First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Hillbilly boy

United States

#1 Jun 26, 2013
I think that just about every honest person in America can see that the current form of representative government, runaway judges and courts, and the miles of red-tape and ridiculous law after layer of ridiculous law, that we can all see that something needs to be done about it.

The corruption in the government, at every level, in beyond words. And the people have no say in anything the government does. We elect representatives, but we dont know ahead of time what they are going to do.

And they seldom act the same in office as they talked on the election trail anyway.

Our founding fathers invented our current form of representative government back in 1787. It was impractible (impossible)to have the voters rule by referendum. So, our elected representative government was formed.

And things went more slowly back then. The government didnt rush laws before reading them. They didnt have to "pass the thing to see whats in it", as Nancy Pelosi said of the Obamacare law that the democrats passed without reading.

And worse is the 9 unelected tyrants of the Supreme Court who are writing laws that they like, and striking down the ones they dont like. And they dont care one fig about the law or the Constitution in doing this. They are political ideologues who rule based on whims, knee-jerk reactions, and corruption.

But...we have cars and the internet now.

Why dont we ask repeatedly (until it sticks) our Congress and our President, to write some new laws that give the voters more say in what laws will be writen.

And also, we need a Constitutional amendment which gives the voters the ability to legally over-ride the US Supreme Court,(and the Congress).

After all, it is painfully obvious that the Supremes have ceased to function as the founding fathers intended.

And it would also prevent future "lame-duck" Congresses (who have already been voted out by the people) from passing a whole flurry of stupid laws before they go out.

I think our founding fathers would support this. In fact, I think the only people who wouldnt support it, is the crooks themselves, who would loose their power.

Its time to define ourselves as to whether we are a democracy, or just another corrupt banana republic?
Cheese Puff Daddy

Park Hills, MO

#2 Jun 26, 2013
Hillbilly boy wrote:
I think that just about every honest person in America can see that the current form of representative government, runaway judges and courts, and the miles of red-tape and ridiculous law after layer of ridiculous law, that we can all see that something needs to be done about it.

The corruption in the government, at every level, in beyond words. And the people have no say in anything the government does. We elect representatives, but we dont know ahead of time what they are going to do.

And they seldom act the same in office as they talked on the election trail anyway.

Our founding fathers invented our current form of representative government back in 1787. It was impractible (impossible)to have the voters rule by referendum. So, our elected representative government was formed.

And things went more slowly back then. The government didnt rush laws before reading them. They didnt have to "pass the thing to see whats in it", as Nancy Pelosi said of the Obamacare law that the democrats passed without reading.

And worse is the 9 unelected tyrants of the Supreme Court who are writing laws that they like, and striking down the ones they dont like. And they dont care one fig about the law or the Constitution in doing this. They are political ideologues who rule based on whims, knee-jerk reactions, and corruption.

But...we have cars and the internet now.

Why dont we ask repeatedly (until it sticks) our Congress and our President, to write some new laws that give the voters more say in what laws will be writen.

And also, we need a Constitutional amendment which gives the voters the ability to legally over-ride the US Supreme Court,(and the Congress).

After all, it is painfully obvious that the Supremes have ceased to function as the founding fathers intended.

And it would also prevent future "lame-duck" Congresses (who have already been voted out by the people) from passing a whole flurry of stupid laws before they go out.

I think our founding fathers would support this. In fact, I think the only people who wouldnt support it, is the crooks themselves, who would loose their power.

Its time to define ourselves as to whether we are a democracy, or just another corrupt banana republic?
The founding fathers also warned of Democracy.. The United States was founded as a Republic. Thomas Jefferson said that Democracy wasn't viable outside the confines of a small town. Our government is a flawed balancing act between Republianism and Democracy. I understand what you're saying and all and I agree to a certain extent. The problem I have with Democracy these days is that any fool once they reach 18 years of age regardless of their mental capacity is allowed to vote. Therefore, as the stupid people outnumber the educated and informed, our country begins being run by idiots.. I don't have any answers to the problem, but I foresee corruption in government no matter what we do. Best way to limit the corruption would be to cut the size of the government and just eliminate a bunch of this federalization of everything. Less government equals less corruption.
Old feller thePossumeater

United States

#3 Jun 27, 2013
That is true. Less government means less corruption.

