American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Punter127;433990]I'm so glad we have you God like elitist to save us from our "silliness & stupidity". What would we do without you?

History is full of those who tried the "changing of the guard" thing, Adolf Hitler, Karl Marx, and Joseph Stalin just to name a few.

I didn't watch Jerry Springer the first time around let alone reruns, but I'm pretty sure you've seen every episode multiple times while sucking on a big glass of fool-aid. Do all progressives get their so called "facts" from TV shows and movies?

OK here you go, [B]You are wrong![/B] Even if it was just about the types of guns, I'm opposed to it, we don't need anymore gun laws. Turn Jerry Springer off, put the fool-aid down and read what people like Feinstein and Bloomberg have openly stated as their goals, dig below the surface and don't be so naive. If nothing else go back and read the forum, I've post tons of statistics, graphs, poll results, and quotes to support my position. You haven't answered any of my questions or offered anything to support your theories (save Jerry Springer). I'm quite surprised that you would lower yourself to old progressive tactic of attacking the messenger. But it's a common move for progressives who don't have any facts to back up their position.

Now that you've shown your true colors that's not likely to happen, and I'm not smiling.[/QUOTE]My opinion is not really important. More crucial for me, is that I tried to get along with everybody the best I can. The golden rule, lest you forget is "do unto others what you you wish they do unto you". And I don't have time to be angry all the time especially about the 2nd amendment. Nobody is stepping on my toes. My balls are not restricted, and I pretty much do whatever I want to do everyday. Nobody is breathing down my neck.

I am sorry you feel that I was attacking you. You expressed your case, and I did mine. That's all there is to it.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433989]America will self destruct...[/QUOTE]...if the liberals are successful.

[QUOTE=Jackson;433994]...if the liberals are successful.[/QUOTE]Extreme positions on both sides of aisle are destroying America. But the most important issue at hand today, is that America's moral tank is now at near empty.

[QUOTE=Jackson;433987]Getting rid of ObamaCare, stopping the gutless and insane spending, securing the borders, and reforming immigration are all Republican ideas that to me are a positive agenda.

These latest scandals are all manifestations of Obama's general incompetency and appalling lack of executive management experience.[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, while Republicans do have a few good ideas, they are akin to a small odor absorber placed in a packed dining hall after a meal of franks and beans. It's a good thing, but simply overwhelmed by a vast stench.

The so-called and largely phony 'scandals' are mere manifestations of Republican desperation and gullability. Right wing politicians and pundits pump out their conspiracy theories one after another, captivating their base like a cat is captivated with catnip. In this state, many are unable to apply critical thinking to get to the truth. Top Republican strategists understand very well how to manipulate their base, and anyone who doubts this is simply naive.

As far as leadership you need look no further than Obama. He's the guy in DC willing to compromise and work with both parties. You don't run a company in a constant state of 'my way or the highway', especially when you're losing money. Congressional Republicans could learn a few things from Obama, and until they do, their good ideas will largely remain abstractions, and our debt will continue to grow.

Republicans aren't talking much about the economy these days. That's because it keeps improving. The latest Gallup Job Creation Index increased to 22 in May, the highest score for any month since April 2008. This means more workers reported their employers are hiring, and fewer see people being let go. How could this be happening as we edge closer to full implementation of the Affordable Care Act ?

U.S. Job Creation Best in Five Years
[URL]http://www.gallup.com/poll/162893/job-creation-best-five-years.aspx[/URL]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28789[/ATTACH]

I don't want to belabor this issue but;.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433991]
I am sorry you feel that I was attacking you. You expressed your case, and I did mine. That's all there is to it.[/QUOTE]Really, you were just stating your case when you penned this?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433989] Perhaps you are unaware, but you are part of a grand soap opera, the silliness & stupidity of which boggles the imagination. Wait, just watch the Jerry Springer reruns, and perhaps, you will understand what I mean.[/QUOTE]When you start equating supporters of personal liberty with the Jerry Springer show you are well past expressing your case.

Then to add insult to injury you added this little snide remark.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433989]instead of talking about conspiracies, and some grand scheme to make us like Cuba.[/QUOTE]I only see two ways to label your remarks, personal insult / attack or gibberish.

I'm very surprised to see you lower yourself to such tactics, I would have expected it from some others, but not you..

[QUOTE=Punter127;434004]I don't want to belabor this issue but;.

Really, you were just stating your case when you penned this?

When you start equating supporters of personal liberty with the Jerry Springer show you are well past expressing your case.

Then to add insult to injury you added this little snide remark.

I only see two ways to label your remarks, personal insult / attack or gibberish.

I'm very surprised to see you lower yourself to such tactics, I would have expected it from some others, but not you..[/QUOTE]

What I have been trying to say, is that we as a society (especially government) is as dysfunctional as ever we are going to be. Not too much unlike the participants of the Jerry Springer Show. Would you be mollify if I had used "we" instead of "you"? As in the same swamp or pigpen. Other than that, I stand by my remarks.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434005]What I have been trying to say, is that we as a society (especially government) is as dysfunctional as ever we are going to be. Not too much unlike the participants of the Jerry Springer Show. Would you be mollify if I had used "we" instead of "you"? As in the same swamp or pigpen. Other than that, I stand by my remarks.[/QUOTE]Saying "we" instead "you" makes all the difference in the world. Had you done that I probably would have agreed with your statement.

