GOP: beyond obstruction to treason?

[Yamato]

Glenn Beck: "I'm a libertarian!"

Bill Maher: "I'm a libertarian."

Rand Paul: "I'm not a libertarian."

Next BS political label that means whatever the bloody fudge is convenient for someone in 3...2...1....

[Ashotep]

I don't doubt any of that, but my point is was Mr. O entirely to blame for all this? Surely it started under the previous chap. And my question was, does anyone really think that Mr. Romney* would have the faintest idea of how to handle it any better, or whether he (since we know that the ones pulling the strings are all behind the scenes), would even have any power to do anything if he did have any idea?

* I remembered!

I don't think Romney would of been a bit better. Sure there wouldn't of been the gun debate, which didn't pass anyway, but there would of just been a different set of issues.

[Kowalski]

I don't think Romney would of been a bit better. Sure there wouldn't of been the gun debate, which didn't pass anyway, but there would of just been a different set of issues.

I don't hold any illusions about Romney. One would have been just as bad as the other. Which is why I didn't vote for either of them.

[tapirmusic]

Paranoid republican nonsense.

Well, I'm glad that the racist card is all used up.

Now we're on to playing the paranoid / conspiracy theorist / tin foil hat card.

That's better than being racist i guess..

[darkmoonlady]

I don't think Romney would of been a bit better. Sure there wouldn't of been the gun debate, which didn't pass anyway, but there would of just been a different set of issues.

Even if Romney won it would not have prevented Sand Hook so there would have been a gun debate no matter what.

[pallidin]

Your kidding, right?

If you will look at the history of the Presidents, you will find that MANY a president has had to work with an unruly Congress. This is nothing new. Look at the election of John Quincy Adams.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia....hn_Quincy_Adams

So, no, it's not treasonous or UN-american. It's just politics, and it's been going on for a long time....

Nearly, if not all, every US President has been unrelentingly "bashed" by the opposing political party.

Of course, rightfully pointing-out bad executive administration when very clear is just fine, as well as investigatory inquiries.

But these days it seems like the bashing is more intense, exaggerated, and seats itself with regards to partisan politics. Republican or Democrat.

Especially now, as there seems to be a push to demonize the Democrats in order to assist an election of a Republican president.

And in the next election, if a Republican is elected president, the Democrats will demonize them, in public.

Just seems so unhealthy for America, which is why I hate partisan politics.

[Space Commander Travis]

So the people who say that everyone should do everything they can to block this President simply want to do so out of pure love for America, do they, and they cannot sit back and watch the damage that the current President is doing? Did they say, and argue for, the same thing, during the previous President's term of office? The one who, to put the most generous interpretation on it, let 9/11 happen through negligence, and who then led the country, and its loyal allies, into two simultaneous wars that have (one of them at elast) been going on for over a decade, with no tangible positive results to show from it? And who was in office, and not Mr. obama, when the Financial Crisis began, and which was the result of things that had been going on for years before that? There's absolutely no political bias here at all, and it's all out of love for America?

[pallidin]

Yeah, Col.

I wonder if it's even possible for the US Congress to actually work towards addressing important US domestic/international interests.

With all their self-serving interests(bill-riders), political action commitee's, and partisan BS, it just does not seem(to me) to be an effective government structure, either for ourselve's or the international community.

There is something fundamentally wrong, though I suppose it was seen as advantageous with the Founders. A "check and balance".

But I do not see that now. It's become severely twisted and needs to be corrected.

I have suggestions but no answers, except that serious CHANGE MUST OCCUR IF WE ARE TO SURVIVE/PROSPER AS A NATION.

--- End of rant.

[+and-then]

So voting for that other bloke, whatever his name was, would have somehow solved all the problems with the Economy? So the problems with the Economy are all because of the current President, and the former President and his administration had nothing to do with it in any way? Do you have any evidence to support this assertion that the other one would have had the faintest idea what to do either?

So you think it is some conspiracy? No, I have no belief that things can or would fundamentally change if the other guy had gotten into power. But he didn't did he? And the one thing we know is where we are headed - or do you think my assessment incorrect of the end of the game? Oby (and a bipartisan congress) are on course to have the USA owing about 20 TRILLION dollars by the time he is replaced by Billary. That amount of debt is an indication of the total collapse of the America I grew up in. And it is symptomatic not only of our politician's weaknesses but our own as individuals. And western Europe has no reason to feel superior about it either. Even Germany couldn't have made it without the currency help from the euro.