But government isnt going to limit itself unless the people have some say in it. This is a good argument for a renewal of a third party, such as the Libertarians or the Tea Party. Both of these espouse a much smaller government.

The Republican party is ashamed of its own base, and has driven it away by abandoning conservatism. Thus the Republican party has become unprofitable (useless) for conservative voters to support.

The salt has lost its saltiness.

(Look at Republicans like Corker, Alexander, McCain, et al, to see this).

So now, the Republican party is a shriveling prune, withering on the political vine.

Better for conservative voters to leave them to rot on the political vine and find a new party.

Ultimately, the whole tasl of safe guarding of our liberty cannot be entrusted to politicians, as they are the least capable (or likely) of doing the smart thing, or the right thing.

After all, who better to run things? The voters, or a collection of crooks and mini-tyrants who wish only to trade and sell our freedoms (and our money, our lives, etc) to the highest bidder to facilitate their own enrichment.

Our freedom is just another commodity that is traded every day on Capitol hill. It is bought and sold just as pork bellies and oil are bought and sold on the NYSE every business day.

Our nation would be better off being ran more closely by the ignorant people, than the corrupt (and plain stupid) politicians.

I dont think we should radically alter the government. But I do think that there should be an amendment made to the Constitution, so that voters can have the right to organize a grass-roots petition to force a national referendum of a certain specific issue.

And the results of a petitioned, grass roots referendum would be able to overide Congress, the President, or even the ridiculous Supreme Court.

It would be the ultimate safety valve, wouldnt it?

(It probably would have spared us from a lot of unpopular and rather stupid stuff, such as the Vietnam war, for one example).
Cheese Puff Daddy

Park Hills, MO

#4 Jun 28, 2013
Old feller thePossumeater wrote:
That is true. Less government means less corruption.

But government isnt going to limit itself unless the people have some say in it. This is a good argument for a renewal of a third party, such as the Libertarians or the Tea Party. Both of these espouse a much smaller government.

The Republican party is ashamed of its own base, and has driven it away by abandoning conservatism. Thus the Republican party has become unprofitable (useless) for conservative voters to support.

The salt has lost its saltiness.

(Look at Republicans like Corker, Alexander, McCain, et al, to see this).

So now, the Republican party is a shriveling prune, withering on the political vine.

Better for conservative voters to leave them to rot on the political vine and find a new party.

Ultimately, the whole tasl of safe guarding of our liberty cannot be entrusted to politicians, as they are the least capable (or likely) of doing the smart thing, or the right thing.

After all, who better to run things? The voters, or a collection of crooks and mini-tyrants who wish only to trade and sell our freedoms (and our money, our lives, etc) to the highest bidder to facilitate their own enrichment.

Our freedom is just another commodity that is traded every day on Capitol hill. It is bought and sold just as pork bellies and oil are bought and sold on the NYSE every business day.

Our nation would be better off being ran more closely by the ignorant people, than the corrupt (and plain stupid) politicians.

I dont think we should radically alter the government. But I do think that there should be an amendment made to the Constitution, so that voters can have the right to organize a grass-roots petition to force a national referendum of a certain specific issue.

And the results of a petitioned, grass roots referendum would be able to overide Congress, the President, or even the ridiculous Supreme Court.

It would be the ultimate safety valve, wouldnt it?

(It probably would have spared us from a lot of unpopular and rather stupid stuff, such as the Vietnam war, for one example).
Have you noticed how certain republicans are latching onto the Libertarian ideals? They are riding the fence and using Libertarianism to regain some sort of relevance to the party. My views are 100% Libertarian and I hate to see the Republican Party use it to promote themselves. Pretty soon they will have dissolved it into the Republican Party. You're either Libertarian or you're not. These guys need to just claim the Libertarian Party and quit trying to "have the best of both".
Sid

