Hey I agree that spending money you don't have is stupid and that people need to get their expectations under control when it comes to what they want and what they need. I'm a big believer in not spending more than you can actually afford. Stuff like giving out zero-down mortgages to people who don't even have a job should be against the law. And yeah there should be consequences if you're stupid with your money, like say losing your house/car/etc. I just don't think those consequences should include either you or your family not being able to get medical treatment.
I'm also a big believer in human rights and I think everyone deserves to have basic medical treatment available to them regardless of any other considerations. I don't care what their financial situation is, I don't even care if they're a citizen really, they should be entitled to not die of something that is treatable.
I was just pointing out the flaw in your argument aginast what Mystery said. I personally beleive in a cheap (of free) government run healthcare that covers the basics. I'm not a fan of socialized medicine, and our private hospitals are doing too much good to go completely socialized. I think that is a solid middle ground that covers the basic human right argument, but not at the expense of quality. Both sides hate it anyways, but oh well...
I do care if they are a citizen, and I think that most people should have private insurance. I also think businesses should be encouraged to provide insurance benefits. I'm just not for socialized medicine.
And on a sidenote, it's not zero-down mortgages that are the problem, it's intrest-only mortgages that are the problem. The whole concept of paying for a mortgage without actually paying for the mortgage is just dumb.
I also want to add that while Obama will not help the government spending, his can probably impact the corporate landscape positively.
Well since Obama won the following consequences WILL occur.
1. Within two years, America will become a Muslim nation
2. Within three years, all americans will be forced to speak Russian, it will be against the law to speak american
3. Thousands, nay millions of American-born terrorists will come out of hiding in places like Cincinatti and Harvard Law School and begin a killing spree to the likes of which has never been witnessed
4. Middle-class workers who receive the biggest new tax breaks are going to move overseas to work since now they will have the money to travel
5. Corporations and big businesses will be forced to hire terroists - yes you will need to check you Big Mac before eating it
6. A new chain of stores "Discount Abortions" are going to start popping up in local malls and begin renting space in Wal-Marts
Its going to be horrible.
Sadly most people aren't going to realize that this is satire...
While I'll agree they need to restructure - I feel they need to restructure back to the party of my youth - small government, smart taxation, fiscal responsibility - I fully expect if/when George Will comes back to the party I will as well. That is a solid if however - it's obvious the fiscal conservatives like myself don't really have a home now, and it's really a question of where we land.
Will will come back to the party. Really, where else is he going to go? The Libertarians?
I've heard noises, here and elsewhere, about the downfall of the Republican Party and the birth of a new political paradigm. But I just don't see it happening. Reagan handed the Democrats a couple of one-sided beatdowns that make this election look like the end of Rocky, and look where they are today.
But yes, looking at the Democratic response to those beatdowns (Bill Clinton) I definitely expect the G.O.P. to swing towards the center over the next eight to twelve years.
EDIT: This is not to say that cultural conservatism is dead. But the new torchbearers for it are going to be Republicans like Bobby Jindal, not the old fogeys who have been dying off these past couple of years.
Personally I think that our electing of Obama was the biggest mistake that our country has made in the past 50 or so years.
First off, Obama plans to retreat from the Middle East. This is a foolish mistake in judgment. As we cannot retreat from an occupied country that has yet to stabilize its government, and expect it not to relapse back into the type of Government that we went there to stop in the first place. Same issue with the War on Terrorism, if we retreat from that war, without having won it (not that we realistically can win a war on terrorism) the people we are fighting will simply continue in their terroristic activities as soon as they stabilize after the combat ends.
Second, he plans to talk with people like the President of Iran without setting up stipulations on such talks? That is such foolishness that it isn't even funny.
The list of errors that I feel he is going to make as president continue, but those are the two big ones.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
Well, I'm happy for him and I'm happy for blacks & other minorities in this country. This has been a very long time coming for them.
I am also very glad he made some mention of 'no more excuses'. I think one of his most lasting contributions to our national discourse ought to be the abolishment of all Affirmative Action and Racial Preference programs in the federal government (for a start). It's been 200 years. Stop the whining & just get your **** together, people.
I'll be honest, watching his acceptance speech last night, I became hopeful for his term. Time will tell if he can truly transform the nation and the way of doing business in Washington. I suspect he will have some very difficult decisions to make. Will he be an idealogue allow Reid/Pelosi to run roughshod and turn America into a great liberal experiment? Or will he play a more pragmatic and prudent role, as I hope he does.
Truth be told, we honestly have no idea what he's going to do. That was part of his problem from the beginning. We have, almost literally, no history with this guy to guage what he's really going to do. He has shown willingness to throw people & ideas under the bus when it is politically expedient to do so. I don't think we really have a true sense of what his core beliefs are.
If his vision of service-oriented/volunteerism populace & working in a truly bipartisan basis to transcend perpetual gridlock comes to pass, watch out world. I think he would do very well to appoint some moderate Republicans to his cabinet or Secretary-level positions. Hell, he might even consider giving John McCain a job at some point. The guy lives to serve. Let him.
If, on the other hand, he does the opposite of all this and just goes all-lib, all-in, we're in for some horrible times. If he pushes any of the Wright-esque agenda of reparations and grievance-talk, we're in for some horrible times.
