MERGED: The Politics Thread

[3deroticer]

Obama's economic policies amount to repeatedly filling up a bucket at the deep end of the pool, and dumping it into the shallow end (but only after he spills most of it on the walk). Then he tries to convince us that somehow things are better and more ‘fair’, but the grim reality is that there would be more for everyone if he just left it alone. In this way, our job crisis would be over if not for Obama and his congress. Obama is the definition of an ideologue, motivated almost exclusively by emotions, not by facts.

under Democratic president everyone income went up, under the Republican's only the wealthy income went up. More income the middle class has, the more they can spend and create more wealth for those on top.

[Shara]

3d, it's impossible to read your statistics. upload m to the site or hyperlink m

[Q_BE]

If the Democrats and Obama are going after John Boehner in the hopes of preemptively destroying him before he gets voted into power following the 2010 midterms, they are showing their desperation in trying to stop a tsunami of public opinion that is going to destroy Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. Liberalism fails, every time it's tried.

Anyway, I'd like to see them try…attacking Ohio ALWAYS works; just ask John F'n Kerry.
(By the way, Kerry served in Vietnam, don't ya know.)

========================
Rich Lowry, National Review
September 14, 2010 12:00 A.M.

OBAMA VS. BOEHNER?
The White House needs to find a less gimmicky way out of its political predicament.

There may be a time when John Boehner becomes a hate figure. Say, after he loses a government-shutdown fight with the president and makes enough radioactive comments that he starts to glow — Newt Gingrich’s path to notoriety in the 1990s.

Until then, the leader of a Republican House minority that’s routinely been trampled by Democrats with their 70-vote margin is not going to make a deep impression, no matter how much President Barack Obama inveighs against his callous disregard for all that is right and good.

It must have been a sad, desultory meeting of White House strategists when they settled on an anti-Boehner campaign: “Well, we could run on our economic record, except, well . . . There’s always Obamacare, except, well . . . The change we brought to Washington? I know, I know. . . . Hey, how about that perpetually tanned Republican? Let’s run against that guy!”

The Democratic firm Public Policy Polling recently found that 42 percent of voters in Boehner’s home state of Ohio have no opinion of him. According to a Fox News poll earlier this year, 55 percent of people nationally had never heard of him. The White House figures people will hate Boehner with an unbridled passion — if only they could remember his name.

This is the very definition of sliding-off-a-cliff, grasping-at-saplings desperation. Obama traveled to Cleveland last week to give a speech responding to an economic address by Boehner there a couple of weeks prior. Boehner’s speech had mostly been ignored by the press at the time, since it hadn’t occurred to anyone that he was the pivot upon which the future of the nation would turn.

Obama excoriated Boehner for fighting against his economic policies. With a less hostile intent, this attack on Boehner could have been an advertisement for him. According to Gallup, the only major piece of Obama legislation that Boehner said “no” to that’s popular is financial reform. A majority disapproves of everything else: the stimulus, auto bailout, and health-care reform.

Never letting a White House attack line go to waste, the New York Times immediately ran a front-page article on Boehner, “A G.O.P Leader Tightly Bound to Lobbyists.” It combined nonrevelations (a pro-business Republican works with business lobbyists) with incredible claims (one anonymous lobbyist implied that Boehner opposed cap-and-trade — a policy anathema to conservative Republicans — as a favor).

The Republicanism of John Boehner is not particularly inspiring, but neither is it threatening. You’re likelier to see him at an outing at a fancy golf resort than leading a fanciful, ideological crusade. If he lacks the intellectual flair of the last Republican House minority leader who became speaker in an electoral rout, Newt Gingrich, he also lacks his manic grandiosity. He’s perfectly suited as a solid, conservative check on the overly liberal, hubristic young man who’s president of the United States.  

The White House doesn’t seem to care that in sending Obama out after Boehner in attack-dog mode, it is diminishing the president. Why waste the majesty of his teleprompter on the House minority leader? This is usually the demeaning work of a chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who no one expects to rise above partisan hackery.

Obama’s political team thinks it can find some gimmicky way out of its predicament. A few months ago, it fastened on the gaffe of another Republican no one had heard of — the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee — who offered an (instantly retracted) apology to BP for its treatment at the hands of the government. Democrats had barely finished congratulating themselves on their brilliance than the entire episode was forgotten.

The election is about large things: the tectonic shift to the left undertaken by Democrats during the past two years, and the enormous public reaction against it. In this environment, John Boehner is but a dot on a vast electoral tide. Obama’s focus on him speaks to a self-deluding lack of perspective. What else is new?
====================

Q-"Can we say 'Delusions of Grandeur' for Obama?"-BE

[busty librarian]

"under Democratic president everyone income went up, under the Republican's only the wealthy income went up. More income the middle class has, the more they can spend and create more wealth for those on top."

