A political life-line, raft, life-boat, etc, that they SHOULD have used!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bucs90, Oct 31, 2010.

  1. bucs90

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Feb 25, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Ok, it seems the fate of the liberal progressive ideology in America is sealed. The momentum can't be stopped from the right taking control, and our economic situation is one that will not recover for a long, long time, thus eliminating any chance for overbearing liberal government.

    BUT....there is an argument that liberals never made. I assume it's because liberals suffer from a mental disorder, which some professional psychiatrists have agreed is true. So, here is the life line argument liberals should've offered. The right painted a picture of left wing big government ideals that would lead to socialism or communism, then rooted out the members of Obama Inc that shared that ideology. It was highly successful, as polls show. Libs, here ya go:

    In response to the right's attacks, you on the left SHOULD have provided examples of places on Earth with large populations, but small, weak central governments. While the right was making all Obama's friends appear to be the next Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc, where were the global examples you on the left could offer to show right wing conservative "small government" ideals in practice?

    You should've offered Mexico, Afghanistan, Africa, etc.

    Mexico's national government is weak, and has little power to stop drug cartels. A small, weak government in Mexico, unable to train it's police and soldiers good enough to combat the cartel, unable to offer them enough pay to resist bribes, unable to afford to properly educate it's youth to avoid the life of poverty........all stems from a weak central government. You should've compared a conservative utopia with that. But you didn't.

    Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern hot spots are dominated by tribes. Improper education breeds that mindset. Poor education causes them to fail to properly take advantage of their national resources. The gov't can't combat the tribes, thus, Sharia Law dominates, and no civil rights movement would ever succeed there without US intervention. You should've used that as an example of a weak central government. Same with nations in Africa with weak central gov'ts that can't combat tribes, cartels, crime, etc.

    You could've explained how the federal government ensures no private business or gang or cartel could ever get enough power to brutalize Americans to the extent citizens in Mexico, the Middle East and Africa have been subject to. How strong state gov'ts ensure police and national guard are trained to combat any large threat to citizens, and pay is enough to avoid bribes. And how our people get a guaranteed chance at a good public education, thus allowing them to have better lives.

    You should've used those examples as reasons why a strong central federal government, and strong, well funded state governments are necessary.

    But you didn't. Why? Because liberalism is a mental disorder.
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page