USA,-Where Liberalism Failed.... ( Archived) (26)

WRONG!! The US which "WAS" the richest nation on earth has been run broke by lib spending. This just goes to show that there are set rule to spending and no matter how much you "think" you have, lib idea cost too much!!

WRONG!The ones who voted for soft liberalism are guilty .......,no-one else.....and you did....

It was inevitable. In assesing the character of American government (which is reflective of the people), one recalls, the astute observation by the historian Nenry Adams that politics is "the systematic organization of hatreds". The "Founding Fathers", it is most often forgotten, designed the US Constitution in a pre-democratic age before the emergence of a party system, which they feared could lead, in George Washington's words, to the "unjust dominion" of "unprincipled men". If they were alive today, and as wise as assumed, they should have amended or wish to amend the aging text that has failed to stem the tide of faction and has become an obstacle to good governance.
American politics is combative. Belligerence is its essence. Many famous Victorian jurists have questioned the entire Partysystem, including John Stuart Mill, for whom it raised universal questions about political behavior. Begining with the electorial provisions they created in Philadelphia in 1787, it immediatly created and encouraged partystrife and political corruption. John Stuart Mill noted in "Considerations in Representative Government"(1861), all selfish ambition gravitated towards the demos. Like most sensible commentators, he lamented the corruption and conformity in American democracy, which the electoral process promoted. As he saw it back then as now, a total lack of critical, independent thought led to a passive citizenry that followed the received wisdom " with the most servile adulation and sycophancy".
Alexis de Toqueville noted that America was already then a materialistic society that had many ambitious people but very few lofty ambitions and that political power had become concentrated in their hands. Arguably his "tyranny of the majority" has proved far less dangerous than what was seen by James Bryce as the incapacity of useless politicians elected by a citizenry with low expectations of government.
All of Jefferson's anxieties as written in The Federalist Essays (1788) about the inherent dangers of organized parties have become only too clear. The Victorians observed that uncritical veneration of the Constitution left the US politically immobilized at critical moments, unable to remedy the faults in its electoral structure. Checks and balances in a system of multiple sovereignties induced a constipated politics of entrenched, combative partisanship. Consequently, Americans have evaded all constraints on governance less by amendment than through the courts and by stealth. It is worth recalling that when it has suited them, most of the more memorable Presidents, including Jackson, Lincoln, and even Roosevelt, discarded the Constitution that they so professed to to revere. For no politician as yet, in America has the courage to say of the 'holy' Constitution, as it is said of kings: "The King is dead. Long Live the King!" Let it die along with all those old dead Greeks that Jefferson so revered. Back then, they were 'out of date'; today, they and their old ideas are even more out of date. RIP. Finally.

I have been saying and posting for decades the problem in the US is not the Democrats or the Republicans. The problem is the Democrats "AND" the Republicans. Their time is spent mostly in raising money for their next election.
They have promised term limits, and spending reductions for as long as I have lived and never done either. It matters not which gets into power they spend more than those that were before, while running for election screaming those there now spend far too much. This has not changed as O did the very same and has out spent them all.

Dear Conrad, who sidesteps or obfuscates?? Dear fellow it is ALWAYS you; you either attack the posters on a very personal level but never the content of a post or you really expect that any and every poster owes you, personally an accounting or explanation of the why's and wherefore's of their post. Who in the hell do you think you are??? To me, you're nothing but a miserable old man that claims to be a red, white and blue American that doesn't want to live in their good ol' USA...or can't. The there is the side of you that is a raving Zionist at best or a wanna-be Israeli agent-provocateur. It is rare indeed that you ever make a posting of more than five words...all you really do is post links to all sorts of absolute rubbish. You do not come across as someone who can actually articulate a coherent sentence. You are no one that anyone on any thread owes you any explanation or answer to anything they post. That deflects and obfuscated the content and message, if there is one. Your questioning others does not by any means implies that you and you alone have all, any or even the remotest idea of answers to anything. Don't bother to obfuscate the content of what I post by your inane supercilious questions that are on a grade school level. Grow up and deal with the content; tell me where I may be wrong or may have misquoted someone. That is what mature adults do. Obviously you've never experienced being on any type of academic debating teams...unless they kicked you off for constantly going off topic and resorting to personal attacks and name calling, of which I seem to recall that you were always the first to resort to that level also. Why you were allowed back on CS is beyond me as you actually contribute nothing but unending negativity toward anyone or anything you may disagree with, but never constructively offer anything, not one in all the years you've been here. Perhaps you really should go home to your so called country and start helping build a better one.