|
Then Lets bring you up to speed: I said people have no business criticing Obama untill they are prepared to be held accountable for the actions of the State and its Citizens along with him, and everyone else decided to rape my horse to death.
You left out the part about not even understanding the poltical system your critizing.
Speaking of political candidacies, how's that re-election run for Darwin going? Or have you already seceded from the Commonwealth?
That makes you Gurl Gamers Canadians Refugees no matter how south you flee.
As a female gamer, I wish you'd choose your quips more carefully.
Ding - there is a right way and a wrong way to ask a question. Using an aggressive and insulting statement as a lead in will insure that people will loose focus on the topic and address the insult.
Maybe the question could be framed this way.
Do you think that the current President is being unfairly criticised for not resolving the economic disaster left for him by the previous administration fast enough?
Has he become a scapegoat for the larger frustrations of American citizens and that a lot of the vitriol slung in his direction is unwarranted?
Do even you understand the words coming out of your mouth?
Given his lack of facts and no understanding of teh system he's complaining about, I'd hazard the answer is no, no he doesnt.
Hello Carmachu
Welcome to the boards (Ding is a "unique" member of our community don't let him get hot under the collar).
I think there was a misunderstanding about the Australian governmental system a few pages back.
Ding had the basics correct:
At the top there is the Queen of Australia (who is also the Queen of the UK) , She is represented by the Governor General (a position appointed by parliament in consultation with the Queen as she lives in the UK and doesn't visit often)The Powers of the GG (Queen) are very limited and the GG has no right to introduce legislation or make any day to day decisions on the running of the country.
Next we have the Senate its called House of Lords in the UK (As there are no hereditary titles (lords) in Australian there is no point calling it such). The Senate was designed to protect the rights of the States (as Australia is a Federation/Commonwealth of States).
Next to that is the House of Representatives, in which the party with the biggest majority of votes form Government. It there that legislation is introduced debated and sent up to the Senate for review.
Our Judiciary is also independent of the government, the High Court of Australia being the final court of appeal in Australia.
Hope that clears it up for you...
Can we please just KILL this thread now? PLEASE?!?
Can we please just KILL this thread now? PLEASE?!?
Of course not. I'm still a little buzzed, and nothing goes as well with alcohol as messageboard discussions of politics. NOTHING.
Ding - there is a right way and a wrong way to ask a question. Using an aggressive and insulting statement as a lead in will insure that people will loose focus on the topic and address the insult.
Maybe the question could be framed this way.
Do you think that the current President is being unfairly criticised for not resolving the economic disaster left for him by the previous administration fast enough?
Has he become a scapegoat for the larger frustrations of American citizens and that a lot of the vitriol slung in his direction is unwarranted?
Thank you for your attempts to restore civility to the thread. They have not gone unnoticed.
|
|
That makes you Gurl Gamers Canadians Refugees no matter how south you flee.As a female gamer, I wish you'd choose your quips more carefully.
Pretty sure he meant "curl gamers"-this is Canada he's talking aboot, curling is their second favorite sport after hockey. And how is being called Canadian terri-never mind. And why is someone fleeing Canada in the firs-never mind.
Ding - there is a right way and a wrong way to ask a question. Using an aggressive and insulting statement as a lead in will insure that people will loose focus on the topic and address the insult.
Maybe the question could be framed this way.
Do you think that the current President is being unfairly criticised for not resolving the economic disaster left for him by the previous administration fast enough?
Has he become a scapegoat for the larger frustrations of American citizens and that a lot of the vitriol slung in his direction is unwarranted?
Well a logical and thought out question of such would deserve a logical and thought out response.
Unfairly criticized, Yes and no. While the previous administration was instrumental in finishing the degradation of key constraints helped that caused this whole fiasco, I think it would be unfair, at this juncture to blame the current administration for not fixing it. I will say however I feel that the path he has chosen is the wrong one and years from now it will be shown that these were very poor decisions. Only time will tell.
Is he a scapegoat. Well I feel he was elected by a cult of personality. Not for experience or a specific "game plan" to help things out. Just a lot of rhetoric of "change." Well the bigger they are the harder they shall fall. I do feel a lot of the vile that has been sent his way is not only unwarranted but subtly egged on by party politics.
Oh boy it shows its furry face.
Ding - there is a right way and a wrong way to ask a question. Using an aggressive and insulting statement as a lead in will insure that people will loose focus on the topic and address the insult.
Maybe the question could be framed this way.
Do you think that the current President is being unfairly criticised for not resolving the economic disaster left for him by the previous administration fast enough?
