From the mythical war on women to hating blacks, children and old people, the war on Republicans continues from the top. Instead of discussing solutions, the man who would restore civility to politics has perfected Rule for Radicals number 12, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Yesterday in his presser he demonstrated the tactic perfectly (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324235104578242121666374116.html?m od=rss_opinion_main)...


President Obama likes to talk about civility in politics, but then he has a particular personal talent for attributing to his political opponents only base motives and beliefs they don't come close to holding. Consult his Monday press conference for a classic of the genre.

Mr. Obama was asked an anodyne question at one point about reducing the deficit and the long-term accumulation of debt, and perhaps you've noticed that the deficit is $1 trillion a year and the debt is building rapidly toward 90% of GDP. Mr. Obama acted as if solving this problem would be a pleasant stroll through a dewy meadow, claiming that "if we're trying to reduce the deficit, then we can shape a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit. . . . There's a recipe for getting that done."

Good to know. And there are a few reasonable Republicans, Mr. Obama allowed. "But it seems as if what's motivating and propelling at this point some of the House Republicans is more than simply deficit reduction."

Here's the rest in full: "They have a particular vision about what government should and should not do. So they are suspicious about government's commitments, for example, to make sure that seniors have decent health care as they get older. They have suspicions about Social Security. They have suspicions about whether government should make sure that kids in poverty are getting enough to eat, or whether we should be spending money on medical research. So they've got a particular view of what government should do and should be."

The next time Mr. Obama holds a press conference, somebody should ask him to identify by name those who want to repeal Social Security, steal food from orphans and cancel science funding. We'd like to meet these Visigoths. Otherwise, if the fiscal negotiations are going nowhere, perhaps it is because the President simply won't make an honest argument.

And I'm sure on the way to stealing the children's food, pushing granny over the cliff and taking medicine to the stone age they probably kicked a few puppies, too.

So who'll be first to end their war on Republicans and make an honest argument?

No honest arguments on the Current Events board - just the talking points of the day. Nothing ever, ever get solved, no one ever changes their mind. It's one big echo chamber.

No honest arguments on the Current Events board - just the talking points of the day. Nothing ever, ever get solved, no one ever changes their mind. It's one big echo chamber.

Not so. Some libs use the same talking points without ever catching up to today's.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with what the president said. What was wrong with that article was what they did with it:

The next time Mr. Obama holds a press conference, somebody should ask him to identify by name those who want to repeal Social Security, steal food from orphans and cancel science funding. We'd like to meet these Visigoths.Absolutely terrible partisan "reporting".

There was absolutely nothing wrong with what the president said. What was wrong with that article was what they did with it:
Absolutely terrible partisan "reporting".

Obviously you still can't tell the difference between reporting and opinion. For those of you who can't they give little hints. See if you can find the hint.

No honest arguments on the Current Events board - just the talking points of the day. Nothing ever, ever get solved, no one ever changes their mind. It's one big echo chamber.

Karma they are not even the talking points of the day, but the same old rants.

The world goes to hell in a hand basket but do we discuss that, no.

The world goes to hell in a hand basket but do we discuss that, no.I agree. It's pathetic but I guess it makes them feel better to demonize those who don't agree with their views. I guess they have nothing better to do in life.

I agree. It's pathetic but I guess it makes them feel better to demonize those who don't agree with their views. I guess they have nothing better to do in life.

Gee, exactly what Obama did yesterday, as in the point of this thread. He ought to feel really good about himself today.

Candidly who cares how Obama feels, he just needs to get on with important things.

"They have suspicions about Social Security." = "demonize"

Only a deranged mind accepts that leap.

The world goes to hell in a hand basket but do we discuss that, no.
So start a new discussion topic about the world going to hell... yawn. Maybe you can talk about how the French got their butts whipped this week in Mali.

"They have suspicions about Social Security." = "demonize"

Taken out of context I'd agree, but in context the implication is more than clear.


So they are suspicious about government's commitments, for example, to make sure that seniors have decent health care as they get older. They have suspicions about Social Security. They have suspicions about whether government should make sure that kids in poverty are getting enough to eat, or whether we should be spending money on medical research.