Because the idea of what could be is so appealing to me, I am willing to give the guy a chance before I start tearing him down. (which is far sight more than most on my side..) Don't screw up, Senator.
Such interesting times. (!!)
And yes, as promised, I've changed the avatar.
McCain's speech was gracious, statesmanlike, and struck the proper tone. I too was embarrassed by the yokels in his crowd, as I have been the entire race. I hope this could be an opportunity for GOP to finally leave the idiots behind.. Don't really see how that can happen, but I feel it needs to happen all the same.
Sadly most people aren't going to realize that this is satire...
The problem with a satire like this is the fact that people actually think this is true. I heard a radio show taking calls on the election's first call. The caller said, "Isn't the President supposed to be an American? Then why does the Obama camp continue to refuse to release a birth certificate? Good lu...." he was hung up on for obvious reason.
There's just zero reason to post a post like that for any reason.
I've heard noises, here and elsewhere, about the downfall of the Republican Party and the birth of a new political paradigm. But I just don't see it happening. Reagan handed the Democrats a couple of one-sided beatdowns that make this election look like the end of Rocky, and look where they are today.
I don't think it's the downfall of the rebuplican party so much as a potential birth of a third party that can actually compete. There are now a good chunk of people that want a more centered representation in Congress, and even in the Executive branch. I doubt it woudl happen, but I think a decent third party would be awesome.
But yes, looking at the Democratic response to those beatdowns (Bill Clinton) I definitely expect the G.O.P. to swing towards the center over the next eight to twelve years.
I doubt it. The conservative representation of the party has been pandered to despite what's good for the party, and I doubt that will change. I think the republicans will just place the blame entirely on McCain's campaign, and on the economy, and ignore the signs of change in the voter base.
*edit*
@Morphling: To be fair, we didn't really know who McCain was anymore. I still would have voted for the McCain of 2000, the fact that my vote changed to a no-name canidate that ran on idealism and the promise to change the elctoral map (which he didn't at all) says volumes of how much McCain has veered away from what he was.
I think its time to move to canada guys.
I imagine the obnoxiousness of certain demographic is only going to go up now that we've elected a president like Obama.
I agree, his foreign policy is atrocious, and I am still unsure why people voted for him.
Only thing I can see is that America loves drama.
Oh boy. I hope this change is quick and easy to undo after 4 years...
Why should i have to pay for it? why do i owe you healthcare? sorry i don't. it is not my responsibility to keep you healthy. you cannot be denied care at an ER room even if you do not have insurance.
sorry that isn't equal oppertunity. or you do not know what it means. equal oppertunity means that you have the same chance as anyone else to build wealth and be successful. it does not mean that you have the right to demand others pay your way.
you do not know what rock bottom is. talk to your grandparents who went through the Great Depression what rock bottom is. we are far from rock bottom.
People are "owed healthcare" under the premise of the Hippocratic Oath that most hospitals stick to - if you enter an ER in dire need, no hospital will turn you away - and if you die before providing insurance or have no insurance and no means to pay, they eat the loss and walk onward adding the costs involved to the other patients that are being provided to.
That is the primary reason why intelligently designed UHC is a very good thing, and why it's great for the hospitals as well as the individuals.
As for this being "rock bottom by our grandparents standards" - my GM-in-law my only living one at this point, had her financial back broken so badly from the YEAR of hospital care trying to keep her husband (my GF-in-law) which over-ran the limits for Medicare that she had to sell her home and now lives with her daughter as a pauper after her husband had provided 35 years of military service throughout WW2 in the Army (specifically you can see him in a photo with Eisenhower releasing the concentration camps in the Holocaust museum) and later in the R&D and topography sectors of the Army. [he claimed responsibility for being part of the team that coined the term pixel as part of his work on radar and topography]
So I honestly don't need to ask her if she's hit rock bottom - she went from a huge beautiful home with a healthy pension worthy of a hero to someone that would be living on the street if not for the charity of her daughter - and this was before the economic crisis.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Will will come back to the party. Really, where else is he going to go? The Libertarians?
I've heard noises, here and elsewhere, about the downfall of the Republican Party and the birth of a new political paradigm. But I just don't see it happening. Reagan handed the Democrats a couple of one-sided beatdowns that make this election look like the end of Rocky, and look where they are today.
Perhaps I was a little too hasty in my Will quote - first time I see Will around without the abberant social conservatives that have been in full force this year would likely be more accurate. Palin and her devout supporters are a cancer on the party.
Quote from DalkonKledwin »
First off, Obama plans to retreat from the Middle East. This is a foolish mistake in judgment. As we cannot retreat from an occupied country that has yet to stabilize its government, and expect it not to relapse back into the type of Government that we went there to stop in the first place. Same issue with the War on Terrorism, if we retreat from that war, without having won it (not that we realistically can win a war on terrorism) the people we are fighting will simply continue in their terroristic activities as soon as they stabilize after the combat ends.
W already has enacted the same measured withdrawl that Obama wanted - Obama can do nothing and his desire will come to fruition there.
