Why Can't the Left Govern?

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'm confused, is Obama an overreaching zealot or a pandering coward? I'm getting mixed messages from the rhetoric on the right.

 

[fskimospy]

We have not had a strong president since LBJ.

I too yearn for a president strong enough to get us deeply mired in unwinnable wars in Southeast Asia. That's how you knew he was strong.

 

[MagickMan]

If Reagan wasn't a "strong" president, then Carter must have spent his 4 years living entirely under a rock. Some may have hated his policies, but Ronnie had some stones on him.

 

[Matt1970]

This is true.

Just look at Syria.

Obama did NOTHING (except approve for covert operations, aid and assistance as well as campaign for military efforts and allowed for the American people to decide).

Where as a true leader will just pull shit straight from out his ass, call it "evidence", shame anyone who opposes military action and send hundreds of thousands to their death.

Is this the same Syria where Obama drew his line, it was crossed and he had to have Putin pull his ass out of the fire?

 

[Vic]

We have not had a strong president since LBJ.

Since Eisenhower.

 

[Agent11]

Kind of hard to compare to the man responsible for winning WWII.

 

[Vic]

Sorry, but Fox News is the Mecca of the right. Fear is king in right politics. So much so, that when the abortion debate came up in Texas, the right cooked up stories of people throwing feces and used maxi pads and tampoons at politicians,.. yet, no arrests were made,...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...n_debate_dps_finally_releases_its_report.html

Apologies, yes, the left DOES sensationalize. Al Sharpton, that feminist lawyer, etc. etc. But, head mouth peices and news "institutions" like FoxNews aren't really around for the left,..

I have to agree that the mindless mob mentality on the right, fueled and manipulated by increasingly irresponsible and sensational media, is like nothing I've ever seen from the left.
The most recent example is ICAAN. I stumbled across a "petition" to "Keep the Web free" on Facebook and OMG the comments. These people (many of whom appear to be elderly grandmothers) have never even heard of ICAAN or IANA, but they are terrified and they are outraged, even though they have no idea what it's about. It's the End Times, it's the New World Order, Obama the Muslim has sold us out, there are calls for prayer, etc.

It's disturbing to say the least.

 

[Vic]

If Reagan wasn't a "strong" president, then Carter must have spent his 4 years living entirely under a rock. Some may have hated his policies, but Ronnie had some stones on him.

I disagreed with Reagan on a large number of issues, but what I always admired about him was his confidence and his optimism. These are traits which seem to be completely lacking in American politics today.

But by a strong President, I mean one that has actual power. Ronnie was a charismatic person, but I don't think he actually ran the show.

 

[sm625]

This is true.

Just look at Syria.

Obama did NOTHING (except approve for covert operations, aid and assistance as well as campaign for military efforts and allowed for the American people to decide).

Where as a true leader will just pull shit straight from out his ass, call it "evidence", shame anyone who opposes military action and send hundreds of thousands to their death.

Read this quote carefully. This is exactly how the left governs. What Obama and his administration did in Syria, and in the Ukraine more recently, and Libya a few years back, is highly dangerous and could easily lead to a million deaths. But its not as bad as what W and the neocons did. That's it. That's all that matters. End of story. That is the logic of the left. Here it is again in simpler terms:

W tortured kittens slowly by pulling their legs off and sticking their tails in a paper shredder. The left does not torture kittens, it merely stuffs them in a bag and drowns them fast. Therefore the left is good. You should give the left more power because the left is so good.

And this works on a great deal of people.

 

[Thebobo]

After Jefferson made the Louisiana purchase congress questioned his authority to make the deal.

Jefferson basically said too bad it's a done deal.

Real leaders know when its time to take action, and when to wait.

All obama does is go on vacation.

As for the opening post, the left is arrogant. They tell the citizens to do one thing, then they turn around and do something else.

Oh so Jefferson did something with out congresses approval, hmm LOL dude can you least try and be less obvious.

 

[Vic]

Read this quote carefully. This is exactly how the left governs. What Obama and his administration did in Syria, and in the Ukraine more recently, and Libya a few years back, is highly dangerous and could easily lead to a million deaths. But its not as bad as what W and the neocons did. That's it. That's all that matters. End of story. That is the logic of the left. Here it is again in simpler terms:

W tortured kittens slowly by pulling their legs off and sticking their tails in a paper shredder. The left does not torture kittens, it merely stuffs them in a bag and drowns them fast. Therefore the left is good. You should give the left more power because the left is so good.

And this works on a great deal of people.

And this is an example of the right talking past the left. What the left wants to know is why we should even care about Syria, Ukraine, Libya, or Iraq. We can't fix our crumbling infrastructure at home because the right says it'll cost too much and/or raise taxes, or its socialism, but we're supposed to spend trillions fighting foreign wars and fixing the rest of the world's problems?

