Fundamental Differences

[Lurker]

We seem to be in basic agreement: the only thing standing in the way of needed reform is the stupidity of the Democratic Party.

Even with all the other obstacles, I can't argue with that.

[Ddrak]

Sarah Palin says it's EEEEEEEVIL!

Dd

[Lurker]

Sarah Palin is a cunt.

Details of what Ddrak is talking about here.

[Harlowe]

We seem to be in basic agreement: the only thing standing in the way of needed reform is the stupidity of the Democratic Party.

I really can't argue with that either. I think Obama is trying, I think he has a huge obstacle just trying to get anything done with his own party, let alone dealing with the craziness he's getting from the Right.

It's a shame, if the Right hadn't handed over the party to the neo-conservatives for some short-term glory, I feel they would be the stronger party in the long run.

My gut feeling is unless Obama strong arms his party or finds a way to lead this group of chuckleheads (frankly both parties are filled with them), the Democrats are going to fail miserably and we'll end up with neo-con craziness again. I don't see any sensibility in the near future for the GOP.

[Harlowe]

I thought this was pretty good from Bill too...about the crazy shit going on

And finally, New Rule: Never underestimate the ability of a tiny fringe group of losers to ruin everything. Now, for the past couple of weeks, we've all been laughing heartily at the wacky antics of the Birthers, the far-right goofballs who claim Obama wasn't really born in Hawaii, and therefore the job of president goes to the runner-up, Miss California, Carrie Prejean.

And, you know, there's nothing you can do to convince these people. You could hand them, in person, the original birth certificate, with the placenta--and have a video of Obama emerging from the womb with Don Ho singing in the background--and they still would not believe it.

Hey, Birthers, want to hear my theory? My theory is Obama was born in America, and you were born with the umbilical cord around your neck.

I don't know what his mother was doing when she was pregnant, but I'm pretty sure yours was drinking. Oh, I kid the Birthers.

And, actually, there is one thing that makes me think they could be right: we're Americans. Of course, we're going to hire an illegal alien to clean up.

I'm joking, of course. And laughing it off has also been the reaction from Democratic leaders, so far. Proving that Democrats never learn.

Because, in America, you know what? If you don't immediately kill errant bullshit, no matter how ridiculous, it can grow and thrive and eventually take over, like crabgrass or Cirque du Soleil.

This Birther stuff might be a deluded, time-wasting, right-wing obsession. But, so was Whitewater. And look where that ended up? Liberals said, "Oh, what are they going to do? Keep expanding the case until they impeach the president over a blowj*b?" Yeah. I'm telling you, in America, there is no idea so patently absurd that it can't catch on.

[Harlowe]

Oh yea can make their own Kenyan Birth Cert!

http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/

[Embar Angylwrath]

My gut feeling is unless Obama strong arms his party or finds a way to lead this group of chuckleheads (frankly both parties are filled with them), the Democrats are going to fail miserably and we'll end up with neo-con craziness again. I don't see any sensibility in the near future for the GOP.

I actually think there will be a third party coming out of this. It doesn't have to be politics as usual unless we put them there.

[Lurker]

Can you expand on that? What beliefs will this third party be based on? What leaders do you see who embody those beliefs?

*stifling laughter*

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I'm with Embar, it feels like there is going to be some actual change coming... its just not the change anyone thought they'd be getting when they elected Obama.

Merely speculation, but I think we're likely to see a Fusionism type party come out of this.

[Harlowe]

That's massively wishful thinking (probably due to the fact that we aren't exactly thrilled with either of the two big parties), unless you are talking at least a generation from now. Let's be realistic, it takes a long time to build up a party - unless we fall into some catastrophic situation in this country. So it will just volley back and forth because too much of our general population is impatient, dumb & fickle and they want instant change. If our economy and job market doesn't improve vastly from now until 2012 (no matter who or what administration was ultimately responsible for it), it will volley back into neo-con crazy territory, because unfortunately the moderates certainly haven't gained any power within the GOP. They'll fail again creating an even bigger mess and then it will be back to the Dem's who won't be able to effect enough change to make a difference. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Unless we have another 9/11 scare or other large military situation, I just don't see us giving any party enough time to clean this up. The mess is just that big and both parties have too many idiots in office, getting anything accomplished is like herding cats. Bush was able to stay in office two terms because of 9/11, he wouldn't have had the second chance either without it.

its just not the change anyone thought they'd be getting when they elected Obama.

