American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Yes, Fox covered the Sestek story pretty well and only now has the "main stream media" even begun to cover it. Do you really believe the "main stream media" would have given Bush a pass for so long on a similar issue?

In the BP debacle Obama was quick to state if laws were broken the wrong doers will be brought to justice. What about his own "wrong doing"? According to the statute (if you take the time to read it) even Obama's explanation of the event is a violation. Where is the rush to justice on this one?

I am sure you remember the Cambridge incident with the police office and Obama's buddy, "the police acted stupidly" thing. The Great One had time to have a much publicized "Beer Summit". Now comes the governor of Arizona who wishes to speak to the Great One but he snubs her telling her there are "scheduling conflicts". After the heat from the public starts he "suddenly" finds the time to meet over Arizona's new immigration law.

You make the call:

With BP, we'll put the bums in jail!

With the Sestek job offer, oh it's really nothing even though our own story shows it is a violation.

With Obama's friends, sure we got time for a photo op and a Beer Summit.

With a sitting governor, naw we just can't make time for you – well maybe now the heat is on.

What great governance? Obama promised CHANGE – well he just CHANGED the PROMISE that's all.

[QUOTE=Esten]The wealth redistribution discussion is mainly about taxation and spending, which are clearly provided for in the Constitution. And a few other things such as regulation of minimum wage and benefits. There are plenty of legal means to redistribute wealth, so once again, this is just plain misinformation.[/QUOTE]I realize that to Obama and his followers like yourself, the Constitution, its Amendments, particularly those included in The Bill of Rights, and related Founding Documents are viewed as flawed documents that act as obstructions to the left's efforts to force its ideals on the nation. However, for now at least, they are still in effect, although the left continues to attempt to destroy them through judicial fiat.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which is contained within the Bill of Rights, states the following, regarding the govt taking from individuals: ". Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Private property includes the fruits of one's labor.

Your golden child himself stated that the left has not been successful in adding the power for the government redistribution, via judicial fiat, to the Constitution, yet (he's still hopeful) Cloaked in a discussion ostensibly (perhaps deceptively) about additional, extra-constitutional rights created via civil rights litigation, he lauded the movement for creating certain rights, not envisioned by the founders and goes on to lament the fact that the most liberal Supreme Court in US history did not create similar extra-constitutional rights enabling governmental redistribution of wealth (in order to allow the left to correct history's injustices as they see fit)

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."

[quote=]As far as Sestak, I think Fox News must have covered it a hundred times over the long weekend, while other networks were more balanced. It is funny how much the right is trying to milk this story. I think most people see it as a non-story getting hyped for political purposes, which won't help Republicans much and might hurt them. Efforts to "get at the truth" won't be branded as racist (how do you come up with that) merely political posturing and a waste of time.[/QUOTE]Perhaps we should step back and objectively determine what the correct course of action should be in the case where a sitting member of congress and the WH have independently confirmed that a quid pro quo arrangement was proffered, which offer may have been illegal.

Should we:

A. Determine if was the law broken and if so, take appropriate measures, or.

B. Institute a policy of selective enforcement of federal laws in favor of enabling the executive branch to operate with impunity within and beyond the law.

I have not viewed Fox or any other TV news program in sometime. The only TV I have watched in the last week or so consisted of 24, sports and The Hurt Locker. However, I would be willing to bet that rather than Fox over playing it, it is being deliberately buried by the main stream media which have given Obama a pass on everything he has screwed up so far. I saw a stat somewhere to that effect that I will try to relocate. If this had happened under Bush, there would already be a Special Counsel on the job.

Just to add more stench to tip the BS meter, another inconsistency to their stories is that Sestak's statement indicated that his contact with Clinton on the offer came on one occasion only, and lasted no more than 60 seconds. However, Bauer's memo notes "efforts" — plural — that transpired in June and July of 2009. Unless that 60-second conversation took place at 11:59:30 PM on June 30th, 2009, it appears that Sestak may not be telling the entire truth about the offer and his consideration of it.

[quote=]While Republicans have been busy trying to portray Obama and Dems unfavorably, they have been doing the exact same thing to themselves as well. They need to proceed carefully to do well in November and they know it. The lines of attack by the right are easy to guess, but the left has plenty to work with as well. It's all in the execution. If Dems execute well, they will retain control of Congress.[/QUOTE]This is the same carnard the left always flaunts out there. "By telling everyone how bad I am, you are making yourself look bad." If this is true, how do you explain Gallup's latest poll find the reverse to be true?

[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/127439/Election-2010-Key-Indicators.aspx[/url]

Further, if your premise it true, then politicians would never be able to point out the wrong doing of their opponents. Boy, I bet Nixon wished his opponents subscribed to that principal way back when.