[QUOTE=Punter127;434006]Saying "we" instead "you" makes all the difference in the world. Had you done that I probably would have agreed with your statement.[/QUOTE]Easy as pie, just a slight a misunderstanding.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434007]Easy as pie, just a slight a misunderstanding.[/QUOTE]I'm glad it was a misunderstanding, enough said.

[QUOTE=TonyLee]Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) believes the IRS should be abolished after the institution of a simpler flat tax.

He said the tax code invites agents to abuse and use the machinery of government to target political enemies and said doing so was wrong whether the president was Barack Obama or Richard Nixon.

"I think we ought to abolish the IRS and instead move to a simple flat tax," Cruz said on Fox News over the weekend.

He said the tax code should be simple enough for the average American to fill out on a postcard.

Cruz said such a system would take much of the bureaucracy out of Washington and should get bipartisan support because it is about "empowering the people," and that "ought to be a bipartisan" value.

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/Cruz-Abolish-IRS-by-Enacting-Simpler-Flat-Tax[/url]
[/QUOTE]I could not agree more, the only thing I can think of that would be better that an across the board flat tax would be a consumption tax. Either way we could do away with the IRS, all we would need is police officers to arrest those that don't pay.

The abuse of power by the IRS is a prime example of why big government does not work.

[b]Obama Recovery: Still 7.6 Million Jobs Below Average[/b]

[QUOTE=Esten;434001]Republicans aren't talking much about the economy these days. That's because it keeps improving. The latest Gallup Job Creation Index increased to 22 in May, the highest score for any month since April 2008. This means more workers reported their employers are hiring, and fewer see people being let go. How could this be happening as we edge closer to full implementation of the Affordable Care Act ?

U.S. Job Creation Best in Five Years
[URL]http://www.gallup.com/poll/162893/job-creation-best-five-years.aspx[/URL]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28789[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]Another Esten post that doesn't pass the smell test.

[QUOTE=Investor'sBusinessDaily]Economy: Although somewhat better than expected, the 175,000 net jobs created in May continues the historically tepid jobs growth trend that has come to characterize the now four-year-old economic recovery.

[highlight]The result has been continued high unemployment, a vast pool of long-term jobless, and an unprecedented number of people who've dropped out of the labor force.[/highlight]

Highlighting the weakness of the May report is the fact that the number of unemployed climbed by nearly the same amount as jobs created — 101,000 — nudging the unemployment rate up to 7.6%.

As a result, there are still 2.4 million fewer people working than there were in January 2008, the previous jobs peak. And since the recovery started in June 2009, the number of jobs has increased a mere 3.9%, well below the post-World War II average of 9.7%.

In fact, had this jobs recovery merely kept pace with the average of the previous 10, there would be 7.6 million more people working today, and the unemployment rate would be less than half its current level.


[url]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060713-659267-obama-recovery-76-million-jobs-below-average.htm#ixzz2VjF5lEyc [/url]
[/QUOTE]Now you have the rest of the story.

[QUOTE=Esten;434000]Unfortunately, while Republicans do have a few good ideas, they are akin to a small odor absorber placed in a packed dining hall after a meal of franks and beans. It's a good thing, but simply overwhelmed by a vast stench.

The so-called and largely phony 'scandals' are mere manifestations of Republican desperation and gullability. Right wing politicians and pundits pump out their conspiracy theories one after another, captivating their base like a cat is captivated with catnip. In this state, many are unable to apply critical thinking to get to the truth. Top Republican strategists understand very well how to manipulate their base, and anyone who doubts this is simply naive.

As far as leadership you need look no further than Obama. He's the guy in DC willing to compromise and work with both parties. You don't run a company in a constant state of 'my way or the highway', especially when you're losing money. Congressional Republicans could learn a few things from Obama, and until they do, their good ideas will largely remain abstractions, and our debt will continue to grow.[/QUOTE]Incredible!! What planet are you on?

Don B.

Perhaps my favorite news story last week, Obama appointed Susan Rice as national security adviser. Republicans took their approach of "accuse first, prove later", calling her a liar and part of a cover-up on Benghazi. When the facts came out, Republicans were proven wrong. Apparently Rice wasn't even called to testify, Republicans had plenty of opportunity to do so before this appointment, but likely knew it would hurt not help them. You would think a normal, mature response would be to acknowledge your bad form, admit you were wrong and apologize. Instead, Republicans are still negative about Susan Rice, because they invested so much political capital in their fraudulent thesis.

It's good to see justice prevail. The GOP politics of destruction failed to destroy this woman's career.

Susan Rice and Her Attackers
[URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/06/susan_rice_named_national_security_adviser_the_benghazi_investigation_proved.html[/URL]

[b]Obama Approval Makes 20-Point Negative Swing in 2013[/b]

[QUOTE=Esten;433938]
It's a far cry from the "Obama scandal" and "The government is out to get you" narratives the right wing is trying to weave. Obama's steady approval ratings at 50% (Gallup) and 52% (Rasmussen) show that Americans aren't buying it.
[snip]

[/QUOTE]
Hmmm, really? Since Esten is on the “must verify” list we better consider the following.
[quote=MikeFlynn] Pundits examining daily poll numbers to gauge the impact of current scandals on President Obama are missing a bigger trend. Even before recent revelations of misconduct by his Administration, Obama's approval ratings have been declining throughout the year. On Monday, Rasmussen reported that 47% of likely voters approved of Obama's handling of his job, while 51% disapproved. This is a massive 20 point negative swing since the first of the year.

