Do you believe that America was much better when the Conservatives ran it or wit

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 9 years ago

   Do you believe that America was much better when the Conservatives ran it or with the Liberals
   
   currently running it?  Why?  Why not?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 86

   Austinstarposted 9 years ago

   We really need to get back to common sense and run the country the way it was set up. Back to basics. Quit the blame game. Work together. I'm sick to death of all the hate that the bought and paid for politicians have for the people of this country. They are supposed to be working for us!

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So am I,we need to get to the principles which established America. We need to progress beyond bipartisanship & ideologies & get to the main issues of socioeconomic & educational improvement. We also need politicians who SERVE THE PEOPLE.

      replyreport
3. 93

   peeplesposted 9 years ago

   No. Where there is one extreme their must be the other to create balance, and to enure no one group is capable of taking over the people who disagree with them. There should be an exact amount of each. Then they should be forced to figure out how to work together. I would say we need to get rid of them all and start fresh, but that wouldn't do anything because the next would be the same until ALL voters demand a difference.

   replyreport
4. 79

   dashingscorpioposted 9 years ago

   In all honesty it's pretty much the same. The top 1% earns or controls 96% of the nation's wealth. The government and Wall Street are married.
   As far as I'm concerned neither party is standing on "holy ground".
   Each party has been in power and experienced recessions, wars or threats of war, and assorted other crisis that occurred on their watch.
   For the most part it comes down to which "issues" are more important to the individual making the judgment. If the economy is important one might say Reagan was great but neither Bush did a great job with it. Clinton balanced the budget and there was economic growth. FDR oversaw the climbing out of the "Great Depression", Lincoln and Republicans championed the end of slavery with the passage of the 13th amendment, Theodore Roosevelt, was often called "the nature conservation president,"  Democrats signed into law the Civil Rights and Voter Rights bill.
   Both parties have contributed positively and negatively depending on which side of the issue a person is on and if they blame other people for their unhappiness in life. Long ago I realized both parties are different sides of the same coin. You have to look out for yourself!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      adagio4639posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "Long ago I realized both parties are different sides of the same coin. You have to look out for yourself!".  That's a very cynical view. And no you don't.

      replyreport
5. 73

   pagesvoiceposted 9 years ago

   Personally, I would rephrase the question to republicans and democrats versus conservatives and liberals. For instance, the New Deal under FDR was a catalyst to move this country out of the depths of the Great Depression. Then there was Dwight D. Eisenhower who is credited with our interstate highway system. Both administrations (republican and democrats) created jobs and the middle class.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      adagio4639posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That was when both parties had BOTH liberals and conservatives among them. That's not the case today. You might find a conservative Democrat someplace, but you'll never find a liberal Republican today.

      replyreport
6. 0

   TheBizWhizposted 9 years ago

   I really don't know the answer to that question because I have never known a time when liberals or conservatives have ran the country, only the politicians. I would say that things would be better if we the people were running things instead, but that would mean people have to get off of their butts and make the change and that does not seem to be happening any time soon.
   
   We are too distracted with what we want to buy next and how we are going to pay for it.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Astute observation, we have 3 separate and equal branches of government so it has never been run solely by liberals or solely by conservatives.Less diverse are state gov'ts where conservative policies fair much better than liberal policies.

      replyreport
7. 77

   wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years ago

   There are few presidents that actually acted as a true Conservative or a true Liberal, once elected in office. I guess you could say that LBJ, FDR, Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama are some of the more liberal presidents, whereas Ronald Reagan, Calvin Coolidge and almost all presidents before 1900 were Conservatives.
   
   Many times presidents get blamed for things that they had little control over and also get credit for the same. Making the choice to correct a true problem is often misunderstood and unpopular. Also the poor decisions of one administration often needs to be dealt with years in the future. Many policies that enjoy political popularity can have disastrous long term effects.
   
   So the short answer is that the country has always been better of with true Conservatives in charge. True conservatives have the advanced the founders vision with Christian and Constitutional ideals that have always brought the country success in the past.
   
   Some of these ideals include Constitutionally limited government, division of power in government, promotion of non sectarian Christian principles, individual liberties, the rule of law, interpreting the Constitution according to its original intent, protecting national sovereignty and a strong national defense.
   
   Liberals on the other hand, have consistently overstepped constitutional limits and subverted the rule of law. They've dangerously increased federal power. They've subverted the Christian underpinnings of our society and government. They've put our national sovereignty at risk and undermined our ability for a strong defense.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      dashingscorpioposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      My guess is  both conservatives and liberals believe they're upholding the "intent" of the founding fathers. Freedom of speech/press, freedom of religion,  the right to assemble and so forth. They just disagree on the extent of those freedoms.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I'm sure that's the case but the Devils in the details.

      replyreport
   3. 66

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Read Lois Lerner IRS emails&you see a liberal self-righteously determined to silence opponents. Freedom of speech doesn't mean limiting political speech which the liberals (Udall) in congress legislate to do. Freedom is not freedom if limited.

      replyreport
   4. 77

      wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

      No doubt Tsad, there's little these people would do that would surprise me.
      A part of me doesn't even want to know but these things need to see the light of day

