I don't know who "Obummer is, but I do know that we have a President of the United States whose last name is Obama. In the military, it is understood that you may not like or even respect your superior officer, but you will damn sure respect the rank. Unfortunately, too many people no longer recognize that regarding our elected "representatives".
You are entitled to hate anyone you like and to voice that hatred as much as you like, but it is my opinion that the uncivil nature of our political differences has as much to do with the gridlock and ineffectiveness in Congress as anything else. When our political discourse becomes so visceral and shrill that it is impossible for our elected "representatives" to compromise in order to find practical solutions to the very real problems we are facing, then that discourse becomes a very real danger to the well being of our Republic.
The "liberal" / "conservative" argument is destroying the mechanisms of compromise that are necessary for our deliberative bodies to function, and may well result in the destruction of the Republic itself. Partisian ideology must not take prescedence over the needs of the country, but that's the way things are now. "Conservatives" must quit viewing "liberals" as their enemies (and vice versa). We are not at war withone another, but if things continue on the way they are going, we may well be, because we have not been this badly divided since the 1850's, and we all know how that one worked out.
I agree totally. BUT, the media has so deeply ingrained this hatred for the other side that I fear we are doomed. Racist, hateful men and women who desire $$$ and power get on the radio and TV and spout crazy ideas and theories and otherwise sane people just cant help but echo it and over time... believe it... "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -Adolf Hitler
I fear conservative politics will become destructive. Just look at all hard-line conservative nations in recent history... when you mix the passion and craziness of religion, the power of government, and the stupidity of the masses, you get the middle east, Africa, and all these other places where we see violence and destruction almost daily. That's NOT to say Liberals are better ( We don't need super-massive government and welfare states either), but we NEED a balance of the two. We need to put down the pitchforks and gun and start to not hate what the other side represents or thinks, but to respect it and learn to make the best of it all.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Lincoln.
I don't know who "Obummer is, but I do know that we have a President of the United States whose last name is Obama. In the military, it is understood that you may not like or even respect your superior officer, but you will damn sure respect the rank. Unfortunately, too many people no longer recognize that regarding our elected "representatives".
You are entitled to hate anyone you like and to voice that hatred as much as you like, but it is my opinion that the uncivil nature of our political differences has as much to do with the gridlock and ineffectiveness in Congress as anything else. When our political discourse becomes so visceral and shrill that it is impossible for our elected "representatives" to compromise in order to find practical solutions to the very real problems we are facing, then that discourse becomes a very real danger to the well being of our Republic.
The "liberal" / "conservative" argument is destroying the mechanisms of compromise that are necessary for our deliberative bodies to function, and may well result in the destruction of the Republic itself. Partisian ideology must not take prescedence over the needs of the country, but that's the way things are now. "Conservatives" must quit viewing "liberals" as their enemies (and vice versa). We are not at war withone another, but if things continue on the way they are going, we may well be, because we have not been this badly divided since the 1850's, and we all know how that one worked out.
I agree totally. BUT, the media has so deeply ingrained this hatred for the other side that I fear we are doomed. Racist, hateful men and women who desire $$$ and power get on the radio and TV and spout crazy ideas and theories and otherwise sane people just cant help but echo it and over time... believe it... "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -Adolf Hitler
I fear conservative politics will become destructive. Just look at all hard-line conservative nations in recent history... when you mix the passion and craziness of religion, the power of government, and the stupidity of the masses, you get the middle east, Africa, and all these other places where we see violence and destruction almost daily. That's NOT to say Liberals are better ( We don't need super-massive government and welfare states either), but we NEED a balance of the two. We need to put down the pitchforks and gun and start to not hate what the other side represents or thinks, but to respect it and learn to make the best of it all.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Lincoln.
Krieger, I know a lot of folks more than twice your age that lack more than half your depth. You give me hope in your generation, keep thinking for yourself and don't join the sheep! Side note to Clearly Suspect, I always felt that way about Hamilton, too.
Krieger I think your quotes are off. The first belongs to Joseph Goebbels. The Reich Minister of Propaganda. The second is from the bible.
Also Suspect I think he is talking about the US Tresury department. Not the federal reserve.
Goebbels talked about the use of repetitive "big lies" on more than one occasion, but Hitler wrote about the power of propaganda and mass media in Mein Kampf, and Mussolini also discussed the use of "the big lie" in his essays that defined Fascism in the 1930's.
Additionally, A. Lincoln quoted the Bible often, as did many of the Statesmen and military leaders of the day, but that cannot detract from the fact that the "house divided" quote is permanently linked to President Lincoln.
I don't know who "Obummer is, but I do know that we have a President of the United States whose last name is Obama. In the military, it is understood that you may not like or even respect your superior officer, but you will damn sure respect the rank. Unfortunately, too many people no longer recognize that regarding our elected "representatives".
You are entitled to hate anyone you like and to voice that hatred as much as you like, but it is my opinion that the uncivil nature of our political differences has as much to do with the gridlock and ineffectiveness in Congress as anything else. When our political discourse becomes so visceral and shrill that it is impossible for our elected "representatives" to compromise in order to find practical solutions to the very real problems we are facing, then that discourse becomes a very real danger to the well being of our Republic.
The "liberal" / "conservative" argument is destroying the mechanisms of compromise that are necessary for our deliberative bodies to function, and may well result in the destruction of the Republic itself. Partisian ideology must not take prescedence over the needs of the country, but that's the way things are now. "Conservatives" must quit viewing "liberals" as their enemies (and vice versa). We are not at war withone another, but if things continue on the way they are going, we may well be, because we have not been this badly divided since the 1850's, and we all know how that one worked out.
I agree totally. BUT, the media has so deeply ingrained this hatred for the other side that I fear we are doomed. Racist, hateful men and women who desire $$$ and power get on the radio and TV and spout crazy ideas and theories and otherwise sane people just cant help but echo it and over time... believe it... "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -Adolf Hitler
I fear conservative politics will become destructive. Just look at all hard-line conservative nations in recent history... when you mix the passion and craziness of religion, the power of government, and the stupidity of the masses, you get the middle east, Africa, and all these other places where we see violence and destruction almost daily. That's NOT to say Liberals are better ( We don't need super-massive government and welfare states either), but we NEED a balance of the two. We need to put down the pitchforks and gun and start to not hate what the other side represents or thinks, but to respect it and learn to make the best of it all.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Lincoln.
