Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by LShieldes on June 20, 2012 at 7:05am

Would you prefer backwards?

 

There are three ways you can go, forwards, backwards or stand still. And for me, standing still might as well be going backwards.

 

I prefer to move forward. By moving, you can change directions, you can try something new. By standing still, you take whatever comes your way, refusing to change. By going backwards, you choose to do what you have already done, oblivious to the fact that the rest of the world has changed so that you cannot possibly expect the same outcomes, even if you truly wanted them in the first place.

Permalink Reply by Paul_of_TX on June 20, 2012 at 9:21am

Well we can move forward in a different direction and not the path Obama has us on.

Maybe you have not been paying attention to the same world as the rest of us. Obama is on the same path Europe has been on and now we are seeing where that path leads to.
 Why would anyone want to go down that path?

Permalink Reply by LShieldes on June 20, 2012 at 9:37am

So then, the word Forward can be used by anyone, it is just how we perceive what they mean with it?

Permalink Reply by Paul_of_TX on June 20, 2012 at 10:36am

Yes it can mean going forward in time. When a politician who started their political career at the house of someone who has called themselves a communist, hires Van Jones and wants to socialize our health care then you are stupid to think forward doesn't have a socialist slant to it's meaning.

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on June 20, 2012 at 9:38am

If we could end up where Germany is, and not where Spain is, sure. Europe has distinct issues that would not be a factor.

I agree changes need to be made - there are some aspects of Obama's forward that I think we need to continue upon. Social policies, healthcare reform, etc. Others - maintaining Bush era tax cuts, multiple wars, massive bailouts - we should not.

Forward does not automatically mean more of the same. 

Permalink Reply by Paul_of_TX on June 20, 2012 at 10:29am

So there are several countries failing in Europe and you pick the most successful.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/obeying-eu-rules-germa...

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

Real smooth move Liam but only the most dim, most blinded to the world around and oblivious to actual facts could even dream America is on a path that would lead to where Germany is. The majority of countries on that path fail so why should we continue on that path?

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on June 20, 2012 at 10:40am

American exceptionalism. ;)

You presented "Europe" as a monolithic failure. In actuality, there are some countries struggling, and others doing quite well. I just presented a counter to your doom and gloom. The reasons for some countries success versus failure are myriad - a blanket indictment like you have been making is a gross oversimplification at best, and often (as shown by the successes), flat out wrong. 

I also agree - government spending needs to come down. We just disagree on where.

Permalink Reply by Native Son on June 20, 2012 at 1:45pm

"Two roads diverged in a wood..."

Permalink Reply by Will on June 22, 2012 at 7:47am

Yes:  when you're adding $1.5 trillion dollars of debt per year, backward would be better than forward.  

Or we could say "in another direction."

It really is pretty simple.  "Forward" in the wrong direction is forward in the wrong direction.  But Obama's campaign is hampered by the fact that people want a change and he's the incumbent.  

Thing is, it isn't even close to impossible for an incumbent to win when people don't like what he's doing.  Clinton proved that after '94.  He changed what he was doing.  Obama had his midterm call for a change, and opted to go forward instead.  

He has several months left.  And in fact he has proposed some changes.  He wants to punish the oil companies, as his ads on AoM a few weeks back kept saying.  He wants to soak the rich some more, he says.  He wants to grant concessions to Russia.  And he says he will do these things provided he's re-elected.  He could do them tomorrow, and if he were serious (except about things that would hurt his re-election chances, like Russia), nothing's stopping him.  But he seems to be stuck in forward, unable to change course even when it's his own course change.

If I were him, I'd do those things right now, so people won't conclude I'm all talk and no action.  Unless I thought they would fail, or fail to please.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 14
• 15
• 16
• Next ›
• Page