View Single Post
Old 11-14-2012, 03:21 PM   #1179
Analog Kid/ Digital Man
edlib's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,988
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
Hot Topic Starter  10 year veteran!  Forum Veteran 
Originally Posted by Keyan Farlander View Post
I wouldn't be so quick to say it wouldn't solve problems. It would certainly solve one very large problem. Would it create worse problems? Perhaps. Perhaps not. And the answer may well vary from state to state. It would certainly only be prudent as a last ditch attempt to punch out before the missile hits you - but if the hit is inevitable, you're better off going for it than doing nothing. And clearly some people think the hit is now inevitable. But in any event, it shouldn't be some kind of federal patriotism that drives the decision. In the early days of the nation, people were more loyal, and identified more with, their states than the entire country. They were Virginians (or whatever) first, and Americans second. And that is very much in harmony with the original philosophy of the country as a group of united states. For now I take it more as an expression of frustration than a real desire to secede. But in 20 years...who knows?
I think it would be amazingly reckless and destructive towards our common interests... but if everyone from a state (or states) insists on leaving the union, then I guess I probably wouldn't stand in their way. It might make the concept of National Security kind of difficult... since there wouldn't be a Nation to secure... Dismantle the Armed Forces and let each state form it's own militia?
Originally Posted by Keyan Farlander View Post
I think there's been plenty of rational discussion. Unfortunately, when the heart of the disagreement is not how to get things done, but what should be done at all because the two sides have diametrically opposed ideologies, there isn't going to be much possibility for compromise. We are extremely polarized as a nation now, and I don't think that's going to change any time soon.
The refusal by extremists and ideologues on both sides to find common ground, suck it up, and do what's best for the majority of people in the country is the sole reason for the gridlock and polarization.

I'd personally be willing to see a bit of chopping when it came to Government spending if the other side was willing to compromise a bit on social issues.

And why does it ONLY have to be "Drown the government in a bathtub?" Could we try to agree that drowning the government in a swimming pool or watering hole might be a decent compromise for scaling back? Making cuts, but not totally eliminating everything that people might want.

I'm realistic enough to know that a one party-state (from either side) is a dangerous thing. Both sides need to keep the other in check. One side might have a bit more power than the other from time-to-time... but an unchecked Liberal one party state is just as bad as an unchecked Conservative one party state. Both will eventually lead down the road to oppression and totalitarianism.
Originally Posted by Keyan Farlander View Post
Sometimes civil methods are not sufficient to solve the problems with the government. But I don't begrudge anyone a little venting. Isn't that kind of what Facebook is for?
Yes... but a few folks have reacted in what I find to be an alarming manner. Since the election, several people have been posting things that might make Ted Nugent or Donald Trump say "Whoa dude! Calm down! That's a bit too far! It's not really that bad..."
Originally Posted by Keyan Farlander View Post
Aside from voting and trying to convince people to come around to their way of thinking, what else can they do? They could actually run for office, but that's a full career for any position that could effect national issues like this. Yeah, they could get heavily involved in some kind of grassroots thing, but it takes all the time a lot of people have just to take care of their families.
Get involved at some level with your representatives. Write. Call. Meet in person. Even if you didn't personally vote for them, they still work for you.
Go to every public "Town-Hall" meeting you can find time to. Get active in the process and the community. It may be only once a month, or a couple of times a year... but that's still more than most people do. And it's not just "sitting around for 4-more years grumbling to myself..."
Originally Posted by Keyan Farlander View Post
Really? I'm amazed Romney had to do anything other than be not-Obama to win. This country is in demonstrably worse shape than it was four years ago, and I'm amazed that anyone's default position would be to sign up for another four years of it. Mitt Romney was a pretty uninspiring candidate, but unless you were afraid his Mormonism would have a profoundly negative effect on the country (unlikely), there really wasn't anything to vote against there. It would seem like it might be a good idea give the guy who has proved he knows how to manage money a shot when the biggest issue right now is the economy. In fact, I know several people who voted for Obama last time who voted for Romney this time for just that reason. The only thing I can think of would be concern over needlessly starting a war with Iran, which Romney seemed more likely to do than Obama, but on the other hand, Obama has needlessly interfered militarily in that part of the world too, so that's still a big question mark with him in charge.
He was also proven to be bending the facts on the Jeep thing, and a flip-flopper on many other issues. Let's face it: Mitt Romney was the Republican's "John Kerry" moment... and as such, was defeated for all the same weaknesses.

Of course, I thought the country was in MUCH worse shape after 4 years of W., and couldn't fathom how he could ever get re-elected... yet I had to accept that Kerry was the weaker candidate in the eyes of the majority.

When you have a winner-takes-all competition between 2 sides... one side has to lose. It doesn't mean you have to give up on hope or the country though... to me that's going too far.

"You lost today kid. But it doesn't mean you have to like it!"
Originally Posted by Keyan Farlander View Post
The Romney campaign didn't touch any of that, though. In fact, they decided not to raise a number of legitimate issues about Obama and his ideologies. But I think this is what actually hurt them, because the thing about the swing states is not really that there are a bunch of people who could go either way. Swing states are not won by convincing people who aren't sure to vote your way. They are won by getting the people who are already convinced one way or the other to actually get out and vote. And there were a lot conservatives out there who simply didn't vote because Romney is not particularly conservative and they didn't see any real need to go out and choose between two non-conservative candidates. If the Republican strategy had been to go on the offensive and show why it was important that Obama not be reelected, they would have had a better shot, despite Romney's weakness as a candidate. What you generally saw in this election was conservative Republicans winning their races and more liberal Republicans losing them. Romney was not going to win with conservatives, so the only hope was to make it about not electing Obama, which the Romney campaign failed to do. They might not have been able to pull it off, but I think it was their only chance.
The campaign didn't have to bring those things up... but for much of the country, talk radio and other conservative pundits ARE the voice of the party. And as such, they were 'the party who cried "Kenyan!"' once too often... which made any serious discussions about records fall on many ears that had already tuned out that noise. After hearing for well over 5 years how Obama was basically "History's Greatest Monster!" then seeing those claims debunked, then actually viewing him in at the convention and in debate against the competition, I can see how some might start to doubt ALL the claims leveled at him by the froth-mouthed pundit class.

Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)

Last edited by edlib; 11-14-2012 at 04:01 PM.
edlib is offline   you may: