The Left's Collapse

[raviy]

Holy crap this Rockie Cantais guy uses far too many exclamation points, too many caps and begins too many sentences with LOL or LMAO. Moving on...

Enough, we can go around in circles until the world ends! I'm just happy to say that we agree that we need an educated society who wants to put the good of the society first. What form of government they pick is up to that each individual group. Trust me I have no desire to tell anyone country how they need to run their government.

And the form of government the United States of America chose was that of the Democratic Party under the leadership of Obama. And then from what I read, you rail on the existing democratically elected government...? I'm confused, you have no desire to do what now? Note that the American government is not your personal government, they aren't there to accommodate you exclusively, they're there to accommodate the American people as a whole, if America as a whole don't like the government, they can vote in a new one.

Now the largest problem with the US system, which for some reason very few Americans realize, is the lack of choice. Now, if forced to choose, I would prefer the Democrats to the Republicans by quite a fair margin, but to be honest, voting in America is like being stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. "Left" for some reason encompasses government control of the economy and libertarianism, while the "right" encompasses both free market economy and authoritarianism. It completely disregards the level of each the people would like.

That is to say, unless political parties are completely abolished, there can be no democracy. At the very least, political parties need to be limited in size.

Anyway, to the point of the right or the left being bad. It's my view that politicians in the States are notoriously corrupt, what with unlimited campaign donations from large corporations, and what with being a politician being an actual career path. People who make a career out of pandering and running smear campaigns run your country. It's also my belief that Obama is different in this sense. He is a principled man, understanding that America lags far behind its peers in welfare and basic infrastructure. He's determined to change all this and bring the States up to the standard of its fellow Western nations. However all those principles stop him from seeing that now is not the time for sweeping changes. He's a naive man who believes that good actions can never be done at the wrong time, and that's what makes him a great man, and a crappy leader. Though I would take that over Bush or Palin any day.

[Bishop]

It's my view that politicians in the States are notoriously corrupt

i think every country complains about the same thing with their politicians.

[Rockie Cantais]

Holy crap this Rockie Cantais guy uses far too many exclamation points, too many caps and begins too many sentences with LOL or LMAO.

LOL, because I rather give speeches! I also know how it irritates the proper speaking people of the world! I love to make fun of the English language! Or was it the ones who think they are proper? I forget at times. ;)

[Rockie Cantais]

i think every country complains about the same thing with their politicians.

Especially when they are not of the same mind set. Humanity, got to love us!

[Rockie Cantais]

Moving on...


And the form of government the United States of America chose was that of the Democratic Party under the leadership of Obama. And then from what I read, you rail on the existing democratically elected government...? I'm confused, you have no desire to do what now? Note that the American government is not your personal government, they aren't there to accommodate you exclusively, they're there to accommodate the American people as a whole, if America as a whole don't like the government, they can vote in a new one.

Now the largest problem with the US system, which for some reason very few Americans realize, is the lack of choice. Now, if forced to choose, I would prefer the Democrats to the Republicans by quite a fair margin, but to be honest, voting in America is like being stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. "Left" for some reason encompasses government control of the economy and libertarianism, while the "right" encompasses both free market economy and authoritarianism. It completely disregards the level of each the people would like.

That is to say, unless political parties are completely abolished, there can be no democracy. At the very least, political parties need to be limited in size.

Anyway, to the point of the right or the left being bad. It's my view that politicians in the States are notoriously corrupt, what with unlimited campaign donations from large corporations, and what with being a politician being an actual career path. People who make a career out of pandering and running smear campaigns run your country. It's also my belief that Obama is different in this sense. He is a principled man, understanding that America lags far behind its peers in welfare and basic infrastructure. He's determined to change all this and bring the States up to the standard of its fellow Western nations. However all those principles stop him from seeing that now is not the time for sweeping changes. He's a naive man who believes that good actions can never be done at the wrong time, and that's what makes him a great man, and a crappy leader. Though I would take that over Bush or Palin any day.

Bush and Palin are not even the same category, other than they are social conservatives. Obama is a principle man but he dare not show what kind but wait we figuring it out. Sorry I have a lack of time to properly respond. Maybe later.

[Rockie Cantais]

You do realize that we have captured/killed more 'terrorists' in Obamas 1st year in office than we did in Bush's final year in office right?