If by everyone's income you mean more people on public assistance and therefore getting more than most crappy part-time jobs, then yes, you are correct.  More jobs are lost under Democratic leadership - and for anyone who understands how economics work, the policies put in place under an administration are rarely seen instantaneously.  For example, under Clinton some could argue that more people were employed while under Reagan there were economic problems.  However, the effects of Reagan's administration were not seen until several years later-under Clinton.   Just as the severe destruction of American economics was a combined effort of HW Bush and Clinton which showed itself more dramatically under George W (thank you NAFTA, and Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, the latter being the handiwork of Bush Jr).  George took a bad thing, made it almost instantaneously worse with huge policies and Obama piggy backed on that making it even worse (the result of breaking down any semblance of Capitalism, and dancing all over the Constitution).

 I would like to note the speed at which the past two administrations have effected the economy has been alarmingly instantaneous, this is in contrast to previous administrations whose economic alterations were considerably more subtle, and with gradual time lines as opposed to Bush and Obama's radical economic stimulus which went into effect immediately.

It amazes me how dramatically politicians are changing America...it is starting to sound so much like the early years of Russian Communism.....complete with the restless urban workers and peasants loathing and blaming the 'wealthy' for their ails.  The polarized "either for us or against us", the discrediting of critics by accusing them of being *gasp* wealthy, or my personal favorite: racist.  The Bolsheviks aimed the attention of the people on fat cat bankers, the upper classes and blamed them for the suffering of the people.  Those who would dare oppose the government are discredited, and fed to the angry masses.  I actually watched the news one night, and a union rep accusing Tea Partiers of being racist point blank told a black, female Tea Party organizer that she was self loathing, and picked up with this movement because she enjoys the abuse.  Talk about racism - tell a black person they have been brainwashed and are incapable of thinking for themselves!

When I hear about the wealthy people's incomes going up, when I hear the president stroking that fire of discontent among the people, I think of Stalin.  He was a dictator who did not win the people with charisma, charm or his intellect (much, to me, like Obama), he harnessed the power of the masses, projected a common enemy, manipulated them just as I see among Americans today.  Not all Americans - many gather in protest of what the government is doing...it does not matter how much the government-influenced media tries to ignore it...the people are unhappy.  

Obama's administration has been found manipulating the employment statistics, even the dismal numbers he boasts are inaccurate.  Under Bush, the number of high school and college graduates was not counted in the unemployed statistics because they do not collect unemployment, nor do those who are severely underemployed or who have run out of unemployment.  Obama is out right lying about his numbers, and is using government manipulated employment, such as Census jobs in his employment statistics.  Interesting fact - many Census jobs hire people for a day or two, then lay them off again, only to hire them a week or two later.  Even though it is often the same person, each time they are hired it counts as a new job created by the Obama administration.  The American Reinvestment Act simply means that instead of one capable person patching holes in the streets, there is a team of them - often just standing around.  Its a job, I know, and jobs are good, but like I said-government jobs are jobs paid for by the people, and the people do not have the money to support these wasteful positions. The number of government employed Americans is rising, and privately employed workers is falling - want to talk about the middle class losing money?  There is where it is going - the pay of the many state employees is at the expense of those fewer employees working in private industry.  As those jobs get to be fewer, and fewer - how are those state jobs going to be supported?  Just tax those pesky wealthy?  Redistribute the wealth?  I hear that more and more these days, but I wonder how many people realize that is a fundamental staple of Marxism?  Or, for that matter, these tax cuts Bush put in place but are about to expire without Obama renewing - they are going to hit all Americans, those evil wealthy,  AND those pesky poor.

Want to think about the wealthy living it up?  Just look at what Mrs. Obama spent on her vacation, taking her entourage with her.  Before you say she is one of the wealthy, and can afford a trip such as this on her own dime, remember the number of secret service agents required to travel with her.  Just that cost alone would be exuberant.  So while Mrs. Obama parades around blowing American money left and right, Mr. Obama will just be taking it easy doing what all dictators should be doing - playing golf while the American people watch their country go down the tubes.  

[Siria]

Our economy is suffering from a long history of violations against the US Constitution, and government involvement where it does not belong.  Reagan was more in favor of a free economy than any president we have had in a long time.  Was he the second coming of Christ? No, but he had some good ideas.  

I'd just like to point out that "violating the Constitution" in and of itself is not really economically harmful. It's a legal problem, but not much of an economic one.

I suppose you could make an argument that violating the Constitution creates uncertainty about the rule of law, which creates a disincentive to work/production because people don't know if the statutes will actually be upheld. The problem with such an argument is that that's going to happen anyway. Whatever party isn't in power is always going to whine about how what the majority is doing is unconstitutional.

If uncertainty about the rule of law being maintained does generate a measurable economic problem, it's been in place since the very dawn of this country. It can't create additional uncertainty because the maximum uncertainty is already there and always has been.

Of course, whether you believe the Constitution is being violated or not is largely a matter of ideology.

