-
[QUOTE=waterdog101;502112]he isn't the only one that wants him to fail, Mitch McConnell said from day one of Obama being elected, and the economy crashing, and people losing their homes and jobs. that his number one Priority, was to make Obama a one term President. how can the man get anything done, when having to work with people with that kind of mind set.[/QUOTE]
Are you all really that naive? The goal of every opposition party since George Washington has been to make the incumbent a one-term president.
-
[QUOTE=waterdog101;502112]he isn't the only one that wants him to fail, Mitch McConnell said from day one of Obama being elected, and the economy crashing, and people losing their homes and jobs. that his number one Priority, was to make Obama a one term President. how can the man get anything done, when having to work with people with that kind of mind set.[/QUOTE]
--
I'm not a fan of Mr. Obama but the form of government we have has allowed us to live in what I believe to be the best country on the planet to live in and somewhere in our history the wisdom to believe we would benefit from a two party system was seen by our political predecessors and I doubt Mr. Limbaugh or anybody like him either from the left or the right has a positive effect on our country but for somebody to want a failed presidency is just plain wrong and I agree, Mr. McConnell should have better things to do than to work toward a defeat of the president which is 4 years down the road... Being at each others throats is good for our country as far as our political leaders are concerned but we the citizens of this great nation should not be...
-
[QUOTE=Hlleonard;502115]--
I'm not a fan of Mr. Obama but the form of government we have has allowed us to live in what I believe to be the best country on the planet to live in and somewhere in our history the wisdom to believe we would benefit from a two party system was seen by our political predecessors and I doubt Mr. Limbaugh or anybody like him either from the left or the right has a positive effect on our country but for somebody to want a failed presidency is just plain wrong and I agree, Mr. McConnell should have better things to do than to work toward a defeat of the president which is 4 years down the road... Being at each others throats is good for our country as far as our political leaders are concerned but we the citizens of this great nation should not be...[/QUOTE]
To be accurate, Limbaugh wanted a failed attempt at liberalism, not necessarily a failed presidency. He wanted liberal policies not to be enacted.
As for the wisdom of our political predecessors in establishing the two-party system, I would argue the exact opposite. The two-party system created Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Fox and MSNBC.
And George Washington agrees with me - here's text from his farewell address:
[I]However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."[/I]
And, more to the point:
"[I]The disorders and miseries which result (from the two-party system) gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
[/I] [I]
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
[/I]
[I]It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."[/I]
Rather prophetic, I would say.
-
[QUOTE=waterdog101;502112]he isn't the only one that wants him to fail, Mitch McConnell said from day one of Obama being elected, and the economy crashing, and people losing their homes and jobs. that his number one Priority, was to make Obama a one term President. how can the man get anything done, when having to work with people with that kind of mind set.[/QUOTE]
credibility............you has none.
-
[QUOTE=jcb;502113]Are you all really that naive? The goal of every opposition party since George Washington has been to make the incumbent a one-term president.[/QUOTE]
True, but they have not all come out and said that they were going to make that their one and only priority. What's naive is denying that they refused to do any work in the process, and held the country hostage to this election. But I suppose a better word would be "disingenuous," because you must know it's true.
-
[QUOTE=TimE;502133]credibility............you has none.[/QUOTE] I shouldn't even respond to this, but I have to. I don't know you, Tim E; but I sure wish I was as SMART as you. then I could have me some CREDIBILITY.........
-
[QUOTE=jcb;502127]To be accurate, Limbaugh wanted a failed attempt at liberalism, not necessarily a failed presidency. He wanted liberal policies not to be enacted.
As for the wisdom of our political predecessors in establishing the two-party system, I would argue the exact opposite. The two-party system created Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Fox and MSNBC.
And George Washington agrees with me - here's text from his farewell address:
[I]However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."[/I]
And, more to the point:
"[I]The disorders and miseries which result (from the two-party system) gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
[/I] [I]
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
[/I]
[I]It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."[/I]
Rather prophetic, I would say.[/QUOTE]
I'd say so too. Beautiful command of the English language, and every single word 110% true.
Great post JCB!
-
[QUOTE=jcb;502127]To be accurate, Limbaugh wanted a failed attempt at liberalism, not necessarily a failed presidency. He wanted liberal policies not to be enacted.
As for the wisdom of our political predecessors in establishing the two-party system, I would argue the exact opposite. The two-party system created Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Fox and MSNBC.
And George Washington agrees with me - here's text from his farewell address:
[I]However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."[/I]
And, more to the point:
"[I]The disorders and miseries which result (from the two-party system) gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
[/I] [I]
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
[/I]
[I]It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."[/I]
Rather prophetic, I would say.[/QUOTE]
--
I have heard the argument before about the pros and cons of the two party system and personally I believe there are two sides to every issue and believe our political system has given us a pretty good country to live in, not sure either without the other would have accomplished that... Mr. Washington lived in a different time and might or might not have that same opinion were he alive today, we live in a better country today than the one he lived in... It is possible though, some of you guys might be of the opinion that not everybody should have the right to vote as I believe was the case in Mr. Washington's day.
-
[QUOTE=Hlleonard;502183]--
I have heard the argument before about the pros and cons of the two party system and personally I believe there are two sides to every issue and believe our political system has given us a pretty good country to live in, not sure either without the other would have accomplished that... Mr. Washington lived in a different time and might or might not have that same opinion were he alive today, we live in a better country today than the one he lived in... It is possible though, some of you guys might be of the opinion that not everybody should have the right to vote as I believe was the case in Mr. Washington's day.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely we have made social strides since the 18th century, as the whole world has. But better today? I'm not sure. I am sure that if GW were alive today, he would see how accurate his prediction was; our system is totally corrupt, both parties.
Without the problematic party system, we would be able to vote the man and his track record or ideas. Not that the average voter would take the time to find out. This may sound elitist, but one of the founders' greatest fears about the election process has come true; the outcome is now in the hands of the uninformed.
-
[QUOTE=jcb;502189]Absolutely we have made social strides since the 18th century, as the whole world has. But better today? I'm not sure. I am sure that if GW were alive today, he would see how accurate his prediction was; our system is totally corrupt, both parties.
Without the problematic party system, we would be able to vote the man and his track record or ideas. Not that the average voter would take the time to find out. This may sound elitist, but one of the founders' greatest fears about the election process has come true; the outcome is now in the hands of the uninformed.[/QUOTE]
Agreed uninformed but also ill-informed.
-
[QUOTE=DJD;502190]Agreed uninformed but also ill-informed.[/QUOTE]
True dat.
-
Obama has a shakey past...no one knows for sure where he's from....Barack HUSSEIN Obama....he's a Muslim! We have an honest to goodness Muslim at the helm of this country. You all keep on hoping all you want....this country is going down the tubes!!
I'm done with politics....I ain't for the left or right either one...and this country cannot survive if the republicans sole purpose in life is to oust the democrats from office...this country is in no shape to be arguing about left verses right. Who cares about left verses right? I gaurantee you I don't.
It's very hard to believe that this country couldn't come together as one and vote for anyone at anytime instead of a Muslim....a MUSLIM?!!!!! My gawd man, people who support that baffoon really are in desparate need of a reality check. One things for sure....the one's who re-elected that presidential retard back into office are going to go down the tubes with those of us who didn't.
