pakfanistan
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Seawolf, I'm just curious if you've got any sources to back this up...
Republicans have never spent nearly 2 trillion dollars over the course of a year and a half.That's this number: 2,000,000,000,000. 12 zeroes.
tjfoose1
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
JEOH2 -
I love when people make huge, insulting, generalizations about why people voted for a candidate..."laziness" and "ignorance" what a silly statement...this is why I normally avoid these ridiculous political threads...
Actually, that is exactly what you are doing... Perhaps you should reread my comment, and to what I was responding.
It was not an insult, it was an observation and truthful analysis. I stand by it. Lazy? Yes. Ignorant? Yes. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. That is an accurate description of those Obama voters who now regret it.
My comments were referring to those who voted for Obama, who now have voters remorse. Those who voted for the media created image of the man, without knowledge of the actual man, his politics or his agenda. Those people, yes, were lazy and ignorant regarding Obama's politics. Obama was not hiding what he intended to do.
My comments were NOT directed to those who support Obama's politics and agenda. Although I may disagree vehemently with those who support them, I can respect anyone who can engage in an informed and intelligent debate regarding political theory.
It's the arrogantly uniformed, those ignorant of politics and history, who formulate the entirety of their political thought on regurgitated 5 second sound bits and jokes on John Stewart that disgust me.
Plz2BStateFan
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
No presidency, either republican or democrat, has ever made the government of the United States smaller. Ever.
pakfanistan
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
My comments were referring to those who voted for Obama, who now have voters remorse. Those who voted for the media created image of the man, without knowledge of the actual man, his politics or his agenda. Those people, yes, were lazy and ignorant regarding Obama's politics. Obama was not hiding what he intended to do.
I think you'll find that many of the people who are disappointed in Obama aren't disappointed because they think he's gone too far, but because they think he hasn't gone far enough.
tjfoose1
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
No presidency, either republican or democrat, has ever made the government of the United States smaller. Ever.
Actually, that may not be true.
From memory... Andrew Jackson, though that could be debated.
Warren Harding - he cut taxes, and cut federal spending, by 50%! This in reaction to the Depression of 1920 cause by Wilson's policies. Never heard of it? Most have not. It is rarely discussed because tax cuts and spending cuts quickly turned it around. - Oops, can't let that secret get out, otherwise, some might start to think that bigger government actually isn't the solution to everything. - Hardings actions lead to the boom that became the roaring 20's.
Too bad FDR didn't follow Harding's example, but then again, ending the 'Great Depression' was not FDR's primary concern.
packplantpath
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Jackson may have shrunk the federal budget(not sure, but possible), but I don't think he qualifies for a small government kind of guy based on the non-financial considerations. There is, at least in my view, much more to small government than government spending as a proportion of GDP.
Limited government to me means that there are certain areas and things that the federal government has no authority over. These are things like marriage and sexuality, local education policy, drug laws, gun laws, religion, and numerous other things that are and have been taken over by the fed. This is, IMO, simply outside the proper scope of a federal government. A natural consequence of this view of limited government would be a smaller budget, at least if applied to current US standards. However, there is nothing in this view that precludes a high ratio of government spending to GDP.
tjfoose1
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
I think you'll find that many of the people who are disappointed in Obama aren't disappointed because they think he's gone too far, but because they think he hasn't gone far enough.
Right, understood. Which is why, in listing who I was NOT referring to, I included the reference to those who support Obama's politics and agenda. Those folks voted for Obama because they were informed. They were making an informed choice.
I understand that many feel Obama has not done/accomplished enough to advance his politics and agenda (Obama is more of a realist than many of the extreme left), but that doesn't change what is his politics and agenda.
howlie
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Appreciate the other sites who have separated politics and other topics into an entirely separate board, and like ACC10k, I'm sick of the political drivel creeping into all threads Wolfpack.
I'm sick of the caustic, acerbic, polarizing, demonizing approach to politics and the worldview, in general, of complainAmericans today. HALF of you are going to hell... and of course, it's whatever side I'm not on.
^Folks posting above think the last election was about 'issues' or 'platforms.' It was none of that. Rather, 51% of people are just sick and tired of being sick and tired, and long for a 'Kennedyesque' or 'Regeanesque' era when the country can join work together to approach common problems.
But solving problems doesn't last but a second, and politicians revert to the 'default setting' that will get, and keep them, elected. That is because we want THOSE OTHER PEOPLE (whoever that is that we think isn't us) to be shamed, insulted, and lambasted. We REALLY DON'T WANT anything to get done, we just want to elect $*#*mouthed people to demonize "the other side."
Please. Allow people to do that on a separate forum.
tjfoose1
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
I'm with you packplantpath, like I wrote, Jackson is debatable.