At the end of 2012, 57% of voters approved of Obama, while just 41% disapproved. He garnered good will from voters following his reelection in November. Yet, in just 6 months, the post-reelection honeymoon is clearly over. His approval rating is even lower than President Bush as this point in his second term. In June 2005, 48% of voters approved of the job Bush was doing, while 47% disapproved. As fatigue over the Iraq war grew and conservatives felt alienated, Bush's approval ratings plummeted into the 30s by the time his term was complete.

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/10/poll-obama-approval-makes-20-point-negative-swing-in-2013[/url] [/quote] Unlike progressives, numbers don't lie.

I'm considering giving Punter a new nickname: Darrell. A brash but ineffective attack dog.

[QUOTE=Punter127;434051][b]Obama Approval Makes 20-Point Negative Swing in 2013[/b][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]At the end of 2012, 57% of voters approved of Obama[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]On Monday, Rasmussen reported that 47% of likely voters approved of Obama's handling of his job[/QUOTE]Ummm, that's a 10% swing. Further, it's in comparison back to a post-election outlier of 57% approval. If you compare just before and after the recent so-called "scandals" broke, you'll see Obama's numbers are fairly steady, which has been widely reported in the media. Even the Breitbart article acknowledges as much; it doesn't challenge the recent steady trend, but rather attempts to deflect to a "bigger trend", by referencing an outlier from last year. And then it tries to double the 10% change, as if people wouldn't notice! If you fall for this right-wing crap you're just gullible.

[QUOTE]Unlike progressives, numbers don't lie.[/QUOTE]This is hilarious. Punter is effectively calling me a liar, but the 50% and 52% approval ratings I referenced when I posted were absolutely steady when compared to just before the recent "scandals" broke. I would challenge him to point out my actual lie, but obviously there isn't one. And just like Darrell Issa, I doubt Punter has the decency to admit he falsely accused someone of lying.

[QUOTE=Esten;434053]I'm considering giving Punter a new nickname: Darrell. A brash but ineffective attack dog.
[/QUOTE]Typical progressive arrogance, but as long as you don't call me Esten I can live with it. BTW I'd much rather be grouped with Darrell Issa than you, at least Issa respects the Constitution.

[QUOTE=Esten;434053]
Ummm, that's a 10% swing. Further, it's in comparison back to a post-election outlier of 57% approval. If you compare just before and after the recent so-called "scandals" broke, you'll see Obama's numbers are fairly steady, which has been widely reported in the media. Even the Breitbart article acknowledges as much; it doesn't challenge the recent steady trend, but rather attempts to deflect to a "bigger trend", by referencing an outlier from last year. And then it tries to double the 10% change, as if people wouldn't notice! If you fall for this right-wing crap you're just gullible. [/QUOTE][I][b]”Pundits examining daily poll numbers to gauge the impact of current scandals on President Obama are missing a bigger trend.”[/b] [/I]

The whole point of the article was to point out that just looking at recent numbers as you did is a mistake. The article said a [B]20 [u]point[/u] negative swing[/B] not percentage, regardless the overall yearly trend is down. And you seem to ignore the fact that Obama's approval rating is even lower than President Bush at this point in his second term. This is just another time that you want people to look at your feel good numbers rather than the complete picture. Funny how when you don't like something it becomes "right-wing crap".

[QUOTE=Esten;434053]This is hilarious. Punter is effectively calling me a liar, but the 50% and 52% approval ratings I referenced when I posted were absolutely steady when compared to just before the recent "scandals" broke. I would challenge him to point out my actual lie, but obviously there isn't one. And just like Darrell Issa, I doubt Punter has the decency to admit he falsely accused someone of lying.[/QUOTE]Your queer way of interpreting things is not my problem. I didn't question your 50 & 52% numbers, I was pointing to the fact you didn't tell the whole story (again). Nor did I call you a liar, (in this post) I said progressives lie. I fail to see how that differs from some of the things you've said about Republicans, Conservatives, the NRA, and Fox News just to name a few. And just what the fuck would you know about decency anyway, your track record for the lack of honesty on this forum is legendary. I've pointed out your deceptiveness on many occasions, and your decrepit attempts to naysay my points has been feeble at best.

I have no time or desire to partake in challenges, one-upmanship, or any other dick measuring games with you. Anyone who follows this thread can decide for themselves who speaks the truth here. You find me funny, and I find you condescending, obnoxious, self centered, arrogant, and down right disgusting. So stick your challenge up your ass, and good luck getting it past your head.

[QUOTE=Esten;434035]Perhaps my favorite news story last week, Obama appointed Susan Rice as national security adviser. Republicans took their approach of "accuse first, prove later", calling her a liar and part of a cover-up on Benghazi. When the facts came out, Republicans were proven wrong. Apparently Rice wasn't even called to testify, Republicans had plenty of opportunity to do so before this appointment, but likely knew it would hurt not help them. You would think a normal, mature response would be to acknowledge your bad form, admit you were wrong and apologize. Instead, Republicans are still negative about Susan Rice, because they invested so much political capital in their fraudulent thesis.

It's good to see justice prevail. The GOP politics of destruction failed to destroy this woman's career.