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Convince me that the founding fathers were conservatives. Conservatives judges have made decisions less than popular, just like liberals. And if Reagan and Coolidge are your best examples of conservatives, it must mean people rather have a liberal.

      replyreport
8. 66

   tsadjatkoposted 9 years ago

   
   
   Well we've had a liberal President and a liberal congress for the first 2 years of Obama's administration and you saw what we got. No budget, a healthcare sham, record deficits and record debt. Currently 98 million people are out of work mainly because of President Obama's policies and Harry Reid's refusal to vote on 270 bills, many jobs bills, passed by the House of Representatives.
   1. Workers are taking home their smallest slice of U.S. income on record:
   2: Inequality has widened:
   3. The job market still faces a gaping hole
   4. The poverty rate remains high
   5. Record number of Americans are on food stamps
   6. The manufacturing revival was a mirage
   7. Global trade isn't helping much
   
   Maybe it's time we elect a conservative president in 2016 (which we haven't had since Reagan), keep a conservative (well that is debatable, Republican anyway) congress and see what can happen with a conservative government. I'll be back here in 2020 to comment!

   replyreport
   1. 79

      dashingscorpioposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Truth be told bad things happen under both parties. Before Obama got into office we had the Great Recession! Record foreclosures, 10% unemployment, Stock Market crash, $4 per gallon gas, (two) trillion dollar wars going with no end in sight.

      replyreport
   2. 66

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yep, more results of liberal policies

      replyreport
   3. 77

      wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You can argue that both parties had a hand in the mess where in and it's true to a certain extent but it's hard to to deny that Obama and Co. Have been anything less than bad for the country.

      replyreport
   4. 73

      pagesvoiceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The Dow is up over 35%. Economy continues to grow 4.6% 2nd quarter and 5% 3rd quarter 2014. Unemployment at 5.8%. National average for gas is $2.04. Bin Laden is gone and troops are being drawn down. Sounds pretty successful to me.

      replyreport
   5. 77

      wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Obama added 7 trillion to the national debt, his policies have caused 11,472,000 workers to leave the workforce, and Americans on food stamps and welfare has hit record highs.

      replyreport
   6. 66

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Bin Laden is gone? Yeah, a lot of good that has done - he used that as an excuse to pull out and allow Isis to take over, yemen (obama's show case of success against terrorism)has fallen to rebels now & he won't even meet with Netanyahoo

      replyreport
   7. 60

      adagio4639posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      We had a conservative administration for 8 years before that, and we were attacked on 9/11, we were taken into a phony war that cost over 4000 dead and over a $trillion that was borrowed from China, and we saw our economy collapse.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Umm that was 9/11 of 2001. Bush became president that January. Do u really think terrorists began planning 9/11 9 months before? Nope. It happened because Clinton weakened our defenses. That is just common sense

      replyreport
   9. 66

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      A phoney war the democrats almost unanimously approved of then tried to  force us to lose it by opposing the surge which worked until Obama pulled us out against all his general's advice and now Iraq, which was won is all but lost. Blame Bush?

      replyreport
   10. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       TSAD--A lot of people, not just me, benefit from Obamacare. For one I am tired of label bashing. Conservatives and liberals had both promoted success and both had seen failures. I could not get insurance before Obamacare--what were my options.

       replyreport
9. 64

   CrescentSkiesposted 9 years ago

   I believe America was much better off when these two groups didn't exist. In fact our very first President warned us that the creation of political parties and ideologies would doom America.
   
   Why?
   
   They do not care for the people or what actually works, both liberals and conservatives only care for their little ideologies and what those ideologies claim will work. If something fails it's not because it's a bad idea, it's because they didn't do it "enough".

   replyreport
   1. 77

      wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The two party system on a whole has been a unifying force. Greater disunity and divisions can be seen in nations where a dozen or more parties exists with no one party getting anywhere near a majority. ie Italy

      replyreport
   2. 64

      CrescentSkiesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The two party system has bottle-necked our country. All of our legislation either follows the conservative republican ideology, or the liberal democrat ideology. If your working idea isn't part of one, it will never see the light of bill.

      replyreport
   3. 77

      wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Could it be that the bottleneck has other causes? Think of the divisions over the slavery debate in the 1900's. There was alot of gridlock there also, but i don't feel a compromise was justified.

      replyreport
10. 81

    Sam Montanaposted 9 years ago

    Neither. Both parties pander to the extreme left or right and that does not help the majority of the country. Since the majority of the country is much more in the middle.
    
    The main problem today in American politics is not who is liberal and who is conservative, it is that corporations are able to practically buy elections. Too much greed and selfishness in politics today, not that there hasn't always been to some degree, but it sure seems more blatant today.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Aren't greed and selfishness everywhere? And aren't politicians usually a reflection of who they represent? Isn't the money in politic's just a symptom of a government whose intruded into the private sector?

       replyreport
11. 0

    Larry Wallposted 9 years ago

    The country is better when the people run it. We are going to have political parties, but congressional rules should be changed to a method that allows the membership to elect committee chairmen and vice chairmen. Congressmen should work all week and not three days. Long ago, the House and Senate did work five days a week on average. The members of the two parties got to know each other, and often a middle ground is found.
    
