American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]If we are talking about legislative process, it'll take a little more than 60 senators to overturn the second amendment. That said, if we skip legislative process and move directly to judicial fiat, it might not take so much. It is much more likely that the 2nd Amendment will be attacked via judicial fiat in the form of supreme court rulings that infringe upon the right to bear arms and related issues. [/QUOTE]What does THIS article have to do with the 2nd amendment? Last I looked, it had something to do with American citizens "keeping and bearing arms." It is not a constitutional guarantee to be able to sell arms to other countries.

[QUOTE]As for the aforementioned article, it is not directly relevant to individual gun ownership, however, it is detrimental to approximately $35b of US economic output and is indicative of the contempt that this administration has for individual liberty and freedom. That should surprise no one as this administration has declared war on the private sector.[/QUOTE]Again, what does THIS article have to do with individual liberty and freedom? You guys keep wanting to interpret THIS article as some sort of attack against gun owners in the US.

Um, how come this hasn't prompted an alert from the NRA (nraila. Org) If it had real substance, I'd expect a bulletin and letter draft to senators and congressmen. The only issue that's surfaced is Bloomberg trying to put gun shows out of commission.

It's no secret that antigunners have tried to use the illegal gun traffic between the US and Mexico as an excuse to make gun sales harder for everyone. (The logic of which escapes me if they're already illegal. But this seems a little over the top.

Schmoj,

Such tactics are common from the right. They look for opportunities to spread doubt, fear and anger in their followers, who they erroneously refer to as "The American People" as if they were the only people in the country. They deal in emotions.

[QUOTE=BA Luvr]Um, how come this hasn't prompted an alert from the NRA (nraila. Org) If it had real substance, I'd expect a bulletin and letter draft to senators and congressmen. The only issue that's surfaced is Bloomberg trying to put gun shows out of commission.[/QUOTE]Actually the NRA has been warning about the possibility of just such a backdoor attack on our second amendment rights for several years. This is just one more avenue the gun control nuts have been using in an attempt to disarm and control people worldwide.

I would have agreed with others here that it would not have a chance of passing, but if it ever had a chance I suspect now is the time, just look at the bail outs and the health care BS. Legislators voted for these actions without even reading the bills.

As long as this bunch of Chicago power hungry mob scum with all their behind closed door deals and out right vote buying are in power anything is possible, they’ve convinced me of that!

What ever happened to everything being out in the open and even on CSPAM?

Punter 127

Conservative in exile!

[QUOTE=Esten]Schmoj,

Such tactics are common from the right. They look for opportunities to spread doubt, fear and anger in their followers, who they erroneously refer to as "The American People" as if they were the only people in the country. [b]They deal in emotions.[/b][/QUOTE]And we all know that liberals would never resort such a tactic themselves.

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks,

Jackson

Sidney.

It doesn't matter whether we send 10 million or 10 billion dollars to Haiti. Less than five dollars will end up where it is supposed to go. The rest will be deposited in somebodies bank account in Zurich.

Esten and Schmoj give Laurel and Hardy a run for their money.

[quote=esten]Such tactics are common from the right. They look for opportunities to spread doubt, fear and anger in their followers, who they erroneously refer to as "The American People" as if they were the only people in the country. They deal in emotions.[/QUOTE]This one had me laughing. That's a good one. The right is ruling the country (from their pick up trucks and porch furniture) via fear mongering. This from a portion of the American People that have no representation in Washington (check back next Wednesday and again on Wednesday November 3rd to see if that situation changes) and limited access to the main stream media. Why did you leave out the facts that republicans are all racist, bigoted homophobes?

The tactic used here by Esten is to smear all republicans and conservatives with vague charges and innuendo. The left uses this tactic constantly followed by repeating the lies over and over, until the state-controlled media takes them for facts.

Schmoj, why do you attempt to quote and parse my response? You don't make any sense.

[QUOTE=Schmoj]What does THIS article have to do with the 2nd amendment? [/QUOTE]I clearly stated that I don't think it is directly relevant to the second amendment.