And Iraq already wants to start standing on it's own legs from their PM's statements and such - it's sensible and fiscally responsible to not throw money at defending those that don't want the assistance.
As for Iran - talking isn't the problem - look at Kim Jong Il - and all the crazy **** he was doing, when did he get back to a more normal status? After we spoke to him after ignoring him. Much like dealing with an infant, excitable folks are subject to tantrums - and does anyone want to be on the receiving end of a nuclear tantrum, no...
Quote from Morphling »
I am also very glad he made some mention of 'no more excuses'. I think one of his most lasting contributions to our national discourse ought to be the abolishment of all Affirmative Action and Racial Preference programs in the federal government (for a start). It's been 200 years. Stop the whining & just get your **** together, people.
Yep, he has provided a solid example that civil rights may not be in perfect parity between whites and minorities - but they're close enough that you can accomplish anything no matter the color of your skin. He does provide enormous weight to the argument that the time of Affirmative Action is completely over. (plus on the fiscal side of things, since AA is "enforced" by giving tax deductions - removing it would run up revenue a bit as well)
McCain's speech was gracious, statesmanlike, and struck the proper tone. I too was embarrassed by the yokels in his crowd, as I have been the entire race. I hope this could be an opportunity for GOP to finally leave the idiots behind.. Don't really see how that can happen, but I feel it needs to happen all the same.
I couldn't agree with you more - I'd be happiest if the "yokels" all end up sticking to the Republican party, all the old guard go to a new healthy Fiscal Conservative party drawing a large portion of the independents into their fold. 40/30/25 + 5 Indie would be my hope how the landscape would look if they did something like that, but admittedly it's quite optimistic that it would reach that soon, it certainly would be a healthier position for our nation to have 3 parties where "Hate me less" becomes a bad political strat though.
I don't think it's the downfall of the rebuplican party so much as a potential birth of a third party that can actually compete. There are now a good chunk of people that want a more centered representation in Congress, and even in the Executive branch. I doubt it woudl happen, but I think a decent third party would be awesome.
Not going to happen. The way the American system is set up, third parties are doomed from the outset.
I doubt it. The conservative representation of the party has been pandered to despite what's good for the party, and I doubt that will change. I think the republicans will just place the blame entirely on McCain's campaign, and on the economy, and ignore the signs of change in the voter base.
If it were entirely in the hands of the Republican leadership, I'd say this is more of a possibility. But there's a bit of Darwinism here, as well. A shift in the voter base means that the more moderate Republican candidates in the mid-terms are more likely to do well. The leadership can sit in an ivory tower and think about playing to the base all it wants, but it can't long ignore who's winning seats in Congress and who isn't.
In general, Americans don't like one-party rule. I predict a mild swing towards the Republicans in the midterm elections, though I wouldn't put a lot of money on the Democrats losing any majorities at this early date. (2012, on the other hand...) It will, however, give the G.O.P. ample opportunity to see what's working in this brave new world of Obama.
There's also the fact that a Democratic swing to the left is very probable. Politics abhors a vacuum; with the far right setting the tone of the Republican Party starting in the Reagan era, the Democrats claimed most of the center by default, and now we can expect a reversal of this dynamic.
Perhaps I was a little too hasty in my Will quote - first time I see Will around without the abberant social conservatives that have been in full force this year would likely be more accurate. Palin and her devout supporters are a cancer on the party.
My expectation is that Palin is going to be disgraced and scapegoated for this defeat. However, at least one British bookmaker disagrees with me, so who knows? (I'll note that these odds were laid before McCain officially lost, though.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
i think Obama winning means our nation is gonna go to poo-poo. Not because he is a democrat, but because now democrats control ALL of congress and the presidency and ANY party that controls all of government is BAD news. This means Laws are gonna be passed without much contest. We NEED a Republican and Democratic voice in government or our country will...well....suck. This situation will end up with Obama (Or even worse Nancy Polosi, yes we forget that she has ALOT of power now) will become Bush 2.0...Im sorry Nega-Bush 2.0, just as evil but on the opposite part of the scale. People said they wanted Change, and im sorry america but we just took a turn for the worst...
Giant Growth: Yeah, Richard! You make those "3-of-something-for-1-mana" cards!
Healing Salve: Go, Richard! Keep that cycle going!
Lightning Bolt: Wow, dude, that's really powerful. Make sure to keep this common-appropriate!
Dark Ritual: What are you doing? That's obviously better than the other three!
Ancestral Recall: Seriously? You want us to make this a common? Really?
Okay, so we have a Democratic President... a Democratic House Majority..... and a Democratic Senate Majority.... does no one else see the Problems this presents for the whole concept of "Balance of Powers" Or "Checks and Balances"????????
Okay, so we have a Democratic President... a Democratic House Majority..... and a Democratic Senate Majority.... does no one else see the Problems this presents for the whole concept of "Balance of Powers"????????
That's a severe misunderstanding of the concept of checks and balances. The system wasn't put into place to prevent any one political party from controlling all three branches of the federal government but to prevent any one branch from not be accountable to the other two. Violating checks and balances could be done by Congress passing a law that says it can't be challenged in a court of law.
