American Politics during the Obama Presidency

The last statement I posted was a quote from John Boehner's official statement on Libya.

I knew you guys would get all upset if it came from me. LMAO!

Republicans are all over the map in their reaction to events in Libya. Twisting in the wind. Some defend it, some oppose it, some just ask what's in it for me?

I am on the record for supporting Bush's decision on Iraq and Afghanistan. Just as I support Obama on Libya. Too bad Bush was a collosal failure on the home front.

Guys, stop watching Fox News and seek professional deprogramming.

Esten, A couple of questions,

1. Say you were dictator of the USA. Or you could persuade Congress, the President and the judicial system to do what you say. How would you make the country more equal?

2. Why do you support Bush's decision on Iraq? And do you believe it was a good idea in hindsight?

Thanks

[quote]A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of USA missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N. Y.) , Donna Edwards (Md.) , Mike Capuano (Mass.) , Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) , Maxine Waters (Calif.) , Rob Andrews (N. J.) , Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas) , Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D. C.) 'all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions' during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Saturday's conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.) , chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.

'They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress, ' one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. 'They're creating wreckage, and they can't obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. . There aren't boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air. '

'Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called, ' added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.

[url]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html[/url] [/quote]Looks to me like both parties are all over the map, as is the US military.

I am NOT a Republican or a Democrat but I am an American and I strongly oppose this action!

Show me a threat to the US or US interest an then I might support it.

Obama may or may not have violated the War Powers Resolution but it sure looks to me like he circumvented its intent.

[quote]The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.[/quote]Could someone please point out where the United States was under attack or serious threat.

[QUOTE=Esten; 416386]The last statement I posted was a quote from John Boehner's official statement on Libya.

I knew you guys would get all upset if it came from me. LMAO! [/quote]I don't think there is anything in my post that would qualify as upset. The fact that it came from Boehner doesn't change my perspective on the situation at all. Further, I don't know what Boehner's position on the action in Libya is, although I have read that he is asking the WH for clarity and not getting it. Coming from you however, the statement needs to be interpreted through a the Esten-prism of lock-step follower of Reverend Obama. Esten, one word of advice, if you find yourself surrounded by 917 fellow followers with sweetened drinks in their hands, don't drink it.

[quote=]Republicans are all over the map in their reaction to events in Libya. Twisting in the wind. Some defend it, some oppose it, some just ask what's in it for me?[/quote]Because they are republicans, they must all have the same opinion on an issue? Sounds like you would prefer a totalitarian regime, oh wait a minute, that is what you'd prefer.

In fact, there appear to be democrats who are confused too, the most confused individual appears to be Obama who states that Qaddafi must go, Qaddafi may stay, Qaddafi must go, its up to the Libyan people if Qaddafi stays all within 24 hours of one another. That plus the lack of a strategy, objectives, leadership, scope and / or breadth of the military operations in Libya and a complete failure on the part of the administration to communicate any of those aspects, or more importantly how such a mission relates to the interests of America, makes it completely understandable how both supporters and opponents of the president could be confused.

Me? I'm not confused.

[quote=]I am on the record for supporting Bush's decision on Iraq and Afghanistan.[/quote]I doubt it, in either case and frankly don't care. The Libyan situation and the US government response to it are not analogous with either Afghanistan nor Iraq.

[quote=]Just as I support Obama on Libya.[/quote]While you are free to do so, I don't think you had any choice.

[quote=]Too bad Bush was a collosal failure on the home front.[/quote]I know, I miss those days of sub 6% unemployment, economic growth and a moderately sound (although by no means as extensive as I would prefer) homeland defense perspective.

[quote=]Guys, stop watching Fox News and seek professional deprogramming.[/QUOTE]Hmmm, coming from someone whose tinfoil hat apparently only receives MSNBC and transmissions emanating from deep space, that is laughable.

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 416388]Looks to me like both parties are all over the map, as is the US military.

I am NOT a Republican or a Democrat but I am an American and I strongly oppose this action!