Susan Rice and Her Attackers
[URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/06/susan_rice_named_national_security_adviser_the_benghazi_investigation_proved.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

I have no idea whether Rice knew that what she was telling the press was a lie or whether the wool was pulled over her eyes. Maybe she was like Collin Powell when he went before the UN to describe WMD in Iraq, that is misled by the intelligence services. But she really doesn't give a sh_t about whether people live or die or about the best interests of the USA. She cares about kissing up to her boss and helping him achieve his political goals. Her comments about Benghazi were symptomatic of that. Like Obama she puts politics before good judgement.

Why did she advise Clinton to ignore the massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda? Because "if we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?" Why wouldn't she accept intelligence information from Sudan that could have helped find and eliminate bin Laden? Because it would have looked bad if the Clinton administration were engaging with the Islamic Sudanese military dictatorship.

I agree that Republicans should not have indicated they would block her from becoming Secretary of State. She's in a position now to do more damage as the National Security Adviser. She's got Henry Kissinger's old job.

Esten, To put this more succinctly it's just possible that if Susan Rice had never been born, there would have been no 9/11, no war in Iraq, and no war in Afghanistan. And hundreds of thousands less lives lost in Rwanda.

Glad to see Punter clarifies he did not call me a liar (this time). What he fails to appreciate, is the context. He didn't just say progressives lie, rather, he posted a quote of mine and then below it wrote that progressives lie. It certainly comes across as if my quote is being presented as an example of his claim. BTW, he's still on record for not withdrawing his last assertion that I lied, although I explained why he was incorrect. He seems to toss around the word 'lie' quite casually, without providing any evidence. That's nothing new from his end of the political spectrum.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;434078]Esten, To put this more succinctly it's just possible that if Susan Rice had never been born, there would have been no 9/11, no war in Iraq, and no war in Afghanistan. And hundreds of thousands less lives lost in Rwanda.[/QUOTE]Wow, I didn't realize how evil Susan Rice was until you explained it all so clearly!

If you've really done research on her, you'll know that both she and Clinton later expressed regret at how Rwanda was handled. That doesn't make it better, but it matters that they acknowledged such. She was a young staffer back in '94, and hardly the only reason why the US did not intervene. Further, Rice played a key role in pushing through a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians who rose up and eventually toppled dictator Moammar Gadhafi. She also helped get Russia and China to agree to tougher sanctions against Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs.

We know the right is invested heavily in making Susan Rice look bad. When the facts came out, they got nothing on her on Benghazi, so they'll grasp at whatever they can to make it appear they weren't 1000% wrong. Tiny I didn't know you could be such a mud-slinger.

Check the recent stories that Darrell Issa won't release testimony that contradicts the right-wing conspiracy on this so-called "scandal". Here's one:

Cincinnati IRS agents first raised Tea Party issues
[URL]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/11/how-irs-tea-party-targeting-started/2411515/[/URL]

[QUOTE]Shafer denied any political animus in those criteria. A self-described "conservative Republican," he told oversight committee staffers last week that he had no reason to believe the White House was involved in the targeting. "I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do (with it) other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development," he said.[/QUOTE]

The Cincinnati agents were apparently, simply trying to figure out how to handle these cases from a new party they didn't fully understand. Why won't Issa release these transcripts?

[QUOTE=Esten;434084] Tiny I didn't know you could be such a mud-slinger.[/QUOTE]I would sling more mud at Wolfowitz or Rumsfield given the opportunity. If Rice et al had exercised good judgement, there's a good chance the neoconservatives would have never been in a position to start a war. See

[URL]http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2002/01/osama200201?currentPage=1[/URL]

From what I've read, she's arrogant, self-righteous, undiplomatic, and shoots from the hip, not exactly the person you'd want to be your country's top diplomat. Kerry was a better choice.

[B]Don't start no shit, there won't be no shit![/B]

[QUOTE=Esten;434084]Glad to see Punter clarifies he did not call me a liar (this time). What he fails to appreciate, is the context. He didn't just say progressives lie, rather, he posted a quote of mine and then below it wrote that progressives lie. It certainly comes across as if my quote is being presented as an example of his claim.[/QUOTE]Could it be your guilty conscience? They say a wise man listens to his own conscience.

As I told you before your queer inability to comprehend is not my problem.

It's interesting how Esten always couches his words in a manner that attempts to guide the reader to his point of view, unfortunately he often does this by omitting information. Though somewhat trivial (this time) he nonetheless gives us an example above when he says [I] “he posted a quote of mine and then below it wrote that progressives lie.”[/I] Esten's statement suggest to the reader that " progressives lie" was directly under his quote, but he omits the fact that there was other information between his quote and the "progressives lie", in fact there was a statement from me and another quote between them. For a long time I thought Esten was just another 'red diaper baby' but he is so good at this type of deception it really makes me wonder if he was trained to deceive. On the other hand he could be suffering from a psychopathological disorder of some type perhaps Megalomania? I'm not a doctor so I can't really say for sure.

[QUOTE=Esten;434084]BTW, he's still on record for not withdrawing his last assertion that I lied, although I explained why he was incorrect. He seems to toss around the word 'lie' quite casually, without providing any evidence. That's nothing new from his end of the political spectrum.
[/QUOTE]Assuming we are talking about the same post, it's simple, your explanation doesn't pass muster and I explained why in a previous post. I don't think I toss around the word lie anymore casually than you toss around deception. Perhaps you need to read the definition of a lie. Please read slowly and really try to grasp this.