Okay, so we have a Democratic President... a Democratic House Majority..... and a Democratic Senate Majority.... does no one else see the Problems this presents for the whole concept of "Balance of Powers"????????
These states of affairs seldom last long; just look at the Bush era. Besides, conservatives have the Supreme Court, which is a powerful, if slow-acting, check in its own right. And it doesn't look like the Democrats are going to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
It's not ideal, and I'd be much happier with an Obama presidency if he had to deal with someone like Gingrich in Congress. But it will pass.
That's a severe misunderstanding of the concept of checks and balances. The system wasn't put into place to prevent any one political party from controlling all three branches of the federal government but to prevent any one branch from not be accountable to the other two. Violating checks and balances could be done by Congress passing a law that says it can't be challenged in a court of law.
It's not the formal system of checks and balances, but I firmly believe that government works best when factions, as well as the branches of government, are checked and balanced against each other.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's a severe misunderstanding of the concept of checks and balances. The system wasn't put into place to prevent any one political party from controlling all three branches of the federal government but to prevent any one branch from not be accountable to the other two. Violating checks and balances could be done by Congress passing a law that says it can't be challenged in a court of law.
LOL... this would indeed be a abuse of the checks and balances. However I can see how lesser abuses (such as passing a law that would hurt the minorities constituents)... which is made easier by having all 3 branches controlled by the same party.
I am sure that this is not something that was seen as problematic by the Founding Fathers (else they wouldn't have made it a democracy in the first place) However I personally feel that this type of set up is simply asking for abuses of power.
It's not the formal system of checks and balances, but I firmly believe that government works best when factions, as well as the branches of government, are checked and balanced against each other.
I completely agree with everything you have said Blinking Spirit. And I certainly hope that this state of affairs does not last all that long.
How long exactly is a term of office in the Senate and House (is it shorter than the term of office for presidency?).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
Okay, so we have a Democratic President... a Democratic House Majority..... and a Democratic Senate Majority.... does no one else see the Problems this presents for the whole concept of "Balance of Powers" Or "Checks and Balances"????????
Part of the checks and balances inherent in our system was originally planned without the thought of parties - so honestly quoting that comes back to the central problem of two-way thought.
Regardless however - assuming Obama sticks to his inspirations from folks like Lincoln and Reagan - you won't see him running rampant approving every far left thing that hits his desk.
In fact his own history, if you look at his 1st and 2nd years in the Senate he was a moderate in his level of dissent from the party - only this most recent year did he vote in-line with the party almost 100%. (Not that it's rare for a Senator to do that while campaigning since his attention is split - McCain was nearly the same, Dole was the same, Kerry was the same [although Kerry is reliably very liberal], etc.)
How long exactly is a term of office in the Senate and House (is it shorter than the term of office for presidency?).
Wow, just wow... a perfect example of talking points without the understanding behind them...
Senate, voted statewide every 6 yrs - House, voted by district every 2 yrs. (2 senators per state, house members vary by population - EC votes can let you figure out how many a given state has, since EC votes are the total members between both branches of the legislative - so Cali with 55 ECV = 2 Senators + 53 House members)
Where did these people posting today come from? There was countless pages of an election thread that didn't have anyone trying to push this "America is doomed" attitude.
Seriously, the Dems didn't get to 60 seats, and the house majority is not a big deal.
If you really think that Obama is sitting on a 100% friendly senate that will just push anything through really needs to go study politics and the US government some more. All it is saying is that people have been dissatisfied with the past 4 years. It's just a reflection of the record crowds voting too.
Not going to happen. The way the American system is set up, third parties are doomed from the outset.
I was just saying that this is the only chance to change that for a third party. That's all.
If it were entirely in the hands of the Republican leadership, I'd say this is more of a possibility. But there's a bit of Darwinism here, as well. A shift in the voter base means that the more moderate Republican candidates in the mid-terms are more likely to do well. The leadership can sit in an ivory tower and think about playing to the base all it wants, but it can't long ignore who's winning seats in Congress and who isn't.
Very true. the issue is there's the republicans that love Palin, and what she represents, and the republicans who don't.
While it's not her fault, I think she is the highlight of the rift inside the party that was just the elephant in the room before. It's no turned into an animosity that could cost the party 2012. While I think the midterms will improve the republicans standing some, not much can be determined until 2012.
There's also the fact that a Democratic swing to the left is very probable. Politics abhors a vacuum; with the far right setting the tone of the Republican Party starting in the Reagan era, the Democrats claimed most of the center by default, and now we can expect a reversal of this dynamic.
Great point. I think that you're right here, and that's really the reason why a third party has a glimmer of hope in 2012. There will probably be a decent amount of disgruntled moderates in either party.
My expectation is that Palin is going to be disgraced and scapegoated for this defeat. However, at least one British bookmaker disagrees with me, so who knows? (I'll note that these odds were laid before McCain officially lost, though.)
Palin is going to be both.
Some will say she was the reason McCain did so well, and that it was her energizing of the base that helped him get the support he did. They will then say that the economy is why the democrats won.
Others will point out the obvious: McCain had a better than average chance of dying in office, and Palin is someone unfit to be govenor of Alaska, let alone the secdon in the chain of command. Obama has brought back intellectualism in politics. He ran a campaign of highly educated individuals saying they had the knowledge to run the government, and Joe Six-Pac folded to that. I think that she single handedly ruined the republican bid for president.
