Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Independent Mind
Is this you? Claim Profile »
7 months ago
in Onward Skeptic Soldiers on The Washington Independent
Interesting, but not very factual in what the writer tries to get the reader to beleive. NO ONE in the military is forced to go to a service or has to take religious materials. they hold services for those religous beleifs within the ranks. You want to go, go. You don't want to go, don't go.
If Mr. Hall is being treated this way, those who are doing it are not representing what a christian should be at all in their behaviour. However, something about this smells very much lkike the agenda behind getting prayer out of school. If I don't want to pray in school or are offended by someone next to me praying, then noone should be allowed to pray. B.S. At the end of the day, you have a right to not beleive anything you want. It's a gift given to you - free choice. But it is obvious that free choice is trying to be limited by those who don't like what some of the choices are.
There are people who want every aspect of thew world to be secular. This is the agenda here. I see this as limting people's right to worship openly, regardless if they are in the military or not. I guess it is so easy to explain why 90% of the world has this beleif in one form or another, but in true American spirit the 10% try to push their agenda on the rest of us. I can think of a few other examples of this as well......Sounds like your beef is more with these indiviuals Mr. Hall than with the religion itself. I think the interesting question here is that if Mr. Hall had enough backbone and understanding of his own beleifs, why didn't he try to set down and talk to them rathetr than having to sue for something that will no doubt broaden the original perspective. My gut tells me he doesn't have enough sense to seet down and talk to anyone about it. He doesn't have the fortitude to back up his own beleifs.
If Mr. Hall is being treated this way, those who are doing it are not representing what a christian should be at all in their behaviour. However, something about this smells very much lkike the agenda behind getting prayer out of school. If I don't want to pray in school or are offended by someone next to me praying, then noone should be allowed to pray. B.S. At the end of the day, you have a right to not beleive anything you want. It's a gift given to you - free choice. But it is obvious that free choice is trying to be limited by those who don't like what some of the choices are.
There are people who want every aspect of thew world to be secular. This is the agenda here. I see this as limting people's right to worship openly, regardless if they are in the military or not. I guess it is so easy to explain why 90% of the world has this beleif in one form or another, but in true American spirit the 10% try to push their agenda on the rest of us. I can think of a few other examples of this as well......Sounds like your beef is more with these indiviuals Mr. Hall than with the religion itself. I think the interesting question here is that if Mr. Hall had enough backbone and understanding of his own beleifs, why didn't he try to set down and talk to them rathetr than having to sue for something that will no doubt broaden the original perspective. My gut tells me he doesn't have enough sense to seet down and talk to anyone about it. He doesn't have the fortitude to back up his own beleifs.
1 reply
8 months ago
in Gay Marriage Advocates Sue To Block Prop 8 in California on The Washington Independent
This article is absolutely comical - at best. Daphne needs a history lesson on marriage. Marriage is a religious act wher a man and a woman wish to join together in a sanctioned union with God. If your married, you might want to go back and revisit your vows. That is the REAL authority behind marriage. There is no religion in the WORLD that truly recognizes gay marriage (within the scope of Gods true intention of marriage). thus their eager attempt ot have it somehow legitimizede by the government.
The worst thing ANY religion did was allow government intervention over marriage. It was never theirs to determine right or wrong over. Christians got duped when they tried to get the government to help define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Stupid. Anytime you seek the governments "approval" and redress of an issue, they have to treat all parties equally. They should have seen that one coming. They fell right into the strategy of the gay marriage advocates.
Why are they so concerned about how it is viewed? Say your married- we don't give a crap. If this is somehow thew only way you feel you be legitimzed in your relationship, you have much deeper and overwhelming issues to deal with. They are more concerned with how they are viewed rather than the inherent inconsistencies they seem to be living out. Say your married, say your engaged, say your gay - NO ONE CARES. Just repsect the people voice when it is carried out.. When you fight that, what ever your cause is, your going to lose thecwar. Even if you win this battle.