Exactly correct.
Just look at AZ Gov. Brewers recent behavior toward a sitting President. The complete lack of respect for the man in the office, and for the office itself is a very dangerous and destructive force in American politics. As long as our politicians are getting their inspiration from hate speach pouring out of Talk Radio, this destructive behavior is only going to continue to escalate.
Just look at AZ Gov. Brewers recent behavior toward a sitting President. The complete lack of respect for the man in the office, and for the office itself is a very dangerous and destructive force in American politics. As long as our politicians are getting their inspiration from hate speach pouring out of Talk Radio, this destructive behavior is only going to continue to escalate.
i mean... you do understand why the Gov has beef with the president right? im not saying she shouldnt respect the office but respecting the office and running her own state are very different things. I believe she feels that Obama is trying to usurp her elected authority and make her position useless via federal law. i cant really know whats in the womans heart but she is acting like she personally has been attacked. Immigration in that state is a huge issue that has huge implications. the obama administration has all but fully endorsed the boycott on the state over the laws that were passed there. that isnt exactly non-partisan or encouraging the states to run things the way their elected officials see fit.
there was a time in this country where people referred to our nation as "these united states" implying an amount of sovereignty within the states, not "the united stated" implying one large over powering government.
Just look at AZ Gov. Brewers recent behavior toward a sitting President.
and if you are saying this is about the index finger on the tarmac moment all i have to say is: (if i am not mistaken, this was during a 2008 campaign speech. there was a deliberate pause after/during a remark about McCain and a purposeful face scratch. had a Similar moment in the primaries while discussing HR Clinton. If i rememer correctly at least one of them got crowd reaction too.)
hows that for behavior, or respect for the office he is running for?
i dont think the tarmac finger waving moment was that bad. and quite frankly neither was the giving the bird moment. we are all people when it comes down to it. we all need to lighten up.
Apparently he was here in Jacksonville when the finger came out. So this kinda doesn't surprise me now. There's a lot of people around here I flick off on a daily basis! LOL
Just look at AZ Gov. Brewers recent behavior toward a sitting President. The complete lack of respect for the man in the office, and for the office itself is a very dangerous and destructive force in American politics. As long as our politicians are getting their inspiration from hate speach pouring out of Talk Radio, this destructive behavior is only going to continue to escalate.
i mean... you do understand why the Gov has beef with the president right? im not saying she shouldnt respect the office but respecting the office and running her own state are very different things. I believe she feels that Obama is trying to usurp her elected authority and make her position useless via federal law. i cant really know whats in the womans heart but she is acting like she personally has been attacked. Immigration in that state is a huge issue that has huge implications. the obama administration has all but fully endorsed the boycott on the state over the laws that were passed there. that isnt exactly non-partisan or encouraging the states to run things the way their elected officials see fit.
there was a time in this country where people referred to our nation as "these united states" implying an amount of sovereignty within the states, not "the united stated" implying one large over powering government.
Well said and I think they both should have handled themselves better. That was not the time or place for him to even bring something like that up and she should not have lost her composure like that.
"...there was a time in this country where people referred to our nation as "these united states" implying an amount of sovereignty within the states, not "the united stated" implying one large over powering government...."
The noted Civil War Historian Shelby Foote accurately summs up the results of that conflict by stating' "Before the war, it was common to say "The United States are...", wheras after the war, people say "The United States is...". After the Civil War, the United States finally threw off the assumption of a Confederation of Soverign states, and became a single Nation of United States. God Bless the United States of America.
I do not want to return to a time when the US saw itself as a Confederation, but many conservative voices, not surprisingly from the South, want to take us back there.
As long as our politicians are getting their inspiration from hate speach pouring out of Talk Radio, this destructive behavior is only going to continue to escalate.
This statement reminds of a lot of the little arguments my girlfriend and I have. I'll say something along the lines of "Your sister is an rude, ignorant, hick *** who I want nothing to do with!" And although she and I both know that everything I had just said is absolutely true, she will say to me, "Well, that's just mean." To which I usually reply, "It's not mean if it's true. It's just the truth."
"...there was a time in this country where people referred to our nation as "these united states" implying an amount of sovereignty within the states, not "the united stated" implying one large over powering government...."
The noted Civil War Historian Shelby Foote accurately summs up the results of that conflict by stating' "Before the war, it was common to say "The United States are...", wheras after the war, people say "The United States is...". After the Civil War, the United States finally threw off the assumption of a Confederation of Soverign states, and became a single Nation of United States. God Bless the United States of America.
I do not want to return to a time when the US saw itself as a Confederation, but many conservative voices, not surprisingly from the South, want to take us back there.
you dont want to becvome a nation where the community around you decides what is best for the community? interesting. my state and local government should have more influence over my life than the federal level. why? because i have more influence over them. the federal government shouild be there for only one thing: to protect the rights of the individual
they should not be there to run my state. they should not be there to run my community, and they should not be there to run me.
if the federal government rules all and the local and state run nothing, what is the point of having them?
i am not saying we should dissolve the Union, or that the south "should rise again" or any of that. All i am saying is that the states need to have a good level of sovereignty or they (the states) become nothing more than voter districts for presidential campaigns.
this move to a more and more powerful centralized government is leading us away from what a good government is supposed to do. The more power that is in the hands of the Federal Government, the less power that in the hands of the people, or individuals.
"...there was a time in this country where people referred to our nation as "these united states" implying an amount of sovereignty within the states, not "the united stated" implying one large over powering government...."
The noted Civil War Historian Shelby Foote accurately summs up the results of that conflict by stating' "Before the war, it was common to say "The United States are...", wheras after the war, people say "The United States is...". After the Civil War, the United States finally threw off the assumption of a Confederation of Soverign states, and became a single Nation of United States. God Bless the United States of America.