Only a deranged mind accepts that leap.

Now THAT"S demonizing. I doubt many will take you seriously since you can't tell the difference between reporting and opinion - even with hints like :"top stories in opinion" just above the title.

As for emperor Zero's presser ;it was full of the usual pabulum... lots of self praise ,lots of contradictory charges that the few in the audience of compliant press picked up on . He used the same old tired Dem threats of cutting off retirees and veterans checks if the Repubics don't goose step on his command.
He drew a line in the sand about budget cuts... he'll take none of that ! He said they would “fundamentally change commitments that we've made to make sure that seniors don't go into poverty, or that children who are disabled are properly cared for.”
He also said that he would NOT negotiate on the debt ceiling...
He takes no responsibility for the debt that has ballooned in 4 years under his watch ;and is destined to explode to $20 trillion before his 3rd term. That would be a debt of $125,000 for every member of the shrinking US workforce.
And yes he demonized Repubics.. He specifically charged that they wanted to starve poor children. ( [they]“have suspicions about whether government should make sure that kids in poverty are getting enough to eat”) .

Well sorry Emperor ,I will have no respect at all for Speaker Bonehead if he caves in again. Time to draw a line in the sand... The non-negotiable deal is one dollar of cuts for every dollar of debt ceiling increase. Take it or leave it.

Taken out of context I'd agree, but in context the implication is more than clear.





Now THAT"S demonizing. I doubt many will take you seriously since you can't tell the difference between reporting and opinion - even with hints like :"top stories in opinion" just above the title.


Yes, it is an opinion piece. Leaving this one aside as an opinion piece the last few links you have posted in various places seem to exhibit some sort of objectivity on the part of the writers.

Perhaps Tom could take a leaf out of your book. It would be a refreshing change.

What part of my commentary do you dispute ?

what part of my commentary do you dispute ?


I wasn't disputing your commentary. My post was in relation to the links you and speech provide. In this particular instance I am referring to the latest YouTube video you posted.

If you want to maintain credibility for your side why do you post such nonsense? It is deliberately false and misleading. Did you actually watch the contents?

There is no war on republicans, just a strong push back for throwing rocks for 4 SOLID years. When we holler you say foul, when we duck, you say cowards. When we talk, you holler rights. When we throw the rocks back, you say WAR.

Everybody voted against you last November, but you still haven't stopped throwing rocks.

I wasn't disputing your commentary. My post was in relation to the links you and speech provide. in this particular instance I am referring to the latest youtube video you posted.

If you want to maintain credibility for your side why do you post such nonsense? It is deliberately false and misleading. Did you actually watch the contents?

Certainly did . I note you don't dispute that break ins have increased. I'm sure it is no solace to the homeowner that the predator is coming after them with a knife or blunt instrument when all the homeowner has to protect home and property is the same.

I would agree that Obama is very divisive and is weak in building consensus and reaching across the aisle. This is not an attack on the democrats. I thought Clinton was an absolute genius at building consensus and reaching across the aisle. I do not view this as a democratic issue but as an Obama issue. In nearly every speech, he makes snippy remarks about the Republicans and puts his role as head Democrat above his role as President of the entire country, half of which is Republican.

While I am a Republican, I support some very prominent democrats. I'm very satisfied with the Rahm Emanuel who's doing a bang-up job as Mayor of Chicago. I campaigned for Tammy Duckworth, a new democratic Congress woman. But I am frustrated with the lack of will in the Democratic party to resolve the corruption in their party here in Illinois where I live. We have 5 governors who have gone to jail, four of whom were democrats. But when I try to speak to friends who are Democrats, they can hear nothing at all - NOTHING - negative about any member of their party, no matter how grossly inappropriate or illegal that member's behaviors have been.

