American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;433551]2. A certain % of the population must seriously believe that they could fight off the government and armed forces in the USA.[/QUOTE]Okay, I'll try this one more time.

Some of you guys are so tactically inexperienced that you're embarrassing yourselves, especially when you trout out that tired, worn out "[i]A certain % of the population must seriously believe that they could fight off the government and armed forces in the USA[/i]" argument.

Let me explain it to you as if you were a child: The way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thanks,

Jackson.

It is interesting to watch our liberal brothers twist in the wind over the gun issue. Obama invested a large amount of political capital campaigning for gun control legislation in the Senate, appearances with victims' families, constant appearances in multiple forums and stumping for more "gun control" for naught. He could not even deliver his own party in the Democrat controlled Senate.

Pile this on top of the debacle of his Sequestration warnings of the sky is falling, standing red faced when it did not happen. Then Obama tries to help the pain along and gets caught red handed having agencies not look for smart ways to cut but the most painful ways, see the Dept of Agriculture memo as one example.

Obama then rejects any attempt to provide leeway with the cuts and shifting funds, vowing to veto any such legislation. He then meekly signs the bill for the shifting of funds in the FAA.

Then comes Obama the TOUGH statesman and the Syria RED LINE, which quickly faded to pink then to nothing over chemical weapons use.

After the heady days of his post-election victory lap and stuffing it up the Republicans' toush on the Fiscal Cliff where he walked away with higher taxes and the Republicans walked away with a sore behind, he has run out of juice. With his favorable rating under 50% again, Benghazi picking up steam even with the liberal press, his depressing handling of the Boston Marathon bomber and now the IRS debacle he is once again foundering. A man of little substance but much rhetoric.

So let our brothers wallow in this defeat, there will be more to follow as Obama continues to drop in the polls. He can forget about the resurgance of the Democrats at the mid-terms, where the party out of power ALWAYs picks up seats in Congress and of course ObamaCare will be in full swing by then and everyone will know what a mess that will be by then. A repeat of 2010 perhaps?

And what's even better is that the measure is backed by a veto-proof majority. This means that as long as those representatives that supported it initially are willing to support it again (in the case of a veto from the Governor), it will become law on July 1, regardless of what the Governor does or doesn't do.

Kansas was brave enough to take the lead in the fight against federal gun control. And now the Kansas Governor and Secretary of State are duking it out with Eric the "Fast and Furious.

But Missouri's bill is even better (in part):

All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

(2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:8232;.

(a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934.

(b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968.

(c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens.

(d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens.

(e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens.

(f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and.

(g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

It also includes a provision that makes it a criminal misdemeanor for any federal agent to attempt to enforce unconstitutional gun control measures in the state.

Missouri is announcing its complete sovereignty over the feds. They're even declaring gun control acts from 1934 and 1968 to be null and void. Holder is going to have a fit with this one, assuming it passes.

If this does pass, it will be the strongest federal gun control nullification measure in our history. Let's hope it succeeds, and that other states follow suit.

Read more: [URL]http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/05/missouri-legislature-nullifies-all-federal-gun-control/[/URL]#ixzz2 TCK5 iXEs.

How about that!!

Will be interesting to see what Eric the Red (as in Marxist) does next.

Don B.

[QUOTE=DonB;433535]Yeah same old history. Obama is a disaster and Bush was crummy, then we have Woodrow (He kept us out of war) Wilson and Franklyn (I say to you again and again, your sons will not fight in foreign wars) Roosevelt. Hell, the only good President since Cleveland was Coolidge and I've lived under 14 that I didn't like.

Don B.[/QUOTE]I admire you, man.

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;433551]This is not a rational arguement unless you understand that the root reason is based upon to factors:

1. The arms industry is paying big money for pr and political loyalty.

2. A certain % of the population must seriously believe that they could fight off the government and armed forces in the USA.

3. There are places in this country--USA--where there is a real legit need for firm arms for self protection.

There is not really concerns for anything you are posting. The vast majority in the USA share more in common with your beliefs re firearms than the US Senate.[/QUOTE]
Hey Bob long time no see. As far as what I post, if I enjoy discussing and debating a topic, it is not a waste of time to me at all.

I agree with your points, including #2. Anyone following the gun debate knows that fighting against a "tyrannical government" was a common defense of the second amendment. Of course in this day and age it's ridiculous, but nevertheless it was an argument hardcore gun owners were invoking.