I do not want to return to a time when the US saw itself as a Confederation, but many conservative voices, not surprisingly from the South, want to take us back there.
you dont want to becvome a nation where the community around you decides what is best for the community? interesting. my state and local government should have more influence over my life than the federal level. why? because i have more influence over them. the federal government shouild be there for only one thing: to protect the rights of the individual
they should not be there to run my state. they should not be there to run my community, and they should not be there to run me.
if the federal government rules all and the local and state run nothing, what is the point of having them?
i am not saying we should dissolve the Union, or that the south "should rise again" or any of that. All i am saying is that the states need to have a good level of sovereignty or they (the states) become nothing more than voter districts for presidential campaigns.
this move to a more and more powerful centralized government is leading us away from what a good government is supposed to do. The more power that is in the hands of the Federal Government, the less power that in the hands of the people, or individuals.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect your right to express that opinion, however, I request that you do not assume what I believe and then draw conclusions about what you think I believe, because unless you know me extremely well (which you do not), the likelyhood is very high that you will be completely wrong on both counts.
Here are two examples of how I believe State authorities have completely failed to protect the individual:
1) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is federal legislation that finally protected the rights of individuals from State authorities that permitted and nurtured institutionalized racism and discrimination against minority populations in those States. This institutionaized racism was well supported by many, and im most cases, even a majority of the "local community". Federal authority was required to end it once and for all.
2) We used to have usury laws in the US, which regulated the amount of interest that banks could charge their customers. Those laws protected the individual from predatory banking practices, but they have been eliminated as part of banking de-regulation. That de-regulation allows large investment banks and credit card companies and pay-day loan sharks to levy high interest rates on the individuals who have to pay these interest rates. It also allows them to operate National businesses (which operate throughout the country) but subject them to State regulation where they are “headquartered”. Therefore, the State authority that allows these business practices are failing to protect the individual, because they are more interested in protecting the corporate banks that operate in their borders than the individuals who are subjected to their busines practices.
Don't get me wrong, I do not believe the Feds should have as much control as they do now, especially with much of the regulatory powers they currently weild. But it's not all bad, either. Generally speaking, I am fairly Libertairian when it comes to regulation of personal behavior (with exceptions), but pretty much will follow TR, Truman, and Eisenhower when it concerns regulation of our economic structure.
As long as our politicians are getting their inspiration from hate speach pouring out of Talk Radio, this destructive behavior is only going to continue to escalate.
This statement reminds of a lot of the little arguments my girlfriend and I have. I'll say something along the lines of "Your sister is an rude, ignorant, hick *** who I want nothing to do with!" And although she and I both know that everything I had just said is absolutely true, she will say to me, "Well, that's just mean." To which I usually reply, "It's not mean if it's true. It's just the truth."
I really don't think you and I have much in common when it comes to politics, so I will refrain from discussing politics with you from this point forward. Nothing good can come from it.
I really don't think you and I have much in common when it comes to politics, so I will refrain from discussing politics with you from this point forward. Nothing good can come from it.
Well I really think that's a shame because based on this statement, I'd say you and I are probably more like each other than anyone else on the forums:
JDH:
Don't get me wrong, I do not believe the Feds should have as much control as they do now, especially with much of the regulatory powers they currently weild. But it's not all bad, either. Generally speaking, I am fairly Libertairian when it comes to regulation of personal behavior (with exceptions), but pretty much will follow TR, Truman, and Eisenhower when it concerns regulation of our economic structure.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect your right to express that opinion, however, I request that you do not assume what I believe and then draw conclusions about what you think I believe, because unless you know me extremely well (which you do not), the likelyhood is very high that you will be completely wrong on both counts.
Im not sure if you noticed, but i assumed nothing. it was in question form. i asked a question. then i stated what my opinion in the matter would be. dont assume im assuming anything.
JDH:
Here are two examples of how I believe State authorities have completely failed to protect the individual:
1) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is federal legislation that finally protected the rights of individuals from State authorities that permitted and nurtured institutionalized racism and discrimination against minority populations in those States. This institutionaized racism was well supported by many, and im most cases, even a majority of the "local community". Federal authority was required to end it once and for all.
2) We used to have usury laws in the US, which regulated the amount of interest that banks could charge their customers. Those laws protected the individual from predatory banking practices, but they have been eliminated as part of banking de-regulation. That de-regulation allows large investment banks and credit card companies and pay-day loan sharks to levy high interest rates on the individuals who have to pay these interest rates. It also allows them to operate National businesses (which operate throughout the country) but subject them to State regulation where they are “headquartered”. Therefore, the State authority that allows these business practices are failing to protect the individual, because they are more interested in protecting the corporate banks that operate in their borders than the individuals who are subjected to their busines practices.
the first example is a great example of what i was talking about. the government's job is to protect the rights of the individual. that 100% does that. that is what the federal government should be for. But, the states should be given the opportunity to let the community decide what is best for them FIRST.
"predatory banking" is a very different subject. it is the responsibility of the person signing the loan/lease/agreement to know and understand what they are getting into. it is also the Banks responsibility to disclose all information pertaining to the loan/lease/agreement. if the bank does not, then it is predatory banking and the government should step in and protect the individual.
if they DO disclose all information, and the person still agrees to it, then it is the individual that is at fault. if i agree to pay 75% (or any other "crazy" interest rate) on a credit card/loan/lease if X,Y, or Z conditions occur, and i let X,Y, and Z conditions occur, it is not the bank's fault. it is mine. i signed a contract. i cannot stress this enough: WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT 100% or else you should not sign. also, when i sign a contract, if i am unable to fulfill the terms of the contract, it is my fault and my fault alone that i did not fulfill those terms, even it the terms are "unreasonable. " i signed it. i agreed to it. this is called "personal responsibility" and it is something that we have lost over the years.
JDH:
Don't get me wrong, I do not believe the Feds should have as much control as they do now, especially with much of the regulatory powers they currently weild. But it's not all bad, either. Generally speaking, I am fairly Libertairian when it comes to regulation of personal behavior (with exceptions), but pretty much will follow TR, Truman, and Eisenhower when it concerns regulation of our economic structure.
so you believe that it is ok to violate the rights of the individual when it comes to economic structure?
The EU is coming to the same unavoidable conclusion; you cannot have a common currency among "United States" without common laws, a central governing authority, a central banking authority, and regulations governing the currency as well as the inter-state commerce, all of which are equally applicable to all member states.
Actually, JDH, I have some friends in Europe and studied a lot of comparative politics in university. The problem with the European Union isn't the lack of centralized laws, banks, or government. The reason why the EU is crumbling is because of socialism and the lack of representation from their populus. Europe as a whole spends very very little on their military (why would they when they have the US military doing most of the work?) and pay more and more every year to entitlement spending and social programs.
