14
   

Countdown to the end of Obama's presidency.

 
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 07:58 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



Many people could do a better job than Barack Hussein Obama.
If that is true, and I doubt it not even a little, just let them try to get elected without the aid of people to whom they must promise much that can only be delivered by the people whether or not they voted for them... It is like Newt being helped by a Jewish man who has made himself a stinkard to many where he owns a hotel and casino, an expects for his millions what Newt promises: Unqualified Support of Israel... Why is it, that such people acting clearly for the benefit of a foreign country, who can steer the whole country in to actions unlikely to benefit it at all do not have to show their true colors, but can pretend to be an American rather than a foreign agent??? And how can we elect instead of prosecute for treason such people who will sell out our interests in advance for a few paltry millions... I understand such people give millions to campaigns when they plead poverty at tax time... IN relative terms we are being sold out for a nickle and not even thirty pieces of silver, and we see none of it... No one can show a benefit to the people of this country for all that is spent on elections... Even you might agree that not the best person gets elected, but the one with the longest line of credit....
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 08:02 am
@H2O MAN,
You didn't dispute the statement that you are a communist, so it must be true.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 08:10 am
@Fido,


It's absolutely true.

From the gutter to Obama is not up.
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 08:12 am
@parados,



Parasite, please tell me that you are one of Obama's campaign advisors.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 09:02 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

Fido, I just want to be sure I understand your response to me, so a few questions more, if I may.

Quote:
In this day and age, there is no reason we should not be electing the cabinate, or the Supreme Court…


We are electing our representatives, senators, and president…and you think we are doing a lousy job of that. Now you are suggesting that we elect the members of the Supreme Court…and the cabinet of the president.

What is your reasoning there? Why do you think that would help? Why do you think we would do a better job with our power of election there?

****
I must say initially, that “inviting more to the trough” is not something I’ve ever considered before, and I want to give it true consideration, if that is what you are proposing.
It was the house itself in order to make the house more manageable that voted on the last occasion of several to fix its number at the present level... This was done under the power of the parties, and it has empowered no one so much as the parties... Consider what it means to be in the minority in a safe district year after year...The majority of our districts are considered safe, and this is the equal of England's Rotten Bouroughs... How is democracy served by quelling the voices of so many??? It is hard to divide people, and in large states with dispersed populations you might have to gerrymand many zip codes... To have three safe seats you might have to make one seat safe for a minorty by a 40% margin and in the process consistently deny to forty five percent any representation reflecting their concerns or demands...The House was the sole branch of government given freely to the people, and its members should not be able to limit their number because to do so raises their price above the value of their virtue... If we sent thousands of representatives the price of one would never exceed his honor, and yet the price of buying a whole majority of them would be staggering...No one alive could manage the hurt feelings and slights likely from such a mass transaction... When people say it is not the money, but the principal, they mean it is the money, but what it would take to influence such a group against its principals or the will of its electors would likely remind more people of their virtue then cause them to look away from them...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is no reason we should not have a vastly more numerous House of Representatives…


How can having more feeders at the trough possibly help with the problems you are suggesting exist?

One of the major problems we have right now is the great divide between factions. How can (in effect) creating more factions possibly help rather than hurt?

*****
I appreciate your comments on Barack Obama. I agree completely with the statement:
Injustice breeds factions... There were never parties in England until the royalists who were beaten on the battlefield became victorious in the house of commons and went about establishing a state religion which drove many from their pulpets and out of their parishes...

