Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

I have been posting recently on a board, and want to post my conversation here,

I will leave the original posters names out of this, because they have not given permission to repost here.

Question:
Just curious of those that watched the debate, who won in your honest opinion? Why do you think so? Did the debate change your mind on whom to vote for?

Answer one:
well first of all you have to define "won"

since most republicans are already set in their decision to vote McCaіn no matter what happens

and the same for democrats and Оbama

the only people the debates affect are the 20% in the middle who are arguably the stupidest 20% in the country. republicans may be evil personified but at least they made up their fucking minds. i can't even imagine the intellect of someone who, at this point, still doesn't know who to vote for. and so i certainly can't presume to judge how they perceived the debates.

Reply:
NAME wrote:
well first of all you have to define "won"


Come on, NAME! You know the answer to this - Whomever gave the best argument wins the debate.

But I understand the rest of what you say. I agree with the undecided people. They're too busy at Starbucks drinking coffee and texting to be bothered by current events.

Here's a follow-up question for those that voted a tie :
Since this is suppose to be McCaіn's best subject, do you think by Оbama being able to hold his ground and having a tie, that he actually won in the sense he kept McCaіn from winning as he was (somewhat) expected to do?

NAME reply:
i don't think the people that matter, i.e. the retarded undecided, actually know what the best argument was. they tend to vote based on hair color and flag pins. so as i said, there's no way to gauge the debate based on criteria that matter to them unless you are one of them.

Retort:
We aren't talking about them, NAME. I'm interested in your opinion, as the question asks. Who do you think did a better job arguing their points?

My reply:
Okay, I will try not to ramble, or make this another of my long assed posts.

1) My son is a National High School Debate Finalist (It was in Vegas this past summer) So I understand 'official debate' but these presidential debates were aimed directly at what joe calls 'the undecided 20%' (Although I think it is more than 20% of US population, I think it is more like 30%)

In a Harvard School Debate, or courtroom, Оbama would have won, simply because he answered questions asked of him, followed direction of the moderator, and replied well to those issues brought against him by both McCaіn, and the moderator.

In the great debate of the undecided masses, I believe maybe 5% might have been swayed towards John McCaіn, because they liked to see a 'President' who kicks ass and swings a big stick, and simply because there are masses of U.S. Citizens out there who want a daddy in the white house, not a mommy. Meaning, they want someone to kick the neighbors dog when he bites you, more than they want mommy to kiss the bite would, and put some bactine on it.

The unwashed elite, like me, who are cynical, and think the whole process is screwed, think that it was a tie because Оbama didn't take advantage when we wanted him to argue more like a Senator on the floor of congress, and less like the 'good son' who doesn't argue with the senile old uncle at thanksgiving dinner out of respect. Which kind of proove's McCaіn's point of being naive.

But I have to argue a bit with Joe who says that only 20% are up for grabs. I think the winner of this election will have to win over some of the opposition, even if it is as little as 5%-10%. McCaіn trys to win over Hillary's army of angry vaginas by putting Palin on the ticket, and Оbama trys to gain some old people by adding Biden. In that group of wishy-washy decided-undecideds, I think it was a tie as well, because the candidates failed to say anything big, or new, or exciting, but rather went out of their way to not say something that would kill their campaign.

Оbama is inexperienced. But that is almost his entire campaign, he believes we need to change washington from the old school experienced corrupt, to a new team of squeeky-clean politicians. McCaіn made that point for him, sort of.

McCaіn is a maverick, or claims to be, although 'look at the record' and see that he too, like all politicians, only goes maverick when he see no other alternative, meaning, after he's been called out. He was caught in bed with lobbyists, and turned into an anti-pork guy. He found out his republican friends in the senate were about to be busted and go to jail, so he reached across the aisle to distance himself from them.

