PDA

View Full Version : The one-party state.



Tetragrammaton
06-27-2012, 04:46 PM
This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.


The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals.Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top economic positions. We list these because many of Obama's detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/). While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.


Really fascinating little editorial from a site that doesn't do them too often.

http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Dolphins9954
06-27-2012, 05:12 PM
Really fascinating little editorial from a site that doesn't do them too often.

http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Good read. All this hooting and hollering over these 2 candidates is all a charade. Makes it easier to vote for Coke or Pepsi I guess.

Tetragrammaton
06-27-2012, 08:50 PM
People always ask why our participation in elections is so low. It is because it doesn't matter. When the Labour Party lost and the Tories took over in 2010, Britain changed. Now that the Socialists are in power, France has changed. What has changed from Bush to now?

MadDog 88
06-28-2012, 12:30 AM
This is why this country needs a legitimate third political party.

LouPhinFan
06-28-2012, 09:18 AM
It looks like to me the only real difference between the 2 is on the social issues. Even then it's kinda fuzzy at times.

Tetragrammaton
06-28-2012, 09:53 AM
It looks like to me the only real difference between the 2 is on the social issues. Even then it's kinda fuzzy at times.

Even then, it is mostly rhetorical. Obama is pro-choice and Romney is pro-life, but no one realistically thinks there will ever be a national ban anyway. Obama supports gay marriage, but wants to leave it up to the states, while Romney wants a constitutional ban against gay marriage, but if it couldn't be done in 2004, why would anyone expect it to be done now?

LouPhinFan
06-28-2012, 10:57 AM
Even then, it is mostly rhetorical. Obama is pro-choice and Romney is pro-life, but no one realistically thinks there will ever be a national ban anyway. Obama supports gay marriage, but wants to leave it up to the states, while Romney wants a constitutional ban against gay marriage, but if it couldn't be done in 2004, why would anyone expect it to be done now?

As far as a constitutional ban, I'm hoping our lawmakers learned from history when it comes to legislating morality. That's not what our constitution is there for.

Locke
06-28-2012, 11:42 AM
As far as a constitutional ban, I'm hoping our lawmakers learned from history when it comes to legislating morality. That's not what our constitution is there for.

Hearing Christians say stuff like this makes me happier than I could put into words. It's good to be reminded that the minority, while vocal, is in fact the minority...

LouPhinFan
06-28-2012, 11:49 AM
Hearing Christians say stuff like this makes me happier than I could put into words. It's good to be reminded that the minority, while vocal, is in fact the minority...

Here is my thought:

Do I consider homosexuality a sin? Yes I most certainly do. Do I care how government defines marriage? I do not. And I doubt Jesus would either. Yes he would know that it is a sin but it's not our place to tell government how to deifine laws. He made that pretty clear when he said "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's". The government can define marriage however they want and the Christian church should follow what the Bible says on the subject. The problem that may arise is if the government ever starts trying to strongarm the church into going against the Bible.

LANGER72
06-28-2012, 12:02 PM
Here is my thought:

Do I consider homosexuality a sin? Yes I most certainly do. Do I care how government defines marriage? I do not. And I doubt Jesus would either. Yes he would know that it is a sin but it's not our place to tell government how to deifine laws. He made that pretty clear when he said "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's". The government can define marriage however they want and the Christian church should follow what the Bible says on the subject. The problem that may arise is if the government ever starts trying to strongarm the church into going against the Bible.

Agree. It will be construed as bigotry and discrimination. The Federal government will become an enemy to the church losing all tax exemptions,etc or worse.

Locke
06-28-2012, 07:49 PM
Here is my thought:

Do I consider homosexuality a sin? Yes I most certainly do. Do I care how government defines marriage? I do not. And I doubt Jesus would either. Yes he would know that it is a sin but it's not our place to tell government how to deifine laws. He made that pretty clear when he said "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's". The government can define marriage however they want and the Christian church should follow what the Bible says on the subject. The problem that may arise is if the government ever starts trying to strongarm the church into going against the Bible.

Separation of church and state would immediately go into effect here. There are so many places to get a secular marriage, I just don't see how the government would ever think it's a good idea to try and strong arm the church into anything...

Tetragrammaton
06-28-2012, 09:18 PM
The idea that government will try to force churches to marry people is a boogeyman, and always will be.

LouPhinFan
06-28-2012, 10:56 PM
The idea that government will try to force churches to marry people is a boogeyman, and always will be.

A Liberal government (if we ever get a predominantly one) would most certainly try. It would take a minor miracle for them to succeed, but they would most certainly try.

Spesh
06-28-2012, 11:25 PM
A Liberal government (if we ever get a predominantly one) would most certainly try. It would take a minor miracle for them to succeed, but they would most certainly try.

No different then a predominantly conservative government trying to constitutionally ban gay marriage and abortions.(which was attempted).

There is enough tricks with each party to keep the other honest(honest being relative....very relative....EXTREMELY relative). With todays politics its difficult to believe one party could take that much control. Its important to keep in mind that, by and large, Americans actually support a bi-partisan government. Its one thing that gives me hope in this country is that we are in favor of forcing compromises.

NY8123
07-02-2012, 04:54 AM
Good read. All this hooting and hollering over these 2 candidates is all a charade. Makes it easier to vote for Coke or Pepsi I guess.

Dr. Pepper.