Just because someone acts based upon a lie, that does not excuse the liar of that lie. Crimeny. The liar that told the lie is still responsible for that lie. Not the person who followed the lie. In this case, the lying liar who told the lie was george bush.
Sorry Taka - Dr. Seuss gives me less of a headache than what you wrote there. They yanked my other comment for as usual inexplicable reasons so I cannot even recall what I said. Quite obviously you think GB a liar. Fair enough - so is every other politician/president; seems to be in their nature. Trust me, your boy is no less of one.
Youth? Youth? His memoirs have him drunk, crass, and aimless into his early 40s. What qualities did this man possess that made conservatives believe he was so worthy of leadership and responsibility?
Again I say - so what? Grant was a drunk, Likely so were several others. Clinton could keep it in his trousers. They're human as are we all. I don't think it is necessarily certain characteristics that make a person 'electable'. Sometimes it's personality or the lack thereof of the opposition. Al Gore had no personality, so GB beat him (I know, questionably some will say). But he one a second term didn't he - if all you liberals were so sure he's the anti-christ and he was so horrible, how come you couldn't get enough of you out to vote him out? You got enough folks to vote Obama in, despite his being a Junior Senator with absolutely no experience for the job. Again, there was no one worthwhile running against him. American politics has too often involved voting for the perceived less of two evils.
We recognized and respected the tragic circumstances surrounding the deaths of Joe Jr., John, and Robert -- all in the service of their country.
What does that have to do with anything? Half the family was tragically killed, so give him the benefit of the doubt? You can do better than that lame excuse. How about taking into consideration that Joe Sr. was a defeatist with alleged nazi sympathies while ambassador in Britain before we entered the war. I know - off topic; just answering a comment.
Worst President ever? My nod will still go to carter, but the current one has a few years to go, so who knows?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I love how some jump on the fact that he liked to drink in his youth. Many of you on here would not hesitate to go out this weekend and get loaded with friends. It's what non-prudish adult (and sometimes not so adult) people do, particularly in our western culture. The President is supposed to be an elected representative of the people, not an angel. Few of us haven't done the same thing or something similar. You all forgave Teddy K for killing a woman in his car while drunk. He was practically up for Sainthood when he offed it, but oooh the evil George Bush drank in his youth which shows his low moral standing. Hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Why isn't Bush trying to blame all of America's problems on Obama?
Perhaps a thing called class and responsibility prevent him from doing so. But don't worry, the American people will blame much on Obama before his time is done - who will continue to blame it all on Bush.
"I don't think it's good for a former president to be out there opining on every darned issue," he told Winfrey. "He's got a plenty tough job. Trust me. And there's gonna be plenty of critics, and he doesn't need me criticizing him. And I don't think it's good for the presidency. Other people have a different point of view."
Hmmm. Something that idiot Carter should subscribe to.
The past has shown that no matter how badly a former President is seen at the time of his administration, time has a way of changing things. Dick Nixon was essentially a crook, despite is denials, but I recall when he died there was talk of what a great President and man he really was (yes, his foreign policy was awesome). JFK wasn't president long enough to do much; the Soviets almost had missiles in our backyard, and the Bay of Pigs fiasco - but he's seen as a god since he took a bullet. Carter was/is the worst we've had, but he builds a few homes for the needy and the Libs still think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think George will be fine.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It's blind hate, imperiousness in the 'we know more than you; you're stupid' way they see themselves and the self-righteousness that their way is the only true and correct way. The erroneous belief they try to push that the only time America is ever successful is when a Democrat is in charge. And damn you to the nether regions if you don't agree whole-heartedly with them. They speak for the people. Well, guess what - I think you were just shown that in fact you do not speak for the people. Of course, you would - and have - labeled those people stupid for not believing exactly as you wish them to. Hmmm, doesn't sound very 'democratic' does it?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Yabits you don't like to really read and comprehend before you reply, do you? You're talking political pundits, I was talking joe average that replies on here. No sh*t - every President is loathed by some, and the target of the opposing party(s) but I'm talking rabid, frothing hatred, the likes I haven't seen until you liberal lot started going off about Bush and Cheney being the anti-Christ and his minion. If you're denying this then you truly don't read these posts, do you?