Has he become a scapegoat for the larger frustrations of American citizens and that a lot of the vitriol slung in his direction is unwarranted?
Well a logical and thought out question of such would deserve a logical and thought out response.
Unfairly criticized, Yes and no. While the previous administration was instrumental in finishing the degradation of key constraints helped that caused this whole fiasco, I think it would be unfair, at this juncture to blame the current administration for not fixing it. I will say however I feel that the path he has chosen is the wrong one and years from now it will be shown that these were very poor decisions. Only time will tell.
Is he a scapegoat. Well I feel he was elected by a cult of personality. Not for experience or a specific "game plan" to help things out. Just a lot of rhetoric of "change." Well the bigger they are the harder they shall fall. I do feel a lot of the vile that has been sent his way is not only unwarranted but subtly egged on by party politics.
How do you come up with a game plan for potentially the largest financial collapse in world history just as you are coming into office?
Obama had two choices, sit back and let it go and hope for the best and probably end up with 15-20% unemplyment but less debt (maybe not), or try to government spend your way through it. When people like W. Buffet and most non-partisan economists say he did the right thing, maybe people should listen. As an econ major, I read alot about it at the time because I wanted to make my own decision to support or oppose what he was planning. But they sort of know what they are talking about. I am an independent and tired of the partisan politics. Did he do everything right? Of course not. Has he done a lot of what he promised? No, he has had bigger issues. Maybe he could of done a better job, of course. Could he have done a lot worse job, yep...
Ding - there is a right way and a wrong way to ask a question. Using an aggressive and insulting statement as a lead in will insure that people will loose focus on the topic and address the insult.
Maybe the question could be framed this way.
Do you think that the current President is being unfairly criticised for not resolving the economic disaster left for him by the previous administration fast enough?
Has he become a scapegoat for the larger frustrations of American citizens and that a lot of the vitriol slung in his direction is unwarranted?
Well a logical and thought out question of such would deserve a logical and thought out response.
Unfairly criticized, Yes and no. While the previous administration was instrumental in finishing the degradation of key constraints helped that caused this whole fiasco, I think it would be unfair, at this juncture to blame the current administration for not fixing it. I will say however I feel that the path he has chosen is the wrong one and years from now it will be shown that these were very poor decisions. Only time will tell.
Is he a scapegoat. Well I feel he was elected by a cult of personality. Not for experience or a specific "game plan" to help things out. Just a lot of rhetoric of "change." Well the bigger they are the harder they shall fall. I do feel a lot of the vile that has been sent his way is not only unwarranted but subtly egged on by party politics.
How do you come up with a game plan for potentially the largest financial collapse in world history just as you are coming into office?
Obama had two choices, sit back and let it go and hope for the best and probably end up with 15-20% unemplyment but less debt (maybe not), or try to government spend your way through it. When people like W. Buffet and most non-partisan economists say he did the right thing, maybe people should listen. As an econ major, I read alot about it at the time because I...
How do you, well honestly you talk to those who have the best knowledge of the situation, make an educated guess of what the right course of action is, then make a decision. Which is what I hope he did. I am not sure, sitting on the outside as I am, that is was the right one. That being said I hope time will prove me wrong.
What?Who broke their second phalanx of finger 3 and made you thread police?Oh boy it shows its furry face.You're not helping.
I know ToZ. C'est la vie.
Rouge Rogue is Rouge.
|
Ding - there is a right way and a wrong way to ask a question. Using an aggressive and insulting statement as a lead in will insure that people will loose focus on the topic and address the insult.
Maybe the question could be framed this way.
Do you think that the current President is being unfairly criticised for not resolving the economic disaster left for him by the previous administration fast enough?
Has he become a scapegoat for the larger frustrations of American citizens and that a lot of the vitriol slung in his direction is unwarranted?
Well a logical and thought out question of such would deserve a logical and thought out response.
Unfairly criticized, Yes and no. While the previous administration was instrumental in finishing the degradation of key constraints helped that caused this whole fiasco, I think it would be unfair, at this juncture to blame the current administration for not fixing it. I will say however I feel that the path he has chosen is the wrong one and years from now it will be shown that these were very poor decisions. Only time will tell.
Is he a scapegoat. Well I feel he was elected by a cult of personality. Not for experience or a specific "game plan" to help things out. Just a lot of rhetoric of "change." Well the bigger they are the harder they shall fall. I do feel a lot of the vile that has been sent his way is not only unwarranted but subtly egged on by party politics.
