Politics - Feel free to join in - be respectful of others opinions

[Brewster]

Here's something that amazes me.

Something like 51% of American's believe that the world will end with Armageddon, a battle between Jesus Christ and the Anti-Christ.

In the poll I have attached 43% believe that Obama may be the Anti-Christ. So Jesus is going to return to do battle with Barrack Obama? Because secretly Obama is a supernatural being?

A whole 63% believe Obama is doing many thing that Hitler did. Hitler???

Disagreeing with a politicians viewpoints or a political parties platform is one thing but this stuff is just stupid.

The Republican party actively seeks the religious right vote and in doing so they are excluding a huge pool of intelligent, capable candidates that would not pass the religious litmus test.

Iran is a good example of what happens when you let religion hold power over a government.

Honestly, I have no idea how you fix this kind of mess short of regular American's having the courage to stand up and say, "Enough!, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take anymore!".

[Canadian Dos Equis fan]

Gotta say Bruce if I took that poll I would be a hardcore democrat in my answers... WOW!

[twinimini]

Sadly Brewster, we have the fringe mongers on both sides. There are those in the Democratic party that would tax all corporations out of existance and take all the wealth from the top income earners and distribute it to the lazy and incompetent.

There used to be distinct sides of both parties that occupied the fringes. Now those fringes have become the mainstream of each party. There were Southern Democrats that were actually termed Dixiecrats who were conservative and voted with the more conservative block. There were Republicans like Jacob Javits of NY and Brooke from Mass. that were more liberal than most of their Democratic rivals. That was what made up politics before. Now it is the extremes who occupy both sides of the aisle.

As extreme as some Republican views are, there are also some facts that seem to haunt the Democratic Party. If you look at the ten poorest cities in the US you will find a very common theme. All of them have been controlled by the Democratic Party for most of the last 50 years and more. That is the fruit of the extreme liberal giveaways. All poverty was suppose to be eliminated in the mid-60's. All those policies did was make poverty and government handouts a way of life.

We haven't had a leader in the US since Reagan. Some would argue that Clinton was a leader. Perhaps, but he never really got much of his program through, so I don't think I would agree with his leadership. Leaders were presidents like Nixon and Johnson. They got their programs through, for better or worse. Our current president got what he wanted...his place in the history books. Now it's time to move on.

[Canadian Dos Equis fan]

I think you identified the single largest problem in American politics today (Canadian politics has the same problem), the parties put forth candidates who represent mostly extreme positions. You end up with a gaggle of people who can't meet in the middle because it's a sign of weakness.

As dumb as Hank Williams Jr. analogy was, even dumber was the Obama is the enemy comment afterwards. Any elected official should be there to work with their counterpart on the other side of the aisle to make sure that government works. I don't think that happens often in the political climate we have today.

[Brewster]

I think Reagan was a great President in terms of rallying pride in America. Economically, he spent money like a drunk Democrat...lol. There is a strong myth regarding Reagan's presidency, these days. The facts are very different from the picture that is generally presented today.

I'm reading Clinton's book right now. He is a remarkable man and I think one of your best.

The same voting practices happen here. Manitoba's largest city, Winnipeg, votes Conservative. However, the larger rural population, a large proportion natives and poor, vote NDP, our pretty much socialist party.

I agree that the Democrats have their fringe, as well. But I would have a hard time putting them in the same class of "fringe". I mean there is a big difference between naively wanting more taxes on business and the wealthy without understanding the ramifications and, "The President is the Anti-Christ...oh yeah, and he might be Hitler too...." lol

Originally Posted by twinimini

Sadly Brewster, we have the fringe mongers on both sides. There are those in the Democratic party that would tax all corporations out of existance and take all the wealth from the top income earners and distribute it to the lazy and incompetent.

There used to be distinct sides of both parties that occupied the fringes. Now those fringes have become the mainstream of each party. There were Southern Democrats that were actually termed Dixiecrats who were conservative and voted with the more conservative block. There were Republicans like Jacob Javits of NY and Brooke from Mass. that were more liberal than most of their Democratic rivals. That was what made up politics before. Now it is the extremes who occupy both sides of the aisle.

As extreme as some Republican views are, there are also some facts that seem to haunt the Democratic Party. If you look at the ten poorest cities in the US you will find a very common theme. All of them have been controlled by the Democratic Party for most of the last 50 years and more. That is the fruit of the extreme liberal giveaways. All poverty was suppose to be eliminated in the mid-60's. All those policies did was make poverty and government handouts a way of life.