[quote=]Again, what does THIS article have to do with individual liberty and freedom? [/quote]

"Again?" The common definition of 'again' is: "once more, another time, anew." Why do you say again when this is the first time you posed the THIS question? Why the all caps 'THIS?' Are you trying to add emphasis? If so, are you trying to emphasize that THIS is the only article and only instance where these whackos from the right try to use the above-mentioned tactics (hat tip to Esten for the tactical information)

The relevance to the issues of individual liberty and freedom can be found in the threat that such governmental interference poses to those engaged in lawful commerce that will be effected by such a move.

[quote=]You guys keep wanting to interpret THIS article as some sort of attack against gun owners in the US.[/QUOTE]What? Are you stupid or just illiterate? I am not the only conservative or republican to respond in agreement with you that this is not a direct assault on the second amendment.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]As for the aforementioned article, it is not directly relevant to individual gun ownership, however, it is detrimental to approximately $35b of US economic output and is indicative of the contempt that this administration has for individual liberty and freedom. That should surprise no one as this administration has declared war on the private sector.[/QUOTE]Let me quote you again Walleye, so you'll understand. You DO mention that the article is not directly related to individual gun ownership, but in the very same sentence mention 'contempt that this administration has for individual liberty and freedom.' So, explain to me how the issue described in THAT article has anything to do with individual liberty and freedom.

I won't go as far as calling you illiterate, but you seem to either have reading comprehension problems OR you are more than happy just to make shit up to support your ideology.

Also, you are assuming that just because I point out the fact THAT article had nothing to do with your and Sydney's interpretation of it that I am a "liberal." Personally, I think most of the liberal/conservative dichotomy is smoke and mirrors. While it may be applicable to individual points of view, the political powers only care about funneling the money to the institutions that keep them in power.

Do you REALLY believe that Obama is a "liberal?"

No smear, just a plain and simple observation. Of course both sides can and do use emotion to influence. But in my attempt to distill things down to fundamental core differences between the two US political sides, what I have observed is this (and, I am not the first to note this distinction):

Reason plays a greater role for Democrats.

Emotion plays a greater role for Republicans.

Esten.

Very astute. I am impressed.

I have a question about people whose main concern is "Where is my welfare check"'. Should they be classfied as driven by emotion or driven by reason?

[QUOTE=Esten]No smear, just a plain and simple observation. Of course both sides can and do use emotion to influence. But in my attempt to distill things down to fundamental core differences between the two US political sides, what I have observed is this (and, I am not the first to note this distinction):

Reason plays a greater role for Democrats.

Emotion plays a greater role for Republicans.[/QUOTE]No smear, but just a plain and simple question:

What color is the sky in your world?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=El Alamo]Esten.

Very astute. I am impressed.

I have a question about people whose main concern is "Where is my welfare check"'. Should they be classfied as driven by emotion or driven by reason?[/QUOTE]I think they are reasonably driven by emotion.

Or are they emotionally driven by reason?

Either way I am ROTFLMAO!

Thanks,

Jackson

Well I guess you can say the Democrats use "Reason" if your definition of Reason is give all your money to the government because the government knows better than anyone else how to tell you to run your life, decide what is good or bad for you, and lead you around by the nose as they spend your money (sorry it's not your money it's the government's) I guess this is the same group of "Reasoned" folks whose candidate in Mass. Told the Republican running against her how dare he try to win Kennedy's seat, didn't he know that Senate seat "belonged" to the Democrats - yea I really like that kind of "Reasoning."

At least the Republicans use to be for smaller government and free markets where no one was "too big to fail", where the hell did that come from? Probably from the same folks who gave us the "Great Society" which has become one of the colossal failures of the Democrats with the exception it created huge "entitlement" programs the Democrats milk for votes to this day.

I just love these terms "entitlement" "too big to fail". The thing I love about Democrats is they are perfectly willing to spend YOUR last dime on THEIR programs!

Someone on the board wrote a very witty post about how mongering would work if the Democrats took it over. Check it out –its on point!

[QUOTE=Esten]No smear, just a plain and simple observation. Of course both sides can and do use emotion to influence. But in my attempt to distill things down to fundamental core differences between the two US political sides, what I have observed is this (and, I am not the first to note this distinction):

Reason plays a greater role for Democrats.

Emotion plays a greater role for Republicans.[/QUOTE]I think that it is just the opposite. Isn't there an old saying which goes something like "The Republicans have no heart and the Democrats have no brains"?

Bob

Bob.