The worst thing ANY religion did was allow government intervention over marriage. It was never theirs to determine right or wrong over. Christians got duped when they tried to get the government to help define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Stupid. Anytime you seek the governments "approval" and redress of an issue, they have to treat all parties equally. They should have seen that one coming. They fell right into the strategy of the gay marriage advocates.
Why are they so concerned about how it is viewed? Say your married- we don't give a crap. If this is somehow thew only way you feel you be legitimzed in your relationship, you have much deeper and overwhelming issues to deal with. They are more concerned with how they are viewed rather than the inherent inconsistencies they seem to be living out. Say your married, say your engaged, say your gay - NO ONE CARES. Just repsect the people voice when it is carried out.. When you fight that, what ever your cause is, your going to lose thecwar. Even if you win this battle.
1 reply
dft1247
lol.... Does anyone else find the name "independent mind" ironic? I love how you say that the government treating everyone equally is a bad thing. How about this, lets propose a bill that makes it so that Christians and Mormons aren't allowed to get married. I bet that would get quite an outcry from people like yourself, dont you think? I guess the fact that you actually believe in god and "the sanctity of marriage" speaks novels about the world that YOU live in. What's the divorce rate at? 50%? 70+% in Hollywood? Yeah, that's real sacred. Good thing that you are keeping it from being "tainted" from the likes of gays.
The fundamental problem here is that the government has mixed church and state with offering benefits to married couples. YES, YOU ARE RIGHT, marriage STARTED OUT as a religious union but as we have evolved as a society (and the religions are a little slow to follow) it has become more than just something that the religions are participating in governing. It is now a legal matter and when you are making laws, sadly, you can't just exclude a particular group of people just because you don't like them. That's not how law works, sorry man.
I don't care what you think of gay people, they are try to vote Discrimination into law. That is a fact. I'm not even gay nor do I live in California, it just pisses me off to see all of this retard rhetoric and LIES about the gay community. "It's being taught in our schools!" that is a great way to try and scare level headed people into voting for such a hateful bill but regretably that is not true. After going through the public school system in Oregon (a very liberal state) I only knew of 1 teach who even mentioned homosexuality and that was because he was challenged on it by a student and all he said is that he had a friend who he liked before he knew he was gay so why should knowing that he was gay change the content of his character. These ads about kids in elementary school learning about homosexuality are just desperate attempts by the conservative extreme to stop progress.
Let me guess, do you also support a ban on interracial marriage?
If it is a sanctified union with god how come Atheists can get married?
I know that you have been brain-washing by your religion to think that this particular group of people are "evil" but when your children's children look back on this they will be just as disgusted with the hate brought on through these events as we are by those of the civil rights movement for equal rights for African-Americans (i know that African-Americans suffered through much worse for their rights but they paved the way for everyone else who will follow them).
The fundamental problem here is that the government has mixed church and state with offering benefits to married couples. YES, YOU ARE RIGHT, marriage STARTED OUT as a religious union but as we have evolved as a society (and the religions are a little slow to follow) it has become more than just something that the religions are participating in governing. It is now a legal matter and when you are making laws, sadly, you can't just exclude a particular group of people just because you don't like them. That's not how law works, sorry man.
I don't care what you think of gay people, they are try to vote Discrimination into law. That is a fact. I'm not even gay nor do I live in California, it just pisses me off to see all of this retard rhetoric and LIES about the gay community. "It's being taught in our schools!" that is a great way to try and scare level headed people into voting for such a hateful bill but regretably that is not true. After going through the public school system in Oregon (a very liberal state) I only knew of 1 teach who even mentioned homosexuality and that was because he was challenged on it by a student and all he said is that he had a friend who he liked before he knew he was gay so why should knowing that he was gay change the content of his character. These ads about kids in elementary school learning about homosexuality are just desperate attempts by the conservative extreme to stop progress.
Let me guess, do you also support a ban on interracial marriage?
If it is a sanctified union with god how come Atheists can get married?