Greece, Ireland, and Spain have already gone bankrupt and had to be bailed out due to the outrageous amount of debt and government spending that goes on in Europe. Now, the survival of socialism and country bailouts lies solely on Germany's shoulders and I suspect that they'll collapse under the weight of that burden within the next few years.
Not only that, most of the laws being passed in Europe aren't even from elected officials anymore. Every year, there are more and more administrators and other bureaucrats are put in power that no one elects in order to regulate and litigate. The people no longer have much, if any say in what laws are inposed on them because these unelected bureaucrats are not held accountable by the voters of any one nation in Europe. Even with the crumbling European economy and governments, by far, the most worthless currency in Europe is the vote.
What scares me the most is that by examining the patterns of behavior in the US federal government over the past few decades, that's the direction we're heading into. The political elite are scrambling for more power and more control over our lives, all the while promoting class and racial warfare to distract the voters from guarding their own personal rights. A lot of people on the left say "keep money away from politics". I say "keep politics away from money and our rights".
The EU is coming to the same unavoidable conclusion; you cannot have a common currency among "United States" without common laws, a central governing authority, a central banking authority, and regulations governing the currency as well as the inter-state commerce, all of which are equally applicable to all member states.
Actually, JDH, I have some friends in Europe and studied a lot of comparative politics in university. The problem with the European Union isn't the lack of centralized laws, banks, or government. The reason why the EU is crumbling is because of socialism and the lack of representation from their populus. Europe as a whole spends very very little on their military (why would they when they have the US military doing most of the work?) and pay more and more every year to entitlement spending and social programs.
Greece, Ireland, and Spain have already gone bankrupt and had to be bailed out due to the outrageous amount of debt and government spending that goes on in Europe. Now, the survival of socialism and country bailouts lies solely on Germany's shoulders and I suspect that they'll collapse under the weight of that burden within the next few years.
Not only that, most of the laws being passed in Europe aren't even from elected officials anymore. Every year, there are more and more administrators and other bureaucrats are put in power that no one elects in order to regulate and litigate. The people no longer have much, if any say in what laws are inposed on them because these unelected bureaucrats are not held accountable by the voters of any one nation in Europe. Even with the crumbling European economy and governments, by far, the most worthless currency in Europe is the vote.
What scares me the most is that by examining the patterns of behavior in the US federal government over the past few decades, that's the direction we're heading into. The political elite are scrambling for more power and more control over our lives, all the while promoting class and racial warfare to distract the voters from guarding their own personal rights. A lot of people on the left say "keep money away from politics". I say "keep politics away from money and our rights".
You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect your right to express that opinion, however, I request that you do not assume what I believe and then draw conclusions about what you think I believe, because unless you know me extremely well (which you do not), the likelyhood is very high that you will be completely wrong on both counts.
Im not sure if you noticed, but i assumed nothing. it was in question form. i asked a question. then i stated what my opinion in the matter would be. dont assume im assuming anything.
JDH:
Here are two examples of how I believe State authorities have completely failed to protect the individual:
1) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is federal legislation that finally protected the rights of individuals from State authorities that permitted and nurtured institutionalized racism and discrimination against minority populations in those States. This institutionaized racism was well supported by many, and im most cases, even a majority of the "local community". Federal authority was required to end it once and for all.
2) We used to have usury laws in the US, which regulated the amount of interest that banks could charge their customers. Those laws protected the individual from predatory banking practices, but they have been eliminated as part of banking de-regulation. That de-regulation allows large investment banks and credit card companies and pay-day loan sharks to levy high interest rates on the individuals who have to pay these interest rates. It also allows them to operate National businesses (which operate throughout the country) but subject them to State regulation where they are “headquartered”. Therefore, the State authority that allows these business practices are failing to protect the individual, because they are more interested in protecting the corporate banks that operate in their borders than the individuals who are subjected to their busines practices.
the first example is a great example of what i was talking about. the government's job is to protect the rights of the individual. that 100% does that. that is what the federal government should be for. But, the states should be given the opportunity to let the community decide what is best for them FIRST.
"predatory banking" is a very different subject. it is the responsibility of the person signing the loan/lease/agreement to know and understand what they are getting into. it is also the Banks responsibility to disclose all information pertaining to the loan/lease/agreement. if the bank does not, then it is predatory banking and the government should step in and protect the individual.
if they DO disclose all information, and the person still agrees to it, then it is the individual that is at fault. if i agree to pay 75% (or any other "crazy" interest rate) on a credit card/loan/lease if X,Y, or Z conditions occur, and i let X,Y, and Z conditions occur, it is not the bank's fault. it is mine. i signed a contract. i cannot stress this enough: WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT 100% or else you should not sign. also, when i sign a contract, if i am unable to fulfill the terms of the contract, it is my fault and my fault alone that i did not fulfill those terms, even it the terms are "unreasonable. " i signed it. i agreed to it. this is called "personal responsibility" and it is something that we have lost over the years.
JDH:
Don't get me wrong, I do not believe the Feds should have as much control as they do now, especially with much of the regulatory powers they currently weild. But it's not all bad, either. Generally speaking, I am fairly Libertairian when it comes to regulation of personal behavior (with exceptions), but pretty much will follow TR, Truman, and Eisenhower when it concerns regulation of our economic structure.
so you believe that it is ok to violate the rights of the individual when it comes to economic structure?
"...you dont want to becvome a nation where the community around you decides what is best for the community?
interesting. "
You are assuming that I do not want: "to becvome a nation where the community around you decides what is best for the community? " This is known as setting up a "a straw man" so you can punch holes in it; a classic example. You assume that I do not want something, and set out to prove why I am wrong not to want that something. The kicker is that you don't have any idea what I think about your assumption, therefore, your conclusions are just based on your own projections.
"...so you believe that it is ok to violate the rights of the individual when it comes to economic structure?..."
This is another assumption on your part about what I beleive, and you are again setting up a straw man argument, because this is what you WANT me to believe, even though you have no evidence of what I actually do believe.
