Obama's to take 20-day Hawaiin vacation on YOUR MONEY

[xfire]

I love how people love to mention stuff like this, knowing full well the parties switched sides and ideology during the Southern Strategy in the late 60s.

More accurately, all the racists and assholes left the Democratic party and flocked to the GOP.

 

[walridge]

They are told the Southern Democrat story by Fox News, Fox News not telling them that the Southern Democrats became Southern Republicans. In other words, they are ignorant of American history outside what they are told by Fox News.

 

[Rattrap]

Good thing this country is slowly but surely becoming more and more of a democratic nation. As the older generations die off, who are stuck in their old timer ways of judgments, discrimination, and unreasonable manners and behaviors, the newer generations, who are open to change, will thrive.

It's a shame we have to wait for a generation or two to die off to speed up progress, but it's nonetheless true. It is happening, though - as my one or two attempts at having a real discussion with georges showed (lesson learned), our generation (that is, mine and Harley's, not to assume anybody else's age) is more open- and civic-minded and less criminal than any of the older living generations - despite what the crotchety older generations might complain of. I can only hope the next generation will improve on that.

 

[Harley Spencer]

It's a shame we have to wait for a generation or two to die off to speed up progress, but it's nonetheless true. It is happening, though - as my one or two attempts at having a real discussion with georges showed (lesson learned), our generation (that is, mine and Harley's, not to assume anybody else's age) is more open- and civic-minded and less criminal than any of the older living generations - despite what the crotchety older generations might complain of. I can only hope the next generation will improve on that.

Totally agreed. If you watched the statistics of percentages of different groups of people who voted dems vs. reps after the election, everything I thought before the election rang true. Obama has the majority of immigrants, majority of blacks, majority of women, majority of gays. It also showed the percentages of age who voted, and the older the age, the less who voted for him. The differences were very gradual. As the ages went up, that was more people who voted republican.

I wouldn't necessarily say the older generations are/were more criminal than younger generations. If anything it might be the opposite. But it is true that the majority of older folks are more conservative.

 

[StanScratch]

Hmm.. I kinda wish that Romney had won the election so that when he fucked up (as he inevitably would) and didn't improve this country any better than anyone else would, at least some of the republicans MIGHT see that Obama wasn't so bad.

But no. Sadly, no. Logic and reason are a completely foreign language to republicans.

Good thing this country is slowly but surely becoming more and more of a democratic nation. As the older generations die off, who are stuck in their old timer ways of judgments, discrimination, and unreasonable manners and behaviors, the newer generations, who are open to change, will thrive. I'm tellin ya, in 30 years I will come back here and say, "Told you so!"

Had Romney won, and when he would have failed, the Republicans would have simply blamed it on Obama policies.

 

[lurkingdirk]

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of generations. The Democrats and Republicans totally flip-flopped who represented what after the middle of the last century. Initially, the Democrats were the group that espoused Christian Americans, but as the extreme right began to emerge, the Republican party started to play to them, and the parties flip flopped. I know quite a lot of very moderately minded, Conservative leaning people my own age who are tortured about who they should vote for. Their parents have always voted Republican, straight down the line, and that's the political mindset with which they grew up. Therefore, they inherently tend to want to vote that way. However, they are so displeased with the current party, they can not vote that way.

The long and short of it is that both parties, perhaps more pressingly for the Republicans, need complete reform.

 

[twat36975248664224]

It's a shame we have to wait for a generation or two to die off to speed up progress, but it's nonetheless true. It is happening, though - as my one or two attempts at having a real discussion with georges showed (lesson learned), our generation (that is, mine and Harley's, not to assume anybody else's age) is more open- and civic-minded and less criminal than any of the older living generations - despite what the crotchety older generations might complain of. I can only hope the next generation will improve on that.

Jon Stewart said it best on The Daily Show, "It was the best of times, it was the best of times" bit.

 

[Rattrap]

I wouldn't necessarily say the older generations are/were more criminal than younger generations. If anything it might be the opposite. But it is true that the majority of older folks are more conservative.

Ah, it's a shame my links with the aforementioned debate with georges aren't any good any more. In lieu of, here are a couple and an amendment to my last statement*:
Criminals and violent offenders getting older and older… not “younger”

And:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/teens.cfm

Offending rates for children under age 14 increased in the late 1980's and early 1990's, but fell to the lowest level recorded in 2003.

And for my amendment*:

Young adults (18-24 years -old) have historically had the highest offending rates and their rates nearly doubled from 1985 to 1993. Since 1993 offending rates for 18-24 year-olds have declined but remain slightly higher than levels prior to the mid 1980's.

So the last two generations, then.

It's important to note that this sort of crime has been trending downward for everybody over time - but my statement that our generation had less violent youth than the previous still holds. Although these numbers look just at homicide specifically...my original post on this was better: http://board.freeones.com/showthrea...t-generation&p=2191545&viewfull=1#post2191545 (and the link to volunteering statistics is still good!).

