1) military spending isn't that bad, Think of it this way, the business center isn't located in Vietnam or India like Nike and Microsoft. So in affect keeping the money at home. It doesn't mean that you have to be at war, but being ready for action would be nice too. (thanks Clinton)
2) Raise taxes? really? haven't we learned enough from history about raising taxes? Romans did that and the rich took their money elsewhere. When the money and the rich are gone and your "tax profit" is down due to the people that did have money are now gone.
Mr. Obama and his 200 million/day trip to Mumbai are great for the deficit too....
I realise its 3 pages on but I have to make a comment, I assume classics and history arn't taught in the US but 'the rich romans took their money elsewhere' , I mean come on, even watching Gladiator should teach you more than that, the rich Romans were slaughtered by the Goths Visigoths and Huns, along with the poor and not so poor, there was no where else for them to go.
Taxes didn't bring down the Roman Empire, over expansion of their empires limits to beyond their ability to guard the border forced the Romans to rely on mercenary tribes to do their dirty work (kind of like a smelly, brutal version of Halliburton in Iraq, although I would concede Halliburton is probably about as brutal).
These tribes in the end turned on the empire when they realised the Romans were unable to stop them, primarily because Rome was riven by competing candidates for emperor (like your Presidant) who wouldn't work together for the good of the country and were more concerned with gaining power than actually defending the empire.
Then a massive push for territory from the east by early ancestors of the Mongols displaced German tribes and Hunish tribes over the border into the western empire and ultimatly caused it to fail under the stress. Sort of like what China appears to be doing commercially.
History is well worth a study, Gibbon's "Decline and Fall" should be forced on every american student.
My guess is the Dems will narrowly hang on to the Senate. The house is going to be a bloodbath. The biggest mid-term election loss for a sitting president is 71 seats; that record could fall tonight.
That president, for those interested? FDR. It's no fun presiding over a lousy economy.
There's so much misunderstanding and stereotypes in this post, I don't even know where to start. All I can say is your comments are largely based on ignorance. Pick up a book on the matter and maybe you'll see.
Perfect or far from it, the basis and adherence to the US Constitution is far deeper and far more complex than your understanding.
And none of this is meant as an insult.
If what I said was so wrong, why not not at least attempt to explain how? If you don't know where to start, guess. And if I'm ignorant, enlighten me. At least when peter12 says "you're wrong, and this if you read this book it will say why", he tells you which author he wants you to read.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
TBQH, I really don't mind the "tea party". Most of the people are just firm believers in the constitution, they are fiscally conservative and are really what the Republican Party use to be.
No they aren't. Tea Partiers don't understand the constitution at all. They think the Bill of Rights is where the constitution starts and stops. They have no comprehension of the constitution framework that establishes the institutions that form and guide government. They started out with a good idea, but were quickly corrupted by Republican operatives like Dick Armey and big money like that from the Koch family.
People spent a lot of time talking about Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle because they were the biggest freaks in the circus, but this provided high cover for some real broken people to run campaigns. Rand Paul stands out to me as a real threat to our society. He's an ophthalmologist who couldn't get certified by the national board certification body, so he started his own certification body and certified himself. If that doesn't scare the bejesus out of you and tell you everything you need to know about this guy then the nuances of government and law are lost on you.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stimpy For This Useful Post:
As I recall, you also think FDR was a lousy president. History disagrees, and so do I.
This result doesn't really have anything to do with Obama. The same anti-incumbency sentiment that swept Obama into power is now sweeping his democratic colleagues out. That happens--and something like it (though not quite as drastic) almost always happens in a president's first mid-term. It has less to do with the President than people realize.
The Following User Says Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
1) military spending isn't that bad, Think of it this way, the business center isn't located in Vietnam or India like Nike and Microsoft. So in affect keeping the money at home. It doesn't mean that you have to be at war, but being ready for action would be nice too. (thanks Clinton)
2) Raise taxes? really? haven't we learned enough from history about raising taxes? Romans did that and the rich took their money elsewhere. When the money and the rich are gone and your "tax profit" is down due to the people that did have money are now gone.
Mr. Obama and his 200 million/day trip to Mumbai are great for the deficit too....
So instead of spending all the money on military which is a complete falsehood that it stays at home as I am sure you have heard of the bases that are all over the planet.
But I cant believe that you think the amount of money spent is not too bad.
Do you know that out of the 13 biggest armies in the world 11 of them are on our side?
Did you know that the US airforce is the largest airforce in the world? and the second biggest is the US Navy?
The US military budget is 50% of the entire planets military budget.
The US military can whip anybody it is not even close.
I believe they are ready for action and then some. It's like Bill Gates cutting coupons, you got enough already.
How do you justify that when you have underfunded schools?
I also can't believe americans complain about high taxes when they pay squat compared to the rest of the industrialized world as a matter of fact 22 of the first world nations people pay more.
Americans start wars,have aircraft carrriers, domed stadiums, and want more prisons and yet they dont want more taxes? The rich didn't leave america when the wealthy tax rate was at 39% during Reagan and they won't leave now.
The Following User Says Thank You to SeeBass For This Useful Post:
They started out with a good idea, but were quickly corrupted by Republican operatives...
Quick funny observation:
Rand Paul practically claimed that he was Kentucky's head of the Tea Party when he won the nomination. He still kinda clung to that whole Tea Party thing during his campaigning for the Senate seat, but it was also clear that he was beginning to take orders from Boehner as well.
