Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to humtake's blog Subscribe


Special Features


"On the other hand, Obama took us from 7,000 points to 20,000 points. So excuse me if I wonder why you don't cheer that one."

Obama also increased our debt more than any other President.

"Clinton also took us from a struggling economy to incredible highs."

Clinton paid for one kind of debt with another kind of debt. He didn't do anything with the economy, he just made the numbers look different. To make it easy since so many people can't seem to grasp what he did (which is why so many people still praise him for it), imagine you perform an equation a+b+c=debt. Now, let's say there is another type of debt out there that only includes d, so it's not part of the country's debt equation. Clinton comes in and says ok, let's make c part of d now so the country's equation is a+b=debt, removing c and making things look so much better. But, the country is still responsible for all c and d debt, which is only known as d now because Clinton incorporated c into d.

There are many other things you have wrong but those are just the two that are factually wrong, the others are more opinionated so nobody is right or wrong. It just sickens me that people will see only the good someone does and completely ignore the repercussions of those actions. It's like if Clinton would have gone on a murdering spree and killed a million people, Dems would still be like "Hey, he done fixed our economy so it's ok". No, it's not. All it does is make his actions something people want to see repeated instead of learning from the big mistakes that resulted because of those actions.

It's definitely something that should have been addressed already but I think the lack of context is what is causing it to go unnoticed, or at least ignored. In context, we can see the bigger picture that is stated in the article, which is the the office of President is turning imperial. If a list of all the abuses and sidestepping were put together across the political spectrum that shows what President's have done that go against the purpose of checks and balances, we would see a trend line from 1800 that steadily goes up showing how much more power has been wielded.

I think Fishpaw's analysis is correct though, mainly because the checks and balances that were originally put in place do not account for immediate problems. Let's take a very partisan issue as an example. ACA was against the Constitution yet was voted into law by all three branches because it finally took care of some major flaws in the previous system. Necessity made it passable. However, if you talk to someone who wanted it done just because they are Democrat, they will say it's completely legal even though the Constitution specifically and in almost exact words says a service like that can't be forced. W did the same exact thing with the Patriot Act. It infringes our rights at a deeper level than the ACA ever possibly could yet it was signed into law, only because of the imminent threats at the time. Try passing the Patriot Act during a time of peace with no imminent threats to our lives. Try passing the ACA at a time of great prosperity with no imminent threat to our health. It just won't happen. During immediate threats though, getting something caught up in bureaucracy only pisses off both sides and eventually needs to be resolved by one person.

We need a modernized system of checks and balances. Of course, we need a lot of systems to be modernized in our country. But since we can't actually talk about anything, instead resolving to just arguing with each other based on party lines, we can't modernize anything. Just watch, people will try to argue with me about either topic I mentioned without actually knowing why the Constitution says it is not allowed, just because of party affiliation.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable