U.S. economy is in recession, Merrill's Rosenberg says

[Heracles 417]

I dunno - for a foreigner you seem pretty keen to buy into the polarised politics, as if all the country's problems can be laid at the feet of one side of the aisle. As I recall the Liberals/Democrats weren't the only ones driving discussion about the Iraq War and Gay Rights etc. The phrase "national debate" kinda implies that the nation, or at least a good portion of it is talking about these things.

Nothing to do with being polarized. When you hear people going on on and about freakin rights yet never addressing the real issues you start to think what a bunch of losers. I actually like the traditional Democrat party and what they stood for. Yes the pre 70's party. Whereas the status quo has been hijacked. The like-minded people who hijacked the democrat party in the US have their own party in Australia called the Greens. Or otherwise known as the dumb as all ######, head in the sand, drug induced psychosis party.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

LOL VJ's political landscape sure has shifted over the past 3 years.... remember all the Bushbots who could not stop extolling the virtues and infallibility of their glorious leader ? They're mighty quiet these days....

Edited to add: I wonder how incanada is coping with it all....

is there anyone left who hasn't written off GWB as a nobnut?

Million dollar question. And what has the house and senate done?

This is not a dictatorship. GWB does not run the country. Actually. as stated in my previous post, far from it in this country.

When a corporation does badly its not uncommon for the manager to take responsibility for the poor performance. Goes with the territory

Comparing apples with oranges here. The American president is always the scape goat. Not having ministers, like the UK and AUS, does not help either. People should have enough knowledge, especially those oh-so-smart liberals, to know that the responsibility of 300,000,000 people does not and simply cannot rest with one person.

I'm not saying its explicitly the same, but its the same principle. As the leader you have to assume ultimate responsibility.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno - for a foreigner you seem pretty keen to buy into the polarised politics, as if all the country's problems can be laid at the feet of one side of the aisle. As I recall the Liberals/Democrats weren't the only ones driving discussion about the Iraq War and Gay Rights etc. The phrase "national debate" kinda implies that the nation, or at least a good portion of it is talking about these things.

Nothing to do with being polarized. When you hear people going on on and about freakin rights yet never addressing the real issues you start to think what a bunch of losers. I actually like the traditional Democrat party and what they stood for. Yes the pre 70's party. Whereas the status quo has been hijacked. The like-minded people who hijacked the democrat party in the US have their own party in Australia called the Greens. Or otherwise known as the dumb as all ######, head in the sand, drug induced psychosis party.

I still don't get why you insist on pinning this wholesale on the Democratic party and their supporters, when pretty much all of these things are national dialogs.

[Heracles 417]

People should have enough knowledge, especially those oh-so-smart liberals, to know that the responsibility of 300,000,000 people does not and simply cannot rest with one person.

So, you're saying, our nation is too large to have just one executive?

How many Presidents do you suggest we elect? Or are you suggesting we switch to a Parliamentary system as we are now a much larger nation than when the Framers founded it?

I am not saying at all that the US needs a parliamentary system. But I am saying the system is what it is. Which means it comes with its pros and with it cons.

The US obviously has three levels of government; with a large emphasis on a states individual power as well as an individuals choice. Therefore the president is not solely responsible, if a state like Michigan does not know what they are doing which leads to their local economy collapsing. The president is not responsible if a lot of kids growing up today, in America, aspire to be cool, be an athlete or a rapper and inevitable end up drop kicks selling crack. The president alone is not responsible for the drop in prosperity for Americans. As he is not solely responsible for the constantly falling education and living standards in America.

The point I was making is more along the lines of lets focus on the real issues affecting the nation rather than the BS many have people focused on. Hint they are not the president or gay rights / affirmative action for lesbian poodles, as many with certain skewed views would like us to believe.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Heracles 417]

I'm not saying its explicitly the same, but its the same principle. As the leader you have to assume ultimate responsibility.

Does not work that way in a free and democratic society. I would say in reality an American president does not have the same power, excluding militarily, when compared to the prime minister of the UK or AUS.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Certain skewed views... For example, that talking about irrelevant social issues at the national level is exclusive to one side of the political landscape?

[Heracles 417]

I still don't get why you insist on pinning this wholesale on the Democratic party and their supporters, when pretty much all of these things are national dialogs.