I know that you have been brain-washing by your religion to think that this particular group of people are "evil" but when your children's children look back on this they will be just as disgusted with the hate brought on through these events as we are by those of the civil rights movement for equal rights for African-Americans (i know that African-Americans suffered through much worse for their rights but they paved the way for everyone else who will follow them).
8 months ago
in The Remaking of a Candidate on The Washington Independent
Like her or not, Jane I doubt you are that much smarter than her in person.
Rolandthick - Do you fight for dumbies because you are one? I think you debunked your point.....
Honesty- You are incredibly unaware of the state consitutions...they allow most states to go through succession if they so chose to remove themselves from the union . I'n really glad you were not my civics teacher.
Judy - Your comments are emotional, not factual based and uterly stupid. they have no place here. Stay home.
Linda - Do you wor5k? Then you have sacrificed your children too. Wow....I expected the women on the left to be a LOT smarter than this.
You guys are unbeleivable- - blofg after bolg, but the funny thing is - would you have acted any differently if you were in her place? I'm sure a few will have resounding "Yes", but the majority of you who have some ability to be honest with youreslf will know the answer without having to say it outloud.
Rolandthick - Do you fight for dumbies because you are one? I think you debunked your point.....
Honesty- You are incredibly unaware of the state consitutions...they allow most states to go through succession if they so chose to remove themselves from the union . I'n really glad you were not my civics teacher.
Judy - Your comments are emotional, not factual based and uterly stupid. they have no place here. Stay home.
Linda - Do you wor5k? Then you have sacrificed your children too. Wow....I expected the women on the left to be a LOT smarter than this.
You guys are unbeleivable- - blofg after bolg, but the funny thing is - would you have acted any differently if you were in her place? I'm sure a few will have resounding "Yes", but the majority of you who have some ability to be honest with youreslf will know the answer without having to say it outloud.
1 reply
Rebecca R
These remarks would have far more credibility if only the writer were conscientious enough to use a spellcheck program.
8 months ago
in The Remaking of a Candidate on The Washington Independent
You guys are funny, you bash this woman, and the sad reality is she has done nothing any of your candidates haven't done as well. Just part of politics. I could give a rats a$% who wins, it's all the same. That is the thing I love about you nit wits, you think it will make a difference. Your to stupid to realize we are being presented with two roads that lead to the same destination.
Oh - and on a note that is near and dear to my heart - Deanna - If you think Obama is gonna roll back some of those civil liberties Georgew Bush has taken, you need to put the crack pipe down It's not gonna happen. That is the change you can beleive in. He's just gonna take more mark my words. Like I said, it doesn't matter who you pick, your headed to the same place. Better wake up soon.
show all 4 replies
Oh - and on a note that is near and dear to my heart - Deanna - If you think Obama is gonna roll back some of those civil liberties Georgew Bush has taken, you need to put the crack pipe down It's not gonna happen. That is the change you can beleive in. He's just gonna take more mark my words. Like I said, it doesn't matter who you pick, your headed to the same place. Better wake up soon.
4 replies
Anais
Oh shut up. If everyone were as disengaged and fatalistic as you we'd still be living in caves.
Bruce Vaughan
This is not Deanna, This is a Democratic US Citizen. You are wrong about our civil liberties. We will regain them under Obama and a Democratic Congress. This will even help you poor souls that don't have the fortutide to stand up for yourself.
8 months ago
in Palin Lauds Old Glory, Dares Obama to Differ on The Washington Independent
I highly doubt this is a credible story, especially given it's source.
That Dude - Your second grade education is showing. Most states have in their CONSTITUTION that Secession is allowed. It's obvious ou weren't in my college calculus class.
Iconlee - Do you beleive everything some says? I guess so. I have people like you that work for me, and they hang on my every word. Pitiful.
JC - Dude, see Iconlee. you guys are pitiful. No wonder this country is in this shape. You guys are so easy to fool. Gobble up anything anyone says as the gospel, yet can't stand it when you have to pay the consequences for following blindly. Let me look into your future.....Your destined to be laid off soon.
