|
Edit: It should also be noted that if the Democrats could get their own house in order, they wouldn't need Republicans onboard.
I agree
In truth they just want"bi-partisan support" so they can drag Republicans down with them.
I disagree.
Perhaps they have forgotten 2004 when the Democrats filibustered Republican legislation a record 219 times in a 43 week session.
My search-fu didn't find anything about this, but it did find this article,as well as several similar ones and if the Democrats were filibustering ideological nominees, then good for them.
Furthermore Republicans would have likely been more willing to negotiate and work with Obama if he hadn't called them to the White House to a "meeting" four days after the innaguration and when they tried to talk to him about concerns they had with the stimulis package he told them "I won," and to shut up....President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.
The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who
I vaguely remember finding that funny at the time, and quite cowboy-like, sort of like a couple certain former presidents that have been mentioned on this thread. I doubt the saying "shut-up" though.
|
Perhaps they have forgotten 2004 when the Democrats filibustered Republican legislation a record 219 times in a 43 week session.
My search-fu didn't find anything about this, but it did find this article,as well as several similar ones and if the Democrats were filibustering ideological nominees, then good for them.
So, if the Democrats filibuster on ideological grounds it's okay, but if Republicans do it they are not being bi-partisan and working against the president? Glad to know where you stand.
Edit: As for the number of filibusters, it was never reported, just like the number of filibusters the Republicans have engaged in is not reported. I had to actually go to the senate record and count thm for myself. It's fun, if you are a political scientist like I am.
|
|
Sorry. I wrote that in a misleading way. The judicial nominees were blocked because they were picked specifically for being conservative yes-men and not because of qualifications, so Democrats filibustered. It happens in both parties.
As far as Republicans and Democrats not working together on certain issues because of their own parties ideologies, I have no problem with that on either side. If Republicans don't support a bill, for example, that allows Medicaid to pay for abortion, I would understand completely. Just like they wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and Obama said "No way." Perfectly reasonable politics (if politics can ever be perfectly reasonable. Some issues just don't have bipartisan middle grounds.
Perhaps they have forgotten 2004 when the Democrats filibustered Republican legislation a record 219 times in a 43 week session.My search-fu didn't find anything about this, but it did find this article,as well as several similar ones and if the Democrats were filibustering ideological nominees, then good for them.
So, if the Democrats filibuster on ideological grounds it's okay, but if Republicans do it they are not being bi-partisan and working against the president? Glad to know where you stand.
Edit: As for the number of filibusters, it was never reported, just like the number of filibusters the Republicans have engaged in is not reported. I had to actually go to the senate record and count thm for myself. It's fun, if you are a political scientist like I am.
Correct me if I am wrong but to filibuster don't you have to effectively talk a bill to death? 219 times seems a ton, do they actually talk them to death or just threaten to and the other party cedes the point effectively by never calling the bill up?
I would say things about Obama but I can't point to enough evidence to support my feelings towards him at this time. But my feelings always seem confirmed the more I learn about him. Next year's election should be interesting.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Thank you for answering David's question with 'yes', Senmont, because of course being Hispanic is an ideological reason for Democrats to block a nominee
Thurgon, there's been a 'gentleman's agreement' for a while in the senate that a senator could 'filibuster' and the senate would take cloture, then table it amd move on to new business, only to check cloiture for a few days later.
|
|
Thank you for answering David's question with 'yes', Senmont, because of course being Hispanic is an ideological reason for Democrats to block a nominee
Uhhhh, no. I said "perfectly reasonable politics", not its ok to block nominees based on race. My examples were to point out that there are areas where there is no room for negotiation. For me that would be laws forcing the teaching of creationism in schools instead of science. For someone else it may be restoring the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance.
And please provide something other than a conservative tabloid for evidence. I might believe it. Then I would say that it is deplorable.
Looking more into that issue, it seems that by nominating Estrada, Bush was pandering to the latino vote,and some liberal interest groups had said that Estrada was "politically dangerous," with being Hispanic as one of those fears. If I were to look into more, I think I would find that his whole nomination process was a political quagmire where no one was in the right.
