[excon]

is there an answer. I honestly don't know.

Hello Tuscany:

Term limits would do the trick. Today, once a candidate wins, he starts running again. You can't believe a candidate when he's running. So, when he's representing us, he shouldn't be running again.

excon

[RubyPitbull]

Tuscany I feel the same way you do regarding sticking to party lines.

Republicans seem to play the blame game. The "we did not do it we are the good old boys , blame those Democrats. Yet the Democrats seem to attack the Republicans for not taking ownership of their actions.

If the Dems take over, you will see this phenomena completely reversed.;)

It seems that things would be much more productive if each would just agree to disagree and try to meet somewhere in the middle. Then maybe decisions could be made, people that they serve could be helped. Put personal agendas aside and realize that the USA needs leaders not figure heads that like to hear themselves talk.

I believe a person has to have an enormous ego to survive for any length of time in the political arena in this country. With that, you are going to get people who are more determined to control things, and less willing to listen to others. We haved moved into a time in which politics has become a true media circus. When FDR was running for President, most of the population didn't have clue the guy was crippled. If he were to campaign today, the first thing we would see when he announced his candidacy is a big picture splashed across the headlines of him sitting in his wheelchair, or being carried by an attendant in a candid moment shot.

If you study the history of this country, we have had much more unrest in the past than we are experiencing now. Just to use one glaring example: Do you think the people who lived during the turbulent years of the Civil War believed we would survive it and manage to piece it back together?

We have had more political unrest than peaceful times. The peaceful happy times are actually a rarity in our history. So, I believe we will get through this and move on, as we always have before. No country has ever, throughout the history of time, been able to fix all the problems that exist within their nation, and create a Utopia on Earth.

[NeedKarma]

No country has ever, throughout the history of time, been able to fix all the problems that exist within their nation, and create a Utopia on Earth.

I think at this point the american people would accept a little less trampling on the constitution, a little less invasion of their privacy and a little more honesty in their leaders. What's going on now is shameful.

[tomder55]

As I said ;very few people in the US are overly concerned with " invasion of privacy" . What they don't want is getting shot at while shopping in the mall.

[RubyPitbull]

I think at this point the american people would accept a little less trampling on the constitution, a little less invasion of their privacy and a little more honesty in their leaders. What's going on now is shameful.

I agree with you NK. But many people in the U.S. don't. You have seen a number of people on this site both defend Bush's position and argue against it. That is just a small sampling of the population. I have neighbors who are diehard Republicans and/or Democrates who will always stick along party lines and complain about any party in power. I do believe that given time, we will see some of these constitutional changes repealed or adjusted. If the Dems win the White House, as it now stands, they will be in a major position of power because at the moment, they are dominating Capital Hill. If they are smart and can put their egos aside long enough to agree, they will take that window of opportunity and make the adjustments they want, along with pushing new things onto us. Then, when the Reps get back in, those things will change again. It is akin to a long drawn out series of chess matches. Are they doing this for the betterment of our people? In my opinion, nah. It is all about control & power and a clashing of egos, and we little ants just have to find a way to go with the flow. The good thing here is that the general populace have more of a voice than many other countries. Maybe one day when more of the citizens get so fed up with all this rhetoric and garbage both sides are feeding us, that they will put aside their personal wants and desires, and unite into a large cohesive anti-Government group they will storm the White House and whole new party will rule. But, I doubt that will happen any time soon.

[NeedKarma]

The good thing here is that the general populace have more of a voice than many other countries.

I believe that's the real danger here - the populace is quickly losing that voice. Corporations and the rich elite who own them are dictating what you see and hear and omit what you don't need to know.

[RubyPitbull]

Comments on this post
excon agrees: That's a pretty optimistic outlook. Have you read the paper lately?