Rudy - Wow, since you can't think of anything intelligent to say, you just start cutting on people. NICE. I know I have won an argument at work when the other person has nothing else intelligent to add, well, short of a comment like yours.
Keith - What did you expect her policies in Alaska to be centered around? Growing corn? What a dumb a%^ comment. Based upon your comment, I really suspect you shouldn't be making fun of anyone in those two states. I'm thinking you could not meet their ACT or SAT minimums for a state university. OH - by the way , Alaska was one of the most strategic acquisitions ever made by this country. You (falsely) make it sound like they were begging to be a part of the union. Again, so many pitiful history buffs on this thread.
Joe - If you saw the expenditures for both side, you would be sick. It's just due to the slant of the news that this makes headlines. Look around, understand your surrounding Joe. One step at a time.
Miss Lady Liberty - Where is the substance to your statement? Pretty blanket *(and petty for an adult)...sounds like the women who gossip at my work. They have nothing better to do. Please rise above your petty behaviour while you still can. Highly unlikely though.
Pennsylvania - How are all the thinking people doing there with no work? How are those unions treating you? I guess Murtha was right(not that I beleived it at first), you are all a bunch of rednecks. P.S. I think your buddy Murtha just cost you your state. Old saying - "It's better to be keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than oepn your mouth and remove all doubt."
Will - God belss you, you have enough sense to question something that looks out of place. Discerment folks. Your instructed to have some.Take notes from Will.
That Dude - Your second grade education is showing. Most states have in their CONSTITUTION that Secession is allowed. It's obvious ou weren't in my college calculus class.
Iconlee - Do you beleive everything some says? I guess so. I have people like you that work for me, and they hang on my every word. Pitiful.
JC - Dude, see Iconlee. you guys are pitiful. No wonder this country is in this shape. You guys are so easy to fool. Gobble up anything anyone says as the gospel, yet can't stand it when you have to pay the consequences for following blindly. Let me look into your future.....Your destined to be laid off soon.
Rudy - Wow, since you can't think of anything intelligent to say, you just start cutting on people. NICE. I know I have won an argument at work when the other person has nothing else intelligent to add, well, short of a comment like yours.
Keith - What did you expect her policies in Alaska to be centered around? Growing corn? What a dumb a%^ comment. Based upon your comment, I really suspect you shouldn't be making fun of anyone in those two states. I'm thinking you could not meet their ACT or SAT minimums for a state university. OH - by the way , Alaska was one of the most strategic acquisitions ever made by this country. You (falsely) make it sound like they were begging to be a part of the union. Again, so many pitiful history buffs on this thread.
Joe - If you saw the expenditures for both side, you would be sick. It's just due to the slant of the news that this makes headlines. Look around, understand your surrounding Joe. One step at a time.
Miss Lady Liberty - Where is the substance to your statement? Pretty blanket *(and petty for an adult)...sounds like the women who gossip at my work. They have nothing better to do. Please rise above your petty behaviour while you still can. Highly unlikely though.
Pennsylvania - How are all the thinking people doing there with no work? How are those unions treating you? I guess Murtha was right(not that I beleived it at first), you are all a bunch of rednecks. P.S. I think your buddy Murtha just cost you your state. Old saying - "It's better to be keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than oepn your mouth and remove all doubt."
Will - God belss you, you have enough sense to question something that looks out of place. Discerment folks. Your instructed to have some.Take notes from Will.
1 reply
Swami_Binkinanda
Alaska did want to join the Union. Beginning in 1866 with the Western Union Telegraph Expedition, which was secretly doing reconnaissance on the territory for the US gov't. prior to the purchase arranged between Seward and De Stoekel. After the Gold Rush, the miners had to create their own government structure because the state was being managed by the Revenue Cutter Service, the proto-Coast Guard. Once they finally got the Feds to run it as a territory, the desire for statehood was a huge movement not achieved until 1958. At UA-Fairbanks, the administration building is Constitution Hall, where the state constitution was hammered out. Today, there are banners all over Anchorage celebrating statehood.