What happened when the house fixed its number so that it did not grow with the population is that each individual representative grew more strong at the expense of the institution and the people who together grew less strong... We do not send those people to Washington to do their business, but to do ours; but since they are able to contrive districts which are divided, it is they who are freed from obediance to our will... If less people sent more, each would hear a clear voice, and then do as he is told, or be ehld accountable... Now, the only clear voice any rep hears is that of party and/or money...In most districts it is only one like them, or more so, more liberal or more reactionary who can push them out in the primary stage of elections so that division grows out of parties which are themselves extra constitutional in nature... It is often difficult enough to draw districts that successfully divide a population into minority and majority groups that will hold till the next drawing of districts...It would be next to impossible to divide groups as small a thirty thousand in any significant fashion...What does it matter if there were twice as many, orten times the number??? It is not the lack of voices and new ideas that government suffers from... The object of money and party, and divided districts is to limit new ideas and voices in government... It is for want of new ideas that the government so often throws to the people sops they do not need and do not ask for... No one can know let alone communicate with 250K people... It might be possible easily to know and vote the concerns of 30K people.... And there is no reason Washington would require a full time effort let alone a staff...There is no reason the states could not be governed as well by their national representatives in double duty, and it would make them more aware of the problems they must solve... It would save money because the corruption of our government, made possible because so few control so much power, and draw so much money- actually costs us billions and billions...Today they are pigs... We could make them men, and then what does it matter if the government is unmanaged??? What would it matter if they make mistakes so long as mistakes can be undone??? Government should be unmanaged and free, able to respond to problems and threats, not so bound up with party and principals that it cannot act for the best....
Quote:
Quote:
No one would likely do better than Mr. Obama and many would do worse..


But then you go on to claim his is not doing some things that you would have preferred to have seen done.l But, Fido, at that point you seem to have completely abandoned the notion that many of those things you wanted done (many of us wanted done) NOBODY could have gotten done.

The obstruction was too great and the obstructionists too determined to ever allow those things to come to fruition.

What a pragmatist must do…is to see what is possible out of the wish list…and obtain as much of that as possible. I think that is exactly what Obama has done.

And that is one of the reasons I want to see him re-elected.

You are welcome to re-elect him... It would be better if democrats showed some spine... The Iraq war would not have been possible, for example if the Democrats had asked: What is really in this for those who elected me??? They knew that to go against the tide, and to really ask hard questions, and to demand reasonable proof that we should attack the whole people of Iraq because they were powerless to rid themselves of a tyrant would have killed their carreers... It would have been easier to make the democrats look unpatriotic than loyal... But, in caring for their own carreers so that Iraqis and our young men could go and die, and so that trillions could be spent in futility was treason, and it is always treason to put yourself before your country's interest...
You see how the republicans can vote to a man against certain Democratic proposals... It is their economy, but they think it will mend itself, and if it will be mended, they will not help the Democrats to mend it... There are times when every person should be willing to put their lives and futures on the line for their country...The problem with Mr. Obama is not the he is a socialist, or too revolutionary; but that he did not go far enough be any means... Why should anyone get a second term for not giving everything to a first term... That is the big mistake they all make, or playing one term for re-election when they will never have a better opportunity than when fresh to do what they see needs to be done...

Those people in government are nice to each other and cruel to the country...The democrats in particular still try to play nice when the republicans win because they do not paly at all... They throw mud till it sticks... They twist every word.. They know everything Karl Rove taught them... It is not about government... It is about having power one way or the other... As John C. Calhoun said: Irresponsible power is inconsistent with liberty, and must corrupt those who exercise it...Who elects people like Rove, and why was he so involved in the office, and in making policy??? Having not enough people in the house elected means that more unelected people will actually be writing the laws, and holding the power... Money gives people the power to explain away their own deeds, and to twist the deeds of others... Money makes government irresponsible...Does anyone think the rich would permit the wars they support and profit from it if they had to fight them and pay for them??? Laying the price of supporting capital on those who know no profit is irresponsible...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 09:21 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



It's absolutely true.

From the gutter to Obama is not up.
It is not a great distance from the sublime to the ridiculous for man or country...The reason, and the only reason I can see that millionaires are allowed high office is that it is unnecessary to corrupt anyone who is bound to support the cause of his class especially if it is the only cause and class he knows... I would like to see presidents go around unarmed as Lincoln and Garfield used to do...