[preacherman76]

I don't doubt any of that, but my point is was Mr. O entirely to blame for all this? Surely it started under the previous chap. And my question was, does anyone really think that Mr. Romney* would have the faintest idea of how to handle it any better, or whether he (since we know that the ones pulling the strings are all behind the scenes), would even have any power to do anything if he did have any idea?

* I remembered!

I agree with everything you said here. Everything. Its not that 0bama or Romney dont know how to handle it any better though. Its being handled exactly the way thier bosses want it handled. This is a controled economic demolition.

[preacherman76]

where was your outrage over the "unsustainable" debt in 2008? or the 8 years before that? Your real problems lie elsewhere.

What do you mean? Lets go back to my 2008 posts. I attended a tea party under Bush, for the bankster bailout. You gotta give me pass up till 2006. I was still programed up till that point. The same way you are now, just on the other side of the coin.

[Kowalski]

Nearly, if not all, every US President has been unrelentingly "bashed" by the opposing political party.

Of course, rightfully pointing-out bad executive administration when very clear is just fine, as well as investigatory inquiries.

But these days it seems like the bashing is more intense, exaggerated, and seats itself with regards to partisan politics. Republican or Democrat.

Especially now, as there seems to be a push to demonize the Democrats in order to assist an election of a Republican president.

And in the next election, if a Republican is elected president, the Democrats will demonize them, in public.

Just seems so unhealthy for America, which is why I hate partisan politics.

I was just pointing out partisan politics have been around for a long time, it's nothing new, really.

The Election of 1828 Was Marked By Dirty Tactics

The Campaign That Elected Andrew Jackson President Was Brutal

The election of 1828 was significant as it heralded a profound change with the election of a man widely viewed as a champion of the common people. But that year's campaigning was also noteworthy for the intense personal attacks widely employed by the supporters of both candidates.

The incumbent John Quincy Adams and the challenger Andrew Jackson, could not have been more different. And perhaps the one thing they had in common was that they both had long careers of public service, one diplomatic and one military.

By the time the votes were cast, both men would have wild stories circulated about their pasts, with lurid charges of murder, adultery, and procuring of women being plastered across the pages of partisan newspapers.

Background to the Election of 1828

The two opponents in the election of 1828 had faced each other before, in the election of 1824, a peculiar affair which became known as “The Corrupt Bargain.” The 1824 race had to be decided in the House of Representatives, and it was widely believed that Speaker of the House Henry Clay had used his considerable influence to give the victory to John Quincy Adams.

Jackson's furious campaign against Adams essentially resumed as soon as Adams took office in 1825, as "Old Hickory" and his supporters worked diligently to line up support around the country. While Jackson’s natural power base was in the south and among rural voters, he managed to align himself with the New York political power broker Martin Van Buren. With Van Buren’s guidance, Jackson was able to appeal to working people in the north.

The 1828 Campaign Was Shaped By Party Conflict

In 1827 supporters in both the Adams and Jackson camps began concerted efforts to undermine the character of the opponent. Even though the two candidates had strong differences on substantial issues, the resulting campaign turned out to be based on personalities and tactics which were outrageously underhanded.

The 1824 election had not been marked with strong party affiliations. But during the Adams administration the defenders of the status quo began calling themselves "National Republicans." Their opponents began calling themselves "Democratic Republicans," which was soon shortened to Democrats.

The 1828 election was thus a return to a two-party system, and was the precursor of the familiar two-party system we know today. The Democratic loyalists of Jackson were organized by New York's Martin Van Buren, who was known for his sharp political skills.

Careers of Candidates Became Fodder for Attacks

For those who detested Andrew Jackson, there was a goldmine of material, as Jackson was famed for his incendiary temper and had led a life filled with violence and controversy. He had taken part in several duels, killing a man in a notorious one in 1806. When commanding troops in 1815, he had ordered the execution of militia members accused of desertion. Even Jackson’s marriage became fodder for campaign attacks.

Those opposed to John Quincy Adams mocked him as an elitist. The refinement and intelligence of Adams were turned against him. And he was even derided as a “Yankee,” at a time when that connoted shopkeepers reputed to take advantage of consumers.

Coffin Handbills and Adultery Rumors

Andrew Jackson’s reputation as a national hero was based on his military career, as he had been the hero of the Battle of New Orleans, the final action of the War of 1812. His military glory was turned against him when a Philadelphia printer named John Binns published the notorious “coffin handbill,” a poster showing six black coffins and claiming the militiamen Jackson had ordered executed had essentially been murdered.