How do you come up with a game plan for potentially the largest financial collapse in world history just as you are coming into office?
Obama had two choices, sit back and let it go and hope for the best and probably end up with 15-20% unemplyment but less debt (maybe not), or try to government spend your way through it. When people like W. Buffet and most non-partisan economists say he did the right thing, maybe people should listen. As an econ major, I read alot about it at the time because I...
Which "non-partisan" economists are you talking about? Any Keynesian economists you're talking about (and they're the only ones who could excuse a budget with a $1.3 trillion deficit) are most definitely not non-partisan. Most "non-partisan" economists are pretty clear that had Obama not passed the very wasteful and terribly ineffective "stimulus" package, we'd either not be any worse or be even better off. Seriously, when even Paul Krugman asks "wtf?" (before someone reminded him he's a partisan hack and he should toe the party line), you know something isn't quite right.
Secondly, Buffet is a huge Democrat donor, and was handed an entire company for peanuts by the current administration, so I'd take anything he says about the administration he co-owns with George Soros with an iceberg of salt.
Thirdly, the only job growth has been in the public sector. You know, jobs that do not actually grown an economy. Now, had you been a business major instead of an economics major (economists, especially Keynesian economists) tend to be woefully ignorant of how the private sector - i.e. the real world - works), you would understand why there is a lot of fear and apprehension in the private sector. They aren't hiring right now. Not because they don't have the investment capital (they do). but because they are scared s+%!less of what this administration will do to them next. They're already going to take a huge hit when certain aspects of the health care bill come in line, and they are also worried about the tax breaks expiring on December 31st. And forget the capital gains taxes already increasing. And cap and trade. And a host of other laws passed that create a disincentive for anyone to start or expand a business right now.
Fourthly, the economy was going into the tank when Obama was running. Not after he took the job. He sure talked like he had a plan (without actually saying what that plan was), so , yes, it is completely acceptable to hold his feet to the fire. Seriously, the man has never held a private sector job. He has a law degree and has never practiced law, for one. All he has done his entire life is make pretty speeches and spend other people's money. Which is all he has done since he's took office. If Truman had a plaque on his desk that read "The Buck Stops Here", Obama must have one that says "Where Can I Pass this Buck?".
I'm sorry, but continuing to spend money we simply do not have (and continuing to sell our future to China) is never good policy.
By that same measure, you have no business criticizing President Obama's critics. :)
The President is an employee of the US citizens. He works for us, whether an individual voted for him or not. Therefore, he should expect feedback, including criticism, from his employers.
You, as a non-US citizen, don't seem to have any problem offering criticism of the US government, its policies, or its people... why do you get to flap your bonebox when the rest of us don't.
If a discussion crosses the line, please flag it and move on. Otherwise, I'd suggest you just ignore those threads.
...Get off you bum and get involved. It is your responsibility to do so....How do you know we don't? There is more to keeping things running smoothly than through the government, especially through local volunteering. And regardless of how it works in Dingo Land, most of us are us busy juggling family, the home, and one or more jobs.
We need an awesome flag for this post.
Frankly you have no business criticising Barak Obama.
1. You Voted for him
2. You Didnt bother to VoteIf any of these categores indicates your behaviour at the last US election then it is your fault that you wound up with a bad government. Your Fault. Take Responsibility for your own actions.
Criticizing is a way for people to "take responsibility". It is way to keep the governmental representatives accountable for their actions. It is exactly why the U.S. constitution has both the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. These are both in place to continuously re-examine past performances.
The other guy was crap by comparison. Boo! Hoo!
Well, honestly we can't know for certain how the other fellow would have performed (unless anyone has an alternate reality viewer). One criticism about the other guy, though was that he was too old and was likely to die in office. He is still alive and well, and just had a tough primary fight and is likely to win his general election. All of those put pressure on the person and yet he has not died yet. Of course there is still two years in the current Presidential term so we can't say for certain yet, if he would have made it. But perhaps the people claiming he didn't have the health to make it, were a being a bit pessimistic.
Yes Every citizen has the right to represent themselves in parliament [congress].
Not exactly. We have representative government and not a true democracy. Certainly there are benefits for true democracies, but there are also dangers. People can get caught up on a wave of emotion and make choices that initial seem good, but ultimately are poor. While this is still true for a representative government, since (at least in our system) the person won't be recalled for a perceived mistake immediately, this means the choices have to general pan out in the long run (or at least in the next two years for House members and the next six years for Senate members). So the representatives have to take a slightly longer view than any given individual would.
