• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Charles Krauthammer summarizes Tuesday's choice like only he can

In the face of defeat? As one conservative to another, allow me to remind you that the Obama machine is much, much more powerful than the Clinton machine. If you think Romney is going to win, you're in for a depressing wednesday.

I'm prepared for either eventuality but I believe there's a possibility that Romney will win in a landslide.

America hasn't fallen so far that they will make the same mistake vtwice. Especially after seeing what he did these last four years.
 
I'm prepared for either eventuality but I believe there's a possibility that Romney will win in a landslide.

America hasn't fallen so far that they will make the same mistake vtwice. Especially after seeing what he did these last four years.

I'm not necessarily calling the American people stupid, with the exception of California and Maine. I'm just saying that the Obama machine is very powerful. Remember ACORN in 2008? I'm just saying that we're not playing a fair game if you catch my drift.
 
This coming from someone who supports the candidate the presided over thee longest consecutive monthly stretch of 8% or higher of unemployment.

Yup, manipulation of reality where you leave out the fact there has been over 30 consecutive months of recovery, and we are not in the freefall he ended that was started by bush.

This coming from someone who supports the candidate who presided over the record number of Americans living in poverty and on food stamps.

Yup, the Bush recession or depression hit us hard. still, he didn't put those people there.
This coming from someone who advocates the candidate who's watched the meridian income plunge and credit rate reduced twice, the most of any American president.

Again the effects of the Bush recession which he has brought us out of. might I say it was sooner than i thought we would be here 4 years ago. i figured at least a decade of recovery from the damage of bush.
Keep living in your fantasy world. If and when your joke wins on Tuesday, I'd love to seek refuge because this reality is flat out BRUTAL.

You are just all pissy because i don't want to be your friend.
 
ROTFLMAO

I must say I admire your bravado in the face of defeat and your absurdist humor in the face of reality.

:)

Well, we will see tuesday who wins. Either way it is not my defeat. No matter who is president i will get by. i do not do the wasteful spending i used to. I take responsibility for my life. i will also be living life tomorrow and the next day no matter who wins. It is not the end of the world either way. in fact i have learned that most of the people who have been effected by this latest recession were people who were living on the bubble anyway. Those were people who spent more than they should and lived on credit. those were middle management people earning an overinflated salary for playing farmville. those were day traders who did nothing productive by gambling on a fixed system meant to put their money in the pockets of the rich. I may wish for a better life for hard working people, but i cannot say i am too bothered to see those people fall.
 
Yup, manipulation of reality where you leave out the fact there has been over 30 consecutive months of recovery, and we are not in the freefall he ended that was started by bush.



Yup, the Bush recession or depression hit us hard. still, he didn't put those people there.


Again the effects of the Bush recession which he has brought us out of. might I say it was sooner than i thought we would be here 4 years ago. i figured at least a decade of recovery from the damage of bush.


You are just all pissy because i don't want to be your friend.

Remember one of the 2008 slogans, "We're not going to make excuses"? The failed record seems to make that null and void. Not surprising however. We were promised that unemployment would be around 5% and the debt would be cut in half after the Messiah's first term. Neither promise is even close, yet all you have is to blame Bush; laughable!
 
Well, we will see tuesday who wins. Either way it is not my defeat. No matter who is president i will get by. i do not do the wasteful spending i used to. I take responsibility for my life. i will also be living life tomorrow and the next day no matter who wins. It is not the end of the world either way. in fact i have learned that most of the people who have been effected by this latest recession were people who were living on the bubble anyway. Those were people who spent more than they should and lived on credit. those were middle management people earning an overinflated salary for playing farmville. those were day traders who did nothing productive by gambling on a fixed system meant to put their money in the pockets of the rich. I may wish for a better life for hard working people, but i cannot say i am too bothered to see those people fall.

I am unschooled in the processes of the high end financial marketing. I do know that people take advantage of the rules that are set up by the government, just like in any other 'game.' I don't understand why you get mad at the people who 'exploit' the laws instituted by congress rather than placing the blame where it belongs - the congress that passed the laws.

If you are in a basketball game, is it considered 'bad' to shoot from beyond the tree-point circle and get an "extra" (undeserved?) point for making it compared to the guy standing under the basket who makes an uncontested layup?

