Would you give up land taken from previous land owners used to build roads?
Would you dismantle public funding of education? Would you give up that police
protect ALL people regardless of their income or taxes paid? Would you give up
that the military protects the entire country, not just the landed or the
rich?If not you are a Socialist, or at least a semi socialist as am
I.I am a semi socialist and also a semi capitalist. Neither one of
these philosophies has all the answers. We need both. We have both, we have for
many decades now.The fact that the Soviet Union didn't (have
both) explains their demise. We too would fall were we to embrace only one of
Will the des news ever hold accountable their columnists ( including the
ubiquitous Richards ) for continuous streams of inaccurate predictions and flat
out mischaracterizations? I read with the same amusement I listen to AM radio
with with ever-wrong prophets of doom.
What's this about comments not being posted on the DN's political
articles until after the polls close? Does that apply to this article? I
don't know if this article is considered "political" or not. In any
case, I don't at all understand the reason for such a policy. Can someone
explain it in a convincing way?
Yes, If Obama wins he must stop his Hannity constant mean negative attacks and
respect the results.
"The Founding Fathers did not settle upon socialism as the route to
utopia."the founding fathers also didn't see equality for
all, particularly women. The founding fathers didn't see slavery as
something that should have been prohibited. The founding fathers didn't
see it that non-land holders should have the vote. We can go on and on with
this..... the founding fathers didn't see much of the world we live in
today. the didn't see our modern corporatized medical delivery system nor
did they see how globalized the world would become.I am by no means
a socialist, but to say we must live the vision of these men where over half the
people of this nation didn't enjoy the same rights as male land holders....
I am not sure that is the utopia many of us want.... not in practicality what
many founding fathers really envisioned.
Mike Richards, You always get it right. Good for you. Those who want four more
years of Obama should start over in kindergarten and see if you can learn
something of America, its history and its Constitution. The Founding Fathers
did not settle upon socialism as the route to utopia.
What is Obama's true legacy? He's added $16,000 to the debt burden of
every man, woman and child in America. He's reduced yearly income by
$4,500 for every worker in America. He's added $2,500 to the yearly health
cost of every family in America.Add to that the MILLIONS who are out
of work and the MILLIONS who have had to go on welfare and you begin to see what
he his policies have done to America.Who, in their right mind, would
want another four years of Obama? Who would want an indecisive Commander in
Chief who lies about a movie so that he can claim that there were no terrorist
attacks during his watch?America will cease to exist if Obama's
policies continue. His mythical "rich guy" cannot feed us all. His
bankrupt "green energy" companies cannot heat our homes and light our
offices.He has failed - completely.Charles Krauthammer
got it right. No Democrat can claim that a continuation of Obama's
policies will benefit America.
To Mountanman 7:18 a.m. Nov. 4, 2012Another brilliant article by
Charles Krauthammer. Should be mandatory reading in every civics class in
America!------------------------I didn't realize
civics classes were based on blatant fiction.
To Eric Samuelson: Thank you, I've often felt the same about your posts.
The author really had me going there until he got to the part about Romney
enacting "a more equitable tax code." How does allowing the
super-wealthy to be excused from paying the same tax bill as school teachers,
construction workers, and fire fighters constitute a "more equitable tax
Roland KayserFor maybe like the fiftieth time, I'm sitting here all
ready to comment and I see that you've said exactly what I was going to
say, but more eloquently and sensibly. Well done, sir!Absolutely. I would
add 1968 and 1856 as crucial elections as well, though both went badly, based on
who won. But this election? Moderately important, but only if Tea Party
partisans do badly in Congressional races.
The "Nationalization of Healthcare"? What a blatant, bald faced lie.
If ACA is the nationalization of healthcare, all physicians, nurses and other
clinicians would be getting their salaries from the federal government. This is
simply, demonstrably untrue, a lie.ACA is essentially the best
*Republican* ideas submitted as an alternative to HillaryCare (which would have
followed the Canadian model, ie, government insurance, private clinical
practice). Republicans, including Romney, we're so eager to
defeat Obama they were willing to throw their own ideas - and accomplishments -
under the bus. Hypocrisy on steroids.
The only two elections that really changed the course of history were 1860 and
1932. 1828 and 1980 were also important, but do not reach the same level. This
one will not change history, Romney will be George W Bush part II, and Obama is
a pragmatic centrist, not the wild eyed radical portrayed in this piece.
Hopefully we can continue the good work of President Obama, eh charles?
Yep. That about sums it up for me.
Another brilliant article by Charles Krauthammer. Should be mandatory reading in
every civics class in America!
"Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could guide the country to the restoration of a
more austere and modest government with more restrained entitlements and a more
equitable and efficient tax code. Those achievements alone would mark a new
trajectory — a return to what Reagan started three decades ago."That all sounds good, but none of it is true about Reagan. The national
deficit nearly tripled in the 8 years of Reagan. Government didn't shrink,
it just changed the percentages on the budget headings. And it resulted in some
rather costly unintended consequences - funding surrogate militaries that we
latter had to deal with in Iraq and with the Taliban. In the
authors constant deeply partisan political rant, he way over estimates any of
these changes and swings. Reaganism didn't change any fundamentals like he
claims... he changed nuances, but not the story. We have few Presidents that
long term altered the course of American history - like what Washington and
Lincoln did. In 100 years, no one will recall the details of the Reagan
presidency like they do now Lincoln's. Reagan was no Lincoln.The sky isn't falling for either party..... the music may just be
changing for a while.