We're all to blame for divided America
"This country is more divided then it ever was under Bush. ... Obama needs to step up and be the world leader here in the USA that he seems to be for the rest of the world."
An interesting comment, and in some respects very true.
In all fairness, I don't think this is the fault of any one group, liberal or conservative. I think we're all to blame.
Let's leave poor old George Dubya out of this argument for the sake of brevity, and let's look only at the world as it exists today.
If you're a liberal, you see that we have a government run by a liberal president who won election with the highest vote percentage in more than 20 years and a solidly Democratic Congress. You've been frustrated by the failure of the government to deal with your issues -- health care, environmental protection, etc. -- and you're ready to put the hammer down.
If you're a conservative, you're certainly not thrilled that the country basically voted to go in a new direction last year. You've had conservative presidents for 20 of the last 28 years and they didn't accomplish half of what you hoped they would (flat tax, abortion, school prayer, etc.). You feel like you're back to fighting a guerilla war to keep the government from making things worse.
Throw in the fact that we're in a truly horrible economy, with at least 25 percent of the work force either unemployed or underemployed, with housing prices in a funk and gas prices high, and both sides have every right to be unhappy.
We have a culture that has been so trashed by people on both sides that our entertainment panders to the worst impulses in all of us, our news programs opine rather than inform and our schools aren't doing much more than warehousing our children.
What do we do about a culture in which nearly 50 percent of minority students never even graduate from high school?
What do we do about a society in which 70 percent of families are doing no better than just getting by?
God may have shed His grace on America, but we certainly aren't keeping up our end of the bargain.
On one side we have people who don't want to build or develop anywhere there's an insect that might be considered endangered. On the other we have people who fight against regulating the worst kind of pollution because it might put a small dent in profits.
On one side we have people who refuse to consider a baby a human being till the doctor slaps it and it cries. On the other we have people who are killing doctors who perform abortions.
You may have gotten my point by now, but I'll state it just the same. There are an awful lot of places where the situation could be improved by groups willing to work together to find some middle ground, but in most of those same places, neither side is willing to give an inch.
We aren't willing to accept each other's humanity.
We live in the country we have created -- not the land of the free and the home of the brave, but a country where people on the other side of an issue aren't our opponents, they're our enemies.
Look at some of the comments you see to articles. Heck, look at the comments I've made myself. We've said things to other people that we would consider mortal insults if people said them to us. Most of us think that those who don't agree with us are stupid or at least ignorant of the world the way it is.
I don't have much hope for Barack Obama being able to change any of that. He'll serve for four years or maybe eight years, and when he leaves office, candidates on both sides will run on "changing the tone in Washington."
I used to have a fantasy of running for office. In my fantasy I planned to do one thing -- run a 100 percent positive campaign. I would talk about what we needed to do to help our country without ever saying anything negative about my opponent.
When asked, I would have one response:
"He/she is a good man/woman, but I think I can do better."
I used to think people would respond to a campaign like that, but now I know better. The only people who win elections either trash their opponent or trash their predecessor.
Even when we're not being overtly negative, we venerate irony or sarcasm. It never fails to get a laugh when someone responds to someone else by saying, "What's your point?"
No, Obama can't lead us.
Franklin D. Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln couldn't lead us.
Jesus Christ couldn't lead us, because we don't want to be led.
We would rather curse the darkness than light a candle.
The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves ...
-
- Share:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reach -
Credibility
-
Maybe it's time to drop our filters a bit, and be more rational when we look at solutions to problems. Maybe it's looking for newer, better solutions to the same old problems. Maybe it's defining the problems in more abstract terms, with less ideological constraints.
The irony of it all is that in many cases, people on both sides want the same thing; many times the details are the only argument.
Great job bud. It's a very thought provoking article. Clearly, we need to do something differently.
"And there is a Catskill eagle in some souls that can alike dive down into the blackest gorges, and soar out of them again and become invisible in the sunny spaces. And even if he for ever flies within the gorge, that gorge is in the mountains; so that even in his lowest swoop the mountain eagle is still higher than other birds upon the plain, even though they soar."
and the tone they have set so far is telling their critics to shut up and get out of the way, calling protesters angry mobs and racist (among other things)and declaring war on a news outlet
this is what i meant by my statement
You're making my point for me.
for all to step up to their job and glady meet the needs, this ancient highway of our travels and the neccissarry noise, enough to help the girls see eye to eye with all the boys. All those silly feelings that we take so serious and yes we must be more sensitive, at least enough bring back the memories of the bus.
Copenhagen, Denmark, we love you!!!
The steward, the stone-hedge, and the stow-away
☻☺☻
And that is the definition of a liberal. And we have had a "liberal" Supreme Court actually since Marbury v. Madison. Jefferson is even quoted as stating that the judiciary placed itself above "the law," which was the Constitution, time and again for political purposes for their own aggrandizement. They were supposed to be the final arbiter in Constitutional interpretation, but the common law on Constitutional interpretation holds that the Constitution, as written until lawfully amended (per the 9th also, at the consent of the governed) stood in interpretation using the common useage language contained within it.
Having no powers to change or amend it. Thus, all Executive Orders are actually null and void, since the President was given no "law making" ability whatsoever. Merely veto power, that's it. And that is FACT. And a liberal cannot deny or change that also but ignoring that FACT.
So your spins again is just spin. Since there are now the Global Socialist Party (who hold that the Constituion and its provisions extend to everyone no matter whether they are one of We the People or not, such as illegal immigrants, or foreign visitors.