Jackson's wife Rachel had been married to another man before Jackson, and a question arose about when her first husband had divorced her and when she began living with Jackson. The explanation was that Jackson and his wife believed she had been divorced when they first married, but there was (and still is) some legitimate doubt about the timing.

Jackson’s marriage on the frontier nearly 40 years earlier became a major issue in the 1828 campaign. He was accused of adultery and vilified for running off with another man’s wife. And his wife was accused of bigamy.

Attacks on John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams, the son of founding father and second president John Adams, began his career in public service by working as the secretary to the American envoy to Russia when he was still a teenager. He had an illustrious career as a diplomat, which formed the basis for his later career in politics.

The supporters of Andrew Jackson began spreading a rumor that Adams, while serving as American ambassador to Russia, had procured an American girl for the sexual services of the Russian czar. The attack was no doubt baseless, but the Jacksonians delighted in it, even calling Adams a “pimp” and claiming that procuring women explained his great success as a diplomat.

Adams was also attacked for having a billiard table in the White House and allegedly charging the government for it. It was true that Adams played billiards in the White House, but he paid for the table with his own funds.

Adams Recoiled, Jackson Participated

As these scurrilous charges appeared in the pages of partisan newspapers, John Quincy Adams reacted by refusing to get involved with the campaign tactics. He was so offended by what was happening that he even refused to write in the pages of his diary from August 1828 until after the election.

Jackson, on the other hand, was so furious about the attacks on himself and his wife that he got more involved. He wrote to newspaper editors giving them guidelines on how attacks should be countered and how their own attacks should proceed.

Jackson Won the Election of 1828

Jackson's appeal to the "common folk" served him well and he handily won the popular vote and the electoral vote. It came at a price, however. His wife Rachel suffered a heart attack and died before the inauguration, and Jackson always blamed his political enemies for her death.

When Jackson arrived in Washington for his inauguration he refused to pay the customary courtesy call on the outgoing president. And John Quincy Adams reciprocated by refusing to attend the inauguration of Jackson. Indeed, the bitterness of the election of 1828 resonated for years.

------ Taken from http://history1800s.about.com/od/leaders/a/electionof1828.htm

[Jeremiah65]

I do not "hate" Obama....I know that might be shocking to some of you. He is not the absolute left wing out of control monster that many have tried to paint him...he has actually tried to be a nuevo Kennedy...he just has done a poor job of it.

I knew when the man was elected that he was not going to get much done....I knew that racism was going to be the rule of the day. I disagree with much of the democratic platform in the sense of fiscal responsibility...but I am socially....pretty liberal....oh hate me now...I turned my gadar off ages ago because I just don't care.

I am a Libertarian...what you do in the sanctity of your home is your business...I could not care less. If you want to marry your mailbox....fine...whatever...I don't care.

I am mostly concerned with monetary policy and revenue....this is what bothers me and this is what concerns me the most. we cannot continue to just print 80 some billion dollars a month and pump it into the stock market without huge ramifications down the road. People that do not see this are blind....it is not a nuisance...it is a game changer....an ugly one at that. By the way....thet 80 some billion a month that Bernanke is pumping into the economy....it goes to financial institutions....not you. If you need that money....you get to "borrow" it at an interest rate....if you default...thats ok...unle Benny will just print more...and by the way....we are sending the bill for all of this to your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.....does that not bother you?

[Einsteinium]

I know that the numbers are staggering, trillions of dollars, but you need to look at it from a GDP to debt. ratio perspective. From this perspective we still are not as bad as we were post WW2, and by the way post WW2 we raised taxes up to staggering percentages (90%+ in some cases) to pay off that debt. Of course nobody actually paid 90% tax, but people were paying much higher tax rates than they are now and we made it through that period just fine. But this time around the sky is falling, the country is crumbling, and our children will all be slaves to the banks. It is amazing how quickly we forget history, and how quick we are to cry wolf.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Einsteinium

[Wickian]

That, in itself, is a reprehenisible position.

In fact, if you ARE American, that borderlines on a treason/traitor mentality, though not illegal in thought, just action.

You can hardly call doing everything you can to legally stonewall a President's ambitions treasonous. There's so much wrong with that statement it's unreal. Since when is it not American to protest activities and changes using every available resource?

Off the top of my head I can't think of one big domestic issue I agree with Obama on. I'm sure there's a few, since it's impossible for anyone to completely to disagree with everything someone else believes in, but not many.

