Why the anger

[daveman]

I have been a Republican since I voted for Nixon in 1972 (and later was disgusted with what he did).

Impossible. You were born in the mid-eighties at the earliest.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have been a Republican since I voted for Nixon in 1972 (and later was disgusted with what he did).

Impossible. You were born in the mid-eighties at the earliest.

Let's not forget we are in the world of jakeass, he's even a Friend of Gerald Ford son Jack.

But what's so funny is that Gerald Ford never had a son named Jack

Spouse(s) Elizabeth "Betty" Bloomer Ford
Children Michael Gerald Ford
John Gardner Ford
Steven Meigs Ford
Susan Elizabeth Ford

 

[p kirkes]

I hate the things President Bush did for all the reasons stated above.
I hate the things President Obama has done and is doing for all the reasons above.

I don't hate the men personally.

While I can't see anything to change the direction the country is going, that is a more involved and intrusive government, change will come but probably not for the better.

Because this track, uncontrolled spending, endless wars, a special interest controlled congress, coupled with a socialist president, is not sustainable IMO.

A decade at most and the US will be a second or third world nation, with massive unemployment, shifting populations, internal dissension, lack of a viable middle class, crumbling infrastructure, drugged youth, poor health, a selfish outlook and failed public education systems.

If this were a commercial company, it would be ripe for a take over and dismantling.

I should be dead by then so I won't see the full affect, but unfortunately my kid's and grandkids will.

Color me doom and gloom, or I could be reading the tea leaves wrong.

Oh wait! I did overlook something, the Second Coming.

I hope I can come back as Antonio Banderas, I'm putting in my request right now.

 

[CurveLight]

I have never used a "talking point" in my life. I write what I feel with no help from anyone else. My anger IS justified because we have poured gallons and gallons of American servicemen's blood and billions and billions of American taxpayer's dollars into the sand of Iraq for NOTHING and it is ALL because Bush unilaterally decided to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq. He lied to us and scared us and misled us I will NEVER forgive him for that.

Bush had the same information Clinton was pushing even up to 2003 from a former clinton advisor I guess the information was to much

Clinton - nor ANY democrat -EVER advocated using American ground troops to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq. next.

That's a pretty silly claim. Isn't it advocating using ground troops to vote "Yes" on using ground troops to invade iraq?

 

[maineman]

Bush had the same information Clinton was pushing even up to 2003 from a former clinton advisor I guess the information was to much

Clinton - nor ANY democrat -EVER advocated using American ground troops to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq. next.

That's a pretty silly claim. Isn't it advocating using ground troops to vote "Yes" on using ground troops to invade iraq?

no. the resolution was worded to allow the president to use force as a last resort. He violated the spirit, if not the letter of the resolution by rushing to war immediately after its passage. As I said earlier in this thread, I never have and never will vote for another democrat who voted FOR that use of force resolution unless they publicly apologize for that vote. Suggesting that the Iraq Liberation Act passed during the Clinton administration is synonymous with the Use of Force Resolution passed under Bush is ridiculous. The former specifically prohibited the use of American military forces to accomplish regime change. From my perspective, the invasion of Iraq is THE singlemost foolish, dangerous, and damaging foreign policy misadventure we have EVER committed. It was just plain dumb. And the democratic party in congress was against it, even when the GOP so cleverly framed the argument to make it appear that the vote was a measure of patriotism rather than a measure of intelligence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have been a Republican since I voted for Nixon in 1972 (and later was disgusted with what he did).

Impossible. You were born in the mid-eighties at the earliest.

Let's not forget we are in the world of jakeass, he's even a Friend of Gerald Ford son Jack.

But what's so funny is that Gerald Ford never had a son named Jack

Spouse(s) Elizabeth "Betty" Bloomer Ford
Children Michael Gerald Ford
John Gardner Ford
Steven Meigs Ford
Susan Elizabeth Ford

Jack was his nickname at university. Before GF became president, he was dating one of the cutest blond cheerleaders that I have ever seen. She was well endowed with intelligence and blondness and other attributes. She was so excited when GF became president, and broken hearted when Jack dropped her a couple of days later.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most of the old timers here know my age, which is consistent with what I have written here. If daveman really is retiring this year, I may have commanded him in joint service operations when he was a young airman.

 

[editec]

Why the anger at Obama?

Most people have difficulty getting angry at complex systems that are evil so they personify that anger at a person that they think is the problem instead.

Bush II wasn't the master of the entire system, and neither is Obama.

They are SYMPTOMS of the problems challenging this nation.

The angry partisans on the right and left are both right about ONE thing.

The system is broken.

 

[JakeStarkey]

editec, what do you recommend to fix it?

 

[Avatar4321]

Why the anger at Obama?

Most people have difficulty getting angry at complex systems that are evil so they personify that anger at a person that they think is the problem instead.

Bush II wasn't the master of the entire system, and neither is Obama.

They are SYMPTOMS of the problems challenging this nation.

The angry partisans on the right and left are both right about ONE thing.

The system is broken.

The system isn't broken. The people are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The people are always broken, Avatar, when we don't adhere to the social compact of the Declaration and the Constitution. When we do, this people does amazing things.