Seems to me you are making the similar 'right' and 'wrong' judgements to money, where the participants are only maximizing their 'score' relative to the rules of the game they are playing.

Yes - I am pissed at the thought of hedge fund managers (whatever the hell that is) making millions (billions?) of dollars for just pushing buttons that transfer huge amounts of money from one account to another. Just as I would be pissed about playing a basketball game where the other team's players were a foot taller than our team and could run faster.

Life ain't fair.

Yes - there was a huge financial crisis when Obama took office, due in large part to the collapse of the housing market. That collapse was nowhere the fault of President Bush. The cause for that crisis lies SQUARELY with the DEMOCRAT party - starting with Carter, and exacerbated greatly by Clinton. When Bush came to office he RECOGNIZED the problem and tried SEVENTEEN times to get the regulations fixed that allowed the crisis to develop. Each time OBSTRUCTED by the DEMOCRAT party - your heroes Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were the standard bearers in this malfeasance.

If there is blame to be passed for the collapse of the housing market it lay on the cold hearts of the DEMOCRAT party.

As for the auto industry. Companies were losing money due to the exorbitant contracts by the auto workers unions - the very same unions that have historically funded every DEMOCRAT politician, because the DEMs always allow the unions to proceed in their thuggish thievery.

The cure for the auto industry was inevitable. They should have followed Romney's advice and proceeded into a structured bankruptcy earlier - a bankruptcy that would have followed normal rules and allowed the companies to restructure themselves in a more survivable way by renegotiating the ruinous union contracts which caused the problems in the first place. Instead, Romney was seriously attacked by lying ads that pronounced he had 'wanted to bankrupt Detroit.'

Well, what happened - Detroit went bankrupt. Obama's 'bailout' of the auto industry relied on what? - bankruptcy of course, just as Romney had suggested years earlier (and earlier the remedy would have been a lot less painful.) However there was a BIG difference in Obama's bankruptcy than what Romney's bankruptcy would have been. Obama created a 'favored' interest in the process, whereby everybody had to undergo pain - EXCEPT for the auto workers unions that caused the problem in the FIRST place.

Yet Obama's big deal is "saving the auto industry" - well, except for FORD who said 'no thanks' and are going great guns without government interference, whereas GM (now owned by the government and run by the unions) are still struggling.

I believe you are glossing over the pain that Obama's mismanagement has caused by concentrated on the 'greedy' upper class. Recessions like this hurt everybody - except for two classes of people
- first, those who don't have to do anything but cash the government check that comes in without fail regardless of the pain and suffering of the rest of the nation. These folks are in a BETTER position than they were prior to the recession - their guaranteed income makes them invulnerable to the pain of the recession and certainly does not motivate them to want to change anything - they LIKE 'recessions' that do nothing more than make all those 'workers' uncomfortable.
- second, those favored by the government. Union workers don't sweat recessions - that is as long as they keep funding the DEMs who legislate to allow them to continue their ruinous policies that cause the recessions. They are 'protected' the same way the govt-dependent are.

No - the people who are really negatively impacted by the recession are the normal working folks who have to face (and pay for) all the unfair practices that work to put them out of a job - and the small business shop owners who rely on a prosperous economy to earn their living.

What Obama has given us is millions of people who have just given up looking for work - there are not any jobs out there for them to get. This massive failure is now working in FAVOR of Obama's unemployment rate.

Mathematically, you can decrease the unemployment rate by increasing the number of people who get jobs (the number in the numerator) OR by decreasing the number of people who don't even try to get a job (the number in the denominator.) Obama's MARVELOUS trend in getting the unemployment rate down is NOT by increasing the number of people working, but by DECREASING the number of people who are even TRYING to get work.

And any increases in JOBs have come about by temporary workers - Those hardy souls who lost their 'real' jobs due to the OBAMA screw-up, but have too much PRIDE to join the mouth-breathers on welfare and have taken part time jobs to feed their families. THEY are the ones you should have the sympathy for - Someone who once proudly worked in his chosen profession, who is now reduced to sweeping up convenience stores after hours for minimum wage and part time.

There is pain out there - and I share your opinion that none of if should be wasted on the hedge-funders who are reduced to living off the millions of dollars they banked in the good times. But I do feel genuine sympathy for the untold millions of people who are trying to figure out how to make the next house payment and pay for the groceries.
 