Newland, NC

#6 Jun 29, 2013
Old feller thePossumeater wrote:
That is true. Less government means less corruption.
But government isnt going to limit itself unless the people have some say in it. This is a good argument for a renewal of a third party, such as the Libertarians or the Tea Party. Both of these espouse a much smaller government.
The Republican party is ashamed of its own base, and has driven it away by abandoning conservatism. Thus the Republican party has become unprofitable (useless) for conservative voters to support.
The salt has lost its saltiness.
(Look at Republicans like Corker, Alexander, McCain, et al, to see this).
So now, the Republican party is a shriveling prune, withering on the political vine.
Better for conservative voters to leave them to rot on the political vine and find a new party.
Ultimately, the whole tasl of safe guarding of our liberty cannot be entrusted to politicians, as they are the least capable (or likely) of doing the smart thing, or the right thing.
After all, who better to run things? The voters, or a collection of crooks and mini-tyrants who wish only to trade and sell our freedoms (and our money, our lives, etc) to the highest bidder to facilitate their own enrichment.
Our freedom is just another commodity that is traded every day on Capitol hill. It is bought and sold just as pork bellies and oil are bought and sold on the NYSE every business day.
Our nation would be better off being ran more closely by the ignorant people, than the corrupt (and plain stupid) politicians.
I dont think we should radically alter the government. But I do think that there should be an amendment made to the Constitution, so that voters can have the right to organize a grass-roots petition to force a national referendum of a certain specific issue.
And the results of a petitioned, grass roots referendum would be able to overide Congress, the President, or even the ridiculous Supreme Court.
It would be the ultimate safety valve, wouldnt it?
(It probably would have spared us from a lot of unpopular and rather stupid stuff, such as the Vietnam war, for one example).
So, are you saying that if a referendum to take away the rights of women to vote, or to again enslave African Americans, or to make rape legal, had enough support, and was passed that it should become the law the land? The system of checks and balances is there for a reason. People have had issues with the different branches of government as long as we've had our government. Personally, I think that the biggest problem with our system is the lack of term limits for the senate and house. The president is only there for 4-8 years. It's career politicians such as John Boehner and Harry Reid that are sending this country down a dark road. They have had decades to fix the problems, but only create more.
Cheese Puff Daddy

Park Hills, MO

#7 Jun 29, 2013
Sid wrote:
<quoted text>So, are you saying that if a referendum to take away the rights of women to vote, or to again enslave African Americans, or to make rape legal, had enough support, and was passed that it should become the law the land? The system of checks and balances is there for a reason. People have had issues with the different branches of government as long as we've had our government. Personally, I think that the biggest problem with our system is the lack of term limits for the senate and house. The president is only there for 4-8 years. It's career politicians such as John Boehner and Harry Reid that are sending this country down a dark road. They have had decades to fix the problems, but only create more.
Have you lost your faith in the American people to the point that you believe they would vote to take away women's rights and to enslave African Americans? REALLY? Aren't these representatives elected to do what their constituency elected them to do anyways? I agree with you about term limits.
Sid

Newland, NC

#8 Jun 29, 2013
Cheese Puff Daddy wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you lost your faith in the American people to the point that you believe they would vote to take away women's rights and to enslave African Americans? REALLY? Aren't these representatives elected to do what their constituency elected them to do anyways? I agree with you about term limits.
Actually, I have lost faith somewhat. Our country has become so polarized with the extreme right and the extreme left pulling against each other... One side will not budge and will fight against a bill just because the other side brings it up. Or a bill will come up that is so far right or left that the sponsors putting the bill on the floor know that it will cause a division. And we support these people in what they are doing by electing the same right and left wing trash over and over again. The American people now pick one cause to be passionate about. They will fight for that one cause, diverting their attention from what is really going on. The people do not have a say, even with their vote. The owners of this country are the corporations that control how the government is operated. If the people were to vote in a system such as you suggest, their votes would be bought. I think in a perfect world that what you suggest would be great. But it's not a perfect world.
Cheese Puff Daddy

Park Hills, MO

#9 Jun 30, 2013
Sid wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, I have lost faith somewhat. Our country has become so polarized with the extreme right and the extreme left pulling against each other... One side will not budge and will fight against a bill just because the other side brings it up. Or a bill will come up that is so far right or left that the sponsors putting the bill on the floor know that it will cause a division. And we support these people in what they are doing by electing the same right and left wing trash over and over again. The American people now pick one cause to be passionate about. They will fight for that one cause, diverting their attention from what is really going on. The people do not have a say, even with their vote. The owners of this country are the corporations that control how the government is operated. If the people were to vote in a system such as you suggest, their votes would be bought. I think in a perfect world that what you suggest would be great. But it's not a perfect world.
I just wish the Federal Government would do what it was created to do and uphold the Constitution and make sure that the States are doing so as well. Using the Federal Government to handle secular issues is what's ruining it. It should focus on issues that effect everybody instead of the issues that effect a few.. Just my opinion
Silverado