Another saying along those lines which was coined by Jackson is (more or less)

If you are not a liberal when you are 20 years old - you have no heart.

If you are still a liberal when you are 30 years old - you have no brains

[QUOTE=El Alamo]Bob.

Another saying along those lines which was coined by Jackson is (more or less)

If you are not a liberal when you are 20 years old - you have no heart.

If you are still a liberal when you are 30 years old - you have no brains[/QUOTE]That may have been what I was thinking of. Although, while there may be some true philosophical differences between the parties, I think that Schmoj nailed it when he said "the political powers only care about funneling the money to the institutions that keep them in power."

Bob

I hold these truths to be self evident:

[quote]• You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.

• What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

• The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

• When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.

• You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 – November 15, 2005) of Love Worth Finding Ministries, Pastor Emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church.[/quote]I'm overcome with emotion just reading these words.

Jackson

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,

Here I am, stuck in the middle.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrJQDnAHrRY&NR=1[/url]

It appears that people are becoming disenchanted with Obama. From my limited perspective in Paraguay, Obama seems OK to me. Maybe if I saw the news everyday I would have a different take on this I. E. If I was beat over the head everyday with Obama's plans to make government bigger I probaby would be fed up with Obama as well.

On the other hand Obama has disappointed some far left supporters who want us out of Afghanistan immediately (as I do) out of Iraq and open travel with Cuba. Obviously Obama is not eating all the leftwing ideas they are trying to shove down his throat.

Where Obama will end up is a mystery. Another Reagon or Clinton (good) or another Jimmy 'shit for brains' Carter (bad)

Just an FYI – got this quote off Fox News – yea I know its just a Republican mouthpiece.

"It's socialism. It starts with health care. It starts with the government bailouts," said Johnson, 43, who's retired from the military. "I work for a living and I see more and more of my money going to people who sit home and don't do it. I'm all for helping people out, but I like keeping what I earn."

Where do you think this is from, somewhere in the mid-west, a southern state perhaps, maybe some crazed right wing radical? No folks this come from the bastion of the Democratic party, from the home of the "Lion of the Senate" - yes folks it is from Massachusetts where even the party faithful are getting tired of the party line and may even (gasp) elect a Republican to fill the Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy in a state where a Kennedy has held the seat for over 40 years. There may be hope yet for the country!

Perhaps we should have a party at El Alamo to watch the Massachusetts special election results, and celebrate Scott Browns victory and the saving of American? Hehehehehe, I'm trying to get a flight now.

[QUOTE=AllIWantisLove] Isn't there an old saying which goes something like "The Republicans have no heart and the Democrats have no brains"?[/QUOTE]Another Republican joke, wonderful! Keep on showing us what they have to offer.

Doppelganger's post provides a good example of what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Well I guess you can say the Democrats use "Reason" if your definition of Reason is give all your money to the government [/QUOTE]Incrementally more of your money than Republicans might take, but skewed to the rich. Far from "all".

[QUOTE]because the government knows better than anyone else how to tell you to run your life, decide what is good or bad for you[/QUOTE]No, for the most part people pretty much make those decisions for themselves in the US. If anything, you are likely to have greater freedoms under a Democratic administration due to greater separation of church from state.

[QUOTE]and lead you around by the nose as they spend your money (sorry it's not your money it's the government's) [/QUOTE]Money collected by government is typically given back in the form of services that people want and need. Government-bashers seem to conveniently skip over this obvious point.

Doppelganger repeats things that have been said many times before by Republicans. But such statements are so irrational, they cannot be characterized as anything other than emotional.

Please explain "entitlements" - why is someone else entitled to another persons earnings?

Please explain to me the "success" of the Democrat's Great Society.

Please explain to me the meaning of "rich" since what is now considered "rich" by the current administration $200K to $250K for a married couple if you will check you statistics falls well into the middle of the "middle class" per your own administrations findings.

Please explain why your party has decided to reinstate the "marriage tax" - a married couples earnings are less than two single persons earnings for tax purposes. Why the discrimination?

Tell you what, you give ALL YOUR MONEY AND POSSESSIONS TO THOSE WHO NEED IT then come talk to me about it your compassion and reason.

Same old tired BS I've heard from Democrats for years.

