The Obama Years- A GOP love story

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Its a sad world we live in where the media and folks want to talk about something as meaningless as a latta salute and are too incompetent to have a conversation about the failure of the administration to see the isis threat materialize. The slow isis approach already cost thousands of lives, what did the latte saluate cost?

our country is a joke

You misjudge the latte salute. The salute in military history is the symbolic epitome of respect. When the Commander in Chief fails to show those charged with his defense a time honored symbol of respect it shows a mentality. And that same mentality goes to the root of the failure on the latest threat.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Armed contractor with criminal record was on elevator with Obama in Atlanta - The Washington Post

Some of the stories about the Presidential detail make you wonder how seriously they take to protecting him. I am very positive that the one salute with a Latte in hand angered the more military minded on any detail.

Just a note. Presidents didn't salute military men up until Reagan.

Rachel Maddow: 'Not even old Gen. Eisenhower … saluted military personnel' as president | PunditFact

We suspect Maddow’s basis for her description may have roots in a 2007 New York Times opinion piece by Garry Wills, a professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University, as well as a 2004 op-ed by then-Reagan military aide and now-Minnesota U.S. Rep. John Kline.

Wills was writing about presidents saluting soldiers when they board and exit Marine One (just like Obama on Tuesday).

"We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines.

"That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order."

Straight up from a GOP site.


Is it Proper for a President to Render a Military Hand Salute? | Texas GOP Vote

The answer is quite simple. The President of the United States is a civilian. He is not a member of the US Military and is therefore not entitled to salute. The military salute is a privilege earned by honorable service in the military. It is also a privilege that can be taken away. Military prisoners are stripped of the privilege of saluting. While the President is Constitutionally the CINC, he is not a member of the military.

One of the core principles of our country is our military is under civilian control. The President is that civilian authority over the military as is the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the branches of the armed services.

The President shouldn't be saluting military men. Period. It's not about respect, it's about principles.

[CRedskinsRule]

Its one thing if its not expected and thus not rendered. Even the hugging the dog pic isn't quite the same, close though and I don't have much respect for Bush's understanding of the salute, but who isn't gonna hug a dog, damn near unpatriotic if you don't. (I keed. I keed) but the dismissive attitude of Pres Obama's was, like I said, to me the lack of respect he has for many foreign policy issues.

[Chico23231]

Great to see the fucking pieces of shits on msnbc making these excuses about the ass kicking the dems are taking. I enjoy it, not as much as watching Fox News when the gop gets creamed

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Great to see the fucking pieces of shits on msnbc making these excuses about the ass kicking the dems are taking. I enjoy it, not as much as watching Fox News when the gop gets creamed

I think it's kind of part of history that seats are lost every 6 years. Happened in Reagan, Clinton's, and Bush's terms.


The Republicans did exactly what they needed to the past 2-4 years. They've bogged down any legislation (even their own bills) to make the President look bad, so they can say "LOOK HE'S A BAD GUY AND THESE GUYS SUPPORT HIM". American voters are some of the biggest idiots out there.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I think it's kind of part of history that seats are lost every 6 years. Happened in Reagan, Clinton's, and Bush's terms.


The Republicans did exactly what they needed to the past 2-4 years. They've bogged down any legislation (even their own bills) to make the President look bad, so they can say "LOOK HE'S A BAD GUY AND THESE GUYS SUPPORT HIM". American voters are some of the biggest idiots out there.

Virginia result to me is absolutely stunning. Mark Warner, who I strongly support, barely beat a lobbiest. Warner is one of those who works across the ailse more than anybody in the senate and has logical takes on issues and puts politics on the side alot of the time. People are just pissed with Obama and are taking it out everywhere...

[MTK]

Can someone tell me a good reason why people are pissed at Obama anymore? Unemployment way down, the Dow is sky high, more people with health ins than ever before... what exactly are people upset over??

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Can someone tell me a good reason why people are pissed at Obama anymore? Unemployment way down, the Dow is sky high, more people with health ins than ever before... what exactly are people upset over??

World map is a mess, worse so in a long time.

I think the fact the Dems canidates chose not to run on the economy in most of places tells you alot. The recovery has been uneven and inconsistent in alot of spots. People are still hurtin....prices for food, shelter (rent, homes) are still very high. Hopefully with the energy prices fallin, this could help.

The dow, ugh...i really worry about a bubble

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Can someone tell me a good reason why people are pissed at Obama anymore? Unemployment way down, the Dow is sky high, more people with health ins than ever before... what exactly are people upset over??

Let's see ...

---> Unemployment is down but real wages remain depressed;

---> The economic recovery happens as a natural swing and the blame/claim as to the Dow's rise and fall aren't attributable to any single President (Clinton, Bush had a hand in the collapse and Bush, Obama had a hand in the recovery).

---> The Affordable Care Act has taken an Orwellian turn and, while more people may have coverage, significant numbers of people are paying a lot more for a lot less coverage. Obama's debacle of mandating that everyone use a broken health care system and couching it as "reform" is coming home to roost. Since October, and for the first time since its enactment, employers are having to comply with the expensive mandate options and employees are finding these costs passed to them or simply having their employer based benefits terminated (leaving folks to enter costly exchanges).

---> Foreign policy - and the lack thereof. I would suggest that there is a real perception out there that the world is a less safe place for America than when he arrived - not all Obama's doing obviously. However, under the guise of ending US unilateralism and "building consensus," Obama has traded away US world dominance and gained no real security benefit in return. On his watch, the world went from a unipolar US led hegemony to a multi-polar world with the other "poles" (China, Russia) having interests and cultures completely divergent from the American/West European ideal.

