"Partisan polarization" Its been like this since dubya, and I never saw the republicans or anyone else do a damn thing to quiet it down.
" Racial polarization" probably less so than the 1990s, at least people have confronted it now. Remember the race riots of the 1990s, Rodney King?
"Nixonian politicking" Which has been the standard since McGovern lost. How would have Mitt Romney stopped this?
" The budget deficit The size of the national debt" Thats always been a problem, that everyone talks about and no one does shit about.
"The US credit rating" partisan political knuckledragging in congress, Obama didn't do that.
"The loss of property rights The loss of legal rights The loss of free speech" As compared to what? When was the last time we really had them. While Obama is certainly not going to give them back, most of the rights crushing acts of this generation were made under Bush admin. Can you find me one politician who is going to scale back the surveillance state.
"The overall abandonment of liberty International weakness Defenselessness against terrorist attacks"
And how was Mitt Romney going to balance "fighting terrorism" with "preserving libertey"
If anything the unmaintainable wars seem to serve only the interests of defense contractors and don't actively promote US security.
While Obama certainly isn't great, Romney's plan was to further expand our military footprint, buy more extremely expensive naval ships we don't need, and run up cost of military hardware which is not contributing to anything but an unbalanced budget.
"The extraction of greater tax revenue from the people" by "the people", you mean "corporations, and insanely wealthy"
I could take issue with most, if not all of these, I want to single the 14th point out especially, because, to be frank, don't you think the Constitution is a tad overvalued considering it was written by a group of slave owners?
Who owned slaves. I believe the point `AbCat was making was that the US Constitution is not the paragon of liberty you make it to be. If the founders of the country considered enslavement of an entire race of people to be an implicit right, then perhaps their constitution isn't the infallible declaration of liberty it's depicted as.
The Constitution is meant to protect liberty by placing constraints on the government. Certainly, those constraints are not infallible. But that is no reason to completely give up on constraining the government altogether, as we now have.
While I agree the government needs its bounds, the constitution in itself cannot be idolized as the epitome of this concept. It was the federal government which stepped in and forced the individual states to outlaw slavery. It was the federal government which stepped in to ensure women had the right to vote. It was the federal government which ended miscegenation and segregation, and it may be the federal government which ultimately allows same-sex marriage. People argued that all these things were beyond the scope of the federal government, that the constitution guarantees the right of the states to make the decisions themselves, but do you believe liberty to be a world where only white males are liberated? That is why we cannot rely on the constitution to define what is right.
"It was the federal government which stepped in and forced the individual states to outlaw slavery. It was the federal government which stepped in to ensure women had the right to vote. It was the federal government which ended miscegenation and segregation"
You seem to lack the point. All of these were done with constitutional amendments specificity giving the federal government the power to do so. The amendment process is long, and complicated, and prevents the federal government from giving itself powers at will. In any case, the collective states voted in any case to empower the federal government.
So if your in favor of entirely ignoring the constitution based on a few moot points, what do you propose to put in place to constrain the power of the government?
The constitution, can, and has been amended to protect rights of citizens not previously enumerated. What I don't want is unilatteral action by the federal government in leui of constituional amendments.
And yet all those changes to bring more freedom happened through amending the Constitution with >2/3rds majorities and state-by-state ratification, not through executive power, simple legislative majorities, or unelected judicial majorities. It is those latter mechanisms that have completely destroyed the power of the Constitution in recent months.
I doubt Applebee's, Papa Johns, and the other large companies saying this shit can't afford it. These people don't care and probably haven't read much in to the bill. If it is small businesses you speak of then they aren't hurt as well. There are studies that show it.
Do you expect to be taken seriously? He's not Stalin. How is ALL LIBERTY going to be abandoned? Do you have any concrete, unbiased evidence that Obama has a plan to eliminate all liberty in your country? How does he plan on doing this? Why are you the only one who knows? Are you privy to some special source of information? If you are you should contact the CIA since you apparently already know that the government plans to strip you any freedoms that you have.
To be fair, Schemer said that Romney was far from his ideal candidate. But he just really really hates Obama because of... I dunno, his weak-sauce health care law might cause Schemer to pay a fine or something.
But based on the conversations I've had with him where he mentions "affirmative action" and "white guilt", I'm convinced he's just a massive racist.
Hugo Chavez has fully centralized the Venezuelan economy, nationalized the media and banned opposition stations, and gave his own party full control of election monitoring and manufacture of polling machines. He also sends thugs to beat up members of the opposing party. If Hugo Chavez is not a dictator, then neither is Mugabe, neither was Hussein, and neither was Mussolini.
Here's people from The Economist discussing the recent Venezuelan election. They conclude that while Chavez has stacked the deck heavily against the opposition, the polls are definitely legit. There were tons of witnesses either way, and random polling machines were checked against the paper ballots. I have found no evidence that Chavez sent thugs to beat up opposition members. And even though Chavez won the election comfortably, this was his narrowest win.
Also, Hussein genocided Kurds, Mugabe made white people GTFO with guns, and Mussolini was a living cartoon character. Chavez is just a swaggering populist who's probably going to die in a a couple of years anyway (he may or may not be in remission from prostate cancer).
You really are a spoiled, selfish little child who doesn't realize how DAMNED LUCKY he is to live in this country. There are countries where people don't even get to vote. Where the closest thing to 'public assistance' is your neighbor a mile down the road and even then there's no guarantee you'll be helped.
A self-important little fool like YOU hasn't a flea's comprehension of tyranny.