American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;444219]...Biden said the letter was beneath the dignity of the Senate, and added [I]"In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on Americas commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous." [/I][/QUOTE]Who gives a fuck what Joe Biden has to say?

Anyway, the Senator's letter did not suggest that "[i]Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on Americas commitments[/i]". What it said in plain language was that the Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on Americas commitments [u]without the involvement of the US Senate[/u], which is in fact true.

Nevertheless, the entire premise of Biden's comments is laughable, given that in the past 6 years Obama has provided the world with numerous of examples of his inability to "[i]deliver on Americas commitments[/i], thank you very much.

Jax

The coins jingling from their pockets, they came from Sheldon Adelson.

Bomb makers will always leave their signatures, and Sheldon Adelson's fingerprints are all over this bomb.

[QUOTE=RevBS;444226]The coins jingling from their pockets, they came from Sheldon Adelson.

Bomb makers will always leave their signatures, and Sheldon Adelson's fingerprints are all over this bomb.[/QUOTE]Rev,

Your suggestion that the 47 Senators who signed the letter to Iran did so because they would be personally enriched is patently ridiculous.

I openly defy you to find any evidence the demonstrates that even so much as 10 of these Senators would be enriched by this action.

Thanks,

Jax

[QUOTE=Jackson;444227]Rev,

Your suggestion that the 47 Senators who signed the letter to Iran did so because they would be personally enriched is patently ridiculous.

I openly defy you to find any evidence the demonstrates that even so much as 10 of these Senators would be enriched by this action.

Thanks,

Jax[/QUOTE]All these guys are rich a long time ago. American corruption is not bags of money delivered in darkness.

I was suggesting that any investigative reporter (not me) would find political contributions from Adelson in their campaign funds.

That they were doing the bidding of someone. And the stunt was initiated by a paymaster for a reason. So what was the reason?

I give you a hint. It was related to the visit by a diamond dealer from a middle eastern country.

Oh, I just found something:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/opinion/thomas-l-friedman-is-it-sheldons-world.html?_r=0

A man who is a heartbeat away from the Presidency is certainly someone I want to listen to. Man has over 20 plus years as a U.S Senator and a sitting VP certainly knows a thing or two more than the average Joe. The elephants do not know everything and have been wrong on enough occasions to demonstrated that to us. Cheney is a non stop talker who was asleep at the switch along with his boss and allowed many innocent people to die on their watch but the right still wants to listen to him with his endless calls for war, wiretapping and water boarding, classic hypocrites.

Even on Fox they're not calling what Hillary did criminal but on AP without any evidence the verdict is in and she is now a criminal. Fair, balance and independent coverage at its worst, you can feel the hate. They can't wait for Obama to get out of there but as extreme fringe prognosticator Dr. Leopole Arthur once said the replacement for the incumbent we so loathe made us yearned for his return.

If Democratic Senators did this on a Republican president's watch they would be call traitors and every other name in the book. Flip the script and its almost always ok when the right does it, despite some saying they may have broken the law with that letter. Kelly from Fox and the ultra conservative WSJ are also not in agreement with this letter as seen below.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1kwZYRy9PI[/URL]

[URL]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/47-gop-senators-broke-law-iran-letter/story?id=29528727[/URL]

Is it possible that they could be charged with Treason?

From Yahoo News:

"That law – still on the books today, but not even attempted to be enforced since 1803 – makes it a crime with a potential prison sentence of up to three years for "any citizen" of the USA, acting without government authority, to "directly or indirectly correspond" with any foreign government or foreign official with the aim of influencing their dealings on any controversies with the USA Government, or of defeating a USA Government action. ".

[QUOTE=Jackson;444215]Hey WT69,

Have you been reading the Islamic al jazeera website again?

Perhaps you might instead consider reading the actual US Constitution, which specifically provides that all treaties with other countries must be ratified (approved) by the US Senate.

Do you understand what that means, or are you assuming that Obama will once again ignore the Constitution and in this case make a deal with Iran without bothering to get the approval of the Senate? Perhaps he will call it something other than a "treaty", perhaps he will call it a "Memo between Countries"? Perhaps he will simply issue an executive order? I can see that getting unanimously rebuked by the Supreme Court as they did with his unconstitutional recess appointments.

Anyway, the purpose of the Senator's letter was to remind the Iranians that whatever "agreement" they make with the politically desperate Obama must go through them, and they're not the pussies that our President is.

The fact is that Obama is a complete neophyte when it comes to negotiating, which is not a surprise because he's had no executive management experience.