[QUOTE] [Highlight]A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the [u]whole truth[/u], intentionally.[/highlight][/QUOTE][B]"A man is only as good as his word".[/B]

If Esten could find a shred of moral fiber within himself he would fess up to his deceptiveness and apologize to the members of this forum, that's the only way he will ever regain any resemblance of credibility.

Until then I stand by my previous post, and Esten remains on the must verify list. (like it or not).

Looks like the Democrats are planning another attempt at subverting the Constitution.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/us/politics/democrats-quietly-renew-push-for-gun-measures.html?_r=0[/URL]

Bruce Schneier is one of the worlds leading expert on electronic security. I think he has a demonstrable bias against the growing threat of a police state in the US but personally I think that opinion is informed by his expertise in information security and I also happen to agree with him on most of these issues. Why not? He, not I, is one of the worlds leading authorities on the subject.

Every reputable security guy that I know and I know more than a few subscribe to his blog. This is his series of articles on the Eric Snowden revelations and the state of US information gathering at the present time.

[URL]http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-1306.html[/URL]

Because this thread can be so volatile I offer this advisory; I rarely post here, and I never read it, so flaming me about this stuff if you disagree will be waste of time because I'll never see it. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, I'm just offering a resource for anybody that is interested.

DR.

"President Obama and his family are planning to travel to Senegal, Tanzania, and South Africa this month and to spend up to $100 million of tax money on their trip. Essentially, a paid vacation and heritage tour, the trip will involve extensive federal expenditure at a time when federal employees are on furlough working four day weeks due to sequester.

"The Washington Post reports that:

"Hundreds of USA Secret Service agents will be dispatched to secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. A Navy aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, with a fully staffed medical trauma center, will be stationed offshore in case of an emergency.

"Military cargo planes will airlift in 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet¬proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. Fighter jets will fly in shifts, giving 24-hour coverage over the president's airspace, so they can intervene quickly if an errant plane gets too close.

The US is now a kingdom, if not in name, in practice.

Don B

The latest poll has it 48 t0 48 on the king's honesty.

Thanks to goverment schools 48% still "think" Obamba is honest.

Think is the wrong word, goverment schools do not teach that.

Don B

[QUOTE=DonB;434114]"President Obama and his family are planning to travel to Senegal, Tanzania, and South Africa this month and to spend up to $100 million of tax money on their trip. Essentially, a paid vacation and heritage tour, the trip will involve extensive federal expenditure at a time when federal employees are on furlough working four day weeks due to sequester.

"The Washington Post reports that:

"Hundreds of USA Secret Service agents will be dispatched to secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. A Navy aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, with a fully staffed medical trauma center, will be stationed offshore in case of an emergency.

"Military cargo planes will airlift in 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet¬proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. Fighter jets will fly in shifts, giving 24-hour coverage over the president's airspace, so they can intervene quickly if an errant plane gets too close.

The US is now a kingdom, if not in name, in practice.

Don B[/QUOTE]Don B aka El Alamo (maybe), propagandist supreme & soloist of nostalgic songs, in harmony with the AP glee club & chorus is back with the popular hit back a few years ago when Obama made a trip to India. Hey, the most powerful air force in the world is already active, no? Such childish grumblings only reveal a prejudice that goes beyond philosophy differences.

Europe's time is hanging out to dry. Asia is in for the this decade. South America made some samba noises but that Latin heritage only means self immolation. That leaves Africa, brimming with promise as the new frontier. The Chinese, no fools & very good poker players have made deep inroads into the African landscape. There is some grumblings now portraying the Chinese as the new colonizers. Obama's trip to Africa is badly needed. As for us, quite indifferent & still chewing on a blade of grass. Maybe you don't know, maybe you don't care, but Obama has incredible popularity in Africa and all emerging countries. In fact, everywhere in the world but Texas, the Bible belt & the cowboy states. Yes, he wears the coat of colors, and some of you, like Joseph's brothers, just cannot handle that.

[QUOTE=DonB;434114]"President Obama and his family are planning to travel to Senegal, Tanzania, and South Africa this month and to spend up to $100 million of tax money on their trip. Essentially, a paid vacation and heritage tour, the trip will involve extensive federal expenditure at a time when federal employees are on furlough working four day weeks due to sequester.

"The Washington Post reports that:

"Hundreds of USA Secret Service agents will be dispatched to secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. A Navy aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, with a fully staffed medical trauma center, will be stationed offshore in case of an emergency.

"Military cargo planes will airlift in 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet¬proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. Fighter jets will fly in shifts, giving 24-hour coverage over the president's airspace, so they can intervene quickly if an errant plane gets too close.

The US is now a kingdom, if not in name, in practice.

Don B[/QUOTE]I think his record on transparency is ABOMINABLE. I am curious though how these trips are any different than other Presidents (regardless of party) trips to Africa or any other place for that matter? Did the SS not send as many agents, cars, or limos. Was there not a carrier parked off the coast, did fighters not accompany AF 1?

