Lemonade out of
Posted By: lemmings....sm on 2008-10-28
In Reply to: Another lemming. - Chele
I didn't say he was ENTIRELY responsible. However, when analyzing the situation, I start with a very basic question...who stood to gain and who lost from the meltdown? More importantly, who is left standing in its aftermath? As it stands now, CEOs and the offending, unregulated corporations and institutions are making out like bandits and we are footing the bill. I want somebody to DO something about that and to take measures to prevent it from happening again.
The first 75% of that administration was controlled by pubs. 75 vs 25 is easy math...and as you have pointed out, since it is shared by both parties, then that 25 is split fairly evenly between the 2 parties. AT least, that seems to be the way that current voters are calclating this one. FM/FM is only a symptom of a far deeper problems and let me put it to you this way....pubs are not terribly notorious on regulation and control of lending institutions, banks, the stock markets, CEOs, corporations and the like. I am aware of FM/FM and am not blind, but pubs seem to overlook the regulation vs deregulation elephant in the room that stems from a fundamentally flawed concept that is a cornerstone of their party platform.
The balance has to do with contrasting Obama with Bush's assault on the judiciary, his runaway veto pen and flagrant disregard for congressional and Senate checks that don't suit him. You can make no such claims about Obama, seeing has how he has not abused power in such a blatant, well documented fashion. Obama promotes restoring the judicial discretion that Bush attempted to decimate.
Here's another thing to consider. IF the dems get a supermajority and the presidency....it will be by popular mandate...and a reflection of our democratic process that allows us to achieve REVOLUTION within a legal and organized context. Should that happen, the dems will AUTOMATICALLY be in a position to exercise moderation under the leadership of a president who is all about unity and bipartisanship. If they do not make good on these basic campaign promises, they will be in big trouble in 2012...something that Obama supporters are keenly aware of. There is no absolute control. There is, however, a 3-branch constitutional government that is designed to be representative of the people who vote their leaders into office.
So what part of guns in schools do you think is a good idea? Securing the safety of school children threatens your 2nd Amendment rights, how? Guns don't belong in schools...in the hands of children OR teachers. Guns are currently barred in federal buildings. Don't notice any hoo-ha over that....only Obama's audacity to suggest that we should protect our children at least as much as we do our federal employees. Your argument about gun control is absurd. Like I said, it would take a constitutional amendment to take that away from you....and with everything else he has to say grace over, I seriously doubt that a President Obama would be making a constitutional challenge his first priority.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
A little sugar makes lemonade....waiting patiently for
:-)
|
