How satisfied are you with the results of the election?

[knapplc]

Doesn't matter who won, America's going to lose. There's so much butthurt between both sides, nothing's going to get accomplished. And the way these idiotic politico's talk, no matter which side of the aisle, you'd think the Christians were plotting how to go on a crusade to kill the Muslims...

 

The butthurt is superficial, at least on the part of the electorate. Ignore the pundits. Plus I have confidence that at the crucial moment, America won't truly let this country go down the drain. The people will voice their discontent in no uncertain terms.

 

The situation we're in is no worse (in fact, far better) than we faced in 2008, and we survived that. We'll survive this, and we'll be just fine.

[carlfense]

Doesn't matter who won, America's going to lose. There's so much butthurt between both sides, nothing's going to get accomplished. And the way these idiotic politico's talk, no matter which side of the aisle, you'd think the Christians were plotting how to go on a crusade to kill the Muslims...

Or you'd think that the U.S. faces the imminent threat of being overrun by Sharia law.

[carlfense]

The situation we're in is no worse (in fact, far better) than we faced in 2008, and we survived that. We'll survive this, and we'll be just fine.

Indeed.

[TGHusker]

A post to an article on post election layoffs pretty much nails it IMHO.

From www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/nov/8/picket-companies-plan-massive-layoffs-obamacare-be/

 

"Confederacy of Fools

 

The danager to America is not Barach Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barach Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.

Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Somoen over there has it figured out. We have a lot of work to do. "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience." "

 

 

Who are the Confederacy of Fools - those who are bribed by politicians like Obama who bribe the people with their (the people's) own money. When our republic stops looking after the overall good of the nation but only seeks its own individual or 'tribal' good, we stop being a functioning republic and our fall into a Greece like state is only a matter of time.

As quoted

• "It is not, perhaps, unreasonable to conclude, that a pure and perfect democracy is a thing not attainable by man, constituted as he is of contending elements of vice and virtue, and ever mainly influenced by the predominant principle of self-interest. It may, indeed, be confidently asserted, that there never was that government called a republic, which was not ultimately ruled by a single will, and, therefore, (however bold may seem the paradox,) virtually and substantially a monarchy."
  
  • Universal History, p. 216^[1]
    

<p style="padding: 0.5em; border: 1px solid black; background-color: rgb(252, 252, 204);">

[edit] Disputed

• A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
  
  • The earliest known attribution of this quote was December 9, 1951, in what appears to be an op-ed piece in The Daily Oklahoman under the byline Elmer T. Peterson^[2]. The quote has not been found in Tytler's work. It has also been attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville.
    
  • There are many variants circulating with various permutations of majority, voters, citizens, or public. Ronald Reagan is known to have used this in speeches:^[3]
    
    • Perhaps what he had in mind was what Prof. Alexander Frazer Tytler has written, that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority, he said, always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the treasury with the result that democracy always collpases over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship. Unfortunately, we can't argue with the professor because when he wrote that we were still colonials of Great Britain and he was explaining what had destroyed the Athenian Republic more than 2000 years before.
      

    [*]Other variants:

    The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.

    The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

[carlfense]

[TGHusker]

You ever think the best thing for the actual Republican Party would have been to have Bachmann or Santorum win the primaries and get destroyed in the election? Then maybe the Fox News Republican party would realize that being even more conservative wasn't the answer.

 

I think the well informed majority of this country wants fiscal conservatism, we just disagree on the definition of what that is. I.e. scaling way back on government spending/regulations and increasing revenue through new tax codes, or reducing the budget in a balanced way and increasing some taxes. I know that's grossly over simplified, but those are basically the two major positions.

It very well might have been. The the GOP is going to have a very ugly internal civil war between the thinking part of the party, and the Tea Party sect. Unfortunately I can see how it is likely to turn out. If the Republican leadership had any mix of brains and balls, they would kick out everyone who is associated with the Tea Party.

 

 

Wrong.

 

I'm not a tea partier, but, they shouldn't be "kicked out" of the party. They just need to stop being the main voice of the party. The Dems didn't "kick out" the extreme liberal wack jobs. They simply stopped catering to them openly and started talking to the middle.