For one thing, as a basic tenant of negotiating, it's not a negotiation if you're not willing to walk away, and the Iranians know that Obama is so desperate to make a deal that he can be pressured into almost any concession because he clearly doesn't have the political courage to walk away.

Another thing is that Obama doesn't understand is that he holds the strongest hand: The economic sanctions and collapsing oil prices have crippled the Iranian economy, their GDP being cut by almost 30% in the past couple of years. It is in fact the mullahs who are desperate to make a deal, and now is the time to ratchet up the sanctions and force the mullahs to capitulate, which they'll do because they don't want to be ousted in another revolution.

I hope that history will record that the Senate stood strong and refused to approve a treaty with Iran that would have allowed them to develop a nuclear bomb.

Thanks,

Jax

[b]Anyway, the most important thing is that we're not talking about Hillary Clinton's criminal behavior using a private, non-government email account hosted on a private server for all of her email communications while she was Secretary of State.[/b][/QUOTE]

[B]7 TIMES DEMOCRATS ADVISED AMERICAS ENEMIES TO OPPOSE THE PRESIDENT[/B]

"Legally speaking, charges under the Logan Act would be unwarranted. The Logan Act has never actually been used for prosecution, nor has its Constitutionality been seriously reviewed in two hundred years.

And if Republicans supposedly violated the Logan Act, so did these Democrats:

[B]Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD).[/B] The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

[B]Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA).[/B] In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant (John) Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan's anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to "arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. " Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. "Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y. V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. Like other rational people, (Kennedy) is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations," the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

[B]House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX).[/B] In 1984,10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for "taking steps to open up the political process in your country. " House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. "We don't have any idea what's going on," an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan's arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a "detailed cease-fire proposal. "The New York Times said, "Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright."

[B]Senator John Kerry (D-MA).[/B] Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn't alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators "brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels. That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow. " Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It's beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them (the Sandinistas), they want to throw them out, they don't want to talk to them.

[B]Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA).[/B] In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein's regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party's later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, "the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war. " McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime "due process" and "take the Iraqis on their face value. " Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that's what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

[B]Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).[/B] In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News' Chris Wallace, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. " That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

[B]House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).[/B] In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel. " Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy even if it's being led by the opposition. ".

[B][u]The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."[/u][/B] As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes, Senators have a good argument that "the President lacks the authority under the USA Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement. ".

One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, "then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy. " Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush's surge in Iraq as "a tragic mistake" and vowing, "I will do everything in my power to stop it. " As Tom Cotton said this morning, [b]"If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate. "[/b]

[URL]http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/[/URL]

Joe Biden seems to have a bit of a "recall" problem.

Iran, also known as Persia, the ancient country of Biblical times. But since the American hostage crisis in late 1970's, it was not a natural country to visit for Americans.

But I am now encouraged by the "Open" letter signed by 47 GOP Senators to try to establish dialogue for common ground on the Nuclear issue. Before that, GOP policy was to just bomb the hell out of Teheran. Perhaps, I will wait until Ted Cruz and the Ayotollah are smoking peace pipes in Austin before I make my final decision.

Meanwhile, all I have to do is check on State policy regard private visits by Americans.

[size=-2]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Rev,

The only purpose of your post was to push Punter's research off of the top of the page.

Nice try.

Jax
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------[/size]

[B][size=+1]7 TIMES DEMOCRATS ADVISED AMERICAS ENEMIES TO OPPOSE THE PRESIDENT[/size][/B]

"Legally speaking, charges under the Logan Act would be unwarranted. The Logan Act has never actually been used for prosecution, nor has its Constitutionality been seriously reviewed in two hundred years.

And if Republicans supposedly violated the Logan Act, so did these Democrats:

[B]Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD).[/B] The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

[B]Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA).[/B] In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant (John) Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, why. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan's anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to "arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. " Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. "Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact why. V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. Like other rational people, (Kennedy) is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations," the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

[B]House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX).[/B] In 1984,10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for "taking steps to open up the political process in your country. " House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. "We don't have any idea what's going on," an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan's arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a "detailed cease-fire proposal. "The New York Times said, "Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright. ".

[B]Senator John Kerry (D-MA).[/B] Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn't alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators "brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels. That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow. " Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It's beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them (the Sandinistas), they want to throw them out, they don't want to talk to them.

[B]Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA).[/B] In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein's regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party's later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, "the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war. " McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime "due process" and "take the Iraqis on their face value. " Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that's what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

[B]Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).[/B] In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News' Chris Wallace, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. " That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

[B]House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).[/B] In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel. " Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy even if it's being led by the opposition. ".

