American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Just post the link and not your copy and paste spam bullshit, or better yet form an opinion on your own and type it out.

I will wade back in here to take issue on a couple of points (with all due respect of course):

[QUOTE=Sinistra]I don't listen to Limbaugh, Beck, or others. But, it seems the lefties are at least as bad!

No, no they aren't. They aren't as loud, they aren't as bigoted, they aren't as holier than thou and they don't have a "this is MY party, if you don't like it LEAVE attitude. They don't practice slash and burn politics. Birthers. BIRTHERS for God's sake. Of those less than 20% of Americans who are Republicans that remain, most of them believe that Obama is from Kenya, even though there's not a shred of real evidence backing it up. Why? Because they want to believe it. You should hear what these bigots say. Don't even go there with the moral equivalence argument. "The other side is just as bad" is a crap argument used by those with nothing better in their arsenal. Not even close to being as bad, Sid. Not even close.[/QUOTE]I am a conservative. Because of that, I have been called a bigot, homophobe, sexist and much more. I do not project my religious beliefs on others nor do I know many conservatives who do. I have never understood how standing for smaller government and greater personal responsibility and liberty could lead someone to make such assumptions about me. I have discovered that these misconceptions are based on deep-seeded bigotry imbued through the core of most liberals.

You speak of what you do not know. While I do not know Rush personally (I did met him once back in '92) I have probably listened to his show a little more than you. He is neither a racist nor a bigot. He is not holier than thou, although I can see how one might get that impression. In fact, he is impressively not so as a recovering addict (often times people in recovery become very preachy about it and other issues) He does not pretend to be a Big Tent" republican, never has, never will. He is a conservative (think Goldwater and Reagan) with a focus on smaller government, less government interference in the private sector and more personal freedom and responsibility and that the constitution is the law of the land. He is pro-life.

He is opinionated and believes strongly that he is right. He supports candidates that agree with him. What is wrong that, I do the same thing on a smaller scale each time I enter the voting booth.

Rush is not a birther, nor am I. However, I can understand why birthers have the questions that they do. First, they suspect BHO is what he has always been and that he has been influenced by the company that he has kept throughout his life (Leftists, Marxists, Communists, Maoists, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, etc) and therefore cannot be trusted on any issue. Birthers accurately claim that BHO has never released a copy of his birth certificate while the BHO campaign and White House counter that the certificate of live birth (obtained four days after his birth) is sufficient. While, I do not know the merits of either side, I do feel that the WH continues to feed this controversy by not providing the long-form birth certificate.

The left has always been much louder during my lifetime, just not through the medium of talk radio. The conservative protests that have popped up this year are the first of my memory.

[quote=]But he's a reasonable / rational person, unlike the idiots running the Republican party who pushed reasonable people with views like mine out. Remember, my economics are right of center, but I find myself unable to have a conversation with people on the far right who dominate the Republican party. At least I can have a discussion with Democrats.[/QUOTE]Who pushed you out? McCain? That right-wing bastard! The republican party has been dominated by Washington insiders peddling Democrat-Lite candidates. The conservatives that I know embrace folks who are for small government and greater personal responsibility and freedom, regardless of standing on social issues. Most of my close friends are left-leaning or outright liberals. I love them and respect them. However, I am not going to change my mind and believe in big government or that the Constitution should be subordinated to the wishes of any president (R or D)

[quote=]Still, the Republicans are a mess and it's getting worse for them, not better. They are way worse off than the Democrats were during Reagan's time.[/QUOTE]Excellent, you stated an opinion in the form of an opinion. This is the fun part. It is what debate is all about. I suspect that you are wrong. However, time will tell which of us is correct.

Suerte

[QUOTE=Sinistra]The Republican party is held hostage to Limbaugh and Beck. Politicians can't say anything bad about them without a huge backlash. Republicans who go against them are heckled in cruel ways and thrown to the dogs.[/QUOTE]Sinistra,

With all due respect, that is as inaccurate as claiming that Al Franken controls the Democrats.

Besides, if the Liberals / Democrat's ideas are as overwhelmingly righteous as they believe, then it shouldn't make any difference what a couple of talking heads have to say, right?

I mean, don't you believe that the American people have the intelligence to distinguish between good and bad ideas?

[QUOTE=Sinistra]You ask a member of Congress from a strong Republican district a simple question "Do you believe that Obama was born in the United States" and they REFUSE to answer. It's just ridiculous.