*edit*
As to the checks and balance abuse, it would be hard to abuse the system without having the supreme court on board as well.
Part of the checks and balances inherent in our system was originally planned without the thought of parties - so honestly quoting that comes back to the central problem of two-way thought.
Federalist papers 9 and 10. The minds behind our Constitution were acutely aware of the potential for "factions", and the need to limit their influence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
However I personally feel that this type of set up is simply asking for abuses of power.
We can only hope that Obama has the strength of character to avoid going down that path. Most people who voted for him did so because they believe that's exactly what he's capable of. That's what he's talking about when he says he'll bring change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Federalist papers 9 and 10. The minds behind our Constitution were acutely aware of the potential for "factions", and the need to limit their influence.
Correct - but 9 and 10 were after the fact - first one was published in the same month as the Constitution was ratified.
It was known as undesirable pretty early on after the fact however.
We can only hope that Obama has the strength of character to avoid going down that path. Most people who voted for him did so because they believe that's exactly what he's capable of. That's what he's talking about when he says he'll bring change.
We shall see. His record is not terrifically inspiring on this front, but on the other hand, he is a very junior Senator, and those don't contradict their party too much if they know what's good for them. Best-case scenario, he pulls a Clinton and starts tweaking the noses of his party's leadership now that he's free to. I would love to see steam coming out of Nancy Pelosi's ears.
Correct - but 9 and 10 were after the fact - first one was published in the same month as the Constitution was ratified.
It was known as undesirable pretty early on after the fact however.
They were published before the Constitution was ratified, but that's beside the point. I'd be very surprised if they did not indicate Hamilton's and Madison's (especially Madison's) thought processes going into the Convention. In fact, I could probably dig up some stuff Madison said about factionalism beforehand if I had the inclination and the access to JSTOR; the Federalist papers just sprung immediately to mind.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
American would be a common name of the language generally spoken by non-Spanish persons (well, persons who aren't speaking Spanish, more precisely) in the United States. It is the official language of the U.S., even though it is named as 'English' in the statutes. "American English" also applies.
that is your opinion and i disagree with it. it is not my responsibility to keep you from getting sick or making you healthy that is your responsbility.
[snip]
again please justify why my hard work and money that supports my family should go to keep you healthy again? i have yet to see a reason that you have a right to what i work for. Or that you have any kind of right to the money that supports my family. please justify yourself. how are you more imporant than my family because i can tell you now you are not.
wrong. i work to provide for me and my family not to pay for someone elses healthcare. if you feel that other people need healthcare please go spend your own money to get them healthcare plans. nothing is stopping you from doing it. if you are so concerned about it. you spend your money and leave mine alone.
That's quite the double standard you have there. If you're just going to call this 'opinion' and say we disagree, why should anyone "justify" anything to you? Why should anyone expend that effort? It's not going to convince you, and it's already been expressed how your view here is the borderline of this sociali-phobia that the U.S. has, meaning a whole lot of people don't really care what does and does not convince you to believe something either.
So what would it prove to keep talking to you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
On the subject of radical Christians, I said this before and I continue to believe it now: I believe McCain's loss will bring about a serious change in the Republican party. McCain was a contender who had to kowtow to the extreme end of the Republican party in order to get the support he needed, and that destroyed his ground with moderate voters. In the future, the Republican party will need to distance itself with that extreme element, and more power to us all.
McCain's acceptance speech was McCain when not pandering to the extreme right, McCain not changing who he is to become president...the McCain I would have voted for.
Things like McCain's air quoting 'health of the mother', and saying 'proabortion' during one of the debates are what I am getting at here.
The right wants Palin in 2012, but everyone else wants her to go away and never come back. The only part of Obama's speech I didn't like was when he said he was going to work with McCain and Palin, and I was like "Uhh, Palin is going to Alaska and never coming back, she doesn't have to be included anymore."
The word on Obama's staff and cabinet is that it is going to be 'young, diverse, and different' or something. The chief of staff position is rumored to have been offered to Illinois representative Rahm Emmanuel, who was part of Clinton's staff during his presidency. The man seems interesting...and quotable. (He told Tony Blair "Don't **** it up" when he was going to appear with Clinton post-Lewinski)
American would be a common name of the language generally spoken by non-Spanish persons (well, persons who aren't speaking Spanish, more precisely) in the United States. It is the official language of the U.S., even though it is named as 'English' in the statutes. "American English" also applies.
I resent this statement, Chinese are just as incapable of speaking english it isnt just us latinos, a few Hindu are the same (although this is extremely rare). and a few other social groups dont speak english at all, just to single out Latinos is racists and offensive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
So where I live attention has moved on to our House district race: Goode vs. Perriello. Honestly I thought this would be another Goode victory by a large margin, but currently Perriello is ahead by 561 votes. That is definitely within a half percentage point so now it's recount time!
I was just pointing out the flaw in your argument aginast what Mystery said. I personally beleive in a cheap (of free) government run healthcare that covers the basics. I'm not a fan of socialized medicine, and our private hospitals are doing too much good to go completely socialized. I think that is a solid middle ground that covers the basic human right argument, but not at the expense of quality. Both sides hate it anyways, but oh well...