Let me be clear. If you wish to discuss an issue logically and civily, I will be happy to accomodate. However, I am not interested discussing anything with anyone who insists on inserting words into my mouth, or assumes what I believe, without evidence. You are entitled to your views and beliefs, but never assume that you know what I think, or what conclusions I will draw from any given set of facts. If I wish to do so, I will inform you of my conclusions, and the logic I used to arrive at any given conclusion, but it is insulting and disrespectful for you to continue to assume that you can attribute words and ideas to me.
Regarding your views on the usury laws and banking regulations; we will just have to agree to disagree, because I do not believe there is sufficient common ground on which to form a discussion.
"...you dont want to becvome a nation where the community around you decides what is best for the community?
interesting. "
You are assuming that I do not want: "to becvome a nation where the community around you decides what is best for the community? " This is known as setting up a "a straw man" so you can punch holes in it; a classic example. You assume that I do not want something, and set out to prove why I am wrong not to want that something. The kicker is that you don't have any idea what I think about your assumption, therefore, your conclusions are just based on your own projections.
you have misinterpreted what i was saying in exactly the same way for a SECOND TIME. i was asking you a question. i was asking if that was true. you could have gone a few ways. you could have said "yes i do believe that but with these stipulations" or "I do not believe that because of X,Y, or Z, but there are some interesting implications that deserve further discussion." i feel that you are assuming that i am assuming things about you. I am not. i am asking you questions to understand you position better. i am not "setting up a straw man." i am not attacking you in any way. you keep reacting like i am (or at least that is how it is translating in type)
JDH:
"...so you believe that it is ok to violate the rights of the individual when it comes to economic structure?..."
This is another assumption on your part about what I beleive, and you are again setting up a straw man argument, because this is what you WANT me to believe, even though you have no evidence of what I actually do believe.
again, you are incorrect. i am actually asking you a question. the systems that you said you
tend to follow when it comes to economic policy are those of Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower. There are many policies that those men stared, expanded, or took part in that one could make a good argument infringed on the rights of the individual and i was asking you about that.
please, stop thinking that i am doing nothing more than trying to understand where you are coming from when i ask questions. i am not trying to start a fight, or say you are wrong. i am asking questions and i am interjecting my own opinion here and there.
JDH:
Let me be clear. If you wish to discuss an issue logically and civily, I will be happy to accomodate. However, I am not interested discussing anything with anyone who insists on inserting words into my mouth, or assumes what I believe, without evidence. You are entitled to your views and beliefs, but never assume that you know what I think, or what conclusions I will draw from any given set of facts. If I wish to do so, I will inform you of my conclusions, and the logic I used to arrive at any given conclusion, but it is insulting and disrespectful for you to continue to assume that you can attribute words and ideas to me.
i was trying to have a conversation with you and ask you questions. every time i ask a question you are assuming it is to get the upper hand in the conversation. there is only one problem: there is no upper hand here. i am not trying to prove you wrong. i am simply trying to understand where you are coming from in more detail than you are giving.
You can assume what you want about my line of questioning. but you have no evidence to show that i am trying to make you look bad, or what my intentions are. you sir are the one putting word im my mouth. i was asking an honest question.
JDH:
Regarding your views on the usury laws and banking regulations; we will just have to agree to disagree, because I do not believe there is sufficient common ground on which to form a discussion.
you seem to say that to a lot of people when presented with a difficult topic that is the polar opposite of what you have been stating. i am very interested in what you have to say on the subject. dont stifle yourself because we may not have "enough common ground" you may surprise me, be surprised by me, surprise yourself, or even surprise yourself.
OK, before this goes any further, I suppose I really should explain where I’m coming from.
To begin with, I really enjoy this forum. The people who frequent this place are funny, generous, and polite, something rare on the internet these days. Therefore, I have a lot of respect for the people who use this site. It also helps that we hall have something concrete in common.
Secondly, I am convinced beyond all doubt that the “liberal-conservative” debate currently raging in the US presents the largest danger to the Republic we’ve faced since the 1850’s. This country is polarized to the point that rational political discussion is damn near impossible. I view this as a clear and present danger to the Republic, because I believe there are very powerful forces at work in this country that WANT US TO BE DIVIDED so that their agendas can be accomplished, to the great detriment of the vast majority of Americans.
Thirdly, I have witnessed, and been part of, too many internet political discussions that inevitably degenerate to the point that it just becomes a lot of name-calling, and a repeat of whatever yesterdays talk show hosts were raging about. I have too much respect for this forum to become involved in that kind of discussion here. I am not interested in going there, and I will not go there.
Therefore, I have set rules for myself.
I will respectfully agree to disagree with someone if I see no way to establish common ground on any given issue. I am open to discussing issues if they are based in proven fact, or established economic theory, or in the facts of history, but I won’t engage in discussions that revolve around emotional responses, or talk-show rhetoric. (With all due respect, I believe that there is no basis whatsoever to claim that the EU’s current economic problems are rooted in Socialism, and I will not even go there.) I have no need to defend my positions, because I am secure in them, and I do not believe that anyone I would be holding a “discussion” with would change their mind. I don’t want to engage in these discussions to pontificate and to rattle off “what I believe”. I’d rather talk about facts.
So you see, it is out of tremendous respect for the members of this forum that I will agree to disagree on any given issue. I choose to do this in the name of civility, in an effort to maintain civility.
So.To answer your question.Ya,I watched it just to see what Oblahma was going to say next.My B.S. detector was going off too.Nothing we hadn't heard before.Too many people eating his sh!t sandwich.As far as respect goes.That is something you have to earn.Not something that comes free with the title.Can't wait to see him out of office.
well unforgivably, our "Commander and Chief" creates class war fair, and pots the two sides against each other as much as anyone. If he had a backbone he could stop all the bickering and bull@#$@# that is going on right now.
We have a class war already, and it was actually started in the 70's and really kicked into gear in the 80's when the "trickle down" theory of economics blew up in everyone's faces but the upper-crust when none of the money actually "trickled down." We now have a larger gap between the haves and have nots than any country in Europe, and it's getting worse. Our President had nothing to do with this, but he does have to deal with it despite a majority in both houses who still believe that the "trickle" in the trickle down theory is anything more than the rich peeing on the middle class.
Oh, and he is not the only one to blame for the bickering. We have a Congress right now full of candidates who ran on the belief that government doesn't work and now are trying to prove it by saying no to everything. It's a two way street, my friend, one where Mr. Obama is actually trying, at least sometimes, to meet in the middle and is getting stepped on every inch of the way.
well unforgivably, our "Commander and Chief" creates class war fair, and pots the two sides against each other as much as anyone. If he had a backbone he could stop all the bickering and bull@#$@# that is going on right now.