I live in a state that has suffered from out of control unionism, and overseas manufacturing.  NAFTA was one of the largest mistakes this country made, and while it was signed into law by Clinton, it was introduced by H.W. Bush.  Obama bailed out GM, and guess what they did with the money - oh, they sent it down to Mexico for a plant they were building.  Your tax dollars at work.

There are many problems with NAFTA, although virtually any economist would agree that free trade is ultimately beneficial for all parties. Economically, free trade is just the absence of taxes to transport goods across borders. The economy would be much, much smaller if people had to pay a tax every time they crossed a property line or a municipal boundary.

I'm not going to comment on unions. They can be helpful or harmful; it depends on the situation and the compensation being offered.

More jobs are lost under Democratic leadership

Not in the last 70 years or so.

Private-sector employment changes under Presidents Truman through Obama:

• Harry S. Truman (D): increase of 2.95 percent a year
• Dwight D. Eisenhower (R): increase of 0.50 percent a year
• John F. Kennedy (D): increase of 2.03 percent a year
• Lyndon B. Johnson (D): increase of 3.88 percent a year
• Richard M. Nixon (R): increase of 2.16 percent a year
• Gerald R. Ford (R): increase of 0.86 percent a year
• Jimmy Carter (D): increase of 3.45 percent a year
• Ronald Reagan (R): increase of 2.46 percent a year
• George H.W. Bush (R): increase of 0.40 percent a year
• Bill Clinton (D): increase of 2.86 percent a year
• George W. Bush (R): increase of 0.01 percent a year
• Barack Obama (D): decrease of 3.0 percent a year

Let's do the math...

Democrats: ( 2.95 + 2.03 + 3.88 + 3.45 + 2.86 - 3.0 ) / 6 = 12.17 / 6 = 2.0283
Republicans: ( 0.5 + 2.16 + 0.86 + 2.46 + 0.4 + 0.01 ) / 6 = 6.39 / 6 = 1.06500


So. Democratic Presidents in the last 70 years presided over an average of 2.028% private-sector job growth. Republican Presidents in the last 70 years presided over an average of 1.065% private-sector job growth.

You are incorrect, unless you want to try arguing that 1.065 > 2.0283, which is mathematically false.

It amazes me how dramatically politicians are changing America...it is starting to sound so much like the early years of Russian Communism.....complete with the restless urban workers and peasants loathing and blaming the 'wealthy' for their ails.

Huge income gaps between the rich and poor have a tendency to make laborers restless.

Talk about racism - tell a black person they have been brainwashed and are incapable of thinking for themselves!

Well, it's not like the Tea Partiers have anything resembling mainstream views about race. And for all of the "diversity" that the tea party groups allege is in the movement, they have a lot of different getting anyone that isn't white and straight to show up for their rallies.

Obama's administration has been found manipulating the employment statistics, even the dismal numbers he boasts are inaccurate.

Evidence?

Employment statistics generated today by the BLS use the same methodology as they have in the past. They literally cannot be manipulated, because the methodology must be disclosed.

Under Bush, the number of high school and college graduates was not counted in the unemployed statistics because they do not collect unemployment, nor do those who are severely underemployed or who have run out of unemployment.

Um. People who are high school and college grads can collect unemployment when they're out of work. O_o Maybe you should explain that point more? I don't think I understood what you meant.

There are different ways of measuring unemployment. "Underemployed" are not unemployed in the most basic definition of the term (U3) because they have work. They may be looking for another job, but they still have a job already.

You can use any of the six unemployment values you want (as all six are useful to some extent).

Its a job, I know, and jobs are good, but like I said-government jobs are jobs paid for by the people, and the people do not have the money to support these wasteful positions.

That's why the government sells bonds during recessions.

Just tax those pesky wealthy?  Redistribute the wealth?  I hear that more and more these days, but I wonder how many people realize that is a fundamental staple of Marxism?

Is there a point here? Wealth redistribution isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can (and in America, would be), pareto-superior.

And pareto-optimality is, by definition, the most optimal distribution of resources for economic prosperity.

[Real]

re-distribution of wealth is entirely democratic.  it worked well in bringing america out of the depression, it worked well in the 50's when a trhiving middle class turned america into a economic superpower.  and now obama proposes nothing even close to either of those eras in terms of taxation.  laissez faire conservatives paint this as a slippery slope to communism, when its just regular western democracy that happens to not be of the extreme right bent.

that's why conservatives shirk specifics to talk in nothing but general fear terms about america's shift to the left, which is actually a shift to the center in a rather extreme right nation.

the concept that capitalism cant exist in anything but its most extreme form is quite simply a lie.  period.

what obama should do is close the tax loopholes that see most major corporations pay the same amount in income tax as the lowest bracket - zero.   but that would make him the ultimate "socialist" on such a slanted landscape.

what it really comes down to is republicans having nothing.  no one in the world follows their laissez faire model because it doesnt work.  even the immensity of the american economy couldnt hide it forever, and now most people want right back at it.  good luck with that.

i still think theyd be better off looking at the balance between their actual stated values and the corporatism they've allowed to swallow their entire movement, instead of telling us all once more how liberalism is communism.

when you do through two wars, a near depression economic dive and the response from the rich is "asking me to pay clinton era taxes is socialism"  people being miffed is not a leadup to communism, feigned dramatics aside.  its conservatives throwing money at the rich like theyre trained to.