[B][u]The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."[/u][/B] As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes, Senators have a good argument that "the President lacks the authority under the USA Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement. ".

One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, "then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy. " Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush's surge in Iraq as "a tragic mistake" and vowing, "I will do everything in my power to stop it. " As Tom Cotton said this morning, [B]"If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate. "[/B].

[URL]http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/[/URL]

Joe Biden seems to have a bit of a "recall" problem.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;444242]Is it possible that they could be charged with Treason?

From Yahoo News:

"That law still on the books today, but not even attempted to be enforced since 1803 makes it a crime with a potential prison sentence of up to three years for "any citizen" of the USA, acting without government authority, to "directly or indirectly correspond" with any foreign government or foreign official with the aim of influencing their dealings on any controversies with the USA Government, or of defeating a USA Government action. ".[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/hillary-clinton-disclosing-records-form/2015/03/11/id/629656/?ns_mail_uid=21332800&ns_mail_job=1612817_03122015&s=al&dkt_nbr=dmmqfews[/URL]

Our resident, legal expert, should refer to 18 USA C. 1001 in the matter of H. Clinton.

Don B.

[QUOTE=Jackson;444250][B]7 TIMES DEMOCRATS ADVISED AMERICAS ENEMIES TO OPPOSE THE PRESIDENT[/B] [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jackson;444250][B]House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).[/B] In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel. " Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy even if it's being led by the opposition. ". [/QUOTE]Hey Jax or Punter, where in this example did a Democrat advise Syria to oppose Bush? I missed it. It's obvious that Breitbart, a trashy right wing website, is trying to fool people with weak examples.

None of these examples is as direct and blatant as the letter that the 47 Republican Senators sent to Iran, in the midst of negotiations. A letter that received global media attention, with the clear intent to undermine the US President. And in case you didn't notice, some of the global coverage has triggered more mocking of US Republicans. Again! Go look it up yourselves and witness the embarrassing spectacle that Republicans are creating for themselves internationally.

Additionally, it doesn't seem any of these examples triggered a petition to file charges for treason. The petition was created March 9 with the goal to reach 100 K signatures in one month. It received over 255,000 signatures in just 3 days.

White House Petition Seeks Prosecution Of 47 Senators Who Sent Treasonous Iran Letter
[URL]http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/03/11/white-house-petition-seeks-prosecution-of-47-senators-who-sent-treasonous-iran-letter [/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;444253]Hey Jax or Punter, where in this example did a Democrat advise Syria to oppose Bush? I missed it. Perhaps you missed it too, if you didn't read what you posted. It's obvious that Breitbart, a trashy right wing website, is trying to fool people with weak examples.

None of these examples is as direct and blatant as the letter that the 47 Republican Senators sent to Iran, in the midst of negotiations. A letter that received global media attention, with the clear intent to undermine the US President. And in case you didn't notice, some of the global coverage has triggered more mocking of US Republicans. Again! Go look it up yourselves and witness the embarrassing spectacle that Republicans are creating for themselves internationally.

Additionally, it doesn't seem any of these examples triggered a petition to file charges for treason. The petition was created March 9 with the goal to reach 100 K signatures in one month. It received over 255,000 signatures in just 3 days.[/QUOTE]So fucking what?

That's. 00078 of the population of the United States.

Liberals are always trying to impress their idiot sycophants with impressive sounding figures that can't hold up under even the most modicum of reviews.

Remember Joe Biden bragging about the administration having created 4 million jobs. Of course what they didn't say was that they would have needed to have created 6 million jobs just to keep up with the country's population growth during that same period.

Does anyone doubt that the RNC could get 255,000 signatures on a petition to have Obama impeached?

Anyway...

[B][size=+1]7 TIMES DEMOCRATS ADVISED AMERICAS ENEMIES TO OPPOSE THE PRESIDENT[/size][/B]

"Legally speaking, charges under the Logan Act would be unwarranted. The Logan Act has never actually been used for prosecution, nor has its Constitutionality been seriously reviewed in two hundred years.

And if Republicans supposedly violated the Logan Act, so did these Democrats:

[B]Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD).[/B] The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

[B]Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA).[/B] In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant (John) Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, why. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan's anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to "arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. " Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. "Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact why. V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. Like other rational people, (Kennedy) is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations," the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

[B]House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX).[/B] In 1984,10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for "taking steps to open up the political process in your country. " House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. "We don't have any idea what's going on," an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan's arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a "detailed cease-fire proposal. "The New York Times said, "Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright. ".