That is different than saying Estrada was blocked because he is Hispanic.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yes, because it's only good when one side panders to the Latino vote "Wise Latina," Bonus when she feels it's good to discriminate against white firefighters.
But hey, is the WSJ a 'tabloid'?
Oh, look... SEIU gets a veto on judges now.
And there's another name Cass Sunstein. But of course arguing that the Democrats should block all the judicial nominations (unless they meet approval of the liberal groups) isn't partisan, no...
But hey, if you want to deny the actual documents knock yourself out.
Most of us can see the deficiencies in 'our side' When you can't, yoi make me laugh.
|
|
Yes, because it's only good when one side panders to the Latino vote "Wise Latina," Bonus when she feels it's good to discriminate against white firefighters.
...stuff...
Most of us can see the deficiencies in 'our side' When you can't, yoi make me laugh.
I don't have a side and I do see deficiencies in both parties. It is one of the reasons I vote for independent candidates when I can; but I do lean left and I don't like the Republican platform. The whole "Wise Latina" is a talking point and taken out of context and you know it. Also, I never said that Democrats weren't partisan. I said that Obama did try to work with the Republicans and they refused. As far as I'm concerned he should never have bothered.
I already knew about the underlined portion in the pdf as well as the WSJ link, and mentioned it above:
Looking more into that issue, it seems that by nominating Estrada, Bush was pandering to the latino vote,and some liberal interest groups had said that Estrada was "politically dangerous," with being Hispanic as one of those fears. If I were to look into more, I think I would find that his whole nomination process was a political quagmire where no one was in the right.
The Sunstien link looks interesting and on a casual perusal, it still shows that both sides are in the wrong on this issue.
If I were to look into more, I think I would find that his whole nomination process was a political quagmire where no one was in the right.
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong but to filibuster don't you have to effectively talk a bill to death? 219 times seems a ton, do they actually talk them to death or just threaten to and the other party cedes the point effectively by never calling the bill up?
Unless you have a filibuster proof majority, like the Democrats currently enjoy, usually all it takes is the threat of a filibuster to kill legislation. Gone are the days of Senators standing on the floor reading "War and Peace." Now most filibusters involve the minority saying that they are going to filibuster a bill and if the majority party doesn't think it has the votes they never bring the bill to the floor. This is why they make a big show these days of having sixty votes before they go to the floor with legislation. In the case of the 2004 Democrats they also filibustered judicial nominees, which had always been considered taboo prior to that point.
I REALLY don't like having a Democrat in the oval office along with a Democratic majority in Congress. Likewise, Republican presidents seem like they do the best job when they're stuck with a Democratic congress. Separation of power, and all that.
I REALLY don't like having a Democrat in the oval office along with a Democratic majority in Congress. Likewise, Republican presidents seem like they do the best job when they're stuck with a Democratic congress. Separation of power, and all that.
Gives the same kind of feeling as a railroad plotline, only more real - and thusly more dire consequences when (not if) people screw up - and more rushed. With you there 100%.
|
|
I REALLY don't like having a Democrat in the oval office along with a Democratic majority in Congress. Likewise, Republican presidents seem like they do the best job when they're stuck with a Democratic congress. Separation of power, and all that.
It's even worse with a filibuster proof majority. As long as you get your on house in order you don't even need to make a token show of appealing to the other side, if you don't want to.
I REALLY don't like having a Democrat in the oval office along with a Democratic majority in Congress. Likewise, Republican presidents seem like they do the best job when they're stuck with a Democratic congress. Separation of power, and all that.
More checks and balances then separation of power, but yeah I agree. I like one party having the house/senate and the others in the white house.
|
|
I REALLY don't like having a Democrat in the oval office along with a Democratic majority in Congress. Likewise, Republican presidents seem like they do the best job when they're stuck with a Democratic congress. Separation of power, and all that.More checks and balances then separation of power, but yeah I agree. I like one party having the house/senate and the others in the white house.
To paraphrase Martin Sheen, Gridlock is good.