Remember one of the 2008 slogans, "We're not going to make excuses"? The failed record seems to make that null and void. Not surprising however. We were promised that unemployment would be around 5% and the debt would be cut in half after the Messiah's first term. Neither promise is even close, yet all you have is to blame Bush; laughable!

I didn't believe those promises so your point is not going to get to me. I would have probably voted mcCain if he had not chosen palin as his running mate. I might have voted for obama in the future, but he was inexperienced and McCain had a better idea of what was going on, and i thought that he would go back to the ideas that he had before he was running for president and had to play to the radical right tea party. I was pretty sure he was saying what he had to to get elected, and I liked him more than obama. I could not possibly put that woman anywhere near a powerful political office. that is why I voted for obama despite my reservations about his inexperience.

I have come out pleasantly surprised in him. I did not expect him to be anything great, and I think he did a damned good job. So you are going to need to alter your argument because I am not backing any of these promises or perceptions you have. I am saying that from my point of view he has done a good job as a president compared to the past few we have had, and he has done some actions I really am impressed by. He lagged on DADT but he came out to support gay marriage. He tried to cut back our war efforts and gitmo, but not at the expense of an all out retreat. he allowed the rest of the world to do the job in libya with assistance from us. he pushed through medical insurance reform. It is not the levels it should be but he got something done despite opposition from his own party and a hardline fight from the republicans.

i see his first term as a great success, and i am not worried about the promises that were not accomplished because there was clear effort to get there. I know he is not a dictator who can do all those things himself.

Now what do you have to say to that?
 
I'm prepared for either eventuality but I believe there's a possibility that Romney will win in a landslide.

America hasn't fallen so far that they will make the same mistake vtwice. Especially after seeing what he did these last four years.

I pray you are right.

At my age, I will not live to see us recover from the damage another Obama term will inflict on our nation. Heck, I may not even live to see the end of his term.

I would like to go out with optimism over my great grandchildren's future.

I remember every president back to FDR and have voted in every election since JFK/RMN. Of those, The LBJ election elicited similar feelings of dread about the future and those have been proven to be correct. The "great society" landed a near fatal blow to our nation. We recovered substantially during the Reagan years, and held our own during the Bush/Clinton years.

Eight years of Obama will finish the destruction of America that LBJ started. The future will be bleak indeed with another four years of Obama unfettered by the necessity of tailoring his actions to be palpable for the next election. It will be the most debilitating term in history and the seeds of complete government control of every phase of American life will have time to take root.

From that point, only a physical revolution will be able to uproot it.

I pray we will avoid that. If Romney were nothing more than a place-holder, the nation deserves this breathing time to avoid the great evil of total government oppression.

However, I happen to think that Romney is the perfect candidate for what has to be done - a no-nonsense approach to fixing the problems we face, without regard for anything but the future of the nation. I know of no other person with his unique qualifications to address the monument issues of the times.
 
I didn't believe those promises so your point is not going to get to me. I would have probably voted mcCain if he had not chosen palin as his running mate. I might have voted for obama in the future, but he was inexperienced and McCain had a better idea of what was going on, and i thought that he would go back to the ideas that he had before he was running for president and had to play to the radical right tea party. I was pretty sure he was saying what he had to to get elected, and I liked him more than obama. I could not possibly put that woman anywhere near a powerful political office. that is why I voted for obama despite my reservations about his inexperience.

I have come out pleasantly surprised in him. I did not expect him to be anything great, and I think he did a damned good job. So you are going to need to alter your argument because I am not backing any of these promises or perceptions you have. I am saying that from my point of view he has done a good job as a president compared to the past few we have had, and he has done some actions I really am impressed by. He lagged on DADT but he came out to support gay marriage. He tried to cut back our war efforts and gitmo, but not at the expense of an all out retreat. he allowed the rest of the world to do the job in libya with assistance from us. he pushed through medical insurance reform. It is not the levels it should be but he got something done despite opposition from his own party and a hardline fight from the republicans.

i see his first term as a great success, and i am not worried about the promises that were not accomplished because there was clear effort to get there. I know he is not a dictator who can do all those things himself.

Now what do you have to say to that?