We haven't had a leader in the US since Reagan. Some would argue that Clinton was a leader. Perhaps, but he never really got much of his program through, so I don't think I would agree with his leadership. Leaders were presidents like Nixon and Johnson. They got their programs through, for better or worse. Our current president got what he wanted...his place in the history books. Now it's time to move on.

[Partydollgirl]

Originally Posted by Brewster

I think Reagan was a great President in terms of rallying pride in America. Economically, he spent money like a drunk Democrat...lol. There is a strong myth regarding Reagan's presidency, these days. The facts are very different from the picture that is generally presented today.

I'm reading Clinton's book right now. He is a remarkable man and I think one of your best.

The same voting practices happen here. Manitoba's largest city, Winnipeg, votes Conservative. However, the larger rural population, a large proportion natives and poor, vote NDP, our pretty much socialist party.

I agree that the Democrats have their fringe, as well. But I would have a hard time putting them in the same class of "fringe". I mean there is a big difference between naively wanting more taxes on business and the wealthy without understanding the ramifications and, "The President is the Anti-Christ...oh yeah, and he might be Hitler too...." lol

the most improtant thing is .. DID YOU BUY ME SOME GREY GOOSE VODKA FOR TONIGHT!!..haha

[MACLAN]

Originally Posted by Partydollgirl

the most improtant thing is .. DID YOU BUY ME SOME GREY GOOSE VODKA FOR TONIGHT!!..haha

No doubt! And we have to make sure that we get our TTR in before the Mayan calendar runs out in 12/21/12!

December 2012 TTR Trip... Who's starting the thread!

[mikel]

I used to be a hardcore Republican, but I am now an Independant and the reason for that is both parties have gone to the extremes. It is sad really because now they look out for only thier own self and do not care about the people they serve.

[Brewster]

Here's am interesting chart. Note that the debt drops under all Dem presidencies, with the exception of Obama. He could defend his record pointing to inheriting two war plus the need for massive homeland security plus dealing with an unprecedented financial crisis.

Look at the dramatic rise in debt under Reagan/Bush. Clinton brings it back on course just to have Bush Jr. skyrocket it again.







Canada show's similar stats, where debt to GDP appears to be governed more responsibly under a Liberal goverment compared to Conservative.

In reality governments have far less control over domestic economy than what is generally believed. And natural disasters, global economic downturns, war, etc. will have substantial impact on debt vs. GDP.

My main point here is that Democrats and Liberal are both portrayed as "Tax and Spend" governments by the opposition, who claim to have sole propriety over fiscal responsibility.

Were that true, these chart would be very different. The numbers don't lie.

[twinimini]

A lot of the debt analysis has to be weighed with the economy at the time. Part of the low debt ratios during Clinton's time was due to the strong economy which resulted in high tax collections. At the same token part of Reagan's problems were related to a weak economy at the time. Reagan, of course, also spent trillions on the military in a successful effort to bankrupt the Soviet Union.

Both parties have been very guilty of pandering to their core and taking that same core to the extreme. Now the Democrats are jumping on the Occupy Wall Street movement. I agree that there are inequities in the world, but there will always be inequities. Much of what I see from the Left is just more programs that encourage those who won't work to continue to not work and discourage those that do work. Somewhere along the line there has to be some politician somewhere that will look to what made the US successful and they will reinstitute those principles. If they don't then I fear we are doomed to become just another third world country.

[MACLAN]

The only thing I know that all parties can agree on is to give themselves a raise and they have done that very successfully!



Healthcare for all? May happen but someone has to pay for it. Until they can decide who and where and what they have to figure out who’s on first, what’s on second and I don’t know on third. (You'll understand that one if your my age or better).



This pertains to every political group out there. One group blames another group them that group blames someone else… repeat sequence. Did you ever hear someone say, “the last party did a spectacular job for the last 8 years and we are going to try and do a better one!” Yeah, don’t think so.
We’re going to fix what they broke… yeah, heard that one before!



Wait this is a good one… We’re going to lower taxes to put more money in your pocket… heard that one a few times too.


We’re going to lower taxes to create more jobs! – hmmm, I know I have heard that before somewhere…


Democrats are in power and blame Republicans; Republicans come back and blame Democrats. Both parties flame all the other parties… should I go on?


In the end does it really matter who’s in charge at the end of the day? For the last 40+ years it’s been pretty much the same. Ford was good for a funny trip, Carter builds some pretty nice houses and for a good cause, Reagan – I think everyone liked him, the Bush’s – I served while both were president and I had the opportunity to shake both of their hands in the Middle East – to me there good to go, Obama – he slammed Osama so he’s good in my book.