Unless you have a filibuster proof majority, like the Democrats currently enjoy, usually all it takes is the threat of a filibuster to kill legislation. Gone are the days of Senators standing on the floor reading "War and Peace." Now most filibusters involve the minority saying that they are going to filibuster a bill and if the majority party doesn't think it has the votes they never bring the bill to the floor. This is why they make a big show these days of having sixty votes before they go to the floor with legislation. In the case of the 2004 Democrats they also filibustered judicial nominees, which had always been considered taboo prior to that point.Correct me if I am wrong but to filibuster don't you have to effectively talk a bill to death? 219 times seems a ton, do they actually talk them to death or just threaten to and the other party cedes the point effectively by never calling the bill up?
Seems weaksause to not have to actually filibuster, I mean it is suppose to be a pain in the butt to do, that way it doesn't get overdone and is really only used as a true last resort.
Also seems lame to filibuster judicial nominees.
To paraphrase Martin Sheen, Gridlock is good.I REALLY don't like having a Democrat in the oval office along with a Democratic majority in Congress. Likewise, Republican presidents seem like they do the best job when they're stuck with a Democratic congress. Separation of power, and all that.More checks and balances then separation of power, but yeah I agree. I like one party having the house/senate and the others in the white house.
Well when you have two idiots it's better they fight each other then get into your face, that's kind of what we have with government these days.
|
|
Also seems lame to filibuster judicial nominees.
It was never done before because the Constitution clearly says that the President selects judicial nominees with "the advice and consent" of the Senate. By filibustering judicial nominees it prevented the Senate from doing it's Constitutionally madated duty.
It was never done before because the Constitution clearly says that the President selects judicial nominees with "the advice and consent" of the Senate. By filibustering judicial nominees it prevented the Senate from doing it's Constitutionally madated duty.
Also seems lame to filibuster judicial nominees.
After the behavior of my State's Senate I will believe anything goes, those XXXX actually locked each other out of the senate room and far worse. But still that's low, was Obama part of that "jerkery" (new word, meaning acting like a jerk).
|
|
After the behavior of my State's Senate I will believe anything goes, those XXXX actually locked each other out of the senate room and far worse. But still that's low, was Obama part of that "jerkery" (new word, meaning acting like a jerk).It was never done before because the Constitution clearly says that the President selects judicial nominees with "the advice and consent" of the Senate. By filibustering judicial nominees it prevented the Senate from doing it's Constitutionally madated duty.
Also seems lame to filibuster judicial nominees.
He was elected in 2004. The 2005 Senate Democrats did the same thing, but to a lesser extent. Then after the 2006 elections they began whining the minute the Republicans used the filibuster the first time.
|
After the behavior of my State's Senate I will believe anything goes, those XXXX actually locked each other out of the senate room and far worse. But still that's low, was Obama part of that "jerkery" (new word, meaning acting like a jerk).It was never done before because the Constitution clearly says that the President selects judicial nominees with "the advice and consent" of the Senate. By filibustering judicial nominees it prevented the Senate from doing it's Constitutionally madated duty.
Also seems lame to filibuster judicial nominees.
Yes. It's not like the Republicans would ever do anything jerky like say, impeach a sitting President for having an affair after failing miserably and at huge expense to find anything improper in the financial dealings they were supposed to be investigating, is it? Jerkery occurs on both sides.
At the moment, all it sounds like is whining from the party that lost control that they're not getting their way. Well, of course you're not, you lost. That's kind of the point of winning elections; to get the legislation you favour through.
As the American people voted to give the Democrats control, does it occur to you people that maybe that's the direction the country wants to move in? That was certainly the claim when the Republicans held all three early in George W's Presidency. But as always, it's ok when my guy's in charge, but the other guy needs more checks and balances.
|
|
I think it actually says more about the Democrats in the Senate that despite a "super majority" meaning that the have enough votes to shut off filibuster if everyone in their party votes for cloiture, that the Republicans hav been able to filibuster 39 times. After all it would require a bi-partisan effort, whith at least onde Democrat jumping ship each of those 39 times.
|
|
As the American people voted to give the Democrats control, does it occur to you people that maybe that's the direction the country wants to move in? That was certainly the claim when the Republicans held all three early in George W's Presidency. But as always, it's ok when my guy's in charge, but the other guy needs more checks and balances.