We have a class war already, and it was actually started in the 70's and really kicked into gear in the 80's when the "trickle down" theory of economics blew up in everyone's faces but the upper-crust when none of the money actually "trickled down." We now have a larger gap between the haves and have nots than any country in Europe, and it's getting worse. Our President had nothing to do with this, but he does have to deal with it despite a majority in both houses who still believe that the "trickle" in the trickle down theory is anything more than the rich peeing on the middle class.
Oh, and he is not the only one to blame for the bickering. We have a Congress right now full of candidates who ran on the belief that government doesn't work and now are trying to prove it by saying no to everything. It's a two way street, my friend, one where Mr. Obama is actually trying, at least sometimes, to meet in the middle and is getting stepped on every inch of the way.
In the late 1970's manufacturing represented about 30% of GDP in the US and banking represented about 8%. Flash forward to the present, and after decades of "trickle-down" supply-side economics which encouraged and supported the wholesale destruction and exportation of our domestic manufacturing, and the unprecedented de-regulation of the banking sector, and those stats are now almost exactly reversed. We have traded our manufacturing economic base (which provided general prosperity for the majority of the population) in favor of investment banking on Wall St. That trade-off is providing unprecedented prosperity for a very small percentage of the population, to the detriment of our middle income population. In short, Wall St is eating Main St for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and literally laughing all the way to the bank.
well unforgivably, our "Commander and Chief" creates class war fair, and pots the two sides against each other as much as anyone. If he had a backbone he could stop all the bickering and bull@#$@# that is going on right now.
We have a class war already, and it was actually started in the 70's and really kicked into gear in the 80's when the "trickle down" theory of economics blew up in everyone's faces but the upper-crust when none of the money actually "trickled down." We now have a larger gap between the haves and have nots than any country in Europe, and it's getting worse. Our President had nothing to do with this, but he does have to deal with it despite a majority in both houses who still believe that the "trickle" in the trickle down theory is anything more than the rich peeing on the middle class.
Oh, and he is not the only one to blame for the bickering. We have a Congress right now full of candidates who ran on the belief that government doesn't work and now are trying to prove it by saying no to everything. It's a two way street, my friend, one where Mr. Obama is actually trying, at least sometimes, to meet in the middle and is getting stepped on every inch of the way.
In the late 1970's manufacturing represented about 30% of GDP in the US and banking represented about 8%. Flash forward to the present, and after decades of "trickle-down" supply-side economics which encouraged and supported the wholesale destruction and exportation of our domestic manufacturing, and the unprecedented de-regulation of the banking sector, and those stats are now almost exactly reversed. We have traded our manufacturing economic base (which provided general prosperity for the majority of the population) in favor of investment banking on Wall St. That trade-off is providing unprecedented prosperity for a very small percentage of the population, to the detriment of our middle income population. In short, Wall St is eating Main St for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and literally laughing all the way to the bank.
President Obama has demonstrated that he is highly capable of being our Commander in Chief. Bin Laden is dead. The Joint chiefs advised that a drone strike be used in th eBin Ladin raid, but Obama chose Seal team 6. He chose correctly. He promised to end our involvement in Iraq, and he lived up to his promise. He was correct in our use of military force in Lybia. He leadership and choices have allowed our security forces to successfully engaged in several rescue missions against Somali pirates. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is fully capable of making the right decisions regarding our use of military forces abroad. Those who continue to claim that he is not up to the task only discredit themselves.
I dunno. Sounds to me like she's trying to do a really good job of taking care of the first dang-a-lang. If Hillary had done the same we would never have been subjected to the whole Monica Lewinsky crap. I say "Good job Michelle! Keep up the good work!"
President Obama has demonstrated that he is highly capable of being our Commander in Chief. Bin Laden is dead. The Joint chiefs advised that a drone strike be used in th eBin Ladin raid, but Obama chose Seal team 6. He chose correctly. He promised to end our involvement in Iraq, and he lived up to his promise. He was correct in our use of military force in Lybia. He leadership and choices have allowed our security forces to successfully engaged in several rescue missions against Somali pirates. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is fully capable of making the right decisions regarding our use of military forces abroad. Those who continue to claim that he is not up to the task only discredit themselves.
I'd just like to mention, in addition to this, that as well as his handling of our military, his handling of foreign governments, and more importantly issues important to foreign peoples, seem to have been spot-on. I've pointed out before, and been blasted here for it, that our foreign policies have a serious tendency to piss off the populations in various parts of the world. What I've been talking about, is that our government repeatedly continues support for various dictatorships and oppresive regimes, as long as they cooperate with American business interests. This was THE big problem in Vietnam, the Phillipines, Chile, our original position in Iran, our later position in Iraq, until we changed our minds...the list goes on.
Lots of folks don't see it this way, but when we prop up unpopular oppresive regimes, WE get labelled the enemy. Something like; "We would have gotten so-and-so out of power, but the Americans stopped us", then their populations hate us (us, not "our freedoms") and we end up with organizations dedicated to causing us problems.
Oddly enough, again there is a link to Ron Paul type thinking here, in that we are better off supporting democracy than dictatorships, and we are better off setting a good example than supporting the status quo.
I cannot leave it just at this, however, without adding that I agree with Wwhang to a degree concerning some of the problems in Europe, primarily that of having laws made and enforced by agencies not directly accountable to the people. It is my hope that Obama is adult enough, and sincere enough, to realize this as well. It my certainty that Nancy Pelosi would completely support exactly the situation I fear. This is my fear concerning Obama, that he will eventually succumb, (or revert?) to the Pelosi type of thinking.
It keeps me up at night! JDH, thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate your positions, and your dedication to keeping it civil!
Comments
I fear conservative politics will become destructive. Just look at all hard-line conservative nations in recent history... when you mix the passion and craziness of religion, the power of government, and the stupidity of the masses, you get the middle east, Africa, and all these other places where we see violence and destruction almost daily. That's NOT to say Liberals are better ( We don't need super-massive government and welfare states either), but we NEED a balance of the two. We need to put down the pitchforks and gun and start to not hate what the other side represents or thinks, but to respect it and learn to make the best of it all.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Lincoln.
