Senator Obama Subdue Hate With Love...

They seem to have a negative attitude and a glass half-empty mentality and conclude that the U.S. is the great source of problems in the world. Wrong-headed, incomprehensible, unhealthy beliefs. Shameful.

Shameful? To be honest about our current circumstances and standing in the world? Why do republicans call that bad? I call it patriotic because it means they want to make things better, and that means admitting something is wrong , and trying to fix it. Conservatives think America is perfect. Therefore, nothing needs to be fixed, because they don't perceive any problems. Both sides are needed, and both sides need to be heard. That is why we need bipartisanship. I believe the reason this last 8 years has been a disaster, is because people stopped listening to eachother. In particular, and I hate to blame simply republicans, but, Bush and the republican administration effectively blocked out all dissenting opinion and ceased the flow of information across the aisle. Whoever is our next president, liberal or conservative, he/she needs to have more partisanship in the White House, otherwise, we are never going to survive, and things will simply get worse.
 
Shameful? To be honest about our current circumstances and standing in the world? Why do republicans call that bad? I call it patriotic because it means they want to make things better, and that means admitting something is wrong , and trying to fix it. Conservatives think America is perfect. Therefore, nothing needs to be fixed, because they don't perceive any problems. Both sides are needed, and both sides need to be heard. That is why we need bipartisanship. I believe the reason this last 8 years has been a disaster, is because people stopped listening to eachother. In particular, and I hate to blame simply republicans, but, Bush and the republican administration effectively blocked out all dissenting opinion and ceased the flow of information across the aisle. Whoever is our next president, liberal or conservative, he/she needs to have more partisanship in the White House, otherwise, we are never going to survive, and things will simply get worse.

Bullshit---Show me ONE conservative who has claimed American is perfect.
 
Bullshit---Show me ONE conservative who has claimed American is perfect.

I'm not saying any one politician did, I'm just stating my view of the conceptual difference in perception between liberals and democrats. The opposite of believing the glass is half-empty, is believing the glass is half-full... only looking at the good, not the bad. It's just a choice in perception, and as such, blocking out anything bad. Which, I think is a good thing, which is why I said, both sides are needed, which is the beauty of democracy, in theory.
 
Last edited:
Shameful? To be honest about our current circumstances and standing in the world? Why do republicans call that bad? I call it patriotic because it means they want to make things better, and that means admitting something is wrong , and trying to fix it. Conservatives think America is perfect. Therefore, nothing needs to be fixed, because they don't perceive any problems. Both sides are needed, and both sides need to be heard. That is why we need bipartisanship. I believe the reason this last 8 years has been a disaster, is because people stopped listening to eachother. In particular, and I hate to blame simply republicans, but, Bush and the republican administration effectively blocked out all dissenting opinion and ceased the flow of information across the aisle. Whoever is our next president, liberal or conservative, he/she needs to have more partisanship in the White House, otherwise, we are never going to survive, and things will simply get worse.

Well, let me explain a couple of things. It's not that conservatives think America is perfect, far from it. But it is better than just about anywhere else on this earth. Yes, we have problems and they need to be addressed and resolved. Do you recall when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House? She stated the following:

And the American people told us they expected us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and with civility and bipartisanship.

Has she led in that effort? I would state emphatically no, that she has led the most partisanship congress EVER, not willing to work with President Bush on much of anything. Between her and Senator Harry Reid they have contributed to the place we are today in American politics.

Speaking of President Bush. He is a Moderate Republican, when he first became President he spoke of trying to unify American, to work in a bipartisanship effort. Then 9/11, Americans temporarily came together. Not too long after that and with the advent of the Afghan war, dissension within the US tore at the fabric of America, the Iraq war really split that fabric. President Bush whether you agree with him or not was totally disrespected in everything he did by half the country. He could do no right. He moderated his positions late in his term which alienated his conservative base. Nancy P. and Harry R. were some of his loudest critics (no problem), but the name calling of President Bush went beyond the normal for the person in the Office of the Presidency.

Yes, America is split. McCain has a better chance of creating a mood of bipartisanship since he's done that throughout his career. Obama has never stepped across the aisle to reach out to Republicans. He shows no signs of leadership and we need a strong leader at this critical time in American history. Not that McCain is a strong leader, but he is far better in tune with the world and the world's problems.

So don't expect bipartisanship in America in the next 4-8 years as long as the Democrat Congress is lead by Nancy and Harry. The other problem with bipartisanship is that one shouldn't compromise their principles and morals just to reach a solution.
 
Well, let me explain a couple of things. It's not that conservatives think America is perfect, far from it. But it is better than just about anywhere else on this earth. Yes, we have problems and they need to be addressed and resolved. Do you recall when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House? She stated the following:

And the American people told us they expected us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and with civility and bipartisanship.