Except that polling data says that it's not the direction the country wants to move in.
|
|
I think it actually says more about the emocrats in the Senate that despite a "super majority" meaning that the have enough votes to shut off filibuster if everyone in their party votes for cloiture, that the Republicans hav been able to filibuster 39 times. After all it would require a bi-partisan effort, whith at least onde Democrat jumping ship each of those 39 times.
DAvid,
What does it say? That the party doesn't always vote just because it's the party line? Given all your previous comments, I'd thought you'd think that was an admirable trait, not a cause for criticism.EDIT to address the second point made: So they voted Democrat but didn't want the Democrats to actually do what they said they would? Huh? What did they vote Democrat for, then?
|
|
I did not mean my comment as criticism, but as a commnt on theway things are. All we hear when the President and Congressional leadership don't get the legislation passed that they want is how them dang Republicans are getting in the way. Yet we never hear about the Democrats that cross over.
Just up thread we had a comment about how there isn't going to be bi-partisanship with the Republicans as the minority party. Yet everyone of those 39 filibusters is an example of how there is bi-partisanship in Congress as Democrats cross over to block things in the Senate. I though that bi-partisanship was the two parties working together, whether to pass a bill or to kill it.
I hope that when people read my comment above that they take away from it the truth, which is the Republicans by themselves can't stop anything. So we can sit around and whine about the "obstructionist Republicans" all day long, but the reality is that it is members of the President's own party that are blocking his agenda at the end of the day.
After the behavior of my State's Senate I will believe anything goes, those XXXX actually locked each other out of the senate room and far worse. But still that's low, was Obama part of that "jerkery" (new word, meaning acting like a jerk).It was never done before because the Constitution clearly says that the President selects judicial nominees with "the advice and consent" of the Senate. By filibustering judicial nominees it prevented the Senate from doing it's Constitutionally madated duty.
Also seems lame to filibuster judicial nominees.Yes. It's not like the Republicans would ever do anything jerky like say, impeach a sitting President for having an affair after failing miserably and at huge expense to find anything improper in the financial dealings they were supposed to be investigating, is it? Jerkery occurs on both sides.
At the moment, all it sounds like is whining from the party that lost control that they're not getting their way. Well, of course you're not, you lost. That's kind of the point of winning elections; to get the legislation you favour through.
As the American people voted to give the Democrats control, does it occur to you people that maybe that's the direction the country wants to move in? That was certainly the claim when the Republicans held all three early in George W's Presidency. But as always, it's ok when my guy's in charge, but the other guy needs more checks and balances.
A bit partisan there, I said my state senate, not the federal one. And if the federal senators started locking the senate doors to keep the other party out so no bussiness could be done well I would call them jerky too.
Both parties in my state were acting like jerks, the dems had a 34 to 32 majority, when the top dem had a personal tiff with another member (2 actually) so 2 dems went to the republicans and offered to help them get some things they wanted if the republicans would elect them heads of the senate, which the republicans did. So now there were 32 dems vs 32 republicans and 2 dems, the 2 dems got voted into power the other dems stole the key to the senate doors and then locked everyone out for weeks. It was stupid silly, the governor a democrat tried to force them all to talk but he lacked the power. Eventually one of the two dems switched back to the dems but that only made it all worse, now it was a 33 to 33 tie with no lt. governor to break the tie (the lt governor was now the governor because the former governor got caught with a prostitute......)...what a mess. Anyway that is high stupidity. Both parties showed low character the only guy who showed any character was the democratic govenor who tried to get them to stop being jerks, he's blind but even he could see what they were doing was dumb.
Stop with the repeating that lie, Clinton was not impeached for sleeping around, he was impeached for lying in court about having done it. In the US it is a crime to lie under oath. Clinton clearly lied it's on tape, and he admitted to it, thus he committed a crime (misdemeanor) and that is exactly what it says gives the senate the right to impeach him. Should presidents be allowed to lie under oath in courts?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
One might argue that the American people voted for the democrats for what they promised, after all...
In any event, to the orginal topic, I feel that for all of Reagan's faults he did more good than harm in the end.
Edit: And when it comes to federal senators, I'm stuck with Sonofavitch and Brown. I voted for Brown over DeWhine because 'if I'm stuck with an ultra liberal senator, he may as well have a 'D' next to his name...'
What did they vote Democrat for, then?
The answer to this should be bloody obvious but I'm going to say it anyway.
Because the only other option was consistently (and not completely inaccurately) painted as "More of the same" and people did not like the same. Less "this guy's idea is better" and more "that guy's idea sucks so we'll go with anything else".
|
|
After the behavior of my State's Senate I will believe anything goes, those XXXX actually locked each other out of the senate room and far worse. But still that's low, was Obama part of that "jerkery" (new word, meaning acting like a jerk).It was never done before because the Constitution clearly says that the President selects judicial nominees with "the advice and consent" of the Senate. By filibustering judicial nominees it prevented the Senate from doing it's Constitutionally madated duty.
Also seems lame to filibuster judicial nominees.Yes. It's not like the Republicans would ever do anything jerky like say, impeach a sitting President for having an affair after failing miserably and at huge expense to find anything improper in the financial dealings they were supposed to be investigating, is it? Jerkery occurs on both sides.
At the moment, all it sounds like is whining from the party that lost control that they're not getting their way. Well, of course you're not, you lost. That's kind of the point of winning elections; to get the legislation you favour through.
As the American people voted to give the Democrats control, does it occur to you people that maybe that's the direction the country wants to move in? That was certainly the claim when the Republicans held all three early in George W's Presidency. But as always, it's ok when my guy's in charge, but the other guy needs more checks and balances.
A bit partisan there, I said my state senate, not the federal one. And if the federal senators started locking the senate doors to keep the other party out so no bussiness could be done well I would call them jerky too.
Both parties in my state were acting like jerks, the dems had a 34 to 32 majority, when the top dem had a personal tiff with another member (2 actually) so 2 dems went to the republicans and offered to help them get some things they wanted if the...
Thurgon,
I was referring to your question about Obama being involved in the jerkery. I have no idea of the answer, just pointing out that jerkery occurs on both sides.As to Clinton, you're right, but why was he asked about his affair? Of what relevance was it to his Presidency? Why was it even investigated in an investigation supposed to be about fraudulent land deals? Do you see why that might also be considered jerkery?
And it is a bit partisan. It's very hard to have any political discussion without any partisanship. But you will note that I accept the Democrat activity was also jerkery. I'm just pointing out that BOTH SIDE are guilty of this.
|
|
What did they vote Democrat for, then?The answer to this should be bloody obvious but I'm going to say it anyway.
Because the only other option was consistently (and not completely inaccurately) painted as "More of the same" and people did not like the same. Less "this guy's idea is better" and more "that guy's idea sucks so we'll go with anything else".
As far as why people vote Democrat, I honestly think, as a crossover Obama voter, that a lot of people liked what was being presented, but don't like the way it is being implemented. Also, a large number of Democrats were elected as blue dog Democrats, or DINOs, who were more conservative and have a more conservative constituantcy. They are in trouble with the voters back home because they promised to take the Democrats back to a more fiscally responsible, and socially hands off, position and they don't seem to have done it. Therefore the Democrat agenda that is being pushed through right now is not the agenda that a lot of the people who voted for Democrats thought they were going to get.
in about a year or so he will be on the dollar coin and the following year Obama will be as well.
Huh? Is that a clever joke about the president dying, or did I miss something?
|
|
in about a year or so he will be on the dollar coin and the following year Obama will be as well.Huh? Is that a clever joke about the president dying, or did I miss something?
Well about two monthes ago, CNN refered to Joe Biden as "the former Vice-Presidental candiate Joe Biden." Simple error, or do they now something we don't?