Side note to Clearly Suspect, I always felt that way about Hamilton, too.
The first belongs to Joseph Goebbels. The Reich Minister of Propaganda.
The second is from the bible.
Also Suspect I think he is talking about the US Tresury department. Not the federal reserve.
Additionally, A. Lincoln quoted the Bible often, as did many of the Statesmen and military leaders of the day, but that cannot detract from the fact that the "house divided" quote is permanently linked to President Lincoln.
Just look at AZ Gov. Brewers recent behavior toward a sitting President. The complete lack of respect for the man in the office, and for the office itself is a very dangerous and destructive force in American politics. As long as our politicians are getting their inspiration from hate speach pouring out of Talk Radio, this destructive behavior is only going to continue to escalate.
im not saying she shouldnt respect the office but respecting the office and running her own state are very different things. I believe she feels that Obama is trying to usurp her elected authority and make her position useless via federal law.
i cant really know whats in the womans heart but she is acting like she personally has been attacked. Immigration in that state is a huge issue that has huge implications. the obama administration has all but fully endorsed the boycott on the state over the laws that were passed there. that isnt exactly non-partisan or encouraging the states to run things the way their elected officials see fit.
there was a time in this country where people referred to our nation as "these united states" implying an amount of sovereignty within the states, not "the united stated" implying one large over powering government.
(if i am not mistaken, this was during a 2008 campaign speech. there was a deliberate pause after/during a remark about McCain and a purposeful face scratch. had a Similar moment in the primaries while discussing HR Clinton. If i rememer correctly at least one of them got crowd reaction too.)
hows that for behavior, or respect for the office he is running for?
i dont think the tarmac finger waving moment was that bad. and quite frankly neither was the giving the bird moment. we are all people when it comes down to it. we all need to lighten up.
The noted Civil War Historian Shelby Foote accurately summs up the results of that conflict by stating' "Before the war, it was common to say "The United States are...", wheras after the war, people say "The United States is...". After the Civil War, the United States finally threw off the assumption of a Confederation of Soverign states, and became a single Nation of United States. God Bless the United States of America.
I do not want to return to a time when the US saw itself as a Confederation, but many conservative voices, not surprisingly from the South, want to take us back there.
interesting.
my state and local government should have more influence over my life than the federal level. why? because i have more influence over them.
the federal government shouild be there for only one thing:
to protect the rights of the individual
they should not be there to run my state. they should not be there to run my community, and they should not be there to run me.
if the federal government rules all and the local and state run nothing, what is the point of having them?
i am not saying we should dissolve the Union, or that the south "should rise again" or any of that. All i am saying is that the states need to have a good level of sovereignty or they (the states) become nothing more than voter districts for presidential campaigns.
this move to a more and more powerful centralized government is leading us away from what a good government is supposed to do. The more power that is in the hands of the Federal Government, the less power that in the hands of the people, or individuals.
Here are two examples of how I believe State authorities have completely failed to protect the individual:
1) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is federal legislation that finally protected the rights of individuals from State authorities that permitted and nurtured institutionalized racism and discrimination against minority populations in those States. This institutionaized racism was well supported by many, and im most cases, even a majority of the "local community". Federal authority was required to end it once and for all.
2) We used to have usury laws in the US, which regulated the amount of interest that banks could charge their customers. Those laws protected the individual from predatory banking practices, but they have been eliminated as part of banking de-regulation. That de-regulation allows large investment banks and credit card companies and pay-day loan sharks to levy high interest rates on the individuals who have to pay these interest rates. It also allows them to operate National businesses (which operate throughout the country) but subject them to State regulation where they are “headquartered”. Therefore, the State authority that allows these business practices are failing to protect the individual, because they are more interested in protecting the corporate banks that operate in their borders than the individuals who are subjected to their busines practices.
Don't get me wrong, I do not believe the Feds should have as much control as they do now, especially with much of the regulatory powers they currently weild. But it's not all bad, either. Generally speaking, I am fairly Libertairian when it comes to regulation of personal behavior (with exceptions), but pretty much will follow TR, Truman, and Eisenhower when it concerns regulation of our economic structure.
I will respect your decision going forward.
the first example is a great example of what i was talking about. the government's job is to protect the rights of the individual. that 100% does that. that is what the federal government should be for. But, the states should be given the opportunity to let the community decide what is best for them FIRST.
"predatory banking" is a very different subject. it is the responsibility of the person signing the loan/lease/agreement to know and understand what they are getting into.
it is also the Banks responsibility to disclose all information pertaining to the loan/lease/agreement. if the bank does not, then it is predatory banking and the government should step in and protect the individual.
if they DO disclose all information, and the person still agrees to it, then it is the individual that is at fault. if i agree to pay 75% (or any other "crazy" interest rate) on a credit card/loan/lease if X,Y, or Z conditions occur, and i let X,Y, and Z conditions occur, it is not the bank's fault. it is mine. i signed a contract.
i cannot stress this enough:
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT 100% or else you should not sign. also, when i sign a contract, if i am unable to fulfill the terms of the contract, it is my fault and my fault alone that i did not fulfill those terms, even it the terms are "unreasonable. "
i signed it. i agreed to it. this is called "personal responsibility" and it is something that we have lost over the years. so you believe that it is ok to violate the rights of the individual when it comes to economic structure?
Greece, Ireland, and Spain have already gone bankrupt and had to be bailed out due to the outrageous amount of debt and government spending that goes on in Europe. Now, the survival of socialism and country bailouts lies solely on Germany's shoulders and I suspect that they'll collapse under the weight of that burden within the next few years.
Not only that, most of the laws being passed in Europe aren't even from elected officials anymore. Every year, there are more and more administrators and other bureaucrats are put in power that no one elects in order to regulate and litigate. The people no longer have much, if any say in what laws are inposed on them because these unelected bureaucrats are not held accountable by the voters of any one nation in Europe. Even with the crumbling European economy and governments, by far, the most worthless currency in Europe is the vote.
What scares me the most is that by examining the patterns of behavior in the US federal government over the past few decades, that's the direction we're heading into. The political elite are scrambling for more power and more control over our lives, all the while promoting class and racial warfare to distract the voters from guarding their own personal rights. A lot of people on the left say "keep money away from politics". I say "keep politics away from money and our rights".