I believe in smaller government, less taxation and rugged individualism. Who the HELL do I support?[/QUOTE]Of course, if you ask Obama a simple question "[i]Will you show me a copy of your Certificate of Live Birth[/i]", he will REFUSE to answer. Now [u]that's[/u] ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Sinistra]. But they usually have reasonably well-formed opinions, and their a**holeness derives from a genuine desire to make the world a better place.[/QUOTE]The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If the USA is bankrupted by "healthcare reform" (which is a total misnomer) then it's OK because it was done with good intentions in mind.

If another 10 million US jobs are lost due to the added expense of Cap and Trade legislation (which is based entirely on JUNK SCIENCE) and the US sinks into the Great Depression Part Deux, it's OK because it was done with good intentions in mind.

I respectfully disagree. Good intentions on issues such as these cannot replace being right (as in correct, not conservative)

[quote=]I mean come on, how can you argue with everyone having access to health care being a bad idea in theory? I certainly don't want to pay for it, and I think there are definitely downsides. But in a perfect world, why should it be that who lives and who dies is decided by how much money they make? It's one thing to say that it's okay that rich people get to ride around in yachts and have country club memberships, it's another to say poor people should be subjected to a life of intolerable pain, suffering and early death just because they weren't smart or lucky enough to make a lot of money.[/QUOTE]Ah hah! You have put your finger on it. That is exactly the tangled web that is being sewn and has been sewn for so many years on this issue. It is a false argument that is meant to make you feel that way and support the left and feel disgust for the right (who by the way want to make old people eat dog food and kill all the gays)

If this healthcare debate was about insuring the uninsured, wouldn't that be the focus of the plan? Why then is the government trying to take over 1/6th of the US economy? The Pelosi bill is estimated at $2T in cost. It would be cheaper to just take the government checkbook down to the Aetna (or pick another carrier) office and buy coverage for all the uninsured Americans who either cannot afford or cannot get healthcare? From my perspective, alarm bells are ringing when the need 1,900 pages (before amendments) $2T and lots of shenanigans to get this "reform" through.

Oh yea, might I also point out that we don't have $2T.

[quote=]They aren't nearly as racist and bigoted. For every one left-winger marching for gay rights, there are three right-wing nutbags who vomit religious intolerance or toss around the N word when not in polite company.[/QUOTE]You are making this up. Please feel free to provide some data.

[quote=] There are literally thousands of videos on Youtube recording conversations with people at these Teabag events and the things they say are right out of the KKK handbook. This is not to say that they are all bigots, but there's a huge percentage of Limbaugh's and Beck's audience that are.[/QUOTE]Thousands of racists proclamations at Tea Parties? Oh my!

With millions of attendees, I do not doubt that there were some bad apples amongst them (the same is true of any group that large regardless of political affiliation) However, if this were true, they would be on the evening news every night until every last one was played ad nauseam.

[quote=]They don't maintain such a prominent position in the political discourse.[/QUOTE]What? Ever heard of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, MSNBC (oh yea, I never heard of that one either) etc? I think the left has had a pretty prominent position in the dialogue.

[quote=]The Republican party is held hostage to Limbaugh and Beck. Politicians can't say anything bad about them without a huge backlash. Republicans who go against them are heckled in cruel ways and thrown to the dogs.[/QUOTE]Of course this is true. Both Limbaugh and Beck were such strong reporters of that right-winger McCain. Oops, they both despise him (as a politician) Then how on earth did McCain get the nomination?

[quote=]I believe in smaller government, less taxation and rugged individualism. Who the HELL do I support?[/QUOTE]Vote for Pedro

Jackson,

I think it has been well established since the Constitution was signed in 1789 that the American people in fact DO NOT have the intelligence to distinguish between good and bad ideas. That is why the Electoral College was added to the document by Thomas Jefferson and why Senators were originally not directly elected by popular vote. The "american people" (US citizens) are in fact some of the least informed, least inquisitive, and most ignorant people of any modern industrialized country. Yes there is of course the 1% of the population who know what is going on, control everything and essentially manipulate the "american people" for their own economic benefit. But the true representation of the "american people" is the NASCAR-loving, Bud Light drinking nitwit who cares about / thinks about little more than his job at Wal-Mart and how much horsepower his truck has. These people DO NOT have the intelligence to distinguish between good and bad ideas. These are the George W. Bush voters.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Sinistra] I believe in smaller government, less taxation and rugged individualism. Who the HELL do I support?[/QUOTE]How about Sarah Palin?