Your logic is laughable. Especially since the left plays to dividing demographics and make them feel oppressed. In this case, we're supposed to believe in what is an actual distraction, but packaged as a fabricated "war on women," you're telling me you didn't vote for McCain because of Sarah Palin? Where do I begin? First and foremost, NOBODY votes on the issue of vice presidents. So on the surface, you seem to be anti-woman. Ohhhhh, I get it, it's only anti-woman if we're talking about a liberal woman, gotcha. But nevertheless, you got yourself a winner in the embarrassing walking gaffe in Biden. Good choice.

To say you're pleasantly surprised in Obama truly shows how anti-woman you are. If Palin caused you to vote for Obama, through your own admission did not generate much ambition or expectations, it truly shows how you either truly did not buy into the "Hope and Change" B.S., or just showed up on election day without living with a television for at least 6 months. I don't know what's more hysterical... that, or the fact that you call 43 straight months of 8% unemployment and record number of Americans on federal aid and food stamps a success. That my friend, is a hack. YOU.
 
Hey, I would love to see all the Romney people get what they wish. After all they deserve him more than anyone and the destruction he will give. You know if i could ship you all off to a country where you could all live under his rule and intelligence you would be the fist to beg to stay under obama. Don't worry if your hero wins i will be happy to laugh at your folly when he is done stealing everything he can from you. If you think i was not laughing at the republican base in 2012 when they were pissing their pants over the recession you are wrong. 4 more years of bush wrecked any number of republican's lives. that was awesome, but it is too bad he hurt a lot of other people while doing it. You know as well as i do that despite your arguments you go to sleep at night praying for obama to win.


nothing is more scary to those who are so dependent on the government as the thought that the public teat runs dry
 
nice article, if you are right wing and you believe what he says but I think he is talking about an America/a USA that no longer is fit for purpose.

At the census of 1980, there were 226 million US citizens to feed, house, employ, govern and protect.

Now there are almost 315 million US citizens to feed, house, employ, govern and protect.

That is almost 89 million more in just 32 years.

In the "good old days" there was enough space to build more houses, enough space to produce more food and enough expansion to employ millions more people.

The US was a world force when it came to the production industry and it was good at it. Built in America meant a lot and it still does, but compared to then the US no longer is the driving production force for real world goods any more. It still is it for services and high tech stuff but the world is catching up all the time. China now produces more and more things every year. The export market for the US was always good but in times when a lot of real world goods comes from China and other low cost countries that export market gets squeezed out.

And in times of a recession the high tech goods and services that the US still exports are put on hold or scaled back meaning an even bigger disparity in export and import.

In the past the US could easily reason that churches and things like that could protect the vulnerable in the US. But that is no longer an option, there are just too many of them around (poor people that is). And if you do not want to get a society that is very disjointed between poor and rich, the haves and have nothings and even worse, the people with opportunities and those who are desperate, and all the violence and crime that goes with it, things will have to change.

You might love small government but fact of life is that the more people live in a smaller area, the more government is needed. Do you think we Dutch love that we have a lot of government rules and regulations? No, of course not. But in a country with a population closing in on 17 million and an area about 2/3 the size of West Virginia but with about 9 times more people than live in that state, you are going to need rules and regulations.

The same is true for the US, the number of people that live in the US is going to go up faster than you can feed, employ, house, protect and govern if some difficult choices are not made. So it is a case of sad but true, sad that a bigger government is needed but it is the truth.

The founding fathers possibly never envisioned that their country would grow this big, wealthy, mighty and well populated. Their form of government was exactly what the people of the US needed then, but that dream of small government is the current US is nothing more than a dream IMHO.
 
I am unschooled in the processes of the high end financial marketing. I do know that people take advantage of the rules that are set up by the government, just like in any other 'game.' I don't understand why you get mad at the people who 'exploit' the laws instituted by congress rather than placing the blame where it belongs - the congress that passed the laws.

*HUGS*

A long good well thought out argument. awesome. Thank you.