Or those that hold that the Constitution and its terms extend to Americans as the government of this country, not the government of the world. And if the world wants to adopt out system, fine. But we are instead adopting the system of government that our founders fought against. The British style of world dominion and sovereignty, with those holding that it is the government that grants you those rights, rather than as "unalieanable" and those Bill of Rights provisions inviolate.
And THAT is the middle ground, actually. And as I said, you termed the 1960's Vietnam protestors and women suffegettes as "liberals," when actually they were conservatives.
So someday I truly hope you start to get your terminology straight.
Since it appears you must be watching too much of that British channel, Fox, for your definitions of conservative. Which are merely the definitions and views promoted on his station of the British version of conservative.
Which is not at all the same as this country's conservatives. So you might ask one, rather than "labeling" some of those anti-abortion and gun rights nuts as conservative. Because they also hold with unlawful searches and seizures, which makes them not true conservatives at all.
Since a true conservative believes in "conserving" the government the founders created. Across the board. And acknowledges the amendments which are in accordance with their intent, but not those with respect to taxation that were not "lawfully" amended by a vote of the governed per the 9th. So the 16th, as a direct tax on American's labor inflicted without their consent per the 9th, was illegally ratified.
As was the 17th, which placed the states then below the federal government now and mere lobbyists, without their untainted representation. Since the Senators now represent special interest groups most of all.
And you cannot have any "representative" government in any manner whatsoever when those representatives are sponsored by out of district (and now out of state and country) slush monies for their campaigns, and "corporate" donations from political parties that have basically hijacked the entire system.
So our government now is illegal on all levels. Since none of those "representatives" was ever duly elected in the first place.
And those are FACTS.
So the discontent Americans have are with the political party process most of all.
And Obama's election was a negative win, which you also have difficulty comprehending. His election was no "sweep" at all. He was determined at the time as the "lesser of two evils" in another candidate promoting continuing the war, and also policies of the Bush Administration that American's were fed up with. While Obama has simply carried out the Bush agenda with the exception really of his "statements" on Guantanamo, which really is not all that important in the scheme of things as to just where political prisoners are incarcerated since Guantanamo is an American territory it is no different actually than Alcatraz - all that about being on American soil and having acess to lawyers then was pure spin.
Since as political detainees but under an undeclared war, they always had the ability for counsel actually. And their own governments could have sent it at any time, and it would have been pretty hard for the U.S. to have a valid reason to challenge it since this has never been a declared war, but under a Resolution that called for the capture of bin Laden and any and all that assisted them.
And the Iraqi Resolution was really devoted to funding expansion of that mission, not rebuilding nor targeting Saddam Hussein. That isn't even mentioned in the Resolution at all. So that entire scenario was contrived and liberated Iraq from Hussein, but I don't see Obama withdrawing even now after the mission was accomplished over four years ago.
So his "election" was also due to misrepresentations, which the American people have clearly spoken now on being defrauded once again by one of the globalists.
And surprised at this point with his declining ratings, and also continued Constitutional abridgments, you would still tout his election results, knowing this was one of the most contentious elections ever due to both candidates being nothing more than manufactured PR machines and policians using marketers and public relations experts in order to promote and image. But throughout no one could ever get a handle on where they stood for, really, or the differences beween them.
Hollywood could have cast this election. And most likely, those affiliated with Hollywood, did.
BTW, I do not watch any television news, let alone Fox.
One side is filled with hate, lies and conspiracies.
One side hasseled Clinton for being a Democrat. And now is hassling Obama for being a Democrat.
The other side was protesting against War Crimes. Against illegal wiretaps, fear-mongering, torturing, lying and taking us into a War, for being instated as a President. Protesting against secrecy, partisanship, carelessness, incompetence, abuse of power and more lying.
Many on the right claim the same kind of things against Obama, but it's based in lies and inaccuracies.
The Republicans just voted to not allow rape victims to take their attackers to court. They voted in favor of corporate interest constantly. Do you know how easy it is to see how a Republican will vote on any issue? Just see where the corporations are headed and that's where the Republican party will be headed.
At least there is some variety in the Democratic Party.
80% of the criticism aimed at Obama is just bullsh!t. Whereas 80% of the criticism aimed at Bush was real. That's a major difference in the way critics treated Bush and the way Obama critics treat him.
You know I could make up things about Bush and hate him for it too. All sorts of things or I could just blame him for what he was responsible for.
Most of the criticism of Obama is pure fairy tales.
"We aren't willing to accept each other's humanity."
The rigth sees Obama as a socialist, a facist, a racist, a babykiller, a dirty liberal, not their president, a Muslim, not a real citizen, a dirty "globalist", he wants to make FEMA camps for conservatives, hates the Constitution, caused the economic collapse, raised taxes, took away gun rights, did I meantion that he's a dirty liberal and that dirty liberals belong "in hell and not the white house"(as a pretty popular retweet among conservatives said).
Actually I recommend everyone go to Twitter an see just all the things conservatives and Republicans say about Obama, and liberals when they think only other conservatives are looking.
What about the ones who called him Chimpy McFlightsuit?
We're both to blame.
Cell phones use report code: Related Tweets
-
@markknoller @expatina Bush visited 75 countries during his 8 years as President.
about 1 month ago
Related People
Site Links
Site Topics
Contributions
- Report Your News
- Add your voice and contribute via your cellphone - check out how to Report News via Your Cellphone
- Blog Widget
- Widget for Blog Owner