[QUOTE=Esten]Money collected by government is typically given back in the form of services that people want and need. Government-bashers seem to conveniently skip over this obvious point.[/QUOTE]Esten,

You're a never-ending fountain of humor.

First, the government does not "collect" money, it takes it by force from those who have earned it, and at gunpoint if one refuses to cooperate.

Second, the "services" that are "given back" suffer a huge loss in value as the government is by nature the most inefficient manager of any endeavor it undertakes.

Nevertheless, you cordially are invited to my house tomorrow night to watch the election returns on Fox News, in HD, of course

Who knows, perhaps you'll be the one that's celebrating.

Personally, I'm overcome with emotion at the prospect that we may actually be able to put the brakes on Obama's runaway train to economic disaster.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Schmoj]Let me quote you again Walleye, so you'll understand. You DO mention that the article is not directly related to individual gun ownership, but in the very same sentence mention 'contempt that this administration has for individual liberty and freedom.' So, explain to me how the issue described in THAT article has anything to do with individual liberty and freedom.[/QUOTE]Schmuck, you quote my point exactly, the government infringing on the personal liberties of those lawfully making a living via the $35B industry that the government seeks to harm.

[quote=]I won't go as far as calling you illiterate, but you seem to either have reading comprehension problems OR you are more than happy just to make shit up to support your ideology.[/QUOTE]You are free to call me what you like, I have thick skin. Despite my many years taking the short bus to and from school, I did complete ninth grade grammar and do not recall a section on using "all caps" for emphasis. I seem to recall my professor telling me that if you think you need a gimmick font or syntax to convey your message, clearly your prose does not. Clearly there are exceptions such as EE Cummings (should have been a porn star with that name) however, as I am sure you already know, Cummings was not best known for his expository writing.

As far as making "shit" up to support my ideology, please feel free to peruse any of my prior postings and find inaccurate information (other than the post where I said I have a 10" member - I estimated low and measured from the top)

[quote=]Also, you are assuming that just because I point out the fact THAT article had nothing to do with your and Sydney's interpretation of it that I am a "liberal."[/QUOTE]No, I based my conclusion that you are a liberal due to your poorly articulated points which are completely lacking in substance and are intended to confuse and draw attention away from the facts. I also considered the fact that despite agreeing with you that Sidney's interpretation was flawed, you continue to assume that I was making the same argument that Sidney was. When you have been corrected on the same subject numerous times and keep making the same mistake you are either ADHD [no offense to those with ADHD, as you know, this is a common trait amongst those with ADHD] or a liberal.

[quote=]Personally, I think most of the liberal / conservative dichotomy is smoke and mirrors.[/QUOTE]Ding, ding, ding, I think Schmoj deserves a gold star for breaking out a 5-dollar word. Good for you.

[quote=]While it may be applicable to individual points of view, the political powers only care about funneling the money to the institutions that keep them in power.[/QUOTE]I am going to go out on a limb here (making the same mistake I made before, thus making clear that I am either a liberal or I have ADHD) but I agree with you to some extent on this point. Now, please keep that point in mind when looking at issues of redistribution of wealth which are based upon extra-constitutional takings.

[quote=]Do you REALLY believe that Obama is a "liberal?"[/QUOTE]No, I do not believe Obama is a liberal. I have been very clear on this point, I believe that he is a Marxist. That said, he is seeking to install a hybrid Marxist / Fascist utopia based upon corporatism (look it up) and individual serfdom.

Mongers,

It's no secret that I am an Obama fan and a pretty far left liberal on most issues, however, I for one am praying that the Republican wins the Senate race today in Mass so this piece of shit farce of a healthcare reform bill gets filibustered. Basically, this bill plans to spend more than $1 trillion and does not include the one thing that it should have included, something that every other civilized nation on earth has, a public sector administered, taxpayer funded health care option. So what the fuck does this bill do, other than ban excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions (which is a good thing, but why didn't Obama just issue an executive order banning the practice? And spending $1 trillion?