It has nothing to do with optimism. My opinion has more to do with relying on history. History repeats itself over and over again. We have seen some very major downturns in our history, and we have seen some upturns. But, if you would rather think that we are on the precipice of a completely new era, be my guest. I actually do agree with parttime's post earlier on this thread. But, I don't think we will see it in our lifetime or the not too distant future. It is "down the road apiece". ;)

[excon]

as I said ;very few people in the US are overly concerned with " invasion of privacy" . What they don't want is getting shot at while shopping in the mall.

Hello again, tom:

Actually, there are quite a few people concerned about "invasion of privacy". They just don't happen to run in your circles.

I think you'll see just how many DO care in this next election.

excon

[NeedKarma]

Tom: To add to excon's comment - trivializing the issue is exactly how your rights and privacies get eroded.

[excon]

Hello again, Ruby:

I actually think your opinions are very grounded. You make GOOD sense, and you know I think so too...

But... I was just testing to see if you were reading...

excon

[RubyPitbull]

I believe that's the real danger here - the populace is quickly losing that voice. Corporations and the rich elite who own them are dictating what you see and hear and omit what you don't need to know.

I don't disagree with you NK. As I said, I believe there will be a time in our history where enough people will band together and overthrow the gov't. Revolution is not so far fetched an idea. That too can be found throughout the political history of the world. Maybe it will look a lot like that "Planet of the Apes" sequel in which we see the ape population overthrowing the humans. That would be kind of interesting and fun to watch. But, I really don't think I will get a chance to see it.

[RubyPitbull]

As they say (I always wondered who the "they" were when my Nana said this to me)
"Timing is everything." and of course, "The Times they are a changin'." They are changing, and the turmoil that is occurring will even out a bit until the next big wave hits. A more current view of history to consider in which our people showed huge unrest was during the Johnson administration. He was a Dem who put us into a war that didn't make sense to many Americans. Who got into the White House in '68? Nixon. Republican. ;)
Look to history for the answers.

[tomder55]

Ex I'm in NY my "circles" are primarily Democats . Sorry ,I don't see this paranoia as rampant.

Ruby ,You are a student of history . Then go and really take a look at how politics was conducted in the country throughout history . It is much more civil now. We have this romantic vision of how things were that does not match the record.

On the other board I documented many times that the founders were actually quite vicious with each other once the nation was actually founded. Many times they weren't even upfront about it . They would publish using pseudonym in publications that make the bias of the NY Slimes seem balanced . They would make the most personal attacks on their political opponents . Sometimes like in the case of Burr and Hamilton it led to duels.

Later when the issue of slavery was debated by those fine statesmen in Congress ;Senator Charles Summer was assaulted and caned into unconsciousness by Representative Preston Brooks on the floor of the United States Senate !

Here is the Wikipedia account of the incident :

Brooks began beating Sumner on the head with a thick gutta-percha cane with a gold head. Sumner was trapped under the heavy desk (which was bolted to the floor), but Brooks continued to bash Sumner until he ripped the desk from the floor. By this time, Sumner was blinded by his own blood, and he staggered up the aisle and collapsed, lapsing into unconsciousness. Brooks continued to beat Sumner until he broke his cane, then quietly left the chamber. Several other senators attempted to help Sumner, but were blocked by Keitt who was holding a pistol and shouting "Let them be!"

Sumner did not attend the Senate for the next three years, while recovering from the attack. In addition to the head trauma, he suffered from nightmares, severe headaches and (what is now understood to be) post-traumatic stress disorder. During that period, his enemies subjected him to ridicule and accused him of cowardice for not resuming his duties in the Senate.

Imagine that today ! Today they make a big deal when a politician calls another a bad name.

[RubyPitbull]

Ruby ,You are a student of history . Then go and really take a look at how politics was conducted in the country throughout history . It is much more civil now. We have this romantic vision of how things were that does not match the record.

Thank you for the suggestion Tom but I don't need to do that. Yes, I do remember the things you brought up here, along with a few more.;)

Why do you believe I have a romanticized vision from what I have written here on this thread? Is it due to my belief that the media would undermine someone like FDR if he were running today? I don't see how that translates into my believing that in this current point in history, I feel the opposing parties are less civil to each other now than they were in times past. Is it because I called all politicians in this country a bunch of wankers on another thread we shared? It doesn't mean that I believe they are more vicious than in times past. I think we are in agreement in our opinions regarding the media.