How come nobody misses me?
|
|
As far as why people vote Democrat, I honestly think, as a crossover Obama voter, that a lot of people liked what was being presented, but don't like the way it is being implemented. Also, a large number of Democrats were elected as blue dog Democrats, or DINOs, who were more conservative and have a more conservative constituantcy. They are in trouble with the voters back home because they promised to take the Democrats back to a more fiscally responsible, and socially hands off, position and they don't seem to have done it. Therefore the Democrat agenda that is being pushed through right now is not the agenda that a lot of the people who voted for Democrats thought they were going to get.What did they vote Democrat for, then?The answer to this should be bloody obvious but I'm going to say it anyway.
Because the only other option was consistently (and not completely inaccurately) painted as "More of the same" and people did not like the same. Less "this guy's idea is better" and more "that guy's idea sucks so we'll go with anything else".
Ok. This is probably something caused by being from another country with a different system but over here there's one platform for each party. If you are a member of that party, you campaign on that platform. Is that not the case in the US, because from what you just said, it sounds like the party label is a flag of convenience and doesn't have much relation to what the candidate stands for.
EDIT: And I'm bowing out. As it's not my country, I should probably avoid getting involved in the politics.
|
|
I may lean to the left of center, but what you said right there is why I have and will remain a registered Independent.Yes, because George W was famed for taking opposing points of view into account and certainly didn't railroad things through. At all.
It amazes* me that people complain about what their opponent is doing when they did the exact same thing when they had the power. Equally it amazes* me that people will 180 turn on what they complained about when they get in power. The inversion is quite interesting. Under Bush lots of Republicans had an attitude of "criticising the President is treason and you traitors should get the **** out of this country", while the Democrats thought there was no higher form of patriotism than to resist such a "tyrannical force of evil". Now those positions seem to be reversed, for no other reason than their guy is/is not in power.
I agree and I remain Independent as well.
I truly believe that if the two parties are going to continue moving in the directions they are moving, our government needs a viable third party to survive.
I am insanely liberal when it comes to social issues but strongly conservative when it comes financial issues. There are exceptions but I am simplifying this to make point. Where does that leave me? How do I vote when the two parties are moving so far away from each other and neither seem to desire compromise?
At heart, I am libertarian that leans way left on certain issues. I have also been called a classic liberal, which is about the same thing. I want the government out of my life. Despite my insane, blind, and regrettable anger on the subject (I am still trying to figure out how to say I'm sorry to people I lashed out at about the subject), I truly don't think the right battle is being fought when it comes marriage, gay or otherwise. The federal government is here to protect its citizens. Taxes should be lower and spent on things needed to fulfill the government goals. The federal government should be smaller. I truly think everyone deserves to follow their life as they see fit without fear. Ultimately the government on any level has no business legislating morality unless such actions infringe on the rights of others or cause harm to others. That goes for both sides of the debate. And a little more consideration needs to be paid towards state's rights.
So, in today's political climate, who I am supposed to vote for? I am not seeing anyone who inspires me with confidence. Politicians seem to think they speak for their supporters but what about the increasing number of disenfranchised voters of all stripes and affiliations that are no longer seeing their views represented? I am interested to see how these next few decades are going to play out. Will there be monumental change and, if so, how will it look?
I think the older we get, the more rose hued our bifocals become.
Winner!
How come nobody misses me?
To be missed you have to be gone.
I REALLY don't like having a Democrat in the oval office along with a Democratic majority in Congress. Likewise, Republican presidents seem like they do the best job when they're stuck with a Democratic congress. Separation of power, and all that.
Generally, I agree. However, I worry that separation of powers has made it practically impossible for us to change course drastically enough to fix our most pressing problem: our national debt. Make no mistake, Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal: Our national debt will kill this country , and more quickly than most of us will believe. Anyone paying attention should realize that neither major party has one jot of credibility when it comes to doing what needs to be done to avoid this impending disaster. Worse, very few "average" Americans seem willing to give up anything for the common good. I'm honestly not sure it's even possible to fix the problem at this point. :(
Edit: As for Reagan, IIRC he presided over an unprecedented increase in the national debt. Not exactly what I would expect from a fiscal conservative.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
On topic, despite his flaws I do think Reagan provided more good overall. He changed the world in many key ways.