[JJ]

The mosque controversy in 2010, the 'Bama man's 2nd presidential year............................

[Real]

say JJ i know the heat is too much for you not to parachute out of the middle of any discussion youve actually tried to have, but at least stay on topic.

this is the obama thread.  so unless you think its the presidents job to step in to personally deny people their first amendment rights, that entire subject has nothing to do with obama at all.  then again after the last president and his patriot act, maybe you do think that's the president's job.

still it would fit better in a thread about municipal zoning, or why muslims should not have the rights christians and jews do..

[onion_writer]

Don't engage teatards.

Busty Librarian, please check the spelling and meanings of "affected" and "effected." Your arguments will then carry more weight. Sure you're a librarian?

Meanwhile, the first lady's (and president's) vacations don't even begin to compare to all of George W.'s ranch breaks. I think we can all agree that the White House is a pressure cooker, and that anyone who serves there -- Democrat or Republican -- should get some decent days off. You want to complain about the deficit? Then let's look at the Iraq war. How many millions, if not billions, have we spent on George's war?

Oh, and ain't no nothing in the Constitution about the United States' financial model. Nope, not a whit. Republicans act as if the Constitution were the rules for a Monopoly board. You go buy your red hotels and put them on Marvin Gardens. S'fine. But don't act like George Washington guaranteed that.

[SamV]

If the Democrats and Obama are going after John Boehner in the hopes of preemptively destroying him before he gets voted into power following the 2010 midterms ...

From my understanding when John Boehner (R - Ohio) broke ranks with his comments on supporting the elimination of some of the Bush era tax cuts, his own party slammed him fairly hard, and he had visits from the Repub leadership over it. The next thing was his office issuing clarifications on his comment, and then shortly followed what was essentially a retraction. The thing is I think he recognizes that for Ohioans in the 8th congressional district he serves, the changes the Obama administration proposes in extending the cuts for the middle and lower income families when the Bush tax cuts expire would be a benefit for them, and especially since Ohio has been one of the hardest hit states with all the economic turmoil it has endured over the last decade or more. Of course, the Repubs leadership won't let him support such a position, not with the up coming election.

So it will be another fight in the US Congress this week on trying to get this proposed tax bill though, and I won't be surprised the Repubs will be against it all the way. And with so many Dems in tight congressional and state races, many will lack the moral fortitude to do what is right for their constituents, as they try instead to save their own asses.

On the other hand once the election is all said and done regardless of who comes out on top, the Congress will have to do something with the proposed tax bill and rather quickly, since the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year anyway.

...a tsunami of public opinion that is going to destroy Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. Liberalism fails, every time it's tried.

My god Q, do you actually believe any of that? Even if the Congress has a turn over of political parties, it isn't at all likely that in anyway destroys the Obama administration. He will still be in office and he will still be the president. And even if the Repubs are in the majority, the American people expect them to work with the White house and solve the economic crisis this country is in. Otherwise if things don't improve significantly before 2012, the Republicans may be facing their own ousting by the same angry and frustrated electorate. It's happened before.

Also that comment about liberalism is equally inane. Of course it depends on how YOU want to define liberalism. If we are talking about a progressive form of governance that seeks to provide for improving the lot of all the citizenry and granting every individual equal protections under the law then we are on the same page. But if you are talking about the twisted view of liberalism propagated by the talking heads of Fox News, and others, who have so distorted it's tenets that they have turned it in to nothing but a slur to hurl at their opponents when they can't offer up anything more intellectually concrete, then you have little idea of what liberalism is, or conservatism, for that matter.

And if you want some proof of the falseness of your statement, one only needs look at the progressive movement under FDR that got the economy in this country moving again after the collapse in 1929. Then there is the progressive changes under JFK/LBJ that expanded the rights of all the people, but especially Jews, blacks, women and seniors. And even the Republican party once was a force for progressive change. At it's founding, and under the first national candidate it put in to office it eliminated a long-standing and grave injustice to a group of people and that was in spite of the economic hardship it caused a large group of property owners. But then Abraham Lincoln recognized the "rightness" of signing the Emancipation Proclamation.                  

========================
Rich Lowry, National Review
September 14, 2010 12:00 A.M.

OBAMA VS. BOEHNER?
The White House needs to find a less gimmicky way out of its political predicament.