He's a maverick, but do we want a horse that will pull our cart towards success, or one that will randomly pull our cart where ever he wants to, and bolt into the wild first time we unhitch him? A maverick is something good among a team of strong horses, but as a leader... Not so sure. A valuable asset, but maybe not a leader so much.

Finally, my personal thoughts. I thought both candidates failed at a few important points to me. Both stayed down in the dog-fighting pit of politics, and said things that were not true, in order to make the other look bad. Then both argued semantics. I would rather see my leader stand tall above that crap, call the opponent on it, and move on. McCaіn has a much harder campaign to win than Оbama, it is sad. He has to stay true to the 'core' of the republican party, even though they are not his 'core', plus he has to deal with the eternal fall-out of his running mate, who, no matter what anyone says, is an anchor around his neck. (And we all thought Biden was going to be the one to have shoe polish on his teeth first. Hes so far under the radar you need a weed-wacker to find him.)

He's old. So am I, and I know that this is a Young Mans job, and He is tired, and it shows. He is cranky, and sometimes mean-spirited. In order to win over some of the middle ground, he has to soften up into an old man whom you wouldn't mind playing with your children. As it stands, I wouldn't let him near the fence of the school yard, for fear of him yelling at the kids on the other side.

I Like John McCaіn, and I think his service in the military was fine, but his service in the senate generally has been great. I don't think he would make a great President, but I think he would have 8 years ago. His time has passed, and we face new problems now that he no longer has what our country needs to solve them. I really wish he would have won 8 years ago.

NAME reply to me:
thanks for the very interesting and cogent post (a rarity!).

i disagree that "experience" is important. the job of president is basically four parts:

leading congress (personal influence, compromise, negotiation skills and strategy)
diplomacy (charm, intelligence, character)
leading the people (making a good speech)
and most important, making decisions, which is in large part just managing your cabinet and choosing options they give you.

"experience" doesn't really play a large part in any of those things except maybe leading congress and he has a LOT of experience working with groups toward compromise (most of his career, including leading the harvard review, has been doing things like this).

if you look at the historical record, the best presidents have been the least experienced and some of the worst have been the most experienced. it's not a job like any other in the world. you could make an argument that being OLDER helps because you hopefully have acquired more wisdom but we have all met immature adults and mature kids, so that's not a big deal either.

so to reiterate, i think the whole "inexperienced" argument is meaningless and bullshit.

to your other point, anyone who is voting McCaіn at this point (8 years of republican mismanagement by the worst president ever, corruption, constitutional rights violated, illegal wars, etc.), i just can't imagine what could change their minds. they are obviously projecting something onto McCaіn that isn't there, so it's nothing that a debate can fix. and i think you could say the same for Оbama voters - he's almost the opposite of McCaіn (albeit still in the pocket of capitalism/corporations) so how could 90 minutes of jabber change anyone's mind?
BadHorsie wrote:
We aren't talking about them, joe. I'm interested in your opinion, as the question asks. Who do you think did a better job arguing their points?

if you mean, what if the debate was in a private room and i was the only one in the audience, i thought it was a tie because it was just a meaningless performance. i don't vote based on debates, i vote based on policies.

Original posters reply to me:
Bandit -

My name on this board is "Bandit"

Yes it was a long post, but a very good post. I read every bit of it and agree with most of it. I do not think experience is a good argument to vote against Оbama. I base this mostly now on the fact Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld had tons of experience and look where it got us. Bush also came from a line of politicians including daddy President and brother governor. I am happy to go with someone with a little less experience and a little more compassion and common sense.

My reply to this:

So Politics can be defined as,
Quote:
"use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc. "


Although politics is so complex that it realistically cannot be defined in any one way.

I think some of us (Me, for instance) watch the politics with both an eye for 'How will this directly influence me and my family' as well as ' I hope my guy wins, because that will validate my opinion'

Due to the second ideal, I watch the 'contest' with a sort of sporting mentality, rooting for my candidate to 'win' at any opportunity. Though I surely understand that 'to win' does not necessarily mean anything.