Jonesborough, TN

#10 Jun 30, 2013
I read an article a few years back on a poll conducted on an equal number of self-proclaimed conservatives and liberals. The study combined a large number of core values from each party without any indication to which party the core values represented. The pollsters were then asked to check the core values that they felt best represented their internal beliefs.

The study showed that most self-proclaimed conservatives were more consistent in checking more core values that represented their beliefs, i.e. less government, anti-abortion, etc. And on the flip side, which I found quite astounding, was that a majority of the self-proclaimed liberals also chose a large number of core values associated with conservative beliefs, but also included in their checklist liberal core values such as pro gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, etc.

The study concluded that most conservatives have a wholistic belief in their chosen party's core values, whereas liberals choose to associate with only a few of their party's core values, but believe strongly enough in those few to consider themselves liberal.

I have looked for this study numerous times online without success, but its findings may be what's prompting the Republican party to expand its boundaries. Just a thought.
Hillbillyboy

United States

#11 Jul 2, 2013
think the Republicans have two things going on to explain why they are changing thier values and platform.

A...they have some really bad advisors, and complete idiots in charge. After all, if Protestant Christians are the base of the party...then they sent us out a Morman and a Catholic (Protestants consider both of these religious to be heretical) on the ticket...who sounded more like a liberal democrat than the democrat candidate?

And they wonder who Romney Lost?

The only other thing I can think of is that the old conspiracy theories are true... is that it is all just a shell gave, and the illuminati or Bilderbergers, or whomever they call themselves, are sone shady Satanic cult that is calling the shots before they happen, and the politics involved is just a shell game to distract us.

I mean really, the Republican party leadership is so bad, that either one of these scenarios can be true. No way to tell.

That is how ridiculously bad the Republican party leadership really is.

Hey Silverado, good speaking with you. You and CPD are sone of my favorites on this site to speak with. Hope youre having a good day?
Hillbillyboy

United States

#12 Jul 2, 2013
Sid wrote:
<quoted text>
So, are you saying that if a referendum to take away the rights of women to vote, or to again enslave African Americans, or to make rape legal, had enough support, and was passed that it should become the law the land? The system of checks and balances is there for a reason. People have had issues with the different branches of government as long as we've had our government. Personally, I think that the biggest problem with our system is the lack of term limits for the senate and house. The president is only there for 4-8 years. It's career politicians such as John Boehner and Harry Reid that are sending this country down a dark road. They have had decades to fix the problems, but only create more.
You do realize, dont you, that those ridiculous things you just mentioned were actually upheld by the Supreme Court for long times as Constitutional?

They always have (and still are) playing party line politics and writing laws from the bench.

Instead of protecting the Constitution they re-write it at their own political whims.

The Supreme Court has a near 100% track record of screwing up every single issue of any importance that it has ever dealt with.

The people of America have gotten it right far more often.
Silverado

Jonesborough, TN

#13 Jul 2, 2013
Hillbillyboy wrote:
think the Republicans have two things going on to explain why they are changing thier values and platform.
A...they have some really bad advisors, and complete idiots in charge. After all, if Protestant Christians are the base of the party...then they sent us out a Morman and a Catholic (Protestants consider both of these religious to be heretical) on the ticket...who sounded more like a liberal democrat than the democrat candidate?
And they wonder who Romney Lost?
The only other thing I can think of is that the old conspiracy theories are true... is that it is all just a shell gave, and the illuminati or Bilderbergers, or whomever they call themselves, are sone shady Satanic cult that is calling the shots before they happen, and the politics involved is just a shell game to distract us.
I mean really, the Republican party leadership is so bad, that either one of these scenarios can be true. No way to tell.
That is how ridiculously bad the Republican party leadership really is.
Hey Silverado, good speaking with you. You and CPD are sone of my favorites on this site to speak with. Hope youre having a good day?
Same here, HB. I don't usually reply unless you or CPD are involved in the forum. I may not agree with you on every topic (although rare), but its good to have spirited debate with people who are knowledgeable and are current on what's going on in the country. It's good to share conversation with someone who doesn't blame Bush for all the world's current problems which seems to be the liberals answer to everything. Anyways, look forward to more forums in the future.
Cheese Puff Daddy

