Comments on: Have We Become A Nation Of ‘Party,’ Or ‘Country,’ First? (by Andy McGee) http://www.thirstyquill.com/2009/05/18/have-we-become-a-nation-of-party-or-country-first-by-andy-mcgee Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:19:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Scott Wizeman http://www.thirstyquill.com/2009/05/18/have-we-become-a-nation-of-party-or-country-first-by-andy-mcgee#comment-422 Scott Wizeman Thu, 21 May 2009 03:02:59 +0000 http://www.thirstyquill.com/?p=1056#comment-422 Answer 1. I see us becoming a group of people who are driven more by what's in it for me, now, and less about what's in it for us. It's not about party. It's about me. Answer 2. Will we take a short term loss? Absolutely not. Right now, we all seem overly concerned in short term, selfish, political gain. This is precisely why the government shouldn't run GM, AIG, any bank, any particular company, industry, or market. Those in politics today, regardless of party will always be for the short term. Think of our insolvent Social Security program. No one has the brass to really deal with a long term problem becuase of the short term fall out. Yet, we cheer on the government mandating that domestic car companies build small efficient cars that the market has proven truck buying Americans will not buy or celebrate the years of "balanced budgets" when all we did was borrow from our own retirement (social security funds) to balace our annual budgets. Answer 3. 2010 and 2012 are still in the short term and shouldn't overly concern either party nearly as much as watching the rise and feeling the effects of a viable new party in the 2016 election cycle. So to answer directly, it doesn't matter. I believe that the democrat vs. republican, or wall street vs. main street, or what ever us vs. them shenanigans the life long politico's want us to get into will eventually be clearly demonstrated for what they are (which takes me back to answer number 2): short term, selfish, and crafted for political gain. The real fear on both sides of the isle isn't for which one of them is in power after the next election cycle, it's that one day- and one day soon- neither will be. Answer 1. I see us becoming a group of people who are driven more by what’s in it for me, now, and less about what’s in it for us. It’s not about party. It’s about me.
Answer 2. Will we take a short term loss? Absolutely not. Right now, we all seem overly concerned in short term, selfish, political gain. This is precisely why the government shouldn’t run GM, AIG, any bank, any particular company, industry, or market. Those in politics today, regardless of party will always be for the short term. Think of our insolvent Social Security program. No one has the brass to really deal with a long term problem becuase of the short term fall out. Yet, we cheer on the government mandating that domestic car companies build small efficient cars that the market has proven truck buying Americans will not buy or celebrate the years of “balanced budgets” when all we did was borrow from our own retirement (social security funds) to balace our annual budgets.

Answer 3. 2010 and 2012 are still in the short term and shouldn’t overly concern either party nearly as much as watching the rise and feeling the effects of a viable new party in the 2016 election cycle. So to answer directly, it doesn’t matter. I believe that the democrat vs. republican, or wall street vs. main street, or what ever us vs. them shenanigans the life long politico’s want us to get into will eventually be clearly demonstrated for what they are (which takes me back to answer number 2): short term, selfish, and crafted for political gain. The real fear on both sides of the isle isn’t for which one of them is in power after the next election cycle, it’s that one day- and one day soon- neither will be.

]]> By: Abigail http://www.thirstyquill.com/2009/05/18/have-we-become-a-nation-of-party-or-country-first-by-andy-mcgee#comment-419 Abigail Tue, 19 May 2009 19:18:37 +0000 http://www.thirstyquill.com/?p=1056#comment-419 Andy-you raise some good questions here, but you forget that as Democrats, you and I have different ideas about the country than do Republicans. The divide in America, is in part, partisan, as you suggest. Some people are entirely committed to seeing one party or the other in power. And that, thankfully, is a minority of Americans. Yet, while we may share certain common values like life, liberty, and justice, we have seen in our history that those terms can be as divisive as any party label can be. Where you and I may see what happened at Gitmo as injustice, and a violation of America's principles, others see a just prosecution of those who may have been involved in attacks on our people and our values. While some of us see life beginning at conception (be it in a uterus or a dish), others have a more malleable understanding of human life. There are those of us who value life at every point in the spectrum, and those who believe life should be taken as a consequence for certain criminal acts. Some of us believe liberty means anyone can have access to driver's license privileges and others believe that particular liberty is only for those who have legally jumped through the hoops to become a U.S. citizen. There are some who believe liberty extends to what I say on the phone, or check out of the library, and others who feel that an abridgment of any such liberty is the price we pay for being safe. These terms and ideals have been ambiguous from the very start. While we all say we hold fast to the original promises of this country's founders, we must admit that even then, life, liberty, and justice were in a state of flux and tension, as some in their midst were denied all three because of race, gender, and sometimes, religion. I'm all for Americans coming together and uniting around central principles. We've actually done it from time to time. But every shining moment in U.S. history has had darker edges. While the Civil War eventually brought stability to our fledgling republic, in it we saw the devastation of half the country and the birth of a Jim Crow system of hatred that has only recently been defeated. We saw overwhelming support for our entrance into WWII, what was in my mind, a just war, and yet we live with the fact that ours was only nuclear attack in human history. That time brought us the "Greatest Generation" and still we must overcome the legacy of the anti-Asian sentiment that led us to unlawfully imprison U.S. citizens. We may be able to come together in times of crisis and even times of peace in pursuit of our shared principles. But how we define those principles and how we reach up to attain them are the things that spark the necessary and vital debate that we have had and always will have in this country. Andy-you raise some good questions here, but you forget that as Democrats, you and I have different ideas about the country than do Republicans. The divide in America, is in part, partisan, as you suggest. Some people are entirely committed to seeing one party or the other in power. And that, thankfully, is a minority of Americans.