I don't think someone (or anyone for that matter) who didn't vote for Obama can speculate that he's not delivering.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Delivering out of control spending that has only gotten worse since he got into office? He certainly is delivering that.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Unless we have another 9/11 scare or other large military situation, I just don't see us giving any party enough time to clean this up. The mess is just that big and both parties have too many idiots in office, getting anything accomplished is like herding cats. Bush was able to stay in office two terms because of 9/11, he wouldn't have had the second chance either without it.

I guess that argument could be made... Would we have been better off under John Kerry though?

[Harlowe]

You didn't vote for him, so you aren't really in a place to judge whether he delivered on what those that did vote for him wanted. He hasn't been in office long enough to judge. You're little snipes aren't logical nor honest. It's sour grapes because McCain & Palin lost.

Which for those who voted for Obama are most likely still happy are NOT in office instead of him.

I don't know if we would have been better off with Kerry, I can't imagine anyone being worse than Bush/Cheney/Rove etc etc.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

So because I didn't vote for someone that means I can't judge the job they're doing?

That makes absolutely no sense and you know for a fact that there were people criticizing Bush in his first term during the first 6 months. Hell, if I had been as politically involved now as I was then I would've been one of those people because I'm on record as saying I would've voted for Gore in 2000.

[Lurker]

I think Harlowe means you can't judge whether he's fulfilling his campaign promises or not. Feel free to criticize all you want , but based on what you posted during the campaign you didn't understand what he was promising at the time. How could you possibly know if he's fulfilling his promises now?

And "runaway spending" by the Government is the only response to the deep recession we face. Things would be much worse without it.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

You know, you keep saying that.

Have you looked at what that did to Japan during their recession in the 90s (also known as the Japanese asset price bubble)? How about the Weimar Republic and their recession during the same time we were having the Great Depression in the late 20s/early 30s?

[Lurker]

Please link to a respected economist who thinks hyper-inflation is our primary concern right now and that the Government should not be spending to stimulate the economy. Not an op-ed. Not a talking head on Fox. Not a Republican in Congress. A respected economist.

We have many tools available to fight inflation when the time comes several years down the road, but very few tools to battle a recession. Government spending was the only one available at the time.

[Harlowe]

Fallakin don't be dense. I'll repeat it as plainly as possible - I'm saying you can't really judge that he's "not delivering the change people wanted", because you weren't one of the people that voted for him, so you wouldn't know if he is or is not. Who is saying you can't be critical of him in general? I've never claimed to know what people wanted that voted for Bush. In fact, I wasn't even criticizing him until his second term.

Please link to a respected economist who thinks hyper-inflation is our primary concern right now and that the Government should not be spending to stimulate the economy. Not an op-ed. Not a talking head on Fox. Not a Republican in Congress. A respected economist.

Yes, this.

[Harlowe]

To be honest, here is something I'm not pleased about - not to the level of crying that he's "not giving us the change we wanted" overall, but I don't feel this is doing as much as he lead us to believe he would do. Maybe it was needed in order to gain enough support to get the larger reform accomplished, but it feels like giving in too much.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/healt ... lobby.html

Because back in 2008 he said this...

: "We will break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on the health care market.... It's become clear that some of these companies are dramatically overcharging Americans for what they offer.... We're not going to get change unless we can overcome the resistance the drug companies, the insurance companies, the HMOs, those who are making a major profit from the system currently. Now I think all these industries have a roll to play.... We want to listen to what they have to say. They should have a seat at the table, but they can't buy every chair."

He hasn't gone back completely on that, but imo capping their increase at $80 billion is giving too much for pharma support.

[Lurker]

So you agree with Pelosi.

I just had to point that out.