Fine you want Seats for every citizen in Parlaiment[Congress]?
Not particularly.
Then you Run For Local Government (Mayor) on this policy of Government Reform. Local Governments will require the direct and regular approval of Every citizen. Get off you bum and get involved. It is your responsibility to do so.
Slow down there my friend, you are shifting gears on me. Federal issues are different State, County, and City issues. There is no direct connection between these different levels. Being a mayor isn't going to give you the kind of power to fix the federal level issues.
Now go fetch me some more Oil from Afghanistan.
While Afghanistan does have oil, its true resources may be in minerals like lithium.
I cant see who would want the Job of President at this time... its a tough one.
Its kind of hard to go into an election expecting to win by saying "We can kinda do something about the impending crisis..we hope".
The US will pull through, it did so in previous depressions it just takes a while to adapt to the changes in the playing field.
|
Slow down there my friend, you are shifting gears on me. Federal issues are different State, County, and City issues. There is no direct connection between these different levels. Being a mayor isn't going to give you the kind of power to fix the federal level issues.
Oddly enough, wrong. By addressing employment issues locally - employing Locals rather than contracting out to big Companies will bring down your local unemployment level and push up your economy. It will take the pressure off Unemployment Services, and allow people to get better medical maintenance. That certainly forces changes in the private sector. They must be self sustaining rather than parasitic in living off Government Contracts that could be of greater benifit to the State by employing locals.
While Obama is far from perfect, and I think we could have done a lot better, I'm amazed at what he gets criticism for.
Gulf Oil Spill? Just like Katrina! Amusingly, many of those who say this didn't admit Bush screwed up until now.
Health Care? Total disaster. Even though he gave up on Public Option before starting, even though he gave up a single-payer system...the bill's been reduced to a few regulations. Still! Socialist takeover! Everybody repeal the bill!
Economy? It's not better yet! Vote Republican now for change!
How easily people forget...
|
|
While Obama is far from perfect, and I think we could have done a lot better, I'm amazed at what he gets criticism for.
Gulf Oil Spill? Just like Katrina! Amusingly, many of those who say this didn't admit Bush screwed up until now.
Health Care? Total disaster. Even though he gave up on Public Option before starting, even though he gave up a single-payer system...the bill's been reduced to a few regulations. Still! Socialist takeover! Everybody repeal the bill!
Economy? It's not better yet! Vote Republican now for change!
How easily people forget...
The oil spill? You do understand that Obama was president when the government waived BP's requirements to file a "blowout" plan (i.e. a plan to deal with what did happen, which every off shore driller must file since it is a possibility). That falls squarely on Obama's shoulders, sorry. And nice deflection: "The other guy screwed up, you can't hold Obama accountable!" And, see more below about the reality of your deflection.
Yeah, they forget 4.6% unemployment and 5% GDP growth before Democrats took over congress. What people forget is that Tim Geithner (Obama's "wonderkid" Treasury Secretary) was in charge of the SEC when the wheels fell off, and he was too busy playing partisan whack-a-mole to actually enforce some regulations that heavy Dem donators from Bear Stearnes and AIG were ignoring.
And Blanco and Nagin are far more culpable than Bush for what happened to the people of New Orleans. And the city of New Orleans politicians funneled money meant for levee repair into Harrah's and their own pockets (which is business as usual in NOLA I'm afraid), this was not Bush's fault. Bush (by giving Mike Brown the FEMA job) has enough that is his responsibility that was handled poorly in that situation, but the fact there were still a sizable number of people in the city and the fact the National Guard and FEMA had to wait three days to do anything fall on Nagin's and Blanco's shoulders, respectively.
And the biggest problem with ObamaCare is, even according to his own auditors, it will drive health costs up and force small businesses to make decisions they shouldn't have to make. And a lot of those decisions are going to result in lay offs.
What you seem to forget is people are just fed up right now. Obama came in with a huge approval rating; people wanted him to succeed. If expectations were unreasonable, blame the "Anointed One" and his toadies in the media for raising expectations so high. If people are tired of his "all talk and no results" record to date, blame Obama. If people are concerned that he spent $1.3 trillion more than we had last year and things got worse, blame Obama.
You don't lose 30 points off your approval rating in a year because people didn't give you a chance, you lose 30 points because you talked a bunch of s+#+ and didn't deliver. Edit: And, since his approval rating has never been higher than 30% with people who identify as Republicans, all of those approval losses came from people who supported him, for the most part. People that believed he would be different.