Regarding #1, have a look at the attached NRA "donation" itemization I came across. No doubt this is just a piece of the money flowing from the gun industry.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28764[/ATTACH]

You say the premise doesn't exist at a time when we now know the administration lied to us in order to get re-elected and put this above the safety of its citizens and that its taxing authority singled out political groups, which were not in line with the grand scheme, I mean plan? Our Country has not been at this much risk during my life time. Our elected officials are now not only incompetent but clearly will and have used their powers in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Open your eyes, Big O is just like other Chicago Politicians: a crook. Nixon got impeached for lying about breaking into the DNC. Big O gets away with lying about the killing of US Citizens, creating an aliby for their killers, and allowing the IRS to target and discriminate against groups to lower their possible fiscal capabilities and as revealed today, to funnel information to competing political interests outside the IRS. And you don't think those who believe in our Country's real values have any reason to exercise their Constitutional Rights at this time in our history. Amazing.

Pete.

[QUOTE=Esten;433578]Hey Bob long time no see. As far as what I post, if I enjoy discussing and debating a topic, it is not a waste of time to me at all.

I agree with your points, including #2. Anyone following the gun debate knows that fighting against a "tyrannical government" was a common defense of the second amendment. Of course in this day and age it's ridiculous, but nevertheless it was an argument hardcore gun owners were invoking, even our own Punter127 if I recall correctly.

Regarding #1, have a look at the attached NRA "donation" itemization I came across. No doubt this is just a piece of the money flowing from the gun industry.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28764[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]

There's a whole industry that profits from fueling fear and paranoia about the government. Now some of the time there may be some truth to it, and the IRS story may well prove to be an example (let's get all the facts first). Watch the Glenn Beck crowd celebrate that they actually may have found an example. But most of the fuel is profit-driven fabrication or distortion. Peter is quick to conclude Obama "allowed" the IRS to focus on certain groups, even though there is no evidence whatsoever Obama knew. Peter thinks he knows the facts already, but he's only deluding himself.

My favorite moment from the presidential debates: Romney is sure he's got Obama cornered lying about Benghazi, and Obama says "Pull the transcript". And it turned out, Obama referred to Benghazi as an Act of Terror the very next day. Remember that? There's also been no proof that the timing of the attack wasn't triggered by the video protests. Perhaps the so-called editing of the talking points was simply an exercise to not proclaim fact before facts were known. Everybody knew from day 1 that it wouldn't be surprising at all if a terror group was involved. And that is why the GOP are largely making themselves a laughing stock with their Benghazi circus.

And, that is why you'll continue to see Obama's ratings sail fair above those of the House GOP.

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433579]You say the premise doesn't exist at a time when we now know the administration lied to us in order to get re-elected and put this above the safety of its citizens and that its taxing authority singled out political groups, which were not in line with the grand scheme, I mean plan? Our Country has not been at this much risk during my life time. Our elected officials are now not only incompetent but clearly will and have used their powers in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Open your eyes, Big O is just like other Chicago Politicians: a crook. Nixon got impeached for lying about breaking into the DNC. Big O gets away with lying about the killing of US Citizens, creating an aliby for their killers, and allowing the IRS to target and discriminate against groups to lower their possible fiscal capabilities and as revealed today, to funnel information to competing political interests outside the IRS. And you don't think those who believe in our Country's real values have any reason to exercise their Constitutional Rights at this time in our history. Amazing.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;433581]
My favorite moment from the presidential debates: Romney is sure he's got Obama cornered lying about Benghazi, and Obama says "Pull the transcript". And it turned out, Obama referred to Benghazi as an Act of Terror the very next day. Remember that? There's also been no proof that the timing of the attack wasn't triggered by the video protests. Perhaps the so-called editing of the talking points was simply an exercise to not proclaim fact before facts were known. Everybody knew from day 1 that it wouldn't be surprising at all if a terror group was involved. And that is why the GOP are largely making themselves a laughing stock with their Benghazi circus.[/QUOTE]Esten, what an artful dodger you are. Here is the exact transcript of Obama's remarks in the Rose Garden. Obama DOES NOT refer to the incident in Benghazi as a TERRORIST attack. As you can clearly see he only refers to the incident as an attack. Of the 13 paragraph statement Obama does not even mention the word "terror" until the 10th paragraph and then only in a general remark and not directly related to Benghazi, but you can spin it any way you want. I'm calling B / S on this one Esten. Oh I forgot we conservatives are too stupid to think or reason for ourselves we need the liberal elite to read this and tell us what it says.

Now Obama is trying to rewrite history again as Benghazi blows up in his face.