Why not blame that on Bush too? LOL

I'll be back! when I have more time but here is something to make your mind boil!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XEo3F2LadU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBoeH...eature=related

[Rockie Cantais]

You do realize that we have captured/killed more 'terrorists' in Obamas 1st year in office than we did in Bush's final year in office right?

Again, why not blame Bush? It was not by Obama's orders, directive or anything he did. Nice try.

You do know that several terrorist attacks have been stopped under Obama right? How about you do a little research. Back up your claim that Dems only opposed the war for political gain. Dems were called 'Unpatriotic' for voicing opinions against the war. It was only after it was realized that Bush/Cheney lied about the reasons for war that it became a political gain for Dems.

Stopped under Obama? Are you so sure about that? I seem to remember an rouge officer killing Military troops on a base. Then there's the Key Stone Cops of Obama administrations after the terrorist bungled their own attacks, again nice try. Bush/Cheney presented the info in good faith. No prof other wise the Dems would have went for impeachment. Again nice try.

Yes, we did have a mad population. That's why the Republicans lost heavily in the last elections. You are correct that Corruption runs deep in America. Check out Cheney/Haliburton connections. Check out Bush/Bin Ladden family connections. How about Bush/Cheney and torture? Or is it only corruption when a Black Democrat is in the mix for you? How about Drill baby Drill and less regulations the Republicans shout for and then turn around and blame Obama for the Gulf Oil spill when these regulations were lessened by Republicans.

Not a fan of Bush/Cheney but its the black kettle calling the skillet black here, lol! I see no difference. Leave it to the Dem's and we would have no domestic power source. Again nice try.

Turn off Fox news then and listen to media outlets outside the US. Don't think you'll like that media much either I guess.

Actually I find the Arab network more fair and balanced than MSNBC, lol. Not saying much for the drive by. You think I get all my info from Fox?

You mean Bush standing on the Aircraft Carrier with the banner 'Mission Accomplished'? He never won the 'war' that's why we are still at it. You do know it was a war declared on Terrorism right? The same media did the same thing while Bush was in office... do you just have selective memory or something?

Depends on how you want to look at it. You can divide the Iraq war into different stages and its just a campaign in a lager war. Thanks for saying War on Terror and not a man made disaster, lol. By the way we never declared war, to bad we should have made everyone vote and be counted. No comments like I was against it before I was for it.

WHAT? How much airtime is FOX NEWS giving to the war? How much Airtime is Rush Limbaugh giving to the war? These are NOT progressive media outlets. Yet you blame Progressives? Wow... just wow. By the tone of these media outlets the war against 'terrorism' is the war against Obama instead.

CBS, CNN, ABC and NBC it has change from the time Obama took office. Can kid yourself but the rest of us are aware of it.

Yep. Thats why Republicans lost the elections. Americans had had enough of Republicans in office.

NO, they had enough of Washington and the belt way boys, business as always and Obama is more of the same. Polls are tanking!!!!

Again. Try to do just a small bit of research first. Here is from wiki:

For real? wiki????????? give me a break that's corrupt info, lol!!!!

Being a progressive or not has nothing to do with any of it. It's you grasping at straws for something to ***** about apparently.

Really?

We are NOT a melting pot. We never have been. We have Jewish communities, we have Asian communities, we have Scandinavian communities, we have Irish Communities etc etc etc... the US does not have a 'Culture'. We are a culture of many different nationalities but we are not 1 culture as you claim.

The Liberal/Progressive call the Conservatives racists? Really? I disagree with you on that statement, yes we do have some that want to separate but in time they join the rest of us.

Have you served in the Armed forces? Have you been in a war zone? I have.

Yes I have served in the military and police department. No war zone but getting shot at count or having someone try and kill me? Nice try!

Not as simple as that. Once again read up on the subject a little more. The end of the cold war had more to do with decades of poor economical and political mismanagement by the Soviets. It is said by some experts that Reagan did not realize just how catastrophic nuclear war would be until he watched the TV movie 'The Day After' as movies were more real to him than real life.

So you are saying Communism and their Socialism is a failure? Failure of the LEFT? Granted they would have failed but Reagan made it so much faster!

So you want to live in China then I take it? How about you ONCE AGAIN do a little more research on the subject. Here I'll help you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms
Now look at the last 5 terms of Republican rule Regan and both Bush's and compare them to the last 5 terms of Democrat rule. All Republican Terms increased the Debt. All the Democrat Terms the debt decreased. Now remember again who was in the white house for the 8 years leading up to the banking collapse AND who started the Banking bail-outs... you guessed it. Republican GW Bush. Yet you blame Obama who is just barely past his first year as President and a massive mess to clean up after Bush left office. You'd almost think it was a republican plan. Screw the country up and then blame the Dems for having to clean up the mess. It's pure Genius!