There may be a time when John Boehner becomes a hate figure. Say, after he loses a government-shutdown fight with the president and makes enough radioactive comments that he starts to glow — Newt Gingrich’s path to notoriety in the 1990s.

Until then, the leader of a Republican House minority that’s routinely been trampled by Democrats with their 70-vote margin is not going to make a deep impression, no matter how much President Barack Obama inveighs against his callous disregard for all that is right and good.

It must have been a sad, desultory meeting of White House strategists when they settled on an anti-Boehner campaign: “Well, we could run on our economic record, except, well . . . There’s always Obamacare, except, well . . . The change we brought to Washington? I know, I know. . . . Hey, how about that perpetually tanned Republican? Let’s run against that guy!”

The Democratic firm Public Policy Polling recently found that 42 percent of voters in Boehner’s home state of Ohio have no opinion of him. According to a Fox News poll earlier this year, 55 percent of people nationally had never heard of him. The White House figures people will hate Boehner with an unbridled passion — if only they could remember his name.

This is the very definition of sliding-off-a-cliff, grasping-at-saplings desperation. Obama traveled to Cleveland last week to give a speech responding to an economic address by Boehner there a couple of weeks prior. Boehner’s speech had mostly been ignored by the press at the time, since it hadn’t occurred to anyone that he was the pivot upon which the future of the nation would turn.

Obama excoriated Boehner for fighting against his economic policies. With a less hostile intent, this attack on Boehner could have been an advertisement for him. According to Gallup, the only major piece of Obama legislation that Boehner said “no” to that’s popular is financial reform. A majority disapproves of everything else: the stimulus, auto bailout, and health-care reform.

Never letting a White House attack line go to waste, the New York Times immediately ran a front-page article on Boehner, “A G.O.P Leader Tightly Bound to Lobbyists.” It combined nonrevelations (a pro-business Republican works with business lobbyists) with incredible claims (one anonymous lobbyist implied that Boehner opposed cap-and-trade — a policy anathema to conservative Republicans — as a favor).

The Republicanism of John Boehner is not particularly inspiring, but neither is it threatening. You’re likelier to see him at an outing at a fancy golf resort than leading a fanciful, ideological crusade. If he lacks the intellectual flair of the last Republican House minority leader who became speaker in an electoral rout, Newt Gingrich, he also lacks his manic grandiosity. He’s perfectly suited as a solid, conservative check on the overly liberal, hubristic young man who’s president of the United States.  

The White House doesn’t seem to care that in sending Obama out after Boehner in attack-dog mode, it is diminishing the president. Why waste the majesty of his teleprompter on the House minority leader? This is usually the demeaning work of a chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who no one expects to rise above partisan hackery.

Obama’s political team thinks it can find some gimmicky way out of its predicament. A few months ago, it fastened on the gaffe of another Republican no one had heard of — the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee — who offered an (instantly retracted) apology to BP for its treatment at the hands of the government. Democrats had barely finished congratulating themselves on their brilliance than the entire episode was forgotten.

The election is about large things: the tectonic shift to the left undertaken by Democrats during the past two years, and the enormous public reaction against it. In this environment, John Boehner is but a dot on a vast electoral tide. Obama’s focus on him speaks to a self-deluding lack of perspective. What else is new?
====================

By the way I love how this conservative "author" practically offers Johnny boy up as another hated RINO, all because he had an independent thought, and went out and publicly told someone about it. But then that's all one can expect from a party that has been taken away from what it once was by a bunch of extreme ideologues, who believe anyone that doesn't adhere to the official line isn't pure enough to be part of the party. Kind of reminds me of this other political group that held equal concerns about purity.

[3deroticer]

3d, it's impossible to read your statistics. upload m to the site or hyperlink m

I thought you were computer savvy?
just right click view image and it'll pull up!

[3deroticer]

on the note of the communist Russian "it is starting to sound so much like the early years of Russian Communism.....complete with the restless urban workers and peasants loathing and blaming the 'wealthy' for their ails."

Have you seen Russian profile lately? Didn't they solve their problem with dramatic redistribution of wealth?

[busty librarian]

I do appreciate the fact that those who most disagree with me resort to name calling and insults.  If you cannot have a discussion about politics and do so while behaving like a reasonable adult, then why have one at all?

This country, by the way, is a Constitutional Representative Republic not a democracy - it was not founded by socialists, nor does the Constitution allow for it to become such.  Democracy in its most basic sense is rule of the people, and frankly, I do not want mob mentality to control this country.  We have laws for a reason, and within those boundaries we elect individuals to represent us.   

Also, Conservative does not mean the same as Republican

If you desire a nation where the 'redistribution of wealth' is expected, than I welcome you to find another country to call your own. 