'Winning' in politics is akin to actually seeing the bird actually poop on my windshield, once in the lifetime of the car. It doesn't remove the poop from the windshield, nor does it provide me with any way to retaliate, it simply offers me a momentary view of how something actually happens, when more often than not, I never see anything but the dirty result. It is fleeting, and forgotten almost immediately, and in the long run, it means nothing.

Policy-wise, As Joe said, one either agrees or disagrees. Unfortunately, we are all tied up in an exclusive two-party system, which leaves us all with a choice of vanilla, or chocolate (Unfortunate pun unintended)

And like the rest of the voting public, we are forced to compromise, and prioritize. Being a member of a vast Republic, I am allowed to vote for someone who will 'represent' me, but more likely than not, I am voting for someone who will represent my general beliefs. He or she will vote how they think is best, not necessarily how I think is best. And I vote for the person that is most likely to do that.

In some cases of local elections, I definitely have to make big compromises, I might believe we need that bridge out on county road 15 to be re-built, but I definitely don't want to pay 30% more in sales taxes for it. I want the jobs that might come with the new chicken poop processing plant, but I don't want the smell so close to my home. I must prioritize, and compromise. Sometimes this process takes some time, and those who have not yet decided still have a few weeks left to make that decision. I don't hold that against them at all. Let them be undecided, and work hard to learn more, and listen well to understand, and ask questions, and listen patiently to the answers. They may be undecided, but at least they care enough to think about it, and try to make a smart decision.

What puts a burr under my saddle, is that most people don't know diddly about their local issues, and know even less about the history, or policies of the national electorate. And they don't even care. They vote for whoever Fox, CNN, or the weatherman on Good Morning America thinks is today's news. It burns me to think that I have to suffer because they just don't care.

In the recent past, the Democratic party has been lacking in the finer points of 'Intrigue and Strategy' and the Republicans have pwned them at every turn. I don't know how that can possibly change, without inherently changing the party. And I hope that they don't have to stoop so low as to do it to win.

I just wish they would tell it like it is, and reveal the situation in a way that the majority of toothless rednecks can understand. It is revealing that the most successful democrats in the past thirty years have been such citizens. Carter won, he was a southern peanut farmer, LBJ was a Texas sized redneck, and Clіnton was a barefoot rope-belt-wearing hillbilly.

It doesn't lend much hope for an intellectual black man. I don't know if our country is ready for another 'Kennedy-esque' leader, although I believe it desperately needs one.

Original Posters reply to me:
Bandit wrote:

What puts a burr under my saddle, is that most people don't know diddly about their local issues, and know even less about the history, or policies of the national electorate. And they don't even care. They vote for whoever Fox, CNN, or the weatherman on Good Morning America thinks is today's news. It burns me to think that I have to suffer because they just don't care.

Exactly, if someone is still, intelligently, trying to understand what is going on, I don't have a problem.

The fact is that if someone doesn't know what is going on at this point it is an indication that they just don't care.

If you're interested in reading the entire conversation, here it is,
http://forums.joe.to/viewtopic.php?f=159&t=46265

This conversation took place on a board designed for Gamers to converse about games. Most of the posters are probably much younger than I am, and it give me much hope to see an intelligent conversation about important issues.

CNN Article, Bush: 'We must act now'

According to the above article, President Bush says that we must act quickly to solve the financial problems in the United States.

"We must act now to protect our nation's economic health from serious risk," Bush said at a White House press conference. "There will be ample opportunity to discuss the origins of this problems. Now is the time to solve it." (sic)

Here is where I have my doubts, The 'Ample opportunity' he speaks of will be about 6 weeks, or so. After wards, he will be a lame duck to whomever wins the election. During his Lame Duck period of time, it is so very very unlikely that either candidate will consider beating up the current administration with blame.