Show me a threat to the US or US interest an then I might support it. [/quote]Agreed.

[quote=]Obama may or may not have violated the War Powers Resolution but it sure looks to me like he circumvented its intent.[/quote]The unvarnished version is that The War Powers Act is a flaming piece of shit. It originated as a knee-jerk, congressional (no secret as to who the overwhelming majority party was) response to Vietnam and evolved into an doubly-unconstitutional power grab, which was never signed into law by any president (it was enacted by a super majority, veto override. The 'doubly' element refers to the two ways in which it is unconstitutional. First, the War Powers Act, if it was ever enforced according to the way it is written, changes (I. E. Amends) the Constitution via an act of Congress not via the methodology for amending the Constitution clearly enumerated within the Constitution itself. Secondly, the WPA rests the power for making war away from the Executive Branch and bestows it upon a single house of congress (very important to note that it does not bestow it on both houses). There is absolutely no confusion among anyone who actually has an understanding of the Constitution and its development and execution that the Founders explicitly did not place the power for making war with congress because they knew what a cluster fuck that would be.

Therefore, upon challenge it is likely that the combination, of the methodology through which the WPA was enacted and the content that it enacted, would be declared unconstitutional. The courts, rightly so, have avoided taking up the WPA preferring to leave it to the executive and legislative branches to work out. In order to avoid a potential constitutional battle on the subject, no president has ever conferred legitimacy upon the WPA. To his credit, thus far it seems that the colossal failure in the WH is maintaining that streak.

[quote=]Could someone please point out where the United States was under attack or serious threat.[/QUOTE]Oooh, ooh, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter, pick me!

I can. We have been under constant attack, for some time now, by a group call Al Qaeda.

Oddly enough, the current and soon to be former resident of the WH, is arming rebels, in Libya, who are allied with Al Qaeda (as pointed out by someone herein, some time ago). Further, Al Qaeda seems to be acquiring our weapons via the rebels and their presence in Libya.

The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if we started helping to overthrow our allies in the region in order to hand them over to Islamofacisists in order to create sharia-compliant, radical theocracies. Oh wait, we've been there and done that in Egypt. Oops.

[QUOTE=Esten;416386]Too bad Bush was a collosal failure on the home front.[/QUOTE]Esten,

I know you'll get a kick out of this clip of George W.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDE9U0j_gns[/url]

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416390]

[QUOTE=Punter 127;416388]Could someone please point out where the United States was under attack or serious threat.[/QUOTE]Oooh, ooh, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter, pick me!

I can. We have been under constant attack, for some time now, by a group call Al Qaeda.

Oddly enough, the current and soon to be former resident of the WH, is arming rebels, in Libya, who are allied with Al Qaeda (as pointed out by someone herein, some time ago). Further, Al Qaeda seems to be acquiring our weapons via the rebels and their presence in Libya. [/quote]Very good Wally, I was really speaking of threats from the current Libyan government, but I should have been more clear.
Now could you (or anybody) please explain why we are supporting the rebels in Libya.

[quote]The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if we started helping to overthrow our allies in the region in order to hand them over to Islamofacisists in order to create sharia-compliant, radical theocracies. Oh wait, we've been there and done that in Egypt. Oops.[/QUOTE]It looks like that's just what's happening in Egypt. Amnesty International is reporting; Egyptian women protesters forced to take 'virginity tests'.

Now is that the kind of freedom we're supporting these days?

[url]http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/egyptian-women-protesters-forced-take-'virginity-tests'-2011-03-23[/url]

[QUOTE=Punter 127;416393]Very good Wally, I was really speaking of threats from the current Libyan government, but I should have been more clear. [/quote]I know what you were asking, of course I was being a smart ass. Threats from the current govt of Libya are next to zero, according to some guy named Gates:

[url]http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/defense-secretary-libya-did-not-pose-threat-to-us-was-not-vital-national-interest-to-intervene.html[/url]

I'm not sure why his opinion is so important.