Actually I think the hatred towards Hillary was partly because she couldn't see that her hubbie was a cheating lout because her political ambition glasses wouldn't allow her to and that kind of clouded ambition was just ugly. But then again, she wasn't president was she? And I was talking presidents, again if you had just read...
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Klein2 - you can't seriously be asking that question can you? How many years now, and how many times have all the lefties that post on JT spouted out the most vile, bordering on manic hatred of Bush? You mention the name and it sends them into furious fits of mouth frothing laments that make Chuck Manson's madness seem calm by comparison. I've been on discussions that had absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with a subject even slightly related to the former Prez, and someone will inevitably say 'well George Bush and the Republicans..blah blah'. He's been blamed for everything from the sun rising in the east to the ocean having salt. Without knowing the man other than hating his policies most of you deemed his administration nothing short of the horsemen of the Apocalypse riding down riding down Pennsylvania Avenue. Most believe him so evil that if he rode up in a limo with Hitler and Satan you would all say 'see, I told you so'. So you wonder at how a President can be 'hated'.
In actuality it should be the policies, not the man (for the most part). It can be both. To many (quite obviously by the recent election results) President Obama's policies and direction are not what the American people want. This angers folks. Personally I'm old school enough to think that if a person is our President they should be respected as such - even if we display contempt of policy. But that went out the window with GB. The left hates him with a furor that is undeniable, so should it be so unusual that those on the right might feel equal contempt for policy rammed down our throats that suits the liberal agenda, but no necessarily the American agenda? Loaded statement that will get you all going - but point made.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I think that is interesting. Calling liberals names is another way we move nowhere in the name calling debate. There are idiots in both parties as there are racists in both parties. Call it like it is. Dems generally don't side with their racist counterparts if they are acting accordingly. I can't say the same for the GOP. I wouldn't whine about my buddies being call racists just because I may not be. Guilt by association is part of America in all facets of life.
Um - if you'll read other than the last five posts you might notice my comment stated that idiocy is bi-partisan. But the comment was in reply to another that had addressed the frequent use of 'idiot, racist tea baggers' and other charming terminology used by angry liberals on here to describe the right. According to these posters anyone not agreeing with the left spectrum must by nature be a knuckle dragging racist who regularly beats their spouse, have huge gun collections and velvet Jesus painting on the walls of their mobile homes.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Admittedly by political nature more racists might identify with the right - I'll give you that. But idiocy is bi-partisan. But to consistently classify one party as 'racist and full of idiots' is just more example of liberal snobbery and elitism - and reason why your party is in such trouble.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Okay, let's quit clowning around. Oh they seek it - they all do. They just don't usually get it, and that goes for both sides. By the time they end up sticking on all the provisions and add-ons then the bills become unpassable. But that's another issue. The record shows that this administration has been not prone to play dates with the other kids. Sorry - too much talk about clowns; I hate clowns.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It's difficult to see the clowns when you're part of the circus.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Hmmm. Okay, then by fair comparison any Dem who chooses not to work together at reasonable compromises with their Republican counterparts are by definition then radical loonies. So most of the administration and party are therefore radical loonies. And that's a loaded response anyway - when legislation put forth by your party is so out of whack and filled with nonsense (reason most of the dems didn't bother reading the health care bill) it's difficult to reach compromise, particularly when the libs seems so against any such compromise. It's like a narcissistic egomaniac saying 'you never see my side of things'.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Well, that's certainly what the current crop of clueless, loony, right-wing radicals has in store for America as a whole.
Have you ever considered - just for the sake of argument - that just because someone doesn't agree with your liberal agenda that perhaps they are not 'clueless, loony, right-wing radicals'? Or is anyone that shows dissent so categorized? It seems that in the current administration, and the minions that follow said administration this is the belief. 'You don't believe as I do, so you must be stupid and loony'. It's funny how we were formed on a system of certain freedoms but if you try to invoke these freedoms - and a certain group doesn't agree with your agenda - then you are suddenly 'loony radicals'. 'Loony Radicals' enacted such changes as women's rights, civil rights, etc. I should think that attempting to form a party to go through the political process of enacting change is the way it should be, as opposed to some of the radical militant groups of the 1960's, etc. I'm quite certain that had such a party been formed by liberals opposing the Bush administration you would decried their greatness rather than their loony radicalism. Sour grapes I should think.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
sorry, the quote thing seems to not fully envelope what is supposed to be in quotes.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The formation of the USA can best be understood by using the Mafia as a model: The head godfather (King of England) sends out some of the boys to develop a new territory. As they gain more power and wealth, they want it all for themselves and try to cut the godfather out. The founders didn't want equal liberty for all people -- far from it! -- otherwise they would have endorsed forming a direct democracy with everyone getting a vote, over a republic where voting was granted mainly to landowners, and senators were chosen by the elite.