Anyway onto the point. First you are right. I am annoyed at the laws that are set up. No i do not think democrats are on the side of the people. In recent history I see the republicans taking a huge swing at the rights and protections of the people. the dems have allowed it. the dems are baby sitters. I find that more easily argued with as opposed to the fascist republican viewpoints. I personally see a point for arguing over laws to keep an adaptive legal system.
If you are in a basketball game, is it considered 'bad' to shoot from beyond the tree-point circle and get an "extra" (undeserved?) point for making it compared to the guy standing under the basket who makes an uncontested layup?

though the analogy is way to simplistic you want a system that promotes both. to further the analogy it is like they have said that anywhere a person wants to shoot is three point territory. and the defense needs to stand back and let them shoot. Business does not need every advantage to survive like they want. In a capitalist system there has to be losers. Now we want regulation to make sure that we get a bunch of competitions. Blow outs don't help us. What we are looking for are a feild of very strong performers and not a bunch of elites.
Seems to me you are making the similar 'right' and 'wrong' judgements to money, where the participants are only maximizing their 'score' relative to the rules of the game they are playing.

That is not the way I feel, but i recognize it in others, and i do see it in the system. The people who have a higher score on getting money are often given leeway in their methods. The immorality and right and wrong just happen to be in the mix. That is why i do see the need for regulations that may hurt business.
Yes - I am pissed at the thought of hedge fund managers (whatever the hell that is) making millions (billions?) of dollars for just pushing buttons that transfer huge amounts of money from one account to another. Just as I would be pissed about playing a basketball game where the other team's players were a foot taller than our team and could run faster.

Life ain't fair.

I don't mind them gambling on things and making money. The problem i have arose when they packaged toxic loans and sold them as good investments to the middle class. The middle class trusted their ratings and basically got screwed because of it. That is like promising you increased buckets in a game and putting in a high school squad. These guys are good, you have never seen them before, and you don't know that they are all high school ball players.
Yes - there was a huge financial crisis when Obama took office, due in large part to the collapse of the housing market. That collapse was nowhere the fault of President Bush. The cause for that crisis lies SQUARELY with the DEMOCRAT party - starting with Carter, and exacerbated greatly by Clinton. When Bush came to office he RECOGNIZED the problem and tried SEVENTEEN times to get the regulations fixed that allowed the crisis to develop. Each time OBSTRUCTED by the DEMOCRAT party - your heroes Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were the standard bearers in this malfeasance.

OMG you are arguing for reals. I agree that clinton did a lot of deregulation and helped the collapse. I am totally with you here and that is why I do not consider myself a democrat or a republican. No, those guys are not my heroes. That is an assumption. Just because the dems are doing it does not mean the reps are clean. They try to set it up as dems vs reps, but it really should be us vs them. The only reason I happen to be for obama is because I want the conflict. I am hoping the monster forgets it is supposed to be pretending to fight for us while attacking the other side and making secret deals, and actually starts really attacking.
If there is blame to be passed for the collapse of the housing market it lay on the cold hearts of the DEMOCRAT party.

Oh no doubt, but they are right next to the republicans in that.
As for the auto industry. Companies were losing money due to the exorbitant contracts by the auto workers unions - the very same unions that have historically funded every DEMOCRAT politician, because the DEMs always allow the unions to proceed in their thuggish thievery.

unions are a necessary thing, but they should not be a constant thing. the constant presence is where the corruption comes in. They have a purpose when things are bad, but if things are not bad it should be just business as usual looking out for it's employees.
The cure for the auto industry was inevitable. They should have followed Romney's advice and proceeded into a structured bankruptcy earlier - a bankruptcy that would have followed normal rules and allowed the companies to restructure themselves in a more survivable way by renegotiating the ruinous union contracts which caused the problems in the first place. Instead, Romney was seriously attacked by lying ads that pronounced he had 'wanted to bankrupt Detroit.'

Well, what happened - Detroit went bankrupt. Obama's 'bailout' of the auto industry relied on what? - bankruptcy of course, just as Romney had suggested years earlier (and earlier the remedy would have been a lot less painful.) However there was a BIG difference in Obama's bankruptcy than what Romney's bankruptcy would have been. Obama created a 'favored' interest in the process, whereby everybody had to undergo pain - EXCEPT for the auto workers unions that caused the problem in the FIRST place.

Yet Obama's big deal is "saving the auto industry" - well, except for FORD who said 'no thanks' and are going great guns without government interference, whereas GM (now owned by the government and run by the unions) are still struggling.