I do care if they are a citizen, and I think that most people should have private insurance. I also think businesses should be encouraged to provide insurance benefits. I'm just not for socialized medicine.
And on a sidenote, it's not zero-down mortgages that are the problem, it's intrest-only mortgages that are the problem. The whole concept of paying for a mortgage without actually paying for the mortgage is just dumb.
I also want to add that while Obama will not help the government spending, his can probably impact the corporate landscape positively.
Heh!
Merged double post.
Sadly most people aren't going to realize that this is satire...
Will will come back to the party. Really, where else is he going to go? The Libertarians?
I've heard noises, here and elsewhere, about the downfall of the Republican Party and the birth of a new political paradigm. But I just don't see it happening. Reagan handed the Democrats a couple of one-sided beatdowns that make this election look like the end of Rocky, and look where they are today.
But yes, looking at the Democratic response to those beatdowns (Bill Clinton) I definitely expect the G.O.P. to swing towards the center over the next eight to twelve years.
EDIT: This is not to say that cultural conservatism is dead. But the new torchbearers for it are going to be Republicans like Bobby Jindal, not the old fogeys who have been dying off these past couple of years.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First off, Obama plans to retreat from the Middle East. This is a foolish mistake in judgment. As we cannot retreat from an occupied country that has yet to stabilize its government, and expect it not to relapse back into the type of Government that we went there to stop in the first place. Same issue with the War on Terrorism, if we retreat from that war, without having won it (not that we realistically can win a war on terrorism) the people we are fighting will simply continue in their terroristic activities as soon as they stabilize after the combat ends.
Second, he plans to talk with people like the President of Iran without setting up stipulations on such talks? That is such foolishness that it isn't even funny.
The list of errors that I feel he is going to make as president continue, but those are the two big ones.
I am also very glad he made some mention of 'no more excuses'. I think one of his most lasting contributions to our national discourse ought to be the abolishment of all Affirmative Action and Racial Preference programs in the federal government (for a start). It's been 200 years. Stop the whining & just get your **** together, people.
I'll be honest, watching his acceptance speech last night, I became hopeful for his term. Time will tell if he can truly transform the nation and the way of doing business in Washington. I suspect he will have some very difficult decisions to make. Will he be an idealogue allow Reid/Pelosi to run roughshod and turn America into a great liberal experiment? Or will he play a more pragmatic and prudent role, as I hope he does.
Truth be told, we honestly have no idea what he's going to do. That was part of his problem from the beginning. We have, almost literally, no history with this guy to guage what he's really going to do. He has shown willingness to throw people & ideas under the bus when it is politically expedient to do so. I don't think we really have a true sense of what his core beliefs are.
If his vision of service-oriented/volunteerism populace & working in a truly bipartisan basis to transcend perpetual gridlock comes to pass, watch out world. I think he would do very well to appoint some moderate Republicans to his cabinet or Secretary-level positions. Hell, he might even consider giving John McCain a job at some point. The guy lives to serve. Let him.
If, on the other hand, he does the opposite of all this and just goes all-lib, all-in, we're in for some horrible times. If he pushes any of the Wright-esque agenda of reparations and grievance-talk, we're in for some horrible times.
Because the idea of what could be is so appealing to me, I am willing to give the guy a chance before I start tearing him down. (which is far sight more than most on my side..) Don't screw up, Senator.
Such interesting times. (!!)
And yes, as promised, I've changed the avatar.
McCain's speech was gracious, statesmanlike, and struck the proper tone. I too was embarrassed by the yokels in his crowd, as I have been the entire race. I hope this could be an opportunity for GOP to finally leave the idiots behind.. Don't really see how that can happen, but I feel it needs to happen all the same.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
The problem with a satire like this is the fact that people actually think this is true. I heard a radio show taking calls on the election's first call. The caller said, "Isn't the President supposed to be an American? Then why does the Obama camp continue to refuse to release a birth certificate? Good lu...." he was hung up on for obvious reason.
There's just zero reason to post a post like that for any reason.
I don't think it's the downfall of the rebuplican party so much as a potential birth of a third party that can actually compete. There are now a good chunk of people that want a more centered representation in Congress, and even in the Executive branch. I doubt it woudl happen, but I think a decent third party would be awesome.
I doubt it. The conservative representation of the party has been pandered to despite what's good for the party, and I doubt that will change. I think the republicans will just place the blame entirely on McCain's campaign, and on the economy, and ignore the signs of change in the voter base.
*edit*
@Morphling: To be fair, we didn't really know who McCain was anymore. I still would have voted for the McCain of 2000, the fact that my vote changed to a no-name canidate that ran on idealism and the promise to change the elctoral map (which he didn't at all) says volumes of how much McCain has veered away from what he was.
I imagine the obnoxiousness of certain demographic is only going to go up now that we've elected a president like Obama.
I agree, his foreign policy is atrocious, and I am still unsure why people voted for him.
Only thing I can see is that America loves drama.
Oh boy. I hope this change is quick and easy to undo after 4 years...
