TexasCHLforum.com

I actually think we agree far more than we disagree, though I place Clinton as a greater destructive force than the half-brained Obama. He simply lacks the experience to be as destructive as Clinton. Clinton has been destroying, in one capacity or another, the nation for over decade. At any rate, all three will cause significant damage to the core of this country. It can be rebuilt, at least I hope so, but it will be, without doubt, severely damaged by the next administration. What I do not understand, however, is the focus on a single individual. The President of the United States of America is a lofty office to be sure, one with great power, but not one with unlimited power. Congress however, is a body of hundreds of men and women, collectively holding an equally massive level of power - and at present date grossly abusing that power, while also failing to appropriately check that of the POTUS. We could elect the single greatest President of all time, but with a broken Congress, that President would still get nothing done.

I conceed that the next administration will in fact do great damage to a document we've both sworn to support and defend, but we are not without long term options. Our nation was not built in a day, and it won't be destroyed in one either. For anything to positively change, we need to fix our conventions first, and run Statesmen against the career politicians in Congress next. Should that take place during my lifetime, we might have a fighting chance.

57Coastie wrote:

neal6325 wrote: hmmm......I guess a free marketplace that the country was founded upon does not matter to them

On the other hand, according to a Forbes Media Company, "free market is a term used to describe a political or ideological viewpoint on policy and is not a field within economics." http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp

One might conclude that this thread proves the validity of that statement.

Jim

The Chicago and Austrian schools of economics certainly disagree. Even the Keynesians wouldn't claim that they aren't a "field within economics"; indeed, they rely upon being such.

Our biggest, best hope is to make certain that both Houses of Congress are filled to overflowing with true Conservatives. We also need to make certain that the VP that McCain chooses is a real Conservative.

IMHO, McCain and Obama should resist any temptation to take long walks in Ft. Marcy Park ... for the next 4 - 8 years!!

macktruckturner wrote:I actually think we agree far more than we disagree, though I place Clinton as a greater destructive force than the half-brained Obama. He simply lacks the experience to be as destructive as Clinton. Clinton has been destroying, in one capacity or another, the nation for over decade. At any rate, all three will cause significant damage to the core of this country. It can be rebuilt, at least I hope so, but it will be, without doubt, severely damaged by the next administration. What I do not understand, however, is the focus on a single individual. The President of the United States of America is a lofty office to be sure, one with great power, but not one with unlimited power. Congress however, is a body of hundreds of men and women, collectively holding an equally massive level of power - and at present date grossly abusing that power, while also failing to appropriately check that of the POTUS. We could elect the single greatest President of all time, but with a broken Congress, that President would still get nothing done.

I conceed that the next administration will in fact do great damage to a document we've both sworn to support and defend, but we are not without long term options. Our nation was not built in a day, and it won't be destroyed in one either. For anything to positively change, we need to fix our conventions first, and run Statesmen against the career politicians in Congress next. Should that take place during my lifetime, we might have a fighting chance.

I think the main reason that the make up of the Congress is on the back burner is that at this point the ability to override a presidential veto does not yet exist. Additionally, the ability to nominate vacancies on the court lies with the POTUS. Without a nomination Congress does not get to play. Should Congress swing either way, left or right, with enough of a majority it will start to become important to the masses. I do believe we could agree on more than disagree....I believe the frustation felt by many is that for a majority of the population there is not a candiate that they can get behind. Right now the thing that really scares the heck out of me is Obama gaining enough popularity as a result of pure retoric that, if elected, Congress will give him what he wants so they do not look like the bad guy....that is a scenerio in which things could go south in a hurry.

It is nice to see the passion in the dialouge these days however and it has been missing from politics for awhile.

What you said re: congress not wanting to be the bad guy, is exactly the members of that body need to be replaced with statesman, rather than career politicians. poly = many. ticks = blood sucking vermin. As to filling vaccancies on the court, I agree with your concern there. Those justices sit for a long, long time. Unfortunately, there are still those on the bench that legislate from the bench, rather than uphold the charter of their position. The prospect of adding more judicial legislators is frightening to say the least. It is difficult to prioritize targets here, is the hope that were McCain to be the next POTUS he would nominate justices Congress would approve the 50m target, or the 300m target? Is building a body in Congress capable of returning the Constitution to the appropriate level of importance in government a 50m target, or a 300m target? I'm just not sure which is more important, or more likely to result in something positive for the country.

The whole election thing is a joke and has been for a long time. I do vote every chance I get not that it does any good. As far as losing any rights, my God given rights which are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not up for vote or subject to any bans or laws. My line in the sand has been drawn and what the SCOTUS says about the 2A will determine my course of action. But then again I'm just a grumpy old man and what can I do.

a