slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: 1OldGeezer! :mrgreen:

Fred Schnaubelt Loc: San Diego

Politicians are like diapers ---- They must be changed often --- and for the same reason.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

A much repeated Mark Twain quote. It comes up quite often, on this forum!

Always pertinent to the discussions. :thumbup: :mrgreen:

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Spot on Dennis!!!!!

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

No, I hardly believe all change is good. I think the health care bill was a fiasco. I don't like the use of drones. I don't like the NSA trampling our fourth amendment rights. I do like that the President has not gotten us into any new wars and cut back on our bloated military spending. President (Eisenhower in his farewell speech told us all to be aware of the military-industrial complex).

Virtually everyone finds change....sometimes good...sometimes not so much. I do know this, its a waste of time to have third party fantasies and impeachment fantasies. The President will finish out his term and the political opposition will have a chance in 2016 to present a better case and prove they can adapt to changing demographics. If they don't adapt they will just go the way of the Whigs or just be a permanent minority party. Building a campaign tailor-made to conservative white males is a losing proposition. That segment of the electorate is becoming an ever smaller share of the pie. There are reasons that McCain and Romney lost. This is not George Washington's America. Its not the 1950s. The U.S. has changed dramatically whether or not the conservatives can deal with that.[/quote]


McCain and Romney are Establishment Republicans, they are NOT conservatives, and they lost because the conservative base is sick of being repeatedly betrayed by these pretenders, who speak one way on the election trail and behave quite differently when the election is secured. A vote for either of those gentlemen is a vote for the status quo and so many conservatives didn't vote. The candidate who promised the most "free" goodies to the most people won this time around.

You are correct, though, about this not being the America of the 1950s. This America is the America of debt, dependence and depravity! There are a few of us left with the cajones to resist "going with the flow." Maybe more than you think.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

No, I hardly believe all change is good. I think the health care bill was a fiasco. I don't like the use of drones. I don't like the NSA trampling our fourth amendment rights. I do like that the President has not gotten us into any new wars and cut back on our bloated military spending. President (Eisenhower in his farewell speech told us all to be aware of the military-industrial complex).

Virtually everyone finds change....sometimes good...sometimes not so much. I do know this, its a waste of time to have third party fantasies and impeachment fantasies. The President will finish out his term and the political opposition will have a chance in 2016 to present a better case and prove they can adapt to changing demographics. If they don't adapt they will just go the way of the Whigs or just be a permanent minority party. Building a campaign tailor-made to conservative white males is a losing proposition. That segment of the electorate is becoming an ever smaller share of the pie. There are reasons that McCain and Romney lost. This is not George Washington's America. Its not the 1950s. The U.S. has changed dramatically whether or not the conservatives can deal with that.[/quote]




Brian: (quote reply seems to be misbehaving)
McCain and Romney are Establishment Republicans, they are NOT conservatives, and they lost because the conservative base is sick of being repeatedly betrayed by these pretenders, who speak one way on the election trail and behave quite differently when the election is secured. A vote for either of those gentlemen is a vote for the status quo and so many conservatives didn't vote. The candidate who promised the most "free" goodies to the most people won this time around.

You are correct, though, about this not being the America of the 1950s. This America is the America of debt, dependence and depravity! There are a few of us left with the cajones to resist "going with the flow." Maybe more than you think.

Brian Devon

[quote=1OldGeezer]Brian,
I see we are mostly on the same page, some differences.
The "Military-Industrial" complex warned against is better described as Crony capitalism as it exists today; it is government representatives being "bought" by businesses, favorable "earmarks" or laws in exchange for "campaign donations". Blame the businesses for that if you want, but the Representative did not have to "sell", I blame the businesses less than I blame the "Government representative".

Thank you for your respectful remarks. I did a little research. The heart of what I found is this: in order to end crony capitalism two supreme court rulings need to be reversed. (1) Pennsylvania Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 1888. This granted full personhood to corporations, with the ensuing constitutional rights, there of. (2) Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, which ruled that corporate $$$ contributions were the same as constitutionally protected free speech.

I hope these two cases are revisited if President Obama gets to appoint one more Supreme Court justice. Whether he gets to make an appt. or whether these cases will be revisited is anyone's guess. As long as these two rulings remain in effect, we will have endemic corruption on both sides of the aisle. We will also have our representatives spending massive amounts of time on securing donations instead of doing what they are supposed to do, which is debating and enacting laws that will truly benefit the American people instead of enriching the campaign coffers of congressional representatives and senators.

VladimirPee

Crony Capitalism existed long before Citizens United ruling in 2010. I don't think I need to list examples.


[quote=Brian Devon]

jay-are

What about before 1888?

VladimirPee

I am sure it has existed since 1776 without interuption

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

:thumbup: :mrgreen:

jay-are

Old geezer claims that it didn't before 1888. You can't just say "yes it did"

If I was judging this debate between oldgeezer and you, oldgeezer is winning at the moment.

His argument had facts and figures, dates and documents, to back it up. Perhaps the first time it was tried was in 1887, and that led to the 1888 supreme court decision.

Your argument just suggested that you are right because you are sure you must be right. That is a very weak argument. You lose that debate.

jay-are

DennisDee

Here is an article that might shed light on the subject of lobbyists.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/0928/the-lobbyist-through-history-villainy-and-virtue

VladimirPee

You are correct. Crony Capitalism is nothing new. With or without Citizens United corporate money has always found its way into politics one way or another.

jay-are

I agree. It is not about the law. China and Muslims are using the freedoms of our law to destroy the freedoms that this country was founded on, and the money will destroy it just as surely. Only a moral and religious citizenry can protect the experiment in freedom. When the immoral get in control, it will fall.