This is why Republicans wax so fondly over those "good old days," as far from reality as they relate them.
Just more crap from the America-hating left who thinks their form of socialism is much better, and the reason they are on the skids. You are right that the original experiment was designed for the landowners and gentry to lead - you cannot expect to go from a monarchy to full-fledged democracy in one fell swoop. But actually you more illustrate my point - the design was far from 'everyone gets/deserves a share' but rather based on capitalism.
Nope, they call him a socialist because that is what they have been told to call him by the shills in the neo-liberal corporate media. Obama is in fact just another neo-liberal corporate hack frontman. Every decision and policy, from health care, financial reform, and military policy on down has been in service of the neo-liberal corporate mafias. There has been no socialism at all, but to know that you would actually have to pay attention instead of just swallow what you have been told.
And I would counter that you obviously don't know the definition and tenants of Socialism - no matter how brilliant you might believe yourself to be. If that seems aggressive I can only say that if you call me an automaton that is only intelligent enough to parrot party line or what I see or read from political pundits, I have the right to counter. Believe it or not, despite being somewhat conservative in political leanings, I am relatively well read, have a degree in Journalism and do not believe everything that I read or hear. I don't affiliate myself really with either party as I prefer to think for myself. And before anyone jumps on the 'wishy-washy Independents' bandwagon, I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting smaller government and fewer taxes, but at the same time having no problem with folks who might be gay getting married or joining up with no shame in who and what they are, and a woman's right to choose whether she has an abortion. Anyone who is totally party line in my thinking are the ones with issues.
I know this because I am the real thing for far left friends. I am not a communist, not a socialist and do not adhere to any party. I am however a strong believer in social and economic equity and fairness, in corporate accountability, in government accountability and first and foremost I am an advocate of the working people of America. Those who do all the hard work day to day to make everything in our country possible and who are the last ones to really benefit from their work.
Which is, well - sort of along the veins of Communism and Socialism. Everyone here - well, particularly those on the left who are so angered and excitable about being called Socialist or Communist seem to think that to be considered either you have to be a card carrying member and follow exacting 'rules'. A more anti-capitalism and pro working class is by definition a form of more modern Socialism which some consider a prerequisite for Communism. You don't have to be a raging Marxist to fit the bill. But political leanings by the left are typically more in-line with the true tenants of Socialism and Communism. I'm unsure how you can really deny it, and I think that the only reason that you do is because of the post-Stalinist/McCarthyism repercussions of being labeled as such.
Funding social programs does not define a political leader or a government as socialist. Nor does the political system in the US under any valid interpretation qualify as socialist or even social democracy.
The presence of social programs can be found in nearly every imaginable form of government. To argue that such small elements of the entire political picture somehow warrant definition as "socialism" shows considerable lack of understanding of just what a socialist or even social democracy is or what it would look like in practical terms.
Again you're over-generalizing. It isn't simply the funding of social programs that causes the cry of 'Socialism' but rather the aggregate of agenda and policies. Liberals always try to portray anyone on the right as evil uncaring monsters rather than admit that the issue is far more complex and reliant on the fundamental beliefs of our political system.
And I believe that you might very well be correct in saying that the Tea Party will simply go away once its purpose has been fulfilled. Sort of like white blood cells attacking a bad infection.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
tkoind2 keeps identifying me with a tea party supporter. Despite my hesitance to really say that I fully support them in totality – I do support the fundamental meaning behind the formation of the party, and perhaps in exploring this it might bring to light the thinking of those that lean further to the right. Keep in mind these are just my opinions and observations; I make no claim to omniscience or even great intelligence.