    I refuse to belong to either party. I support Obamacare. I lost my job and could not get real insurance for two years because of my age and past health conditions. That problem is solved.
    
    I oppose abortion. I have an adopted son and am grateful his birth mother did not abort him.
    
    I believe in oil and gas drilling off the east and West Coast. Despite the BP incident, the industry (for which I once worked in a PR capacity) has a good safety record.
    
    I want to limit the second amendment to keep firearms out of school and to limit the sales of AK47's and similar weapons.
    
    Nixon was wise to establish relations with China.
    
    I do not want a fence separating Mexico and the U.S.--sounds like the Berlin Wall. We should be able to pass laws that prevent Americans from underpaying laborers from Mexico.
    
    I support the right for students to pray in school.
    
    George W. Bush responded properly to 9-11
    
    So what am I...conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican...
    
    I am an individual who does not need an organized political party to tell me how to think.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Good answer, the people should run it! There's real wisdom in that my friend. But Obamacare will ruin the country and put America in government hands, just what you wanted to avoid.

       replyreport
    2. 66

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Larry,good for you aca worked for you,screw the rest of the nation who are paying so you can have it.Consider there are better solutions good for you& everyone else all overlooked. http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.as … eid=620979

       replyreport
    3. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I like to know the better solutions. Before ACA I could not buy insurance. Today, I have a policy, with a subsidy.My share of the premium is $800, about what by share was on my former group policy.. Coverage not as good, but it is still very good.

       replyreport
    4. 66

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Well Larry, on behalf of all American taxpayers I'll take that as a thank you for their taxes making your coverage possible.

       replyreport
    5. 73

       pagesvoiceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       It is appalling how many of the naysayers...most likely many who claim to be part of the neoconservative right wing Christian movement...do not want Americans to have affordable medical coverage. Hypocrisy is rampant with this group of zealots.

       replyreport
    6. 66

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah,they should be strung up by their feet&whip lashed, who cares about the facts punish them for disagreeing.The facts are Obamacare is a ruse,not the best solution,lies from the start7to cover all that up you attack the messengers of the truth

       replyreport
    7. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Obamacare is not ruining the country. Low oil prices are a bigger problem. Government loses taxes and royalties. Hoover, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, George W. Bush, Clinton and Obama have all been accused for ruining the US. We are still here

       replyreport
    8. 60

       adagio4639posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       No. Obamacare will not ruin the country. Furthermore, it's a bit difficult to suggest that when the writer has already described how it saved him. He's now covered. You would take that away from him. Just exactly how is that good for him?

       replyreport
12. 60

    adagio4639posted 9 years ago

    To begin to answer that question, it might help to locate the founding principles of this country. Then it might help to see what ideology or philosophy best serves those ideas?
    
    At it's very root, this country was founded upon the liberal philosophy of the European Enlightenment. It was best put forth at that time by John Locke. Of course there is always an idea that is counter to another idea, and in this case it is the Anti-Enlightenment ideology of Edmund Burke.
    
    Burke was a traditionalist  conservative and an Irish aristocrat who is most famous for his Reflections on the Revolution in France. His argument sparked a rebuttal from Thomas Paine which became the book known as "The Rights of Man". Paine's book outsold Burke's throughout Europe and he's seen as the most recognizable figure of the Enlightenment philosophy and how it took shape in America.
    
    So...the country was founded on the liberal Enlightenment Philosophy and not the conservative Anti-Enlightenment views of Burke. Burke is seen as the father of modern Conservatism.
    
    Ones views on human rights might shape your conservative/liberal leanings. Conservatism as a set of philosophical principles, and as a governing ideology has always been hostile to black Americans.
    
    The conservative movement that came to power with Reagan did so partly on the basis of racism. That is, I contend that a major part of the support of the conservative movement that elected Reagan was based on appeals to white supremacists and racists. In this regard, Reagan's first campaign appearance after he received the Republican nomination was in Philadelphia, Mississippi. As other commentators noted during Reagan's funeral, Philadelphia was the site of the murder of three civil rights workers by the Ku Klux Klan. In his Philadelphia speech Reagan invoked states rights, code words in the South for the right of whites to oppress blacks. In his first campaign for governor, Reagan made similar subtle appeals to racist whites in California. Thus, conservatism as a set of ideas is hostile to African Americans; Reagan as a candidate and as a president expressed this hostility; and the means by which he ascended to national power was rooted in a movement that was hostile to African Americans.
    
    The South as we all know is the most conservative region of this country, Southern conservatives have always been hostile toward blacks and that hostility is well documented. If you are sympathetic to that view, you'll love conservatism.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I will not disagree with you, but will add that conservative vs. liberal is sometimes an issue of geography, such as slavery in the south, and big business in northeast. To day the south accepts offshore drilling--other areas do not,

       replyreport
    2. 60

       adagio4639posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       There are conservatives all over the country, but the MOST conservative region of the country is the South. It's steeped in tradition and the idea of aristocracy. The concept of Lords and serfs was worth preserving. Racial Subordination, a must.

       replyreport