 

[Avatar4321]

The people are always broken, Avatar, when we don't adhere to the social compact of the Declaration and the Constitution. When we do, this people does amazing things.

We don't have a people who can live by them. We need to change the people. That's the problem. The politicians are simply symptoms of that problem. It's not the system th at's broken. We are.

 

[editec]

Pulsus a mortuus equus
ALERT​

 

[editec]

editec, what do you recommend to fix it?

Starting from where we are now, and in less than five words?

A new constitutional convention.​

We can't really fix what we have now because the constitution coupled with the case laws that have come from it makes truly changing the flaws (that I see, of course, others will disagree) in the system legal.

Now, I certainly understand how a constitutional convention could (and likely would) make it even worse.

But sans a radical rethink of what it means to be a citizen in this modern world and the relationship we citizens have to our governments, I really see no way out of the mess our masters have made of things now.

Don't worry about it, though.

This will never happen.

The same system that I'm vexed by will never allow a constitutional convention because that system ALSO controls our state leigislatures.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am aware, not worried.

But a diligent citizenry must work against unbridled corporatism by the right and outright socialism by the left. Neither communism nor libertarianism is the answer.

 

[CurveLight]

Clinton - nor ANY democrat -EVER advocated using American ground troops to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq. next.

That's a pretty silly claim. Isn't it advocating using ground troops to vote "Yes" on using ground troops to invade iraq?

no. the resolution was worded to allow the president to use force as a last resort. He violated the spirit, if not the letter of the resolution by rushing to war immediately after its passage. As I said earlier in this thread, I never have and never will vote for another democrat who voted FOR that use of force resolution unless they publicly apologize for that vote. Suggesting that the Iraq Liberation Act passed during the Clinton administration is synonymous with the Use of Force Resolution passed under Bush is ridiculous. The former specifically prohibited the use of American military forces to accomplish regime change. From my perspective, the invasion of Iraq is THE singlemost foolish, dangerous, and damaging foreign policy misadventure we have EVER committed. It was just plain dumb. And the democratic party in congress was against it, even when the GOP so cleverly framed the argument to make it appear that the vote was a measure of patriotism rather than a measure of intelligence.

That's just tap dancing. Last resort or not, they advocated invading iraq.

 

[CurveLight]

Why the anger at Obama?

Most people have difficulty getting angry at complex systems that are evil so they personify that anger at a person that they think is the problem instead.

Bush II wasn't the master of the entire system, and neither is Obama.

They are SYMPTOMS of the problems challenging this nation.

The angry partisans on the right and left are both right about ONE thing.

The system is broken.

Horseshit. Pure bullshit. Complete balderdash. Utter fubar. As CINC Obushama had (and still has) the power to bring our Troops home. He said he was against stoopid wars but he's been joyfully continuing the Neocon agenda. Hell, the only way we know Bush left office is late night tv jokes.

 

[maineman]

That's a pretty silly claim. Isn't it advocating using ground troops to vote "Yes" on using ground troops to invade iraq?

no. the resolution was worded to allow the president to use force as a last resort. He violated the spirit, if not the letter of the resolution by rushing to war immediately after its passage. As I said earlier in this thread, I never have and never will vote for another democrat who voted FOR that use of force resolution unless they publicly apologize for that vote. Suggesting that the Iraq Liberation Act passed during the Clinton administration is synonymous with the Use of Force Resolution passed under Bush is ridiculous. The former specifically prohibited the use of American military forces to accomplish regime change. From my perspective, the invasion of Iraq is THE singlemost foolish, dangerous, and damaging foreign policy misadventure we have EVER committed. It was just plain dumb. And the democratic party in congress was against it, even when the GOP so cleverly framed the argument to make it appear that the vote was a measure of patriotism rather than a measure of intelligence.

That's just tap dancing. Last resort or not, they advocated invading iraq.

bullshit. acquiescing is not advocating.

 

[CurveLight]

no. the resolution was worded to allow the president to use force as a last resort. He violated the spirit, if not the letter of the resolution by rushing to war immediately after its passage. As I said earlier in this thread, I never have and never will vote for another democrat who voted FOR that use of force resolution unless they publicly apologize for that vote. Suggesting that the Iraq Liberation Act passed during the Clinton administration is synonymous with the Use of Force Resolution passed under Bush is ridiculous. The former specifically prohibited the use of American military forces to accomplish regime change. From my perspective, the invasion of Iraq is THE singlemost foolish, dangerous, and damaging foreign policy misadventure we have EVER committed. It was just plain dumb. And the democratic party in congress was against it, even when the GOP so cleverly framed the argument to make it appear that the vote was a measure of patriotism rather than a measure of intelligence.

That's just tap dancing. Last resort or not, they advocated invading iraq.

bullshit. acquiescing is not advocating.

Voting "Yes" is not simply acquiescing......

define:acquiesce - Google Search

By Voting "Yes" they advocated using our Troops in the strongest possible legislative manner. To say no Dems advocated invading Iraq after many Voted to use Troops is as dishonest as Bushies saying Iraq was an imminent threat justifying the invasion.

 

[daveman]

Most of the old timers here know my age, which is consistent with what I have written here. If daveman really is retiring this year, I may have commanded him in joint service operations when he was a young airman.

Impossible. I was never a plastic army man.