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Jthe true representation of the "american people" is the NASCAR-loving, Bud Light drinking nitwit who cares about / thinks about little more than his job at Wal-Mart and how much horsepower his truck has. These people DO NOT have the intelligence to distinguish between good and bad ideas.[/QUOTE]Thank you for making my point (from my penultimate post):

"I have never understood how standing for smaller government and greater personal responsibility and liberty could lead someone to make such assumptions about me. I have discovered that these misconceptions are based on deep-seeded bigotry imbued through the core of most liberals."

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Jackson-

I think it has been well established since the Constitution was signed in 1789 that the American people in fact DO NOT have the intelligence to distinguish between good and bad ideas. That is why the Electoral College was added to the document by Thomas Jefferson and why Senators were originally not directly elected by popular vote. The "american people" (US citizens) are in fact some of the least informed, least inquisitive, and most ignorant people of any modern industrialized country. Yes there is of course the 1% of the population who know what is going on, control everything and essentially manipulate the "american people" for their own economic benefit. But the true representation of the "american people" is the NASCAR-loving, Bud Light drinking nitwit who cares about / thinks about little more than his job at Wal-Mart and how much horsepower his truck has. These people DO NOT have the intelligence to distinguish between good and bad ideas. These are the George W. Bush voters.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]*Sigh* This is confirmation that everything the right says about the "liberal elite" is true. Here's an even better summary. [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511250528884932.html[/url]

I'll save you the trouble: It can't be accurate because it comes from the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

Still, it's a very apt summary of how most people believe the left looks at citizens. And, unfortunately, it is true. The poor sheep. Thank goodness we have well-meaning politicians to take care of us.

Wait, are you saying Thomas Jefferson was part of the liberal elite?

[QUOTE=Guestrex]Wait, are you saying Thomas Jefferson was part of the liberal elite?[/QUOTE]Yes and no. Jefferson was part of the "liberal elite" of his time, but the comment about why the electoral college was created is off the mark. It was a compromise between two camps -- one of which wanted pure popular vote to elect presidents, and the other of which wanted state legislatures to elect the president. Jefferson's idea wasn't that people were too stupid to vote "correctly." Instead, it was that states would all elect regional candidates for president because there was very limited ability to communicate nationally at the time -- there was no internet or telephones, no national newspapers and very little means to disseminate information to the entire country. Regional voting would then mean that the most populous state would always win. So, the issue wasn't whether people were too "stupid" to make the correct pick, as the post suggested. It was that there was little means to get them information on which they could make an informed decision, so regional candidates would always prevail. The electoral college could eliminate that. There were other reasons, as well, but the idea wasn't that a majority of people are too stupid to have a direct vote.

Al ´the greedy capitalist` Gore was on TV last night. What a fruit loop.

The biggest waster of energy in the state of Tennessee was making the outlandish claim that changing the type of light bulbs we use, the appliances we use and the energy we use would create jobs.

In realty, doing the things fatso Gore advocates would simply be an added expense to families and businesses and would result in less jobs and less prosperity.

I am surprised Gore doesn't come up with some other worthless make work project such as forcing all cars to be manufactured with built in energy efficient hot tubs. That would really produce a lot of new jobs. We would be a nation of hot tub cars but a nation without jobs or disposible income.

All this based on man made global warming which is 110% junk science.

P.S. maybe I am missing something. Maybe Gore is right. If we changed the way we produce and use energy we probably would use a lot less energy.

We would use a lot less energy because with Gore´s outrageous energy costs businesses would cease to exist and most families, except Al Gore´s family, couldn´t afford to turn on even a light bulb.

If you look at certain structures or procedures developed by our founders, such as the electoral college, solely from a 2009 perspective, you will miss a significant amount of relevant information that they considered and you may very well misread their intentions.

Whilst today the US is a federalist constitutional republic, it was not always so. After independence from England was claimed (7/4/1776) the country was coalesced together as a confederation with a weak federal government, as stipulated in the Articles of Confederation enacted in 1777. The country operated under the AoC until 1789, when president George Washington and the first congress took office. The Constitution had been ratified in 1788. Article II of the Constitution establishes the Electoral College (since amended, in 1804 by the 12th Amendment) The Bill of Rights came along in 1791 (the BoR is comprised of the first ten amendments to the Constitution) The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in December of 1791 and stipulates that those powers not specifically granted to the federal government and not explicitly prohibited to the states are to reside with the states or the people. This is embodiment of "States' Rights."

