Lou Dobbs is 100% right

[Praxis1452]

A center of the road approach does not necessarily in any way produce the best legislation. The "Best" legislation should be consistent in its goals and overall impact, but piece-meal legislation can often be contradictory and inconsistent.

An example may be health-care reform. I don't believe anyone has a right to healthcare, and I do not believe that government should interfere with business in any way. This includes corporate welfare/corporate socialism. I'm not for the rich or the poor. Still, if you were to pass legislation based on the belief that everyone must have healthcare, a single-payer system is simply more consistent. The idea of insurance cannot really exist if you require companies to take everyone on. It's not really a profit seeking business, but just another extension of welfare, which some people are fine with. Either way, it's more consistent to either have less regulation and thereby more competition minimizing costs, or a single payer system which uses command & control to attempt to minimize costs.

I've already debated my views over the past couple months so if you rage at my post, too bad.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets see if I can quite grasp the thread hypothesis that Lou Dobbs is 100% correct in his explanation of the rise partisan politics.

By my count on this thread, only two people out of the entire 330 million US population seem to think Lou Dobbs nailed it.

In short, a wee mite short of 100%.

 

[ericlp]

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.

What the people want? I'm all for the health care bill.

Am I now not part of what "the people want?"

 

[cubeless]

What the people want? I'm all for the health care bill.

Am I now not part of what "the people want?"

yes... no one wants you...

but dobbs is a dick... played the stupid card too hard trying to get somebody to keep watching cnn for more than a minute a day...

 

[Ausm]

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.

You mean the Republican's never rammed anything through like the Bush tax cuts?
:\

 

[blackangst1]

You mean the Republican's never rammed anything through like the Bush tax cuts?
:\

I never said, nor implied that. lrn2read

 

[blackangst1]

Lets see if I can quite grasp the thread hypothesis that Lou Dobbs is 100% correct in his explanation of the rise partisan politics.

By my count on this thread, only two people out of the entire 330 million US population seem to think Lou Dobbs nailed it.

In short, a wee mite short of 100%.

Hey I like ur new response format-

Lets see if I can grasp blah blah blah

Insert stuff here

In short, blah blah blah



Just making an observation

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

I think you are off on this one. A great many people I know voted for Obama because he was least like Bush not because he was their ideal candidate. The independents I know couldn't stand the idea of Palin being one 72 year olds heartbeat away from the Presidency. In the end they voted for who they thought stunk less. Not exactly a wholehearted endorsement.

 

[werepossum]

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.

SNIP

This is the liberal view in a nutshell, it's okay to lie about what you believe in and what you want to do because you are smart and the rest of the world (or at least America) is stupid. This is exactly why people need to pay attention to what politicians are doing between elections and not what they say they're going to do if elected/re-elected. Otherwise we are doomed to elect people and then hate what they try to do.

I agree with PokerGuy though, not since Reagan have I voted for someone in the presidential general election because I really wanted them as president, it's always the lesser evil.

 

[fskimospy]

This is the liberal view in a nutshell, it's okay to lie about what you believe in and what you want to do because you are smart and the rest of the world (or at least America) is stupid. This is exactly why people need to pay attention to what politicians are doing between elections and not what they say they're going to do if elected/re-elected. Otherwise we are doomed to elect people and then hate what they try to do.

I agree with PokerGuy though, not since Reagan have I voted for someone in the presidential general election because I really wanted them as president, it's always the lesser evil.

Lie about whosa whatsa? I have no idea what you're talking about. Furthermore I am not in power in California, so my blessing of the representatives here couldn't possibly have anything to do with what I think of my own intellect. I've seen both sides of it, and direct democracy doesn't work. From direct democracy you get catastrophes like Prop 13 and Prop 98. Funny how everyone bitches about the California legislature's inability to balance the budget and neglects to notice the HUGE damage that's been done to it by direct democracy.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you are off on this one. A great many people I know voted for Obama because he was least like Bush not because he was their ideal candidate. The independents I know couldn't stand the idea of Palin being one 72 year olds heartbeat away from the Presidency. In the end they voted for who they thought stunk less. Not exactly a wholehearted endorsement.

