“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
The Right, which is an ENOMROUS entity you're stereotyping here, by and large wants to see the nation do well just as "The Left" does. However, they think that the majority of what Obama is doing is bad for the country either in the short or the long term.
Have an analogy...
You have a sibling you care about deeply. That sibling is very ill. You want them to go to a doctor and get medicine and try to get better. However, their spouse is the one who your sibling is listening to right now, and she wants him to go to a faith healer.
Now you don't believe in the faith healer at all. You think that even if there are some short term improvements thanks to the placebo effect, in the long term this is going to be VERY bad for your sibling because he's not getting the help he needs to get better in the long run. So every step of the way you try to fight against the notion of taking him to a faith healer instead of a normal doctor. In the end, if you fail and he goes to the faith healer then you HOPE for the best...but you don't simply sit back and go "well, let's see". You keep fighting to take him to a doctor, and you keep looking for the oppertunity where he'll start listening to you instead so you can stop this faith healer non-sense and get him to a hospital.
Well, it's the same thing here with Republicans. Sure, IF all the different things Obama pushes for somehow proved to be wonderful in the short and long term I think those on "The Right" would be happy that good things occured. However, there's an inherent belief that many of those things are NOT good for the long term health of the country, and thus need to be fought against....BECAUSE of caring about the countries well being.
All you're doing is seeing people with a different view point, opinion, and belief than you and using your prejudice you're applying negative motivations onto them.
You most likely were. Democrats under George W. Bush were very similar to how Republicans are today. Go look at the various stories with the continual tallying of the dead in every measure possible to keep it on the front pages with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Go look at the challenges towards and continual complaints about the PATRIOT ACT. Look back at what was occuring with regards to his judicial selections.Maybe I was just naive years ago
Minus a bit of a grace period due to a HISTORIC situation, this wasn't really the case.
There was economic evidence during Bush's term that suggested that the tax cuts DID help the economy in certain factors. But Democrats, by and large, didn't grasp that info...they grasped any info that suggested it had negative impacts and ran with that. Similar to what the Republicans do now. The only difference is you personally felt the information the Democrats grabbed onto was "justified" and don't now for the right.
Considering you then, in all but typical hyper partisan fashion, grabbed onto a comment...complete with pointless insult along the way...and fail to honestly discuss it in context to what was said (as it relates to Limbaughs "hope he fails" comment), I'm beginning to wonder why I'm bother typing this at all.
Let's be frank....
You believe Republicans think this way because you're a hyper partisan progressive liberal with a bigoted, prejudiced mindset towards all things "the right" and an attitude that gives the benefit of the doubt and thinks fondly of "the Left" in a similar situation.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Liberal policies leave people more dependant on govt and less free. So yes, they are bad for America.
Never mind the societal implications of policies that create incentives to keep people as uneducated supplicants, and to destroy the structure of families-the destruction of the incentives created by the left are enormously destructive.
I think a lot of liberal solutions might be spot on if they happened to be diagnosing the problems accurately, which in my opinion they often are not.
"The knowledge and prudence of the poor themselves, are absolutely the only means by which any general and permanent improvement in their condition can be effected." - Thomas Malthus
For someone to state that "liberal policies" are bad or "conservative policies" are bad says more about the speaker than the subject, if the specific policies aren't identified. It's not that simple. And a lot depends on how far a policy is taken and how it is implemented and over what period of time, as well as the cost (both of money and the toll on people).
Even your choice "I want America to succeed," doesn't mean anything, since success is defined differently by different people.
That is purely subjective on my part, but in most cases that answer has been in the affirmative. With this president the jury is still out, he has not left office yet. But one’s opinion can also change over time. That is once we see how his policies worked out and how they effected the country which sometimes can be 10, 20 or more years after he left office. This should not be equated with a president popularity, that has little to do with being a good president or leaving the country better off than when he first stepped into office.
A lot of people rate a president on whether he is a R or a D, whether he gets his agenda of his party through congress and does what his party wants him to do. This is irrelevant to me. I want to see if what a president does, his policies and yes, his agenda ends up being good for the country, indifferent or harms the country.
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
Yes I want this country to succeed and yes I believe many left policies are destroying it. And how long do we have to live with the failure of one of these boondoggles throwing money at them when they never did what they were set out to do?
Let's start with Johnson's Great Society. It was suppose to end poverty. What it did do is increase entitlement programs that produced generations of government dependency and has kept the people poor.
What about Jimmy Carter's Department of Energy? Created in the 1970s as one of President Jimmy Carter's bright ideas, has seen its mission evolve from basic research and development to spending billions to commercialize technologies that aren’t yet viable—and might never be. This department is one that has encouraged corporatism as it shells out funding on special interests of whatever political power is in charge. It often creates an unfair playing field in business favoring the corporations.
And how has that CRA worked out? spawned sub-prime mortgage lending, which boomed starting in the mid 90's under Clinton. When the bubble burst, millions of sub-prime borrowers, the low-income people the CRA was created to help, found themselves owing more than their homes were worth. This set off the foreclosure cascade, tipped the economy into a prolonged recession, and plunged many families into poverty after they lost the homes they couldn’t afford but that Washington induced them to buy.
Immigration laws after the last bout with amnesty in the 80's have been ignored and often mainly Democrats, some Republicans have encouraged expansion of benefits for illegals that encourage them to enter into this country illegally without consequences. Today in the news we are seeing the results of liberal policies that are at the heart of this crisis.
Department of Education is another boondoggle that was meant to raise the standards of schools across the country but has resulted in a dumbing down of our youth and standards lowered. It isn't encouraging to know there are few these days who finish with their public education that actually possess the skill of critical thinking. Studies show that the quality of education children received at the turn of the 20th century at 8th grade level far surpasses those who graduate from high school today.
All these policies were started out of compassion and all ended up hurting those they were suppose to help. But instead of nixing them, our lawmakers continue to prop them up with exuberant amounts of funding with failed results. If you truly want this country to succeed then it's time to be honest and get rid of what isn't working.