The electoral college was a protection against the national direct popular vote, but not the stupidity of the American public. As one can see, from 'recent' election results (1978, 1992, 1996 and 2008) the electoral college is certainly no protection form the stupidity of the American voter. Further, it is a protection of the states and the individuals voting in less populated states lest they be completely drowned out by the popular votes of urbanized areas in more populated states.

At the time of the founding, a dominant federal government was explicitly not wanted. The evolution from the AoC to the Constitution was fraught with efforts and mechanisms (see X Amendment citation above) to limit federal power and protect both the states and the individual. The post-Civil War expansion of federal powers, the New Deal, the current Obama / Reid / Pelosi power grab and numerous judicial fiats have eroded many of those safeguards. Unfortunately, it seems that we are destined to continue to destroy the Constitution and the rule of law.

Note to lefties: Please feel free to call me a racist for citing the Tenth Amendment. Obviously, I am speaking in code to distribute a much more sinister and nefarious message to the ignorant masses in order to foment discontent and focus their anger on minorities so as to distract them from discovering the man behind the curtain.

[QUOTE=Guestrex]Wait, are you saying Thomas Jefferson was part of the liberal elite?[/QUOTE]Not sure of the liberal elite, but he was certainly a progressive early monger. Sally Hemings? Boo-Yah!

Keep hope alive!

[QUOTE=Sidney]Damm Bush! It is all his fault! [/QUOTE]Not too far from the truth actually. Bush and his administration who over two terms pretty much did nothing to prevent the actions which led to the current economic downturn. Look up Bush and plunge protection team, great reading.

Obama and the current administration are now "cleaning up" and working to get the economy back on solid footing. Yes you have read this before, but these are the facts.

A plan with some teeth, heaven forbid! Not much different from how tax evasion is handled.

That's the whole premise of the reform. Everyone contributes, everyone benefits.

If you google this stuff you'll see much of it is fear-mongering posted on right wing blogs.

A driver is stuck in a traffic jam going into downtown Chicago. Nothing is moving north or south.

Suddenly a man knocks on his window. The driver rolls down his window and asks, "What happened, what's the hold Up?"

"Terrorists have kidnapped Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They are asking for a $10 Million ransom. Otherwise, they are going to douse them with gasoline and set them on fire.

We are going from car to car, taking up a collection."

The driver asks, "About, how much is everyone giving?"

"About a gallon."

I see that some health care plan passed the House of Representatives. I am not sure what that means. However, anything would be better than the health care system we have now.

We have access to the best health care in the world but we sure do not have the best health care system in the world.

We are spending twice as much per capita as the next most expensive health care system, without any evidence that our health care system is as good as other systems.

Basically we are paying $500 for a bottle of wine that turns out to be a bottle of Boones Farm Apple Wine.

I can say this because I am retired and don't have to convince the American public that they should pay $2,000,000.00 for liver transplants - for incorrigible alcoholics.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]I see that some health care plan passed the House of Representatives bottle of Boones Farm Apple Wine.

I can say this because I am retired and don't have to convince the American public that they should pay $2,000,000.00 for liver transplants - for incorrigible alcoholics.[/QUOTE]Wow, you know your liquor history. Apple, Cherry, Strawberry. Amazing recall in the fotifies wine category. BW, mu sister was model in most all the early adds for that product. A brush with trivia is upon me.

Que tegas una buen dia.

Chau,

Jazz /

[quote]To bail out the banks' poor bets on Dot-Com companies and Latin America in 2001-2002, Greenspan purposely ignited a credit bubble that led to the mother of all housing crashes.

In response to the housing bust, the Fed refused to let failed banks go out of business and is attempting to force another credit bubble. However, banks aren't lending (except in China where a suggestion to lend is not taken lightly)

All the Fed (central bankers in general) and Congress have done is create yet another asset bubble bailing out the wealthy. Meanwhile consumer debt still acts as a drag, unemployment is high and rising because sloshing money around at banks cannot possibly create any jobs (and it hasn't) and the pool of real savings that it does take to create jobs has been exhausted. Meanwhile taxes are soaring which puts still more pressure on job losses, foreclosures and defaults.

Bernanke, Obama, Congress, the Fed, and Central Bankers worldwide have all failed to learn anything from:

1) The Great Depression.

2) Two Lost Decades In Japan.