A governments only job should be the health welfare and protection of it's citizens.

I'll leave you with one more little tid-bit here...

How We Get Out of the Great Depression II
By Steven Stoft, March 2, 2009
Here we go again: Hoover got us in, and WWII got us out. Bush got us in, and
to his credit, started trying to get us out. Though, mostly he threw money at bankers.
In the Great Depression, Roosevelt tried deficit spending, but he was too timid. Then he stopped in 1937 and the economy nose-dived. It took the humongous deficits of WWII to pull us out of the Great Depression. Those deficits blasted the economy from depression into overdrive.
Of course after the war, we had to pay off a huge national debt, but during that time, from 1946 to 1980, the economy was mainly quite prosperous. We hit a bad recession when Reagan took office, and his early deficit spending made sense (though he didn't know it). But then he continued to drive up the debt through the boom years that followed. That didn't make any sense.
We are now headed into the worst slump since 1938, and you better hope Obama can fix it because that was not a pretty time. Unfortunately, as in the Great Depression, the extreme conservatives would rather trash the country than have our government succeed. They are much worse than Bush.
The main thing to remember is that, with consumer spending going down, business is going to lay people off—not hire them. You can't blame business for this. It's just a vicious cycle that the economy gets into. And you can't blame consumers for not spending in bad times. The only way out of this, if we don't want to wait 10 years, is for the government to spend, pay unemployment insurance, or give tax breaks to people who will spend (not the rich). Of course there's also the problem of the banks. Obama should stop saving the bankers, and just take over the bad banks. Once they're working they can be sold back to the private sector.

So when you see the Deficit remember the above...

Sorry but I ain't buying your argument at all! Blame Bush is getting old and no longer has the same effect anymore. Obama is in charged and its all his baby all the debt that he created and his socialist agenda. Lets see how November pans out!

[raviy]

Bush and Palin are not even the same category, other than they are social conservatives. Obama is a principle man but he dare not show what kind but wait we figuring it out. Sorry I have a lack of time to properly respond. Maybe later.

That's all you took away from what I said? Really? Wow. The very last sentence that was clearly obiter. Nice.
What they have in common is that they were both popular representatives from the right. I disregarded McCain since he has no chance in any future election, and hasn't really had any power.

[Rockie Cantais]

And the form of government the United States of America chose was that of the Democratic Party under the leadership of Obama. And then from what I read, you rail on the existing democratically elected government...? I'm confused, you have no desire to do what now? Note that the American government is not your personal government, they aren't there to accommodate you exclusively, they're there to accommodate the American people as a whole, if America as a whole don't like the government, they can vote in a new one.

You misunderstand our government process. Each party represents a section of our population not a form of government. The party is just the mechanics of promoting a set of ideas. The people we vote in are to represent the people and work for the people not the other way around. From our lowest level to the the President they work for the people. They at times seem to forget this.

Now the largest problem with the US system, which for some reason very few Americans realize, is the lack of choice. Now, if forced to choose, I would prefer the Democrats to the Republicans by quite a fair margin, but to be honest, voting in America is like being stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. "Left" for some reason encompasses government control of the economy and libertarianism, while the "right" encompasses both free market economy and authoritarianism. It completely disregards the level of each the people would like.

The two party system I would prefer to be done with. Still in the end we must have only two people to choose from and need a majority to win and at time we have run off elections. The parties are just the train to get us to a point of picking someone each party has groups fighting for control and to be heard within it.

That is to say, unless political parties are completely abolished, there can be no democracy. At the very least, political parties need to be limited in size.

Disagree, we are a Representative Republic but I agree we would be better off without them but after all this time its pretty much set in stone. Again think of two trains in a race and lots of groups jumping on to each train fighting for control of that train then racing the other train to the finish line.

Anyway, to the point of the right or the left being bad. It's my view that politicians in the States are notoriously corrupt, what with unlimited campaign donations from large corporations, and what with being a politician being an actual career path. People who make a career out of pandering and running smear campaigns run your country.

Corrupt now because Americans grew fat and lazy but we are now awake and we are ready to clean house! Why we want to make some changes to limit and control our government even more.