[B]Senator John Kerry (D-MA).[/B] Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn't alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators "brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels. That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow. " Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It's beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them (the Sandinistas), they want to throw them out, they don't want to talk to them.

[B]Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA).[/B] In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein's regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party's later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, "the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war. " McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime "due process" and "take the Iraqis on their face value. " Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that's what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

[B]Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).[/B] In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News' Chris Wallace, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. " That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

[B]House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).[/B] In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel. " Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy even if it's being led by the opposition. ".

[B][u]The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."[/u][/B] As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes, Senators have a good argument that "the President lacks the authority under the USA Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement. ".

One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, "then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy. " Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush's surge in Iraq as "a tragic mistake" and vowing, "I will do everything in my power to stop it. " As Tom Cotton said this morning, [B]"If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate. "[/B].

[URL]http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/[/URL]

Joe Biden seems to have a bit of a "recall" problem.

They already tried a petition to impeach Obama, using the same White House petition form as the one I mentioned. I just checked and [U]it only got 49,890 signatures[/U].

Anyways...

[QUOTE=Jackson;444225]
Nevertheless, the entire premise of Biden's comments is laughable, given that in the past 6 years Obama has provided the world with numerous of examples of his inability to "[i]deliver on Americas commitments[/i], thank you very much.[/QUOTE]Please provide two examples. I know one so-called example you are likely to choose, which is easily shot down. So I'd like to see what else you have. Just two examples. You stated that quite matter-of-factly so let's see what you got.

[QUOTE=RevBS;444249]But I am now encouraged by the "Open" letter signed by 47 GOP Senators to try to establish dialogue for common ground on the Nuclear issue. Before that, GOP policy was to just bomb the hell out of Teheran. Perhaps, I will wait until Ted Cruz and the Ayotollah are smoking peace pipes in Austin before I make my final decision.[/QUOTE]Not sure whether or not you're serious Reverend, but stranger things have been known to happen. It did take Nixon to normalize relations with China, and Reagan with Russia.

[QUOTE=Esten;444253]None of these examples is as direct and blatant as the letter that the 47 Republican Senators sent to Iran, in the midst of negotiations. A letter that received global media attention, with the clear intent to undermine the US President. And in case you didn't notice, some of the global coverage has triggered more mocking of US Republicans. Again! Go look it up yourselves and witness the embarrassing spectacle that Republicans are creating for themselves internationally.

Additionally, it doesn't seem any of these examples triggered a petition to file charges for treason. The petition was created March 9 with the goal to reach 100 K signatures in one month. It received over 255,000 signatures in just 3 days.

White House Petition Seeks Prosecution Of 47 Senators Who Sent Treasonous Iran Letter
[URL]http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/03/11/white-house-petition-seeks-prosecution-of-47-senators-who-sent-treasonous-iran-letter [/URL][/QUOTE]There's a common thread. You don't believe people should say or listen to things you disagree with. You were on a rant against Fox News a few weeks ago. Then there were the 501 (c)(4) organizations. You believed it was appropriate that the IRS prevent Tea Party groups from exercising free political speech. Now you have a problem with 47 Senators writing a letter, because they're Republicans. I don't know what the law says, but the principal of Freedom of Speech would lead me to believe they should be able to write what they want, just as the Democrats listed in Punter's post should be free to go to Cuba, Syria, etc. , and talk with whoever they want.

So you believe the 47 Senators should be prosecuted for treason? That's interesting. It sounds like something right out of Hugo Chavez's playbook.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;444257]Not sure whether or not you're serious Reverend, but stranger things have been known to happen. It did take Nixon to normalize relations with China, and Reagan
with Russia.[/QUOTE]Face it, crystal clear. This was all about Israel and Adelson pulling their puppets' strings. And you can see how far their reach is, all the way to Buenos Aires and the AP Board.

Iran is the power in the Middle East, and the sooner you recognize that, the easier life will be.

Much that I write is tongue in cheek. So take it for what it is. A good read or a bad read. The Fundamentalists have a hard time dealing with it. And they are no different in their blind beliefs from the rabble you seen in the streets in Dasmacus, Cairo, or Teheran.

[QUOTE=Esten;444255]They already tried a petition to impeach Obama, using the same White House petition form as the one I mentioned. I just checked and [U]it only got 49,890 signatures[/U].

Anyways...

Please provide two examples. I know one so-called example you are likely to choose, which is easily shot down. So I'd like to see what else you have. Just two examples. You stated that quite matter-of-factly so let's see what you got.[/QUOTE]Okay, here's another poll.

On November 6th, 2012, more than 60 million people officially registered their objections to Obama being the president.