3) The Dot-Com Bubble.

4) The Housing Bubble.

Instead they follow unwise and disproved Keynesian and Monetarist tactics that have failed to accomplish anything but create bigger bubbles. However, this is the end of the line. Housing was the bubble of last resort, nothing can come close to the number of jobs created by the global housing bubble.

Further attempts to reflate will do nothing but create a currency crisis, crash the economy, and add to future liabilities that cannot be paid back. A global economic crisis is coming. When and how it manifests itself is all that remains to be seen.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock [/quote]I'm very concerned that Mish is right on the mark here.

Obama should have stuck to community organizing, because he doesn’t know diddley about economics. Obama and company haven’t got a clue where to go from here.

Obama and his ilk are finding out the hard way that government doesn’t have an endless supply of money.

They can point the finger at Bush and make excuses all they want, but the American people want results not excuses, and the bottom line is 10.2% of the work force doesn’t have any “change” left.

Sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me.

And any speculation that current efforts to lessen the severity of the burst bubble are creating a new bubble is just that - pure speculation.

Of course we are creating another bubble. That is the nature of the world and United States economy. We keep bouncing from one bubble to another. We just don't know what the next bubble will be.

The best way to judge the economy is the unemployment rate. What good is 4% annual growth if 15% of the work force is unemployed. Put another way, what is wrong with 2% growth if the work force is fully employed (Ricardo's make believe, do nothing government jobs are not included in this definition of fully employed)

The trend in unemployment is devastating. It is going up and Obama continues to shoot the economy in the head. In the face an economy that looks like a cadaver Obama is raising taxes. If that won't kill the patient, Obama's cap and trade legislation to combat so called man made global warming amounts to a massive tax increase. That bogus legislation will send the economy to the morgue.

An AP contributor, a Brit, asked here recently why people call Obama and the current Congressional majority socialists. You don't see them nationalizing everything in site as fast as they can, like, say, Lenin and the Bolsheviks did in Russia. Well, maybe the link below explains why. Leave the current bunch and their succcessors at it and in power for another 50 years, and what would things look like?

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aOp8Vr9G13z4[/url]

Jon Stewart spotted something "unusual" in FOX reporting on last week's health care protests in DC. First in the FOX piece there is video of a crowd gathered on a clear blue day and the trees are showing their fall colors. Then later you see a much larger crowd but it's cloudy and the trees are green. The second clip turns out to be from a different gathering on Saturday Sept.12, but they showed it as being from the health care protests on Thursday Nov.5. And during the video the FOX commentators are marvelling at the size of the crowd, stating the estimates were between 20000-45000 people when the Washington Post put it at 10000.

npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/11/jon_stewart_catches_sean_hanni.html

[QUOTE=Esten]Jon Stewart spotted something "unusual" in FOX reporting on last week's health care protests in DC. First in the FOX piece there is video of a crowd gathered on a clear blue day and the trees are showing their fall colors. Then later you see a much larger crowd but it's cloudy and the trees are green. The second clip turns out to be from a different gathering on Saturday Sept.12, but they showed it as being from the health care protests on Thursday Nov.5. And during the video the FOX commentators are marvelling at the size of the crowd, stating the estimates were between 20000-45000 people when the Washington Post put it at 10000.

Npr. Org / blogs / thetwo-way /2009/11/ jon_stewart_catches_sean_hanni. Html[/QUOTE]Sean Hannity says the bogus tape use was an "inadvertent mistake." Yea, like I inadvertently forgot to pull out before I came in her mouth!

[Quote]Stimulus job boost in state exaggerated, review finds.

Errors, incomplete data, estimated positions go into federal report.

While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is [b]wildly exaggerated[/b]. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started. [/QUOTE]The jobs report is just another example of how the "Radicalized Left" operates.

I am however surprised the Globe reported it.

You can read the full article at the link below.

[url]http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/11/11/stimulus_fund_job_benefits_exaggerated_review_finds/[/url]

I, for one, am impressed with Obama's stance on Cuba. Obama refuses to buy
into the bullshit of the Hollywood elitists I. E. Oliver Stone, Penn and that fucking fatso imbecile from Michigan, who glorify those fucking bastards Castro and Che fucking Guevara.

Obama more or less is saying what Bush said. Castro is a fucking dictator, pure and simple.

Fitting justice would be to burn Castro and fucking Che Guevara alive and feed them to pigs.

The CIA already took care of Che!