Sorry you feel like they're wrong for realizing he's just a politician who wasn't up for the job.
While Obama is far from perfect, and I think we could have done a lot better, I'm amazed at what he gets criticism for.
Gulf Oil Spill? Just like Katrina! Amusingly, many of those who say this didn't admit Bush screwed up until now.
Health Care? Total disaster. Even though he gave up on Public Option before starting, even though he gave up a single-payer system...the bill's been reduced to a few regulations. Still! Socialist takeover! Everybody repeal the bill!
Economy? It's not better yet! Vote Republican now for change!
How easily people forget...
The oil spill? You do understand that Obama was president when the government waived BP's requirements to file a "blowout" plan (i.e. a plan to deal with what did happen, which every off shore driller must file since it is a possibility). That falls squarely on Obama's shoulders, sorry. And nice deflection: "The other guy screwed up, you can't hold Obama accountable!" And, see more below about the reality of your deflection.
Yeah, they forget 4.6% unemployment and 5% GDP growth before Democrats took over congress. What people forget is that Tim Geithner (Obama's "wonderkid" Treasury Secretary) was in charge of the SEC when the wheels fell off, and he was too busy playing partisan whack-a-mole to actually enforce some regulations that heavy Dem donators from Bear Stearnes and AIG were ignoring.
And Blanco and Nagin are far more culpable than Bush for what happened to the people of New Orleans. And the city of New Orleans politicians funneled money meant for levee repair into Harrah's and their own pockets (which is business as usual in NOLA I'm afraid), this was not Bush's fault. Bush (by giving Mike Brown the FEMA job) has enough that is his responsibility that was handled poorly in that situation, but the fact there were still a sizable number of people in the city and the fact the National Guard and FEMA had to wait three days to do anything fall on Nagin's and Blanco's shoulders, respectively.
And...
I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. You make several good points, but most people that KC are referring to do not pause to make these connections, blaming Obama- and only Obama- for the various issues plaging American society today.
Also, re: oil spill- to what extent is it Obama's fault regarding the paperwork that BP had to file beforehand? Was it a contract that expired or something like that or did Obama personally waive the requirement? I consider the AIG/Bear Stears/etc fiasco to be an ookie cookie- EVERYONE had a hand in that. However, your comments regarding NO are a little confusing- just because Bianco and Nagin screwed up royal doesn't mean Bush is roses, but maybe you could go a little more into what you consider to be his fault as opposed to the fault of others..?
|
|
I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. You make several good points, but most people that KC are referring to do not pause to make these connections, blaming Obama- and only Obama- for the various issues plaging American society today.
Also, re: oil spill- to what extent is it Obama's fault regarding the paperwork that BP had to file beforehand? Was it a contract that expired or something like that or did Obama personally waive the requirement? I consider the AIG/Bear Stears/etc fiasco to be an ookie cookie- EVERYONE had a hand in that. However, your comments regarding NO are a little confusing- just because Bianco and Nagin screwed up royal doesn't mean Bush is roses, but maybe you could go a little more into what you consider to be his fault as opposed to the fault of others..?
No, Bush isn't roses, there was plenty of blame to go around there, but Kobold Cleaver was using Katrina to excuse BP (it seems), so, you know, blaming Obama for regulators waving a Federally mandated blowout plan is just as relevant as blaming Bush for something an agency did while he was president. And, to be fair, Bush had no problem taking foreign help with Katrina, whereas Obama continually turned down help from other nations and allowed the Coast Guard to stall effort to clean it up. Heck, they even forced Jindal to stop his efforts, citing environmental concerns. Ironic much?
You don't even want to know my real opinion and theories about the BP spill reaction by the White House (and, no, they don't involve intentionally blowing the valve).
And, it really doesn't matter if people make any connections. Bush was unfairly blamed for plenty of things that weren't his fault (and given a pass on some that were, to be honest), but I don't recall Kobold Cleaver calling them out (and he's been on the boards long enough to have had the opportunity). Quite a few of the seeds for the economic meltdown were sown by Democratic policies, perpetrated by heavy Democratic donors on Wall Street and in the housing industry, and defended in Congress by Democrats. So, I get a little testy when people put the whole thing on Republicans/Bush (who had their roles in the meltdown as well, trust and believe) and forget to take off their partisan blinders for three seconds to see that ALL of them are criminally culpable for what happened and is happening.
Edit: I know I didn't answer much about Katrina, but the problems that can be lain at Bush's feet are the same that can be lain any time a bureaucracy tries to do something that needs to be handled quickly and efficiently.