It's also my belief that Obama is different in this sense. He is a principled man, understanding that America lags far behind its peers in welfare and basic infrastructure. He's determined to change all this and bring the States up to the standard of its fellow Western nations. However all those principles stop him from seeing that now is not the time for sweeping changes. He's a naive man who believes that good actions can never be done at the wrong time, and that's what makes him a great man, and a crappy leader.

Interesting point of view. Obama is an ideologue and has no real understanding of America. Obama naive? NO, he knows what he is doing but has pushed to hard too fast and soon the push back will come. We do not want to be like the rest of the Western World or the World for that matter. We want sweeping change but in the opposite direction as Obama. What has stopped him is our Constitution which was design to make it hard for want to be Tyrants to gain control.

[Rockie Cantais]

That's all you took away from what I said? Really? Wow. The very last sentence that was clearly obiter. Nice.
What they have in common is that they were both popular representatives from the right. I disregarded McCain since he has no chance in any future election, and hasn't really had any power.

Sorry. lack of time and the last part caught my eye.

Not sure you have a complete understand of Americans politics but you do have the basics down. You are using a different measuring stick for Right and left than I am. McCain, Hold my nose! as I voted for Palin! You know I am more than willing to give you Obama! want him? LOL

[raviy]

You misunderstand our government process. Each party represents a section of our population not a form of government. The party is just the mechanics of promoting a set of ideas. The people we vote in are to represent the people and work for the people not the other way around. From our lowest level to the the President they work for the people. They at times seem to forget this.

I respectfully disagree. Let's say you have 100 candidates, the people vote in the candidate they feel is most representative of their views. This does not mean that the elected official will or even should pursue policies that the majority of the people want. For example, if the people elect a candidate who, prior to the election had stated his pro-gay marriage stance, that elected official has a duty to uphold the policies that he made clear during his campaign, regardless of whether the majority of the people are anti-gay marriage.

What you are suggesting is that regardless of who is elected to office, they should constantly follow the will of the people. You're suggesting that if the majority of the country is anti-abortion, the president should pass laws to outlaw abortion, regardless of whether he's republican or democrat.

I believe that the election process is designed to choose a candidate whom you believe is intelligent, and will uphold the majority of your values, and be an effective leader. The president is presented with far more information than the average American has access to, and should have a better comprehension of issues than the average American. As such, I believe it is a president's duty to disregard public opinion and do what he believes is the best course for the country, provided he made his stance during election campaigns clear. Honestly, what does the average American know about the delicate balance of fiscal and monetary policies, the complex legal system, socio-economic issues arising out of the aging population etc etc.

Which is to say... You pick a guy, if you like the way he ran things the first 4 years, then you vote him in again. If not, you vote him out. Pretty simple.

[Rockie Cantais]

I respectfully disagree. Let's say you have 100 candidates, the people vote in the candidate they feel is most representative of their views. This does not mean that the elected official will or even should pursue policies that the majority of the people want. For example, if the people elect a candidate who, prior to the election had stated his pro-gay marriage stance, that elected official has a duty to uphold the policies that he made clear during his campaign, regardless of whether the majority of the people are anti-gay marriage.

No, I disagree the elected person must uphold the will of the people.

What you are suggesting is that regardless of who is elected to office, they should constantly follow the will of the people. You're suggesting that if the majority of the country is anti-abortion, the president should pass laws to outlaw abortion, regardless of whether he's republican or democrat.

Yes, they need to follow the will of the people.

I believe that the election process is designed to choose a candidate whom you believe is intelligent, and will uphold the majority of your values, and be an effective leader. The president is presented with far more information than the average American has access to, and should have a better comprehension of issues than the average American. As such, I believe it is a president's duty to disregard public opinion and do what he believes is the best course for the country, provided he made his stance during election campaigns clear. Honestly, what does the average American know about the delicate balance of fiscal and monetary policies, the complex legal system, socio-economic issues arising out of the aging population etc etc.

We know more than we use to and looking at current and past presidents they are less qualified that most Americans. They may have more info but that doesn't make the leader smarted or more competent.

Which is to say... You pick a guy, if you like the way he ran things the first 4 years, then you vote him in again. If not, you vote him out. Pretty simple.

Agreed on that part!

That is a very good argument! well done.