This is very concerning. While I am a Republican, I will not hesitate to hold republicans in office accountable and accept legitimate criticism of them, as well as to give credit to members of congress and other officials credit where it is due. Until Democrats accept that Obama does not walk on water, and is sometimes wrong, that their party is not perfection and that Republicans aren't out to kick puppies and bankrupt seniors, we'll remain in this stalemate.

certainly did . I note you don't dispute that break ins have increased. I'm sure it is no solace to the homeowner that the predator is coming after them with a knife or blunt instrument when all the homeowner has to protect home and property is the same.


What??


Ok I don't dispute that break in have increased.

Is this information on break in provided by you, or the people who made the video?

If it is provided by you then me NOT disputing this fact is NOT the same as disputing it.

On the other hand, if the figures in relation to break in are provided by the video makers then it is obvious I am not disputing your commentary.


Tom, your post doesn't make any sense in relation to what I said.

I would agree that Obama is very divisive and is weak in building consensus and reaching across the aisle.

He built enough consensus to win re-election and the guys across the aisle lost a few seats in the house and senate. That ain't too shabby after 4 years of constant attacks from across the aisle. You guys rather throw rocks and holler than meet in the middle.

Be like Jan Brewer in Arizona, embrace the change and lets get on with it.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Backs Medicaid Expansion | FDL Action (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2013/01/15/arizona-gov-jan-brewer-backs-medicaid-expansion/)


"Saying 'no' to this plan would not save these federal dollars from being spent or direct them to deficit reduction.

No, Arizona's tax dollars would simply be passed to another state – generating jobs and providing health care for citizens in California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico or any other expansion state.

Remember: Arizona citizens have voted TWICE to expand Medicaid coverage.

With this move, we will secure a federal revenue stream to cover the costs of the uninsured who already show up in our doctor's offices and emergency rooms."

The election was two months ago, stop hollering and throwing rocks.

[QUOTE=talaniman;3370606]He built enough consensus to win re-election and the guys across the aisle lost a few seats in the house and senate. That ain't too shabby after 4 years of constant attacks from across the aisle. You guys rather throw rocks and holler than meet in the middle.

I guess I disagree with this new Democratic attitude that once an election is over, we are no longer to criticize our leadership. What's most concerning about it is that in the last century, the Democrats took leadership in protecting freedom of the press and assembly, and really took the lead in making demonstrations and civil disobedience prominent political tools because they considered it to be their absolute duty to speak out against elected officials who were not respecting the will of the people.

Today, the Democrats want to silence all who disagree with them - quash demonstrations, stop conversations with friends who offer an alternative view, change the channel rather than listening to the opposition and learning what they have to say.

I've even seen bumper stickers and protests downtown Chicago to "take FOX off the air". Among all the liberal media, there is only one decidedly conservative national television station, and the intolerance of the Democratic party has reached such a fevered pitch that they are now pushing for censorship of any view that disagrees with their own. Here, too, you argue that the Republicans should now just shut up and fall in line with Obama's agenda. Funny, I don't remember the Democrats doing that when Reagan was in office. There was certainly plenty that the Democrats found to complain and argue about, and they were right to do so given that they disagreed with the administration. It is our DUTY to express our viewpoints in a democracy and turning a blind eye when we think the country is on absolutely the wrong course is almost treasonist in my opinion.

As for the election being proof of building consensus - not at all. No more so than Reagan's re-election proved that he had the full "concensus" of the democrats. He was actually pretty hated by the left and his success at the polls only gave him the opportunity to get to work building consensus. Elections are about getting supporters to the polls - on the job, the thing is to get the guy who disagrees to come to the table and compromise, which starts with the willingness to meet them part way.

The consensus I am talking about is the ability represented by presidents like Clinton, to use a Democrat example, who worked very hard to build bridges with his opponents. He earned a lot of respect from Republican leadership on political issues, though he unfortunately lost much of their respect with his personal antics. Congress has been in gridlock for some time, and Obama's the leader. Instead of leading, he's complaining. I don't remember any past president speaking as he does.