 

[poofyhairguy]

I don't really see why going against human nature is a bad thing. If human nature was inclined towards doing the right thing we wouldn't need a policy to begin with.

It depends on the scale.

If 80% of a society agree about something, then it should be done. 90% agree about having police departments, flight controllers, public roads, etc. so we have them. 90%+ agree that murder is wrong so we have a law against murder. Some still murder, but they are the outliers. Not everyone will agree, but resources should go towards enforcement when we mostly agree.

Simply put, if your law makes the MAJORITY of Americans in a given category illegal or illegitimate, then you have an issue.

Like with the mandate- only 25% of "young invincibles" have signed up for Obamacare. That means for 75% of the young uninsured the exchanges lack value for them. The mandate forcing 75% to either play ball or pay a fine is a bad law. If it was 5% or 10% or even 25% playing a fine ok, that is the cost of change.

But 75%?!?! Anything over 50% and the change you are trying to force is too out there, and the law trying to force this change is a bad one.

And that goes for conservatives too. Right now 45.6 percent of high school seniors admit to smoking pot, when that goes over 50% we should (and probably will) live under a similar regime to Colorado.

The thing is conservatives are less likely to go after the majority, they go after minorities. That has its own problems, tyranny of the majority and all, but it is better than tyranny by the minority (which is what we get with something like the mandate).

Also, nothing requires spending unlimited resources.

But some things might expose you to unlimited economic liability.

The bolded there seems to put forth an argument that there should be no government policy ever for anything. If human nature were in favor of a certain action you wouldn't need government to enforce it. If government is ever needed to enforce something, we shouldn't do it. ie: no government. Surely you can't mean that. It is in human nature to lie, cheat, steal, and murder from one another. We all seem very comfortable with using the power of government to run policy that is against that part of human nature.

Sure, for stuff we all mostly agree on. The problem is forcing change that the majority don't agree on. It just doesn't work.

That's what government is here for, to account for when human nature leads us to do shitty things.

No the government is here to regulate resources and solve conflicts for those limited resources. The second a government tries to improve the lot of humanity above and beyond what the majority want it faces failure.

 

[poofyhairguy]

And this is an example of the right talking past the left. What the left wants to know is why we should even care about Syria, Ukraine, Libya, or Iraq.

Because of this chart:

You know what that chart REALLY means? It means that of the government spending we can't afford (which the left loves BTW), 70% of it only happens because we print the money for it to happen.

Without all that printed money, we would be rapidly declining into third world status thanks to this:

But the world is still willing to accept our pieces of green paper for their stuff, so we can still expect our economy to grow in the future.

And why do they continue to take these petrodollars that we can make appear almost from thin air?

This chart is why:

Because those papers are backed by the might of the US military, which actually means something if we make good on our threats and blow someone up once a decade.

We can't fix our crumbling infrastructure at home because the right says it'll cost too much and/or raise taxes, or its socialism, but we're supposed to spend trillions fighting foreign wars and fixing the rest of the world's problems?

Yes, you get out there and you stay the world's police force to ensure:

1. No one gets more control than you have (like invading Iraq so OPEC becomes a has-been)

2. They always take that bullshit dollar that you print for something real like toys or cars, or whatever else our Wal-Marts are full of.

The SECOND that the world gets brave enough to set something other than the American dollar as the reserve currency is the second that the U.S.'s reign as a lone superpower ends and our way of life is in real danger.

 

[Vic]

Sorry, but that's nuts. The world uses the US dollar because we have the world's most powerful economy, not because we're the world's police force.
And even if you were right, it's still the economy that pays for the military (and certainly not the other way around), and all the more reason why we should be reinvesting domestically.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Sorry, but that's nuts. The world uses the US dollar because we have the world's most powerful economy, not because we're the world's police force.

Agreed. But military force is one tool (an important one) that protects our assets and economic interests around the world. It helps get treaties signed, shipping routes cleared, large investments maintained, etc.

And even if you were right, it's still the economy that pays for the military (and certainly not the other way around), and all the more reason why we should be reinvesting domestically.

We should invest wherever we get the highest ROI without emotional or jingoistic entanglements.

If in one hand we can spend $2 trillion dollars to rebuild every bridge in the northeast, or spend $2 trillion making sure the ocean of oil under Iraq isn't controlled by OPEC, the $2 trillion is better spent in Iraq. Sure the people in the northeast would like new roads, but who can use them if OPEC manipulates oil to the point where gas is $10 a gallon? I mean, our whole society and all of our urban centers are built assuming cheap gas.

I am not some sort of military hawk, you don't run into every engagement. You run into the places where we have solid economic interests. So Crimea? No. Syria? No. Someone messes with a Japan or an Israel? Wipe them off the map.



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND I just ruined my thread with my neocon bullshit no one really ever wants to discuss. Fook me.

 

[Thebobo]

If Reagan wasn't a "strong" president, then Carter must have spent his 4 years living entirely under a rock. Some may have hated his policies, but Ronnie had some stones on him.

Well he did high tail out of Lebanon when the marine barracks in Beirut where attacked killing 236 marines. Even to me seemed kindly of wimpy at the time.

 

[Vic]

Heh.. didn't mean to derail your thread. You make good points. It's too bad there can't be more compromise.

Back on topic: I'll stick with my argument that it's because the left is more disorganized. Obama can't seem to get his side behind him, while the right is in almost lockstep opposition.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Obama can't seem to get his side behind him, while the right is in almost lockstep opposition.

I think that is true. The Democratic party is like a circus from bird's eye view: a group of fenced in tents.

 

[himkhan]

This is true.

Just look at Syria.

Obama did NOTHING (except approve for covert operations, aid and assistance as well as campaign for military efforts and allowed for the American people to decide).

Where as a true leader will just pull shit straight from out his ass, call it "evidence", shame anyone who opposes military action and send hundreds of thousands to their death.

History will not forget what that man did to the world but that certainly doesn't stop a certain sect of the American populace from trying to revise it and sweep it under the rug continually. But Obama! Conservatives try every day to make Obama out to be a monster for lies about health care yet held no heat to the feet of the man whose lies destroyed the economy and actually killed his own citizens instead of heinously and neglectfully trying to insure them. The only solace the World has is the fact that less and less of this kind of person breaths with their mouth each day. The extinction won't come in the form of a quick bright flash from the sky but from continuing to open the mouths for all to hear and expose the pariahs and outcasts. If the flood came tomorrow there would be no seats for any of them.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

I'm confused, is Obama an overreaching zealot or a pandering coward? I'm getting mixed messages from the rhetoric on the right.

He is a commie muslim

 

[Victorian Gray]

If Reagan wasn't a "strong" president, then Carter must have spent his 4 years living entirely under a rock. Some may have hated his policies, but Ronnie had some stones on him.

Actually, that was Nancy. Ronnie couldn't remember where he put his...

 

[RampantAndroid]

This is true.

Just look at Syria.

Obama did NOTHING (except approve for covert operations, aid and assistance as well as campaign for military efforts and allowed for the American people to decide).

Where as a true leader will just pull shit straight from out his ass, call it "evidence", shame anyone who opposes military action and send hundreds of thousands to their death.

Allowed the american people to decide? As I remember it, he didn't want to make the decision so he pawned it off on congress so they'd have the egg on their faces instead of himself.

 

[senseamp]

And GOP can govern? They can't even do something as basic as lifting the debt ceiling without Democrat votes.

 

[RampantAndroid]

And GOP can govern? They can't even do something as basic as lifting the debt ceiling without Democrat votes.

...aren't you also missing something? Such as they don't want to lift the ceiling? Agree or disagree with their motives, but they're capable. They just don't want to.

 

[werepossum]

I'll have to disagree on this point. There are things which need to be addressed but one side will point at the other and that becomes the lie. The solution is to accept my sides ideology and party. Frame an issue in a way which is favorable to one side, bring in people for the cameras and give them a microphone and you can turn anything into a crisis. I'll cite the Hobby Lobby situation as example. There's conflicting perspectives, but if you were to look at how things are being presented it's poorly done, or nicely done, depending on if you want the facts in their context or want to push something. There are legitimate things which ought to be settled, however "you won't get a transfusion because of this" is inane. We need welfare and job reform. You can't do the first as it's a live wire. In NY it's never going to happen because Al Sharpton will be first in line no matter what. Jobs? Hell, either one side wants another stimulus which doesn't alter the fundamental problems and the other camp which thinks you can bootstrap yourself into positions which don't exist.

Neither side is capable because it determines in advance that it must be right before bothering to examine issues in context. You are on the Left so you are correct. He is on the right so he must be worthless. She is on the Right so she has the answers. They are Leftists and.... and so it goes. The glasses go on before the eyes and ears are ever opened. I hope none of them ever build anything.

Well said. Very little in this world is either all good or all bad, but when voters are not paying attention it's difficult to win with "it's more bad than good and here's why". Thus everything one side opposes is presented as apocalyptically bad and everything one supports is presented as Heavenly Good with just enough little warts (caused by the other side's failure to get on board, of course) that one's continuance in power is an absolute requirement. Because it works better than the truth, mate. That's the beauty of democracy - we get the government we deserve.