Park Hills, MO

#14 Jul 2, 2013
Good to see ya guys.. Here's my question of the day, will the Libertarian Party survive to stand on its own 2 feet or will its ideals be dissolved into the Republican Party and destroyed? I really wish it would grow into a competitive third party..
Hillbillyboy

Cincinnati, OH

#15 Jul 3, 2013
That is a very good question, CPD.

I think that the Libertarian party is likened unto the movie "Tucker". Big guy swallowing up the little guy.

Except in this case, the Big guy is the Republican party.

And the Republican party is headless and without guidance at this time. Its as if the Repub leadership has been bought off and bribed to ruin the party from within.

(Actually, I strongly suspect this is the case)

George Bush took the Repubs out into ideological wilderness nad left it there to die. The current Repub leadership appears to be deliberately trying to destroy its own party.

So now, the Repubs are abandoning thier only strong supporters (and the overwhelming base) which is the Conservative Christians. The "Republicans" are actually just "false Republicans", who say one thing but vote with the liberals.,

And the conservative Christians are taking a new (and disgusted) look at the "false Republicans" (such as Alexander, Corker, McCain, et al) and seeing that there is no room at the inn.

So, the huge Conservative Christian base of the GOP will be up for grabs to whatever party can do the two things needed...

A...attract them by actually supporting Conservative social issues (not just empty lip service as the GOP did). This means advertising and actively campaigning among the Christians to attract them to the new party and away from the GOP..and

B...Accept the Conservative Christian ideology into the party platform, like the GOP used to do back when it had real leadership.

If the Libertarians or the Tea Party will do these two things, then the Christians can migrate to the new party and make them overnight, the viable party that they wish to be.

And the GOP will simply fade away, capturing maybe 5% of the vote (after the Christians have left them, that is).

Will the Libertarian Party make room for the millions and millions of Christians?

If not, the Tea Party probably would.
Cheese Puff Daddy

Park Hills, MO

#16 Jul 3, 2013
Hillbillyboy wrote:
That is a very good question, CPD.

I think that the Libertarian party is likened unto the movie "Tucker". Big guy swallowing up the little guy.

Except in this case, the Big guy is the Republican party.

And the Republican party is headless and without guidance at this time. Its as if the Repub leadership has been bought off and bribed to ruin the party from within.

(Actually, I strongly suspect this is the case)

George Bush took the Repubs out into ideological wilderness nad left it there to die. The current Repub leadership appears to be deliberately trying to destroy its own party.

So now, the Repubs are abandoning thier only strong supporters (and the overwhelming base) which is the Conservative Christians. The "Republicans" are actually just "false Republicans", who say one thing but vote with the liberals.,

And the conservative Christians are taking a new (and disgusted) look at the "false Republicans" (such as Alexander, Corker, McCain, et al) and seeing that there is no room at the inn.

So, the huge Conservative Christian base of the GOP will be up for grabs to whatever party can do the two things needed...

A...attract them by actually supporting Conservative social issues (not just empty lip service as the GOP did). This means advertising and actively campaigning among the Christians to attract them to the new party and away from the GOP..and

B...Accept the Conservative Christian ideology into the party platform, like the GOP used to do back when it had real leadership.

If the Libertarians or the Tea Party will do these two things, then the Christians can migrate to the new party and make them overnight, the viable party that they wish to be.

And the GOP will simply fade away, capturing maybe 5% of the vote (after the Christians have left them, that is).

Will the Libertarian Party make room for the millions and millions of Christians?