[quote=]Now could you (or anybody) please explain why we are supporting the rebels in Libya.[/quote]Nope. I haven't a clue. Especially given that the 'rebels' come in two stripes, those sympathetic to al Qaeda and those that prefer Iran (both terror organizations in my book).

[quote=]It looks like that's just what's happening in Egypt. Amnesty International is reporting; Egyptian women protesters forced to take 'virginity tests'.

Now is that the kind of freedom we're supporting these days?

[url]http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/egyptian-women-protesters-forced-take-'virginity-tests'-2011-03-23[/url]

[/QUOTE]You hit the nail on the head. We helped over throw our ally, who was no saint but at least he was fingering all the ladies under the guise of religion.

I guess we have summed it all up

After listening to the latest improbable statements from the esteemed Republican, Anne Coulter, I hereby believe she should volunteer herself to clean up the leaking Fukushima Daiichi nuclear site in Japan.

Without any protection, of course.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FNFF61E_Dg[/url]

Good luck, my dear.

With unemployment high, Trump's rant on China and OPEC will resonate with many American "patriots". Rather than laying the blame on ourselves and our livestyles, well, we can just flip the responsibilities to Un-American interests. So expect favorable reactions and increased media attention on Trump and his agenda. We are after all, an instant gratification society.

Myself, since there has been no great president since Nixon, I don't mind giving the new kid on the block a chance to throw the dice.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 416472]With unemployment high, Trump's rant on China and OPEC will resonate with many American "patriots". Rather than laying the blame on ourselves and our livestyles, well, we can just flip the responsibilities to Un-American interests. So expect favorable reactions and increased media attention on Trump and his agenda. We are after all, an instant gratification society.[/quote]

I personally think Trump is a putz and has almost no chance of getting anyone's nomination let alone being elected POTUS. I'd vote for him over Obama but that is like making the choice to eat bugs versus starving to death. That said, keeping with your gambling metaphor, I think he is a wild card in this electoral hand.

As I have seen over the years, there are some people that can get 'it' done in large part due to the way their brains are wired. It may well be a personality defect or deeply-rooted insecurity, but they can get past 'no' without breaking a sweat. Trump's brand of this 'mojo' might be good for the commercial real estate market and the like but it certainly isn't presidential. He makes Bill Clinton look like he has class. That combined with many of his past actions, positions and contributions are irreconcilable with the type of record that will be required to do well in the early Republican primaries. Just look back at Rudy's campaign for '08. As far as the class of '08 candidates, he was likely the one with the 'right stuff' for the US, when taking into consideration the truly serious issues that were confronting the country back then and continue to plague us today. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't banging the drum exclusively for Rudy but considering what a bleak field it was from both sides, of the bunch he was probably the one best prepared and capable of driving the bus. I wonder if his minister is buddies with Qaddafi? He washed out almost immediately upon the commencement of primary season. One caveat is that if Florida had been the first primary in the 2008 nominating calendar, Rudy probably would have done much better and MIGHT possibly have had the momentum to win the nomination. The first handful of primaries and the media coverage of their results directly impact the candidates fund raising abilities and dictate who stays and who goes.

While I believe he has no chance in hell of getting the nomination, despite the fact that I am sure he thinks he COULD (not will) win the Oval Office, I love his emerging candidacy. He maybe cheesy, but he isn't stupid. I don't think he really wants to be president, but I think he knows full well that he can be perhaps the most powerful flame thrower in the coming electoral cycle thereby increasing his already broad celebrity, scoring an ambassadorship (to a country with hot babes like the Ukraine) and further enriching himself (hard to do while in the WH). Because of his very high name recognition, reputation for outlandish behavior and immense wealth, people listen to him. Whether that is in hopes of seeing a great train wreck or because they like him doesn't really matter. Almost everything that comes out of his yapper is going to be covered. That is why I think his back-handed doubts about Obama's birth certificate and religion are having a deleterious effect on Obama in the eyes of the public. There is no one in the main stream media that can brand Trump a birther. He's a rich dude calling them like he sees them and while doing so in very clear terms he is connecting with the public. I see his candidacy to be analogous with sending in the cruise missiles and stealth bombers to soften up the opponent's defenses before the main attack.