Though I am not sure I miss him as much as I miss my perception of that time. It seemed simpler somehow. But then, isn't that always how we view the past as we continue to age?
Are you old enough to remember Reagan? :P
Both parties in my state were acting like jerks,... more
Wow, finally a state with politics more messed up then NY. Now I don't feel so bad.
Wait a minute!
Dems did this, Reps did that, blah, blah, blah. If you follow the money, they basically work for the same people. And I sure don't mean the majority of voters. I would say they are whores, but (let's call them sex workers) can be decent moral people. Reps and Dems are the worst kind of scum who sell the country off to the highest bidder, while claiming moral purity. Good cop, bad cop, same department.
Which brings us back to my comments about Christianity from a way back in the thread. I'm not Christian myself, but I think there is some great stuff in the bible (and not just the freaky monsters and stuff). My favorite is the story of someone (Jesus?) who goes undercover and gets mistreated, then reveals his identity, and damns the people who done him wrong. "When I was ill, you snubbed me, when I was in jail, you didn't visit, etc." I'm sure someone could post a link. "As you do unto the least of my bros, so you do to me, yo." was the idea. Since EVERY president of my lifetime has made such a big deal of their religion, I thought it only fair that they should be judged by those standards. Reagan was big into the fundamental religion stuff, yet when it came to how his rule treated the poor and sick, he fails miserably. Perhaps if they spent less time thumping their bibles, and more time reading them (and other books) they would have more empathy for the 99.9% of us who are not multi-millionaires.
|
|
Dems did this, Reps did that, blah, blah, blah. If you follow the money, they basically work for the same people. And I sure don't mean the majority of voters. I would say they are whores, but (let's call them sex workers) can be decent moral people. Reps and Dems are the worst kind of scum who sell the country off to the highest bidder, while claiming moral purity. Good cop, bad cop, same department.
Heres an appropriate Reagan quote:
“It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.” RONALD REAGAN
I agree and I remain Independent as well.
I truly believe that if the two parties are going to continue moving in the directions they are moving, our government needs a viable third party to survive.I am insanely liberal when it comes to social issues but strongly conservative when it comes financial issues. There are exceptions but I am simplifying this to make point. Where does that leave me? How do I vote when the two parties are moving so far away from each other and neither seem to desire compromise?
At heart, I am libertarian that leans way left on certain issues. I have also been called a classic liberal, which is about the same thing. I want the government out of my life. Despite my insane, blind, and regrettable anger on the subject (I am still trying to figure out how to say I'm sorry to people I lashed out at about the subject), I truly don't think the right battle is being fought when it comes marriage, gay or otherwise. The federal government is here to protect its citizens. Taxes should be lower and spent on things needed to fulfill the government goals. The federal government should be smaller. I truly think everyone deserves to follow their life as they see fit without fear. Ultimately the government on any level has no business legislating morality unless such actions infringe on the rights of others or cause harm to others. That goes for both sides of the debate. And a little more consideration needs to be paid towards state's rights.
So, in today's political climate, who I am supposed to vote for? I am not seeing anyone who inspires me with confidence. Politicians seem to think they speak for their supporters but what about the increasing number of disenfranchised voters of all stripes and affiliations that are no longer seeing their views represented? I am interested to see how these next few decades are going to play out. Will there be monumental change and, if so, how will it look?
Wow. I'm more of a fiscal moderate, but I really agree with your overall sentiments. Good post.
|
|
Well about two monthes ago, CNN refered to Joe Biden as "the former Vice-Presidental candiate Joe Biden." Simple error, or do they now something we don't?in about a year or so he will be on the dollar coin and the following year Obama will be as well.Huh? Is that a clever joke about the president dying, or did I miss something?
Oh how I hope so. for the former.