[TheZookie007]

Bill Maher on CNN's Larry King Live speaking on the GOP's potential candidates for president in 2012:

"...how are they going to out-fire-breathe each other? I mean, where this rhetoric has gone to at this point -- it's only 2010, and we're having Newt Gingrich, as we were talking about before, calling him [President Obama] an 'anti-colonial [Luo] tribesman'. '[Luo] tribesman' -- that's the new 'Kenyan', Larry, and 'Kenyan' of course was code for n____r. But that's where they are. They can't say it out loud, but that's where this whole campaign is gonna be. You asked about racism -- it's all about racism. They cannot fathom this idea that there is a black president, and that's what they are gonna fight about...."

(video)



Tell me again why I would want to vote Republican in the next election?

[TheZookie007]

This country, by the way, is a Constitutional Representative Republic not a democracy - it was not founded by socialists, nor does the Constitution allow for it to become such.

I will agree with you slightly on one point, but with a more accurate definition:

ThisNation: "Is the United States a democracy?"

The Pledge of Allegiance  includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a democracy? What's the difference between the two?

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly -- through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy....

But as for your last statement about dem dreaded socialists, well, that's not true at all. If there is a Socialist Party that is formed, and it wins the election, it can govern. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it. You better go back and read it.

As a matter of fact, I believe that not only should all Americans have a copy of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in their possession, they should actually regularly read them. We all love to brag on our rights -- "you can't do that to me, I'm an American, I know my rights!" -- but how many of us actually have an inkling of what our rights (and responsibilities) are under our Constitution? It's like Christians who don't read the Bible and only go by what their pastor says -- or what they heard from a friend who actually went to church that day said that he said. As 2 Timothy 2:15 says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

[Siria]

I do appreciate the fact that those who most disagree with me resort to name calling and insults.  If you cannot have a discussion about politics and do so while behaving like a reasonable adult, then why have one at all?

Who called you any names? Who insulted you?

I'm the only person who directly responded to your post, and I've been unable to find anything resembling an insult therein, much less any real name-calling.

I did point out that you made some unambiguously false statements, and requested evidence for some of your more dubious allegations. But that is, frankly, what a reasonable adult would do.

This country, by the way, is a Constitutional Representative Republic not a democracy - it was not founded by socialists, nor does the Constitution allow for it to become such.

The Constitution isn't a political document, it's a legal document. It creates a structure for the People to elect a government that will implement the policies they want. If the People elect socialists, they will get socialist policies. The Constitution does not bar them from doing this.

If you desire a nation where the 'redistribution of wealth' is expected, than I welcome you to find another country to call your own.

If you desire a nation where the poor are destitute slave laborers for megalomaniacal plutocrats I welcome you to find another country to call your own.

By the way, in that nation there'd be a 99.9% probability of you being one of the destitute slave laborers. If I were you, I wouldn't risk those odds.

Oh, and there wouldn't be much of a need for librarians, because most of the population would be illiterate because slaves don't need to be literate to work.

As a matter of fact, I believe that not only should all Americans have a copy of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in their possession, they should actually regularly read them.

I'm going to disagree with you there. The Declaration of Independence is an inspiring and interesting historical document, but it is not a legal document and has no actual relevance to American law.

As for the Constitution I agree, but I worry that too often people engage in intellectual dishonesty with it, either by claiming it says things that it does not or views that differ from their own violate the Constitution.

Frankly, simply reading the Constitution is not a substitute for a basic background in civics or law, but most people aren't intelligent enough to actually take an objective approach to critical thinking anyway.

[Shara]

hey at least she worded her own thoughts

[Real]

true that.

If you desire a nation where the 'redistribution of wealth' is expected, than I welcome you to find another country to call your own. 

same old lark.  go look up the tax rates when mccarthy was hunting down the red menace that the right claims is back on the creep again. 
period.

[3deroticer]

hey at least she worded her own thoughts

You mean like an actual debate? How cool is that!

[onion_writer]

If you desire a nation where the 'redistribution of wealth' is expected, than I welcome you to find another country to call your own. 

Can I think on that? I have a suspicion that my family was here first.

And I do expect redistribution of wealth, to pay our men and women in the armed services, for example. Also, to put out fires in Colorado, prevent oil spills, make sure natural gas pipelines don't explode -- or do you have a different interpretation of recent events? I imagine you think that private business could have handled that all so very well.

In fact, I even demand redistribution of wealth to pay for my local police and fire, and to vaccinate all children, run a postal system, and create schools that are free for all kids. Yeah, I'm a commie.

I now lump you with another member, who complained of government oversight of our egg supply, because even the FDA is unwelcome.

Oh, and you mean "then," not "than." Sure you're a librarian? May I make some delicious eggs over easy for you?

[MrsPacman1]

In the last couple of weeks, this thread has become by far the most entertaining one here at the BEA. Thank you all for that.

Mrs*as usual, onion_writer has communicated exactly what I was thinking*Pacman

[JJ]

BAROCKY ROAD,  new ice cream flavor in honor of the American dear leader, President Barack Obama


In honor of the 44th President of the  United States  , Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: "Barocky Road”.   
Barocky Road  is a blend of half vanilla and half chocolate surrounded by nuts and flakes. 
 
