@GlennnBeck/lt

lol wdf this thread wasn't even made for you, Mr. Park >.<

anyways...

SAULLL wrote: »

And I assume you might be Tea Party or socialist?

Nope, I dislike both. I am independent of party affiliations. It's impossible for me to agree with even half of any party's general doctrine.

SAULLL wrote: »

America is founded by private companies; the aristocrats.

I agree with this. Corporations still run the country today. There has to be a certain amount of regulation. One might say, oh no, giving teh government too much p0werz, socialism time :eek: :eek: :eek:. e.g. what some fearmongers are saying about healthcare reform. In reality though, I trust private companies even less than the government.

SAULLL wrote: »

The term, "United States" is a government to preserve the interests of the economy back then.

Still is, mainly. But now Tea Partiers are complaining that the government is interfering with other aspects of American life as well. Even the governmental power for regulating the economy itself is disagreeable for many.

SAULLL wrote: »

(Original States) Now, many states did want to secede; or did secede from the U.S. Because of this, the term United States is in the title, the UNITED States. At the creating of the United States; founding fathers like Washington specifically warned Adams when he stepped down in power, to AVOID ALL Political parties.

Too bad, a decade later, Jeffersonian and the Federalists clash.

I also agree with this. I think Adams in particular--though I believe he is a useless tool--did a good job remaining non-partisan. That screwed him over with the Federalists (guess his son took after him in that respect, lol).

However, as early as the Washington administration, Federalists and Republicans had already begun aligning themselves. This was due to Jefferson's strict construction of the Constitution conflicting with Hamilton's more ambitious "loose construction" (refer to Hamilton's speeches in regards to the charter of the First National Bank).

Even Washington himself, while denouncing political parties, allowed Hamilton to install him as the figurehead or "spiritual leader" (not spiritual in a religious sense, mind you) of the Federalist party.

SAULLL wrote: »

I do agree, the political parties are more and more seemingly to preserve their own interests of their selves to stay in power, however, I strongly believe that the LEADER can do many astounding things. President Lincoln and Polk KNEW they would be hated for what they are doing (possibility of failure), but did so anyway for the interest of the nation, for which I believe that the current presidents are looking for fame and fortune.

This is very true. However, while it is true that they are the member of their party with potentially the most political power (if they are willing to take it), the President cannot represent a typical member of his/her party. I like your points about Polk, Lincoln, Jackson, and Truman. Two of my favorite presidents in there . Though I disagree with some of Jackson's and Polk's actions, it is clear that--for better or for worse--those actions moved the nation forward in great bounds. Because they were willing to be active as an executive, Presidents like "King Andrew" were able to establish new eras America. I am completely in agreement with you there.

SAULLL wrote: »

America is STILL primarily ran by the rich.

Yep, it sure is. Which is why I believe the rich don't need to be empowered any more than they already are. Trickle down economics = fail. It just doesn't work in the 21st century.

SAULLL wrote: »

You hear "Congress" doing a lot of things, but the real development of the country is when the President takes more control then he should have (according to checks and balances) i.e. King Jackson, Lincoln, Polk, Truman.

Not like it matters, United States an excellent country to live in. I, myself am a Republican because I honestly dislike Obama (public health care, really?)

I believe that joining no party is a better solution. In any election, you will have two main candidates, and their party is not what should be taken into consideration. The Republican may be the "better" candidate, or the Democrat may be. But to believe that you're voting for a candidate because "they're great; they're going to improve the country, herp de derp" is fallacious. In its current political state, America is in decline. In an election, it is not a question of "who is better" but "who is not as bad." In 2008, Obama happened to be the one who was not as bad as the other choice. We may not like a candidate, but it is important to vote for the "not as bad" just to prolong America's mere survival.

SAULLL wrote: »

On the other note; public health care...

won't ever work. If you abolish insurance, sure, it'll work. But insurance>public health care.

Public health care does not necessarily have to monopolize the industry. Much like public libraries do not preclude the existence of bookstores. In my view, health care is as important as education. Yet the government plays an active role in public education. Having been in the public school system, and now attending an "elite" boarding school, I have observed that the healthcare system can function likewise.

Public schools, while some may be pretty shiitty, are for the most part, functional, and can provide you with a basic education. Private schools exist alongside, for those who wish to access them, and provide a more "premium" version of education. It all works out.

I agree that Obama blundered in passing the healthcare bill, but for different reasons. In my mind, you either go hard, or go home. Obama, relenting to Republican fears, nerfed--if you don't mind me using the term here --the healthcare bill to the point where it didn't make any significant difference to the status quo, but rather a mere waste of public funds.

Man, I love smart people who I can have an intelligent conversation with