I would like to see Mr. Obama visit alone and unarmed that county in South Dakota where my cousin lives that has not one registered democrat... We could see in short order what calibre of people have their feet on the ground- if not the gutter -in this land... You may liken Mr. Obama to a gutter slut if you wish... We are still free to do so... I would say even more, that he is a sewer rat, and the price of getting anything good out of Washington is to get down in the sewer with all the republicans and rich who run the place... No one ever got a healthy glow and fat from eating corn out of ****; but that is the way of unrepresentative government...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 10:02 am
@Fido,
Quote:
It was the house itself in order to make the house more manageable that voted on the last occasion of several to fix its number at the present level... This was done under the power of the parties, and it has empowered no one so much as the parties... Consider what it means to be in the minority in a safe district year after year...The majority of our districts are considered safe, and this is the equal of England's Rotten Bouroughs... How is democracy served by quelling the voices of so many??? It is hard to divide people, and in large states with dispersed populations you might have to gerrymand many zip codes... To have three safe seats you might have to make one seat safe for a minorty by a 40% margin and in the process consistently deny to forty five percent any representation reflecting their concerns or demands...The House was the sole branch of government given freely to the people, and its members should not be able to limit their number because to do so raises their price above the value of their virtue... If we sent thousands of representatives the price of one would never exceed his honor, and yet the price of buying a whole majority of them would be staggering...No one alive could manage the hurt feelings and slights likely from such a mass transaction... When people say it is not the money, but the principal, they mean it is the money, but what it would take to influence such a group against its principals or the will of its electors would likely remind more people of their virtue then cause them to look away from them...


Well, if you think increasing the numbers in the House will impact positively on American politics, I will take you at your word. Personally, I think it will add chaos on top of chaos.

Quote:
What happened when the house fixed its number so that it did not grow with the population is that each individual representative grew more strong at the expense of the institution and the people who together grew less strong... We do not send those people to Washington to do their business, but to do ours; but since they are able to contrive districts which are divided, it is they who are freed from obediance to our will... If less people sent more, each would hear a clear voice, and then do as he is told, or be ehld accountable... Now, the only clear voice any rep hears is that of party and/or money...In most districts it is only one like them, or more so, more liberal or more reactionary who can push them out in the primary stage of elections so that division grows out of parties which are themselves extra constitutional in nature... It is often difficult enough to draw districts that successfully divide a population into minority and majority groups that will hold till the next drawing of districts...It would be next to impossible to divide groups as small a thirty thousand in any significant fashion...What does it matter if there were twice as many, orten times the number??? It is not the lack of voices and new ideas that government suffers from... The object of money and party, and divided districts is to limit new ideas and voices in government... It is for want of new ideas that the government so often throws to the people sops they do not need and do not ask for... No one can know let alone communicate with 250K people... It might be possible easily to know and vote the concerns of 30K people.... And there is no reason Washington would require a full time effort let alone a staff...There is no reason the states could not be governed as well by their national representatives in double duty, and it would make them more aware of the problems they must solve... It would save money because the corruption of our government, made possible because so few control so much power, and draw so much money- actually costs us billions and billions...Today they are pigs... We could make them men, and then what does it matter if the government is unmanaged??? What would it matter if they make mistakes so long as mistakes can be undone??? Government should be unmanaged and free, able to respond to problems and threats, not so bound up with party and principals that it cannot act for the best....


Once again, if you think getting more people involved in the process would help bring the chaos under control, I accept that you truly feel that way. Personally, I would like to see the number of people in the House halved.

Quote:
You are welcome to re-elect him... It would be better if democrats showed some spine... The Iraq war would not have been possible, for example if the Democrats had asked: What is really in this for those who elected me??? They knew that to go against the tide, and to really ask hard questions, and to demand reasonable proof that we should attack the whole people of Iraq because they were powerless to rid themselves of a tyrant would have killed their carreers... It would have been easier to make the democrats look unpatriotic than loyal... But, in caring for their own carreers so that Iraqis and our young men could go and die, and so that trillions could be spent in futility was treason, and it is always treason to put yourself before your country's interest...
You see how the republicans can vote to a man against certain Democratic proposals... It is their economy, but they think it will mend itself, and if it will be mended, they will not help the Democrats to mend it... There are times when every person should be willing to put their lives and futures on the line for their country...The problem with Mr. Obama is not the he is a socialist, or too revolutionary; but that he did not go far enough be any means... Why should anyone get a second term for not giving everything to a first term... That is the big mistake they all make, or playing one term for re-election when they will never have a better opportunity than when fresh to do what they see needs to be done...

Those people in government are nice to each other and cruel to the country...The democrats in particular still try to play nice when the republicans win because they do not paly at all... They throw mud till it sticks... They twist every word.. They know everything Karl Rove taught them... It is not about government... It is about having power one way or the other... As John C. Calhoun said: Irresponsible power is inconsistent with liberty, and must corrupt those who exercise it...Who elects people like Rove, and why was he so involved in the office, and in making policy??? Having not enough people in the house elected means that more unelected people will actually be writing the laws, and holding the power... Money gives people the power to explain away their own deeds, and to twist the deeds of others... Money makes government irresponsible...Does anyone think the rich would permit the wars they support and profit from it if they had to fight them and pay for them??? Laying the price of supporting capital on those who know no profit is irresponsible...