If you think about the origins of the Tea Party moniker, then one thinks of the age-old protest of ‘no taxation without representation’. Being forced to pay taxes to an English monarch for products produced through hard labor in the colonies - without any proper voice in the political policies and machinations became intolerable, led to acts of sedition and eventually the formation of a new government, and new nation (recall ‘for the people; by the people’). So our country was formed by a strong and eventually quite violent reaction against unfair and overbearing governmental control, and subsequently the taking (deemed unfair and unwarranted) of excessive taxes by the government (King) for work done by the people. Liberals are fond these days of labeling the members of the current ‘tea party’ as radicals and even anarchists or traitors (I’ve seen it in several postings), but I would conclude by definition that the opposite is true. Since traditionally the left is for larger governmental control, against privatization of industry and services, and ultimately (whether you want to admit it or not) higher taxes through policies, typically the left in the US is against the very reasons this country was founded upon.
So look at today’s administration. Government spending more, taking over industry, taking more from the working man’s pocket (in the guise of giving to the ‘working class’ who have not – which in reality is more the ‘will nots’. Free health care? Mine just went up by $47 a month. Stimulus package jobs? Haven’t seen any around here. And guess what, higher taxes are coming to pay for said free healthcare and stimulus package.
You question ‘where is the GOP or Tea Party solution to the problem?’ It’s a good question, and I’m not sure myself if they have definable and set solutions that could lead us quickly and efficiently out of this mess. But, the converse to that is even though the President might have a plan, it’s not one that very many have faith will work, and it’s not the direction that the majority of the American people want their country heading.
One feature that liberals have failed to ever grasp is that America was founded not only on freedom as a general principle, but on economic freedom. It’s called Capitalism. Liberals interpret freedom as the right for all to have an equal share of the pie. That’s not capitalism and it’s not in the definition of what the Founding Fathers meant. You have the right to earn things through hard work and fair treatment, not the right to be given things simply because you become part of the American experience. Charity and human compassion should be expected of individuals and societies, but it’s not what defines their political/governmental structure, but rather their social and moral responsibilities. They are a separate being – or at least should be. Part of the human experience involves choice and responsibility. We all make them; because some cannot or will not choose properly should not govern our political structure.
So the tea party and the current dissatisfaction with Democrats in power is a natural reaction. If you’re on the left, you see it as utter insanity, because you believe essentially in a different political and social reality than what America really is. That sounds incredibly far-fetched and extreme, but fundamentally is true. People call Obama a Socialist because his ideas fall closer to the thinking of political socialism. Rather than think of it as a ‘dirty’ word think of it as nothing more than a reality based fact. And that isn’t a knock on Socialism. A thinking person will freely admit that there are tenants of Socialism and Communism that are very appealing and could lead to a new world order where we share a common goal and experience. But the problems are numerous and have been illustrated in various failed attempts (although most likely through human greed and abuse of power that fully corrupts the whole idea).
The point to all of these rambling is simply an attempt at explanation. While there might not be a firm and grounded idea (in my view – and obviously this goes for you on the left) put forth by the GOP or TP that is a quick solution to the current situation we find ourselves in, there is are no good ideas being enacted by the present administration to do any better, and in fact many believe the current moves to fix the economy will only make it worse in the long run, and in the process move us away from the fundamentals of what this country was founded upon. Spending isn’t a good answer, making the common man pay for all isn’t a good answer, blaming the wealthy – a state that in a capitalist society is in fact the dream of many – isn’t a good answer. Add to that the fact that this President, despite promising a transparent administration marked by truly bi-partisan overtures had done everything in his power to provide just the opposite, and with a venom and outright nasty contempt for any who don’t follow his will that I find, if not truly frightening than at the very least disgusting. FDR was a raging liberal on many aspects but faced with a similar situation brought the nation together (even before the war began) and started programs that seemed to legitimately be getting people back to work. It can be done – just not by this president. Again, my opinion so take it for what it is (and if you say ‘a load of rubbish’ then okay – that’s why we’re Americans and dissent isn’t anarchy).
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Yabits I mostly never agree with anything you say on any thread, but in this one you have the real gem:
Education is nowhere nearly as expensive as ignorance -- which all of society pays for, and dearly.