Bush further explains, "For every dollar invested in an insured fund, you'll be able to take a dollar out,"

This interest me, especially if he is actually talking about ME, when he says 'YOU'.

'Funds', that he refers to here, are 'investments', right? And any kind of investment has an inherent speculative risk. So is he guaranteeing something here that he really cannot, in anyway, guarantee? And how exactly does 'You' take a dollar 'out?'

It sounds like so much Bush hogwash that uneducated people continue to believe, because if W. says it, it must be true.

In the bigger picture, that of the idea of saving private institutions with Federal Tax money, I think this is the kind of idea that requires a case by case study, and also requires the Congress, and Executive to 'win' us, the voting public, over, if they deem it wise to bail out some private organization.

If presented well, we could easily jump on board, but right now it feels more like our government is just running things without any consideration for how we feel about it. For the educated among us, we just want to understand why it happened, so that it won't happen again.

Some of us, more passionate types, want someone to blame. But most of these types are also very very cynical, and honestly believe that the deserved blame will never be adequately placed. It doesn't seem like enough punishment, even for the Enron boys, just to be convicted, and prosecuted. But I doubt that even that will happen properly.

Pushing this kind of legislature through the system, "...as quickly as possible without adding controversial provisions that could delay action." sounds more like, "Quick, pass this before the American citizens figure it out!" And I don't honestly think that 10 years ago, or even 25 years ago, our collective minds would jump to such a conclusion, that is, before the current administration set the bar for secrecy, and lies, so low.

I guess I understand most of what has happened, and I too fear what could happen all over the globe, if we don't try to solve this problem. My beef is that no where in the reported statement are we assured that the 'opportunity' will be taken, only that it will be there. That opportunity I speak of, is the opportunity to figure out who is to blame, and how we are going to prevent this from ever happening again.

The risk if we don't deal with this, and very very harshly, is that the high-up muckity-mucks will take the next opportunity to make quick money in a global high-stakes pyramid scheme again, and know full well that the US government will be forced, again, to be the last one standing without a chair when the music stops.

Originally posted on facebook, I have included comments from other facebook members in the main text.


Listening to the opposition

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 9:25pm

It is so hard for me to listen to the RNC. Not because I disagree with them, (But I do), not because I hate them (I don't), but because they are spending their valuable time telling falsehoods, lies, and playing the OLD politics, rather than bringing in a fresh new view.

But worse still, is looking at the delegates and guests. They just don't look like me, they just look like my parents.

And they look a lot like the people who I listen to on the street, and from across the counter, and squint my eyes in disbelief.

It scares me, because I know that there are a lot of people in this country who truly believe what the republican party preaches.

It sickens me to listen, but I do. I am trying to be what they are not, fair, and balanced.

I am trying hard to hear them, too, to hear what they have to say, and try to understand them, like I do when I listen to the people all around me in this little town.

I could truly believe that some people believe that they don't agree with everything the Republicans say, but a few things are too important to give up, but it sounds more like the republicans believe it all.

Maybe it is just me, believing so strongly in what I believe, that I cannot understand how someone can believe something else.

I think, though, that I am just tired of the old, and need and want something new. The RNC right now sounds almost like the replay of the 1976 RNC that replayed recently on CSPAN. And that should be good news to me, because they lost that election. In both, they sounded like broken records, and it didn't sound at all like anyone was really listening to what they were saying.

Anyway, I hope and pray that people really truly vote what they think will be best. I hope that they look not at what the candidates have to offer them, but what they have to gain, or lose if the wrong candidate is elected.

God save us all.

11 comments

Chris McBee wrote
at 9:15am on September 5th, 2008
You say it is hard to listen to the Republicans but what about Democrats?

What are the Democrats really saying they stand for?

Are you sucked in by the Hope and Change platform Obama is preaching?

You need to vote for the candidate based on their policies, issues and merit that are best for this country.

You can't elect Obama just because the Republicans look like your parents, that's absurd.