Since you did not take me up on the last bet, how about this: same bet that when Hillary gets subpoenaed before the House committee on Benghazi she takes the 5th,. Are we on?

Here is the link and the text.

[URL]http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack[/URL]

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of USA Embassy Staff in Libya.

Rose Garden.

10:43 am EDT.

[quote]THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens's body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.[/quote]10:48 am EDT

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433584]No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. [/QUOTE]There it is. Obama gives a speech specifically about the attack the day after. If there was a plan to not have Americans think it was a terrorist attack, Obama would not have used those words. The delay in being more direct on other talking points was because they were fact-finding and fact-checking, as they should have been.

Doppel, I'm going to leave you alone for awhile, you're embarassing yourself too badly.

Esten, can you read? I posted the entire 13 paragraph statement Obamation made in the Rose Garden. Perhaps you cannot count as well. The statement is 13 paragraphs long and the word terror does not appear until paragraph 10 and it obviously is not in reference to Benghazi but almost a throwaway line.

I swear you and Obama are like kids: " Lookie, Lookie, I did say terror, yes I did." Of course it was not used in conjunction with the Benghazi incident but almost as an afterthought. He did not even use it to describe the 9/11 attack further up in the statement.

Keep on spinning Esten, the only one embarrassed here is you trying to conjure up a response. Weak Esten, very weak.

I don't think anything else needs to be said on the other topic as your attempt to defend your Bromance with Big O has shown how blind you are to reality. How about you spin this one for us, as I need a laugh today. If Bush were in office and his Attorney General secretly collected the personal and business phone records and emails of a huge group of reporters (the associated press without their knowledge or apparent legitimate causation would you have been writing about "Evil Bush" on here? Your Bromance buddy just did this (yes the AG is appointed by him and works for him so he can't blame others: He is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer period), and yet I don't see anything written at all by you about the 1st amendment and protection of the press, etc.. Why aren't you screaming foul? Why is it that Big O can ignore the Constitution at will, and you will not open your eyes and see? You know J Carter is getting old, and I am glad he lived to see a Pres who is even worse than he was, but sorry for our Country.

BTW I agree with some of your points about Glenn Beck...he used to be interesting and made a lot of good points but now he is too sensational, verging on crazy at times, and is leading people down a dangerous path with his "Buy Gold, because I want to help YOU make money BS." I am sure you are great guy to hang with and likely a humanist but your defence of the rediculous Big O speaking points when they are factually just non-sense destroys your credibility.

Pete.

[QUOTE=Esten;433581]There's a whole industry that profits from fueling fear and paranoia about the government. Now some of the time there may be some truth to it, and the IRS story may well prove to be an example (let's get all the facts first). Watch the Glenn Beck crowd celebrate that they actually may have found an example. But most of the fuel is profit-driven fabrication or distortion. Peter is quick to conclude Obama "allowed" the IRS to focus on certain groups, even though there is no evidence whatsoever Obama knew. Peter thinks he knows the facts already, but he's only deluding himself.

My favorite moment from the presidential debates: Romney is sure he's got Obama cornered lying about Benghazi, and Obama says "Pull the transcript". And it turned out, Obama referred to Benghazi as an Act of Terror the very next day. Remember that? There's also been no proof that the timing of the attack wasn't triggered by the video protests. Perhaps the so-called editing of the talking points was simply an exercise to not proclaim fact before facts were known. Everybody knew from day 1 that it wouldn't be surprising at all if a terror group was involved. And that is why the GOP are largely making themselves a laughing stock with their Benghazi circus.

And, that is why you'll continue to see Obama's ratings sail fair above those of the House GOP.[/QUOTE]

Here is the next Republican Scandal.

[URL]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0515/Senior-prostitution-ring-in-N.J.-Two-seniors-arrested-video[/URL]

Is that your photo in the article you attached? Horny old men out to find some game. Say it ain't so WT.

I wish I knew about it.

But, it is in the Wrong Side of the Country.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433607]Is that your photo in the article you attached? Horny old men out to find some game. Say it ain't so WT.[/QUOTE]

WMDs, We Used Under Bush. Well Chemical Weapons anyway.

[URL]http://www.vice.com/read/the-vice-podcast-show-reihan-salam-on-uranium-in-iraq-and-the-second-amendment[/URL]

[url]http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/2013312175857532741.html[/url]

[url]http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-s-fallujah-legacy-white-phosphorous-depleted-uranium-the-fate-of-iraq-s-children/30372[/url]