I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. You make several good points, but most people that KC are referring to do not pause to make these connections, blaming Obama- and only Obama- for the various issues plaging American society today.
Also, re: oil spill- to what extent is it Obama's fault regarding the paperwork that BP had to file beforehand? Was it a contract that expired or something like that or did Obama personally waive the requirement? I consider the AIG/Bear Stears/etc fiasco to be an ookie cookie- EVERYONE had a hand in that. However, your comments regarding NO are a little confusing- just because Bianco and Nagin screwed up royal doesn't mean Bush is roses, but maybe you could go a little more into what you consider to be his fault as opposed to the fault of others..?
No, Bush isn't roses, there was plenty of blame to go around there, but Kobold Cleaver was using Katrina to excuse BP (it seems), so, you know, blaming Obama for regulators waving a Federally mandated blowout plan is just as relevant as blaming Bush for something an agency did while he was president. And, to be fair, Bush had no problem taking foreign help with Katrina, whereas Obama continually turned down help from other nations and allowed the Coast Guard to stall effort to clean it up. Heck, they even forced Jindal to stop his efforts, citing environmental concerns. Ironic much?
You don't even want to know my real opinion and theories about the BP spill reaction by the White House (and, no, they don't involve intentionally blowing the valve).
And, it really doesn't matter if people make any connections. Bush was unfairly blamed for plenty of things that weren't his fault (and given a pass on some that were, to be honest), but I don't recall Kobold Cleaver calling them out (and he's been on the boards long enough to have had the opportunity). Quite a few of the seeds for the economic meltdown were sown by Democratic policies, perpetrated by heavy Democratic donors on Wall Street...
Well, in that case, like the commercial says, let today be the day you double down. We've got two parties, two pieces of chicken, two slices of cheese, and two strips of crispy bacon here and no cholesterol level to worry about since this is a messageboard- Who is responsible for what in your point of view? Be fair but cruel.
[EDIT re: Your EDIT] I see where you are coming from- it's a bureauocracy, NOTHING is going to happen in time or on time or anything related TO time other than late- but this perspective COULD be seen as giving Bush a pass regarding the situation. When Bush messes up, it's because of the evils of bureauocracy, when Obama messes up, it's because ZOMG HE BLEW UP THE WELL SO HE COULD GIVE FREE OIL TO BLACK PEOPLE ALONG WITH THE FREE HEALTH INSURANCE HE HAS FOR THEM THROUGH HIS HEALTHCARE BILL!!!(unfortunately, I saw that on a messageboard not too many weeks after the oil spill...I can only hope that individual was kidding).
Frankly you have no business criticising Barak Obama.
1. You Voted for him
2. You Didnt bother to VoteIf any of these categores indicates your behaviour at the last US election then it is your fault that you wound up with a bad government.
Down here in Australia it is compulsory for all eligible citizens to vote in federal elections. Indeed, you can be hit with a hefty fine if you don't cast a vote. There is periodic debate about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, it ensures that everybody has some responsibility for the choice of government, but on the other hand it means that some people just tick a random box to get it over and done with. In fact, the level of informal votes in the last election was unusually high because many people wanted to express their disgust with both of the major parties....
It's a major political strategy in this country for the Republicans to actively discourage voting. Basically unlike the Democrats which rely on a mix of demographics for thier base, the Republican base is more heavily centered on narrow specifications, so they actually have an interest in limiting voter participation as much as possible. Democrats on the other hand prefer the tactics of limiting who you can vote for... hence the major attacks on Ralph Nader and other progressive independents.
Although to be fair, in cities like Paterson, New Jersey the local Democratic machine was very big on intimidation tactics to lower down possible dissenters, both democratic or other party wise.
Popular tactics include...
1. Poll taxes. (that one's been illegal for some decades now)
2. Spurious requests for identification usually racially profiled.
This one's new and growing in popularity.
3. Set up fake registration booths in poor and ethnic neighborhoods or any area known for a large Democratic presence, take voter registrations and then simply shred them later.
Ugly tactics on both sides of the aisle. Few are willing to take the parties to task for them equally.
I don't mind the criticism as long as it's true. I just don't like lies. I have seen some valid criticism and blantant lies. The issue is people have to do some research on their own to find out what is true, but many Americans like being spoonfed information so they just agree with whatever someone tells them to believe.
Ugly tactics on both sides of the aisle. Few are willing to take the parties to task for them equally.Perhaps but the Republicans have realised something that the Democrats simply don't have the stones for.