---> The Justice Department and Eric Holden. - This one is really high on my personal list - IMHO, and in my recollection, this administration has been the absolute worst for its flagrant abuse of the Constitution and Rule of Law ("I have a pen and a phone").

Sure, every past administration has bent some big rules and broken some small ones - but at least they paid lip service to the need for compliance. Obama/Holden have made it clear - in word and deed - that, if the law doesn't allow them to accomplish their agenda, they will ignore laws they don't like. The litany of game changing, unilateral legal actions taken (orand theories presented by this admin's legal team that effect us on a day to day basis and erode at our Constitutional protections have been stunning. Most don't get a lot of press (some do), but those decrying Bush's intrusions hadn't seen anything compared to the Obama/Holden BS.

It's not just what they actually do, it's what they try to do. Sure, lawyers zealously defending their private clients make some crazy arguments it's what they are paid to do - but the Justice Department's "client" should be the Constitution and Holden has all but said "Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!"

As a lawyer, some of the arguments presented by these guys are truly intellectually offensive. They know they are twisting precedent and being intellectually disingenuous but they justify their legal positions by claiming it is popular or the right thing to do. Thus, rather than building real consensus, reaching across the aisle to do the hard work of carving out compromise through the Constitutionally prescribed process, and, thus, affecting real change in the fabric of society, this administration has bypassed the legislative process and constantly warped the word and spirit existing laws in order to rule through executive regulation/fiat which - for good reason - has only minimal judicial oversight. The result is governance by rules and regulations that do not have broad support or understanding throughout the entire population and this, in turn, creates a disrespect for and an antagonistic approach to the legal process.

---> Ultimately, IMHO, the reaction is to a President constantly shoving an agenda of big government down the country's throat that depresses real growth while at the same time creating no real benefit for middle class families. AND when Republicans reflected the mood of their constituents by saying "No" Obama calls them "obstructionists." For all his talk of conciliation, Obama was as intractable as the opposition. Because he could initiate legislation from the Presidential soap box and the Dems had control of the Senate, the Dems were able to constantly able put Republicans on their heels. This approach, however, completely underestimated their popular support - as evidenced by the massive swing 2010 swing in the House.

[One thing to note - When Obama came into office, the Dems held 256 Congressional seats to Reps 178 and held a 57 to 41 advantage in the Senate. NOW the Reps have a 234 to 201 advantage in the House and at least a 51 to 49 advantage in the Senate. Thus, on Obama's watch, the Dems have lost both houses of Congress. Further, prior to Obama, no President has lost as many seats as he has over the course of their term.]

In truth, if it weren't for Democrats holding the popular ground on social issues (legalization of pot, gay marriage, abortion rights - sorry folks, the hippies won the cultural revolution, live with it), they would have been blown out.

Bottom line, this election creates a potential win-win for the Republicans. IF they create an agenda, pass bills relating to governing (immigration reform for example) and put them before Obama, he and the Dems become the obstructionists if he blocks their agenda. On the other hand, if the Dems work with R's to break through the gridlock, then in 2016 the R's claim "Look, once we had the ability to affect change - rather than just try and stop bad laws - we did it!"

If the Republicans don't shoot themselves in the foot (not a given by a long shot), come up with a real agenda, and back off some of their hard line social stances, the 2014 Republican wave will be a deluge in 2016.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Can someone tell me a good reason why people are pissed at Obama anymore? Unemployment way down, the Dow is sky high, more people with health ins than ever before... what exactly are people upset over??

.......he is black ,and he is the cause of absolutely everything wrong in this country and the world ,didn't you know that ?

[Hijinx]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Can someone tell me a good reason why people are pissed at Obama anymore? Unemployment way down, the Dow is sky high, more people with health ins than ever before... what exactly are people upset over??

The conservatives always hated him, what he lost was the left. Drone policy, going back to Iraq, prosecution of the press, immigration. Truth is that Obama would be in the conservative party of almost any European country.

[MTK]

Puff puff and pass it back to the party that F'd it all up to start with. Gotta love it.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Puff puff and pass it back to the party that F'd it all up to start with. Gotta love it.

lol ... let's just say we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The Dem Party isn't blameless in any of this. Lots of folks busy not listening to each other.

[Chico23231]

Im at the point its not the canidates/congressman/senators...they are virtually the same it seems minus 15% of them at the opposite end of each spectrum...the crazies or extremes. Everyone else in the between are essentially the same...be it gop or the dems...and they seem like they are disinterested with me the voter.


To me its not the people, its the process which is politics/bur eaucracy which is the problem. That what needs to change. We need a new process or system. Special interest, lobbiest, money should not be the focus of our representatives, the people and voters should be.

[JoeRedskin]

Well, of course, that is the consistent conundrum of a representative democracy - particularly one with a constituency of ~300,000,000 people. Simply put, you cannot legislate people into being good.

If you prohibit lobbyist money, because money always finds a way to gain access, corruption will increase and transparency disappear making it near impossible for the electorate to hold anyone accountable (Folks with the cash will find a way to pay for access - legally or illegally. Most prefer to do it legally so as to avoid risk, but, given the financial stakes, you cannot turn off the tap and illegal methods will suffice).

If you enforce term limits, than the only professionals in government - those who have long term institutional knowledge of how to "get things done" - are the unelected lobbyists, bureaucrats, and non-governmental organizations all of whom will trade expertise (and money) for access (or authority/power in the case of bureaucrats) at the expense of electorate's interests.

If you don't have term limits, you get professional public officials cozying up to professional lobbyists who are detached from and non-responsive to the electorate.

The ONLY way to avoid these pitfalls in a representative democracy and to ensure that elected officials are responsive to "the people and voters" is to have an active and informed electorate that will investigate their representatives positions & cash flow and then hold their representatives accountable for their voting record and funding sources.

We ... are ... doomed.