It bothers me that while civil liberties continue to be lost in the US you guys are still arguing about Repubs good Dems bad and reversed. The Supremes just ruled that if you don't specifically evoke (invoke? Help me out on this) your 5th Amendment right then silence is tantamount to an admission of guilt [URL]http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/jun/17/goodbye-5th-amendment-supremes-rule-silence-can-be/[/URL] and you guys are talking about the cost a trip to Africa? The silence in question here was BEFORE not after being arrested. So what they said was if you refuse to answer questions put forth by the police before you are officially placed into custody then that refusal can be used against you later in court.

Besides it's an Oligarchy not a Kingdom.

Don I'm not singling you out brother, I hijacked your post to make the point that all of this us v them is a diversion they (all media) use to distract people while they steal our country. Apologies if I offended you in any way.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;434120]
It bothers me that while civil liberties continue to be lost in the US you guys are still arguing about Repubs good Dems bad and reversed. [/QUOTE]Some of this is not clear cut. Take your two links as examples. A suspect is answering questions asked by law enforcement and then clams up when asked whether shotgun casings would match his gun. Can that be used as evidence in a court of law? Is that a violation of 5th amendment rights? I'm not sure. Or the other link - the NSA is spying on us. But is it preventing terrorist attacks by doing so?

Generally, I believe you're right. Government is big and intrusive and mean, and these are the sorts of tools it uses to fuck us over. You can't smoke dope or visit a prostitute without risking jail. There are a ton of felonies that involve things you probably don't know are illegal. You've been an expat for 20 years and forgot to report that foreign bank account on Treasury Form TDF 90-22.1 and IRS Form 8938? Go to jail and be forced into bankruptcy. You're a businessman who imported lobsters, a few percent of which were pregnant, in cardboard boxes? Go to jail for 8 years. (That literally happened). You've got some certain minority of law enforcement officials and regulators who are going to enforce laws like these as aggressively as they can or otherwise make life a living hell for people they don't like. I'm reluctant to make it easier for them to persecute others by making it easier for them to violate our civil liberties. And some of them are going to leak confidential information. I can imagine Esten being stopped cold in his bid for a US Senate seat someday by someone at the NSA leaking his participation in [URL]www.argentinaprivate.com[/URL].

It pisses me off that the government has access to all my Email and the history of web sites I've viewed. Am I going to accidentally look at a photo of a naked underage woman on the internet and then be thrown in jail for viewing child porn?

Finally I wonder about the wisdom of how the government uses some of this information. Drone strikes are an example. Maybe they're worth it if you can knock off a terrorist with minimal collateral damage. But it sounds like a lot of innocent people have died and the US is incurring a lot of ill will.

The pissing match with Punter has been so pleasant and deeply meaningful (cough, cough), but I will give it a rest for awhile, after these observations.

When he previously quoted me and stated that progressives lie, numbers don't, I called him out on effectively calling me a liar. He then believes I tried to deceive by implying his statement was directly below the quote, but this is ridiculous because it doesn't make a difference. I can re-state it differently: Punter posted a quote of mine, then a quote of some numbers (with a brief comment in between). After the two quotes he concluded that progressives lie, numbers don't. The conclusion (or implication) is obvious.

His smear efforts are pretty weak, I doubt he could even get a job at Fox News.

[QUOTE=Punter127;434095]Assuming we are talking about the same post, it's simple, your explanation doesn't pass muster and I explained why in a previous post. [/QUOTE]This is in reference to when I ignored him for a few weeks (which I did). He called me a liar, apparently he thinks his crap is so irresistible I could not resist reading it for even a moment. His only proof (which he says he 'explained') is that "Simply put, I don't believe you, I think you have read all my post." That's his proof. LMAO!! Fox News would laugh him out the door. But he went to all that effort finding and posting those upside-down pinnochios, I understand how he might cling to his false accusation.

[QUOTE]Perhaps you need to read the definition of a lie. Please read slowly and really try to grasp this. "A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Punter127;434099]Looks like the Democrats are planning another attempt at subverting the Constitution.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/us/politics/democrats-quietly-renew-push-for-gun-measures.html?_r=0[/URL][/QUOTE]Oh boy. And finally, an amazing display of self-sabotage and embarassment. Punter posts a definition of a lie, as if trying to educate us, and then proceeds in his very next post to demonstrate the definition he had just posted. LOL! Punter knows very well that background checks (the subject of the article he linked) are constitutional. He knows they do not subvert the Constitution; it's not a matter of opinion, but of court judgement. So he just demonstrated his own definition of a lie. Amazing!

When it comes to bad form and questionable board ethics, Punter needs to look in the mirror.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;434120]I am curious though how these trips are any different than other Presidents (regardless of party) trips to Africa or any other place for that matter? Did the SS not send as many agents, cars, or limos. Was there not a carrier parked off the coast, did fighters not accompany AF 1? [/QUOTE]Hey DR. Let me offer a simple explanation, FWIW. When you see one guy refer to King Obama (or an equivalent reference), and five other guys 'THANK' him, what you are witnessing is simple Conservative bonding. Picture 6 older white guys in a room, sitting in chairs smoking cigars, and one guy quips about King Obama and the others go "yeah!" and "yuk yuk yuk" and take a puff on their stogies. That's what's going on, only virtually. They surely know past presidents have made similar trips, at high costs due to security. George Bush and his wife made a combined 7 trips to Africa. They're not outraged, they're joking and bonding. I don't begrudge them their little pleasure, but it's amusing to watch.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28796[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Esten;434122]The pissing match with Punter has been so pleasant and deeply meaningful (cough, cough), but I will give it a rest for awhile, after these observations.
[/QUOTE][ATTACH=CONFIG]28799[/ATTACH](Big Yawn) Sure we believe you.:rolleyes: LOL.