I cannot re-elect him by myself, but I do feel that his re-election is the best possible outcome of the coming November election. The only other realistic scenario that I can see is having his Republican opponent elected…which I see as a less welcome outcome. If you see things otherwise, I guess you will have to vote for the Republican…stay home and not vote…or essentially waste your vote on a third party candidate.

Thanks for responding.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 10:06 am


The #1 positive outcome of Novembers presidential election will be the prevention of an Obama 2nd term.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 10:07 am
@H2O MAN,
I think the #1 positive is that Obama's reelection will give Limbaugh and Hannity another 4 years of telling the slobbering how bad he is.


You should really wear a towel Spurt.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 10:23 am
@parados,


How bad he was and how much better things are now that he's gone.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 02:59 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I am certain that the people thought of a highly representative body as a given in the constitution, and the fact that for a time the house held to the ratio of representatives to citizens... As far as chaos goes, I think two things will happen... People will follow their leaders as far as they can, and those with charisma will manage those without, and ultimately, if the rep wants the job, he will represent the needs of his electors with fidelity... Today, because districts are divided they are also ruled, and only the representative is free, because , wheter he votes right or left, he can say he is representing, and even when he goes against all he is free to say he voted on principal... Representatives are there to represent, and they are not entitled to principal, and if they disagree with their districts they should first try to bring their districts to reason, and educate them, and then, either vote as told, or resign... There is no place for principals... They are errand boys... And they should be numerous, but there should be no person working for them... There are too many with great power without accountability working in the house... Everyone there ought to be there for a purpose and with portfolio... Agreement is not the problem, after all... Whole stadiums of people can agree on who won or lost the game... The point is to decide what must be done based upon facts rather than upon precidence...It is no place for idealism, or principals... It is a gd job...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 03:00 pm
@H2O MAN,
I will promise to vote republican if you promise to suicide if Mr. Obama retains the job he has done at least as well and Mr. Bush...
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 03:13 pm
@Fido,
Quote:

I am certain that the people thought of a highly representative body as a given in the constitution, and the fact that for a time the house held to the ratio of representatives to citizens... As far as chaos goes, I think two things will happen... People will follow their leaders as far as they can, and those with charisma will manage those without, and ultimately, if the rep wants the job, he will represent the needs of his electors with fidelity... Today, because districts are divided they are also ruled, and only the representative is free, because , wheter he votes right or left, he can say he is representing, and even when he goes against all he is free to say he voted on principal... Representatives are there to represent, and they are not entitled to principal, and if they disagree with their districts they should first try to bring their districts to reason, and educate them, and then, either vote as told, or resign... There is no place for principals... They are errand boys... And they should be numerous, but there should be no person working for them... There are too many with great power without accountability working in the house... Everyone there ought to be there for a purpose and with portfolio... Agreement is not the problem, after all... Whole stadiums of people can agree on who won or lost the game... The point is to decide what must be done based upon facts rather than upon precidence...It is no place for idealism, or principals... It is a gd job...


Fido, I admire your tenacity, but I think you are being grossly unrealistic. I work with 20 other men and women. My guess is to properly “represent” those individuals, it would require close to 20 representatives. I know of no community…or easily defined district in New Jersey whose desires and wants could adequately be represented by less than several dozen individuals…and even if we were to require that individuals focus their wants into one of two camps…geography would require district populations of 10 or less in order to insure reasonable representation of all the people rather than just a bare majority.

True democracy, which is where you are heading…is one of the worst forms of government imaginable. It stinks; it doesn’t work for populations of more than several hundred or less.