Has she led in that effort? I would state emphatically no, that she has led the most partisanship congress EVER, not willing to work with President Bush on much of anything. Between her and Senator Harry Reid they have contributed to the place we are today in American politics.

Speaking of President Bush. He is a Moderate Republican, when he first became President he spoke of trying to unify American, to work in a bipartisanship effort. Then 9/11, Americans temporarily came together. Not too long after that and with the advent of the Afghan war, dissension within the US tore at the fabric of America, the Iraq war really split that fabric. President Bush whether you agree with him or not was totally disrespected in everything he did by half the country. He could do no right. He moderated his positions late in his term which alienated his conservative base. Nancy P. and Harry R. were some of his loudest critics (no problem), but the name calling of President Bush went beyond the normal for the person in the Office of the Presidency.

Yes, America is split. McCain has a better chance of creating a mood of bipartisanship since he's done that throughout his career. Obama has never stepped across the aisle to reach out to Republicans. He shows no signs of leadership and we need a strong leader at this critical time in American history. Not that McCain is a strong leader, but he is far better in tune with the world and the world's problems.

So don't expect bipartisanship in America in the next 4-8 years as long as the Democrat Congress is lead by Nancy and Harry. The other problem with bipartisanship is that one shouldn't compromise their principles and morals just to reach a solution.

I do not deny that Nancy Pelosi is also extremely partisan, and I do not agree with that at all. Bush may have been a moderate himself, but the whole of the Bush administration, taken together, effected intolerant conservatism, if you consider the actions of Cheney, Rumsfied, and many others. I am arguing that, like the economy, each can have their positions, but because of the beauty of a system based on incentives, a healthy flow of information balances everything out on the ideological spectrum, more or less, it being in constant, subtle fluctuation around the middle. Each side should feel strongly about certain things. If the system works, the overall outcome will be that the entire government should end up somewhere in the middle, not to such an extreme as was allowed these last 8 years, being extremely conservative. During certain times, the government should lean right or left. It should be like a pendulum action. It should not be like someone is holding the pendulum to one side, not allowing it to swing naturally, as the right has been doing, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I do not deny that Nancy Pelosi is also extremely partisan, and I do not agree with that at all. Bush may have been a moderate himself, but the whole of the Bush administration, taken together, effected intolerant conservatism, if you consider the actions of Cheney, Rumsfied, and many others. I am arguing that, like the economy, each can have their positions, but because of the beauty of a system based on incentives, a healthy flow of information balances everything out on the ideological spectrum, more or less, it being in constant, subtle fluctuation around the middle. Each side should feel strongly about certain things. If the system works, the overall outcome will be that the entire government should end up somewhere in the middle, not to such an extreme as was allowed these last 8 years, being extremely conservative. During certain times, the government should lean right or left. It should be like a pendulum action. It should not be like someone is holding the pendulum to one side, not allowing it to swing naturally, as the right has been doing, in my opinion.

The truth be known, lack of Congressional oversite and requirements to provide homes for those lacking the ability to pay back, not lack of regulation led to our current economic situation, with a dose of excessive CEO compensation for poor performance thrown in.

I think the pendulum analogy doesn't hold water, especially the part about the last 8 years it was held in place. Not the case at all, it was the Congress that did the holding after all they control how economic and budget issues are handled, the President provides the leadership and signs or vetoes, so the Executive branch is not the sole nor the primary cause of our problems. In this global economy, even America is no longer as major of a factor as before. So to blame Bush and company exclusively is not true.

As each Political Party gains power, the pendulum does swing toward that parties priorities and prerogatives as we will see should Obama become the next President. With him as President, a liberal Congress, a Supreme Court that is muddled with a mixed message we'll see how your pendulum swings and whether you still feel supportive of that left-leaning agenda.
 
I'm not saying any one politician did, I'm just stating my view of the conceptual difference in perception between liberals and democrats. The opposite of believing the glass is half-empty, is believing the glass is half-full... only looking at the good, not the bad. It's just a choice in perception, and as such, blocking out anything bad. Which, I think is a good thing, which is why I said, both sides are needed, which is the beauty of democracy, in theory.

Whether the viewpoint is the glass is half-empty or half-full is not stating that one believes only looking at the bad or good. What that infers is whether one has a pessimistic or optimistic view. Of course there is no all bad or all good as related to economics and most other matters.
 
Face it, the Republican Party is out of date, out of touch.

No offense, but are you insane?

The republicans controlled both houses the presidency and the bench a scant 22 months ago. The electorate, a good chunk of it, likes the republicans and will vote them back in in 2012.

John McCain is a little out of touch (hard not to be when you were born in 1936) but the party is up to speed with other members.
 

Forum List

Back
Top