EDIT:I for one hope that he will change from running for office to actually being the president. Obama has great potential. He now needs to use that for the betterment of the country. I fully support him. I doubt I will vote for him come next election if he continues on the path he is now.
|
|
Wow. I'm more of a fiscal moderate, but I really agree with your...I agree and I remain Independent as well.
I truly believe that if the two parties are going to continue moving in the directions they are moving, our government needs a viable third party to survive.I am insanely liberal when it comes to social issues but strongly conservative when it comes financial issues. There are exceptions but I am simplifying this to make point. Where does that leave me? How do I vote when the two parties are moving so far away from each other and neither seem to desire compromise?
At heart, I am libertarian that leans way left on certain issues. I have also been called a classic liberal, which is about the same thing. I want the government out of my life. Despite my insane, blind, and regrettable anger on the subject (I am still trying to figure out how to say I'm sorry to people I lashed out at about the subject), I truly don't think the right battle is being fought when it comes marriage, gay or otherwise. The federal government is here to protect its citizens. Taxes should be lower and spent on things needed to fulfill the government goals. The federal government should be smaller. I truly think everyone deserves to follow their life as they see fit without fear. Ultimately the government on any level has no business legislating morality unless such actions infringe on the rights of others or cause harm to others. That goes for both sides of the debate. And a little more consideration needs to be paid towards state's rights.
So, in today's political climate, who I am supposed to vote for? I am not seeing anyone who inspires me with confidence. Politicians seem to think they speak for their supporters but what about the increasing number of disenfranchised voters of all stripes and affiliations that are no longer seeing their views represented? I am interested to see how these next few decades are going to play out. Will there be monumental change and, if so, how will it look?
More or less +2, but I would add that access to a good education and sufficient health care should fall under the protection of the federal government.
One might argue that the American people voted for the democrats for what they promised, after all...
In any event, to the orginal topic, I feel that for all of Reagan's faults he did more good than harm in the end.
Edit: And when it comes to federal senators, I'm stuck with Sonofavitch and Brown. I voted for Brown over DeWhine because 'if I'm stuck with an ultra liberal senator, he may as well have a 'D' next to his name...'
Yeah, but Sonofavitch is leaving in '10. I'm just wondering who's going to get past the primary and which one of the lesser of evils I'll have to vote for.
I truly believe that if the two parties are going to continue moving in the directions they are moving, our government needs a viable third party to survive.I am insanely liberal when it comes to social issues but strongly conservative when it comes financial issues. There are exceptions but I am simplifying this to make point. Where does that leave me? How do I vote when the two parties are moving so far away from each other and neither seem to desire compromise?
You desribed me to a jot and tittle. Glad there's more of us in this cowtown. :P
You desribed me to a jot and tittle. Glad there's more of us in this cowtown. :P
I truly believe that if the two parties are going to continue moving in the directions they are moving, our government needs a viable third party to survive.I am insanely liberal when it comes to social issues but strongly conservative when it comes financial issues. There are exceptions but I am simplifying this to make point. Where does that leave me? How do I vote when the two parties are moving so far away from each other and neither seem to desire compromise?
That's about me as well, but I tend to sound a lot more conservative over the Interwebz than I actually am. In my view the government should be out of both the boardroom and the bedroom. Let people live the life they want, don't throw up a morass of bureaucracy and try to live a little frugally.
That's about me as well, but I tend to sound a lot more conservative over the Interwebz than I actually am. In my view the government should be out of both the boardroom and the bedroom. Let people live the life they want, don't throw up a morass of bureaucracy and try to live a little frugally.
Yeah, they should go and take a hike and clear their mind on the Appalachian trail ... oh wait. nevermind.
:P
|
|
Are you old enough to remember Reagan? :POn topic, despite his flaws I do think Reagan provided more good overall. He changed the world in many key ways.
Though I am not sure I miss him as much as I miss my perception of that time. It seemed simpler somehow. But then, isn't that always how we view the past as we continue to age?
Nice. That was amusing. :) I am old enough, for the most part. Though I was very young when he first took office, that is true.