Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see Obam ahavig chnaged american just enflame difference and caused more clear divisons. We now are seeig a swing the other way.
Yes the American public are total idiots who are just sitting around to have their passions inflamed. I think not. The current divisions remind me of the election of 1860. Before Lincoln ever set foot into the White House the slave owning interest where up in arms about policies that Lincoln had no intention of enacting. Even his modest proposal of simply limiting the expansion of slavery into the territories was considered to be tyrannical and a usurpation of God's Laws. Frankly swap healthcare for slavery and it's hard to draw a distinction in the rhetoric (well other than the fact that the slave interest didn't have Hitler or Stalin for the purpose of making outlandish comparisons.).
Yes the American public are total idiots who are just sitting around to have their passions inflamed. I think not. The current divisions remind me of the election of 1860. Before Lincoln ever set foot into the White House the slave owning interest where up in arms about policies that Lincoln had no intention of enacting. Even his modest proposal of simply limiting the expansion of slavery into the territories was considered to be tyrannical and a usurpation of God's Laws. Frankly swap healthcare for slavery and it's hard to draw a distinction in the rhetoric (well other than the fact that the slave interest didn't have Hitler or Stalin for the purpose of making outlandish comparisons.).
...well, that and the fact that we're now $16 trillion in debt. But who's counting? And I suppose if you're going to be really picky, you could say there's a HUGE difference between slavery and universal healthcare.
But who's counting? And I suppose if you're going to be really picky, you could say there's a HUGE difference between slavery and universal healthcare.
Not according to what I read around these here parts.
America has had four "pivotal" presidents -- leaders whose decisons brought about a basic change in the nation's structure and long-term goals; they were:
(1) Washington, who could have set himself up as just another strongman, but chose to participate in the framing of the most answerable Constitutional system yet devised
(2) Lincoln, who held the union together, and lost his life in the process
(3) Franklin Roosevelt -- a patrician who understood the common man well enough to devise a safety net suited to an industrialized society (thereby heading off more radical and authoritarian proposals from both left and right)
(4) Reagan -- who corrected the excesses of fifty years of rule by one economic philosophy -- thereby setting off a huge recovery, (and in the process, forcing the last of the great dictatorships of Europe to collapse -- with minimal bloodshed).
Barack Obama is nowhere close to playing in that league, nor were either of the two Bushes; Clinton was, at best, a double-A player
We have some very serious safety valves tied down. A deficit run up by the economically ignorant from both parties -- foisted, courtesty of Madison Avenue, upon a public that expects too much and can't admit that either global competiton is here to stay, or one day we will settle differences with nuclear warheads.
If elected, Romney isn't likely to have the backbone to explain the problem as outlined above, even if he does understand it. My most serious beef with Obama is the collection of rubber-stamping mediocrities he has foisted upon the nation's highest court, and the consequnces this would have for judicial integrity over the long run.
Sooner or later, the workings of supply and demand will make themselves felt -- more readily now that more nations have moved in the direction of open markets. So the only question is how much damage we will do to wourselves before experience forces us to wise up.
Seems to me Obama is just running his government on the ideals of Liberalism or collectivism which the majority of voters voted him in to do.Nothing new its what Democrat leaders do.
Romney would probably exhibit a more clearly defined change in his striving for a more individualistic government whereby much social government social programs are cut and the middle class and poor are expected to pay the lions share of the ensuing sacrifice as Romneys individualistic style of government puts every one on their own,nice if you are rich, not so nice if you are likely to require government assistance or any of the myriad of government programs.
Romney would probably exhibit a more clearly defined change in his striving for a more individualistic government whereby much social government social programs are cut and the middle class and poor are expected to pay the lions share of the ensuing sacrifice as Romneys individualistic style of government puts every one on their own,nice if you are rich, not so nice if you are likely to require government assistance or any of the myriad of government programs.
Really?? If Reagan, Bush, or even Ron Paul never pushed anything so draconian, what leads you to believe that Romney, a veteran of leadership in liberal Massachusetts, would?
It's time to separate the Lefty scare-tactics from the practice of realpolitik.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