Obama continues to characterize Republicans as hating this group or that. They love this word "hate" but they own it and exclusively use it. Republicans are trying not to spend a nickel today so that we can turn it into a dime tomorrow. We do not believe that reducing the number and wealth of the rich will do anything whatsoever to reduce who is poor. In fact, our last line of safety for the most vulnerable are charitable institutions - largely funded, started, organized and run by rich philanthropists. While the democrats are crabbing about rich people not caring about the poor, the rich people are out helping the poor.

Aw, you conservative can dish it out, but can't take it huh? I get it, talk about a guy for 4 years no let up, and he can't say anything back. Gotcha. Its more liberal TV than right wing TV.

I actually hope you guys keep talking crazy, and doing crazy things and blaming others for the conflicts and crisis's you have created. While you are at it, explain how this president won states with republican governors, and republican state legislatures ruling, and all kinds of tricks at traps that failed miserably?

No doubt you will come up with more schemes for the next election, since you have no coalition to rally with, and don't seem to be doing anything to get one, so all we have to do to break the gridlock is just have a vote in the house where already some republicans are breaking ranks with the just say no crowd. Hey we might get some good things done. Nobody has stopped you guys from crossing the aisle, except YOU GUYS!

I think you guys are jealous because this guy has survived everything you have thrown at him. And afraid he is ready to fight back.

You're misunderstanding my point entirely. Of course Obama can make his point - he should. He spends very little time meeting with Congress or working at building consensus, and he is very partisan in his public remarks. More successful presidents spent most of their time working with law makers and focused on building bridges, not vilifying the other side. Many democrats are also dissatisfied with him, so this is not just a Republican view. He got the job, but it was far form a landslide. Nearly half the country voted for Romney, who wasn't a particularly strong candidate. It was not a ringing endorsement.

Half the country always votes for the other guy, the results come down to a one or two percent and depending upon where that happens you get a result. Maybe not the result you want but a result. This majority rules sucks, you know that, I know that, and consensus, what's that but a leftist agenda

The modern day congress is not a place for consensus or bridge building. And if your point is the president didn't win by enough and elections don't have consequences then I have to reject that notion. That may soften the blow for your own shortcoming but don't try to nullify the results which indicate possibly that some of you guys crossed over to our side, or stayed at home.

We don't have to have a ringing endorsement, and before Obama, Bush didn't have one either. That didn't stop you guys from blowing a surplus did it? Not just Bush, YOU guys. That's what the gridlock is about, hollering and building no bridges, and schools and creating jobs that actually support families and rejecting a solid jobs bill that would have grown the economy. And then say the policy failed because it was no good when it never gets enacted.

Give me a break, you cannot obstruct and blame someone else for your inaction. You can't holler foul and call it a plan, and you sure can't holler broke, and funnel the money to the top, and refuse to even trickle any down. You can't sit on your butt and throw rocks and say we are lazy because the jobs not finished.


This majority rules sucks, you know that, I know that, and consensus, what's that but a leftist agenda

I guess you prefer a ruling class. Or was that sarcasm

Well Tal I'm not sure you are talking to me but a lot of it is sarcasm and no government I elected blew a surplus, it was those stupid fabianists who hold on to power because of double dealing. I did not vote for them, I hate the little red fox and what she stands for. There is a big difference between our Liberals and your Republicans, they are far, far, far to the right of where we stand, and our equivalent is a white haired man in big hat with a mouth to match, but our Labor fain being centre left but are closet communist and there is only one thing further to the left and it is a tree hunging green, they are not theequivalent of your Democrats.

The reason our situation hasn't melted down is we get to talk to each other and sometimes a solution emerges. There is a lot of theatre here in government, but no one is going to go to the brink to prove a point

The modern day congress is not a place for consensus or bridge building.No truer, honest words were ever spoken. It matters not who is in power, your country is divided in a bad way.

Where I come from we call it a polarised electorate

The modern day congress is not a place for consensus or bridge building.

As if that is something new... semper eadem. But it depends on what you mean by congress. The House of Reps was designed to be the house of the people and reflects the majority more often than not. Then Senate was designed as the deliberative body where consensus is forged.

Hello:

The war on Republicans...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha... Bwe, he he he he..