It was only after the hillbillies and white trash of Oklahoma and Texas started Tom Joad-ing their way to Alaska for the Trans Alaska Pipeline construction that we started seeing these separatist and post-Confederate America hating terrorists with their low class ways showing up and filling up the marginal spaces outside of towns-North Pole, Badger Road, Wasilla-and filling up rural places on the road system with proto-Koresh compounds.
And state constitutions allowing secession were pretty much null and void after 1865, don't you think? Certainly before then it was by definition anti-American to want to leave America.
The GOP can certainly spend as much money as they have on makeup, clothing, speech lessons, and adult education classes, but they can't make my governess any smarter than she already isn't. She operates on instinct and guile, which works okay when your opponent is another wolf, wolverine, or bear, but not so well against people. I think she not only screwed the pooch in Alaska with her crookedness and petty vindictiveness but might have fixed the GOP for two election cycles at least, and longer if the GOP keeps coming out with these neo-Nazis like Michele Bachmann and these blatant liars who get caught on video or audio saying stupid things, then lie and spin their way further in a hole.
It was only after the hillbillies and white trash of Oklahoma and Texas started Tom Joad-ing their way to Alaska for the Trans Alaska Pipeline construction that we started seeing these separatist and post-Confederate America hating terrorists with their low class ways showing up and filling up the marginal spaces outside of towns-North Pole, Badger Road, Wasilla-and filling up rural places on the road system with proto-Koresh compounds.
And state constitutions allowing secession were pretty much null and void after 1865, don't you think? Certainly before then it was by definition anti-American to want to leave America.
The GOP can certainly spend as much money as they have on makeup, clothing, speech lessons, and adult education classes, but they can't make my governess any smarter than she already isn't. She operates on instinct and guile, which works okay when your opponent is another wolf, wolverine, or bear, but not so well against people. I think she not only screwed the pooch in Alaska with her crookedness and petty vindictiveness but might have fixed the GOP for two election cycles at least, and longer if the GOP keeps coming out with these neo-Nazis like Michele Bachmann and these blatant liars who get caught on video or audio saying stupid things, then lie and spin their way further in a hole.
8 months ago
in DAS/Risk on The Washington Independent
Dave - to put this into perspective for you. We are just now standing up to sing the national anthem BEFORE the game begins. This isn't the beggining of the end of this, it isn't even the end of the beginning. We are just getting started on a path that if allowed to run it's cource will take anywhere from 18 to 24 months to sort itself out. If the feds keep intervening, it will only prolong it, along with destroying the monetary value of our currency.
Good luck brother, not the news you wanted to hear, but it is the truth. The derivative bubble is behind the housing bubble. And it would be like comapring a sedan to a semi tractor trailer in size. THat's not taking into cosideration the constant ripples that return to us from our originating housing bubbles. You might want to go out to you tube and look up some of Ron Pauls Monetary Policy videos. He has been spot on for the past 10 years on everything that has happened.
Good luck brother, not the news you wanted to hear, but it is the truth. The derivative bubble is behind the housing bubble. And it would be like comapring a sedan to a semi tractor trailer in size. THat's not taking into cosideration the constant ripples that return to us from our originating housing bubbles. You might want to go out to you tube and look up some of Ron Pauls Monetary Policy videos. He has been spot on for the past 10 years on everything that has happened.
1 reply
dave
Thank you, the Fed intervening going forward is pretty much a given I believe, they will fight this tooth and nail and will come up short against the market forces. My fwd looking fear is our US Treasuries turn subprime in the eyes of asia with all the debt we are piling on (3 trillion in 3 weeks), if the kindness of our overseas bond holders have a change of heart and dump our bonds out of fear we will be 3rd world.
8 months ago
in The National Security Dangers of Demagogery on The Washington Independent
Spencer, do you really find this so hard to understand. This is like the Hatfields and the McCoys. Both sides are so far apart (The Neo Liberals and the Neo Conservatives) they don't know anything else but hate for one another. I certainly don't think Republicans have the moral compass in the right place, but that certainly can be said for the Democrats as well.