You say that the Republicans are not being fair and balanced. Please tell us what they aren't being fair about. You can't make an accusation without having some proof to back it up with.
Delete

Regor Wons wrote
at 9:54am on September 5th, 2008
Republicans scare the hell out of me. Too right wing, too religious. It's not so much the Republican party... it's also it's supporters. Creationism, born again Christians, the whole bible belt thing... seems like a life of total hypocrisy to me. Why, just the other day, some Republican, bible bashing, trailer trash inbreed was bashing someone because, "...we don't want a black man in the white house!" Sometimes I think America under republicanism, is no better than Islamic extremists, both forcing their own values on others. People forget America is a very religious country: I'd rather have a more liberal take on that in the white house than the current or prospective offerings from the right. Take a look at McCains number 2; Loves to shoot n kill, animals for sport, but is pro life when it comes to unwanted pregnancies. Her poor daughter, pregnant at 17, but thats OK coz she'll marry the guy. Bollocks! I've never known a level headed 17 year old who 'wants' marriage.
Delete

Regor Wons wrote
at 10:03am on September 5th, 2008
Too bad about the space restriction here!!

"Are you sucked in by the Hope and Change platform Obama is preaching?"

Hook, line an sinker! The rest of the world can't get it soon enough.
Delete

Paul Silvestri (St. Catharines / Niagara, ON) wrote
at 11:32am on September 5th, 2008
I'm trying to understand why you even care...
Delete

Jonathan Johns wrote
at 11:32am on September 5th, 2008
Chris, I have always enjoyed a very intelligent debate about politics, If you would like to post links, or quotes to throw proof back and forth, its fine, but it won't change anyone's mind, especially yours or mine.

And the absurdity of voting for someone who doesn't "Look" like me, well, I would not vote for someone who doesn't have MY best interest in mind, and I know for a fact that the people are are my parents don't.

But that is a pretty personal bias...
Being "Sucked in" by the Democratic party's platform is just the kind of statement I would assume to come from a current Republican. They (You?) Cannot believe that anyone actually believes any of those things, that they must be a) too stupid to truly understand it, or b) brainwashed by the hype.

The fair and balanced part is a poke at the Fox News Network, which I welcome to the platform, in hopes that the sound byte: "Liberal Media" will be soon disguarded since there is plenty of balance in the media, both extreme liberal, and extreme conservative. The fair and balanced part of the argument is that one republican member will say one thing, with passion and vigor, and yet when the subject comes up again, will completely change his opinion. Basically, it is okay for a Republican to have a pregnant teenage daughter, but not okay for a democrat to.
Delete

Jonathan Johns wrote
at 11:50am on September 5th, 2008
About what the Democrats stand for...

Change from the current administration. Which is a bit of a stretch, since no matter who is elected, there will be change. But the argument i believe they are making, is change from the republican party to the democratic party.

For many of the last eight years, both the house, senate and executive branch (As well as the Supreme court, if you will) have been dominated by republicans, and it is the first time in a very very long time that the Republican party has had their way, with little or no power to stop them. The results of this are that the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and we, as citizens have much LESS freedom than we did 9 years ago.

We are also at war, undeclared, with a country which did not attack us, or pose us any harm.

I believe the Democratic party stands for change from all that.

But my argument does not lie alone with the party members speaking, but rather with the regular folk, who are members of the party, and support the party with their votes.
Delete

Jonathan Johns wrote
at 11:50am on September 5th, 2008

They stand up for the party leaders, and reiterate their talking points, rather than educating themselves about the issues, and really examining how the issues affect their daily lives, and how the solution presented by the party officials will directly affect them as well.

There are only talking heads, repeating the sound bytes that I have met locally, whereas, the local democrats I speak with are bringing the issues to home, sharing their thoughts, even disagreements, and showing how these solutions will directly affect them.

