[asinclair]

The political divide. The problem is that now both sides of the aisle has adopted the slogan "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." The problem is that the two sides see vastly different solutions, solutions that are mutually exclusive. Tax increases versus spending cuts. Big government versus little government. The Entitlement mentality versus the rely-on-ones-self mentality.

"Everything in moderation" has been lost in the debate. Part of the reason, I think, is that the media tends to report any discussion about where we go as a "horse race", and judging from the posts here and from the posts on Huffington, there is this attitude the politics is a zero-sum game. WINNERS and LOSERS.

Even pResident Obama has expressed his zero-sum view of politics with two words during the budget debate: "I won." And with that, we all lost.

The math of economics doesn't have to be a zero-sum exercise. The math of governing doesn't have to be a zero-sum exercise, either. If you are a free-individual believer, test that belief against what you would prohibit others from doing. How does it directly harm *you*? That should be the test for any prohibition. How does your prohibition keep you from doing the act?

Part of the reason I consider both political "brands" as tainted is because I see difference only in details, not degree or level of hypocrisy.

For the religious, I suggest you look up Matthew 7:3 and ponder the reams of words behind the single line.

[jboot]

Saying "a pox on both your houses" is a cop-out. Are you positing a Third Way?

And to what are you referring when you say "If you are a free-individual believer, test that belief against what you would prohibit others from doing. How does it directly harm *you*?"