If not, the Tea Party probably would.
I don't see the Libertarian Party taking on such issues as those important to conservative Christians. They tend to support smaller government, restored civil liberties and have a "I'll leave you alone if you leave me alone" approach to politics. If the Libertarian Party was to grow, I'm really curious to which side of the abortion issue they'd take. Will they value the civil liberties of the mother, or the unborn? In regards to gay marriage and other issues I just don't see them going there. They support the rights of the American, not the secular American. I believe their approach would be to deregulate marriage all together rather then granting special rights to a group. We'll just have to kick back and see what happens..
Silverado

Jonesborough, TN

#17 Jul 3, 2013
Cheese Puff Daddy wrote:
Good to see ya guys.. Here's my question of the day, will the Libertarian Party survive to stand on its own 2 feet or will its ideals be dissolved into the Republican Party and destroyed? I really wish it would grow into a competitive third party..
That's a tough question, CPD. If you had asked this question 5-10 years ago I would have said there was no way it could survive on its own. But, with the Republican party losing its identity, the timing might be right for Libertarians to make their move.

I'll have to agree with HB on his argument for being more accepting to Christians. If you recall, Christian conservatives are who put Bush into office. Today, with the media in their pocket, the liberals have waged an all-out attack on our beliefs on almost every front and many Christian conservatives feel betrayed by the GOP.

I think what the right is going through now is what a lot of hard-core leftists went through under Clinton and his move towards the middle - a group without a home. They found redemption under Obama, but depending on who our next president is, the Libertarian Party could be appealing to those who consider themselves politically conservative, yet socially liberal.

In other words, I have no idea. Dang good question, though. I would love to hear some liberals' opinions on that question.
Cheese Puff Daddy

Park Hills, MO

#18 Jul 3, 2013
Silverado wrote:
<quoted text>That's a tough question, CPD. If you had asked this question 5-10 years ago I would have said there was no way it could survive on its own. But, with the Republican party losing its identity, the timing might be right for Libertarians to make their move.

I'll have to agree with HB on his argument for being more accepting to Christians. If you recall, Christian conservatives are who put Bush into office. Today, with the media in their pocket, the liberals have waged an all-out attack on our beliefs on almost every front and many Christian conservatives feel betrayed by the GOP.

I think what the right is going through now is what a lot of hard-core leftists went through under Clinton and his move towards the middle - a group without a home. They found redemption under Obama, but depending on who our next president is, the Libertarian Party could be appealing to those who consider themselves politically conservative, yet socially liberal.

In other words, I have no idea. Dang good question, though. I would love to hear some liberals' opinions on that question.
I've noticed that Rand Paul has latched on to the Libertarian views. I consider Ron Paul the "Founding Father" of libertarianism but throughout his political career he was a Republican.

It's confusing, the presidential ballot here in MO had Gary Johnson on it. I saw Ron Paul signs everywhere around here and had the chance to attend fund raisers for him. How was he not on our ballot? I just don't get it..
Cheese Puff Daddy

Park Hills, MO

#19 Jul 4, 2013
Mary Godowitch sent this over.

THE WASHINGTON POST HITS OBAMA!

Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama! This is very brutal, timely though. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper has a reputation for being extremely liberal . So the fact that its editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama in its newspaper makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his obvious socialist agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by our liberal media.

I too have become disillusioned
By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Continued next post>>>
Cheese Puff Daddy

Park Hills, MO

#20 Jul 4, 2013
Cheese Puff Daddy wrote:
Mary Godowitch sent this over.

THE WASHINGTON POST HITS OBAMA!

Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama! This is very brutal, timely though. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper has a reputation for being extremely liberal . So the fact that its editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama in its newspaper makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his obvious socialist agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by our liberal media.

I too have become disillusioned
By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Continued next post>>>
Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
Cheese Puff Daddy

Park Hills, MO

#21 Jul 4, 2013
Cheese Puff Daddy wrote:
<quoted text>Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

"A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Johnson City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Preacher and the Beaver 1 hr Danielle 4
Tri cities busted (Jun '16) 3 hr Joni_Cannonmouth 19
You's Dumb Girls 5 hr JuanDeCarlos 11
Kimber Halliburton 7 hr sexy 15
Washington County Tax Bill 7 hr yea i said it 3
Dr Goen (Apr '16) 9 hr Tncowboy 20
Support Crockett Coach 9 hr SureHope 25

Johnson City Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Johnson City Mortgages