The point here your not identifying (And as an articulate writer should be seeing) is how the infighting almost seems inherent to this TWO party system. Like we are always going to be stuck HAVING TO PICK between the lesser of two evils. Why is that? That is the question that would be refreshing for people in your profession to be asking.......instead.... you lead us to the same watering hole day in and day out. Be a REAL WRITER Spencer, challenge us for once.
The point here your not identifying (And as an articulate writer should be seeing) is how the infighting almost seems inherent to this TWO party system. Like we are always going to be stuck HAVING TO PICK between the lesser of two evils. Why is that? That is the question that would be refreshing for people in your profession to be asking.......instead.... you lead us to the same watering hole day in and day out. Be a REAL WRITER Spencer, challenge us for once.
1 reply
hardheaded liberal
Dear I. Mind,
When I was growing up in South Carolina in the 1950s and 1960s, the type of right-wing paranoia being spewed today by Robin Hayes (R-NC) and Michelle Bachman (R-MN) was limited to Southern Congressmen (all men in those days) and scattered wing-nut Republican Congressmen from places like Orange County (CA), hotbed of John Birch Society activity. Most other folks who spewed this stuff were viewed, as the Birch Society was generally viewed, as looney-tunes. The two-party system did not create the idiocy that Spencer is discussing in this post. In fact, as long as the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, the general tone of personal relations between Congressmen on opposite sides of the aisle was cordial, not destructive.
The destructive partisan rhetoric did not arrive until Newt Gingrich manipulated the media to help him take down Jim Wright, Speaker of the House in the late 1980s. The tactic of partisan destruction worked so well with Wright that Newt continued to use it right through the Radical Right takeover of the Republican Party and of Congress. Since 1994, when the Gingrich Republicans seized control of the House of Representatives, until today, the mainstream media has been treating these idiots as legitimate participants in political discourse. But the Radical Right's "firewall" in the MSM seems to have finally collapsed under the sheer weight of the lies and slimy innuendos put out by Sara Palin and John McCain and their official campaigns. We can only hope that the MSM will keep its head clear after the election and return to applying reality-based standards to media reporting on the idiocy of the current Republican leadership.
The two-party system has existed in the U.S. for most of our history. The only time it came truly unglued was in the three decades between the demise of the original Federalist Party at the hands of Andrew Jackson in 1828 and the ascendancy of Lincoln's Republican Party when he was re-elected in 1864. At other times third parties have made a major push for a share of power (e.g., Populist Party in 1892 got 22 Electoral Votes) but their voters were absorbed the following Presidential election into one of the two major parties.
Multi-party parliamentary systems are also not immune from the extremist tirades that are at issue here. Wherever a party with extremist views commands a substantial following, we see the same type of garbage in public discourse. The current neo-Nazi party in Austria, for example, or the La Pen party in France, or any of the European national parties that have made "anti-immigrants" a major theme of their campaigns in recent years produce the same type of extreme criticism of the other paries - and often receive as good as they give from other political leaders.
In other words, the problem is not the number of parties, it is the existence of a party with truly extremist views that has enough popular support among voters either to rule, or to at least make a huge nuisance of itself in political dialogues.
Incidentally, the Electoral College is a major reason that the two-party system has been so stable in the United States. No third party has been able to get support concentrated in sufficient measure to win the electoral votes of states across regions. The third parties that have won Electoral Votes since 1864 have all been regional parties (Populists in 1892 in the Plains and Mountains, Southern Democrats in 1948 in the segregated South, George Wallace's American Independent Party in 1968 in the Deep South). In 1948 for example, Henry Wallace's Progressive Party polled just 18,000 fewer votes nationally than did Strom Thurmond's Southern Democrats, but Thurmond won 39 Electoral Votes in four states and Wallace won zero electoral votes.
