Obama's biggest obstacle
- Thread starter Hawkamania!
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Galactic
Norm Smith Medallist
I completely object to the Libertarians being thrown in there as part of the problem, but apart from that its right on.
Galactic
Norm Smith Medallist
Dave, your smarter than that..I think
If you can provide me examples of all those instances in which the libertarian reps were "jaming" up progress in this country, Im all ears.
........Not all at once now.
The fact they were even mentioned in this article is still a mystery to me. Hey I guess we'll take the the publicity right?
Also if you think I dont think the libertarian party has floors, your mistaken.Lets take a look at the imigration issue for example. This is the link to the libertarian view on illeagal imigration, a huge issue here in the U.S.
http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration
Now the idea is fine, but where in there does it mention anything about the massive drag on wages, education, healthcare ect? Thats right, nothing.
They are about as close to a solution as the Dems and the GOP.Absolute crap, from a party that I really do expect more from. No one is exempt from critisism, inc me and my prefered party, but this article seemed to pull them into this mess without any explanation or evidence for doing so.
If you can provide me examples of all those instances in which the libertarian reps were "jaming" up progress in this country, Im all ears.
........Not all at once now.
The fact they were even mentioned in this article is still a mystery to me. Hey I guess we'll take the the publicity right?
Also if you think I dont think the libertarian party has floors, your mistaken.Lets take a look at the imigration issue for example. This is the link to the libertarian view on illeagal imigration, a huge issue here in the U.S.
http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration
Now the idea is fine, but where in there does it mention anything about the massive drag on wages, education, healthcare ect? Thats right, nothing.
They are about as close to a solution as the Dems and the GOP.Absolute crap, from a party that I really do expect more from. No one is exempt from critisism, inc me and my prefered party, but this article seemed to pull them into this mess without any explanation or evidence for doing so.
- Thread starter
- #5
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Galactic, I think Doug Thompson was including Libertarians to make a point. And I like the fact that you would take issue with your preferred party, unlike some other posters here who would just roll over for their preferred party no matter what they do.
- Thread starter
- #7
The article is sound and is an intelligent look at the obstacles facing Obama. What parts of the article do you disagree with?
Galactic
Norm Smith Medallist
All I want is what is best for me and my fellow humans. No one is perfect unfortunately,but I will always go toward the closest option.I think the libertarians currently are closest to it. I also get really pissed off when my vote will never count in my state, at least on a national level, because it will be canceled out by 1 of many neanderthals who's heads are stuck in the sand. I have different views to many people on here, but at least everyone shows an interest in these very important matters, that effect a good many if not all people.The people who cancel out my vote are not like most on here. That really really annoys me no end I assure you.
The article fails to distinguish between partisanship for its own sake (which I agree is destructive) and the sort of partisanship necessary in setting out and implementing an agenda.
No Republicans. No Democrats. Just Americans. Is the author advocating a one party state?
But dave, hawkmania is right, the republicans and democrats are no different, they're just one republicrat organization structured to control America and keep the conspiracy running. Obama is just the face of the insideous political corporation known as the white house.
Its true I tells ya!
For my opinion, I'd argue that yes partisan politics can paralyse society, but in reality, Obama, who was elected as President of the US as leader of the dems, has a mandate to lead the US into a democratic world. Bush's presidency wasn't bad because it was partisan, it was bad because it was based on neo-con bullcrap, and that's a big difference. It is very hard to build a truly partisan government when it tries to fit all groups in it's leadership, it becomes general, non-specific and doesn't stand for anything. If you are like me, and think that a liberal ideological agenda is what America needs, then "putting the ideology away" doesn't help at all. The US is crying out for change, but is not crying out for some impossible co-alition of republicans and democrats, it's asking for a change from neo-con to liberal policy, which is actually to blame for what the US is in right now (IMO of course).
By the way, it says that both sides don't want truth. There is no truth to any of the positions on say abortion or war, there is only positions defended by a number of motivations and reasons, and that's the issue of politics, it is dominated, and will always be dominated by opinion, not fact. If the US want more facts within their society maybe they should respect their scientific and academic fields a little better.
"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects"
"There are still people in my party who believe in consensus politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors... I mean it"
Thatcher.
If there is one right/best way then why would you want to deviate from that path? Particularly when most oppositions just engage in populist nonsense.
Further why would you want a leader who espouses policies they have no conviction in but produce merely in an effort to be popular.
Thats not leading, that's following.
another one from the same source
"If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing"
- May 10, 2004
- 24,853
- 5,687
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Pistons/Hammers/Sri Lanka/The Exers
I'd suggest Obama's biggest obstacle is still inherently obvious.
No-one's denying that someone should have principles. The op seemed to suggest that partisanship was destroying America. No, neo-con policy was destroying America, big difference.
Obama has a mandate to lead as a dem. The dems got elected and so have every right to enact democratic liberal agendas. If you don't like politics being dominated by competing ideologies, go live in a dictatorship. One of the greatest elements of American politics is that even if you have to live in an era you oppose such as Bush, they'll always be another election, another chance to vote for a liberal agenda, as dave said it seems that the op is suggesting that every party should drop their own opinions and form some sort of one party state "for America" now that truly would be the republicrat government hawky constantly harps on about. It argues that issues such as abortion don't matter, it ignores that politics is dominated by big issues such as the economy, yet it is also dominated by other issues too such as abortion which require an opinion, a leadership. Obama has promised to maintain the standard of abortion in America, something which the liberal demographic would generally applaud. If Obama abandoned this issue and left it for governors worried about scaring Christian interest groups, his electorate, and his people who voted him in would feel outraged and betrayed. Anyway, I feel Obama can't do anything, be partisan and he's wrecking America by being an ideologue, play the middle ground, and he's betraying his values. The whining about Obama seems to be whining for the sake of whining.
Obama has a mandate to lead as a dem. The dems got elected and so have every right to enact democratic liberal agendas. If you don't like politics being dominated by competing ideologies, go live in a dictatorship. One of the greatest elements of American politics is that even if you have to live in an era you oppose such as Bush, they'll always be another election, another chance to vote for a liberal agenda, as dave said it seems that the op is suggesting that every party should drop their own opinions and form some sort of one party state "for America" now that truly would be the republicrat government hawky constantly harps on about. It argues that issues such as abortion don't matter, it ignores that politics is dominated by big issues such as the economy, yet it is also dominated by other issues too such as abortion which require an opinion, a leadership. Obama has promised to maintain the standard of abortion in America, something which the liberal demographic would generally applaud. If Obama abandoned this issue and left it for governors worried about scaring Christian interest groups, his electorate, and his people who voted him in would feel outraged and betrayed. Anyway, I feel Obama can't do anything, be partisan and he's wrecking America by being an ideologue, play the middle ground, and he's betraying his values. The whining about Obama seems to be whining for the sake of whining.
Being in Iraq wasnt destroying the US. Sure it may have had a budgetary cost but destroying the country? KS type nonsense.
You said Neo Con policy was destroying the US. Neo Cons are primarily interested/associated with foreign policy.
So a multi trillion dollar deficit racked up by the neocons on a lie made entering into Iraq has nothing to do with the current international US problems?
The debt re Iraq isnt that much, in fact the US deficit even with Iraq spending was less than plenty of Euro countries and was actually shrinking quickly pre financial crisis. Not only that but you claimed:
- Banned
- #21
Ah, it doesn't take much for your fascist tendencies to shine through!
It certainly doesnt take much to show your distinct lack of knowledge re economics.
Thatcher was very much influenced by the Austrian school ie opponents of state interference
Fascism is all about state interference.
Go and look for a petard.
