Commander-in-fear?Follow

Personally I don't think Republicans are working to take down the economy, but I think they are working to undermine the Democrats. They face the obvious right now; they're a minority party, and as their own leadership has admitted, they are in danger of being marginalized and regionalized. I think they're facing the writing on the wall: the stimulus package will go through, and they're wagering it will NOT work (or not work quickly). Therefore they moan and groan and put in an effort to not support it so that when (or if) it fails, they can say "See? We were right."

They don't want America to fail. They just don't want the Democrats to succeed and are doing their best to make everyone know they're going in without their support so that if it falls apart, they can do better in the next election.

Nevermind that the ideas suggested so far by the Republican party do not have any chance of succeeding. They probably know that; they don't expect the Dems to bend and include them. They're trying to offer any alternative, because as long as it isn't taken up, no one can criticize it. A goodly portion of the stimulus is tax breaks that were compromises to the Pubbies; but if it fails, it will still be seen as the Dems' fault.

I am not sure if this is sarcasm or to be taken at face value; either way, it is an interesting statement that I hear a lot from Obama supporters.

I find it fascinating that a man who tells the populace "I am going to fight for you" "I'll protect you" "I'll be looking out for you" "Change we can believe in, and change that will work for YOU" is somehow connected with talking to that same populace as one adult to another. (Unless the citizens of the United States wish to be regarded as damsels in distress, in which case, it makes sense; especially when given some of the more near-orgasmic drivel coming out of the NYT and LAT.)

Looking from the outside, I see a mother bird (Obama) and the nest of squawking infants (the adoring populace) who consistently have their hands/beaks out hoping for a crumb of food. I perceive 'adults' who have no self-respect, no drive, no I'll-frakking-take-care-of-myself attitude. Widows, elderly, orphans, those are entirely aside; I see and hear from and speak to, on a daily basis, people who believe that they cannot do it on their own, that the system is against them all, that only Obama can bring true peace.

I have been told to my face more than once that we, as gamers, or accountants, businessmen, construction workers, stay-at-home parents, or whatever occupation we are in, cannot understand the way things really are, or perceive the way in which Obama works to fix them. Cross-reference Romans 11: 33/34 and replace "The Lord" with "Obama" and you've got it right. The Left has succeeded in convincing the people that they must depend on their government to run their lives and make their decisions, because they are incapable of doing it themselves.

In my lifetime I have never seen among the American people such a degree of sycophantic nonsense, asking for their government to give them things other men and women must work for, and to clap and cheer as the government gives them these things by taking them from others who toil for them. I have never seen "kindness and charity" bubbling over to the point of rendering half the population into a pack of mewling infants sniveling and whining for their next meal. That it is being offered is surprising enough: that we as a nation are ready to accept it is flabbergasting.

We as a nation have no bloody idea how difficult things really are. Americans are spoiled beyond compare, and we will learn this relatively soon, as the Bold New Vision and Change We Can Believe In take their toll on the foundation of the United States. Dissemble and quarrel as much as you will, defend and smear as you see fit; Obama's vision is nothing new or different, it is merely the same as the rest of the Western democracies that stagger under loads they can barely carry, unable to defend against the destructive philosophies that cripple them since they fly under the banner of fairness and enlightenment.

Claiming the moral high ground enables the Left to feed off the voting power of the ignorant; the people who are willing to believe anyone who says they will fight for them, that only they understand what the populace feels, and that they will make it all better if only the nation will trust in them. This is common knowledge by now; indoctrinate from youth, empower the government with a facade of heroism and diligent righteousness of spirit, and build an army from the masses who flock to their champion as he fights the good fight in the name of equality.

It's a lot easier to win votes as opposed to a conservative ideology: your destiny is your own, fight hard, work hard, exercise thrift, be generous in giving, but make no man or woman beholden to you in your charity. Personal responsibility, family-centric values, and a consistent pessimism about the nature of the world outside our borders, because friends, it's a frakking jungle out there, and it wants in.