You are assuming that I do not want: "to becvome a nation where the community around you decides what is best for the community? "
This is known as setting up a "a straw man" so you can punch holes in it; a classic example. You assume that I do not want something, and set out to prove why I am wrong not to want that something. The kicker is that you don't have any idea what I think about your assumption, therefore, your conclusions are just based on your own projections.
"...so you believe that it is ok to violate the rights of the individual when it comes to economic structure?..."
This is another assumption on your part about what I beleive, and you are again setting up a straw man argument, because this is what you WANT me to believe, even though you have no evidence of what I actually do believe.
Let me be clear. If you wish to discuss an issue logically and civily, I will be happy to accomodate. However, I am not interested discussing anything with anyone who insists on inserting words into my mouth, or assumes what I believe, without evidence. You are entitled to your views and beliefs, but never assume that you know what I think, or what conclusions I will draw from any given set of facts. If I wish to do so, I will inform you of my conclusions, and the logic I used to arrive at any given conclusion, but it is insulting and disrespectful for you to continue to assume that you can attribute words and ideas to me.
Regarding your views on the usury laws and banking regulations; we will just have to agree to disagree, because I do not believe there is sufficient common ground on which to form a discussion.
the systems that you said you tend to follow when it comes to economic policy are those of Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower. There are many policies that those men stared, expanded, or took part in that one could make a good argument infringed on the rights of the individual and i was asking you about that.
please, stop thinking that i am doing nothing more than trying to understand where you are coming from when i ask questions. i am not trying to start a fight, or say you are wrong. i am asking questions and i am interjecting my own opinion here and there.
i was trying to have a conversation with you and ask you questions. every time i ask a question you are assuming it is to get the upper hand in the conversation.
there is only one problem: there is no upper hand here.
i am not trying to prove you wrong. i am simply trying to understand where you are coming from in more detail than you are giving.
You can assume what you want about my line of questioning. but you have no evidence to show that i am trying to make you look bad, or what my intentions are. you sir are the one putting word im my mouth. i was asking an honest question.
you seem to say that to a lot of people when presented with a difficult topic that is the polar opposite of what you have been stating. i am very interested in what you have to say on the subject. dont stifle yourself because we may not have "enough common ground"
you may surprise me, be surprised by me, surprise yourself, or even surprise yourself.
To begin with, I really enjoy this forum. The people who frequent this place are funny, generous, and polite, something rare on the internet these days. Therefore, I have a lot of respect for the people who use this site. It also helps that we hall have something concrete in common.
Secondly, I am convinced beyond all doubt that the “liberal-conservative” debate currently raging in the US presents the largest danger to the Republic we’ve faced since the 1850’s. This country is polarized to the point that rational political discussion is damn near impossible. I view this as a clear and present danger to the Republic, because I believe there are very powerful forces at work in this country that WANT US TO BE DIVIDED so that their agendas can be accomplished, to the great detriment of the vast majority of Americans.
Thirdly, I have witnessed, and been part of, too many internet political discussions that inevitably degenerate to the point that it just becomes a lot of name-calling, and a repeat of whatever yesterdays talk show hosts were raging about. I have too much respect for this forum to become involved in that kind of discussion here. I am not interested in going there, and I will not go there.
Therefore, I have set rules for myself.
I will respectfully agree to disagree with someone if I see no way to establish common ground on any given issue. I am open to discussing issues if they are based in proven fact, or established economic theory, or in the facts of history, but I won’t engage in discussions that revolve around emotional responses, or talk-show rhetoric. (With all due respect, I believe that there is no basis whatsoever to claim that the EU’s current economic problems are rooted in Socialism, and I will not even go there.) I have no need to defend my positions, because I am secure in them, and I do not believe that anyone I would be holding a “discussion” with would change their mind. I don’t want to engage in these discussions to pontificate and to rattle off “what I believe”. I’d rather talk about facts.
So you see, it is out of tremendous respect for the members of this forum that I will agree to disagree on any given issue. I choose to do this in the name of civility, in an effort to maintain civility.
We have a class war already, and it was actually started in the 70's and really kicked into gear in the 80's when the "trickle down" theory of economics blew up in everyone's faces but the upper-crust when none of the money actually "trickled down." We now have a larger gap between the haves and have nots than any country in Europe, and it's getting worse. Our President had nothing to do with this, but he does have to deal with it despite a majority in both houses who still believe that the "trickle" in the trickle down theory is anything more than the rich peeing on the middle class.
Oh, and he is not the only one to blame for the bickering. We have a Congress right now full of candidates who ran on the belief that government doesn't work and now are trying to prove it by saying no to everything. It's a two way street, my friend, one where Mr. Obama is actually trying, at least sometimes, to meet in the middle and is getting stepped on every inch of the way.
"well unforgivably, our "Commander and Chief..."
President Obama has demonstrated that he is highly capable of being our Commander in Chief. Bin Laden is dead. The Joint chiefs advised that a drone strike be used in th eBin Ladin raid, but Obama chose Seal team 6. He chose correctly. He promised to end our involvement in Iraq, and he lived up to his promise. He was correct in our use of military force in Lybia. He leadership and choices have allowed our security forces to successfully engaged in several rescue missions against Somali pirates. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is fully capable of making the right decisions regarding our use of military forces abroad. Those who continue to claim that he is not up to the task only discredit themselves.
Lots of folks don't see it this way, but when we prop up unpopular oppresive regimes, WE get labelled the enemy. Something like; "We would have gotten so-and-so out of power, but the Americans stopped us", then their populations hate us (us, not "our freedoms") and we end up with organizations dedicated to causing us problems.
Oddly enough, again there is a link to Ron Paul type thinking here, in that we are better off supporting democracy than dictatorships, and we are better off setting a good example than supporting the status quo.
I cannot leave it just at this, however, without adding that I agree with Wwhang to a degree concerning some of the problems in Europe, primarily that of having laws made and enforced by agencies not directly accountable to the people. It is my hope that Obama is adult enough, and sincere enough, to realize this as well. It my certainty that Nancy Pelosi would completely support exactly the situation I fear. This is my fear concerning Obama, that he will eventually succumb, (or revert?) to the Pelosi type of thinking.
It keeps me up at night! JDH, thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate your positions, and your dedication to keeping it civil!