You also incorrectly ascribe Obama's dreadful poll numbers to the efforts of Republicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama's numbers are in the toilet because Obama through his own words, actions and in-actions has proven himself to be an arrogant, incompetent ideologue incapable and unwilling to lead this country, while remaining bent on reshaping it, according to his own personal vision, against the will of the people.

Esten, while I am sure that you think I am a right-wing loon, I can assure you that I am not nor am I in lock step with the Republican Party. I am a conservative that believes in smaller govt, greater personal responsibility and the rule of law. I am not alone.

While I am passionate about our country and certainly have no shortage of opinions on what is best for it, I can be and usually am quite objective on matters of politics.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama's numbers are in the toilet because Obama through his own words, actions and in-actions has proven himself to be an arrogant, incompetent ideologue incapable and unwilling to lead this country, while remaining bent on reshaping it, according to his own personal vision, against the will of the people.[/QUOTE]Even the most bleeding-heart liberals have to agree with this statement. YOU had the ball, heading toward the basket for an uncontested DUNK. Damn, missed the rim all-together. Hate it when that happens. You only have your elected leadership to blame red dogs. Period, end of story. IALOTFLMAO.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. May I bring your attention to my post of many months ago forcasting this very chain of events. It's all over but the crying in November red dogs.

Clarevoyant Toymann.

While Obama being Obama has taken his approval ratings from mythical to abysmal, the administration if floating trial balloons advocating even more extreme leftism via the left's peanut gallery.

Robert Reich, hand-selected member of Obama's transition team, has stated that Obama should take over BP through a forced receivership. That is, a trusted member of the Obama inner circle is proposing that the President steal $116.65B of value from the shareholders (I. E. Owners) of BP. Not to mention placing into jeopardy the provenance of BP's $6.84B in cash and its $32.2B in debt. The fact that Reich says this should be 'temporary' is merely window dressing in an attempt to make the idea seam less vile.

What a great idea. So, Obama takes it over at the expense of the shareholders and creditors. While the 11 people killed by the explosion may have been shareholders by coincidence (via mutual funds or employee stock purchase programs) the shareholders have zero culpability in the spill. Then Obama decides that the damage of the spill is so great, its cost can never be calculated, therefore, the US can't return the company to its shareholders.

This is not Reich shooting from the hip. This is part of a concerted effort to test the waters to see what he should do next because he has no idea what to do.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]I realize that to Obama and his followers like yourself, the Constitution, its Amendments, particularly those included in The Bill of Rights, and related Founding Documents are viewed as flawed documents that act as obstructions to the left's efforts to force its ideals on the nation.[/QUOTE]I'm not a follower. And it seems to me some parts of the Constitution are an inconvenience to you. I just pointed out to you that taxation and spending have a legal basis in the Constitution. But, instead of trying to refute that (which you can't) you bring up seizure of private property and some ancient Obama quote. Since taxation and spending can and do redistribute wealth, your assertion that redistribution of wealth is illegal is inaccurate. Maybe you can write the Supreme Court and try to convince them the Taxing and Spending Clause is unconstitutional? LMAO

[QUOTE]This is the same carnard the left always flaunts out there. "By telling everyone how bad I am, you are making yourself look bad." If this is true, how do you explain Gallup's latest poll find the reverse to be true?[/QUOTE]The poll you refer to is about current voting preference. I was talking about how favorably the parties are viewed. This is a metric tracked by Gallup. The latest June 1 poll has a 36% favorable score for the Republican Party and a 43% favorable score for the Democratic Party.

Now, the discrepancy between voting preference and favorable ratings is interesting. I have no doubt the voting numbers are significantly influenced by emotion, rather than a belief that Republicans have superior solutions.

[QUOTE]Further, if your premise it true, then politicians would never be able to point out the wrong doing of their opponents. Boy, I bet Nixon wished his opponents subscribed to that principal way back when.[/QUOTE]Another Walleye-ism. Criticism and pointing out wrong-doing is important, but how it is done is important as well.

[QUOTE]You also incorrectly ascribe Obama's dreadful poll numbers to the efforts of Republicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama's numbers are in the toilet because Obama through his own words, actions and in-actions has proven himself to be an arrogant, incompetent ideologue incapable and unwilling to lead this country, while remaining bent on reshaping it, according to his own personal vision, against the will of the people.[/QUOTE]Actually I was more pointing out that Republicans have been making themselves look bad, which is reflected in the Gallup favorable view polls. Your characterization of Obama above is a good example, I believe most intelligent people would see this as an over-the-top distortion rather than an objective statement of fact.

Given that Obama inherited the worst recession since the Depression, his approval rating (now 46%) is not so terrible. He does need to work to get it back up though.

