Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Crabtownboy, Jan 22, 2013.
Yes, it is time for the silent, reasonable majority to take control of the agenda.
I thought it was an outstanding speech, reiterating his plans for the second term and to continue the drive to fairness and equality for all Americans. Life is not "every man for himself". Instead it is "we are all in this together".
In my life time, the liberals have never been silent and most of the time not reasonable. FDR's people weren't, the 60's group weren't. They are so often made up of professional victims or folks who are ashamed of what their parent's gave them. If we would listen to them about the constitution, the ones who wrote it didn't understand it correctly. So many talk about how great Europe is and in my life span, Europe has been 25 or more years ahead of us on going down hill. Question, who is going to pay for this? FDR's plan couldn't be paid for and it didn't work, as we know WWII got us out of that mess.
The president talked about protecting entitlement programs upon which the elderly and the most vulnerable in society depend.
“They do not make us a nation of takers,” he declared, in a clear rebuke to the conservative House Republicans that have been his bête noire. “They free us to take the risks that make this country great.
Compare this with JFK's, My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
Both quotes are very good. Part of the response to Kennedy's line is for us who have been blessed to help care for those who are in need. That is an important party of what "we can do for our country." If we do not take care of our own, what good are we?
I guess we might agree here. We try and bring folks in need into our home. I believe help is personal. At what it cost the government to do anything, I don't believe we can afford the government to do much help. Also on what they do, much they don't do well. If we would roll up our sleeves and get to work in the poorer districts around us, the church, the family and the rest of us could do many good things for folks.
A group of us went up to Lanham and Seabrook, Md. about 30 years ago to help families in that area. For the most part, that wasn't a poor area, but had its pockets. Big problem, everyone wanted help for the folks who needed help, but very few wanted to help and bring them into their home, or give up the weekend at the bay and so on. That was a rather liberal area as far as voting went, but they didn't mind paying taxes but didn't want to put their time and money and home to help the disadvantage. Most of those folks worked for the government and had good paying jobs for the day, way above average pay, but didn't want to get personally involved, what a shame. I might be unfair, but most of those folks are what I think of when I think of liberals.
The problem is that depending on the whims of goodwill, day in and day out, is not a secure life for those in need either. It has an important part in caring for those who have fallen on hard times, but collectively we can do more and do better than most can do individually.
Good, reasoned discussion so far. I like!
What Obama is really saying is that, since he doesn't have to worry about re-election, he's going to do whatever he wants. He doesn't care what anyone else wants.
The King, he believes, has arrived and he is it. Putin, has he called you yet?
CBT speaks with forked tongue. Didn't he (or she) in another thread define politics as compromise?
Yep, and he accuses the Republicans of not being willing to work with the President. Of course he wants to create a moment to accuse them of racism (his favorite political argument).
Yes, politics is the art of compromise. But if one party, in this case the GOP, refuses to even discuss rationally any topic, then the only thing to do is go forward without their input. This is a tragic era if the GOP does not become more adept at politics.
It's hard when yer hero rules just like yer villian.
Or since it is the President who said "You can come along for the ride but you have to sit in the back of thew bust" . He decide not to work with anyone.
You can talk to and work with those on the bus, but if they will not get on the bus you go without them.
What a stupid statement.
His message was he was going without them, even with them on the bus. Take a seat in the back and shutup was the message.
Want to know where Obama's bus is taking us? Just look at California. Yeah, things are just great out there. Look at Greece. Consider France. The bus driver is taking us on an unsustainable shopping spree. Pretty soon the credit card payment is going to come due. What then? Personally I'm glad that some of our leaders have enough sense to try and get off a bus on a plunge over a cliff.
Maybe I just don't trust the whims of politicians, could be my weakness. They can't give to others without taking from someone first, then they have to pay their employees and their health care and their retirement and much of that is union workers, just doesn't look real proficient and effective to me. We as a church have a duty to help members as well as those outside of our church. We have a duty as Christians to help those in our family and with out or that is how I see it. So much of what I see today is , me, me ,me, not sacrificial giving.
I would say that California is doing very well. Would that other states were doing as well.
California, under Brown, is now running a budget surplus.
Are you serious? People are leaving there. They just raised taxes. Only in Crabby's mind would California be doing ok.
That about made me lose a mouthful of coffee.