The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. 
 
The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow. 
 
The cost is $100.00 per scoop.  When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but then the ice cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you, who didn't have the money to buy ice cream. 
You are left with an empty wallet and no change, holding an empty cone with no hope of getting any ice cream. 

How's that stimulus plan working' for you now?

[3deroticer]

The setup was way too long for the joke to even get a slight chuckle.

[Q_BE]

It's been a week since Obama's pathetic economic speech performance in Parma, Ohio. They couldn't even give away the tickets to the show. It was rumored that minutes before the speech they had 75 empty seats in the arena. They blamed  a "bad economy" for it. Well, how can a bad economy be to blame when Obama's out there fixing the economy? The answer is simple.

Nobody is listening to Obama except the State-Controlled media, and they don't matter. It's amazing to see. People are tuning him out because he's literally becoming a television aggravation. When he's on, it's like "Oh no, him AGAIN?" and people change the channel.

Not only are people not listening to Obama, they are starting to turn against him. That's great, although he can still wreak havoc on the country for two more years, but he's almost becoming a caricature of himself. He has no connection with the American people, and he never did. Even during the campaign, it was all platitudes, but with no personal connection.

There is no sincerity in Obama, unless you count when he's talking about himself. He's a disingenuous idiot; arrogant, condescending, and holier-than-thou. He speaks above people, but he talks down to them. He attempts to speak for people, but he's really just talking at them.

What's wrong with this statement: "Obama wants to keep tax cuts for families making under $250,000 a year"?

I'll tell you what sticks out to me. For years, including last week in Parma, Obama and the Left have been saying again and again that the "Bush tax cuts" were for the rich, and we can't do business that way. The way they've hounded on the point, you'd never know that there WERE tax cuts for the middle class unless you listen carefully to that statement: "Obama wants to keep tax cuts for families making under $250,000 a year."

So, according to that logic, from the Messiah himself, we learn that there WERE tax cuts for middle-class families, and not only that, they were SO beneficial that the Obama regime wants to KEEP them. "Boom" goes the argument against Bush's tax cuts.

Based on how tone-deaf Obama is, you begin to wonder if he's really "hard of hearing" or just "tired of hearing" when it comes to the voice of the American people. It may be both, but really, he doesn't WANT to hear from the American people. He doesn't care.  You don't have the ability to help him; you don't have the competence. There's nothing Obama can learn from the people. He's the one teaching everybody else. He puts everybody down; he attacks wealth creation; he attacks prosperity and then he blames all of these attacks on the rich.

It's like this: The US Treasury released statistics on the federal debt rung up by Barack Obama during his tenure as president so far: $2.5 trillion dollars. The amount he's racked up is more than the CUMULATIVE total of the national debt amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. Yet, Obama wants to hearken back to all those horrible, destructive Bush policies that supposedly favored the rich that caused Obama's mess. If anything's destroying the country, it's Obama. The rich have nothing to do with the current destruction of the American economy right now. Barack Obama's policies—his theories, learnt from community organizing and all his friends like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers—are destroying the lives of Americans in all income categories. The problem is, his class warfare rhetoric isn't working because the war is happening against the entire economic system of the United States. He's destroying the capitalist system as it currently is constituted in this country.

What you've got then with Barack Hussein Obama is a grudge against the United States of America.  His operating philosophy is "Get-even-with-them"–ism. Blame the rich for prospering. Get even with them by making everybody poor. According to him, it's supposed to work (I guess it depends on how you define that). The truth is, his "trickle-down-government" plans are all a total failure, and he's obsessed with that notion, obsessed with the idea that someone, somewhere, thinks he's to blame, that he's the failure. Even in that Parma speech, he accused the Republicans of still desiring his failure, that when he fails, they succeed.

No, the Republicans don't want Obama to fail so they can succeed. They want Obama to fail so the country has a chance to survive. Judging by his track record, I think America still has a chance.

Q-"Got it? Good"-BE

[onion_writer]

Nobody is listening to Obama except the State-Controlled media

Damn! The state now controls the media? Someone call the Jews and Freemasons!

[Siria]

Damn! The state now controls the media? Someone call the Jews and Freemasons!

We're on it. We won't tolerate anyone interfering with our global conspiracy of cultural hegemony!

[3deroticer]

What's wrong with this statement: "Obama wants to keep tax cuts for families making under $250,000 a year"?

I'll tell you what sticks out to me. For years, including last week in Parma, Obama and the Left have been saying again and again that the "Bush tax cuts" were for the rich, and we can't do business that way. The way they've hounded on the point, you'd never know that there WERE tax cuts for the middle class unless you listen carefully to that statement: "Obama wants to keep tax cuts for families making under $250,000 a year."

