|
Edwynn -> RE: Why Obama scares conservatives. (11/3/2012 10:53:10 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: flyhumbleguy
I don't know how tractability gets scientifically measured, but I remember the 1994 Congress thinking that it had a mandate and having a strong dislike for Clinton that played out with Whitewater investigations and impeachment hearings. Things weren't necessarily cordial on all fronts. Yet there was political willingness to compromise. Also unlike Clinton who always took any moment he could to rub elbows with celebrities, Obama seems to steer clear of them even Oprah...unless it is election time and he desperately needs them on the campaign trail. Obama just comes across as much more agenda-hewn in many regards and thus more ideological. Reasonable minds can differ certainly.
Oh, but that Clinton, even Obama, would have been or were to be more ideological in that sense, even as much as I despise ideology (the new Religions) of any sort.
Do you consider it a boon to our economy or to our society that Clinton got bullied by Gingrich into signing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA), which replaced the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program?
The latter (JOBS) program required that welfare recipients either find a job or go to school to get training so as to be better able to find a decent paying job, so as to improve job skills of the nation, by however small a margin, and increase GDP in any event. Gingrich's new plan, which you seem to admire Clinton for signing onto, said, in effect, "screw the education part, you are all cut off from school, just find a job now, because we are short of Molly Maids."
Again, do you think this as an improvement to our economy or to our society, thank goodness for the needed compromise to accomplish it?
Clinton signed the legislation introduced and sponsored by Republicans that deregulated the financial industry to such extent as to allow them to wreck the economy in our own land and spread it across many borders.
You admire this sort of compromise, right?
Compromising the entire country to the interests of those who have no regard or concern for our country, or any other country, you consider to be a good thing, we can presume?
Any President since Kennedy has been bought and paid for to various extent, and certainly the negative implication of not doing 'Their' bidding is always there. Nixon (who proposed the initial version of what was later to be called 'Obamacare') and Carter did not reward 'Them' in a manner 'They' deemed to be sufficient, that's the end of that. 'They' tried to tone tone it down some, so those presidents were not shot in the head, as the concerned parties had sophisticated instruments for political ruination, thereby obviating the need for outright assassination.
If Obama could be even half as obstinate as that, especially against Rush/Hannity-inspired drooling idiots, then I might even be inspired to vote for him.
You can consider somebody wanting to f*ck your wife and daughter as someone who might be good to find some middle ground with, if you like.
Pardon if not all of us feel the same way about the situation.
|
|
|
|
