On Apr 21, 1:08 am, frankg <fran...@gmail.com> wrote: studio wrote >> > >> It was worse in 2008, but they also lost in 2006. > > Agreed, but you were the one that said they had lost the last few > elections. I only pointed out the trend has already turned. > > >> True, but it will be short-lived if all they have to offer > >> is .....wait for it ...... > > >> nothing. > > Not necessarily. As with the Republicans in 2008, the Democrats could > be run out of office due to disapproval of the current administration. > Sometimes nothing is a whole lot better than lots of the wrong stuff.
Much like the Iraq, Afghan and wars on terrorism ...none or very little of what Obama puts in place will disappear. > >> No, the roots of the outrage haven't magically formed > >> branches...they're still roots. > > You can’t keep blaming Bush forever. No one is buying it anymore. Don't kid yourself, they haven't forgot because they're reminded of it less. >> I'm not the one who believed in the power of hate-mongering as a >> progressive economic ideology. Tossing hate-mongering around is perilous for everyone. The Democrats are at least as guilty – blaming the other guy hardly absolves you of your own complicity. > >> I'm not the one who believes that turning defense industries into > >> offense industries to promote war and police state mentalities, while > >> pretending that government was doing it all in my best interest. > > Neither was I. What did you say about complicity??? > >> As far as government solving problems; they can solve them if they > >> have the good will and support to really solve them instead of trying > >> to make a profit from them. > > Sure, and frogs could fly if they had wings. The Federal Government > screws up everything it touches. Especially when some people who work for Federal government see's it as their job to do just that. > >> As Jack Kennedy said in regards to landing a man on the moon within a > >> decade; "We choose to do this, not because it's easy, but because it's > >> hard". > >> Now if you think some private sector company(s) could have did that, > >> well your dreaming. What it did do was allow the private sector to > >> benefit from the technologies developed later. If it were strictly up > >> to private companies to do this, rest assured, we'd still be in the > >> thinking stages while other governments would be doing it. > > If you believe this then explain why Obama cancelled NASA’s manned > space programs and entrusted the effort to private sector? He didn't cancel manned space programs. I'm not sure where you get this from, but I could guess the same place some people get he cut NASA's budget...the Republican spin mysters. What Obama said was that he wanted private sector companies to begin to do the low earth orbit lifts of cargo and people. And leave the deeper space exploration to NASA. Of which includes a manned mission to asteroids and possibly landing on one, which would be a extremely technically challenging thing to do. And also a manned Mars mission to orbit the planet and return without landing. Obama also raised NASA's budget by $6 billion. > But no, I’m not dreaming to believe the private sector could have > landed us on the moon. The difference is the private sector needs to > turn a profit so they can’t afford to throw unlimited funds at a > problem. Kennedy, obsessed with beating the Russians to the moon, gave > NASA unlimited funds and stayed out of the way. If you doubt the > ability of private sector just check out the results of the X Prize > competition. I don't doubt the private sector, I'm just aware of their limitations and motivations. > >> The problem with politicians of both parties currently is they don't > >> do anything for nothing; but instead want other people to either pay > >> them directly in kickbacks, or sacrifice significant amounts of time > >> for them while they profit from it. > > Somewhat understated and oversimplified, but I agree. > > >> If Republicans can't lead by example, then they don't need to lead us > >> into more unending wars, more angers, more frustrations, more > >> despairs, more hates, more poverty, more moral/science restrictions, > >> more greed, higher prices, ... because that's all they have to offer. > >>Taxes will be the least of concerns in such a country. > > Obama is continuing the tradition of unending wars, anger, frustration > and despair. Hate has been a hallmark of both parties. More government > handouts will not end poverty. The reason there's more government handouts is because the need was created for them. They just don't wake up one morning and say; "you know, I could get more votes if I handed out more to poor people". > The issue of embryonic stem cell > research was much ado about nothing, but whatever. How about the issue of keeping someone alive in a comatose state regardless of what the family wants? Or the issue of deciding for ones self when to end their lives? Now who's fooling themselves? Republicans want control over your life every bit if not more than they'd have you believe. > Greed exists > regardless of party. Prices continue to rise under Democratic control. > You can pretend these issues are the sole domain of the Republican > party but you’d only be fooling yourself. Neither party is worth the > powder to blow them up -- which is why getting rid of the whole lot of > them and cutting the size of government in half is such an elegant > solution. The devil is in the details. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
