Lou Dobbs is 100% right

[DisgruntledVirus]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...xclusive---lou-dobbs-extended-interview-pt--1

I agree with him.

Obama and Bush both are "extremes". Bush had a Republican congress that abused it's power, and rammed through legislation that that was what the public wanted. Obama has a Democratic congress that is attempting to do the same thing. We have moved away from a "center of the road, balanced view", and away from government listening to what the people want.

 

[Red Dawn]

Did he cry when he said that?? No wait, I was confusing him with Glen Beck. My bad.

 

[fskimospy]

I completely disagree with Lou Dobbs. If the American people wanted governance that split the difference between the two parties, they wouldn't have given one party an overwhelming majority in the Congress along with the White House. As John Stewart correctly put it, this IS what the American people wanted. If they don't like the outcome, they can change it to something more balanced.

Also, the idea that moderation and bipartisanship are always good is really really wrong. There are many approaches to issues where the outcomes are mutually exclusive from one another. If you pick some middle of the road solution nothing gets done. Sometimes one side just has to take the ball and run with it.

 

[Modelworks]

this IS what the American people wanted. If they don't like the outcome, they can change it to something more balanced.

The outcome is that they have time to do so much harm that by the time you get to vote again the damage is done.

That is why I think big bills like health care should be a national vote not something just a few get to decide.

 

[Ausm]

Lou Dobbs needs some serious meds....

 

[ayabe]

Well I guess that would be true, except that what R's define as radical leftist anything that is the slightest bit left of Limbaugh.

The center of the R party is the extreme right to most people, that's why Lindsay Graham is being targeted for acknowledging that we might be contributing to global warming.

 

[Modelworks]

He did describe CNN pretty closely. It has become the gray network. I call it the 'Condescending News Network'

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I completely disagree with Lou Dobbs. If the American people wanted governance that split the difference between the two parties, they wouldn't have given one party an overwhelming majority in the Congress along with the White House. As John Stewart correctly put it, this IS what the American people wanted. If they don't like the outcome, they can change it to something more balanced.

Also, the idea that moderation and bipartisanship are always good is really really wrong. There are many approaches to issues where the outcomes are mutually exclusive from one another. If you pick some middle of the road solution nothing gets done. Sometimes one side just has to take the ball and run with it.

People wanted it, because they wanted "change" from what was the current administration and controlling party (at the time of the election). Factor in the only other person who had a serious chance at winning was McCain with a completely idiotic running mate, that scared a lot of people (and also ended up having the spotlight more on her than McCain) and you can easily see why the 2008 election put the D's in control.

Also, the democratic party's "center" is closer to a "true center" view. An "extremeist Democrat" is akin to a "centered Republican" in general. I do agree with you that there are many approaches to issues, and that one side does need to sometimes just act. That said, the parties who currently are in power are, IMHO, becoming more "extreme" and less moderate.

 

[jonks]

The outcome is that they have time to do so much harm that by the time you get to vote again the damage is done.

That is why I think big bills like health care should be a national vote not something just a few get to decide.

Healthcare should get a national referendum vote? What about going to war then, surely that's a more vital question. And what about constitutional amendments or other large scale 'changes'? If the constitution was worth anything it was meant to oppose what you suggest.

 

[fskimospy]

The outcome is that they have time to do so much harm that by the time you get to vote again the damage is done.

That is why I think big bills like health care should be a national vote not something just a few get to decide.

They were subject to a national vote. It was called the 2008 election. As someone who lives in California, I have a lot of experience with direct democracy. It's a horrible, horrible idea. What you basically do is replace the corrupt few with the retarded many, and from personal experience I can tell you that sadly enough, the corrupt few do a better job every time.

This whole 'so much harm... the damage is done' thing is silly. As John Stewart also said, America is so much bigger than all that, and if people actually don't like it they will change it. (I bet you'll be surprised how much people end up liking it though)

 

[fskimospy]

People wanted it, because they wanted "change" from what was the current administration and controlling party (at the time of the election). Factor in the only other person who had a serious chance at winning was McCain with a completely idiotic running mate, that scared a lot of people (and also ended up having the spotlight more on her than McCain) and you can easily see why the 2008 election put the D's in control.

Also, the democratic party's "center" is closer to a "true center" view. An "extremeist Democrat" is akin to a "centered Republican" in general. I do agree with you that there are many approaches to issues, and that one side does need to sometimes just act. That said, the parties who currently are in power are, IMHO, becoming more "extreme" and less moderate.

I most certainly agree that the parties are becoming more extreme. And if people wanted change, they are getting it. Now we have two years to see how they like it. If they don't then they will change things again.

I think this health care bill is an excellent example. There really is no effective middle ground to be found it would appear. The entire premise of it is a nonstarter to Republicans, and so you can virtually guarantee 95% of them will vote against it on principle (and political pandering) alone. How do you find middle ground on that?

 

[nobodyknows]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...xclusive---lou-dobbs-extended-interview-pt--1

I agree with him.

Obama and Bush both are "extremes". Bush had a Republican congress that abused it's power, and rammed through legislation that that was what the public wanted. Obama has a Democratic congress that is attempting to do the same thing. We have moved away from a "center of the road, balanced view", and away from government listening to what the people want.

And he's going to make things better by going to Fox News???

 

[Robor]

And he's going to make things better by going to Fox News???

He'll have a larger and more gullible audience.

 

[Modelworks]

They were subject to a national vote. It was called the 2008 election.