When you get to the point that you are using the people's money to fix the system you are going to have to comply with a few things. No one forced them to take the money, they could have closed down. I hear arguments from both sides that sound convincing on this issue and I have to say only the future will tell on it. The effects of what it was supposed to accomplish are not yet felt. I just happen to think it was the right direction. Will we be in a better place in 10 years? I think we will, but I cannot say with certainty that we will.
I believe you are glossing over the pain that Obama's mismanagement has caused by concentrated on the 'greedy' upper class. Recessions like this hurt everybody - except for two classes of people
- first, those who don't have to do anything but cash the government check that comes in without fail regardless of the pain and suffering of the rest of the nation. These folks are in a BETTER position than they were prior to the recession - their guaranteed income makes them invulnerable to the pain of the recession and certainly does not motivate them to want to change anything - they LIKE 'recessions' that do nothing more than make all those 'workers' uncomfortable.
- second, those favored by the government. Union workers don't sweat recessions - that is as long as they keep funding the DEMs who legislate to allow them to continue their ruinous policies that cause the recessions. They are 'protected' the same way the govt-dependent are.

Oh you make my brain hurt in a good way. You are right that social safety nets should be uncomfortable. They are there to catch people but they are not to be lived on. I think we are in a position to do it now. We need to regulate where the money goes. Ok, we give you money for food, knock off a bunch of things that are snacks or not needed. You can purchase non-name brands and no luxury foods. It is here to catch you, not to give you everything. you will live on it, but you will not have extravagence or live well. That pushes people off. We need to stop with allowing disabled to do everything. if you have a handicapped sticker on your car you get the good parking spots, but you are handicapped so you should not be in the fast lane. If you are caught speeding it is higher fines. You watch how fast people suddenly are healed after that.
No - the people who are really negatively impacted by the recession are the normal working folks who have to face (and pay for) all the unfair practices that work to put them out of a job - and the small business shop owners who rely on a prosperous economy to earn their living.

yeah, about those small businesses. they were prejudiced and overcharged. Companies like walmart changed the way we buy things. They also are one of the biggest employers in the country. What we have to recognize is that our society has hit a different level of capability. We have become global. We are utilizing our global resources. this is a point where we need to change our society. that sort of change is a bit beyond the power of the president.
What Obama has given us is millions of people who have just given up looking for work - there are not any jobs out there for them to get. This massive failure is now working in FAVOR of Obama's unemployment rate.

Dont you see, that problem is there because we have too many workers. We have come to a point where we can maintain a much higher lifestyle with much less effort. We are at a time of choice and determination. Do we see the advances our technology has provided us and provide more to people, or do we pull back and make demand? We are getting to a point where socialism may be a part of life merely because we can do it. We have to be worried about birth rate and overpopulation. We have to be worried about pollution and spoiling the world we live in. We are in a finite space.
Mathematically, you can decrease the unemployment rate by increasing the number of people who get jobs (the number in the numerator) OR by decreasing the number of people who don't even try to get a job (the number in the denominator.) Obama's MARVELOUS trend in getting the unemployment rate down is NOT by increasing the number of people working, but by DECREASING the number of people who are even TRYING to get work.

That is an opinion that i do not agree with.
And any increases in JOBs have come about by temporary workers - Those hardy souls who lost their 'real' jobs due to the OBAMA screw-up, but have too much PRIDE to join the mouth-breathers on welfare and have taken part time jobs to feed their families. THEY are the ones you should have the sympathy for - Someone who once proudly worked in his chosen profession, who is now reduced to sweeping up convenience stores after hours for minimum wage and part time.

You do realize that many of those people get federal food assistance?
There is pain out there - and I share your opinion that none of if should be wasted on the hedge-funders who are reduced to living off the millions of dollars they banked in the good times. But I do feel genuine sympathy for the untold millions of people who are trying to figure out how to make the next house payment and pay for the groceries.

unfortunately there is an even bigger deeper bubble that is still there. That may be popping now too. We are at a point on this planet that we have never been before. There is no new land to find. the way we procede into the future is in question and is confusing for a reason. We have been presented with limits we never had before and we do not like it.

Oh and thanks again for a good argument.
 