Thanks,

Jax.

Are you related?

65 million voted for him.

[URL]http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php[/URL]

[QUOTE=Jackson;444266]Okay, here's another poll.

On November 6th, 2012, more than 60 million people officially registered their objections to Obama being the president.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RevBS;444264]Face it, crystal clear. This was all about Israel and Adelson pulling their puppets' strings. And you can see how far their reach is, all the way to Buenos Aires and the AP Board.

Iran is the power in the Middle East, and the sooner you recognize that, the easier life will be.[/QUOTE]I disagree about Adelson, although I understand your argument about Israel. Most of the 47 Senators believed what they signed, or put the pen to the paper on account of their constituents, not because of Sheldon Adelson. Yes, the USA has, sometimes blindly, provided massive amounts of foreign aid to Israel and supported the country diplomatically. Chalk that up to the American Jewish community, and a large population of fundamentalist Christians who believe Israel must be supported at all costs, not Sheldon Adelson.

If indeed Iran does become the dominant power in the Middle East, expect the region to slip into even worse instability. Sunni's outnumber Shias, and aren't going to sit idly by. Look for the Saudis to develop a nuclear weapon if Iran does. I don't know what the best solution is, for the Iranian problem. Unfortunately all the USA's potential strategies in dealing with the situation have weaknesses.

The USA's outsized involvement in the region hasn't been solely on account of Israel. Oil has played a bigger part in our interventions. Tom Steyer, a Democrat, is now spending more on politics than Adelson and getting a lot more bang for his buck. Steyer has succeeded in preventing the Keystone pipeline, at least for the time being. Keystone and further development of USA oil and gas resources, opposed by Steyer, would make it where our leaders didn't feel compelled to become involved in every conflagration in the Middle East. To be fair, Steyer would argue renewable energy would achieve the same ends. The problem is that renewables won't be viable on a large scale for decades.

Still, I don't believe a muzzle should be put on Steyer, what he should be allowed to say or who he should be allowed to support. Or Adelson. Or Netanyahu speaking to Congress, or Congressmen writing letters. When government starts doing that, it's the first step on the road to totalitarianism. (Reverend, this last part isn't directed to you. You believe in looking at all sides of an issue, and change your mind from time to time based on the evidence.).

[QUOTE=Tiny12;444258]There's a common thread. You don't believe people should say or listen to things you disagree with. [/QUOTE]Wow Tiny. What a dumb thing to say. I strongly support free speech and difference of opinion. Seeing all sides of an argument helps to get at the truth. However, it is also appropriate to consider motive and integrity, and to point out dishonesty and deception. And that's where I find much of my intellectual stimulation in discussing politics.

[QUOTE]You believed it was appropriate that the IRS prevent Tea Party groups from exercising free political speech. [/QUOTE]Wrong. I believe it was appropriate for the IRS to screen and investigate potentially fraudulant applications for tax-exempt status. Especially in the case of the Tea Party, which was widely considered a political movement, whereas the requirement for 501c tax-exempt status is that a group is primarily non-political (promoting social improvement).

[QUOTE]Now you have a problem with 47 Senators writing a letter, because they're Republicans. [/QUOTE]Wrong again. I have no problem with Republicans voicing their opinion and writing a letter. But they should have written it to the editors of American newspapers like the New York Times, or taken out a full-page ad. Not to a foreign government in the middle of negotiations with our President.

[QUOTE]So you believe the 47 Senators should be prosecuted for treason? That's interesting. [/QUOTE]Wrong again. Did I say that? Your pattern is saying I said things or took positions that I didn't. I don't believe the 47 Senators should be prosecuted for treason. And it will never happen, Obama is too reasonable and level-headed to counter one distraction with another. I do believe they did something stupid and damaging to our country. It's fair to point out that Democrats have taken actions out of step with Republican presidents in the past. But like I said, the letter to Iran was on a different level, a direct and blatant effort to undermine our President in the midst of negotiations. I doubt any of those other examples triggered the backlash we are seeing against the 47 Republican Senators.

Tiny I appreciate you making the effort for some real debate and discussion. But stop mis-characterizing my statements and positions. It's dishonest.

I am so sorry I know this is not the place to make this post but I just dont know were. I make several trips to BA a year. I would like to plan my next trip to coincide with a party at jacksons....Jackson if you would be so kind as to give me a heads up on your next party if its any time other than the first 2 weeks in May I will be there .... Regard.

Esten, Then why the applause in your post below for the 255,000 people who signed the petition to prosecute the 47 senators for treason? O.K., I guess I misunderstood. You were commenting on popular disapproval of the Senators' letter, but don't believe they should be imprisoned.

