Thread: Sad Commentary

I voted for the man. I don't believe he deserved the award. He was nominated two weeks after the inauguration. Even Lech Walesa said he didn't deserve it. I personally do not understand how anyone could think he deserved it. What did he do? Ted Kennedy never won it, look at all he did.

I want to be sure I say this too,
The Republicans are no better, they had better straighten their oars and get back on track with us Conservatives..
Right now my personal battle cry is "VOTE EM ALL OUT" and start anew..

That is true "Change"

Right now I see the country as 10% - 80% - 10%
10% to the extreme left
10% to the just as bad extreme right
and the 80% of us that just want common freaking sense in government....

Seriously do any of you liberals really think that we righties don't want Health Care Reform???? do you actually think that we would truly like to see people suffer?????

What we want is some common sense... Reform the system, don't put more freeloaders on it, take them off it...We as working class Americans can't afford it anymore, take the time figure out a real solution and fix the problems DON"T create more....

Glen,

you're close to the mark with 10-80-10... even tho it is closer to 20-60-20:

20% I won't trust anything coming from a right-wing government and blindly accept anything coming from a left-wing government
60% I will base my trust on actions and not on party
20% I won't trust anything coming from a left-wing government and blindly accept anything coming from a right-wing government

There's a real need for a credible third party.

Originally Posted by MichaelP

Glen,

you're close to the mark with 10-80-10... even tho it is closer to 20-60-20:

20% I won't trust anything coming from a right-wing government and blindly accept anything coming from a left-wing government
60% I will base my trust on actions and not on party
20% I won't trust anything coming from a left-wing government and blindly accept anything coming from a right-wing government

There's a real need for a credible third party.

With all the respect, I do not think it works this way. You paint a direct parallel between one's level of political radicalism and one's loyalty to politicians. I can be fairly neutral and have a super deep faith in a president I elected or I can be a hardcore conservative who never blindly trusts anybody, but trusts some less than others.

Originally Posted by sparq

With all the respect, I do not think it works this way. You paint a direct parallel between one's level of political radicalism and one's loyalty to politicians. I can be fairly neutral and have a super deep faith in a president I elected or I can be a hardcore conservative who never blindly trusts anybody, but trusts some less than others.

Not politicians, simply trust in the government as an entity in itself.

From PewResearch:
A little more than a year ago, a majority of Republicans had a favorable view of the federal government, while only 29% of Democrats had a positive view. But a change in political control of the White House also caused a dramatic shift in who sees the federal government positively.
As Democrats’ favorable opinion of the federal government rose to 61%, Republicans registered a similarly significant drop to 24%, creating a 37-point favorability gap between the two parties. Independents were unaffected by the change in administration; a little more than a third now had a positive view of the federal government, roughly the same as last year. Partisan differences about state and local government are much smaller, with majorities across party lines continuing to have positive opinions. However, unlike at the national level, Republicans continue to be more positive about both, with independents closer to Democrats in their assessment.

The funny bit is that the vast majority of "the government" is bureaucrats that remain the same whatever the party in power. Of course, some factions of bureaucracy will gain more or less favors if a specific party holds the power (it goes both ways)... but it usually averages out in the long term. Bureaucracy tends to expand to fulfill the requirements of bureaucracy

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Seriously do any of you liberals really think that we righties don't want Health Care Reform???? do you actually think that we would truly like to see people suffer?????

What we want is some common sense... Reform the system, don't put more freeloaders on it, take them off it...We as working class Americans can't afford it anymore, take the time figure out a real solution and fix the problems DON"T create more....

True health care reform would be to get government out of the picture (except dealing with hardship cases and maybe some sort of watchdog role). I have elderly parents and a medical condition myself so have lots of interaction with today's health care system. Many of the places it is broken are the places government has the most involvement. In addition to the obvious crushing (read expensive) bureaucracy this includes the tax structure that practically forces us to live with employer-supplied (read locked-in and non transferable) health insurance and laws/regulations that prevent any substantial competition between insurance providers.

The founder of Whole Foods (who by no means can be considered "right wing") has it pretty much covered: John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com. I agree 100% with his proposals.

What is wrong with his proposals for the socialists is that they don't nationalize an industry, don't give more power to the government and don't increase government control over us lowly citizens.

"Government health care" solves health care issues the same as if unemployment was "solved" by forcing everyone to work for the government instead of addressing hardship issues with targeted solutions.

I always found it uncomfortable shopping in Whole Foods wondering what weird left-wing causes those high prices were funding. After reading the above link I shop there with abandon! I still assume my money is going to some strange places but now respect John McKay enough to believe he is at least not funding Communists in Nicaragua or some other similar cause.

I hope that every politician associated with a political party is voted out. Years ago a Georgia Senator died and Zell Miller (conservative Democrat former governor) was appointed to fill the seat. After being in Washington 4 years he said that he would not seek election because it was so screwed up and corrupt it was beyond repair. I agree with Glen, lets not create more problems. Solve the problems and put 90% of the power in the hands of state and local governments and cut Washington and its policies by 90%. At least this way if liberal states want to give away services to "freeloaders" they can do it without hurting everyone else.
As for the award, the Obama supporters need to be quiet about race and conservatives, because 60% of white "conservatives" voted for him and now are realizing they can't take back there votes.
I myself am going to use a write-in vote for Zell Miller in the next election for president (though he is old and isn't running) because he was conservative on spending, liberal in sensible education spending, and very tough on crime. Plus, he made an opportunity for every hard working student in GA to get an education tuition free.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

I find it astounding how many people are literally upset over the fact their president won the Nobel Peace prize. While I can certainly understand the discussion over the criteria employed by the awarding committee in coming to its decision, it nonetheless speaks volumes about the level of rancor and partisanship that currently exists in the US when so many of its citizenry are flat-out unhappy their own president won an international award, and would have preferred him to have lost.

There is a reason why people should not talk about these types of things...


With that being said I will continue anyway....

Someone nominated him 10 days before the deadline. What did he do in those 10 days that enabled him to WIN the NPP?

I love this country - but to be honest - I am very scared of where we are all headed.

Originally Posted by treydampier

At least this way if liberal states want to give away services to "freeloaders" they can do it without hurting everyone else.

That is fine and dandy, but if you take a serious look at the federal budget numbers you'll see who the freeloaders are. Texas is the only traditionally conservative state that contributes more to the federal budget than it takes from it, receiving back only 97% of the federal tax money it provides.

For what it is worth, with the way the federal budget has been managed for the last 20-ish years, if you removed it:
-15 to 16 states would fare better (14 "liberal", Texas and possibly Florida)
-California would probably have a balanced budget as their money wouldn't be spent floating Oklahoma and other conservative states
-The other states would either go bankrupt or have to scale back on expenses (road maintenance, medicare, national reserve, ...).

Originally Posted by MichaelP

That is fine and dandy, but if you take a serious look at the federal budget numbers you'll see who the freeloaders are. Texas is the only traditionally conservative state that contributes more to the federal budget than it takes from it, receiving back only 97% of the federal tax money it provides.

For what it is worth, with the way the federal budget has been managed for the last 20-ish years, if you removed it:
-15 to 16 states would fare better (14 "liberal", Texas and possibly Florida)
-California would probably have a balanced budget as their money wouldn't be spent floating Oklahoma and other conservative states
-The other states would either go bankrupt or have to scale back on expenses (road maintenance, medicare, national reserve, ...).

Where do you get your numbers? Please provide a link