We disagree here completely. I think we should have fewer representatives…not more. And even with fewer, a few natural leaders will rise to the top and set the agenda. Most of the others will simply vote for or against proposals of the few leaders.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 03:48 pm
@Fido,


I'll assist in your suicide per your request.
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 05:52 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



I'll assist in your suicide per your request.
No rush... I was planning to get shot while escaping but I have decided to die of Ennui...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2012 06:27 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

I am certain that the people thought of a highly representative body as a given in the constitution, and the fact that for a time the house held to the ratio of representatives to citizens... As far as chaos goes, I think two things will happen... People will follow their leaders as far as they can, and those with charisma will manage those without, and ultimately, if the rep wants the job, he will represent the needs of his electors with fidelity... Today, because districts are divided they are also ruled, and only the representative is free, because , wheter he votes right or left, he can say he is representing, and even when he goes against all he is free to say he voted on principal... Representatives are there to represent, and they are not entitled to principal, and if they disagree with their districts they should first try to bring their districts to reason, and educate them, and then, either vote as told, or resign... There is no place for principals... They are errand boys... And they should be numerous, but there should be no person working for them... There are too many with great power without accountability working in the house... Everyone there ought to be there for a purpose and with portfolio... Agreement is not the problem, after all... Whole stadiums of people can agree on who won or lost the game... The point is to decide what must be done based upon facts rather than upon precidence...It is no place for idealism, or principals... It is a gd job...


Fido, I admire your tenacity, but I think you are being grossly unrealistic. I work with 20 other men and women. My guess is to properly “represent” those individuals, it would require close to 20 representatives. I know of no community…or easily defined district in New Jersey whose desires and wants could adequately be represented by less than several dozen individuals…and even if we were to require that individuals focus their wants into one of two camps…geography would require district populations of 10 or less in order to insure reasonable representation of all the people rather than just a bare majority.

True democracy, which is where you are heading…is one of the worst forms of government imaginable. It stinks; it doesn’t work for populations of more than several hundred or less.

We disagree here completely. I think we should have fewer representatives…not more. And even with fewer, a few natural leaders will rise to the top and set the agenda. Most of the others will simply vote for or against proposals of the few leaders.

Just because democracy is a slow and laborious process does not mean it should not be done... If I were the best of representatives I could not know better than you what you need for you life and happiness... But; if you were charged with some terrible crime, and were hauled into court to find you were charged with twenty other men, would you prefer to stand alone, or with those other men, especially if not guilty??? And would you prefer to share an attorney with all of them, or even another of them if you could have your own representative and council??? The actions of government hold us guilty or find us innocent... What our government does in our name is seldom in our interest... Many foreign friends is better than a vast army, and yet we maintain an army because we alienate so many all over... Yet even wars are not prosecuted for free... Where the carrion is the eagles will gather was once said... People flock for profit and the mere suggestion of death and destruction... My point is, that even where representative government was the most successful, and near term that would be in the Iroquois Confederacy, it was still slow, and deliberate; and ours is slow, and not deliberate, but is constantly driven by necessity to stop-gape measures... If the brains they have, most of which have never stood for election- do not work, then we need to multiply their heads and make each of those heads responsible to some part of the people... Ultimately, we have the technology necessary for each of us to represent ourselves, and so all issues should be laid before the people... And, for any democracy to work, people must know their limits... I have no voice in affairs likely only to affect you... You have no say in my affairs if they have no likelyhood of affecting you... If I should find it necessary to claim a right, you have no right to challenge my right if it, and the exercise of it does not affect your life... We are still allowed all the democracy we want to injure each other and deny essential rights, but we do not have enough democracy to help ourselves and to control all the elements in society without government... WE do not have enough democracy...We have a sham democracy.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2012 07:01 am
@Fido,


'democracy' has no place in the US.
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2012 07:21 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



'democracy' has no place in the US.
I agree that it has no official place, but unofficially it lives in these forums where people have their say, and are not hauled out and hung for them... You see that historically, and pre-historically, as socieities become more wealthy and more divided between rich and poor, that democracy is more and more denied because democracy is a defensive form of social organization, -defensive of individual rights and the defense of the whole community... It is also a defense of poor against rich, and when this democratic defense is destroyed to allow the defeat of the poor by rich the society can defend itself from no one... Look at Socrates' attack on the democracy of Athens... It had its faults... Leaders where decided by lot, and judged after the fact on performance... Their democracy based upon fate and equality could allow the poor to lead the rich into a disasterous war of adventure in hopes of spoils... Yet the rich do the same in this land because there is no democracy worth the name...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/15/2020 at 11:00:34