If someones behavior now in office is different from that of when they were campaigning and that behavior would have resulted in them never having been elected how are the peoples choices represented ?

The system rewards those who can lie the best. Not those that represent the voters.

 

[Modelworks]

Healthcare should get a national referendum vote? What about going to war then, surely that's a more vital question. And what about constitutional amendments or other large scale 'changes'? If the constitution was worth anything it was meant to oppose what you suggest.

The constitution was written to prevent the government from making choices without the approval of the people. Not so that people could be elected then do whatever they please for 4 years.

 

[ScottyB]

The outcome is that they have time to do so much harm that by the time you get to vote again the damage is done.

That is why I think big bills like health care should be a national vote not something just a few get to decide.

Vote for people you think will do the right thing. We live in a republic, not a democracy.

 

[Robor]

If someones behavior now in office is different from that of when they were campaigning and that behavior would have resulted in them never having been elected how are the peoples choices represented ?

The system rewards those who can lie the best. Not those that represent the voters.

Just how is Obama 'different'? Sure, he didn't keep all of his campaign promises but who has in the past?

 

[CPA]

I completely disagree with Lou Dobbs. If the American people wanted governance that split the difference between the two parties, they wouldn't have given one party an overwhelming majority in the Congress along with the White House. As John Stewart correctly put it, this IS what the American people wanted. If they don't like the outcome, they can change it to something more balanced.

Also, the idea that moderation and bipartisanship are always good is really really wrong. There are many approaches to issues where the outcomes are mutually exclusive from one another. If you pick some middle of the road solution nothing gets done. Sometimes one side just has to take the ball and run with it.

You make some valid points, but sometimes it's nice when nothing gets done by Congress.

 

[fskimospy]

The constitution was written to prevent the government from making choices without the approval of the people. Not so that people could be elected then do whatever they please for 4 years.

Uhmm... no it wasn't. It really, really wasn't.

When the Constitution was written 'the people' only got to choose one out of the three elected parts of government. This was done specifically so those elected could make choices without the approval of the people.

 

[Modelworks]

Just how is Obama 'different'? Sure, he didn't keep all of his campaign promises but who has in the past?

Who said Obama ? I am referring to ANY elected official. The fact you are willing to accept it is normal that campaign promises be broken really shows how big the problem is.

 

[blackangst1]

Well I dont see the Dems "ramming" anything through congress. At least they havent so far. Certainly the GOP was more focused than the Dems are.

 

[fskimospy]

You make some valid points, but sometimes it's nice when nothing gets done by Congress.

I agree, sometimes doing nothing is the best solution. In other cases a moderate approach is a good one. (welfare reform from the 90's comes to mind).

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I most certainly agree that the parties are becoming more extreme. And if people wanted change, they are getting it. Now we have two years to see how they like it. If they don't then they will change things again.

I think this health care bill is an excellent example. There really is no effective middle ground to be found it would appear. The entire premise of it is a nonstarter to Republicans, and so you can virtually guarantee 95% of them will vote against it on principle (and political pandering) alone. How do you find middle ground on that?

That is a great example of no "middle ground", and where action is needed. I agree that the Republican party will vote no just on party lines for the most part. There is no "middle ground", and a national vote would be a bad idea because as was stated having corrupt politicians works better than a directly democratic system.

There are times when a not-so-centered action is needed, because without it there would never be major reform that is needed.

And he's going to make things better by going to Fox News???

I never said that he was. At least on Fox he can voice his opinion, and he will be a much closer to "center" host then the likes of Glenn Beck and his ilk. Fox news is almost mirroring the R party. It is extremeist and "out there" in it's views (well the hosts on it at least), but at least they make their stance clear. What is CNN's stance? So called "neutral reporting"? That doesn't exist. I'd rather somebody come out and say what their views are, then claim they are "unbiased".

 

[jonks]

=Modelworks;28945880]

Originally Posted by jonks
Healthcare should get a national referendum vote? What about going to war then, surely that's a more vital question. And what about constitutional amendments or other large scale 'changes'? If the constitution was worth anything it was meant to oppose what you suggest.

The constitution was written to prevent the government from making choices without the approval of the people. Not so that people could be elected then do whatever they please for 4 years.

The constitution explicitly arranges for the will of the people to be heard every 2, 4, and 6 years depending on who they are voting for (at the time of course only white male landowners were doing the voting, and as eski said, no direct elections).

But avoiding direct democracy was certainly among their goals, seeing as how they didn't provide for it anywhere.

 

[PokerGuy]

I completely disagree with Lou Dobbs. If the American people wanted governance that split the difference between the two parties, they wouldn't have given one party an overwhelming majority in the Congress along with the White House. As John Stewart correctly put it, this IS what the American people wanted. If they don't like the outcome, they can change it to something more balanced.

Also, the idea that moderation and bipartisanship are always good is really really wrong. There are many approaches to issues where the outcomes are mutually exclusive from one another. If you pick some middle of the road solution nothing gets done. Sometimes one side just has to take the ball and run with it.

That's a load of crap. The people only have two choices, usually bad and less bad. They were very very sick of the repubs in office over the past 8 years so they went with the other guys. Not because they wholeheartedly endorce the stupid legislation the dems are trying to push, but because there was no other alternative.

Middle of the road is just fine for most. You might think that means "nothing gets done", but it actually means "nothing extreme gets done, just the things that make sense to everyone". That's a good thing, not a bad one.