Your logic is laughable. Especially since the left plays to dividing demographics and make them feel oppressed. In this case, we're supposed to believe in what is an actual distraction, but packaged as a fabricated "war on women," you're telling me you didn't vote for McCain because of Sarah Palin? Where do I begin? First and foremost, NOBODY votes on the issue of vice presidents. So on the surface, you seem to be anti-woman. Ohhhhh, I get it, it's only anti-woman if we're talking about a liberal woman, gotcha. But nevertheless, you got yourself a winner in the embarrassing walking gaffe in Biden. Good choice.

To say you're pleasantly surprised in Obama truly shows how anti-woman you are. If Palin caused you to vote for Obama, through your own admission did not generate much ambition or expectations, it truly shows how you either truly did not buy into the "Hope and Change" B.S., or just showed up on election day without living with a television for at least 6 months. I don't know what's more hysterical... that, or the fact that you call 43 straight months of 8% unemployment and record number of Americans on federal aid and food stamps a success. That my friend, is a hack. YOU.

Good try but I was actually a hillary supporter. that was a lot of fail.
 
Good try but I was actually a hillary supporter. that was a lot of fail.

Hillary huh? Standards not too high are they? :lol:
 
Hillary huh? Standards not too high are they? :lol:

I actually think she does a good job. beware, that might be her you are facing next election. It could be a good 12 years before we see another republican president.
 
you cannot support leftist policies unless you believe an enlightened elite are more qualified to decide for the masses than the masses themselves

This is nonsense. The "masses", whatever that means, only decide directly in a participative democracy, at the local level sometimes. We live in representative democracies, where we elect an elite, whether left or right, to decide for us. In fact the American constitution was drafted with the idea that the masses were not educated or reliable enough for direct democracy.
In case we live in complex societies and the idea the masses could decide for everything is ludicrous. Do corporations ask their employees what strategy should be followed? They don't because they assume a worker is not "enlightened" enough to make such decisions. The same applies to politics. There is no democracy, direct or not, without education. I think most people are happy they do not have to get informed to make important decisions. Unless of course they are made to believe they don't need to know in order to decide. The old common sense myth.
 
This is nonsense. The "masses", whatever that means, only decide directly in a participative democracy, at the local level sometimes. We live in representative democracies, where we elect an elite, whether left or right, to decide for us. In fact the American constitution was drafted with the idea that the masses were not educated or reliable enough for direct democracy.
In case we live in complex societies and the idea the masses could decide for everything is ludicrous. Do corporations ask their employees what strategy should be followed? They don't because they assume a worker is not "enlightened" enough to make such decisions. The same applies to politics. There is no democracy, direct or not, without education. I think most people are happy they do not have to get informed to make important decisions. Unless of course they are made to believe they don't need to know in order to decide. The old common sense myth.

you appear to actually believe what I said
 
I believe that people, what you call the masses, do not really decide much. But you imply it is some sort of leftist philosophy. I disagree with that, it is neither liberal nor conservative, it is a fact due to our democratic system. When some Republicans claim they will finally let the people be heard again it is just a rhetorical device. They will govern the same way, Congress will discuss and pass laws, and the only ones who will actually be heard will be the lobbies.

Now if you ask me whether the masses should (or could) actually decide for themselves, we would probably disagree.
 
there is no will of the people, that would be democracy, the founders created a system, which is based on the people voting ..........directly and indirectly ...a constitutional republic

under the founders system:

you get a vote for your congressmen,........that is direct vote and you voted in the interest of.........................................you.

your senator, is chosen by the state legislators....that is an indirect vote from you, and they vote in the interest of the .........state

your president is chosen by the electoral college, that in an indirect vote from you, and they vote in the interest of the ........union.


TODAY problem is :..people vote for their personal interest in every aspect of voting.

you vote for you congressmen, ......direct vote...for your personal interest.

you vote for your senator....direct vote ..for your personal interest.

you vote for the President indirect vote, but many only to change it to a direct, and BECAUSE the government is able to do so many things today......people are voting for the president ,to do something for them personally, ...IE keep their social program, or create a law they like, this turns into the people voting in their self interest again.

voting has turned into a ......me ,me ,me mentality.......and there is no voting in the interest of the ........state or the union itself.

the founders wanted the people to be civil minded, and vote for what is best for the states ,union, and the people to keep it together.
 
It sounds like you boys either didn't read Krauthammer's piece or you don't want to believe it.

No, perhaps you were too willing to accept it, suspending all disbelief or critical thought?
 
Back
Top Bottom