Writing what you already know, if an organization wants to primarily promote political candidates it will organize as a TAX EXEMPT PAC, instead of a 501(c)(4). If a group wants to promote a particular issue like reproductive rights (Planned Parenthood), the Environment (Sierra Club) or lower taxes and lower government spending (Tea Party groups), and will be involved in politics in doing so, it forms a 501(c)(4). If a 501(c)(4) like Moveon.org Civic Action, or President Obama's Organization for Action, or Citizens for Tax Justice were stonewalled by the IRS, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

You need to consider whether partisanship is blinding you. What's frightening is that it did blind President Obama and at least four senators, who made pronouncements, or wrote letters to the IRS, encouraging it to clamp down on 501(c)(4)'s that they disagreed with.

[QUOTE=RevBS;444224]...He was afraid that with success, [highlight]people would get "soft" as in America[/highlight]. What he meant was not just physical, but mental & emotionally as well.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=RevBS;444264]...Iran is the power in the Middle East, and the sooner you recognize that, the easier life will be...The Fundamentalists have a hard time dealing with it. [highlight]And they [the Americans] are no different in their blind beliefs from the rabble you seen in the streets in Dasmacus, Cairo, or Teheran[/highlight].[/QUOTE][QUOTE=RevBS;444198]Not really want to harp on the [highlight]White American issue, but the rise of the rest of the world economically, and the corresponding rise of the minorities at home has them feeling marginalized[/highlight]. The middle class is shrinking as technology & competition has made many jobs obsolete.

There is a large pool of Americans who are too old to reinvent themselves even as they live longer and need more income. The adage of the young taking care of the old is seeing a reverse in America. Consumerism is the face of America today, that is where the banks make their money, not from your savings.

Immigrants are still coming in everyday. [highlight]Their [the immigrants] energy & skills are making up for the lethargy of the home grown[/highlight].[/QUOTE][QUOTE=RevBS;443823]...1976, Montreal Olympic Games. I was actually there. I saw Bruce Jenner won the gold medal in the decathlon. [highlight]He was Mr. America, and now or soon to be, he will be Ms. America[/highlight]. I have seen it all now, I can die happy.

Perhaps he got involved with the East German women & steroids. They won 10 out of 14 women track & field finals. But then, the steroids are about masculine hormones, very puzzling. Oh, I got it! [highlight]It's the evolution of the American man, soon to be in every family & household. You see, he is surrounded by a nest of dominant women[/highlight] who made all the decisions and gets all the media attention. Who cares about an ex-Olympian jock! Like plants, being out of the sunlight, they shrivel & fade away. Let's see what happen to Lamar Odom, then we will know for sure...[/QUOTE]More back-handed racist / sexist / anti-Caucasian / anti-America / anti-American male comments by Rev BS as he gleefully decries the what he believes is their inevitable extinction.

Rev, I'm going to start calling you out on this racist/sexist hate-speech every time I see it.

Enough is enough.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Jackson;444299]More back-handed racist / sexist / anti-Caucasian / anti-America / anti-American male comments by Rev BS as he gleefully decries the what he believes is their inevitable extinction.

Rev, I'm going to start calling you out on this racist/sexist hate-speech every time I see it.

Enough is enough.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]Ah, Stonewall Jackson.

If you just want me to stop posting, why don't you just say so.

Extinction???? And you forgot to include American women.

[QUOTE=RevBS;444302]Ah, Stonewall Jackson.

If you just want me to stop posting, why don't you just say so.

Extinction???? And you forgot to include American women.[/QUOTE][SIZE=+2][b]Hey Rev,

I want you to stop posting racist anti-American comments here!

Instead, I suggest that perhaps you might consider participating in the al jazeera website forum where you will be welcomed as a hero.

Thanks,

Jax[/b][/SIZE]

I don't want you to go into cardiac arrest.

Hey Rev, stick around though. Just don't use the words "America" and "American" and you should be fine LOL. Honestly, I have never taken your comments like Jackson did, they are mild compared to much of the mud thrown around here. Mud which in some cases (cough) some folks (cough cough) can't even back up when asked.

Tiny- yes my point in mentioning the petition was simply to point out how much disapproval there has been to the Iran letter. That petition is now up to 315,000 signatures. While it is no longer the top story, it is still getting mentioned in the news cycle a week later. Man, did you see some of these stories and editorials?

