On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 8:24:25 AM UTC+11, Timbo wrote:
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:11:53 PM UTC-5, GT wrote:
On Monday, November 10, 2014 at 4:10:35 AM UTC+11, Timbo wrote:
On Saturday, November 8, 2014 10:39:07 PM UTC-5, GT wrote:
On Thursday, November 6, 2014 2:00:47 PM UTC+11, LL wrote:
I have one major criticism of Obama. He should stop "reaching out" to Republicans. He should know by now that doing so means shooting himself and the Democratic Party in the foot. It can never work. Republicans don't want to negotiate or compromise. They are not statesmen--they are politicians--underhanded ones at that. They will stop at nothing to get their way. I wish Obama had figured this out from the beginning. It will do nothing to get Republicans to do what's best for the country instead of what's best for the Republican party and themselves. Democrats in Congress should be as uncooperative as Republicans have been since Obama became president. They need to use the same kinds of roadblocks. There is no negotiating with the current crop of Republicans. They will blithely send the whole country down the drain before they will cooperate on anything. Trying to "reach out" to Republicans is like trying to reach out to a nest of vipers.
The real obstacle Barack Obama faces is that he has been elected by the majority of the people, which by default makes him most unlikely to be qualified to run a country. That is charisma, for example is part of the selection criteria chosen by voters when making their decisions, but has nothing at all to do with solving a nations problems. It's no wonder politicians age rapidly when they become leaders. They are thrust, little more than by chance, into positions that they must find bewildering.WTF! Reagan was elected by a far greater majority. It has jack-shit to do with actual leading the government. Reagan was also voted greatly by charisma. His success in governing was through none other than his Hollywood charisma.
Charisma helps get people elected, otherwise it is not an attribute when it comes to providing solutions. It might be that it's the least charismatic person that has the solutions, but due to the democratic process that lack of charisma (and the two party filter) keeps them out of office.
(The fact that an atheist has faith in the democratic election process reveals how naive you people really are.)Obama does not find his job bewildering at all. He is an highly successful president causing some important permanent changes in health-care law. He successfully turned around an economically failing country caused by the former admin. Could he have done more? Not with a large group of anti government pigs seeking to destroy the president instead of doing their jobs.
Economic turn arounds don't have much at all to do with who is in government, as it's more to do with naturally occurring trends. Which is not saying that governments can't actually govern, just that they don't. They don't because they are made up of politicians, people who don't have the knowledge, but have electability instead.Your'e wrong. Politicians access specialist for knowledge regularly. Just because they learn what they should be doing, dose not mean they will get the pigs being lobbied to vote for what is ethical. Stop lying about politicians. Leave that job for Rush and Friends.
Sure, and I'm very much aware of this fact. But running a country is not something any majority elected group could achieve even with the input of specialists. I mean for example someone who specialized in economics would suggest things that someone who specialized in sociology would not agree with. And, who's lying! Are you saying that politicians are a generally respected group of 'professionals'? Yeah right!
Example: Suppose you had all of the solutions to your country's problems. What would you do? First up, not being in government yourself, you might want to make it known that you have those solutions. You could go to a TV network, tell them. There response will of course be that they've heard this kind of thing before, it comes from people called politicians all the time, and you need to 'pay' if you want to get your message across. What to do know? (do I need to continue?) You would need to become a candidate, get funding, endorsement etc. Now consider how few US presidents there have been in relationship to the number of Americans, then consider that these aren't your actual odds at all, as you still need to overcome all of the other obstacles, including possibly, lack of charisma.
The simple fact is that a two party democracy in effect conspires to eliminate those with the solutions. From that we conclude that it is most unlikely that Obama has solutions, therefor his presidency would have needed to be a bewildering experience.And your wrong again. The 2 party works as gang 1 and gang 2 to fill the needs of those supplying their election funds and special privileges after leaving office. Yet there are many hard working politicians for their constitutes. It is the publics responsibility to research who they are putting in office instead o listening to the talking heads.
But they don't research it, and shouldn't need to anyhow. It's for those people who put their hands up time an again to get it right or resign. And can the public be expected to make the right choice when their votes are along familial or economic lines etc. ? What the see-sawing two party system has managed to achieve, if nothing else, is a reasonable degree of socioeconomic balance. But it's still far from perfect. A new, 'third party', is needed.
Democracy is designed to work for the people who get involved. Not for lazy asses that sit around listening to shit talk.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to email@example.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.