Yet, while we may share certain common values like life, liberty, and justice, we have seen in our history that those terms can be as divisive as any party label can be. Where you and I may see what happened at Gitmo as injustice, and a violation of America’s principles, others see a just prosecution of those who may have been involved in attacks on our people and our values.

While some of us see life beginning at conception (be it in a uterus or a dish), others have a more malleable understanding of human life. There are those of us who value life at every point in the spectrum, and those who believe life should be taken as a consequence for certain criminal acts.

Some of us believe liberty means anyone can have access to driver’s license privileges and others believe that particular liberty is only for those who have legally jumped through the hoops to become a U.S. citizen. There are some who believe liberty extends to what I say on the phone, or check out of the library, and others who feel that an abridgment of any such liberty is the price we pay for being safe.

These terms and ideals have been ambiguous from the very start. While we all say we hold fast to the original promises of this country’s founders, we must admit that even then, life, liberty, and justice were in a state of flux and tension, as some in their midst were denied all three because of race, gender, and sometimes, religion.

I’m all for Americans coming together and uniting around central principles. We’ve actually done it from time to time. But every shining moment in U.S. history has had darker edges. While the Civil War eventually brought stability to our fledgling republic, in it we saw the devastation of half the country and the birth of a Jim Crow system of hatred that has only recently been defeated.

We saw overwhelming support for our entrance into WWII, what was in my mind, a just war, and yet we live with the fact that ours was only nuclear attack in human history. That time brought us the “Greatest Generation” and still we must overcome the legacy of the anti-Asian sentiment that led us to unlawfully imprison U.S. citizens.

We may be able to come together in times of crisis and even times of peace in pursuit of our shared principles. But how we define those principles and how we reach up to attain them are the things that spark the necessary and vital debate that we have had and always will have in this country.

]]> By: Rodney http://www.thirstyquill.com/2009/05/18/have-we-become-a-nation-of-party-or-country-first-by-andy-mcgee#comment-418 Rodney Tue, 19 May 2009 16:50:24 +0000 http://www.thirstyquill.com/?p=1056#comment-418 I find it very hard to say that another person is Right or somewhat right when I know that they are totally democrat, I mean wrong. (Revelations 3:16 comes to mind.) Also people seem to be playing the "political party card" when someone disagrees with there political or moral belief. Hummm sounds like another card that is often played. But as you said..."These are but a few of the immediate changes that President Obama has made. " You know what I find myself saying everyday? Why is the president on my TV again. Get off my television! SOMETIMES LESS IS MORE. Week 1- Obama calls for swift action in inaugural address Week 2- House votes on stimulus; no Republican votes. Obama scolds Wall Street on bonuses Week 3- Obama unveils CEO pay cap plan Week 4- Obama gets his bill: housing rescue, Stimulus package approved by Congress I skipped week 5 too boring Week 6- President thinking big- Obama unveils 2010 budget plan Week- 7- Foreclosure prevention program launched, Stimulus funded infrastructure projects start and Health care summit Week 9- AIG bonus controversy and obama promotes budget in California Week 10- Geithner unveils bad asset plan and Overhaul of financial regulations proposed Week 11- Obama steps up pressure on automakers and Budget clears in the House Ok as u see I could go on. Has a president done so much in the first 100 days? ever? I was no history major, I truly don't know the answer. Oh and did I mention SOMETIMES LESS IS MORE! I find it very hard to say that another person is Right or somewhat right when I know that they are totally democrat, I mean wrong. (Revelations 3:16 comes to mind.) Also people seem to be playing the “political party card” when someone disagrees with there political or moral belief. Hummm sounds like another card that is often played.

But as you said…”These are but a few of the immediate changes that President Obama has made. ”

You know what I find myself saying everyday? Why is the president on my TV again. Get off my television!

SOMETIMES LESS IS MORE.

Week 1- Obama calls for swift action in inaugural address
Week 2- House votes on stimulus; no Republican votes. Obama scolds Wall Street on bonuses
Week 3- Obama unveils CEO pay cap plan
Week 4- Obama gets his bill: housing rescue, Stimulus package approved by Congress

I skipped week 5 too boring

Week 6- President thinking big- Obama unveils 2010 budget plan
Week- 7- Foreclosure prevention program launched, Stimulus funded infrastructure projects start and Health care summit
Week 9- AIG bonus controversy and obama promotes budget in California
Week 10- Geithner unveils bad asset plan and Overhaul of financial regulations proposed
Week 11- Obama steps up pressure on automakers and Budget clears in the House

Ok as u see I could go on. Has a president done so much in the first 100 days? ever? I was no history major, I truly don’t know the answer. Oh and did I mention SOMETIMES LESS IS MORE!

]]>