He was interviewed this morning on Fox, and the interviewer asked him about his prior statement about wanting to form a Tea Party caucus, and when he would start on that initiative. Rand assured us that it was still one of the things he wants to do, but that it might be more effective if he also recruits select members of the Republican leadership as well.
I guess Rand couldn't even bask in his Tea Party glory for more than 24 hours before succumbing to the pressure of the majority leader*
* despite what it sounds like, this isn't necessarily a personal critique of Paul. The fact is that any new member basically has the screws put to them immediately by their party leader. I'm sure Boehner said "If you don't want to work with us, and don't want to be on any meaningful committees, and don't want to be eligible for RNC re-election funds in the future, be my guest..." Pelosi would have done no different.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
This result doesn't really have anything to do with Obama.
Based on what I have heard from people that voted, I would completely disagree with this assesment.
I know people that voted republican based solely on what they perceived as Obama's performance thus far. Punitive voting for sure, maybe not wise either, but it existed. No question.
The Following User Says Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
Rand Paul practically claimed that he was Kentucky's head of the Tea Party when he won the nomination. He still kinda clung to that whole Tea Party thing during his campaigning for the Senate seat, but it was also clear that he was beginning to take orders from Boehner as well.
He was interviewed this morning on Fox, and the interviewer asked him about his prior statement about wanting to form a Tea Party caucus, and when he would start on that initiative. Rand assured us that it was still one of the things he wants to do, but that it might be more effective if he also recruits select members of the Republican leadership as well.
I guess Rand couldn't even bask in his Tea Party glory for more than 24 hours before succumbing to the pressure of the majority leader*
* despite what it sounds like, this isn't necessarily a personal critique of Paul. The fact is that any new member basically has the screws put to them immediately by their party leader. I'm sure Boehner said "If you don't want to work with us, and don't want to be on any meaningful committees, and don't want to be eligible for RNC re-election funds in the future, be my guest..." Pelosi would have done no different.
Typical Republican tactics they rally the base about abortion,gay rights,immigration, or some other blame somebody else idea. Then they get in power and they forget everything thing about it.
Based on what I have heard from people that voted, I would completely disagree with this assesment.
I know people that voted republican based solely on what they perceived as Obama's performance thus far. Punitive voting for sure, maybe not wise either, but it existed. No question.
Absolutely punitive voting.
So much so that an actually effective legislator like Russ Feingold was voted out. That's a clear case of cutting your nose off to spite your face...
Last edited by Flames Fan, Ph.D.; 11-03-2010 at 08:40 AM.
Reason: spelling.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
Typical Republican tactics they rally the base about abortion,gay rights,immigration, or some other blame somebody else idea. Then they get in power and they forget everything thing about it.
So, you would prefer that the Republicans followed through and made deh gayness illegal?
It's no different than the Dems, who blame China, India, "globalization", and "greedy corporations" to rally their base... Different side, same coin...
It would be nice of one of them actually followed through on what they rant on about. I might not agree with it, but it would at least show some character.
The Following User Says Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
Based on what I have heard from people that voted, I would completely disagree with this assesment.
I know people that voted republican based solely on what they perceived as Obama's performance thus far. Punitive voting for sure, maybe not wise either, but it existed. No question.
You have to be a bit careful when asking people "why" they voted a certain way. Most American voters always vote the same way, but in each election cycle would answer that question differently.
A democrat might easily have voted against Bob Dole in 1996 because he was "too old" and voted against George Bush in 2000 because he was "too inexperienced." The media then takes that and runs with it: "Voters repudiate Age" or "Voters insist on experience"--totally contradictory sentiments, and both based on people's honest self-assessment.
The problem is, that self-assessment is nonsense. The real reason those voters (by and large) didn't like either of those two candidates is because both are Republicans. To get an honest assessment of voter intention, that controls for the major confounding factor of party affiliation, you'd have to ask only independents, and only "true" independents at that--which in the US would be a ridiculously tiny sample.
As a matter of fact, I'm more Bullish about Obama's chances in 2012 today than I was yesterday; I'm off to school, so I can't go into why at the moment, but I'll try to explain it later today. Let's just say that below the line there are some troubling outcomes to-day if you're a Republican.
The Following User Says Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
You have to be a bit careful when asking people "why" they voted a certain way. Most American voters always vote the same way, but in each election cycle would answer that question differently.
I should have added that all ofthe ones i am referring to voted Obama in 08. I have some true blue friends that vote red top to bottom, so i am not including them in what i said. Others are MOR and can go either way based on the candidates.
There is a very real sentiment down here of people felling lied to as far as what was promised and what they have seen delivered. Especially when you consider the fact that the Dems controlled all 3 phases of government needed to push through his platforms.
last night was, no question, a condemnation of Obama's performance thus far. Every pundit out there pretty much says the same thing as do the results.
The Republicans and Tea Partiers have a "Debt Cap" vote in the House in January. Where they will somehow have to explain why they will indeed vote to raise the national debt limit and ignore the people who were so "anti-debt" that voted them into congressional power.
The next two years will expose Republicans and Tea Partiers. They will spend those years tearing apart what has been done over the last 18 months, shipping jobs overseas and moving the country back to the policies that got them in this mess in the first place and offering little to no ideas for what to do in the future.
Sigh.
America, sometimes you're like the girl who keeps getting back with that abusive moron boyfriend that everyone hates.
If what I said was so wrong, why not not at least attempt to explain how? If you don't know where to start, guess. And if I'm ignorant, enlighten me. At least when peter12 says "you're wrong, and this if you read this book it will say why", he tells you which author he wants you to read.