[QUOTE]Esten, while I am sure that you think I am a right-wing loon, I can assure you that I am not nor am I in lock step with the Republican Party. I am a conservative that believes in smaller govt, greater personal responsibility and the rule of law. I am not alone.[/QUOTE]Without resorting to names or labels, I'll say you have made it difficult for me to take you seriously.

[QUOTE]While I am passionate about our country and certainly have no shortage of opinions on what is best for it, I can be and usually am quite objective on matters of politics.[/QUOTE]You have made too many inaccurate statements and distortions to be considered objective. Your passion for the country is commendable but your biases are clear...

Esten, I just don't know where to start, so I will keep it brief! LOL! Your last rebuttal post can simply be put as a total "liberal denial" of current events in the USA! I cannot even begin to comment on your arguement as it is so out of touch with what is going on here stateside it absolutely cracks me up. Do you even live here? Inquiring minds want to know. LOL.

How many polls, liberal senate resignations, recent election results do you need to just "SHUT THE F$CK UP! I suggest you stop this crazy retoric and just have the last laugh in Novemeber (NOT HAPPENING! LOL!). Your boy in Nevada gets the boot next week. I am sure you already have this rationalized as a "Bush" conspiracy. I am guessing you live in San Fransisco or some other crazy out-of-touch place like Chicago or Seattle! LOL!

Read the poll results and make an intelligent arguement please. Your boy Obomination was elected by a couple points based on the independent vote here stateside. Not only are the independents banging their heads on the bed poste in disgust right now with regret but the liberal "red dogs" are in theraphy as we speak. In case you are not paying attention, Obomination will go down as a worse President than Carter, and it hasn't even been two full years yet! LOL! God it's good to be #1!

Gosh, what is the color of the sky in your world. I suggest you start sharing PM's with EasyGo in Seattle and stop polluting this thread with utter and total nonsense supported by your rabid support of a "failed leader".

Pack up your tent and head to Canada buddy. You won't be viewed as a total idiot there. LOL.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann]Esten, I just don't know where to start, so I will keep it brief! LOL! Your last rebuttal post can simply be put as a total "liberal denial" of current events in the USA! I cannot even begin to comment on your arguement as it is so out of touch with what is going on here stateside it absolutely cracks me up. Do you even live here? Inquiring minds want to know. LOL.

How many polls, liberal senate resignations, recent election results do you need to just "SHUT THE F$CK UP! I suggest you stop this crazy retoric and just have the last laugh in Novemeber (NOT HAPPENING! LOL! Your boy in Nevada gets the boot next week. I am sure you already have this rationalized as a "Bush" conspiracy. I am guessing you live in San Fransisco or some other crazy out-of-touch place like Chicago or Seattle! LOL!

Read the poll results and make an intelligent arguement please. Your boy Obomination was elected by a couple points based on the independent vote here stateside. Not only are the independents banging their heads on the bed poste in disgust right now with regret but the liberal "red dogs" are in theraphy as we speak. In case you are not paying attention, Obomination will go down as a worse President than Carter, and it hasn't even been two full years yet! LOL! God it's good to be #1!

Gosh, what is the color of the sky in your world. I suggest you start sharing PM's with EasyGo in Seattle and stop polluting this thread with utter and total nonsense supported by your rabid support of a "failed leader".

Pack up your tent and head to Canada buddy. You won't be viewed as a total idiot there. LOL.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Sounds like you are really "stoked" already. Cut down the viagra / cialis intake to recommended levels.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Sounds like you are really "stoked" already. Cut down the viagra / cialis intake to recommended levels.[/QUOTE]Too funny blackshirt. Good one. Monger On Dude. Toymann.

Ps. This thread could stand a bit more levity!

Toymann, yes I do live in the US. I would leave the country like you suggested, but my welfare check won't cover my moving expenses.... :)

[QUOTE=Esten]Toymann, yes I do live in the US. I would leave the country like you suggested, but my welfare check won't cover my moving expenses.:)[/QUOTE]Esten would need also need to:

- export his prius (purchased in part with cash for clunkers dough that he got for ditching his 1972 Volvo - although he was able to save the greenpeace and Dukakis '88 stickers)

- find a new home in a country where compact fluorescent bulbs (despite being laden with mercury, a toxic element being eliminated from as many products as possible - except compact fluorescent bulbs)

- Chose a place with excellent free health care, extensive well fare, strict workplace regulation, income redistribution and all the other trappings of a leftist-marxist utopia.

On second thought, Esten should stay right where he is.

[QUOTE=Esten]Toymann, yes I do live in the US. I would leave the country like you suggested, but my welfare check won't cover my moving expenses.:)[/QUOTE]Just when I thought I had seen it all. Good one Esten. Monger on Dude. Toymann

There's been some discussion on whether Obama is showing enough emotion on the BP story (which seems a little superficial to me) but this segment by Stephen Colbert was too funny. BP CEO "Tony Hayward" comes on the show in the second half of the video.