[mikel]

I agree with you MACLAN, it is because of the same old same old that politics do not really mean much to me anymore.

BTW, eventhough I am in my 40's I clearly understund the baseball reference

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by mikel

I agree with you MACLAN, it is because of the same old same old that politics do not really mean much to me anymore.

BTW, eventhough I am in my 40's I clearly understund the baseball reference

I certainly understand what you are saying, but somewhere along the line we have to stand up and say ENOUGH!!!! I don't know if that means going for fringe party candidates or what. Maybe those of us who have had enough need to get involved. Nothing will change if we do nothing.

[BillS]

Having already grown sick of Bill Clinton after only 2 years as president Americans swept into office a majority of Republicans into Congress in 1994 for the first time in 50 years. These GOP then submitted to Clinton the "Contract with America", a plan which balanced our federal budget. Clinton did NOT push this, he did not create this. In fact, he deeply resisted this, along with the reforming of welfare which was included. I was truly amazed when he did sign it tho. Stunningly, he took credit for it soon thereafter, and has done so ever since, knowing full well how ill-informed most Americans are. I am NOT endorsing any GOP type, by no stretch of the imagination. But Bill Clinton was (is) a phony and he treated women like shit. Shit. Including his own wife. He lied under oath in the Paula Jones deposition and again, to all our faces into the cameras when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman!" Find some other democrat or politician to heap praise on. There have been some decent ones. But not this fraud...All he did was have the stunning luck to be in office during economic good times and the political savvy to sign that budget because it was popular then...He is a cad...

[MACLAN]

Originally Posted by twinimini

I certainly understand what you are saying, but somewhere along the line we have to stand up and say ENOUGH!!!! I don't know if that means going for fringe party candidates or what. Maybe those of us who have had enough need to get involved. Nothing will change if we do nothing.

I agree but in order to have change, you have to have people that not only want the change but will help get that change implemented, is what we don’t have. Past, current and future issues can be voiced but I haven’t seen too much change in politics at all over the years.
Media and Marketing to America - Even the current protest in New York, Seattle and other locations are not going to change anything about corporate American greed when in all actuality it is individual American greed. People in general think that America owes them in some way or think that they are entitled to rights, money and social status. People are created equal but some things have to be earned and worked for. Values have changed as well too. People think it’s more important to have a nice car, large screen TV, X-Box and toys than to save for a future, a house or for that matter making it just a better place. In their eyes, it easier to blame than to take responsibility.
Employment or the lack of – Government creating jobs - Everyone out there that actually wants a job could work. I say could because they make a choice not to. I don’t buy into the, “I can’t find a job” scenario. It’s the average person’s personal views that hinder them from looking at jobs below their skill level. If you were a manager of hundreds of people and you lose your job, you may have to except a job being managed instead. The biggest issue is that a pay cut may be necessary and again people think they are entitled, I mean they have to be able to afford Premium DirecTV, high speed internet, gas for the SUV, large screen TV’s and the house they couldn’t realistically afford but the bank qualified them anyways. See the media and employment connections?
In order for change to happen we have to accept reality before we can create the dream. Then and only then can we go to TTR and have a great time!

[twinimini]

For the most part I think this mess was created by "We the People." Most of us don't have a clue what someone stands for when we vote. It is amazing that someone could lose an election over something they may have done as a kid, but yet someone with a horrible voting record can get re-elected to term after term.

The media controls so much of what people perceive to be the truth that noone knows what the truth is anymore. The New York Times is supposed to be among the top in journalistic excellence, yet the total distortions that appear in that paper would make Fox look "fair and balanced" in contrast. How many people actually believe every e-mail that is sent to them if the e-mails agree with what that person's perception is?

Someone could come up with a plan to save Social Security, but if they had an affair 20 years ago they would probably lose the election. What seems to be the biggest complaint about Romney? Right now, it seems to be the fact that he's a Mormon. Fifty years ago the cry was "Don't elect Kennedy! He's a Catholic." Amazing how far we haven't come in 50 years. A politician's record is irrelevant. The only relevance is what the public perceives to be that person's record or what's important about that candidate.