I wish some republican would bring it home to me, and share actual personal information, rather than just repeat what some news anchor on FOX says. Or slandering some party member.

Its the attack politics that disgust me, and I don;t see the two leaders doing so, only the people under them both, like you, who seem to feel the need to belittle and hurt people you don't know with information you have only heard, but not been witness to.

I choose to vote for what will help me and my family, rather than just what is 'best for the country' as a whole.
Delete

Jonathan Johns wrote
at 11:51am on September 5th, 2008
You may say that that is selfish liberalism, but your own party leaders use this same language to get votes, "I will help you and your family' ; 'I will cut your taxes' so don't begin to throw too much weight behind why I choose to vote this way or that.

I used to know republicans who were much more loving and caring for their fellow citizens, back in the Reagan years, but now i only meet those who are full of hate, and exasperation at those of us who do not think the way they do.

It doesn't seem too prudent to try to sway voters from across the aisle by insulting them, and belittling them.

It reminds me of some religions, whose sole mission it is to recruit more members, but murder, and behead, and attack those who will not come over to their way of thinking. It just doesn't work.

John McCain is a good man, and I have liked and respected him for years, but he has attached himself to a wagon, which I believe he hopes to regain control of, and turn around, but he is using that wagon in the same old way its always been used to get the people in it to let him have the reins. I only hope that he will continue to have the moral courage to defy his party, and their core beliefs if and when he gets elected.

I would vote for ANYONE that is not republican, if I thought my vote would get them elected. I am that passionate, and angry at the republican party politicians for what they have done over the last 8 years.

I am saddened by the party members who have used this time in power to allow their leaders to be selfish, and hurt this country while doing so. The Reagan Republicans never would have let this happen.
Delete

Jonathan Johns wrote
at 11:56am on September 5th, 2008
The proof you are looking for me to post, then discredit are items like the Republican party talking points about Hillary, saying she needs to stop whining about the public picking on her, yet when their new VP candidate complains about the public not leaving her alone, it is not okay, and she is not whining.

Several more back steps by the party talking heads come to mind, but I am sure you will find something about them that makes it okay. Like most republicans I speak with, it's okay when you do it, but not okay when others do.

That is the Hypocracy we speak of.

It would be so easy to deflate our arguments, if you just owned up to them with a better excuse, or argument.

It would be so easy to make this country whole again, and allow opposing viewpoints, but you just don't do it. McCain says he will, and I pray that he will, but with the line-up of speakers at the convention before him, it seemed to me like they were not all on the same sheet of music as their potential leader.

It is sad, that he must now change his views to win the base, rather than just work hard at convincing the base that they have been wrong, and it is truly time for change.
Delete

Jonathan Johns wrote
at 11:59am on September 5th, 2008
Paul, Why I care?

Because my life will be directly impacted by whoever is elected, so will my son's life.

I care because it is supremely difficult for me to debate or convince someone who believes what the republican talking heads tell them to believe. If I understand better, I might be able to a) convince them better, or b) get along better with those whom I disagree with.
Delete

Regor Wons wrote
at 7:19pm on September 5th, 2008
Nicely put JJ

This was first posted on Facebook


Did Franklin do more to create the Republican party than Teddy?

Saturday, September 6, 2008 at 1:13pm
It is a question, rather than me stating some fact. I really wonder, though.

The current Republican party as I see it is more like this;

We all need to give things up, suffer a bit, sacrifice for our country, not whine about getting such extravagances as a home, groceries, and a car. These things our parents (Or grandparents) had to let go for the good of the country during the great depression. They didn't whine about it. They pulled up their bootstraps, and succeeded in spite of the odds, in spite of the hardships.

If they can do it, so can we. And sometimes we have to. During times like we're in now, when Oil is at a record high price per barrel, when home values are plummeting, when the cost of everything that is moved from one place to another, during these times, we have to suck it up, stop whining about 'what we deserve' and make do. Victory gardens are right around the corner.

