I Dislike Myself When I Engage In Partisanship... However...

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

because all it took was an air force one ride to change the so called man of principle into voting yes to something that is unconstitutional.

You say he 'sold his soul', so I'm wondering how he did so. Did he radically change his opinion on health care? I recall him being actively in support of it, so I fail to see how it could be characterized as 'selling his soul'.

I am a moderate, I lean to the left, but don't feel that my way is the only way. I still understand the art of compromise, not that I compromise what I believe in, but that I can find one, that will meet the needs of most. This country is split about 50/50 on every issue, those that claim a majority are trying to manifest something on 1 or 2 % of the population, or even the number of polled voters. The polls do speak to us, but in a sample of 1500, 15 people make up 1%, 15 ain't a whole lot in a country of 300 million. There is middle ground folks, and if we don't find it, we are screwed, blued, and tatooed.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


kucinich was originally aiganst obama care and then after pressure from obama he changed his vote to yes.

its on record for anyone to see.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

kucinich was originally aiganst obama care and then after pressure from obama he changed his vote to yes.

its on record for anyone to see.

I think you may be misinformed. He was not 'originally' against it. He has been for a progressive health care reform for years. He was 'against' the Dem's watered-down version of it because it didnt contain an option for single payer. it wasn't 'progressive enough' for him. its on record for anyone to see.

So how did he 'sell his soul' again?

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

kucinich was originally aiganst obama care and then after pressure from obama he changed his vote to yes.

its on record for anyone to see.

I think you may be misinformed. He was not 'originally' against it. He has been for a progressive health care reform for years. He was 'against' the Dem's watered-down version of it because it didnt contain an option for single payer.

So how did he 'sell his soul' again?

"I have doubts about the bill," Kucinich said. "This is not the bill I wanted to support. . . However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, my wife Elizabeth and close friends, I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation."

Kucinich would be the perfect counter-balance to Dr. Paul. How ballsy would that be?! A (disguised) democrat and a (disguised) republican running together in this political environment. I'm getting all bumpy just thinking about it.

reply to post by Cuervo


i've seen that stated before. It's nonsensical. The two are diametrically opposed, politically. kucinich believes in MORE government and Paul in less.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by Cuervo

 

i've seen that stated before. It's nonsensical. The two are diametrically opposed, politically. kucinich believes in MORE government and Paul in less.

That's why I said "counterbalance". Dr. Paul is extreme in his views and Kucinich is very sensible and grounded. I wouldn't want it the other way around (Mr. Kucinich as POTUS and the Doc as VP) but I think Kucinich being left and in the back seat would balance out quite nicely. Besides, they both wanted the 9/11 commission reopened so you know they would mesh with non-bots.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


When people state the "there is no left/right" I want to go nuts!

While traditional left/right paradigms don't hold true any longer, there are 2 sides.
One that wants bigger government,
One that wants smaller government.

To say that there are no sides obfuscates the truth. You want bigger government? Just say it. Admit it. Don't hide behind a political stance that it is "corporations" or "puppet masters".

You want smaller government? Say it. Own it. Take responsibility to what that entails. You might have to get by without government entitlement programs.

Vote for the person that'll give you what YOU are working towards. When I see people write that it's all "fixed" that there is no hope, then all I want to do is look for the white flag in the horizon.
You want something? Earn it. Work for it. Whether it be a car, house, wy of life, or political ideology that you really believe in.

Rant over!

reply to post by beezzer


This is not entirely true. There is yet another group of who want smaller government on a federal level but a larger government locally. I'm for Ron Paul because of his tear-down-the-feds stance but I'm also (was) for Obama for his big ambitions for healthcare. Now I realize all those things need to be local. As I've said before, Obama (who likes to govern) should be a governor and Paul (who doesn't like to govern) should be the president.

It's not "either/or"; it's more like "where".

reply to post by Cuervo


Forrest/trees. In the past you've been fairly consistant with what you've stated. I didn't like it, but I respected it. As with many on the other side of the spectrum. The easy part about local politics is that if you don't like it somewhere, MOVE! Much more difficult on a larger, federal scale.

Nice to see you edge closer to the dark side, though, young jedi.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Cuervo

 

The easy part about local politics is that if you don't like it somewhere, MOVE! Much more difficult on a larger, federal scale.

Right there. That's the key. I think there are more and more of us along those lines. Well said.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

People that participate in bi-partisanship have no principles, because if they did they wouldn't compromise in the name of bi-partisanship. The same applies to those that call themselves "Moderates". All a Moderate is is someone that can't make their mind up, or are scared of voicing their opinion.

That's only true to someone on either 'extreme'. "Moderate" means, essentially, 'not extreme'. Only an extremest would say it's someone who cant make up their mind.

Only an uninformed infant would call someone who stands on principal an extremist. There is only one way to do things in government, and that is the constitutional way... period. Moderates need not apply.

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Two words: Power Corrupts

They really are all the same. I could say I agree with this ideology or that one but when it comes right down to it, until such time as there is freedom to sue the sitting president or congress for breach of contract (lying to get elected), they can say anything to get elected... and do. Even good men with the best of intentions, given enough power for long enough will become corrupted.

I know it is cliche, but money (and the resulting greed) really is the root of all evil. What's the best way to get money? Power. It's a viscous circle.

edit on 9/6/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

Not true at all..George Washington walked away when he could have been king.

A little history does a mind good.

George Washington was tempered by the prevailing attitude in the country as well as the Continental Congress. I don't see how you can possibly think that George Washington had enough power for long enough to qualify as a disqualification of my statement that power corrupts. There was no way that he could have been king.

A little history along with logic and critical thinking really does do a mind good!

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by Cuervo

 

i've seen that stated before. It's nonsensical. The two are diametrically opposed, politically. kucinich believes in MORE government and Paul in less.

That's why I said "counterbalance". Dr. Paul is extreme in his views and Kucinich is very sensible and grounded. I wouldn't want it the other way around (Mr. Kucinich as POTUS and the Doc as VP) but I think Kucinich being left and in the back seat would balance out quite nicely. Besides, they both wanted the 9/11 commission reopened so you know they would mesh with non-bots.

That isn't how the veep/potus relationship works.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by Cuervo

 

i've seen that stated before. It's nonsensical. The two are diametrically opposed, politically. kucinich believes in MORE government and Paul in less.

That's why I said "counterbalance". Dr. Paul is extreme in his views and Kucinich is very sensible and grounded. I wouldn't want it the other way around (Mr. Kucinich as POTUS and the Doc as VP) but I think Kucinich being left and in the back seat would balance out quite nicely. Besides, they both wanted the 9/11 commission reopened so you know they would mesh with non-bots.

That isn't how the veep/potus relationship works.

I know... I just can't get the whole Starsky and Hutch image out of my head when I think of the POTUS and VP. I always think of the two roles as good cop/bad cop. Maybe it's because Cheney had so much influence.

Regardless, I think they would mesh well, even if they don't fulfill my cop-buddy movie fantasies.