Germany lashes US Republicans over Iran letter (AFP)
Tom Cotton picked apart by Army general over mutinous Iran letter (Washington Post)
47 Senators Stomp On The Constitution (AZ Republic: Editorial)
GOP Senators Try A Reckless Move To Stop Iran Nuclear Talks (San Francisco Chronicle Editorial)
Senate Saboteurs (Kentucky The Courier Journal Editorial)
GOP Letter To Iran Is A Reckless Intrusion Into Nuclear Talks (MA Boston Globe Editorial)
GOP Letter To Iran Disgraces America (Detroit Free Press Editorial)
Hate Mail: Senators Seek To Sabotage Obamas Foreign Policy (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial)
GOP senators' DUMB-destructive letter (Massachusetts Daily News Editorial)

Here's a good rundown of the nationwide coverage:
Senate letter on Iran derided coast to coast as a "political abomination.".
[URL]https://storify.com/ReThinkDefense/senate-letter-on-iran-derided-coast-to-coast[/URL]

I am in agreement for a pipeline from Canada and Alaska.

But not for oil, but we do and will need is Water.

But my local politician said that there is not any profit in it, so the Republicans will not vote for what is needed for the people, only Big Business.

Can you right wingers live on Oil? And say there is no Climate Change and we do not need Clean Water?

Sure you can buy bottle water, that no one checks that it is Okay for you and I.

A lot of fish that we eat comes from Thailand. Only 2 % gets checked.

Check this out:

[url]http://economyincrisis.org/content/dirty-water-dangerous-fish[/url]

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/embed/h1nEPzsFpc0?feature=player[/URL]

Maybe I should have put this in the joke section. Watch Rick Santorum squirm at the rantings of someone who would be right at home here. Although I do agree with her about lobbyists. Never noticed that nuke in Charleston though.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdAYYGUP-pA[/URL]

Mandatory voting. Surprise Ted Cruz did not think of it first.

[URL]http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/03/19/obama-broaches-the-idea-of-mandatory-voting/[/URL]

And why not put it on the weekend if Big Business is so vehemently against a public holiday.

Oh, I forgot, we have football on.

[QUOTE=RevBS;444353]Mandatory voting. Surprise Ted Cruz did not think of it first.

[URL]http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/03/19/obama-broaches-the-idea-of-mandatory-voting/[/URL]

And why not put it on the weekend if Big Business is so vehemently against a public holiday.
Oh, I forgot, we have football on.[/QUOTE]People shouldn't be forced to vote if they don't want to. If I don't know or care who the best candidate is for an office, I often don't vote. Better to leave the choice up to those who are informed and care.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;444348]I am in agreement for a pipeline from Canada and Alaska.

But not for oil, but we do and will need is Water.

But my local politician said that there is not any profit in it, so the Republicans will not vote for what is needed for the people, only Big Business.

Can you right wingers live on Oil? And say there is no Climate Change and we do not need Clean Water?

Sure you can buy bottle water, that no one checks that it is Okay for you and I.

A lot of fish that we eat comes from Thailand. Only 2 % gets checked.

Check this out:

[url]http://economyincrisis.org/content/dirty-water-dangerous-fish[/url][/QUOTE]So why do you think no one will build a water pipeline? What right wingers are working against that? If you want to increase the clean water supply in northern California, where you live, nuke some of the nutty environmental regulations, like the one protecting the delta smelt. Ending that one alone would get you another million acre feet a year of useable water.

We've debated the oil pipeline again and again, and, respectfully, you're dead wrong. The increase in worldwide carbon emissions, if any, from the Keystone pipeline would be insignificant. It's safer and cheaper transporting oil from Canada and North Dakota by pipeline than by train. We're encouraging the Canadians to build pipelines to their west coast, for export to China, and to eastern Canada. This would be negative both for our energy security and jobs. You don't think we should get involved in Middle East wars, right? Well why don't you understand that having an additional 700,000 barrels a day of production from Canada shipped to USA Gulf Coast refineries makes us less likely to send young men to die in places like Iraq?

As to the fish from Thailand, there are antibiotics in chicken and beef produced in the USA. The latest studies indicate that people who eat vegetarian diets with fish are healthier than strict vegetarians or meat eaters. We're better off having affordable shrimp and tuna packaged in Thailand than not having it. It's better for peoples' health and better for their pocket books.

Thanks,

Sentinel Tiny.

Tiny,

There is much to recommend about mandatory voting. Just raising awareness and civic duty especially among the younger voters will be a good thing.

I have respect for our soldiers even if they have been fighting in the wrong wars, but it is the people who tends to be not involve who do not give them respect. And that is because they do not vote.