Your experience does not hold up to the polls unfortunately. For http://www.gallup.com/poll/111115/Democrats-Election-Enthusiasm-Far-Outweighs-Republicans.aspx

As shown by that poll Obama voters said they were more enthusiastic than normal by a margin of sixty percentage points more than said they were less enthusiastic. Maybe you were referring to independents that you happen to know, but I would think that middle of the road people would frequently not be particularly enthusiastic... since neither candidate shares their ideology well.

As a whole, people were more excited than usual about Obama.

 

[werepossum]

Your experience does not hold up to the polls unfortunately. For http://www.gallup.com/poll/111115/Democrats-Election-Enthusiasm-Far-Outweighs-Republicans.aspx

As shown by that poll Obama voters said they were more enthusiastic than normal by a margin of sixty percentage points more than said they were less enthusiastic. Maybe you were referring to independents that you happen to know, but I would think that middle of the road people would frequently not be particularly enthusiastic... since neither candidate shares their ideology well.

As a whole, people were more excited than usual about Obama.

And he's had one of the fastest falls from grace among American presidents; even friendly polls have him under 50% approval. Thus my earlier post.

 

[Modelworks]

And he's had one of the fastest falls from grace among American presidents; even friendly polls have him under 50% approval. Thus my earlier post.

I think a lot of people liked the guy and thought that he would be good for the country. But sadly that hasn't happened and while I still don't hate the guy even though the country isn't do good I wish I would have had someone else I could have voted for besides McCain or Obama.

I'm sitting here now wading through the 2000 page health care bill and I just can't believe some of the stuff in it.

 

[shadow9d9]

It was a great interview.. the one thing I disagree with him is on the "far left." There is no such thing as a left in this country, let alone a far left. The democrats are moderates through and through.

If they were far left, they would only accept single payer. Instead of we get a super compromised pathetic public option. Far left? WHERE!?

 

[shadow9d9]

And he's had one of the fastest falls from grace among American presidents; even friendly polls have him under 50% approval. Thus my earlier post.

When was the last time this many people were out of a job? Not his fault that Bush fucked the country.

 

[shadow9d9]

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.

Oh yes, we have always had a majority decide things for the best...

Slavery, women's vote, civil rights, etc.. all decided by the majority! Good idea!

 

[Patranus]

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..

The problem with your statement is that the legislation Bush pushed through was popular legislation ("the public wanted") but the public simply doesn't what what Obama is trying to push through. That is the problem.

 

[Modelworks]

Oh yes, we have always had a majority decide things for the best...

Slavery, women's vote, civil rights, etc.. all decided by the majority! Good idea!

I guess you think all Americans are stupid so they should have decisions made for them, the government knows what is best for these stupid voters. They need to be looked after like children, they don't know any better.

 

[ProfJohn]

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.

So what you are saying is that the American people wanted the Bush tax cuts since that is what he ran on and that is what the people were voting for when they put him in office and voted Republicans into congress for 12 years?

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.

Stewart's idea sounds like the wishful thinking of a liberal who wants to make more of his party's majority.

Do you really think that 4 years ago the American people wanted a right wing conservative like Bush, but today have gone to the exact opposite by electing the most liberal President in history?

Perhaps the truth is what others have suggested. After 8 years of Bush and Republicans the American people decided that they wanted something else and thus elected something else. And 4 or 8 years from now they will again decide that they want something else and will thus elect another Republican into the White House.

BTW if the American people truly wanted what Obama was offering then Obama's ratings would still be sky high and we would be buried in polling data suggesting that Americans wanted UHC and cap & trade and all of the other left wing ideas proposed by Obama and the Democrats. But the reality is that we do not see wide support for such bills.

 

[shadow9d9]

I guess you think all Americans are stupid so they should have decisions made for them, the government knows what is best for these stupid voters. They need to be looked after like children, they don't know any better.

You claimed that majority should decide, and I am showing how if majority had to decide, great things like emancipation would not have happened.