In many ways, he limited and reigned in the power of the government, congress in particular, and was a strong proponent of the individual and individual rights. In doing so, however, he did increase the power of the Presidency. But that was more so his Presidency (Jackson was a force of nature), as apposed to the Presidency in general. He took steps to get rid of the 'spoils' system, he ended the enormous power and influence and the Bank of the United States, and in doing so, the enormous power and influence of the handful of bureaucrats and elected officials who controlled it.
He did a few other things too. But, again, this is all from memory... I'm a history geek. Jackson is admittedly, debatable, based on how you define 'the size of government'.
tjfoose1
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
howlie - trying not to sound cliche, but...
Respectfully, freedom and liberty are not easy. Keeping them is not clean, nice, or neat. It is not always pretty, it is not always fun. Disengaging because one is "sick and tired" is an excuse, the easy way out. There is a reason that freedom and liberty is the rare rare exception in man's history.
Like I reference in an above comment. The electorate, as a whole, usually gets the government they deserve. I agree with your general sentiment, but it has come to what it is exactly because people, for far too long, became disengaged, uniformed, and uninterested.
Some are finally waking up and asking wtf happened?
Our problems are nothing that can't be rectified by an educated, informed electorate + an aggressive, unbiased press + character and statesmanship in government. We've gone too far long without them. Now we have what we have. We stood by and let it happen. How do we get back, will we get back? Who knows, but efforts to do so will not be pretty. The 'establishment', the entrenched and entitled, they will not go quietly.
My humble suggestions to get started: term limits and repeal the 17th Amendment.
Khan
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
These political threads are so retarded. I can't wait until football season so I don't have to see this drivel.
Ignoring is allowed on this forum.
Pack Mentality
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
If I told you that in one state a certain political party's platform for 2010 included outlawing oral sex would you like that party more, less, or are you neutral?
This is not a purely theoretical question either!
packalum44
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
I'm really pretty puzzled by Obama's fall from grace with those who voted for him. All of his domestic initiatives have been right in line with what I expected based on the campaign and his track record.
Me too. That's basically the reason why I wonder what the hell all the democrats are so upset about. People voted for him because they liked him. That and his message of HOPE was all they needed. Sadly it reminds me of my favorite BJD quote, "Hope is not a strategy." But in politics and NC State athletics, it is.
NCStatePride
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
If I told you that in one state a certain political party's platform for 2010 included outlawing oral sex would you like that party more, less, or are you neutral?
If this anonymous party's platform didn't jive with the national party's ideals, then I probably wouldn't have any opinion about the party... I'd just think that state's politicians were idiots.
That's the beauty of not being a walking-liberal-speaking-point: I reserve the right to think for myself and not support the President's agenda in February 2009 simply because 60% of the nation says I should.
NCStatePride
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
That and his message of HOPE was all they needed.
You forgot the 'star' factor. Make no mistake about it: Obama had major celebrity appeal (for some reason). To this day, whenever I'm having to get some interns together to do a test or something, I'll look at them and say, "Are ya'll fired up?! Ready to go?!"
BillyTheKid
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
FYI: Andy Jackson killed 4,000 Cherokee.......... yes we need a few more good men like that.
packplantpath
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
FYI: Andy Jackson killed 4,000 Cherokee.......... yes we need a few more good men like that.
Yea, that's pretty much what I was getting at, I just didn't want to derail things even more. Jackson fought for the little guy, as long as the little guy was a white dude. The mans life history is fascinating however, and the cult of personality around him was astounding.
He wasn't completely without compassion, he did after all adopt an Indian child whose parents died in an attack by his troops and treated him as his own son (mostly). But generally, yes, his legacy is not a pretty one.
NCStatePride
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Ok, this is one of those 'stereotype' moments (so far I've avoided those so I don't feel too bad). Billy, you just mentioned Jackson killed 4,000 Cherokee. I assume that if this is an FYI, it's either supporting or bringing up a caveat to someone's argument. I looked up and the only reference to Andrew Jackson is tjfoose1 saying Jackson possibly shrank the government. So here is my question for the crowd: how come when a conservative is talking about a given subject (here, shrinking government) and brings up a particular founding father (Andrew Jackson), a liberal feels the need to bring up a 100% unrelated fact (i.e. killing of the Native Americans) as a response? I just don't get how I'm 'suppose' to react to that. Am I suppose to come to the conclusion that since he did some bad things I shouldn't cite him as a reference? Maybe this just gets into the "liberal guilt" thing so it's just going over my head, but I just don't understand why people randomly bring up founding father's faults when they are completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
Reminds me of when I studied music and people use to talk about how genius a composer is, so we'd bring up how that individual was typically either a druggy or a pedophile just to piss the band-nerd-ish kids off. Hindsight 20/20, the only point in doing that was to point out that an individual someone else looked up to was a really, really flawed person. I guess the difference here is that we all know Native Americans were killed during Jackson's presidency, we all know George Washington owned slaves, and we all know Franklin was a man-whore... I don't see how that has any bearing or provides any rebuttle to a political argument when citing those individuals' accomplishments.
