JJ Husker Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I won't try to make the argument that things are anywhere close to the same now as they were when Reagan took over from Carter. Sure there were differences of opinion and policy but nothing like when Obama was elected. It is shortsighted and easy to try to place all the blame on the obstructionist repubs Obama has experienced but, that doesn't really tell the story of where and how the schism all began. As I recall, things started getting especially contentious when Gore lost to W in 2000, and then escalated to bizarro land when Kerry lost to W in 2004. That pretty much sent the dem party over the edge IMO. We can all blame this and blame that based on our own political preferences but really the repubs reaction to Obama getting elected was simply an extension, a one upping, of the attitude the dems had already begun through the back to back disappointments of Gore & Kerry. I'm not saying this alleviates any of what the obstructionist repubs have done but, I am saying it was basically inevitable and just part of a perfect political storm. If anyone thinks that it would be any different with a dem congress and a repub in the WH, I think you're screwy. Our system is broke and it ain't going to work itself out anytime soon. The only thing that will set it on the right track now is some good old fashioned revolution and rebellion in the streets. However, I believe our people are too apathetic to begin that process before it is way too late. The fuse has been lit and it is just a matter of time until it burns it's way to the powder keg. The timing just depends on how tolerant we are of the bullsh#t going on in DC. Radical changes are needed. There's a whole lot of revisionist history going on there. And what pray tell might the revised parts be? Settle in folks (or better yet-put on your hip waders), this is about to get real interesting me thinks. Link to comment
HUSKER FREAK Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I don't care what side of the fence the next Pres is on. As long he/she isn't trying to take more rights away from us. Link to comment
HUSKER FREAK Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I do agree with Big Red Buster though that if we are unable again to get a president who is willing to compromise and reach across the isle to help my kids future then our future is going to get really bad, probably worse then we have ever had. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 It goes back just a little farther into the Clinton years really. I mean we had impeachment proceedings over oral sex. And most of the gridlock you can tie right into Newt Gingrich led Contract With America, where the GOP effectively merged itself with Christian conservatives, injecting the fanaticism and fervor into politics that was not that heavily represented at the time. The GOP lost its statesmen, and they were replaced by ideologues. Bush V Gore only added fuel to the fire. I really don't think the Dems were ever that upset over Kerry. I would agree that the beginnings of the problem go back further as you describe but, the Dems were absolutely furious when they failed to unseat W. Sure Kerry himself was not much to get bent out of shape over but the mere fact that they would be stuck with Bush for another 4, THAT was too much for them to collectively bear. These current day republicans have taken it into the stratosphere but there is no forgetting the hysterics of the Dem party circa 2004. Remember back when Bush was stealing elections? LINK LINK LINK But....hey....no Democrat would be crazy enough to claim there is voter irregularities or fraud in American elections. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Remember back when Bush was stealing elections? LINK LINK LINK But....hey....no Democrat would be crazy enough to claim there is voter irregularities or fraud in American elections. I only clicked on your first link . . . but this is what the tagline says: In Rolling Stone, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. argues that new evidence proves that Bush stole the election. But the evidence he cites isn't new and his argument is filled with distortions and blatant omissions. Link to comment
HUSKER FREAK Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Remember back when Bush was stealing elections? LINK LINK LINK But....hey....no Democrat would be crazy enough to claim there is voter irregularities or fraud in American elections. I only clicked on your first one . . . but this is what the tagline says: In Rolling Stone, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. argues that new evidence proves that Bush stole the election. But the evidence he cites isn't new and his argument is filled with distortions and blatant omissions. That can't be true? Not coming from a beloved Kennedy could it? Link to comment
Junior Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I won't try to make the argument that things are anywhere close to the same now as they were when Reagan took over from Carter. Sure there were differences of opinion and policy but nothing like when Obama was elected. It is shortsighted and easy to try to place all the blame on the obstructionist repubs Obama has experienced but, that doesn't really tell the story of where and how the schism all began. As I recall, things started getting especially contentious when Gore lost to W in 2000, and then escalated to bizarro land when Kerry lost to W in 2004. That pretty much sent the dem party over the edge IMO. We can all blame this and blame that based on our own political preferences but really the repubs reaction to Obama getting elected was simply an extension, a one upping, of the attitude the dems had already begun through the back to back disappointments of Gore & Kerry. I'm not saying