Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Polarization is a part of our history

September 2, 2013

Politics has never been more divisive, bitter and harsh in the United States, we’re told. To that it often is added that too many politicians have forgotten the definition of “public servant....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(24)

Guy007

Sep-04-13 6:05 PM

History has taught me that once the dominant world power(empire) begins to overly expand its policing authority of the known world,other lesser powers begin uniting to usurp gradually the dominant authority,achieving that objective by instilling dissent in the dominant power within,thus hastening the fall of that dominant power to police the world to be replaced by another dominant policing power.This repetive cycle is in accord with the nature of man who innately requires being policed(regulation and control of human affairs). This is a sad but,unfortunately true commentary.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mythravere

Sep-04-13 4:23 PM

You know what makes our brand of life and government better? Our ancestors and every American since have fought for and built what we have because WE decided it was right.

What we have was not given. It was earned. What we have isn't something that can be given to anyone. Like us they must come to the conclusion and take the path THEMSELVES if they are to realize our potential and have something similar to what we have.

Thats why spreading democracy is a fools errand.

Give a poor man a million bucks that he didn't earn and watch him blow it.

The same thing for all these countries overseas.

The reason they aren't like us is because they dont have what it takes to be what we are. And they never will unless they arrive at that point themselves.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Sep-04-13 11:10 AM

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Why must we bankrupt our nation as every example you listed above? Why can we not stop policing the world and return to the non-interventionist country our Founding Fathers envisioned 2 1/2 centuries ago?

We have no dog in this Syrian fight. If anything, with one side being Shiite Hezbollah and the other Sunni Al-Qaeda, both organizations that detest America, if we are going to launch missiles, shouldn’t it be at BOTH sides?

There is no reason for the US to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and further push us in debt to simply because our fearless leader drew a red line in the sand. It’s ludicrous.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Guy007

Sep-04-13 10:42 AM

Is it really protecting the world Aaron? Or is it showing the world that we are still the Imperialist nation with might to force our notion of conformity on the world? This action has been the course of all imperialist(military empire) nations who have had their day as the supreme military power of the world. Look at the Egyptian Empire,the Greek Empire,the Roman Empire,the Spanish Empire,the French Empire,and more recently the British Empire and the Russian Empire. All empires fall, and will be replaced; as the Chinese Empire will replace the current U.S. Empire. Military threats always force domestic issues on the back burner.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Sep-04-13 10:27 AM

Why is it our responsibility to protect the world Guy?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Guy007

Sep-04-13 10:22 AM

What does it take for Congress and the White House to unite? Certainly domestic issues have never been a unison factor; however, a perceived international threat has always resulted in the 2 major parties uniting to protect the world.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Sep-04-13 10:11 AM

As for Obamacare, it was declared Constitutional as a tax so I’m not sure how that would affect the bill. If it’s through an appropriations bill, then it is discretionary spending and can defunded. If it is paid for by outlays in laws that do not use an appropriations act, then it is mandatory spending and cannot be defunded. I don’t think anyone knows the easy answer to that question although much of the bill utilizes discretionary spending provisions of multiple appropriations bills thus, according to the Congressional Research Service; at least part of the bill is in jeopardy of losing funding in the event of a government shutdown.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Sep-04-13 10:11 AM

The government shut down for a total of 28 days in 1995 and 96 Neo, forcing the sides to come to an agreement. If that is what it takes to bring some fiscal responsibility to liberals led by the President, then I'm all for it. Shut it down and risk losing a less than 1/10000 of 1% of spending that would go out on SS checks to those who deceased during the shutdown. And when the furloughed federal workers come back, they can do what they do with every other recipient who dies and receives SS; take it back from their family.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Sep-04-13 9:41 AM

Keep trying da

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Sep-04-13 9:07 AM

& is Obamacare mandatory spending or discretionary spending? I think it was Newt Gingrich who said Obama can declare it mandatory, so shutting down the government to defund Obamacare won't defund Obamacare.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Sep-04-13 9:03 AM

A government shutdown won't stop the Social Security "checks" (actually direct deposits), but it will stop the paychecks of employees of the Social Security Administration. Which may make it difficult to start, stop, or change a recipient's payments. A lot of that can now be done online, I'm not sure how much will continue while the offices are closed. I'm guessing, just a guess, that some people will be able to sign up, but recipients who die won't be removed. That would mean that a shutdown intended to reduce government expenditures may actually result in more overpayments. Most of which can be recovered when the employees return to work, but they'll have to work extra hours.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Sep-04-13 7:26 AM

Was that intelligent enough for you??