His time to effectuate this is finite and will start to dwindle if he performs poorly in the first few primaries, although his staying power doesn't have to be dictated by donor contributions since he can self fund a losing campaign. However, if Florida stands by its plans to have the first primary in the nation, Trump could stick around for a few more rounds. Many of the latter primaries usually hop in line like lemmings and follow the path set out for them by the first few bell-weather states. Therefore, just by winning Florida you might win a handful of other states.

In any event, the likelihood of me supporting Trump, who is in no way a conservative, is remote at best, but I am certainly enjoying the results of his campaign thus far.

[quote=]Myself, since there has been no great president since Nixon, I don't mind giving the new kid on the block a chance to throw the dice. [/QUOTE]

Despite what was said about Nixon, there were things about him that were extraordinary. Like all men, he also had his flaws. In my book, I don't rank him as great nor do I dismiss him based upon what the media had to say about him. I happen to believe the Reagan was a great president (surprise).

However, allowing one's vote to be swayed cavalierly by single issues or slogans like "Change for the Sake of Change" and "Hope and Change" and "Yes, we can" has contributed greatly to the mess that this country is in. Regardless of party affiliation, we do a great disservice to America, her legacy and her future when we 'roll the dice' with our presidential ballots.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 416472]With unemployment high, Trump's rant on China and OPEC will resonate with many American "patriots". Rather than laying the blame on ourselves and our livestyles, well, we can just flip the responsibilities to Un-American interests. So expect favorable reactions and increased media attention on Trump and his agenda. We are after all, an instant gratification society.

Myself, since there has been no great president since Nixon, I don't mind giving the new kid on the block a chance to throw the dice. [/QUOTE]Donald Trump is a piece of sh*t. The only reason this joker is here, now, is because the only thing he cares about is self-promotion. That may be true of most politicians, but this guy adds an exponential factor. The guy has filed for bankruptcy so many times that he makes the airlines look good. He's a media working girl, plain and simple. The faster Republicans and conservatives can kick this knucklehead to the curb, the better. At best, he's a needless distraction. At worst, he'll try to turn things into a three-ring circus with himself as ringmaster. Now is not the time to waste time on this idiot.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;416478]Donald Trump is a piece of sh*t. The only reason this joker is here, now, is because the only thing he cares about is self-promotion. That may be true of most politicians, but this guy adds an exponential factor. The guy has filed for bankruptcy so many times that he makes the airlines look good. He's a media working girl, plain and simple. The faster Republicans and conservatives can kick this knucklehead to the curb, the better. At best, he's a needless distraction. At worst, he'll try to turn things into a three-ring circus with himself as ringmaster. Now is not the time to waste time on this idiot.[/QUOTE]My, would you look at that auto-correct feature. Apparently, you can't say wh*re on this message board. Et tu, Argentina Private?

Instead, the sanitizer cleans it up and makes it "working girl," so Donald Trump is not a media wh*re but instead a media working girl. How PC are we going to go with this thing?

Hmmmm. How many of George Carlin's words will get past the sanitizerator. Let's see:

Ass, balls, cocksucker, ****, fuck, motherfucker, piss, shit, tits.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;416479]My, would you look at that auto-correct feature. Apparently, you can't say wh*re on this message board. Et tu, Argentina Private?[/QUOTE][blue]Hi Stan,

Yes, you are correct in your observation.

The word wh*ore is used soley to denegrate women, and that's not what this website is about.

Now, having explained this, I'm sure that you would agree with my decision in this regard.

Thanks,

Jackson

FYI, George Carlin's 7 words you can't say on TV are: "[I]Shit[/I]", "[I]piss[/I]", "[I]fuck[/I]", "[I]cu*nt[/I]", "[I]cocksucker[/I]", "[I]motherfucker[/I]", and "[I]tits[/I]".

J[/blue]