Political Discussion

[momisery]

Great post and to the heart of the issues. So many people post information heard on right or left wing talk shows or "news" sources without factchecking them, or at least using snoops or politifact. All of these sites tell the dirt on both parties and if your far left or right you see what you want to see when you visit them. I do believe our forefathers had a great plan for the success of our nation and they knew what they were doing. There is no real way to know what they really meant, true, but there is no real way to ignore the changes that had to be made to prosper in this nation. When they first wrote it they changed it several times with imput from other people the final result was a compromise. So, what would be wrong then with continuing to change and adjust this document and compromise going forward? The church has changed and no one says a word about its changes, but a GOVERNMENT should not??? I agree with you, no one can be sure, therefore all we can do is the best for our people in our nation and taking social programs away from people will only cause riots in our streets, and a revolution to take over by several sides on several issues.. something I am sure China would love to see.

[momisery]

JR, Obama says he is trying to compromise, where as Bush came right out and said NO, and the whole right side gives on nothing! The democrats do not vote with Obama totally, and the right did with BUSH. While I do not think either party is a success, I do believe the left does not move as one total unit in agreement on everything. If Obama is voted out and he most likely will be since we are not going to get this unemployment down by then, who ever gets in will be faces with no compromise now from the left. That will set us up for gridlock for the next 6 years? Totally stupid. The only real answer could be putting things on a ballot and letting the taxpayers decide at least we would have a say in it. Right now both parties do what they want for their own speical interest groups.

[OhioFiler]

JR, Obama says he is trying to compromise, where as Bush came right out and said NO, and the whole right side gives on nothing! The democrats do not vote with Obama totally, and the right did with BUSH. While I do not think either party is a success, I do believe the left does not move as one total unit in agreement on everything. If Obama is voted out and he most likely will be since we are not going to get this unemployment down by then, who ever gets in will be faces with no compromise now from the left. That will set us up for gridlock for the next 6 years? Totally stupid. The only real answer could be putting things on a ballot and letting the taxpayers decide at least we would have a say in it. Right now both parties do what they want for their own speical interest groups.

Too bad Obama's rhetoric doesn't match his actions.

Obama has had a majority in the house and a super majority in the senate since day one. There is no way he can blame his inability to ram his agenda through on a single republican. He has not needed a republican vote for anything until Scott Brown was seated yesterday.

To assign the obstructionist label to Obama's opposition and blame them for his failure to accomplish anything is simply incorrect. Obama and Reid and Pelosi's opposition is not the republicans sitting in Congress. It is the American people opposed to their plans who they fear.

Frankly, I see gridlock as a good thing. It seems everything Congress touches goes bad. I prefer they not do anything.

[backtoschool]

You have never been on my ignore list.

Yes, liberals are all about tone and feelings. Condescending, judgmental tone? I expected better from you. Would it not be better to deal with CONTENT on this discussion? Why is tone even relevant?

As to "funding tax cuts". Come on. That is as convoluted as one can get. Congress doesn't fund tax cuts. Congress funds it programs through tax increases. Tax cuts always increase revenue to the Treasury.

Wars are necessary. Ask John Kennedy.

I am also waiting for you to admonish the poster above who's tone included calling me a traitor directly. But I understand why you don't.

Actually, I agree with you OF in regards to any posts that were personally attacking you. There is no call for that here. And I have admonished that poster several days ago. But I was on my way to the airport, so I didn't have time to address all of the "issues" I needed to.

I also agree with you that some wars are necessary. I just don't agree with you that the wars we are currently fighting are necessary.

I think tone is very important. A civil tone keeps the conversation going and everyone benefits.

[backtoschool]

And that is the problem in this country today. OF, YOU are the problem.

There was a time when the Republicans and Democrats could reach compromises on any major legislation, regardless of who had the majority in the Senate. But today the Republican's are a solid block of right wing obstructionists who want the country to fail as long as Obama is in the White House. I call these folks traitors, and I call you a traitor for supporting this view, er... Rush Limbaugh's view, as it's clear where you get most of your misinformation and lies.

I agree with the content of your post WhatMoney, but not the personal attacks on OF.

OF has a tone that sometimes makes replying to him difficult, but he is still a valuable member of this forum in my opinion.

[OhioFiler]

Actually, I agree with you OF in regards to any posts that were personally attacking you. There is no call for that here. And I have admonished that poster several days ago. But I was on my way to the airport, so I didn't have time to address all of the "issues" I needed to.

I also agree with you that some wars are necessary. I just don't agree with you that the wars we are currently fighting are necessary.

I think tone is very important. A civil tone keeps the conversation going and everyone benefits.

Well it is important to pick and choose our issues!

Well we are in those wars whether they are necessary or not. To simply walk away as we did in Southeast Asia in 1977 would result in a similar outcome, millions slaughtered.

Some of the greatest debates of all time lacked civil tones (whatever that really means). Impassioned debate is a marvelous thing.

Have a safe flight.

[OhioFiler]

I agree.

Without ANY middle ground, or room to compromise, we may as well turn off the lights, lock the place up and concede defeat as we revert to savagery.

Anyone seen The Road?

Not appealing. There ARE ways to stave off this impending collapse of our society and economy. But Americans are spoiled, and as illustrated above, there are millions of people who simply WON'T be satisfied until things are done THEIR way.

I have always had a tremendous disdain for folks who say things like, "There is your way and there is my way. My way is the right way. No compromise, and no stopping until I have forced EVERY LAST PERSON IN THE COUNTRY to abide by my system. It is for your own good, and you will thank me later."

Later is here, and there may not be very many tomorrows left.

Reminds me of the great social security system I am FORCED to contribute 12.4% of MY income to knowing full well I could have invested that income in alternate investments and today have a retirement nest egg that would allow me to live off of it without adjusting my lifestyle one bit.

