On 7/25/2014 9:47 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:00:22 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 7/25/2014 12:10 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Well, there are a lot of things that didn't become an issue for the
>>> general public, partly because Romney wouldn't really talk about what
>>> he believes or what his church practices.  I may not have liked him as
>>> a candidate or as a person, but I can respect him for saying "that's
>>> not what this election is about" and refusing to talk about his faith.
>>> If he had been elected, I actually think he would have not had his
>>> faith be front and center, because he didn't want it in the spotlight.
>>> He considered it to be a very personal thing, and not relevant to his
>>> policy choices.
>>>
>> On that note - what the hell where his policies exactly, I never noted
>> him actually pinning any down, really, unless, "I picked a Tea Party nut
>> to replace me, should my brain melt down while trying to figure out what
>> I actually believe this week, and the VP has to take over."? lol
>
> Yeah, that was also a big problem with him - his stated policies and past
> policy decisions didn't line up very well, and he was all over the board
> on what he was for.  Most of his campaigning was based on "I'm against
> what Obama's doing".
>
> Pretty glad the electorate didn't fall for *that*, even though I'm not
> very happy with Obama's stand on intellectual property and privacy
> issues.  Right now, neither party is making me very happy.
>
> Jim

They are the same party now. Well, ok.. maybe there are "some" 
differences still, but, sadly most of those are in the fringes, it 
seems. The real liberals are either hanging on by fingernails, or 
quitting. The real conservatives, which is to say those who still think 
there is value in what they believed 50 years ago are, again, hanging on 
by their fingernails, or, like the one recent guy, jumping to the 
Democrats, because their current leadership is too insane.

I look at it this way. If there truly was a real difference between 
them, on the scale both side's talking heads claim, then jumping ship 
between them should require a monumental shift in views. Something on 
the scale of divine revelations, or something. When they can change 
sides purely based on the fact that their side has annoyed them, or that 
they elected someone they don't approve of (like some of the Dems that 
jumped ship the moment that Obama was elected), then... how much 
difference is there? At least one person I know has made a good argument 
for Hillary being little more than an old style Christian conservative - 
i.e., nothing even close to liberal. Personally, I see the Democrats as 
being the Republicans, as they existed, during the Reagan era. Not 
great, but not horrible. The Republicans, on the other hand.. have 
become the Protestants, complaining that the church has grown corrupt, 
and needs to be reformed, through a strict list of silly idiocies, and 
unyielding ideals. Its the difference between falling in the rapids of a 
river, and being hit with a flash flood, while wandering a dry river 
bed. That one isn't obviously dangerous, until it kills you doesn't mean 
much. Me.. I would rather find the damn bridge, assuming either party 
leaves one standing long enough to use it, or doesn't sell it, one way 
or another, to the corporate world.

Sadly, when deciding which poisonous snake to step around, the one with 
the obvious rattle is much easier to avoid, and.. that still means 
voting Democrat. The only other one I have seen that looks semi-sane 
might be the so called "Green Party". But.. I seriously suspect they 
have a bit of "Tea Party" thinking in them, and some of the same 
delusional thinking of the US Libertarians too - i.e. shift as much 
political power as possible from the fed, hand it over to a lot of 
smaller special interests, such as state governments, who often have no 
clear picture of things on a larger scale, then just wish really hard 
that things like education will fix themselves, once its all been taken 
from the people that can set "national" standards, and instead to the 
people that can set up petty, selfish and self serving standards for 
them. The effect we see with the, "There are no state fire codes, and 
its illegal to make local ones.", nonsense that blew up half a town, and 
leveled two, thankfully empty, schools, in Texas, and in the stupid, 
"Lets test people, but not set any actual real standards for how 
teaching is done, what will be in the texts, or anything else 
meaningful.", Every Child Left Behind idiocies.

What we do well nationally, they are trying to take apart, and both 
parties are either doing it, or letting it happen, just to different 
things. The things we should be doing nationally, neither party wants us 
to do nationally. And, many things we shouldn't be doing nationally, we 
can't get them to let go of, so that people with a clearer idea of the 
problems can actually solve them.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message