Amen brother. True words which seem to be lost on far too many. Whatever becomes of this political and economic mess that we call the good ole USA, we need to re-focus and re-dedicate ourselves to educating our population. It goes a very, very long way in curing the other ills, or at least giving those that can the tools to do so.
Now getting to the big one: deficit. How concretely are you going to cut it?
Maybe no one truly knows what the hell to do. But I'd put good money down (if I had any) that crazy spending, idiotic stimulus packages and slowly putting the private sector under government control isn't going to do it. While you all might chastise the TP or GOP for not producing a concrete plan that meets your approval (and I doubt you've read much of what they have to offer rather than just dismissing it out of hand), having a flawed plan that won't work and swells government out of control is not the answer. And the reason the dems are scheduled to do so poorly is that people realize this. An option of freedom, free enterprise and choice is more popular to the American democracy than a defined platform of governmental control and taxation, whether you can understand that or not. If you cannot, then in my eye you don't really understand democracy and what the American Experiment was all about in the first place (which to me the left never really has). If a government controlled welfare state is really what your after then maybe you should explore communism or socialism. Some claim it's great. Just make sure you don't get a Stalin and you might just be fine. Not my cup of tea old boy.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The Few who fought in the Battle of Britain.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
No one has said fascism must comply fully with the German or Italian models. Elements of fascism are clearly present in the thinking of a group who wish to restrict rights to a narrow definition of Americans. And they try to win over the sheepish masses by arguing against big government, when that is precisely what most working class people need to address their greatest problems.
Big money says "small goverment=good" because they want free reign to exploit everything they need to make more money. It is an delussion that that those profits result in ordinary Americans having new jobs. More likely it means a few more low paying jobs in Bangladesh and more money in the pockets of people who already have enough.
Working people end up with no health care, no access to higher eduction so that their children are doomed to the same economic plight, no investment in community and nothing to show for their votes but the pride of having a smaller government.
But there you go into liberal fallacy and the inability to separate the 'working class' from the welfare entitlement class - and before you label me as the typical Republican monster who doesn't care about our huddled masses, let me explain.
You indicate that the working class have no means to rise above their situations, and that 'big money' as you call it just lines the pockets of the already wealthy by creating low paying jobs at best. But think about that a minute. How many of us on here are university educated, or at the very least completed secondary school, got some type of degree and are doing at least well enough to be sitting here typing away on our computers? Most all. How many of us have rich parents? My bet is very few - speaking for myself, my parents went from blue collar not having much of anything to middle class through a lifetime of work. I was the first in the immediate family to go to college and get a decent job. Many of you likely have similar stories. The point is that many of us are on a 'stepped platform' if you will of doing a bit better than our parents, and our kids will hopefully do better than us.
That used to be called the American Dream and what people aspired to do. Through the liberal plan, people are handed money and given help for doing relatively nothing to better their situations. Essentially you want to create a dependent welfare state by providing enough programs that everyone is given what they need, whether they work for it or not. You say the working class cannot get ahead. I say the working class can and often do get ahead - through hard work. The welfare/entitlement class does not. These are the folks that expect the handout, that booze it up and drug it up and look for that monthly check. They blame it on the system, the man, big money. But where does human responsibility come into the equation?
You will never agree with that of course, and point out that the sins of the father should not disqualify the son. Yes, it's a perpetuated cycle because the parents pass it along to the children, who then become part of the welfare/entitlement class and system. Free health care; free education; free food, clothing and housing. A never ending cycle of despair that can very easily be blamed on corporate greed and the supposed 'angry, racist republicans'. Why? Because we have the same expectations of our fellow man that we have for ourselves? Because we don't feel it's fair or beneficial to grow big government to tax us to death to pay for everyone else because this big government deems them more worthy of my money than my own family?