I am not but I get angry when people with left wing views pin it all on someone with opposing views. Hence why little gets done here. US politics kind of reminds me of trench warfare. So instead of people try to work together to lift the country up. We are caught up in trench warfare trying to blame, and take down, the other person.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not saying its explicitly the same, but its the same principle. As the leader you have to assume ultimate responsibility.

Does not work that way in a free and democratic society. I would say in reality an American president does not have the same power, excluding militarily, when compared to the prime minister of the UK or AUS.

Yes because in the UK - you can be Prime Minister for life, until your own party gets tired of you (like Thatcher). Incidentally the UK public doesn't actually elect the PM - they're elected from within their own party. Its pretty archaic IMO.

[Heracles 417]

Certain skewed views... For example, that talking about irrelevant social issues at the national level is exclusive to one side of the political landscape?

Is that irrelevant issues such as the constant emphasis on "rights" rather than living standards.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I still don't get why you insist on pinning this wholesale on the Democratic party and their supporters, when pretty much all of these things are national dialogs.

I am not but I get angry when people with left wing views pin it all on someone with opposing views. Hence why little gets done here. US politics kind of reminds me of trench warfare. So instead of people try to work together to lift the country up. We are caught up in trench warfare trying to blame, and take down, the other person.

But here you are doing the same. Instead of decrying the general state of political discussion, someone has to be to blame - even if that blame requires surgical demarcation of the electorate.

[Heracles 417]

I'm not saying its explicitly the same, but its the same principle. As the leader you have to assume ultimate responsibility.

Does not work that way in a free and democratic society. I would say in reality an American president does not have the same power, excluding militarily, when compared to the prime minister of the UK or AUS.

Yes because in the UK - you can be Prime Minister for life, until your own party gets tired of you (like Thatcher). Incidentally the UK public doesn't actually elect the PM - they're elected from within their own party. Its pretty archaic IMO.

Archaic. And what electing one person to be responsible for a nation is logical. The winner takes all system. About as logical as limiting a leader to two terms. Therefore on the second term a leader does not have to do ###### as they know they will not be elected again.

[Heracles 417]

I still don't get why you insist on pinning this wholesale on the Democratic party and their supporters, when pretty much all of these things are national dialogs.

I am not but I get angry when people with left wing views pin it all on someone with opposing views. Hence why little gets done here. US politics kind of reminds me of trench warfare. So instead of people try to work together to lift the country up. We are caught up in trench warfare trying to blame, and take down, the other person.

But here you are doing the same. Instead of decrying the general state of political discussion, someone has to be to blame - even if that blame requires surgical demarcation of the electorate.

I think we all know each other's political views by know. So when someone comes out and blames GWB for the state of the American economy. Naturally I will take into account a person's political view. I know for a fact that if Obama was the president, instead of GWB, and had made the exact same decisions as GWB since 2000, this same person would not say ###### about his leadership.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I still don't get why you insist on pinning this wholesale on the Democratic party and their supporters, when pretty much all of these things are national dialogs.

I am not but I get angry when people with left wing views pin it all on someone with opposing views. Hence why little gets done here. US politics kind of reminds me of trench warfare. So instead of people try to work together to lift the country up. We are caught up in trench warfare trying to blame, and take down, the other person.

But here you are doing the same. Instead of decrying the general state of political discussion, someone has to be to blame - even if that blame requires surgical demarcation of the electorate.

I think we all know each other's political views by know. So when someone comes out and blames GWB for the state of the American economy. Naturally I will take into account a person's political view. I know for a fact that if Obama was the president, instead of GWB, and had made the exact same decisions as GWB since 2000, this same person would not say ###### about his leadership.

Given that I and everyone else has been living under the current administration for 8 years - I think you (unfairly) assume rather a lot about me to say that.

[Heracles 417]

Given that I and everyone else has been living under the current administration for 8 years - I think you (unfairly) assume rather a lot about me to say that.

Come on now #6. I wasn't born yesterday.

Can you and the usual critics show me one positive thing you have said about GWB.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Archaic. And what electing one person to be responsible for a nation is logical. The winner takes all system. About as logical as limiting a leader to two terms. Therefore on the second term a leader does not have to do ###### as they know they will not be elected again.

Not having a term limit is constitutionally dangerous IMO. I mentioned Mrs Thatcher - because if she hadn't have been forced out of power by her own party, she'd have clung onto the office to the bitter end. Right now we're reliant on the goodwill of the person in office to decide when they've outstayed their welcome. Hardly the ideal state of affairs.