[diamondheaded]

Originally Posted by twinimini

A politician's record is irrelevant. The only relevance is what the public perceives to be that person's record or what's important about that candidate.

best point on this thread yet!

rob

[diamondheaded]

i do love me some 9 9 9 hermain cain plan

amazingly simple and something our country is in dire need of

SIMPLICITY!!!!!!!!!!!

rob

[MACLAN]

People are controlled by the media; the media gives the people the drama they want regardless of the facts. The majority of the people vote like they do for American Idol and don’t know who is the best person for the job. For example only – a large amount of African American voters voted for Obama just because he was black just as a large amount of support went to Hilary Clinton, Palin and Bachmann just because they are women.
And just for the record… I am for the person who can do the job the best regardless of color, race, gender, their skeletons (we all have them) or anything else for that matter.
Universal healthcare for everyone is a great idea but will never happen in a democracy. You can’t offer everyone the same access for the same cost or we will be short on doctors because they would make less money or offer fewer services. It would work in a socialist environment but that would mean giving up freedoms that some think are owed to them. It also means getting a lot less in the paycheck as some of our Canadian friends here in the forum can attest to.

Originally Posted by BillS

But Bill Clinton was (is) a phony and he treated women like shit. Shit. Including his own wife. He lied under oath in the Paula Jones deposition and again, to all our faces into the cameras when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman!"

Clinton did treat women poorly but you have to look at the some of the women you mentioned. Hilary for one! Monica saw an opportunity and went for it and had some fun. The women you mentioned were not blackmailed so blame goes both ways.
On a positive note… if we hadn’t of had all the political mess-ups The Daily Show, The Cobert Report and Saturday Night Live wouldn’t of had much material. They have survived on the media and politics all along and have been successful doing it!

[Brewster]

Originally Posted by MACLAN

Universal healthcare for everyone is a great idea but will never happen in a democracy. You can’t offer everyone the same access for the same cost or we will be short on doctors because they would make less money or offer fewer services. It would work in a socialist environment but that would mean giving up freedoms that some think are owed to them. It also means getting a lot less in the paycheck as some of our Canadian friends here in the forum can attest to.

So, I don't live in a democracy? lol

Comrade Keith...care for some borscht and vodka? lol

Most countries with Universal Health care are facing funding problems these days. That is because it was "affordable" when it was first implemented. However, with the rapid advancement in medical sciences the cost of delivery has skyrocketed. Healthcare consumes the vast majority of our provincial budgets today (Healthcare in Canada is provided provincially under a federal mandate).

The ethical dilema's will soon be reached if they haven't already been reached. How far do you go to save a life? When is the cost to great? At what age is the cost no longer justified? Is gender reassignment for trans-sexuals a physical or mental issue? Should a lifetime smoker qualify for a lung transplant? Should overweight, seditary people be given the same healthcare as someone who has spent a lifetime dedicated to a healthy lifestyle?

I think, ultimately, a two-tiered system is inevitable.

[Canadian Dos Equis fan]

Did someone say Vodka?! I had a pretty thorough response written but it got lost. Basically we already have a mild two tier system, that's why we pay for things like dental and eye care separately. Those who can't afford it get basic services provided, which is fine with me.

If you want fancy veneers, tooth polishing, laser eye surgery, massage therapy because you are stiff etc you do have to pay or have a private plan to cover those things in Canada.

Where our system shines is for the really major stuff. I have a good friend who recieved a double lung transplant a few years ago (she was born with Cystic Fibrosys). If it was an economic decision I am sure she wouldn't be here today.

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by MACLAN

People are controlled by the media; the media gives the people the drama they want regardless of the facts. The majority of the people vote like they do for American Idol and don’t know who is the best person for the job. For example only – a large amount of African American voters voted for Obama just because he was black just as a large amount of support went to Hilary Clinton, Palin and Bachmann just because they are women.

I used to think that the media was able to manipulate us in America because Americans were stupid. Then I realized that in America we are not stupid, but rather ignorant. Stupid is a condition, ignorance is a chioce. Besides, ignorance gets better ratings.

[mikel]

Originally Posted by twinimini

I certainly understand what you are saying, but somewhere along the line we have to stand up and say ENOUGH!!!! I don't know if that means going for fringe party candidates or what. Maybe those of us who have had enough need to get involved. Nothing will change if we do nothing.

That is why I now vote for an Independent/fringe candidate. The laws now, which were made/passed by the dems and repubs make it very hard for a third party candidate to win a national election

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by mikel

That is why I now vote for an Independent/fringe candidate. The laws now, which were made/passed by the dems and repubs make it very hard for a third party candidate to win a national election

That is so true, Mike. I think that is a major reason Ross Perot dropped out the second time. Right about now I'd love to see someone come to the forefront who had a brain and some ball....no offense Ladies, but I'd just like to see someone with some moxie, either male, female, or other.

[Brewster]

You Americans are in trouble now! This guy is ticked!!!

Should Canada Invade the U.S.A.? - YouTube

Should Canada Invade the U.S.A.? - YouTube

[Canadian Dos Equis fan]

I like the end of the video where he has a link to surrender to Canada lol!