This country isn't majority rule for a reason.

The country was founded that way for good reason.

I guess you have an argument with the founding fathers. They could have chosen direct democracy...

 

[shadow9d9]

So what you are saying is that the American people wanted the Bush tax cuts since that is what he ran on and that is what the people were voting for when they put him in office and voted Republicans into congress for 12 years?

Stewart's idea sounds like the wishful thinking of a liberal who wants to make more of his party's majority.

Do you really think that 4 years ago the American people wanted a right wing conservative like Bush, but today have gone to the exact opposite by electing the most liberal President in history?

Perhaps the truth is what others have suggested. After 8 years of Bush and Republicans the American people decided that they wanted something else and thus elected something else. And 4 or 8 years from now they will again decide that they want something else and will thus elect another Republican into the White House.

BTW if the American people truly wanted what Obama was offering then Obama's ratings would still be sky high and we would be buried in polling data suggesting that Americans wanted UHC and cap & trade and all of the other left wing ideas proposed by Obama and the Democrats. But the reality is that we do not see wide support for such bills.

"The most liberal in history"...hmm.. 4 years ago that was John Kerry. What a joke. Every 4 years there is a new "most liberal"... it always just happens to be whatever democrat is nominated. Shocker!

Yeah, Obama's ratings couldn't be down from the mass unemployment caused by the deregulation and free market of Bush.. nahhh... twist twist twist.

Bush was at 90% and everyone wanted war... I guess it was the intelligent thing to do then! No excuses! The majority wanted it so it must be good!

 

[shadow9d9]

The problem with your statement is that the legislation Bush pushed through was popular legislation ("the public wanted") but the public simply doesn't what what Obama is trying to push through. That is the problem.

Haha.

Bush passed through popular legislation... that is a good one.

 

[Patranus]

Haha.

Bush passed through popular legislation... that is a good one.

Well, I was referring to the original comment where there were claims of Bush pushing through legislation.

 

[fskimospy]

So what you are saying is that the American people wanted the Bush tax cuts since that is what he ran on and that is what the people were voting for when they put him in office and voted Republicans into congress for 12 years?

Stewart's idea sounds like the wishful thinking of a liberal who wants to make more of his party's majority.

Do you really think that 4 years ago the American people wanted a right wing conservative like Bush, but today have gone to the exact opposite by electing the most liberal President in history?

Perhaps the truth is what others have suggested. After 8 years of Bush and Republicans the American people decided that they wanted something else and thus elected something else. And 4 or 8 years from now they will again decide that they want something else and will thus elect another Republican into the White House.

BTW if the American people truly wanted what Obama was offering then Obama's ratings would still be sky high and we would be buried in polling data suggesting that Americans wanted UHC and cap & trade and all of the other left wing ideas proposed by Obama and the Democrats. But the reality is that we do not see wide support for such bills.

You seem to be forgetting that Bush lost the popular vote. So no, I think it's pretty clear that the American people as a whole DIDN'T want Bush. But yes, fundamentally the will of the American people is expressed through how they vote.

Bush was elected by the smallest margin in history, and re-elected by the smallest margin for any incumbent president in history. His majorities in Congress were never very significant, and in the last two elections the Republicans were obliterated in the Congressional ballot. So no, I don't find it shocking that America goes from 52-48 for Bush one year to 53-46 or whatever for Obama. Are you really that shocked that the American electorate can swing about 5 points in 4 years, particularly after the complete and utter failure of Republican leadership? (that you so vigorously defended)

As for the 'most liberal in history' bullshit, save it. As someone else pointed out, whatever Democrat happens to be prominent at the moment is always the 'most liberal in history'. Crack open a book for a minute and actually learn about past presidents before you make ignorant statements like this.

 

[Patranus]

As for the 'most liberal in history' bullshit, save it. As someone else pointed out, whatever Democrat happens to be prominent at the moment is always the 'most liberal in history'. Crack open a book for a minute and actually learn about past presidents before you make ignorant statements like this.

Clinton was very liberal but then moved to center which saved his presidency. Lets see if Obama can do the same.