You can get away with anything you've got the stones for. The only real crime in this country..... is getting caught.
I think the black panther's voter intimidation tactics would disagree with your conclusion here.
Ugly tactics on both sides of the aisle. Few are willing to take the parties to task for them equally.Perhaps but the Republicans have realised something that the Democrats simply don't have the stones for.
You can get away with anything you've got the stones for. The only real crime in this country..... is getting caught.
I would think most Republicans who saw the 1960 presidential election would disagree on the Democrats not having the stones to do whatever it takes.
I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. You make several good points, but most people that KC are referring to do not pause to make these connections, blaming Obama- and only Obama- for the various issues plaging American society today.
Also, re: oil spill- to what extent is it Obama's fault regarding the paperwork that BP had to file beforehand? Was it a contract that expired or something like that or did Obama personally waive the requirement? I consider the AIG/Bear Stears/etc fiasco to be an ookie cookie- EVERYONE had a hand in that. However, your comments regarding NO are a little confusing- just because Bianco and Nagin screwed up royal doesn't mean Bush is roses, but maybe you could go a little more into what you consider to be his fault as opposed to the fault of others..?
No, Bush isn't roses, there was plenty of blame to go around there, but Kobold Cleaver was using Katrina to excuse BP (it seems), so, you know, blaming Obama for regulators waving a Federally mandated blowout plan is just as relevant as blaming Bush for something an agency did while he was president. And, to be fair, Bush had no problem taking foreign help with Katrina, whereas Obama continually turned down help from other nations and allowed the Coast Guard to stall effort to clean it up. Heck, they even forced Jindal to stop his efforts, citing environmental concerns. Ironic much?
You don't even want to know my real opinion and theories about the BP spill reaction by the White House (and, no, they don't involve intentionally blowing the valve).
And, it really doesn't matter if people make any connections. Bush was unfairly blamed for plenty of things that weren't his fault (and given a pass on some that were, to be honest), but I don't recall Kobold Cleaver calling them out (and he's been on the boards long enough to have had the opportunity). Quite a few of the seeds for the economic meltdown were sown by Democratic policies, perpetrated by heavy Democratic donors on Wall Street...
I wish you wouldn't lump me in with the partisans. I'm not a Democrat.
However, I think you need to remember that Bush was aware the levies might not hold. He took no action on it. I think you know this, but your post doesn't make it clear.You mention me failing to call Bush's failures out. You're quite right, I should have. I was sadly poorly informed at the time of Bush's presidency. Besides, others were calling them out (though not on these forums), and what difference did it make?
I never denied Obama was at fault for the Gulf oil Spill. However, I think you should bear in mind the pressure the Democrats were under at the time to help the oil companies in any way they could. Remember 'Drill, Baby, Drill'? I'm not trying to shift the blame to the Republicans, but you should remember the spine the Democratic politicians really need to grow.
And quite a few seeds were sewn by Democrats? I think Iraq might have been a bigger factor. Just saying, I'm fairly certain we can say the economy is still largely Bush's doing.
I think the black panther's voter intimidation tactics would disagree with your conclusion here.Ugly tactics on both sides of the aisle. Few are willing to take the parties to task for them equally.Perhaps but the Republicans have realised something that the Democrats simply don't have the stones for.
You can get away with anything you've got the stones for. The only real crime in this country..... is getting caught.
I still have a hard time believing anyone takes these guys seriously.
And Blanco and Nagin are far more culpable than Bush for what happened to the people of New Orleans. And the city of New Orleans politicians funneled money meant for levee repair into Harrah's and their own pockets (which is business as usual in NOLA I'm afraid), this was not Bush's fault. Bush (by giving Mike Brown the FEMA job) has enough that is his responsibility that was handled poorly in that situation, but the fact there were still a sizable number of people in the city and the fact the National Guard and FEMA had to wait three days to do anything fall on Nagin's and Blanco's shoulders, respectively.
I want to correct a few error in this comment. I am from Louisiana and work at a hospital that recieved a lot of evacuees. I also know people that work in the State Emgerency Preparedness Office. Some National Guard units were in New Orleans at the start of Katrina. They were asked to help evacuate people. The same people that ignored them and stayed. As for the delayed response by the other guard units, that was because most of the Mississipi and Louisiana Nation Guard units were in Iraq at the time. Nagin (as bad of a mayor that he was) did warn people that if they stayed they should not expect help.