 

[CptHa]

Perks of the job. Anyone with half a brain and a functioning knowledge of the US Constitution knows Congress controls the purse strings.

 

[Rey C.]

Hmm.. I kinda wish that Romney had won the election so that when he fucked up (as he inevitably would) and didn't improve this country any better than anyone else would, at least some of the republicans MIGHT see that Obama wasn't so bad.

But no. Sadly, no. Logic and reason are a completely foreign language to republicans.

Good thing this country is slowly but surely becoming more and more of a democratic nation. As the older generations die off, who are stuck in their old timer ways of judgments, discrimination, and unreasonable manners and behaviors, the newer generations, who are open to change, will thrive. I'm tellin ya, in 30 years I will come back here and say, "Told you so!"

Had Romney won, and when he would have failed, the Republicans would have simply blamed it on Obama policies.

Both: :clap:

Yes, that's exactly what would have happened. The GOP has basically lost its intellectual base now (people like Jack Kemp) and it's been replaced by a base of people like Michele Bachmann, Sarah P@lin and Rush Limbaugh.

Romney was clearly not up to this job. As more info comes out, he seems even goofier than many of us suspected. But as he wallowed in failure and drove us into a recession or depression, people like Bachmann, Palin, Limbaugh and the Kooky Krazy Kids over at TEA Party Express Central (Fox News) would have simply revised history and placed the blame on Obama... never mentioning their other boy, George W. Bush. In fact, just as she did with Hoover and Roosevelt, Bachmann would have claimed that Bush's policies were actually things that Obama did. She is so special... in a special education kind of way.

 

[Harley Spencer]

Both: :clap:

Yes, that's exactly what would have happened. The GOP has basically lost its intellectual base now (people like Jack Kemp) and it's been replaced by a base of people like Michele Bachmann, Sarah P@lin and Rush Limbaugh.

Romney was clearly not up to this job. As more info comes out, he seems even goofier than many of us suspected. But as he wallowed in failure and drove us into a recession or depression, people like Bachmann, Palin, Limbaugh and the Kooky Krazy Kids over at TEA Party Express Central (Fox News) would have simply revised history and placed the blame on Obama... never mentioning their other boy, George W. Bush. In fact, just as she did with Hoover and Roosevelt, Bachmann would have claimed that Bush's policies were actually things that Obama did. She is so special... in a special education kind of way.

You know what I really love? How so many republicans claim that Obama doesn't do anything, that he hasn't done anything to improve this country, that they want a man with a plan. The thing is, and what they're too stupid to realize, is that he does have a plan and he does have policies he wants to enforce, but the problem is, how can he get anything done when he has a bunch of republicans in congress who don't let him get anything done?

Having a two party system has its flaws. Since republicans and democrats have very opposing views, nothing gets done because no one can ever agree on anything. I think we need a royal family like some other countries. A family starting with someone who works and there is no more silly voting. Everyone thinks they know what's best, everyone has their own opinion, but nothing can get done if all everyone does is argue about it and the person in charge isn't able to implement any policy because no one will let him. Am I right?

 

[darkwarrior3007]

No to the royal family, yes to a third party.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

As someone who is lurking these threads because he isn't American and therefore keeps out of these debates, you guys just mentioned something that intrigues me a lot. Why hasn't your country evolved to a political system with more than two parties? They are too much opposite of each other, and I'm sure there are enough people who are somewhere in the "middle", so why isn't there any other party strong enough to compete with Republicans and Democrats? I don't get that. Are their really only two kind of views in the US strong enough, so that not even another party can get to that level to compete? I find that very weird. If someone cares to elaborate, feel free to explain.

 

[bobjustbob]

You know what I really love? How so many republicans claim that Obama doesn't do anything, that he hasn't done anything to improve this country, that they want a man with a plan. The thing is, and what they're too stupid to realize, is that he does have a plan and he does have policies he wants to enforce, but the problem is, how can he get anything done when he has a bunch of republicans in congress who don't let him get anything done?

Having a two party system has its flaws. Since republicans and democrats have very opposing views, nothing gets done because no one can ever agree on anything. I think we need a royal family like some other countries. A family starting with someone who works and there is no more silly voting. Everyone thinks they know what's best, everyone has their own opinion, but nothing can get done if all everyone does is argue about it and the person in charge isn't able to implement any policy because no one will let him. Am I right?

You've got that right. It's the fucking Congress. Every 2 years these folks come up for reelection and 90% of them get back in. They spend their time trying to get reelected rather than making the people's voices heard. The President can only sign what is put on his desk. Sure he railroaded the health care bill that I don't like. But after that the congress went to sleep.

I like what he did after the election. Fiscal Cliff was something that didn't just pop up after the elections. They knew about it well beforehand. Neither side addressed it during the campaigns. The Right could have put together a plan to keep all taxpayers safe from the Bush tax expiration. But no. They better spend their time trying to keep their seats. Now their asses are against the walls. No plan to save the over $250k earners. I want all of the Bush cuts to stay but that just isn't going to happen now. Thank you Republicans. I vote for you and you deliver shit.

