This subforum is very funny.

[draggar]

A year (or so) ago we had a series of posts with one group of people defending the administration and another complaining about it.

What I find funny is that we pretty much have the same kinds of debates / arguments going on but the sides are flipped. The former defenders are now the complainers and the complainers are now the defenders.

Now, don't people realize that stuff isn't going to change in our government? It's the same old BS that we've been dealing with for as long as we can remember - only the names have changed.

I wonder what would happen if people paid more attention to the people they were voting into office (and I mean all sides of them) as opposed to their political affiliation?

Eh, probably the same but this subforum would seem a little more chaotic.

[500,000]

-----

[Arrogance]

We're too busy arguing in this subforum to vote on election day

[HarveyJ]

It took Bush 5 years to reach the point that has only taken Obama 7 months.

And it took you one post to prove draggar's point.
Congratulations, Greg.

[DomainMagnate]

Some people here just wanna argue, no matter with whom, for whom, or where, even in this thread

[Anthony Ng]

I wonder what would happen if people paid more attention to the people they were voting into office (and I mean all sides of them) as opposed to their political affiliation?

But the reality is, when people vote for a certain Representative or Senator, or even Presidential candidate, they are not just voting for one person but a whole complex network of connections behind him or her. This is true for politics everywhere but especially for the U.S. where the founding fathers intentionally built a polity upon check and balance. No matter how enthusiastic and influencial one politician (INCLUDING the President) is, it's the web of interests that actually hammer out the deal in at least a semi-collective manner.

[katherine]

Time for a big tea party

[draggar]

But the reality is, when people vote for a certain Representative or Senator, or even Presidential candidate, they are not just voting for one person but a whole complex network of connections behind him or her. This is true for politics everywhere but especially for the U.S. where the founding fathers intentionally built a polity upon check and balance. No matter how enthusiastic and influencial one politician (INCLUDING the President) is, it's the web of interests that actually hammer out the deal in at least a semi-collective manner.

I agree and the sad part is that many of their "connections" are either hidden or not easily seen. This goes all the way to the beginning of the whole process - donations for their campaigns, even candidates to be candidates.

I think the movie "Man of the Year" but it best (summarized): "These corporations are giving millions of dollars to these people, of course they're going to want something in return".

I'm sure Dell is a big supporter of people like Snowe and Nelson (Snowe job, er bill) and give nice "donations" to their campaigns so they can dictate legislation like the above mentioned.

Even "private" donations are corporate driven. My own company actually sent everyone an email "We can't ask you to donate but if you would like to donate..." to dance around laws.

[Adatise]

A year (or so) ago we had a series of posts with one group of people defending the administration and another complaining about it.

What I find funny is that we pretty much have the same kinds of debates / arguments going on but the sides are flipped. The former defenders are now the complainers and the complainers are now the defenders.

Now, don't people realize that stuff isn't going to change in our government? It's the same old BS that we've been dealing with for as long as we can remember - only the names have changed.

I wonder what would happen if people paid more attention to the people they were voting into office (and I mean all sides of them) as opposed to their political affiliation?

Eh, probably the same but this subforum would seem a little more chaotic.

Good point.

[fab]

Good point.

Which point?

[tekz999]

Just a part of reality. Welcome to the world of business. Not new to me at all.

[Raider]

A year (or so) ago we had a series of posts with one group of people defending the administration and another complaining about it.

What I find funny is that we pretty much have the same kinds of debates / arguments going on but the sides are flipped. The former defenders are now the complainers and the complainers are now the defenders.

Now, don't people realize that stuff isn't going to change in our government? It's the same old BS that we've been dealing with for as long as we can remember - only the names have changed.

I wonder what would happen if people paid more attention to the people they were voting into office (and I mean all sides of them) as opposed to their political affiliation?

Eh, probably the same but this subforum would seem a little more chaotic.

True, but I think your missing something very important, It's not just about party affiliation, but rather more about political ideology.

And the people defending Obama here are really NOT defending him at all, If you notice when reading their posts, it's mostly empty rhetoric and a lot of the same Bush/Iraq bashing we had a year ago, that's there answer to everything Obama has done wrong in the last 8 months, It's seems it's all they have to defend his failed policies and socialist agenda with.

What I noticed from last year, is a sharp increase in the number of members now participating in the section, Members who are OPPOSED of what the President is doing, and the number just keeps growing.

I also noticed a drastic decrease in the number who supported him during the election.

I think that really says a lot, dont you?.

[Adatise]

Which point?

Read the initial post and my copy and paste, with all do respect good Sir. Buy the way, your kids look like angels good Sir. Love and light. Namaste.