I'm going to write that commie, Marxist, guy, who has an unabiding HATRED for white people, a nasty letter... Going to tell him to be NICE to you poor misunderstood right wingers...

Bwa, ha heeee...

excon

As if that is something new .... semper eadem. But it depends on what you mean by congress. The House of Reps was designed to be the house of the people and reflects the majority more often than not. Then Senate was designed as the deliberative body where concensus is forged.

I think you got the design a little wrong there Tom, it is apparent your Congress expects its' decisions will be upheld. What you have is a design for a stalemate because both houses want to dictate outcomes. I very much doubt that consensus is on the agenda

It's the republican house caucus that's divided. The TParty has them running scared to even cross the aisle on anything. The last two house bills that passed were mainly from democrats. I suspect this will be the way the debt ceiling will be raised too. Repubs hold the house, but there are enough reasonable democrats and republicans to form a coalition against the loony right wing to get things done.

Here is the fact... The Senate is called the Connecticut Compromise.. it was an afterthought . The ideal for the founders was for the 'people's house ' to make the bulk of the calls. That is why Article 1 ,the biggest article of the constitution specifically enumerated the powers designd for congress. Specifically ,it is no mistake that they gave the House the power to originate all spending .

Its the republican house caucus thats divided. The TParty has them running scared to even cross the aisle on anything. The last two house bills that passed were mainly from democrats. I suspect this will be the way the debt ceiling will be raised too.

When was the last time you saw the Dems "cross the aisle"? You guys crack me up . Whenever there is talk of consensus ,it means conservatives have to give something up . We saw the Dems in a 'take no prisoners ' mode the 1st 2 years of Emperor Zero's reign ,as they rammed one bill after the other . You belly ache against the TP... you created them ,because the TP is a movement that began was a reaction to Dem excesses.

And the last election was a push back against republicans trying deliver the lower class to the capitalists god for sacrifice.

Poetic justice that 47% was what the Mittster ended up getting.

Hello again, tom:


you created them ,because the TP is a movement that began was a reaction to Dem excesses.It's true. And, they'll be destroyed by their OWN excesses. The Democrats will retake the House in '14. Hillary will kick a$$ in '16.

Excon

We can't have extremism running the country, no one wants that, not even republicans, dino's or rino's.

Don't worry... one of Emperor Zero's EOs today was :
Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

I wonder if they will include Big sis's list of domestic terrorist threats... like Tea Party folks .

By the way that would be the same AG who is responsible for the gun running 'Fast and Furious' fiasco.

Don't worry... one of Emperor Zero's EOs today was :
Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.Wait a minute, weren't you the one wanting to make sure mentally unstable people didn't have access to guns?

Yes ;but as has been pointed out before ,here and by the President's flunkies like Janet Napolitano , the ones they believe are the dangerous people in the country are right wingers .

It's that your thinking then there really is no discussing anything, is there?

It was her threat assessment ,not mine .

It's that your thinking then there really is no discussing anything, is there?

We aren't the ones calling our neighbors domestic terrorists.

We aren't the ones calling our neighbors domestic terrorists.You constantly disparage your neighbours on this board daily, why seem oh-so-holy now?

Hello again, Steve:


We aren't the ones calling our neighbors domestic terrorists.Let's talk about this for a minute.. I KNOW you THINK your guns are going to PROTECT you from a tyrannical government. But have you THOUGHT about WHO you'll actually be firing on?? Will it be your local cops? Will it be the National Guard? Will it be the US Navy Seals? What's patriotic about shooting them?

Or, do you think it's going to be Obama's soldiers? How you going to tell the difference??

Let's put this to bed. If you take up arms against the United States of America, you're a domestic terrorist. That's just so. Oh, I know, you THINK you're a patriot.. Tim McVey thought he was a patriot. But, he was a scum bag terrorist.

Excon

Seems my republican friends here are embracing their extremist true believers. Nothing new.

No tal ;it's you and your side who try to link us to extremism. Like I said ;it wasn't me who wrote the DHS report on domestic terrorist threats.