Colbert Shows Obama Real Anger At BP By Beating Up A Tony Hayward Impersonator.

[url]http://vodpod.com/watch/3790718-colbert-shows-obama-real-anger-at-bp-by-beating-up-a-tony-hayward-impersonator[/url]

The war in Afghanistan is not going well. Just Friday, the Times' Dexter Filkins reported that Karzai himself is said to doubt that the Americans can succeed and is reportedly working on brokering his own deal with the Taliban outside the auspices of NATO.

It does not take an Einstein level intelligence to know that the United States involvement in Afghanistan was doomed yesterday, is doomed today and will be doomed tomorrow.

Listen to the people who should know I. E. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane or the Soviets.

Obama may have some goofy ideas about the role of government I. E. I'm from the government, I'm here to help.

However, Obama was supposed to be a clear thinker on other matters. What in the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? My dog rocky has enough sense to know we can either leave Afghanistan today or get our butts kicked out tomorrow.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]The war in Afghanistan is not going well. Just Friday, the Times' Dexter Filkins reported that Karzai himself is said to doubt that the Americans can succeed and is reportedly working on brokering his own deal with the Taliban outside the auspices of NATO.

It does not take an Einstein level intelligence to know that the United States involvement in Afghanistan was doomed yesterday, is doomed today and will be doomed tomorrow.

Listen to the people who should know I. E. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane or the Soviets.

Obama may have some goofy ideas about the role of government I. E. I'm from the government, I'm here to help.

However, Obama was supposed to be a clear thinker on other matters. What in the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? My dog rocky has enough sense to know we can either leave Afghanistan today or get our butts kicked out tomorrow.[/QUOTE]They don't call Afghanistan the graveyard of Empires for nothing. The British Empire tasted defeat there in the XIX century also.

Thanks,

Whiskas

Many of the challenges that thwarted earlier conquests are not as relevant in the current conflict as they have been in the past. There are new, different challenges and there are some age-old difficulties.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]The war in Afghanistan is not going well. Just Friday, the Times' Dexter Filkins reported that Karzai himself is said to doubt that the Americans can succeed and is reportedly working on brokering his own deal with the Taliban outside the auspices of NATO.[/QUOTE]Some of the age-old complexities include corruption, lack of infrastructure, both structural and economic. The confluence of rampant corruption and insufficient economic infrastructure manifests itself in the forms of crippling graft and enormous security exposure. Afghanistan is rife with corruption beginning with Karzai and his brothers and going throughout the government, security forces and contractors. Karzai is a tribal war lord and at least two of his six brothers (Mahmoud and Ahmed Wali) have been amassing huge wealth in this impoverished country during their brother's rule. Karzai was originally selected by tribal chieftains (Bonn 2001) and has been in power since. He was 'democratically' reelected in 2009 where he was unopposed in a runoff (opponent withdrew from the race)

The lack of commercial infrastructure is particularly evident in the transportation industry where there are not traditional means of distribution (I. E. Independent trucking, rail and other freight solutions) Much of the national distribution and shipping is handled by the Taliban. Therefore, Karzai depends on the Taliban in order to continue enriching himself and amassing power. So our ally is in bed with our enemy and our efforts to increase commerce for the benefit of the people are empowering our enemy. All of this is suboptimal, if victory is the desired outcome.

[quote=]the United States involvement in Afghanistan was doomed yesterday, is doomed today and will be doomed tomorrow.

Listen to the people who should know I. E. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane or the Soviets.[/QUOTE]I agree and I disagree. If it was doomed from the start it is attributable to challenges not faced by those other empires you mention rather it is due to our leadership failing to bring about decisive victory within the constraints placed on it by our representative republic and the inherent unwillingness of a plurality of the American populace to see difficult tasks to completion.

If it is doomed today, it is due to a lack of leadership, moral clarity and creativity (to find a solution that fits with the above-mentioned dilemma) within the executive branch.

If it is doomed tomorrow, the blame lies with the American people because they have not demanded better candidates for elective office and they have not held our elected officials to a high enough standard.

[quote=]Obama may have some goofy ideas about the role of government I. E. I'm from the government, I'm here to help.

However, Obama was supposed to be a clear thinker on other matters. What in the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? My dog rocky has enough sense to know we can either leave Afghanistan today or get our butts kicked out tomorrow.[/QUOTE]That adage about the govt coming to help always makes me laugh, although it is getting to the point where the little kernel of truth in it that makes it funny is becoming the totality of it and therefore makes it less funny. Unfortunately, the American people elected an unqualified inexperienced 'thinker' to hold the most important office. In this case, we have much less knowledge and experience in the man leading the war than any of the other empires you mentioned.

We will not be victorious unless we decide that victory is what we want and commit ourselves to that end via appropriate means.