Whatever happened to hope and change?

flyfreely

Registered
it's not just Bush or Obama, it's the system... a country that continuously has a split government and you need a super majority to do anything used to work well back in the days when people put their country before their careers, but now, they are more worried about getting elected or reelected than fixing the country and blaming the other works. Time for a change in the way people vote, a change in the system, just split blue and red states or bring a good dictator for a few years, then we can go back to autopilot again...
 

bigbadwolf

Registered
Moonwitch said:
Not at all. There was never any chance of hope and change. Obama is as bad as Bush. It gives me great pleasure saying I told you so to my American friends who voted for Obama.
At least in Bush's time we had hope -- hope that things could only get better. Even that has gone. Anyway, this worthless b@stard will get the boot in 2012. Not that anyone better will appear -- but that's the American system.
 

ElQueso

Registered
flyfreely said:
it's not just Bush or Obama, it's the system... a country that continuously has a split government and you need a super majority to do anything used to work well back in the days when people put their country before their careers, but now, they are more worried about getting elected or reelected than fixing the country and blaming the other works. Time for a change in the way people vote, a change in the system, just split blue and red states or bring a good dictator for a few years, then we can go back to autopilot again...
The problem is that people want to "fix" the country. When will people understand that the more government, the worse things get. Apply laws, yes, keep everyone in line with the laws, including the rich (which has never been done). But more government to "fix" things just makes it worse.

And actually what you're suggesting with a dictator was the way Rome operated when it was a Republic. Julius Caeser took the lead from one of Rome's leading citizens, who during a slave revolt was named dictator for a time to take care of the revolt. Later in his career Caesar decided he needed to do the same thing, ostensibly to "save" the Republic. Look where that lead Rome...

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 

ElQueso

Registered
And by the way - you only need a super-majority to move the country in directions that are very far from where it is. No, the founding fathers were very smart when they set up the consitution and the US form of government. The whole intention was to make sure that it was very tough to make big changes. The problems in the US have come from incremental changes in the attitudes of the populace of 200+ years.

There is now a huge disparity between those who think people should be responsible for themselves and those who think that the government should take care of them - or at least take care of those who are too poor to take care fo themselves, forgetting that MOST Americans were far more poor than that in the past and it was hard work, not government, that changed things. That is the creation of the Red and Blue states.

There are too many people who do not want what Obama is peddling - it's why he can't even pass his health care legislation even though he had a super majority. Hell, he still has a majority big enough to get the bill passed and since the president is behind it, there's no fear of veto. The Congress wouldn't have to override a veto and the most eh Republicans can do is filibuster - but that won't work forever.

Problem is, the Democrats know that they will be voted out of power in November faster than the Republicans if they try to push their version down the country's throats.
 

Ben&Bliss

Registered
I'm not disappointed in Obama, just in the American people. Any president will only do what the people push him to do, or allow him to do. Obama was elected through on the ground organizing, but these same people failed to keep him accountable once in the office.

I blame the democrats for being very poor politicians, and poor organizers. The right is always framing the issues, and they do their job well. If democrats better framed the healthcare debated, and organized for it, then we would have health insurance reform right now. I wish the left were strong enough to keep Obama from all of this pandering that has just ended up loosing the democrats their votes--not because they are going republican, as Scott Brown (MA) would have you think (again, republicans framing the debated), but because their president is more centrist then they find acceptable. But then, I suppose, they are culpable for that disappointment.
 

Denver

Registered
Ben&Bliss:

-The right is always framing the issues?

You have GOT to be kidding!

Obama and cronies have the full cheer leading efforts of The New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and every other traditional media company in the US. These report only stories that favor a liberal agenda and either distort or suppress any and all stories that may put Obama or the liberal agenda in an unfavorable light.

How in God's name can the right be 'framing the debate'?

-And when you say "Any president will only do what the people push him to do, or allow him to do." you should bear in mind that Obama does the excact opposite of what the American people wants. Americans DOES NOT want his socialized medicine plan. Just today, USA Today (another liberal media company and Obama supporter) published the following:

'There's also no consensus that the public wants a deal. By 49%-43%, those surveyed oppose passage of a health care bill like those that Democrats have drafted — and the foes hold their views more strongly than the supporters do.'

Neil
 
Top