Well how are we supposed to tell the loony right from reasonable republicans when they say and do the same thing? Tell me how??

Hello tom:

He's gotcha there... I haven't heard ANYTHING from you or Steve that the Tea Party doesn't LOVE.

excon

See there's your mistake... in equating TP with extremism.

Hello again, tom:


see there's your mistake.. in equating TP with extremism.I'm the ONLY extremist I know who ADMITS he's extreme.. I'm sure you think the TP is center right - like you.

Bwaa, ha haaa..

Excon

AGAIN... Whats the difference? I don't want to call you loony if you aren't!

I honestly can't tell!!

What's looney about TP ? That they occasionally dress in tri cornered hats ? Nahh You think it's loony to want to control government spending and to make sure that the government governs within the constraints of the constitution.

what's looney about TP ? that they occasionally dress in tri cornered hats ? Nahh You think it's loony to want to control government spending and to make sure that the government governs within the constraints of the consitution.

NoI don't, I think its loony to make poor people and women and children take less and give it to rich guys who lie, and call themselves job creators. I think its loony to call 47% of the population who are poor or damned close to it lazy, unwashed cheap skates who feel entitled to free stuff you capitalists have extracted by tricks and traps and put your name on, and swear you earned it, and are entitled to it.

Loony is thinking you can talk crap about everybody else, and think they will agree and follow you to LALA land. Its not how you dress, not my style, but how you talk, so for the last time, what's the difference between right wing extremist, and the TParty?

If you don't know just say so, that's honest at least, and I will endeavor to enlighten you, hopeless as that may be. Oh wait I didn't answer your question "What loony about the TP??".

YES I DID!

You are a 1 trick pony. The sum of all your argument is capitalism ----evil .

capitalism ----evil .Unregulated it can easily veer into the evil category. When wealth accumulation is the driving force behind every decision then all else falls by the wayside.

And the straw men keep coming .

What straw man? You brought up capitalism, the thread includes discussions on regulation. Why are you so intent on dismissing the discussion? It's not going your way?

I accept the idea that one mans opinion is another mans straw argument.

But extracting all the money because you can, from the economy and making the government unable to address the poverty that's created by that extractionism is not the answer.

Okay I will acknowledge the war on republicans and their tyranny and subjugation. I just don't need a gun to do it. But I did vote against it as most of us did. We exercised our rights and the Romney/right wing dreams of corporate governess got put down. Don''t expect it to stop there though, because its only the beginning.

That's reality and not a straw argument.

PS- Not that I expect you guys to just give up though. I ain't crazy!

Unregulated it can easily veer into the evil category. When wealth accumulation is the driving force behind every decision then all else falls by the wayside.

No I didn't ,maybe you should stalk tal to at least see what I was replying to.

I accept the idea that one mans opinion is another mans straw argument.
The strawman was... Unregulated it can easily veer into the evil category.
It's a strawman because I have never on these boards suggested I wanted an unregulated economy. It is willful ignorance to have read what I written on the subject for many years here ,and conclude that.

I know Tom, but you have said there are too many regulations but not been specific.

You are kidding me right ? You want me to break down the thousands of regulations the bureaucracy divines from the thousands of pages of new laws spit out by Congress and the local governments daily ? I do have a life you know
Suffice it to say that I agree with Hayek that the Road to Serfdom is paved with the good intentions of those who want to tinker to create in their minds the most "fair " level of distribution of other people's money . Like Hayek I think a social safety net is necessary for those who truly need it .But also like Hayek ,I think the more you pile regulation on ;the more you breed a dependence effect ,and the rise of special interests who ply the government for favors . The special interests I speak of can be the folks locked into the dependency; and it can also be the business that has an interest in getting the best deal possible from the regulators to gain a competitive edge The system feeds on itself and it is inevitable that it will fail as the state grows into the leviathan that ours has become.


"the power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest functionnaire possesses who wields the coercive power of the state on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am to be allowed to live or to work."
"The Road to Serfdom," Friedrich Hayek

That quote used to be true when politics and big business were separate, now they are one and the same.
How you will effect a change there is the biggest challenge you face.