Obama is compromising by keeping 97% of the bush tax cut effective. Its a pretty huge compromise, and you are not happy with that?

97% and it's a boom? I haven't seen a compromise greater than 97% of anything in a long time, and you are calling it a class war of burdening the wealthy class. I need to get some box of Kleenex for the blight of the poor wealthy people.

[onion_writer]

I weep for Ritchie Rich, Uncle Scrooge and Mr. Burns.

[Night Lord]

The Constitution isn't a political document, it's a legal document. It creates a structure for the People to elect a government that will implement the policies they want. If the People elect socialists, they will get socialist policies. The Constitution does not bar them from doing this.

Correct, the constitution doesn’t prohibit the election of socialists. It also doesn’t prohibit the election of communists, nazis, anarchists or cultists. All these people have the right to advocate there political ideologies, but you must also recognize that these very same people would immediately disregard the constitution and strip us of our rights. This is what Barack Obama is doing to a lesser extent. Is he the worst imaginable? No. Has he stripped us of more rights than any other president in my lifetime? Yes. By far yes.

[3deroticer]

What rights has he particularly strip us of?

I'm curious to know!

[Siria]

Has he stripped us of more rights than any other president in my lifetime? Yes. By far yes.

If you can name even a single right he has stripped you of, you'll have scored a few points in my book.

I doubt you can, though, namely because there aren't any.


Our last President tried very hard to strip 10% of the population of their right to marry. I can think of nothing the current President has done that is anywhere near that egregious. Which of course leads to the logical conclusion that you either do not have long-term memory or that you're not actually an adult.

[3deroticer]

Has he stripped us of more rights than any other president in my lifetime? Yes. By far yes.

He is a 2 year old !!

[gOOber]

I`m so poor I can`t pay attention.

[TheZookie007]

Night Lord, Obama wants to strip us of our rights? All by himself? We're not a dictatorship, you know. Or maybe you don't know, since (unlike me), you've never lived in a true dictatorship before (or any country outside of the United States). That is such an ignorant statement that I can hardly be bothered to dignify it with a detailed reply.

And besides, I'm too busy trying to pick my jaw off the floor after reading this:

KING: Former Speaker of the House, the man who is moving around as if he might run for president, said that the President of the United States has a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" view of the world.

STEELE: Who said that?

KING: Newt Gingrich.

STEELE: Okay.

KING: Is that an appropriate way to have this conversation, as a Republican leader and as a black man? Is that how you want to have this conversation?

STEELE: I don't know what being black has to do with it, but --

KING: You don't think saying the President has a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview is perhaps trying to play to the lowest common denominator in politics?

STEELE: No, I don't think so, no. How do you make that stretch? Where's his dad from?

KING: What does that have to do with --

STEELE: He's of Kenyan, African descent. He has an African, continental descent. So I don't know where you're going with that. But let me just say --

KING: So you don't think it's race-baiting or playing to the birther crowd?

STEELE: No, I don't. I don't see that stretch. I know some folks out there want to, but I don't see that. I know Newt. I know that's not his mindset on that. He's talking about a worldview that comes from a different part, whether it's Europe, the African continent.

(video)


"Kenyan world-view"? What is that? I know what you're really trying to say (you birther you) but I mean, really? If you are saying that because Obama's father was from Kenya (even though he barely knew him: see his book Dreams From My Father), he has a "Kenyan world-view" (as if, if one existed, it's a bad thing to have), what can we say about you, who was adopted and didn't even meet your father? Do you have a null world-view?

This man and his ilk: just stunningly, stunningly, stupid. Usually I would say "ignorant", which implies that there is a chance of the person being teachable, and willing to learn. But this statement shows that this man is seemingly incapable of intelligent thought and thus, sadly, I shall have to label him stupid.

[SamV]

OH MY GOD!

In reading Q's last post my chin is hurting from smacking in to the hard wood top of my desk.

Q, listen to me, if this is truly your view of the current state of affairs in America you need some serious help. I mean some of the statements and allegations you make, aren't even rational except to someone who is a borderline paranoid.

Like that bit about "Obama holding a grudge against America". Care to explain to us why he is carrying this grudge in the first place? And when did he first acquire this grudge? Was it when he lived outside the US in some of the poorest countries on the plant while he was growing up, and saw first hand the kind of life he would have had, if not for his American "roots". Or was it when he attended college at Harvard? Oh, I know, it was all do to the fact he had to work to pay his way though school, and was so shunned by his fellow students because of that, they did the unthinkable, and elected him the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. And once he was, he got the idea to bid his time as he plotted to become the fist black president of America, all so he could secretly destroy the US economy all by himself, and finally get even with all those people who denied him his due in life.

I mean seriously, that's what that bit in your post sounds like.

And the rest of it is such a rant of questionable statements and charges, I wouldn't even know where to begin to logically argue against them. So unless this is all coming from someone else, I think Q you most definitely need someone to talk you down before you hurt yourself.