Liberalism always creates the exact opposite effect of its intention.

[backtoschool]

Too bad Obama's rhetoric doesn't match his actions.

Obama has had a majority in the house and a super majority in the senate since day one. There is no way he can blame his inability to ram his agenda through on a single republican. He has not needed a republican vote for anything until Scott Brown was seated yesterday.

To assign the obstructionist label to Obama's opposition and blame them for his failure to accomplish anything is simply incorrect. Obama and Reid and Pelosi's opposition is not the republicans sitting in Congress. It is the American people opposed to their plans who they fear.

Frankly, I see gridlock as a good thing. It seems everything Congress touches goes bad. I prefer they not do anything.

The person who is waiting for an unemployment benefit extension that cannot be voted on due to gridlock, or the person who gets bombed on a plane because one republican senator refuses to consider a confirmation vote of a crucial security official do not see gridlock as a "good thing".

I admire the republicans for being able to be so unified in their obstructionist opposition, but I do not admire their pettiness.

[backtoschool]

Reminds me of the great social security system I am FORCED to contribute 12.4% of MY income to knowing full well I could have invested that income in alternate investments and today have a retirement nest egg that would allow me to live off of it without adjusting my lifestyle one bit.

Liberalism always creates the exact opposite effect of its intention.

Actually, I agree with this post. Pure liberalism in the Johnson sense of the word does create the exact opposite effects of the original intents.

But....

That is more due to the naivety of the original plans, then the plans being completely wrong. As we learn from our mistakes, we can improve the plans, improve people's lives and move forward.

Our country needs some sort of social safety net. We can't just let our neediest citizens suffer and offer no assistance at all. How big that safety net should be is the debate that I think needs to happen.

[OhioFiler]

The person who is waiting for an unemployment benefit extension that cannot be voted on due to gridlock, or the person who gets bombed on a plane because one republican senator refuses to consider a confirmation vote of a crucial security official do not see gridlock as a "good thing".

I admire the republicans for being able to be so unified in their obstructionist opposition, but I do not admire their pettiness.

Neither of those events are a result of any obstructionism. Obama has all the votes he needs to accomplish either.

[OhioFiler]

Actually, I agree with this post. Pure liberalism in the Johnson sense of the word does create the exact opposite effects of the original intents.

But....

That is more due to the naivety of the original plans, then the plans being completely wrong. As we learn from our mistakes, we can improve the plans, improve people's lives and move forward.

Our country needs some sort of social safety net. We can't just let our neediest citizens suffer and offer no assistance at all. How big that safety net should be is the debate that I think needs to happen.

Something we agree on.

The problem is really defining "needy". To most liberals "needy" is everyone who will subsequently vote democratic. To most conservatives "needy" is defined as those unable to help themselves. This pool is much smaller than the voting pool.

I certainly agree that there are needs for both long term and short term assistance. The problem arises when the "need" becomes a "right".

This is exactly the problem we are dealing with in the current health care debate. There is no right to health care subsidized by other citizens. Medicaid and charity hospitals provide the care for those truly in need.

As to extending unemployment benefits what is your prescribed length of benefit? Two years? 10 years? I suggest we first fire every illegal alien who holds a job in this country and make those jobs available for needy Americans. I believe the unemployment rate would drop to under 5% if Americans were willing to work the jobs currently held by illegals. Obviously, we would need to address the under-employment rate but at least these people would be working.

[LimpDisc]

Of course in a typical liberal leap off the rational train you determine my unwillingness to change my beliefs to yours is somehow a dream for the country to fail. My beliefs are specifically designed for the success of our country and based on over 200 years of historical success. It is the liberal who sees the Constitution as a "living breathing" document in need of fine-tuning to meet whatever whim is popular today. Sad really.

If you truly loved your country so much you'd honor the founding documents and respect my choice not to agree with your politics. However, as a typical liberal, you fail to accept the concept of ideas differing from yours. You need to turn everything into a personal attack.

I really don't care whether you are willing to sacrifice your beliefs for some middle ground (although I can tell by your posts you think liberalism is some middle ground). You are free to believe, write and speak anything you wish and I will always respect that. It is the liberal who wants to silence oppositional discourse.

I happen to be a person with conviction and will not compromise by Constitutionally based beliefs to appease you or Nancy Pelosi. If your convictions are temporary (or ever changing to justify your current behavior as many libs are want to do) that is fine with me. It doesn't mean I have to act accordingly.

As such, and as a result of your silly rant about me and Rush Limbaugh, I've determined you are no longer fun to play with here on bkforum. This is the last post I'll ever direct at you or supply as answer to you.

Have a great bankruptcy!

LMAO!

So everyone that doesn't believe exactly as you do is a liberal?

Just like a child on the school playground, you're taking your ball and going home.

[LimpDisc]

Reminds me of the great social security system I am FORCED to contribute 12.4% of MY income to knowing full well I could have invested that income in alternate investments and today have a retirement nest egg that would allow me to live off of it without adjusting my lifestyle one bit.

Liberalism always creates the exact opposite effect of its intention.

Something we can agree on. I don't like the Social Security system one bit and would like to invest MY money elsewhere.

[LimpDisc]

I, and most tax payers (as opposed to tax consumers) have compromised enough, thank you. I never got any of the free stuff. So I'm all compromised out.

Free stuff? I guess I was in the wrong line once again when they were handing out all the free stuff.

[momisery]

You are wrong,,, Frankin was not seated for a long time due to a court battle in Mn. The super majority was short termed at best, and as we all know the left never sticks together or we would have had public option the day after frankin was put in service. The majority of the public was for Obamas plan, the public option. he lost that support because his own party was too bought out by big insurance to vote with him. Hence the real problems we have in Washinton.