YouTube - Cartoon predicts the future 50 years ago. This is amazing insight! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB6p5QPVhPI)

Watch this, it shows what is happening today and what we should do about it. It was true 50 yrs ago and its true now.

i.m.h.o.
C.B.

was gonna watch.....but i am doing theta waves right now.

haha,,, it's pretty funny a snake oil salesman selling "ism" to the people to magically give them everything in life they want and the "ism" corporation will take care of their every need, all they need to do is sign a paper giving away their freedom.... everyone is about to sign when one guy "John Q Public" actually ready the "bill" they are about to sign.... Very prophetic to today and how "John Q Public" is speaking up to get congress and the senate to read the "bill" before signing away all our freedom.

C.B.

It's a neat little video, but the real world is a bit more complicated. And the comment about US regulation driving our industry away is only somewhat true as there are many factors.

I generally lean toward libertarian principals, but also believe some government regulation has been an asset towards free market growth and the health of the people.

The specter of government intrusion should be a test by which to judge, and not a tool to divide. Our government has been and will always be a work in progress run best in a state of balance.

-spence

It's a neat little video, but the real world is a bit more complicated. And the comment about US regulation driving our industry away is only somewhat true as there are many factors.


Can we identify and address the "somewhat true" stuff?

The specter of government intrusion should be a test by which to judge, and not a tool to divide.

This sounds very Lincolnesque, except Lincoln's stuff was a bit more simply and directly stated, ergo, easier to understand.

Our government has been and will always be a work in progress run best in a state of balance.

-spence

I kinda don't think we're "in a state of balance" now. One party totally rules. How, by the way, can we tell when we are "in balance" when the fulcrum (center of balance) progressively shifts to the left?

We're actually increasingly moderate, but republicans refuse to step to the center. The future of the rep party is dependant on Obama failing. If he has success without republican support, the party could very well morph into two parties - one half unbending, the other willing to moderate. It would not be the first time a political party came apart.
It's better to bend and get half of what you want than to be stubborn and get nothing.

We're actually increasingly moderate, but republicans refuse to step to the center. The future of the rep party is dependant on Obama failing. If he has success without republican support, the party could very well morph into two parties - one half unbending, the other willing to moderate. It would not be the first time a political party came apart.
It's better to bend and get half of what you want than to be stubborn and get nothing.

Joe, I think you're WAY off. Repubs are standing their ground on key issues like health care and they appear to be in line with most Americans. Unbending is moderate in my mind. Obama has a 100% liberal adgenda. Most of the country is NOT liberal.
Dem or Repub doesnt really matter, the elections are decided by the Independent vote. Obama excitement has died, there will not be a large minority, student and latino turnout for the next election. His poll numbers have been constantly declining.

Joe, I think you're WAY off. Repubs are standing their ground on key issues like health care and they appear to be in line with most Americans.
Not really. While there are some good ideas coming from the Right, 90% of the message is intended simply to kill reform.

Most Americans want something to be done to control costs, but they don't want a large paradigm shift that isn't justified.

-spence

Obama could very well fail, or not - it's far from decided.
One thing is clear - the republicans are not getting on board - so the failure, or success, will be all his.
Failure, and the republicans will rise like a Phoenix.
Conversely, if we couple security with an improved economy and better health care for millions, with Obama's manipulative ability as a politician, and the future of the republican party - as we know it - becomes highly suspect.

you have to define success. With some of his key legislation, he may succeed, but the tax burden he puts on this country will turn voters against him.
I think his fate comes down to too things, Afghanistan and the economy. One he has control over, the other he can only make worse.

We're actually increasingly moderate, but republicans refuse to step to the center. The future of the rep party is dependant on Obama failing. If he has success without republican support, the party could very well morph into two parties - one half unbending, the other willing to moderate. It would not be the first time a political party came apart.
It's better to bend and get half of what you want than to be stubborn and get nothing.

Although there have been periodic Republican burps to the right (especially in rhetoric), in practice, due to election necessities, the Republicans have been drifting to the left for a few decades. Before Bush II, I thought that the Republican party was similar to the Democratic party under JFK. And the Democrats have moved, progressively, to the left of that position. Bush II may well have moved to the left of Kennedy. And the Democrats may be well on the way to picking up the broken pieces of European, British, and Canadian quasi-socialism and expanding it to further depths. For a statistical, analytical, too hard to read work on what I consider the moving "center," see MacKuen & Parker-Stephen, The Left Shift in American Politics. ABSTRACT: "Here we examine the "Left Shift" in American politics. The Left Shift refers to the fact that policy position attributions of left groups--we examine the Democratic Party case--are consistently further left-of-center than group members own preferences, but that this same mismatch does not apply to attributions of the political right. We show how partisan asymmetries in affect, which are steeped in personality differences, combine with the ideological tenor of media messages to produce pervasive asymmetric attribution bias in American politics--that is, Left Shift."

you have to define success.
No, I'm no going to define it - because it will descend into another ideological pissing match.

Although there have been periodic Republican burps to the right, especially in rhetoric, in practice, due to election necessities, the Republicans have been drifting to the left for a few decades. Before Bush II, I thought that the Republican party was similar to the Democratic party under JFK. And the Democrats have moved, progressively, to the left of that position. Bush II may well have moved to the left of Kennedy. And the Democrats may be well on the way to picking up the broken pieces of European, British, and Canadian quasi-socialism and expanding it to further depths. For a statistical, analytical, too hard to read work on what I consider the moving "center," see MacKuen & Parker-Stephen, The Left Shift in American Politics. ABSTRACT: "Here we examine the "Left Shift" in American politics. The Left Shift refers to the fact that policy position attributions of left groups--we examine the Democratic Party case--are consistently further left-of-center than group members own preferences, but that this same mismatch does not apply to attributions of the political right. We show how partisan asymmetries in affect, which are steeped in personality differences, combine with the ideological tenor of media messages to produce pervasive asymmetric attribution bias in American politics--that is, Left Shift."
Eeek - what a confusing paste job.
I know what the words "pervasive asymmetric attribution bias" mean individually, but collectively, I'm kind of expecting you to want check my prostate.

Eeek - what a confusing paste job.
I know what the words "pervasive asymmetric attribution bias" mean individually, but collectively, I'm kind of expecting you to want check my prostate.

Yes, it is, as I said, too hard to read. I see, however, that you didn't respond to my plain English opinion that preceded the "confusing paste job." Contrary to your assertion that Republicans have been refusing to step to the center, they have not only stepped to it, but passed over to the left side of it, so that the "center" has shifted, and continues to shift leftward. Which presents a problem in determining "balance" if everytime you "bend" or "moderate" the center moves. What's the point of being "Republican" if it only means you've become what the "Dems" used to be? If the shift is constantly in that direction, the Dems clearly deserve the title "progressive" and the Repubs are merely come-lately imitators. If Repubs are not going to be opposing enough to create a stable center between the two parties, why exist?