I know that there is a Civics class in high school and mandatory voting will continue their further involvement in civic duties. People who are against it only think of self-interest.

[URL]http://www.wsj.com/articles/civics-instruction-moves-up-in-class-1419613231[/URL]

[B]Mandatory Voting[/B]

[QUOTE=RevBS;444359] People who are against it only think of self-interest.[/QUOTE][B]au contraire[/B]

People who want to deprive others of the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are the selfish ones. They try to argue their case with cries of the "greater good," but [u]they[/u] want to decide what's good for the rest of us.

Mandatory voting flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence and it has Constitutional First Amendment problems.

"Since voting is a form of speech, not voting is also a form of speech a silent protest by those who don't like any of the candidates, perhaps.

Maybe Obama figures since he's issuing fines for not buying insurance, he can fine them for not speaking, too."

[QUOTE=Punter127;444361][B]Mandatory Voting[/B]

[B]au contraire[/B]

People who want to deprive others of the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are the selfish ones. They try to argue their case with cries of the "greater good," but [u]they[/u] want to decide what's good for the rest of us.

Mandatory voting flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence and it has Constitutional First Amendment problems.

"Since voting is a form of speech, not voting is also a form of speech a silent protest by those who don't like any of the candidates, perhaps.

Maybe Obama figures since he's issuing fines for not buying insurance, he can fine them for not speaking, too."[/QUOTE]That is why there is a vote. After the last vote, you said the majority does not speak for the minority. Heads, I win. Tails, you lose. That says it all.

That's how the Indians ended up in reservations. I know that's a little before your time. So you and your Bible are excused.

[B]Complete Gibberish,[/B]

[QUOTE=RevBS;444363]That is why there is a vote. After the last vote, you said the majority does not speak for the minority. Heads, I win. Tails, you lose. That says it all.
That's how the Indians ended up in reservations. I know that's a little before your time. So you and your Bible are excused.[/QUOTE]I haven't got a clue what you're trying to say, but I don't remember saying anything about the majority speaking for the minority, (please show quote) nor do I see what that would have to do with "Mandatory Voting." I'm a little confused maybe you could elaborate a little on the Indian reservation thing? I also don't know where you came up with the "your Bible" crap, but I don't need you to excuse me for anything, you're not God... You just think you are!

You seem so very angry but it's not my fault you don't like (or understand) the Founding Principles of America.

I think you have completely lost it, but at least you didn't put some race baiting label on me...[U]this time[/U].

Have a nice day.

[QUOTE=Punter127;444364][B]Complete Gibberish,[/B]

I haven't got a clue what you're trying to say, but I don't remember saying anything about the majority speaking for the minority, (please show quote) nor do I see what that would have to do with "Mandatory Voting." I'm a little confused maybe you could elaborate a little on the Indian reservation thing? I also don't know where you came up with the "your Bible" crap, but I don't need you to excuse me for anything, you're not God... You just think you are!

You seem so very angry but it's not my fault you don't like (or understand) the Founding Principles of America.

I think you have completely lost it, but at least you didn't put some race baiting label on me...[U]this time[/U].

Have a nice day.[/QUOTE]When Obama won his second term, that is what came out of the AP Glee Club, that it did not mean shit!

The Presidency did not mean shit.

Angry over all this? You have always been the one spewing invectives. For sure, you will deny this. More times then not, we have always turn the other cheek. Just remember, anger is never productive. It just make you ugly.

Yes, of course, that American Indian/Reservation thing. Yeah, it was nothing, the Indians just lost. Too bad.

Me God? Now you are lost.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;444356] The increase in worldwide carbon emissions, if any, from the Keystone pipeline would be insignificant.
[/QUOTE]The oil companies have invested too much money not to mine the Canadian Oil Sands. Oil will be produced regardless of whether Keystone XL is built. Keystone is nothing more than a USA political football. In the past 12 months we have built over 5 times the length of Keystone XL domestically and will continue to build domestic pipelines. Pipelines may have spills, but they are still cheaper and safer than railroads.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=RevBS;444365]When Obama won his second term, that is what came out of the AP Glee Club, that it did not mean shit!
The Presidency did not mean shit.

Angry over all this? You have always been the one spewing invectives. For sure, you will deny this. More times then not, we have always turn the other cheek. Just remember, anger is never productive. It just make you ugly.

Yes, of course, that American Indian/Reservation thing. Yeah, it was nothing, the Indians just lost. Too bad.

Me God? Now you are lost.[/QUOTE]Rev, please get back on the meds.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;444367]Rev, please get back on the meds.[/QUOTE]The soft or hard stuff?