And remember, those of you who think we shouldn't have to sacrifice a little for the betterment of the world, well, you're just being selfish! Selfish, whining, brat kids, who don't appreciate the sacrifice of their parents, and grandparents. And therefore, don't deserve any of little help there is to go around.

Complaining about being homeless? Well, buddy, who put you there? The government didn't put you on the street, you chose to be there, and so suffer you will for your poor choices. There are plenty of churches, and religious shelters who will be glad to help you get back on your feet, if you would only renounce your heathen dirt-worshiping ways, and praise the man Jesus, and confess to Him that you are weak minded, weak bodied, and will join His army against the non-believers.

Can't make ends meet at the end of the month without working two or three minimum wage jobs? What are you complaining about? You Have a job, or two or three! There are heathen dirt-worshipers in Africa who don't even know about the Man Jesus, who have to walk 30 miles for a dirty cup of dirty water! And you're complaining? When our parents (Grandparents) were your age, they couldn't get ONE job, let alone three! And they would have worked all three, or more, gladly, and proudly, because they understood that being an American citizen means sacrificing for the flag of our fathers!

Our country was built upon sacrifice! Blood by our soldiers, Time by our faithful, and money from our citizens. Money not for the government fat-cats, and their pork-barrel projects, No! Money for Defense, and for our great financial leaders, who grow our economy from the top! Time given freely, and cheerfully by those in our country who put their faith where it should be, right in front, as the most important thing we have, because without God, where would we be? God has given us everything we have, and our duty now is to praise him. And to thank him at every blessed opportunity. God wills our goodwill, and only when we fail to tithe, and pray, and worship, only then do bad things happen to us. In Fact, God cures cancer, and other diseases, when enough people pray for it to be gone. Of course, there is not enough prayer, worship or sacrifice to grow back a leg, but Cancer? That's Jesus' bitch, when He wants it to be so. As for giving our blood to the flag, well, every soldier is worth our praise, and thanks, not like back in the seventies, when we spat on them, and treated them like dirt, no way. Now the only soldiers we spit upon are those who's CIVILIAN beliefs directly go against ours. If that be so, then everything they did, or failed to do, is free game. God bless America, and may those who stand against us, American citizen, or not, feel our wrath.

That is the feeling I get from the republican party.

But where did all this 'sacrifice' come from? Surly not those fat-cat financial leaders? They sacrifice nothing for America. In fact, complain, and pay off their senators-on-leashes when anything even close to a tax rears its ugly head by the 'dirty democrat socialists.

Was it the 'Greatest Generation'? Our parents and grandparents who valued the 1950's simplicity of life? Who long for a return to 'traditional' America Values? Longing for something long gone is a very conservative idea. It is not in any way progressive. But can't they see our country has changed? That we can't have that time back? That the only thing good about that time was the fact that it was horribly bad right before it?

From the time of the stock market crash, until the election of D.W. Eisenhower, it was almost 20 years, during which time, an entire generation (The Greatest?) suffered and sacrificed, and endured, and survived, and eventually thrived. But during that time, there were people getting rich off the poor, taking advantage of the situation, taking advantage of people. The crash of the stock market, and failure of banks did not hurt the rich, it hurt the poor, and middle class. And during the war, (To end all wars?) many more rich men, became more and more rich. They took both the blood and the money of its citizens. But worse still, they instilled the 'Traditional American Value' of Sacrifice.

With that institution in place, they could trudge along, year after year, decade after decade, and gain from the sacrifice of the citizens they held in contempt as a class well below them. Well below their Kingdom, or Empire.

