no, 22% wanted it to go farther and be more powerful. That's my point, we're so divided on this issue that no matter what a leader tries to do, at least half the country is going to hate it for various reasons.

Well the democrats are getting it handed to them. Obama HAS brought change! My friends' parents lost their jobs.

Nice double dip, democrats! And by the way, you eventually run out of people's money in socialism.

You voted to prove you're not racist, now vote to prove you aren't a moron.

Oh, don't forget! There is a constitution for a reason. And that reason is so this government doesn't become nazi Germany. I don't want the government to control me. I want freedom.

God bless America.

He definitely brought change -- I gave him dollars and he gave back pennies

But more seriously, why the half-related bump in a pretty-much-dead thread?

I bumped the thread? My bad.

*going back to first post*

ah... you can't just... how the HELL does that even work out? It is so stupid, I can barely see straight anymore..... I swear, if McCain was elected and died in office leaving Palin in charge, I would have moved to France.

Well, honestly I thought both sides sucked pretty bad this election.

Also, why does the entire democratic party assume no one can manage their own money? That's what Social Security, Medicare and pretty much any other socialist ideas are saying. The people are too stupid to save their own money and take care of themselves. (I know there are people who can't afford it, that's what unemployment was for. I disagree with that policy too, but it's not part of this conversation.)

There's a reason gov't is slow and cumbersome. It's so it takes more than one elected official to approve a massive plan.

There's a reason there are no intelligent people in politics. They realized it's not worth the effort.

Those "radical socialist programs" brought us out of the greatest depression in our nation's history and kept us prosperous for nearly a century, before we started removing banking regulations and caused this whole thing to spiral out of control.

Lies. The War did. FDR would have bankrupted the US. Not that banks didn't need regulation.

War does wonders for an economy. Well, total war does. Terrorism doesn't, because there's not nearly as much demand for planes, ships, etc.

[insert facepalm image here]

Your level of ignorance is astounding. How are you even alive?

Now that cheerleader is a creepy picture.

@DShiznit I like how you insult me without providing any reasoning to contrast my statement.

It would be like arguing with someone who insists the sky is made of cheese. I literally have no idea how I could possibly fight that [lack of] logic. Do us all a favor and take a few U.S. History courses before you start spouting nonsense about one of our greatest presidents(who also successfully ran and won that war you're so fond of).

To put this into terms that perhaps you could understand, what you're saying about FDR would be equivalent to me saying George Bush was a secret Nazi who orchestrated 9/11

Actually there is reasoning to support both your "claim" and willrandship's.

The absolute most you could logically claim of George Bush is that he ignored warnings. Even that would be going outside my comfort zone.

Read any history book. FDR's New Deal brought us out of the Great Depression, and the banking regulations he put in place were what kept our markets relatively stable up until the beginning of the 21st century. After removing those regulations, we got the housing bubble and the banking crisis. Just about every economist agrees that's what caused the Global economy to spiral out of control.

Don't get me wrong, WWII helped. It gave us a unified purpose and a high demand for manufactured goods. But it was the New Deal social programs that pulled the American people out of poverty so that they could take those jobs armoring tanks and packing shells. And I'm tired of revisionist "historians" trying to claim otherwise.

I'm not actually arguing with you that what you say is right, but I am curious how you know that the history books you get this from aren't guilty of revisionist history? I'm not entirely convinced that we really know anything as far as history goes, just a bunch of best guesses. Though something that happened more recently we probably have a better idea of.

And that his grandfather was on the board of directors of a Nazi-supporting bank and involved in a 1933 attempt to overthrow the US government.

I don't disagree with you in this case. But there is a fairly direct line of reasoning.


There are also plenty of economists who claim that the New Deal kept us IN the Depression longer than we otherwise would have.

0.o I had never heard that. That's incredible. But it wouldn't be a good idea to judge a man based on what his grandfather did. Look at how neo-cons like Huckabee and Gingrich judge Obama based on his grandfather whom he never even knew!



Every history book I've ever read, in both public and private(Catholic) schools disagrees with that assessment quite voraciously. Either those economists are wrong, or the entire U.S. education system is lying.

The teacher's unions are the largest (financial) supporter of the Democratic party last I checked. Of course they're going to be teaching you how much Democrats rock.

Also, I go to a Catholic college, and the faculty are overwhelmingly Democratic. I suspect the same would be true of my Catholic institutions (unless they are anti-Vatican II)

Actually they're very kind to Lincoln, Reagan, and in some respects even Nixon for his negotiations with China, among others.

Oops, forgot to add my response to that first quote. Let me edit that in real quick.

I would also like to add that education is the most important service that can be provided to a person, and that it should be cherished, nourished, and improved as much as humanly possible. If that means treating teachers [who deserve it] well, then so be it.

Of course they are. Southern Democrats of the era are basically today's neocons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat



I agree. Just pointing out that you can't claim that some things are "unreasonable" when people clearly have reasons for believing them. Whether those reasons are well justified is a different matter.