Suerte,

Rock Harders

As I stated in the post sited below, some six months ago (7-14-09 to be exact) the pendulum had reached its apex and was moving in the other direction. Due to the artificial heights that the left and the media took the pendulum, the acceleration and velocity on the down stroke will be extreme and will blow passed equilibrium headed the other way.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]This guy is not stupid. He is seeking to destroy what makes this country great. He has contempt for every last one of us, those that despise him and those that idolize him. Every schmuck in the media has their nose up his ass. That said, America (our America) is noticing. The pendulum has swung and will cut very deep on its rebound.[/QUOTE]This special election in Massachusetts, in addition to being referendum on health care, is a refutation of Obama and his Marxist blueprint for America. It is particularly juicy that it is taking place in Massachusetts. Massachusetts is a liberal bastion created by US and State tax dollars, misappropriated by elected officials and distributed by union bosses to ensure payoffs, redistribution of wealth, public health care and perpetual democrat rule.

In short, Massachusetts is in many ways Obama's ideal. It is fitting that the people that live there are refuting that for which he stands.

This is part of the chronicles of a youthful liberal in Massachusetts who matured into a staunch conservative. Thought Ricardo might like this.

Was a volunteer for (I'm soooooo sorry) Barney Frank for – forget if it was the state senate or still just the house;

Was a volunteer for (I'm soooooo much sorrier) Barney Frank for his first successful run for Congress, which makes me partly responsible for the economic implosion;

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers,

It's no secret that I am an Obama fan and a pretty far left liberal on most issues, however, I for one am praying that the Republican wins the Senate race today in Mass so this piece of shit farce of a healthcare reform bill gets filibustered. Basically, this bill plans to spend more than $1 trillion and does not include the one thing that it should have included, something that every other civilized nation on earth has, a public sector administered, taxpayer funded health care option. So what the fuck does this bill do, other than ban excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions (which is a good thing, but why didn't Obama just issue an executive order banning the practice? And spending $1 trillion?

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]You took the words right out of my mouth RH. Why in the hell Obama allowed Congress to write this two thousand page piece of shit is beyond me. Shame on you Mr. President. If the thing passed everyone would need six Philadelphia lawyers to get a hang nail taken care of.

I haven't yet read a convincing argument why the proposed health care reform is not a significant improvement over the status quo, and am hoping and expecting it will soon be signed into law. It is unfortunate there will not be a public option, but they just don't have the votes.

The right is fueling and surfing a wave of anger/discontent among some voters, but continue to fail in communicating convincing arguments why their ideas are better for the country. I'll acknowledge Obama and Dems have not done a great job in communicating why their ideas are better either. I expect we will see more effort on this.

Jackson- of course collection of taxes is enforced, society would not function without it.

Thanks for the invite; unfortunately I am here in SP now. Only being able to spend a few weeks a year in BA sucks. I miss the chicas. Those of you in BA with your regulars and stables, I am a bit envious...

[QUOTE=Damman]Why in the hell Obama allowed Congress to write this two thousand page piece of shit is beyond me.[/QUOTE]You guys make this so easy. The answer is because he's a weak decision maker, and he doesn't know what he's doing because he doesn't have any executive experience.

Still, the jury is still out on his leadership capabilities, which is an altogether different talent. Assuming that the current health bill is DOA, Obama now has a golden opportunity to take the initiative himself, to bring [u]all[/u] [u]parties[/u] together, appoint the study commissions, review their recommendations, hold the public hearings, and otherwise build a consensus behind a plan that more of the country can support, whatever that plan may ultimately provide.

Thanks,

Jackson

[size=3][I]Obama: the [strike]dumbest[/strike] most inexperienced President ever![/i][/size]

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers,

But why didn't Obama just issue an executive order banning the practice? And spending $1 trillion?

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Because that type of executive order would exceed executive authority and certainly be subject to legal challenge. Also it would only last until Obama left office and could be revoked with the stroke of the pen by the next President, much harder to repeal a law.

I don't know if supporters of Scott Brown for President are serious. What is his background? What has he done?

However, when evaluating the experience needed to be President of the United States the bar is not that high. Apparently 'community organizer' is sufficient.

P.S. there is one thing Scott Brown has going for him. He can probabaly produce a birth certificate

[quote]Brown's victory was not so much a vote for Brown, but a vote out of anger, anger of backroom deals, anger over jobs, anger over wars, anger over special deals for politicians and unions, anger over banks, and most importantly, anger because "Yes We Can" morphed into "Business As Usual, Only Worse".[/QUOTE]I think that just about says it all.