this alleviates any of what the obstructionist repubs have done but, I am saying it was basically inevitable and just part of a perfect political storm. If anyone thinks that it would be any different with a dem congress and a repub in the WH, I think you're screwy. Our system is broke and it ain't going to work itself out anytime soon. The only thing that will set it on the right track now is some good old fashioned revolution and rebellion in the streets. However, I believe our people are too apathetic to begin that process before it is way too late. The fuse has been lit and it is just a matter of time until it burns it's way to the powder keg. The timing just depends on how tolerant we are of the bullsh#t going on in DC. Radical changes are needed. There's a whole lot of revisionist history going on there. And what pray tell might the revised parts be? Settle in folks (or better yet-put on your hip waders), this is about to get real interesting me thinks. You are essentially saying that this whole thing is the fault of Democrats following the 2000 election. You forget that Bush had essentially unanimous political support following 9/11. He could have done a lot of things at that point to help the country and shape his own policy. Instead he used that backing to lie to Congress and the country getting us into a war for which we are still seeing the effects of. People weren't against Bush for the sake of being against Bush. In the end, he was considered untouchable even by his own party. 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Remember back when Bush was stealing elections? LINK LINK LINK But....hey....no Democrat would be crazy enough to claim there is voter irregularities or fraud in American elections. I only clicked on your first link . . . but this is what the tagline says: In Rolling Stone, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. argues that new evidence proves that Bush stole the election. But the evidence he cites isn't new and his argument is filled with distortions and blatant omissions. Wow....so....wait....are you saying that there is a big hoopla after a Republican wins the office with the Dems trying to drudge up false crap claiming he is an illegitimately elected President? No...way.....Dems would never do such a thing as go all hay wire trying to delegitimize a President that was truly elected by the people of this fine country. They are honest, good, hardworking public servants that would never stoop so low. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Wow....so....wait....are you saying that there is a big hoopla after a Republican wins the office with the Dems trying to drudge up false crap claiming he is an illegitimately elected President? No...way.....Dems would never do such a thing as go all hay wire trying to delegitimize a President that was truly elected by the people of this fine country. They are honest, good, hardworking public servants that would never stoop so low. So . . . where are you going with this again? You've arrayed an army of straw men . . . where are you marching them? Not to mention that debunking link that you posted is from Salon. (SALON!) So the Dems were not only doing the drudging but they were doing the debunking? If true, that's almost refreshing. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 People weren't against Bush for the sake of being against Bush. In the end, he was considered untouchable even by his own party. Still is, for the most part. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Wow....so....wait....are you saying that there is a big hoopla after a Republican wins the office with the Dems trying to drudge up false crap claiming he is an illegitimately elected President? No...way.....Dems would never do such a thing as go all hay wire trying to delegitimize a President that was truly elected by the people of this fine country. They are honest, good, hardworking public servants that would never stoop so low. So . . . where are you going with this again? You've arrayed an army of straw men . . . where are you marching them? Not to mention that debunking link that you posted is from Salon. (SALON!) So the Dems were not only doing the drudging but they were doing the debunking? If true, that's almost refreshing. Sometimes you argue just for the sake of arguing don't you? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 People weren't against Bush for the sake of being against Bush. In the end, he was considered untouchable even by his own party. Still is, for the most part. By who? I don't know many Republicans that would support everything Bush did. Link to comment
Junior Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 People weren't against Bush for the sake of being against Bush. In the end, he was considered untouchable even by his own party. Still is, for the most part. By who? I don't know many Republicans that would support everything Bush did. I think you misunderstood what I meant. Perhaps it was poor wording on my part. Untouchable as in no one wants anything to do with him. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 People weren't against Bush for the sake of being against Bush. In the end, he was considered untouchable even by his own party. Still is, for the most part. By who? I don't know many Republicans that would support everything Bush did. Huh? Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 People weren't against Bush for the sake of being against Bush. In the end, he was considered untouchable even by his own party. Still is, for the most part. By who? I don't know many Republicans that would support everything Bush did. I think you misunderstood what I meant. Perhaps it was poor wording on my part. Untouchable as in no one wants anything to do with him. That's how I read it. Link to comment
Recommended Posts