People are "owed healthcare" under the premise of the Hippocratic Oath that most hospitals stick to - if you enter an ER in dire need, no hospital will turn you away - and if you die before providing insurance or have no insurance and no means to pay, they eat the loss and walk onward adding the costs involved to the other patients that are being provided to.
That is the primary reason why intelligently designed UHC is a very good thing, and why it's great for the hospitals as well as the individuals.
As for this being "rock bottom by our grandparents standards" - my GM-in-law my only living one at this point, had her financial back broken so badly from the YEAR of hospital care trying to keep her husband (my GF-in-law) which over-ran the limits for Medicare that she had to sell her home and now lives with her daughter as a pauper after her husband had provided 35 years of military service throughout WW2 in the Army (specifically you can see him in a photo with Eisenhower releasing the concentration camps in the Holocaust museum) and later in the R&D and topography sectors of the Army. [he claimed responsibility for being part of the team that coined the term pixel as part of his work on radar and topography]
So I honestly don't need to ask her if she's hit rock bottom - she went from a huge beautiful home with a healthy pension worthy of a hero to someone that would be living on the street if not for the charity of her daughter - and this was before the economic crisis.
Perhaps I was a little too hasty in my Will quote - first time I see Will around without the abberant social conservatives that have been in full force this year would likely be more accurate. Palin and her devout supporters are a cancer on the party.
W already has enacted the same measured withdrawl that Obama wanted - Obama can do nothing and his desire will come to fruition there.
And Iraq already wants to start standing on it's own legs from their PM's statements and such - it's sensible and fiscally responsible to not throw money at defending those that don't want the assistance.
As for Iran - talking isn't the problem - look at Kim Jong Il - and all the crazy **** he was doing, when did he get back to a more normal status? After we spoke to him after ignoring him. Much like dealing with an infant, excitable folks are subject to tantrums - and does anyone want to be on the receiving end of a nuclear tantrum, no...
Yep, he has provided a solid example that civil rights may not be in perfect parity between whites and minorities - but they're close enough that you can accomplish anything no matter the color of your skin. He does provide enormous weight to the argument that the time of Affirmative Action is completely over. (plus on the fiscal side of things, since AA is "enforced" by giving tax deductions - removing it would run up revenue a bit as well)
I couldn't agree with you more - I'd be happiest if the "yokels" all end up sticking to the Republican party, all the old guard go to a new healthy Fiscal Conservative party drawing a large portion of the independents into their fold. 40/30/25 + 5 Indie would be my hope how the landscape would look if they did something like that, but admittedly it's quite optimistic that it would reach that soon, it certainly would be a healthier position for our nation to have 3 parties where "Hate me less" becomes a bad political strat though.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Not going to happen. The way the American system is set up, third parties are doomed from the outset.
If it were entirely in the hands of the Republican leadership, I'd say this is more of a possibility. But there's a bit of Darwinism here, as well. A shift in the voter base means that the more moderate Republican candidates in the mid-terms are more likely to do well. The leadership can sit in an ivory tower and think about playing to the base all it wants, but it can't long ignore who's winning seats in Congress and who isn't.
In general, Americans don't like one-party rule. I predict a mild swing towards the Republicans in the midterm elections, though I wouldn't put a lot of money on the Democrats losing any majorities at this early date. (2012, on the other hand...) It will, however, give the G.O.P. ample opportunity to see what's working in this brave new world of Obama.
There's also the fact that a Democratic swing to the left is very probable. Politics abhors a vacuum; with the far right setting the tone of the Republican Party starting in the Reagan era, the Democrats claimed most of the center by default, and now we can expect a reversal of this dynamic.
My expectation is that Palin is going to be disgraced and scapegoated for this defeat. However, at least one British bookmaker disagrees with me, so who knows? (I'll note that these odds were laid before McCain officially lost, though.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Healing Salve: Go, Richard! Keep that cycle going!
Lightning Bolt: Wow, dude, that's really powerful. Make sure to keep this common-appropriate!
Dark Ritual: What are you doing? That's obviously better than the other three!
Ancestral Recall: Seriously? You want us to make this a common? Really?
That's a severe misunderstanding of the concept of checks and balances. The system wasn't put into place to prevent any one political party from controlling all three branches of the federal government but to prevent any one branch from not be accountable to the other two. Violating checks and balances could be done by Congress passing a law that says it can't be challenged in a court of law.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
These states of affairs seldom last long; just look at the Bush era. Besides, conservatives have the Supreme Court, which is a powerful, if slow-acting, check in its own right. And it doesn't look like the Democrats are going to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
It's not ideal, and I'd be much happier with an Obama presidency if he had to deal with someone like Gingrich in Congress. But it will pass.
EDIT:
It's not the formal system of checks and balances, but I firmly believe that government works best when factions, as well as the branches of government, are checked and balanced against each other.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
LOL... this would indeed be a abuse of the checks and balances. However I can see how lesser abuses (such as passing a law that would hurt the minorities constituents)... which is made easier by having all 3 branches controlled by the same party.
I am sure that this is not something that was seen as problematic by the Founding Fathers (else they wouldn't have made it a democracy in the first place) However I personally feel that this type of set up is simply asking for abuses of power.