" the road to sefdom" Tom, finally you encapsalated the capitalist agenda.

Hayek rewrote economics and helped Thatcher tread down the British people it is no wonder you find a haven in his thinking now you have moved on from Keynes. As a Republican you would embrace Thatcherism with open arms

It is interesting you should quote Hayek Tom perhaps you were being opportunist. He doesn't share your views on unbridled capitalism

"probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez-faire

Did you notice Tom that Hayek attributes the free market to liberals, now where does that leave the Republicans, somewhere east of national socialism?

now you have moved on from Keynes. I've never been a Keynesian


It is interesting you should quote Hayek Tom perhaps you were being opportunist. He doesn't share your views on unbridled capitalism

Again with the strawmen... read my response to NK

I have moved on and so should this debate

By the way Thatcher ;for one brief shiny moment ,saved the Brits from their disastrous fabianism.

That quote used to be true when politics and big business were separate, now they are one and the same.
How you will effect a change there is the biggest challenge you face.


Exactly the point I have been making all along. They all espouse the same ideology.

They all embrace the same rational approach to problem solving and solutions.
Essentially there is no difference.

The government has certain important roles that it has evolved. For example, picking winners and losers in the market place is one example that is touted. But this is one function that is perfectly consistent and necessary within the edifice.

btw Thatcher ;for one brief shiny moment ,saved the Brits from their disastrous fabianism.

No, Tom, for one shiny moment Thatcher reconfirmed British imperialism, and now in Africa The French are reconfirming French colonialism, what will the Americans reconfirm? I wonder, after their imperialist adventurism in the Philippines, Japan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Will they invade Africa? Will they invade North Korea? Will they invade Iran? What targets of opportunity present themselves? Mali is taken, if they are not careful all the easy targets will be swallowed up and they might be left with Syria

In modern times today's conservative don't work well with others and take rejection as an affirmation they are right, while their numbers shrink even more. Not a winning strategy in a changing world and yet they still scheme and plot instead of work to gain power and influence, and relevancy.

RNC's Priebus Proposes to Rig Electoral College so Losing Republicans Can 'Win' | The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/blog/172191/rncs-priebus-proposes-rig-electoral-college-so-losing-republicans-can-win?rel=emailNation#)


Specifically, Priebus is urging Republican governors and legislators to take up what was once a fringe scheme to change the rule for distribution of Electoral College votes. Under the Priebus plan, electoral votes from battleground states such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin and other states that now regularly back Democrats for president would be allocated not to the statewide winner but to the winners of individual congressional districts.

Gerrymandering on steroids.

Tal you want real change, directly elect the President, take the local politics right out of the equation. The Office of President purposely has nothing to do with local politics, that is the preserve of the House. This would mean the presidential candidates have to campaign to the whole country not just a few counties

I totally agree Clete and think the Electoral College was designed to keep popular candidates out of the highest seat in the land.

Every vote should count the same.

Hello clete:

What you miss is, if this scheme had it been in place for our LAST election, Romney would have won. If that's not rigging elections, I don't know what it.

What blows me away, is that these states apparently have the absolute authority to DO this thing. We just have to sit and watch them STEAL our elections from NOW on.

Talk about TYRANNY. I AIN'T putting up with that.

excon

Ex gerrymander has always been on the agenda, every time someone wants to change the rules it is to gerrymander the electorate.''

Yes it is a strange system where the tail wags the dog, but those states just weren't giving up any rights way back when, except it seems the right to secede. I suppose you can't blame them federal democratic systems were rare in those days, they just had no good examples to draw from

So you see the states as the tyrants, but your opponents see the President as the tyrant, it's Runnymede all over again

Seems we have another thing to fix before the next election.

Yes Tal I think it is called the Constitution

Nothing wrong with the Constitution, you have to read it, and understand what you read. A great nation has been built on it, and it will continue to grow.

We have weathered hard times and overcome challenges before, and will again. Want to bet against US? Go ahead its your loot.

Not betting against you Tal, I think you might be your own worst enemies