You want change we can believe in? Take everyone who is in the Senate now, and vote them out in 2010 and 2012. Set term limits and ensure that their can be no gradual buildup of power and influence; constant fresh blood and fresh faces to keep things honest. Actually pursue investigation of criminal conduct among high-end government officials instead of "I call upon so-and-so to resign" or dodging of difficult questions and the consummate slaughter of any accountability on Capitol Hill. When the people remember that we are the United States of America, and what principles we are founded on, only then will our troubles begin to lessen.

But that will never happen, because no one in this era wants to be responsible for themselves.

o.o

I just felt like saying that, so I went ahead and made an account. >.> Howdy-doody, everybody. Long-time lurker, first-time poster.

FFXI Kujata server rocks your socks, by the by.

How are you looking from the outside if you're American?

Personal peeve 1: Don't mix and match topics. Foreign policy did fail, and so did his national policy.



Personal peeve 2: Even though I voted Democratic, I think it is wrong to use stimulus money on non-stimulus items. That said, almost all of the programs proposed also create jobs. Throwing money at something gives it money, so I don't have a problem with most of the stimulus plans even if they are part of an agenda. BUT they should be to make jobs, not for the hell of it.



I don't think he needs to. The news does this quite well. And although I don't like gbaji, it's true that the conditions in this country have been worse than they are now. I think Obama's taking the right approach: it can get SO much worse than it is. It's bad now, but not as bad as it could be. If people don't get that message, then they're not listening to him for some reason (usually because people accuse such predictions as fear-mongering).

So basically, the pubbies want Obama to stand up there and tell people it's patriotic to go shopping. I see.

Not so fast, sparky.

Um... I was talking about what Bush said he'd do in Iraq, and then did in Iraq. And what he promised to do in Afghanistan, and then did in Afghanistan. And what he promised this would do in terms of international terrorism and the safety of US citizens from it, and what happened over the next 7 years. That's what happens when a foreign policy "works". You do the things you set out to do, and the result of those things is what you promised they would be.

You're opposing his foreign policy record with semantics from a debate he was in back in 2000? For the record he said: "I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place.". That's not the same as promising not to do it at all, under any circumstances.

Also. The statement was made in direct response to a question involving Bosnia and how our soldiers had been deployed and used there (or might going forward). The type of "nation building" Bush opposed is the Viet Nam style approach, which Democrats seem to love for some strange reason...



Because it's our money! I find it telling that you seem to view this as "either spend it on foreign wars" *or" "spend it on a bunch of social programs". Um... How about not spending it at all? And let's be clear. We've spent more "new spending" in the first month of Obama's administration than we spent on the entirety of Afghanistan and Iraq over 7 years under Bush. Let's not pretend that there is even close to an equivalence in terms of how this affects taxpayers and our economy.



No. They didn't. Do you recall Obama running on a platform including massive increases in social spending? I didn't.

More specifically, the people are asking Congress and the President to address the current economic crisis. Again. Not a mandate to increase spending massively on pet democrat social projects. They are using the mandate they were given (fix the economy) to do something entirely different. And that mandate is coming from the public out of a fear of the economy.


Hence, that's why it's fear mongering. They are using the fears of the public to do things the public would *never* allow them to do if they weren't so scared in the first place.




Love those clever one-liners, don't you? When will liberals look at the substance of an issue instead of just the surface level "style"?

Huh?

Care to elaborate? I can only speculate as to what definitions of those things make you think that they are oxymoronic when used together.

I was trying to wait to see what her definitions are, but it sure sounds like "personal responsibility" somehow means "do whatever you want with no consequences" to her (or something similar maybe?). Which is kinda the opposite...


But then again, I've seen Obama use the phrase "personal responsibility" to mean the responsibility each citizen has to pay taxes to help fund social spending programs, which I kinda think is "public responsibility", and is a completely different (and again, somewhat opposite) thing.

I never know quite what strange definition someone's using on any given day...

I've seen Republicans use the term "Fiscal Responsibility" to mean borrow more money than every prior president combined.

You have the freedom to choose your own actions, but must also be responsible for those actions.

Sort of like you supporting GOP economic principles and your home's value declining 25%?

Hahahahahahahaha, ahhh. Enjoy the Obama tax cut, by the way.

I have never complained about the drop in my home's value Smash.

You, on the other hand, have some obsession about it...



What tax cut? My taxes will not go down at all under Obama's proposed tax plan. They're likely to go up though.