this nation's founding.

EDIT: I also like how you attributed our men and women in uniform to a danger to their own countrymen. Do elaborate on that theory. I'm interested to see how the armed forces of the country are worse than over 3,000 deaths at the hands of muslim extremists.

[What does the 2010 Midterm mean for you?]

Oh, by the way. Obama's agenda is by no means "radical", it's far, far too moderate and corporation-friendly. He just keeps trying for impossible compromises when what he needs to do is make the case to the American people for his policies, and he hasn't done that. The right wing spin machine will continue to distort and confuse the issues, and make even the most conservative legislation (the romneycare healthcare bill for example), into a marxist plot to kill old people.

First, the policies of Republicans after 2001 were for the most part, similar to Democratic ones. Republicans raised taxes, increased spending and enlarged the size of government to levels higher than under Bill Clinton in the 90's. Right now, no arguments will come from credible conservatives that George Bush didn't harm the economy. He did, because he was an establishment, country club republican with as much a penchant for spending as any democrat practically. There might have been a few exceptions, but that's generally the case.

As for "radical", yes it is radical for this country. While socialism may not be radical to you, it remains a fact that the President of the United States of America is indeed surrounded by avowed marxists, socialists and other radical organization. The "right wing spin" machine as you put it, rarely makes these claims themselves, but rather they show these people in their own words, admitting to their political ideologies. I don't understand how the democratic party can be so co-opted by these radicals, when the biggest losers in the midterms this year, were moderate democrats. So not only has the democratic party been hi jacked, but it's more center left officials have been removed from power. It's even more left than it was two years ago at this point.