Today many scholars and some pundits are calling for the abolition of the Electoral College and replacing it with national direct election of the President based on the national popular vote. If this ever occurs, there will be a little more possibility for third party candidates to become competitive. Until Obama's success with internet fund-raising can be "bottled" and utilized by third party candidates, though, the cost of entry into modern campaigns will probably limit modern third-party candidates to self-financing billionaires like Ross Perot (1992 and 1996) or Michael Bloomberg (who apparently considered making a third-party effort this year).
When I was growing up in South Carolina in the 1950s and 1960s, the type of right-wing paranoia being spewed today by Robin Hayes (R-NC) and Michelle Bachman (R-MN) was limited to Southern Congressmen (all men in those days) and scattered wing-nut Republican Congressmen from places like Orange County (CA), hotbed of John Birch Society activity. Most other folks who spewed this stuff were viewed, as the Birch Society was generally viewed, as looney-tunes. The two-party system did not create the idiocy that Spencer is discussing in this post. In fact, as long as the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, the general tone of personal relations between Congressmen on opposite sides of the aisle was cordial, not destructive.
The destructive partisan rhetoric did not arrive until Newt Gingrich manipulated the media to help him take down Jim Wright, Speaker of the House in the late 1980s. The tactic of partisan destruction worked so well with Wright that Newt continued to use it right through the Radical Right takeover of the Republican Party and of Congress. Since 1994, when the Gingrich Republicans seized control of the House of Representatives, until today, the mainstream media has been treating these idiots as legitimate participants in political discourse. But the Radical Right's "firewall" in the MSM seems to have finally collapsed under the sheer weight of the lies and slimy innuendos put out by Sara Palin and John McCain and their official campaigns. We can only hope that the MSM will keep its head clear after the election and return to applying reality-based standards to media reporting on the idiocy of the current Republican leadership.
The two-party system has existed in the U.S. for most of our history. The only time it came truly unglued was in the three decades between the demise of the original Federalist Party at the hands of Andrew Jackson in 1828 and the ascendancy of Lincoln's Republican Party when he was re-elected in 1864. At other times third parties have made a major push for a share of power (e.g., Populist Party in 1892 got 22 Electoral Votes) but their voters were absorbed the following Presidential election into one of the two major parties.
Multi-party parliamentary systems are also not immune from the extremist tirades that are at issue here. Wherever a party with extremist views commands a substantial following, we see the same type of garbage in public discourse. The current neo-Nazi party in Austria, for example, or the La Pen party in France, or any of the European national parties that have made "anti-immigrants" a major theme of their campaigns in recent years produce the same type of extreme criticism of the other paries - and often receive as good as they give from other political leaders.
In other words, the problem is not the number of parties, it is the existence of a party with truly extremist views that has enough popular support among voters either to rule, or to at least make a huge nuisance of itself in political dialogues.
Incidentally, the Electoral College is a major reason that the two-party system has been so stable in the United States. No third party has been able to get support concentrated in sufficient measure to win the electoral votes of states across regions. The third parties that have won Electoral Votes since 1864 have all been regional parties (Populists in 1892 in the Plains and Mountains, Southern Democrats in 1948 in the segregated South, George Wallace's American Independent Party in 1968 in the Deep South). In 1948 for example, Henry Wallace's Progressive Party polled just 18,000 fewer votes nationally than did Strom Thurmond's Southern Democrats, but Thurmond won 39 Electoral Votes in four states and Wallace won zero electoral votes.
Today many scholars and some pundits are calling for the abolition of the Electoral College and replacing it with national direct election of the President based on the national popular vote. If this ever occurs, there will be a little more possibility for third party candidates to become competitive. Until Obama's success with internet fund-raising can be "bottled" and utilized by third party candidates, though, the cost of entry into modern campaigns will probably limit modern third-party candidates to self-financing billionaires like Ross Perot (1992 and 1996) or Michael Bloomberg (who apparently considered making a third-party effort this year).
And those who complain about the snake handlers and strychnine drinkers should butt out as well.