[QUOTE=Esten;434122]When he previously quoted me and stated that progressives lie, numbers don't, I called him out on effectively calling me a liar. He then believes I tried to deceive by implying his statement was directly below the quote, but this is ridiculous because it doesn't make a difference. I can re-state it differently: Punter posted a quote of mine, then a quote of some numbers (with a brief comment in between). After the two quotes he concluded that progressives lie, numbers don't. The conclusion (or implication) is obvious.
[/QUOTE]When in the past have I hesitated to call Esten out when I thought he was being less than honest? Please note the word "progressives" is plural and was not aimed solely at one progressive, but hey if the shoe fits.

[QUOTE=Esten;434122]This is in reference to when I ignored him for a few weeks (which I did). He called me a liar, apparently he thinks his crap is so irresistible I could not resist reading it for even a moment. His only proof (which he says he 'explained') is that "Simply put, I don't believe you, I think you have read all my post." That's his proof. LMAO!! Fox News would laugh him out the door. But he went to all that effort finding and posting those upside-down pinnochios, I understand how he might cling to his false accusation.
[/QUOTE]I don't have to prove anything to Esten, the members who follows this thread can decide for themselves. Everybody knows about Estens smoke and mirror tactics.

[QUOTE=Esten;434122]Punter knows very well that background checks (the subject of the article he linked) are constitutional. He knows they do not subvert the Constitution; it's not a matter of opinion, but of court judgement. So he just demonstrated his own definition of a lie. Amazing!
[/QUOTE]Please tell us which Supreme Court ruling upholds "expanded background checks", tell us which ruling says it's ok to link mental health records to background checks, and tell us when the Supreme Court started ruling on legislation before it becomes law?

Speaking of legislation I believe the recent failed gun bill was more than just background checks, if not a lot of time was wasted debating and voting on "amendments", but progressives never lets facts get in way.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;434120]I think his record on transparency is ABOMINABLE.[/QUOTE]Hey Daddy, thanks for sharing your feelings, I'm sure you are very disappointed. And it looks like you're not alone, "Obama's approval rating dropped 8 percentage points over the past month to 45%, the lowest rating in more than 18 months." And a big part of that decline was from his base of younger Americans.

[URL]http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/17/politics/obama-poll-decline[/URL]

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;434120]I am curious though how these trips are any different than other Presidents (regardless of party) trips to Africa or any other place for that matter? Did the SS not send as many agents, cars, or limos. Was there not a carrier parked off the coast, did fighters not accompany AF 1? [/QUOTE]Your thinking is on the mark, but the problem is the cost just keeps going up and we simple can't afford it anymore. The fact that prior administrations wasted money does not justify this administration wasting money. I question the need for the trip, especially considering all the problems we have right now. Perhaps the Presidents time would be better served working on problems here at home.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;434120]It bothers me that while civil liberties continue to be lost in the US you guys are still arguing about Repubs good Dems bad and reversed.[/QUOTE]Agreed, civil liberties have been on the decline for a long time, the Patriot act of 2001 and Patriot Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 have fueled an increase in the rate of decline. Unfortunately the bigger the government gets the more opportunity there is for abuse of power and that leads to a government out of control.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;434120]The Supremes just ruled that if you don't specifically evoke (invoke? Help me out on this) your 5th Amendment right then silence is tantamount to an admission of guilt [URL]http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/jun/17/goodbye-5th-amendment-supremes-rule-silence-can-be/[/URL] and you guys are talking about the cost a trip to Africa? The silence in question here was BEFORE not after being arrested. So what they said was if you refuse to answer questions put forth by the police before you are officially placed into custody then that refusal can be used against you later in court. [/QUOTE]I feel your pain but at the same time I can appreciate Tiny's point. Sadly it seems the best policy is to only let an attorney speak for you. Here is a link to a video of a law school professor and former criminal defense attorney explaining why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. It's a shame things are the way they are but I think you'll find the video interesting.

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/URL]

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;434120]I hijacked your post to make the point that all of this us v them is a diversion they (all media) use to distract people while they steal our country. Apologies if I offended you in any way.[/QUOTE]I again agree with you, but by the same token we can't let those who try to distract us with propaganda go unchecked for fear they will pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;434121]Some of this is not clear cut. Take your two links as examples. A suspect is answering questions asked by law enforcement and then clams up when asked whether shotgun casings would match his gun. Can that be used as evidence in a court of law? Is that a violation of 5th amendment rights? I'm not sure.[/QUOTE]If he invoked his 5th amendent rights at that point, then (presuming that his attorney later filed the required motion) his refusal to answer the question cannot be mentioned or even inferred to in any way at trial.