 

The Tea Party wasn't the issue. Strong tea party candidates did win in various state in Senate and House races - when they articulated true conservative fiscal principles clearly. Scott Brown ran as a tea party guy in 2010 and won - then he ran as a moderate this time around and lost. Both the Mo and Ind candidates developed foot in mouth disease that they could not overcome- stupid statement statements that caused the national repub organizations (and their funding) ran away from them.

[carlfense]

The Tea Party wasn't the issue. Strong tea party candidates did win in various state in Senate and House races - when they articulated true conservative fiscal principles clearly. Scott Brown ran as a tea party guy in 2010 and won - then he ran as a moderate this time around and lost. Both the Mo and Ind candidates developed foot in mouth disease that they could not overcome- stupid statement statements that caused the national repub organizations (and their funding) ran away from them.

If not for tea party extremism the GOP would almost certainly control both the House and the Senate . . . and maybe even the White House.

[TGHusker]

The Tea Party wasn't the issue. Strong tea party candidates did win in various state in Senate and House races - when they articulated true conservative fiscal principles clearly. Scott Brown ran as a tea party guy in 2010 and won - then he ran as a moderate this time around and lost. Both the Mo and Ind candidates developed foot in mouth disease that they could not overcome- stupid statement statements that caused the national repub organizations (and their funding) ran away from them.

If not for tea party extremism the GOP would almost certainly control both the House and the Senate . . . and maybe even the White House.

What is extreme about wanting to balance the budget (like the states do), follow the consitution which the president and members of congress take an oath to do (but rarely refer to it), enforce the boarder (obligation of the federal gov't to do so - one obligation of govt is the security and defense of the citizens)? These are not extreme except to the uber left who would want to throw out the constitution. We teach our kids to live within their means and yet we accept a govt that passes out gov't candy like the party will never end. The Tea Party was not a reaction initially to Obama but to Bush's bail outs / deficet spending which only grew under Obama ( Ok when into hyperdrive under Obama). Are there a few nut jobs in the TP? , yes, as there are in any movement. We do the country a disservice if we keep ignoring the core of the TP's issues.

[carlfense]

What is extreme about wanting to balance the budget (like the states do), follow the consitution which the president and members of congress take an oath to do (but rarely refer to it), enforce the boarder (obligation of the federal gov't to do so - one obligation of govt is the security and defense of the citizens)?

Mmmmmm. Cherry picked.

 

These are not extreme except to the uber left who would want to throw out the constitution.

Go on . . .

 

We teach our kids to live within their means and yet we accept a govt that passes out gov't candy like the party will never end.

Go on . . .

 

The Tea Party was not a reaction initially to Obama but to Bush's bail outs / deficet spending which only grew under Obama ( Ok when into hyperdrive under Obama).

Haven't looked at the numbers recently, have you? Another problem with the Tea Party . . .

 

Are there a few nut jobs in the TP? , yes, as there are in any movement.

The problem is that those Tea Party nutjobs were running for high office. That's why the GOP doesn't control the Senate.

[TGHusker]

Carl,

I'll give you that a couple of nut jobs did help to kept the Senate in Dem's hands. Perhaps their stupid words tainted some of the other repubs running for Senate. - not all moderate repubs won either while some TP repubs did win

 

Carl:

Haven't looked at the numbers recently, have you? Another problem with the Tea Party . . .

TG: The #s I'm thinking of is $6trillion in new debt under O and $4 trillion under Bush

 

Carl: Mmmmmm. Cherry picked.

TG: Not sure what is cherry picked there. These are the core issues for the TP as I understand it. Maybe there are a couple of renegades spouting other things but the core of the TP is fiscal responsibility, the constitution, and boarder security.

[carlfense]

TG: The #s I'm thinking of is $6trillion in new debt under O and $4 trillion under Bush

Check out the deficit (surplus actually) when W. took office. Then note the deficit in his last budget. Then look at the trend each year under Obama.

 

It's interesting.

 

TG: Not sure what is cherry picked there. These are the core issues for the TP as I understand it. Maybe there are a couple of renegades spouting other things but the core of the TP is fiscal responsibility, the constitution, and boarder security.

Uh huh.