 

[StanScratch]

You know what I really love? How so many republicans claim that Obama doesn't do anything, that he hasn't done anything to improve this country, that they want a man with a plan. The thing is, and what they're too stupid to realize, is that he does have a plan and he does have policies he wants to enforce, but the problem is, how can he get anything done when he has a bunch of republicans in congress who don't let him get anything done?

Having a two party system has its flaws. Since republicans and democrats have very opposing views, nothing gets done because no one can ever agree on anything. I think we need a royal family like some other countries. A family starting with someone who works and there is no more silly voting. Everyone thinks they know what's best, everyone has their own opinion, but nothing can get done if all everyone does is argue about it and the person in charge isn't able to implement any policy because no one will let him. Am I right?

Of course, the same people who complain that Obama hasn't done a thing also say that Obama is quickly moving us towards a Socialist state. He must be practicing voodoo or something to get all of that not done.

 

[CobraCom]

Of course, the same people who complain that Obama hasn't done a thing also say that Obama is quickly moving us towards a Socialist state. He must be practicing voodoo or something to get all of that not done.

This is why I lump them together as either idiots or racists to varying degrees. It's convenient for the base of the last president, who took far more vacation time proportionally to working days than Obama has, to suddenly claim that our current president is "lazy" and "not too bright" (HINT HINT FOX NEWS AUDIENCE, HE'S BLACK AND SLEEPS A LOT, PUT IT TOGETHER) or alternatively that even the modest, to some of us liberals weak, reforms to stuff like health care and banking, mean that he's some wannabe socialist dictator (which, puh-lease, Obama couldn't get elected in almost any of the European social democracies besides Britain, where he'd likely be in the conservative party!).

We can have an argument about what policies we should or shouldn't pursue, but the baselessness and viciousness of this class of attack tell me the people hurling them are not worth addressing except as the hateful ignoramuses they are.

 

[CobraCom]

Of course, the same people who complain that Obama hasn't done a thing also say that Obama is quickly moving us towards a Socialist state. He must be practicing voodoo or something to get all of that not done.

As someone who is lurking these threads because he isn't American and therefore keeps out of these debates, you guys just mentioned something that intrigues me a lot. Why hasn't your country evolved to a political system with more than two parties? They are too much opposite of each other, and I'm sure there are enough people who are somewhere in the "middle", so why isn't there any other party strong enough to compete with Republicans and Democrats? I don't get that. Are their really only two kind of views in the US strong enough, so that not even another party can get to that level to compete? I find that very weird. If someone cares to elaborate, feel free to explain.

Contrary to high-minded love of our "adaptive" Constitution, the American political system is remarkably resilient (or, giving it less credit, hostile) to change. The party mechanics at work today developed over more than a century ago and have only really changed with evolving cultural and technological adjustments to their makeup---the ideologies themselves are incredibly reminiscent of the same ones at odds at the nation's founding. It's a clash of our most fundamental differing philosophies that the Constitution sought to balance out (strong v weak government, federalism or republic, branches, intervention/management of the economy v laissez-faire preference, etc). That said, the biggest structural reason we have the system we do is the first-past-the-post federal elections system, especially when combined with gerrymandering. By doing that, the party establishments retain a degree of safety and really only compete over a shifting and permanently precarious balance of power. Previously, because of the ingrained precedent of compromise from the founding, this worked out alright, but we are back to where we were in the antebellum days, hyper-partisan and convinced "the other side" is the enemy (and I don't claim complete exemption from this mentality).

So basically, since our system is so old and so very entrenched, it hasn't changed the way we elect representatives or the way their power concentrates; consequently, even though attitudes have changed, the two-party system has not. Moving to a blind-redistricting, proportional representation system, even in just the House, would do a lot, in my view, to upend that status quo.

 

[Harley Spencer]

As someone who is lurking these threads because he isn't American and therefore keeps out of these debates, you guys just mentioned something that intrigues me a lot. Why hasn't your country evolved to a political system with more than two parties? They are too much opposite of each other, and I'm sure there are enough people who are somewhere in the "middle", so why isn't there any other party strong enough to compete with Republicans and Democrats? I don't get that. Are their really only two kind of views in the US strong enough, so that not even another party can get to that level to compete? I find that very weird. If someone cares to elaborate, feel free to explain.

We actually do have more than two parties, it's just that only the republican and democratic parties ever make it to the last two standing candidates. There are other smaller parties, which are independent and libertarian parties, which you can look up online or in a history book. The problem with the other parties is that they mainly only stand for a small number of issues or policies, without voicing much about many of the issues the two leading parties do. There's the Green Party, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party next to the Republican and Democrat parties as the major ones. There is a pretty long list of smaller independent parties. See this link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

But like i said, the problem with those parties is that most of them support one or two main topics, not making it to election.