[QUOTE=Punter127;434125]Here is a link to a video of a law school professor and former criminal defense attorney explaining why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. It's a shame things are the way they are but I think you'll find the video interesting.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jackson;434126]If he invoked his 5th amendent rights at that point, then (presuming that his attorney later filed the required motion) his refusal to answer the question cannot be mentioned or even inferred to in any way at trial.[/QUOTE]No he hadn't specifically invoked (thanks Jax) his 5th amendment right, he just stopped talking when the cop asked him about his shotgun. I think it's pretty obvious that the guy did the killing. The point the Supremes made (as best I can make out, I'm not a lawyer) is that unless you SPECIFICALLY invoke that right then not answering questions becomes evidence. The other germane point is that all of that happened before he was arrested or advised of his rights. The video (I've seen it and agree) needs to be modified to say, as soon as a police officer asks you any questions you must answer with "I'm exercising my 5th amendment right and not answering.

I looked up the recent Supreme Court decision on the 5th Amendment. I don't have a strong feeling about it, I can see both sides. But I did notice one interesting thing. The vote was split 5:4, with the five conservative justices voting the majority opinion, and the four liberal justices voting the dissenting opinion.

I found this very interesting, since as some would have us believe, conservatives are the supposed champions of individual rights and protections, while liberals are the supposed champions of government power. This Supreme Court decision is a clear example of just the opposite.

But why are the Republicans digging deeper than that with the Immigration Bill. If they keep insisting on all the triggers about border security that could delay legal status pathways, they might as well start wearing black tomorrow. Nothing but delaying tactics. When the House goes Democract, blame yourself. When Sarah Palin can still be significant, is there hope? Jimmy Swagget for President!

There is no clamoring for prosecution of business & individuals hiring of illegal immigrants. Why? It is business, especially small business (chamber of commerce) that has fought legislation of temporary & seasonal workers for the last few decades. And so here we are, with the problem so rampant that we now have 12 million illegal immigrants even after amnesty in the 80's, There is not enough resources to prosecute Americans, whether it is gun laws, tax laws, or hiring of illegal immigrants.

As a society, Americans have also developed a mentality that they are never guilty of anything, anyway. Example: Skilling & Enron. Forget about shame, nothing like that exist! Illegal immigrants, illegal drugs, damn those Mexicans & Colombians! You ever think about boycotting a restaurent with an illegal working in it.

You may think I am walking around angry & disillusioned. No, not really. Only for stubborn people. Just wanted to make the point, that when there is a problem, best you look in the mirror, and ask whether you are contributing to it in some way.

I love it when Democrats try to give Republicans advise, they never seem to tire of telling other people what to do.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]But why are the Republicans digging deeper than that with the Immigration Bill. If they keep insisting on all the triggers about border security that could delay legal status pathways, they might as well start wearing black tomorrow. Nothing but delaying tactics. When the House goes Democract, blame yourself.[/QUOTE]I'd be willing to bet you a buffet lunch at the Pattaya Hilton that the Democrats don't take the house in 2014.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]When Sarah Palin can still be significant, is there hope?[/QUOTE]Yes, that's a very good sign of hope for America. LOL.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]Jimmy Swagget for President! [/QUOTE]You got something against a monger being President?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]There is no clamoring for prosecution of business & individuals hiring of illegal immigrants. Why?[/QUOTE]Perhaps it's the same reason the left is not "clamoring" to enforce current gun laws. Why isn't the left "clamoring" to secure the borders?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152] It is business, especially small business (chamber of commerce) that has fought legislation of temporary & seasonal workers for the last few decades. And so here we are, with the problem so rampant that we now have 12 million illegal immigrants even after amnesty in the 80's,[/QUOTE]Didn't Bush support a guest worker program that the left stood in the way of, saying it was something along the lines of legalized slavery?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]There is not enough resources to prosecute Americans, whether it is gun laws, tax laws, or hiring of illegal immigrants. [/QUOTE]If we don't have the resources to enforce current law why would you support wasting resources on new gun laws that we can't afford to enforce? Maybe we should use some of the resources wasted on trips to Africa and resources wasted on spying on the American people and resources wasted profiling and targeting groups of Americans. How about we use the resources we did not spend on security or answering the distress call at Benghazi. We could also save some resources if we stop arming rebels in countries that we have no vital interest in, like Libya and Syria. I would also include giving weapons to Mexican drug cartels in order to gin up a phony gun crisis in order to push a anti-Second Amendment agenda as a waste of resources.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]As a society, Americans have also developed a mentality that they are never guilty of anything, anyway. Example: Skilling & Enron. Forget about shame, nothing like that exist! Illegal immigrants, illegal drugs, damn those Mexicans & Colombians! You ever think about boycotting a restaurent with an illegal working in it.[/QUOTE]In some parts of the country you would never eat in a restaurant. I agree with you on the "never guilty of anything mentality" just look at Obama, Clinton, Holder, Shulman, and (Fifth Amendment) Lerner, none of these people are guilty of anything and none of them are even responsible for the actions of their subordinates. Right?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]You may think I am walking around angry & disillusioned. No, not really. Only for stubborn people.[/QUOTE]I think you're just frustrated by stubborn folks like me that won't let folk like you turn America into something it's not, and was never intended to be.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]Just wanted to make the point, that when there is a problem, best you look in the mirror, and ask whether you are contributing to it in some way.[/QUOTE]I'll get in the queue right behind you and the Obama team.

Why do you think 12 million illegal immigrants deserve a legal status pathway? Some of us think they deserve a legal pathway back to their home.

An ACLU card carrying liberal East Coast elitist, savaging the Obama administration for their persecution of whistleblowers while supporting someone Fox and Friends says deserves the death penalty. [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/22/snowden-espionage-charges[/URL].