That was the result of the Sacrifice Institution, but it was not the intention. I believe that Franklin was faced with an unbelievable challenge, dare I say, even more challenging than that which Lincoln faced. Lincoln might have lost half our country to secession, and civil war, but FDR might have lost everything, from depression, failure of our national currency, dust-bowl, world-war, and on and on. Worse than all of those things, he could have lost our national spirit. Which was never 'Sacrifice' (as many would like us to believe,) but Hard work, that can win you the American Dream. Hard Sacrifice will win you nothing, sometimes, not even the respect of those citizens around you. The intention of FDR was to get people to stop worrying about yesterday, and start working hard for tomorrow, because with hard work today, everyone will have an opportunity to earn the American Dream, again, not through sacrifice, but through hard work.

As is often the case, someone took advantage of the idea, and bastardized it to their own uses. Because if the American Populace were to continue believing that Sacrifice was the way to go, the expected way, the respected way, the only way to get 'there', then the rich could earn from the sacrifice of the American people. And better yet, the people themselves would police their own citizenry, by hammering those who didn't or don't sacrifice. Now it is no longer the Aristocracy belittling the middle class's lack of ownership of land, but rather the middle class belittling their peers, and lower classes for not respecting the Sacrifice.

But as all middle classes go, they need their leaders, they need their heroes. All too often, those heroes are not the black poor, and white trash poor who get sent off to some country to bleed onto its soil for no apparent reason, but instead are the rich, those who made it, (from Gods blessing) to become rich (Succeed), and set an example for those who aspire to become one of the 'earners.' Knowing that in order to become one of them, they can never attack them (risking banishment), but instead defend them. So belittling those below who haven't sacrificed enough, to defending those above, who have sacrificed nothing, the middle class is the Great Class, and when the stars aligned, and the 1950's were upon us, the middle class grew, from fortune, from fate, or from Jesus' will, they grew. And this generation, (The Greatest?) the middle class of the 1950's set the example for the modern republican party.

When Homo's were closeted (They do cut hair well! And oh! What a flair for fashion!), when African-Americans (Blacks, Negro's) stayed in their own villages, when we had One Clear And True Enemy. (Communism!) When small towns, not the elitist, pink, communistic, (Gawd! They live right next to each other!) big cities, bread the best America has to offer, when life was simpler (Read: when people shut their pie-holes, and didn't complicate things with new ideas) and when the Man-Jesus was our countrys' only true savior, when these things were, then we were in high times. When the Real American Values were established for eternity, and ever they be so, and ever will we long for them....

All that middle class? It came from the hard work, not the sacrifice. All that success? New house, new car, new fighter planes, and bombers? All came from good-ole American Hard Work, not from sacrifice.

Sacrifice Donated recycled steel, aluminum, and copper, and rubber, for free, to the war machine who then sold it to the government. Hard work Paid laborers to mine new metals, and process new oil into tires, and SOLD it to the companies for profit, who then sold it to the government.

Sacrifice only makes the rich richer. Hard Work makes us all richer.

They call it the greatest generation, yet they continue to take advantage of that generation by using it for political gain, and bastardizing the concept to their own financial gain.

Our country was founded on the idea that we didn't want to answer to an aristocracy, that we were led by our fellow citizens, and no one, NO ONE could take over this country, and lead it around by the nose to their own gain. Yet that is what we are becoming. The politicians are owned. Corrupt? I dare say not, because they may not be smart enough to even realize what they are doing wrong. Some are even mesmerized by the allure of it all. But they are being manipulated by the rich, who only wish to become richer, and who are supported by those who think they too can become a member of the aristocracy. It is an age-old concept, one our founding fathers tried to save us from, and through the constitution, tried to protect us from.

Are the Republicans the only bad politicians? No. But their strong believe in the 1950's 'American Family Values' is just much more blatant than any other party.

I wonder what Teddy or Franklin would think of where our country is now? The Franklin Roosevelt Family would be fat and happy, with that Elite cigarette holder in his mouth, pointing somewhere in the sky. But Teddy? I imagine he would find himself more in-line with Ike, shaking his head at how we didn't head the warnings about the Military-Industrial Complex, about the environment, and about the better angels of our nature.