Do I feel bad for the seven year old without a proper coat way too late on a school night? Sure I do. Mom's walking behind with a pack of smokes, which at today's prices could easily buy a coat if she didn't smoke for a week. It's a parental choice - it's a human choice. We all make them. Some make very poor decisions - and yes it is likely based on the fact of their upbringing - they know not what they do. That isn't the fault of 'big money'. Maybe these folks can only get those low paying jobs because they aren't educated enough to get a better one. And likely they aren't educated enough because they thought it more important to smoke weed and hang out on the corner with their friends rather than study and try to make something of themselves. Likely it's because mom and dad were much the same way and didn't give enough of a crap to give them a chance. Pouring money into that doesn't end the cycle or the problem, conversely it seems to perpetuate the issue because the recipients realize they can get 'free stuff' and opt for the easy way out.
I realize I'm over-generalizing and stereotyping to a degree. But there is truth to most all stereotypes. I see it everyday in my kid's schools and in my community.
You call it Fascism. I don't think there's a desire to restrict anything. Do you really think it's fascist to expect people to work towards things (learn English/proper grammar, get a job, go to said job, save money, stop buying smokes and video games, take responsibility for your life and the lives of your children) rather than be handed them at the expense of those who do truly work and strive?
Moderator: Back on topic please.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Klein2, again I'm not a Tea Party member nor really even a supporter. I do think that it's interesting and see it as a good thing that in a free democratic society we can have a group of dissatisfied citizens start such a thing - and I'd think equally so if it were a party started by angry liberals. It seems the dems on here want to label them anarchists simply because they disagree with the current administration, and wish to do so by forming their own party. I thought that's what democracy was all about. There is no law that states it must be a two party system, and when the two parties in question have both acted in such a disgraceful manner, its good to remind them of such a thing.
My Bozo post was deleted, so I'll make no more mention. I suppose it's a 'Bozo no-no' to do such a thing.
Tiger Moth! Why was Carter a h-o-r-r-o-r? Was it the cap on speed limits that ended up saving us billions of gallons of gas that we did not have to import which helped the balance of payments and NOT supporting Arab governments? Was it the Peace initiative between Egypt and Israel that he facilitated? Was it his emphasis on....human rights. So, what was the horror?
No Rat, it was essentially his abysmal handling of the economy in general and his spineless ability to stand up to aggression against our country that makes me loathe Carter and his administration. Are you old enough to remember and have lived through the Carter term? My father, my best friend's father and a lot of other folks I knew lost their jobs for the first and only time under the great Carter administration. It's quite easy (and often done) to paint a rosy picture well after the fact, but most I know who lived through it agree quite strongly with my sentiments. Yes, he accomplished some good things, but over-all it sucked. Off topic, but answering your question.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
You're not a bit biased and closed-minded are you? It's funny because a few generations ago the ultra-conservatives were calling the 'radical hippies' anarchists, and now you use the term in reverse. Seems anyone that doesn't agree with the current status-quo is an anarchist. Interesting.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Assuming I'm a Tea Party supporter is a mistake and an untruth, but liberals are good at over-generalizations. I'm just pointing out what it seems people are tired of, whether you agree with the summations or not. The election, and time will tell what the American people think of it all. I'm just saying that having lived through several democratic administrations - Carter a horror, I liked Bill Clinton and think he did just fine - I have never seen a President as seemingly angry, vindictive, secretive, defensive and arrogant as this one. We've had much misguided foolishness from many Presidents on both sides, as well as flashes of brilliance. It says mountains when folks on both sides are showing unhappiness with this administration. Interpret as you will, we shall see soon enough.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
well said neogreen...too bad people are blind and def
and illiterate. But seriously neogreen,if you think either of them, particularly Ahmadinejad, are great leaders and worthy of Nobel prizes (well, why not they gave Obama one) then, well - let's just say I'd hate to live in your world.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It has exactly Zero to do with ideology. That will become very clear in the years ahead. And if fact, it has almost always been true in the past.
I would tend to disagree in the sense that this President as gone to great pains to force his ideology down the collective throats of the American people in a way that is unprecedented. The US political system has been too bi-polar (good term in this case I think) for too long, and bi-partisan give and take has always been an issue and one that either side gives willingly. But this administration has taken that to new levels. This country is supposed to be a democracy. Whatever it has become is up for interpretation and debate, but Obama has failed to realize that you can't just come in and ram unpopular - and many people feel unwise and poorly thought out - legislation through to press home your personal ideology. At least not if you want to keep the support and confidence of the population.