Pack Mentality
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Reminds me of when I studied music and people use to talk about how genius a composer is, so we'd bring up how that individual was typically either a druggy
I know it's off topic, but that point would in no way hinder someone's ability to compose music. I would be willing to bet my life savings that many musicians believe mind altering substances enhance their creativity.
NCStatePride
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
^And that's sort of my point. What the Hell does it matter if Granger was a dirty pedophile?!?! Obviously he made more of a legacy than most of us will. So let's transpose that to the Jackson thing: if we're talking about shrinking governmental systems, what the Hell does his policy towards Native Americans have anything to do with that.
I mean, imagine if that argument was flipped and we were talking about crimes against native peoples and someone tried defending Jackson by saying "well... he did shrink government to more responsible levels." What does that have to do with anything? Jackson still killed a bunch of people and it was still wrong. Same concept, here.
Pack Mentality
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
^True...kind of like bringing up Christian issues when the topic is on Muslim terrorists.
NCStatePride
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
^Actually, since Muslim terrorism and Jihad is against "the infidels", a big part of which is the Judeo-Christian people, I think it's perfectly relevant, but you know... forgive me for sticking with the facts.
packplantpath
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
if we're talking about shrinking governmental systems, what the Hell does his policy towards Native Americans have anything to do with that.
Seriously? Big government is not just about the size of it's spending. It's also about how much control it has over the lives of the citizens. A government that murders and displaces thousands of citizens is not a small government. That is why TJ gave the caveat he did I think.
I understand that you are talking about budgetary small government, but by doing so you ignore the entire intellectual history of classical liberalism upon which modern conservatism is (very) loosely based. For the majority of our countries history, small government had little to do with government spending and more to do with the fed's control over individual lives (except black people).
EDIT: Yes, I know, technically the native americans were not citizens. But they were under treaties that were violated countless times.
Pack Mentality
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Nevermind
JasonP
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
bringing up supposed unrelated details keeps the discussion from being myopic and prevents one-dimensional caricatures of historical persons.
BillyTheKid
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
NCStatePride, I'm 100% with you brother! Adolf Hilter contributed to the design of the Volkswagen Beetle, but everytime people try to talk about his individual accomplishments you have "those types" coming out of the woodwork talking about the Jews, I'm like OMG! WTF! Totally! Can't we just show love to everyone?
packplantpath
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Ahhhh, the godwin. Beautiful. It was only a matter of time.
Mods, lock the thread.
(I keed, but funny still, and pretty apt)
NCStatePride
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
First of all, Billy... you're an idiot. What I'm talking about would be more related to either saying (a) Adolf Hitler made an interstate system... but that doesn't count because he mass murdered innnocent people (even though the system is still there) or (b) Adolf Hitler killed millions of Jewish people, but it's ok because he wasn't crazy... after all, he invented an interstate system. But you know... back to that "things must be black or white" argument.
packplantpath, listen, it's not that I don't understand where you guys are trying to go with this, I just think it's irrelevant. Big government applies to how one manages and controls their country. The Native Americans were viewed as a threat American expansion (aka, National Security). A small government still has every right to defend itself. Look, in the Civil War, the Confederacy was obviously the pinnacle of (failed) small centralized government, but they still had a command structure for their regional militaries to act in national interests. Them trying to prevent slaves and citizens from fleeing to the North wasn't about control, it was about protecting their economic national security. Same with Jackson. The killing of the Cherokee was a result of American expansion and ensuring that citizens wouldn't be harmed. It's obviously not morally right, but the fact is that they were not considered 'regular citizens', but rather indigenous people that 'wanted the land' just as Americans did. It was a conflict of national interests.
JasonP: agreed. After all, we all come from a University that requires engineers to take literature courses so we must agree there is some merit in univeral knowledge in a conversation... but if it's used as an argument or side-point to the topic, it seems like it should somehow relate.
packplantpath
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Pride, I understand, but you are illustrating one of my major complaints about the republican party, beside blatant hypocrisy on budgetary matters. They emphasize the economic portion of small government in relation to taxes and spending, at least in rhetoric. But when it comes to the other portions of small government they are mum. On "moral" issues, they want a big government to enforce their beliefs.
JasonP
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
packplantpath, don't ignore the fact that republicans cheer 'small' gov't while endorsing multiple billions for the pentagon/DoD. they only give lip service to those 'moral' issues.