This in a nutshell.....

Mott the Hoople said:
What? How the hell can you say that when the vast majority of our national debt was accrued by Republican administrations spending money like drunken sailors on military adventurism or, as in Obama's case, having to dig us out the shithole that previous Republican administrations left us in.
Click to expand...

Such complete nonsense.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That would be a problem for Warren. The public does have that perception of her. That can change though. The primaries sort that stuff out. You're making a big assumption with Hilliary. If she did run and was ambitious for two terms she's be 77 at the end of her second term. I saw how Reagan floundered badly in his second term. He just didn't have the energy or the focus to lead properly. Besides, she may lost her shot when she was beat by Obama in 2008 and may no longer have the ambition. I would not be surprized at all if she did not run.

However, here's a thought. What if she runs for one term with Elizabeth Warren as her running mate? She might persue one term with the idea of handing off to Warren is she wasn't up to a second run.
Click to expand...

1. Hillary would only need one term.
2. Raygun had Alzheimers's
3. No way two women should be on the same ticket. Too risky, though it is a wonderful thought.
4. Like Darla said, Hillary is definitely running.
5. It is going to be a long time before a first term senator is elected president in this country again (IMHO)
 
Darla said:
What do you mean by "social welfare state liberal"?
Click to expand...
A social system whereby the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, as in matters of health care, education, employment, and social security.

I certainly believe there is a time and a place for social welfare systems but that they should a system where the State assumes secondary responsiblity for the welfare of it's citizens. I believe individuals, families and communities should bear primary responsibility.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What? How the hell can you say that when the vast majority of our national debt was accrued by Republican administrations spending money like drunken sailors on military adventurism or, as in Obama's case, having to dig us out the shithole that previous Republican administrations left us in.
Click to expand...

Read the comment again. You and I are in complete agreement, with the exception that you don't seem to realize that this is a purposeful situation, with the purpose being; curtailment of liberal causes due to the necessity of any liberal or progressive president to lower the national debt.

Look at Clinton in 92 for a perfect example. Or if you need a more thorough explanation, read "The Wrecking Crew" by Frank.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
A social system whereby the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, as in matters of health care, education, employment, and social security.

I certainly believe there is a time and a place for social welfare systems but that they should a system where the State assumes secondary responsiblity for the welfare of it's citizens. I believe individuals, families and communities should bear primary responsibility.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that individuals can assume primary responsibility for their health care, education, and social security?
 
Rune said:
1. Hillary would only need one term.
2. Raygun had Alzheimers's
3. No way two women should be on the same ticket. Too risky, though it is a wonderful thought.
4. Like Darla said, Hillary is definitely running.
5. It is going to be a long time before a first term senator is elected president in this country again (IMHO)
Click to expand...
#1. Never say never in American politics.
#2. Old is old and not many 77 year olds have the energy to be a chief executive.
#3. If Bush/Cheney can get re-elected anything is indeed possible.
#4. That's still an assumption.
#5. Didn't we just elect a first term Senator President in 2008/2012?
 
Rune said:
1. Hillary would only need one term.
2. Raygun had Alzheimers's
3. No way two women should be on the same ticket. Too risky, though it is a wonderful thought.
4. Like Darla said, Hillary is definitely running.
5. It is going to be a long time before a first term senator is elected president in this country again (IMHO)
Click to expand...


Well, you have a good point about a first term senator.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
#1. Never say never in American politics.
#2. Old is old and not many 77 year olds have the energy to be a chief executive.
#3. If Bush/Cheney can get re-elected anything is indeed possible.
#4. That's still an assumption.
#5. Didn't we just elect a first term Senator President in 2008/2012?
Click to expand...

1. I didn't say never. Are you OK this morning Mott?
2. Like I said, 1 term will be enough, so she will not be 77 in office
3. Simply too risky at this point. We could hardly afford Romney in '16 any more than in '12
4. Whatever
5. Yes, and look at the disaster that resulted. Yes, Americans have short memories, but hopefully not that short.
 
Rune said:
Read the comment again. You and I are in complete agreement, with the exception that you don't seem to realize that this is a purposeful situation, with the purpose being; curtailment of liberal causes due to the necessity of any liberal or progressive president to lower the national debt.

Look at Clinton in 92 for a perfect example. Or if you need a more thorough explanation, read "The Wrecking Crew" by Frank.
Click to expand...
Gotcha.
 
Rune said:
1. I didn't say never. Are you OK this morning Mott?
2. Like I said, 1 term will be enough, so she will not be 77 in office
3. Simply too risky at this point. We could hardly afford Romney in '16 any more than in '12
4. Whatever
5. Yes, and look at the disaster that resulted. Yes, Americans have short memories, but hopefully not that short.
Click to expand...
Obama a disaster? How so? I think he's done a praise worthy job digging us out of the Bush Shit Hole.
 
Pres. Obama has done a lot of good things in his terms; it's possible if he had been longer in the Senate he could have built more relationships and done even better. Of course, we've had governors run for president and do just fine without ever having been in the Senate.


Re -
Mott said:
A social system whereby the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, as in matters of health care, education, employment, and social security.
Click to expand...

I personally think health care and education should be run by the govt, rather than by private industry; and that having a social security safety net (along with food stamps, etc) is the mark of a civilized country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top