I haven't traveled recently to be able to determine if we are truly a people who are "positive, upbeat, and more optimistic than most of the rest of the world," as you believe we are. All I can say is the last time I traveled out of this country, the general feeling I received from those folks I met along the way was: they didn't like us much. But, they appeared to be pretty positive, upbeat, and content with their lives. They didn't appear to be pessimistic about their future or their country's leaders.

I don't know about you, but for me reading, along with watching, the world news doesn't give me any indication as to how the general population in a number of countries feels about anything. Of course, I am not speaking of the people living in countries who are dealing with complete political unrest, and in which innocent people are dying every day. I think I can easily draw the conclusion that compared to them, we as a people, certainly are more positive, upbeat, and optimistic than they are. But, when we compare ourselves to Australia, NZ, Austria, UK, Spain, Portugal, Canada, Brazil, Switzerland, Monaco, Dubai,. I am missing many more but I think you get my point. Personally, I don't think we are in a position to absolutely state that. NK sounds like a pretty happy guy. So does Skell. Are they more positive, upbeat, and optimistic about their futures than I am? Probably. They are younger than I am.

[tomder55]

Is it due to my belief that the media would undermine someone like FDR if he were running today? I don't see how that translates into my believing that in this current point in history, I feel the opposing parties are less civil to each other now than they were in times past.

Ruby if you are framing today against the WWII era I contend that the unity of that time may well be the great exception.

[excon]

Ruby if you are framing today against the WWII era I contend that the unity of that time may well be the great exception.

Hello tom:

As a result of Pearl Harbor, that president made us mad. He specifically condemned "fear".

As a result of 9/11, THIS president made us fearful.

Might I suggest that the unrest of today vs. the togetherness of that time, is due DIRECTLY to how those DIFFERENT presidents framed their responses to our being attacked?

excon

[RubyPitbull]

Ruby if you are framing today against the WWII era I contend that the unity of that time may well be the great exception.

Ahhh. I see. Thank you for explaining. However, that wasn't the time in history I was referring to. Roosevelt was disabled in 1921, and ran for the Presidency many years before the advent of WWII. IMO, and most historians will agree, that it is WWII that unified this nation at that time in our history. He was appointed President in 1933. He ran during the most difficult economic hardship this country has ever endured. We were still in the midst of the Great Depression. Everyone was struggling. Poverty and starvation were rampant. What sort of unity are you suggesting we were experiencing, that would spur the media at that time, to jointly agree not to splash his disability across the newspapers or capture it on film reels for the public to view in theatres?

[RubyPitbull]

Hello tom:

As a result of Pearl Harbor, that president made us mad. He specifically condemned "fear".

As a result of 9/11, THIS president made us fearful.

Might I suggest that the unrest of today vs. the togetherness of that time, is due DIRECTLY to how those DIFFERENT presidents framed their responses to our being attacked?

excon

In keeping with Tom's view of WWII and unity at that time, you have made a very good point and a keen observation excon. Nice to see all that smokin' you do hasn't totally scrambled your brain yet. ;)

[tomder55]

Ex

Roosevelts Fear speech was about the depression not WWII .He made it in his 1st Inaugural address.

When I read some of the paranoia posted at places like Huffpo and the Kossaks I would say they should take Roosevelt's words to heart ;especially the next line of his address.

"Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat and advance."

I would say that Roosevelt exercised extradorinary executive powers both before and during the war. I would suggest ,and I guess Ruby would also ,that today the clarion call of executive abuse would be that standard if Roosevelt were president today (or did you forget the Japanese internment ?) I could see Senator Richard Turbin calling for an independent prosecutor over some of the decisions Roosevelt made.

Ruby I wholeheartedly agree that the MSM creates much of this image of negativity.