I completely agree with everything you have said Blinking Spirit. And I certainly hope that this state of affairs does not last all that long.
How long exactly is a term of office in the Senate and House (is it shorter than the term of office for presidency?).
Part of the checks and balances inherent in our system was originally planned without the thought of parties - so honestly quoting that comes back to the central problem of two-way thought.
Regardless however - assuming Obama sticks to his inspirations from folks like Lincoln and Reagan - you won't see him running rampant approving every far left thing that hits his desk.
In fact his own history, if you look at his 1st and 2nd years in the Senate he was a moderate in his level of dissent from the party - only this most recent year did he vote in-line with the party almost 100%. (Not that it's rare for a Senator to do that while campaigning since his attention is split - McCain was nearly the same, Dole was the same, Kerry was the same [although Kerry is reliably very liberal], etc.)
Wow, just wow... a perfect example of talking points without the understanding behind them...
Senate, voted statewide every 6 yrs - House, voted by district every 2 yrs. (2 senators per state, house members vary by population - EC votes can let you figure out how many a given state has, since EC votes are the total members between both branches of the legislative - so Cali with 55 ECV = 2 Senators + 53 House members)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Seriously, the Dems didn't get to 60 seats, and the house majority is not a big deal.
If you really think that Obama is sitting on a 100% friendly senate that will just push anything through really needs to go study politics and the US government some more. All it is saying is that people have been dissatisfied with the past 4 years. It's just a reflection of the record crowds voting too.
I was just saying that this is the only chance to change that for a third party. That's all.
Very true. the issue is there's the republicans that love Palin, and what she represents, and the republicans who don't.
While it's not her fault, I think she is the highlight of the rift inside the party that was just the elephant in the room before. It's no turned into an animosity that could cost the party 2012. While I think the midterms will improve the republicans standing some, not much can be determined until 2012.
Great point. I think that you're right here, and that's really the reason why a third party has a glimmer of hope in 2012. There will probably be a decent amount of disgruntled moderates in either party.
Palin is going to be both.
Some will say she was the reason McCain did so well, and that it was her energizing of the base that helped him get the support he did. They will then say that the economy is why the democrats won.
Others will point out the obvious: McCain had a better than average chance of dying in office, and Palin is someone unfit to be govenor of Alaska, let alone the secdon in the chain of command. Obama has brought back intellectualism in politics. He ran a campaign of highly educated individuals saying they had the knowledge to run the government, and Joe Six-Pac folded to that. I think that she single handedly ruined the republican bid for president.
*edit*
As to the checks and balance abuse, it would be hard to abuse the system without having the supreme court on board as well.
Federalist papers 9 and 10. The minds behind our Constitution were acutely aware of the potential for "factions", and the need to limit their influence.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
We can only hope that Obama has the strength of character to avoid going down that path. Most people who voted for him did so because they believe that's exactly what he's capable of. That's what he's talking about when he says he'll bring change.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Correct - but 9 and 10 were after the fact - first one was published in the same month as the Constitution was ratified.
It was known as undesirable pretty early on after the fact however.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
We shall see. His record is not terrifically inspiring on this front, but on the other hand, he is a very junior Senator, and those don't contradict their party too much if they know what's good for them. Best-case scenario, he pulls a Clinton and starts tweaking the noses of his party's leadership now that he's free to. I would love to see steam coming out of Nancy Pelosi's ears.
They were published before the Constitution was ratified, but that's beside the point. I'd be very surprised if they did not indicate Hamilton's and Madison's (especially Madison's) thought processes going into the Convention. In fact, I could probably dig up some stuff Madison said about factionalism beforehand if I had the inclination and the access to JSTOR; the Federalist papers just sprung immediately to mind.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
American would be a common name of the language generally spoken by non-Spanish persons (well, persons who aren't speaking Spanish, more precisely) in the United States. It is the official language of the U.S., even though it is named as 'English' in the statutes. "American English" also applies.
That's quite the double standard you have there. If you're just going to call this 'opinion' and say we disagree, why should anyone "justify" anything to you? Why should anyone expend that effort? It's not going to convince you, and it's already been expressed how your view here is the borderline of this sociali-phobia that the U.S. has, meaning a whole lot of people don't really care what does and does not convince you to believe something either.
So what would it prove to keep talking to you?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
McCain's acceptance speech was McCain when not pandering to the extreme right, McCain not changing who he is to become president...the McCain I would have voted for.
Things like McCain's air quoting 'health of the mother', and saying 'proabortion' during one of the debates are what I am getting at here.
The right wants Palin in 2012, but everyone else wants her to go away and never come back. The only part of Obama's speech I didn't like was when he said he was going to work with McCain and Palin, and I was like "Uhh, Palin is going to Alaska and never coming back, she doesn't have to be included anymore."
The word on Obama's staff and cabinet is that it is going to be 'young, diverse, and different' or something. The chief of staff position is rumored to have been offered to Illinois representative Rahm Emmanuel, who was part of Clinton's staff during his presidency. The man seems interesting...and quotable. (He told Tony Blair "Don't **** it up" when he was going to appear with Clinton post-Lewinski)
Twitter
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!