Will-Power vs Wishful Thinking
Republicans vs Democrats
People vs Politicians
Individual State Rights vs Totalitarianism of Federal Government
Conservatives vs Liberals
Have at it!
( No we cannot be on the same page...
Sad but true.)
What is funny is that everybody talks of change. Either it be on the governments side which usually is a defensive move to allay any responsibility or on the electorates side who thinks they can effect a change with single election cycle. The electorate are just plain lazy when it comes to elections and the running of government. We think that there is a silver bullet to end the problems. We keep repeating history and expect different results. What people don't understand is that we are still in charge for the time being and look how well we have worked together to get nowhere. Partisan politics is how we remain because we must love it that way. Look how far apart we are on any subject. Until we find a way to talk to each other and accept compromise this is as good as it will get. This country has taken over two hundred years to get to where it currently is, how long should it take to get it to work for us?
I don't really think most people are that far apart, OR so unwilling to compromise (although not so sure about the second ).
It is almost as if the VIP's in both parties are very deliberately requiring such nonsense from the politicians, most likely an effort to maintain their own power and control. Even to the point that one must wonder if the top party hacks on both sides are in collusion to maintain the farce...
Exactly, couldn't have put it better myself
There's a saying in this country, and probably yours too - it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.
On this you and I will agree, nothing is more certain than government interference.
Benjamin Franklin said, "The only things certain in life are death and taxes."
"Death and taxes may be certain, but we don't have to die every year." -- Unknown
"one must wonder if the top party hacks on both sides are in collusion to maintain the farce..." I have wondered this many times myself.
So maybe I'm neither paranoid or becoming a conspiracy nut. Or if I am I'm not alone.
Truly, though, I do begin to wonder that sometimes - it is just too virulent, too vicious for no apparent gain except to maintain the system.
I think it begins with the large amounts of money that turns them at first and once they have it they wield the power that comes with it. Once they make their exit either though death or retirement there seems to be another one infected by the same wants.
Rhamson you speak as if "people" were intelligent. If they were we would know it, wouldn't we? The problem is that we represent the minority.
Kathryn, your title is a contradiction. You can't oppose them since they work for the same interest. Big government implying action in the name of and for the people has always been an illusion.
In your presentation of opposite concepts and ideas the fact is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I no longer believe that there is a middle, rather the middle is arrived at through conflict. This is the primary reason why there has been a slow drift to the left in America. Just as all fantasy, the fantasy of the left is far more appealing than reality and reality is conservative.
And in the end...reality is more fun than fantasy.
Really! I see the right as getting a stranglehold on the worlds economies, pushing the left further and further adrift.
Well, I guess there is reason for hope, after all.
Seems strange for anybody to hope for oppression!
Whichever side holds power the other side will be oppressed!
Except "side" suggests some sort of equality, even if only in size.
There'll be none of that when it's the few really wealthy and the mass of slaves at their beck and call.
And of course there would be no political elite or better off under a socislist sysyem would there?
Maybe i should have stated it diferently, something like people with diferent political ideologies will always seek to oppress the oposition.
False. The right usually does, the left more often tries to liberate all.
Liberate! As in remove all freedom to negotiate the value of labor or "things"? As in liberate people from their possessions, in order to give it to someone else? That kind of "liberate"?
No,you'll find it's generally the right who like to liberate other people from their possessions.
Sure - it's the right that want taxes extraordinarily high in order to support the ever growing welfare system. Gotcha.
No, its the left that want taxes extraordinarily high in order to support the ever growing welfare system.
The left is the bastion of the mediocre, it seeks to liberate the right of their high achievers and bring them down to the level of mediocrity.
So the left is responsible for keeping people in low paid mediocre jobs with little or no chance of advancement!
I somehow don't think so.
Mediocrity is a hallmark of leftism. British Leland manufactured crap, it was the zenith of British lefty nationalized industry. Give me a capitalist running dog made automobile, please, something pretty and powerful like a Noble or a Jaguar.
When British Leyland was privatised, the government sold off the profitable car division but kept the loss making commercial vehicle division.
Within a few years the car division was no more but the commercial division was running at a good profit.
You should take care when commenting on things outside your remit and dependent on the right wing media for your information.
It was British media on which I was depending, that and an auto mechanic who worked on British automobiles I knew many years ago.
Like I said "right wing media".
I take it your mechanic friend didn't actually work for BL?
What profitable commercial division was that then John?
As I said, the commercial division was working initially at a loss but became profitable later on whereas the profitable car division ceased to be profitable after it was privatised.
It car division wasn't profitable when it was nationalised and as far as I can remember it never made a profit from the day it was.
The unions broke the back of Longbridge with its reluctance to change and its ever increasing demands.
Rover went belly up along time before the closure in 2005 the same could be said for LDV before its closure in 2009.
Always the unions, never bad management! Oh well.
BTW, the privatisations took place decades before the 2000s.
Well John from personal experience the unions did nothing to stop the decline of the industry their members worked in.
I Remember my father (who worked there from 1976 till his death in 1992) told me of the time when the unions went on strike because they were to lose the concessionary extra 5 minutes added to their tea break.
I worked there in 1992 and remember more than one section strike because someone took offence at being told to do their job. I also worked at Longbridge from 1996 until I moved to a BMW plant in 2000, I remember quite a few instances of total madness by union loonies, like the one where they all walked off the mini build because they were told to stop playing football in the new car assembly area.
Partial nationalisation took place in 1975 after the merger of 2 motor companies in 1968, the few profitable car companies like Land Rover, Jaguar and Triumph were ruined by the decision. After years of taxpayers money wasted at the hands of both bosses and unions the government sold it to BAe systems in 1988 who subsequently sold it to BMW although Jaguar had been acquired earlier by Ford.
would it be accurate to say that this president cares more about the down-trodden than up-trodden?
by Moderndayslave4 years ago
With wages adjusted for inflation either stagnant or losing ground and commodities and the cost of living going up. Is the US economy being systematically gutted or is this just a coincidence? What's your opinion and...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
The jobs report that came out today is dismal.Employers added only 18,000 jobs.Government shed 39,000 jobs.And here's the kicker: "Two years after the recession officially ended, companies are adding fewer workers...
by Mike Russo3 years ago
During Obama's state of the union speech, he stated that he wants the minimum wage raised and is going to raise it for federal employees. He implied this will create jobs. The republican party countered...
by GA Anderson3 years ago
Thanks to rHamson for planting the seed for this thought. I will even use his/her post, (and my reply), to start things rolling.GA replied:Your last question is the nut that no one can crack - yet.And it might...
by GA Anderson3 years ago
I stole this from another thread, so the topic could be discussed without further hijacking the thread it was on. I hope that was OK.John, I am not putting forth criticisms for you to defend. I do not know enough...
by JON EWALL6 years ago
Just recently a report came out regarding employment.The report stated that the average pay in the private market was $40.00/hr. and the average pay in the public sector was $70/hr.In the public sector the fringe...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.