We could argue all day about whether or not these policies will ultimately be successful and put us on the road to recovery; I would say they are disastrous and you would conclude they are brilliant. But while all liberals here are quick to label conservatives as evil and base, the way this administration has acted with Pelosi, Reid and the President pushing through legislation that most of the rest of the legislators (dems) didn't even understand has been vile. Plain and simple, President Obama doesn't come across as someone with a pride in his country and a love of its people, but rather as the angry, Harvard educated snob who believes the rest of us to be idiots who need to be spoon fed his self-proclaimed remedies.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
So, in essence, what we've got here is a bunch of conservative voters who can't be bothered to think, and a bunch of conservative candidates who can't be bothered to come up with any serious ideas - let alone policies - to fix the economy. It's a recipe for disaster and conservatives are loving it!
I love the way that liberals all think they are just so damned smart and clever. And you guys always suggest that for some reason (in your mind) conservatives want and promote economic and societal collapse and disaster. It wouldn't occur to you of course that in such a situation even the supposed 'evil, wealthy conservatives' would suffer equally with their fellow countrymen would this be the case. If the great stimulus package and health care solutions are an indication of the liberal answer, well then your comments about unthinking should be self-directed.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I think everyone should follow the New York State model; in our last televised debate we had a hooker and a guy that looks like a cross between Mr. T and a flashy pimp who is running on the 'rent is too damned high' party ticket. The whole nation is a tragic comedy right now. With a clueless President/administration and clueless challengers its almost best to sit back and enjoy the show. We're on the road to ruin - but eventually the bumps will smooth out no matter who's driving the car. Ancient Rome fell and so shall we. There is no law that says we have to be the leading superpower forever - let someone else take the burden for a while. Oh, by the way - my health insurance just went up by $47 a month - thanks for Obamacare, appreciate that. And it's just the beginning as soon I'll be able to pay higher taxes to pay for this ridiculous stimulus spending and 'free' (not for me) health care. Great ideas - and you honestly believe that given more time these "solutions" would work? Really?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
What an absolute nutter this woman is. Is she the same one that said China is taking over the US?
Is a metaphoric 'takeover' really that far off the mark, given the amount of $$ owed by the US to China? I think it's an over-exaggeration, but certainly not deserved of the 'nutter' tag for that one. And we keep getting deeper in debt as we spend more to get us out of debt (scratching head). Go figure. I've tried that economic plan in my home - it doesn't work.
Discouraging people from participating in an election is pretty classless and low. Exactly what I would expect from a republican.
As opposed to the Dems encouraging people to vote based on race, class and age. 'You must vote for me because I'm black and so are you'. Huh? Wasn't there a recent report of young people being encouraged to vote, but no literature or information was provided on the conservative side of things? That's fair and just though, right? C'mon, politics are politics - each side tries to prey on the voters that they think they can sway to their side. You can make the indignant cry of fowl all you want, but both sides do it and always have.
I'm sure Reid is just the cultural diversity mainstay. Of course, my bet would be there isn't a Hispanic living within miles of any property he owns in Nevada. Funny how that always works.
Another HUGE mistake conservatives are making is thinking that in the current hyperpartisan climate, if a conservative candidate is ahead in the polls, they must be popular.
No, I think that perhaps it's more of a slap in the face to your own party; it means that the common American voter just isn't believing the hope and change party anymore, no matter how indignant it makes you to accept that fact.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I've noticed among my English friends that there is very much a growing anti-Islam/Muslim sentiment in the country, as well as generally an anti-foreigner slant. But before anyone based in the US condemns this you have to take into account geographical size of the country. If Muslims take over most of Flint, MI then it's one city in a vast country. If they do the same to Sheffield in a country that's the size of one of our smaller states - it's more of a big deal. Britain has held the immigration gates open with a friendly hand for too long, and with the vast cultural differences between your typical English man/woman and your typical practitioner of Islam, the problem is bound to stir discontent. I was in London a year ago and Soho could have been another country (other than England).
As others have pointed out I think the link to the tea party is just the leftist media's attempt to further try to soil their reputation, possibly/likely based on a single statement made by a single individual somewhere. Suddenly the two groups are intertwined when in fact some single individual likely made an off the cuff comment.
0 ( +0 / -0 )