FEMA screwed up the state's response to Katrina. This was not entirely FEMA's fault. The National news pushed the federal government to get involved. FEMA was not prepared to coordinated the recovery effort at the state level. When they got involved, they started second guessing state responses. We had doctors threatened with jail time because FEMA did not get their paperwork. We had locals turned away because they were not part of a local agency (despite that they new the area better than the FEMA reps).
While your general statement may be correct, your facts are not.
EDIT: If I come off as confrontational, I apologize. Blanco got a lot of blame she did not deserve. That does not mean she did not screw up, but the media did try to use her as a scapegoat.
I believe that the legislation passed by the Dems and the President since they entered office has been, by and large, actively harmful to the country, specifically the economy. I am very concerned about the loss of freedom that corresponds with the new Health Care legislation, and with the monumental increase in spending and taxes that each of the Dems' initiatives leads into.
I'm unhappy with the tactics used to pass Health Care in the absence of voter support for it, and I'm unhappy with the number of promises Obama and the Dems have blatantly broken. I'm unhappy with Obama's continued focus on spin and campaigning in the absence of any actual ability to govern (his inexperience having been pointed out but soundly ignored during the election).
I'm quite hopeful that this fall's election will set Congress into deadlock, give the people more time to realize that the policies of the Administration are things they actively dislike as well as things that don't work, and eventually result in a conservative President taking office in 2013.
We just have to tread water until then. Fortunately, the less government actively does, the more Americans can work things out ourselves.
I believe that the legislation passed by the Dems and the President since they entered office has been, by and large, actively harmful to the country, specifically the economy. I am very concerned about the loss of freedom that corresponds with the new Health Care legislation...
I am curious. What loss of freedom?
Also, I don't know if you supported McCain, but you might want to bear in mind that Sarah Palin was probably the most inexperienced person ever to be that close to being an old man's heartbeat away from being president. Hopefully that makes sense. There were few complaints then.
|
|
And Blanco and Nagin are far more culpable than Bush for what happened to the people of New Orleans. And the city of New Orleans politicians funneled money meant for levee repair into Harrah's and their own pockets (which is business as usual in NOLA I'm afraid), this was not Bush's fault. Bush (by giving Mike Brown the FEMA job) has enough that is his responsibility that was handled poorly in that situation, but the fact there were still a sizable number of people in the city and the fact the National Guard and FEMA had to wait three days to do anything fall on Nagin's and Blanco's shoulders, respectively.I want to correct a few error in this comment. I am from Louisiana and work at a hospital that recieved a lot of evacuees. I also know people that work in the State Emgerency Preparedness Office. Some National Guard units were in New Orleans at the start of Katrina. They were asked to help evacuate people. The same people that ignored them and stayed. As for the delayed response by the other guard units, that was because most of the Mississipi and Louisiana Nation Guard units were in Iraq at the time. Nagin (as bad of a mayor that he was) did warn people that if they stayed they should not expect help.
FEMA screwed up the state's response to Katrina. This was not entirely FEMA's fault. The National news pushed the federal government to get involved. FEMA was not prepared to coordinated the recovery effort at the state level. When they got involved, they started second guessing state responses. We had doctors threatened with jail time because FEMA did not get their paperwork. We had locals turned away because they were not part of a local agency (despite that they new the area better than the FEMA reps).
While your general statement may be correct, your facts are not.
EDIT: If I come off as confrontational, I apologize. Blanco got a lot of blame she did not deserve. That does not mean she did not screw up, but the media did try to use her as a scapegoat.
Blanco did not file the necessary requests required by law until three days after the event. Requests, I'd like to point out, the governors of Mississippi and Alabama filed two days before the event). Blanco apparently did not. She was woefully unsuited to hold the office, sorry.
Why was that? The governors of Mississippi and Alabama knew the laws governing federal assistance (particularly for National guard help, which, amazingly enough, was available to those states immediately, in spite of having some units in Iraq.
Blanco dropped the ball in a big way. What little media did get after her (and it must have been local; the national media was focused solely on Bush) were correct in doing so. She didn't get any blame she didn't deserve. She panicked and screwed the pooch.
I am curious. What loss of freedom?
Mandatory health care for individuals. Mandatory employer-employee health care relationship for businesses.
Also, I don't know if you supported McCain, but you might wan to bear in mind that Sarah Palin was probably the most inexperienced person ever to be that close to being an old man's heartbeat away from being president. Hopefully that makes sense.
How is a governor, someone who has held both local and state executive positions, less qualified for federal executive than a single-term freshman senator?
Anyone who attacks Palin's experience but gives Obama a free pass is not evaluating the situation fairly.