[Ashotep]

So you think it is some conspiracy? No, I have no belief that things can or would fundamentally change if the other guy had gotten into power. But he didn't did he? And the one thing we know is where we are headed - or do you think my assessment incorrect of the end of the game? Oby (and a bipartisan congress) are on course to have the USA owing about 20 TRILLION dollars by the time he is replaced by Billary. That amount of debt is an indication of the total collapse of the America I grew up in. And it is symptomatic not only of our politician's weaknesses but our own as individuals. And western Europe has no reason to feel superior about it either. Even Germany couldn't have made it without the currency help from the euro.

I know exactly where the country is headed. Its been on this trip since 2001 and racking up the debt every step of the way. It started out by giving wealthy companies tax rebates. Then we started two wars and we are still in one of them, this will cost us from now on even if we don't have troops there and heaven help us we will be in another one. No matter who you have in office it just keeps getting deeper. Things are getting serious with the national debt but the republicans seem to be more concerned with making the democrats look bad and not paying attention to serious issues. Not that I expect them to vote for a bad bill but sometimes they add things to make them bad.

[Ashotep]

I know that the numbers are staggering, trillions of dollars, but you need to look at it from a GDP to debt. ratio perspective. From this perspective we still are not as bad as we were post WW2, and by the way post WW2 we raised taxes up to staggering percentages (90%+ in some cases) to pay off that debt. Of course nobody actually paid 90% tax, but people were paying much higher tax rates than they are now and we made it through that period just fine. But this time around the sky is falling, the country is crumbling, and our children will all be slaves to the banks. It is amazing how quickly we forget history, and how quick we are to cry wolf.

I don't trust banks, big corporations or wall street. They will own us and I think they have too much say in Washington. I think they are part of the problem with the economy. President Truman didn't trust them.

In his first term as a U.S. Senator, Truman spoke out against corporate greed and the dangers of Wall Street speculators and other moneyed special interests attaining too much influence in national affairs.^[36] He was largely ignored by President Roosevelt, and had difficulty getting calls to the White House returned.^[34][37]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

[Kowalski]

I don't trust banks, big corporations or wall street. They will own us and I think they have too much say in Washington. I think they are part of the problem with the economy. President Truman didn't trust them.

[Harte]

where was your outrage over the "unsustainable" debt in 2008? or the 8 years before that? Your real problems lie elsewhere.

Point taken.

Since this is true, then I suppose you're recommending that we go back to 2008 spending levels. I agree.

However, slice only a a tiny portion off the current budget through means proposed by this President and only activated when Congress won't get off its ass, and, according to this administration, the world comes to an end.

We're spending more this year, even with sequestration.

Harte

[MiskatonicGrad]

I think term limits would do a world of good fixing the problems we have with this country. It would take away the power base of either party and let other parties get a foothold in government. maybe it would bankrupt the lobbiest groups and get them out of DC. so the congress can get around to fixing our country and stop trying to control us.

I personally don't think either party has this countries best interest at heart. they are more concerned with maintaining power and lining their pockets on the way and if you wanted to push the issue you could bring all of them up on treason charges just by using the constitution as a guide.

[pallidin]

You can hardly call doing everything you can to legally stonewall a President's ambitions treasonous. There's so much wrong with that statement it's unreal. Since when is it not American to protest activities and changes using every available resource?

Off the top of my head I can't think of one big domestic issue I agree with Obama on. I'm sure there's a few, since it's impossible for anyone to completely to disagree with everything someone else believes in, but not many.

I used the term "borderlines" for the reason you stated. Still...

You're right. I was being overly harsh and likely too many beers.

My apoligies.

Edited May 21, 2013 by pallidin

[ninjadude]

2016: Obama's America ---

You, of course, realize it's not 2016 and this is a fictitious BS movie, right? Is that what passes for facts now - complete hogwash?

[ninjadude]

Since this is true, then I suppose you're recommending that we go back to 2008 spending levels. I agree.

We can start by cutting defense by 50 percent.

[F3SS]

where was your outrage over the "unsustainable" debt in 2008? or the 8 years before that? Your real problems lie elsewhere.

Where is your outrage over it at all? I know, it doesn't matter. Kill trees, shave sheep, mix ink, print more money.

[ninjadude]

Where is your outrage over it at all? I know, it doesn't matter. Kill trees, shave sheep, mix ink, print more money.

I'm not. The government NEEDS to be spending money during our current economy. This whole "austerity" spiel has been completely debunked.