[Rockie Cantais]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...-Portugal.html

Dictators are just another Version of the Left same as Communist and Socialist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuG...eature=related

So in that case if you end up with that the Left Survives!

[raviy]

We know more than we use to and looking at current and past presidents they are less qualified that most Americans. They may have more info but that doesn't make the leader smarted or more competent.

Well then your idea of democracy is contrary to the idea of the American founders, the idea instilled into the American Constitution.

Further, to your point about recent presidents being less intelligent or competent than the average American... Well... I firstly respectfully disagree. However, even if that is true, then that is a reflection on the people who voted that person into office...
So if you're saying that the majority of Americans vote for a candidate less intelligent than themselves... Well then you're pretty much saying that the majority of Americans are stupid.

Dictators are just another Version of the Left same as Communist and Socialist.

... What? I'm not sure you read that article properly. You really have to start reading political theory, it doesn't feel like you've grasped the underlying concepts of democracy, communism, socialism, or authoritarianism.

[hsihp81]

You really have to start reading political theory, it doesn't feel like you've grasped the underlying concepts of democracy, communism, socialism, or authoritarianism.

I agree, but you really can't blame him. The typical purveyors of his political viewpoint prefer that people know as little as possible. They throw around buzzwords that are sure to get their people fired up, but none of it is meant to actually inform people. I think this thread has been an excellent demonstration of that...

And before I continue, I must ask the obvious. Was this entire thread really based on a mind-numbingly misinformed editorial in a right-wing rag? Ugh...

Bush and Palin are not even the same category, other than they are social conservatives.

Agreed. Bush is in the authoritarian camp, and Palin is just plain crazy... Unfortunately, she and a few others have managed to bring together previously scattered elements of our society that we should probably have kept in hiding, or at least we'll find that out in retrospect. I'm fairly confident we will never see a president Palin, though. As much as the teabaggers want to think otherwise, the rest of the country is just not as crazy as them. What's giving them high hopes right now is that teabagger candidates for office are having success in Republican primaries. Since their constituencies pull the extreme elements from the right, if they can convince enough well-meaning but misinformed registered Republicans to join their side, they can win a primary.

What they will find in the general election, however, is that political independents, registered Democrats and non-crazy Republicans outnumber teabaggers by a large margin, and those groups will not vote for an unhinged teabagger... We already have seen evidence of this in a few special elections where a teabagger has gone up against a Democrat. For example, teabagger Doug Hoffman ran off the Republican candidate in the NY-23 election after endorsements from Palin and the like, yet instead of winning an easily winnable district for Republicans, Bill Owens is now the first Democrat to represent NY-23 in over 100 years. You keep talking about November, but I think you will be surprised when America actually goes to the polls. Teabaggers aren't electable, the more they talk, the more that's obvious...

Now the largest problem with the US system, which for some reason very few Americans realize, is the lack of choice. Now, if forced to choose, I would prefer the Democrats to the Republicans by quite a fair margin, but to be honest, voting in America is like being stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. "Left" for some reason encompasses government control of the economy and libertarianism, while the "right" encompasses both free market economy and authoritarianism. It completely disregards the level of each the people would like.

That is to say, unless political parties are completely abolished, there can be no democracy. At the very least, political parties need to be limited in size.

Yay, someone who gets it! Of course that must mean you're not American... :p Anyway, your depiction of our left and right is spot on, and the situation doesn't make any damn sense to me. I would think that libertarians would have more in common with us progressives, yet those guys usually vote with the Republicans. I think they're brought in by all the small government talk and don't actually realize that Republican presidents, especially the last few, have grown government more than any Democrat could ever get away with.

But all that just goes right back to the first point, keep them as uninformed as possible, and it's right here on display. Obama created $12 trillion in debt, Reagan ended the cold war, Obama is a radical progressive, Obama has a socialist agenda, Bush's wars somehow are "military aid," Europe (the battleground for 2 world wars, among many others) doesn't understand the concept of fighting for its freedom, America has a strong (and by inference, superior) 'moral foundation,' socialism = government control by elites, (that's oligarchy, btw..) Obama is a wimp, (assuming the usual, that he's weak on foreign policy and national security) the media is a leftist/liberal/progressive propaganda machine, everything good since Bush left office is because of Bush, everything bad since Obama took over is Obama's fault, even making the leap that socialism is collapsing Europe as opposed to our parasitic "too big to fail" investment banks meddling in their (ahem, Greece) finances. And that's just in one thread!