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Sep-04-13 7:22 AM

"I state facts and get asinine tripe" little buddy what facts did you have when you wrote "It’s just too bad John Boehner doesn’t have the resolve Gingrich had. If he had stood his ground, we would be much better off." ?? Like I wrote "keep on believing that, La La land is just around the corner!!

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Sep-03-13 9:27 PM

As to spending and a potential shutdown, let's be realistic. First, 2/3rd's of all spending is not subject to any type of government shutdown conversation as it is mandatory spending. That includes EVERY entitlement program we have so the social security checks and food stamps are still going out so lets dispel that potential liberal lie before it's told.

Discretionary spending, which constitutes 30% of spending is what would be affected were Boehner were to grow a pair and force Obama's hand. The bulk of that is in the form of military spending excluding soldiers pay as that is covered by contracts. Essentially, what we are talking about is what liberals of years past wanted cut anyhow and that's military spending.

If it takes shutting down the military industrial complex for a week or two to negotiate some fiscal responsibility as it did with Gingrich and Clinton, how is that a bad thing?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Sep-03-13 9:14 PM

First Neo, we need to address a few points. It's hard to have an intelligent conversation when one poster thinks our 1st and 3rd Presidents and our two most recognizable Founding Fathers are residents of "La La Land" and another doesn't even know the Constitutional definition of Treason. I state facts and get asinine tripe in return. How do I work with such simplemindedness?

As to gridlock, you say a little is reasonable but how do you combat that when neither side is willing to give? I know most blame an "obstructionist" Congress but the truth is, in 2011, it was Obama who reneged during the budget negotiations. That is a fact that cannot be debated. So my question is, how can either side work on solving problems if the other side can't be trusted?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Sep-03-13 5:03 PM

Well, we certainly demonstrate that polarization on these Comments pages!

AaronS sees "nothing wrong with a little gridlock." That's a reasonable position w/ which many agree. But please keep it to A LITTLE. It works for a lot of things, but some problems can't be solved that way -- real problems, that can be solved, & we're almost guaranteed to not solve them.

Suttle, if it were possible to sail off the edge of the Earth -- you just did.

A little gridlock will keep us from going off the edge. But let's really try to solve some problems right here in Middle Earth.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Suttle

Sep-03-13 4:08 PM

I think that those in Congress (like anyone else who tries to shut down our government by force or through political chicanery)should be charged with committing a treasonous act against the United States of America and be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Republicans who threaten the United States government with a full government shut down by destroying our financial markets are no better than terrorists and should be recognized as such. One has to wonder who is the real enemy of the United States...the Republican wackos or the Afghanistan Taliban and the followers of Osama Bin Laden?

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Sep-03-13 2:01 PM

little buddy You keep on believing that, and La La land is just around the corner!!

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Sep-03-13 10:49 AM

The point of this article isn't that Nixon or Reagan we're worse or better than FDR or JFK, it is that partisan politics are as old as the country itself.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with a little gridlock. As Washington commented to Jefferson when explaining why our Founding Fathers chose a Bicameral Republic instead of a Democracy, Washington explained that it was to cool off legislation. In his farewell speech, Washington cautioned against parties because of the divineness they create.

Despite that, we have essentially been a two party country from the beginning, and from the beginning, we’ve been as divided as we are right now and that’s a good thing. All one has to do is look to the late 90’s to see that as it was disagreement that led to the policies that allowed our country to grow which resulted in fiscal responsibility.

It’s just too bad John Boehner doesn’t have the resolve Gingrich had. If he had stood his ground, we would be much better off.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Sep-02-13 8:15 PM

"Roosevelt didn't like some Supreme Court rulings over his New Deal programs - so he tried to get Congress to pass a law allowing him to appoint enough new justices to, in effect, give himself a majority. It failed."

I would disagree that it failed Mr. Myer. If anything, it was a rousing success as it produced "the switch in time to save 9." Anyone who's willing to research that topic knows what the outcome has been and the devastating effect it's had on America.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvubob

Sep-02-13 6:08 PM

Pot meet kettle.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Sep-02-13 2:38 PM

So what "wvubob" the article was about "Polarization" And Myers is a good one to be writing about "Polarization." Don't you think?

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvubob

Sep-02-13 10:42 AM

denver, you could also tell by the fact that his name was on the article. I believe there were hearings on Iran-Contra and Watergate and an impeachment.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Sep-02-13 6:44 AM

Might have known this Article was written by Mike Myer when he mentioned Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy but not Ronald Reagan in the Iran–Contra affair and Richard Nixon In the Watergate scandal!

6 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 24 of 24 comments
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web