Our new president (Obama)

[PureSnipe]

Perhaps you would prefer a non charismatic leader?

I suppose Reagan must have scared the hell out of you 2.

 

Charisma is one thing. I say that for the fact I'm seen to be highly charismatic by the people I'm around.

 

When your charisma is so great that you are able to lead people into doing things completely against the grain they've grown up with, then something is a bit out of place.

 

I wasn't alive during Reagan, but from what I've read, heard and seen, his charisma was tied to pulling our country back to its roots - the Constitution. Obama's charisma is pulling people away from that, giving the national government more power.

[Wikinger9048]

How naive are the american people? This B****** lies, when his open his mouth. And this new first Lady do, like the other first ladys, the same, with the CFR.

I mean, whats going on with america? personality cults, work brigades, youth corps, homeland security... This looks like Red China, or Sovjet Russia or Nazi Germany, but unlike america. But President Slick speech about change and tousands of mineless Seeps beliving that Crap. Yeah... Change you can belive in.

 

People breaking out in tears for the honor of speaking to him.

*shiver*

[PureSnipe]

How naive are the american people? This B****** lies, when his open his mouth. And this new first Lady do, like the other first ladys, the same, with the CFR.

I mean, whats going on with america? personality cults, work brigades, youth corps, homeland security... This looks like Red China, or Sovjet Russia or Nazi Germany, but unlike america. But President Slick speech about change and tousands of mineless Seeps beliving that Crap. Yeah... Change you can belive in.

 

People breaking out in tears for the honor of speaking to him.

*shiver*

 

Did Reagan's charisma inspire any of these things? Did any president's? None I can think of, how about yourself, or is Obama the first to have this extreme effect on people?

[Mavkiel]

Perhaps you would prefer a non charismatic leader?

I suppose Reagan must have scared the hell out of you 2.

 

Ok I will bite, but its a tad before my time.

 

Yes, I prefer a non charismatic leader. One who HAS to explain why he is doing what he proposes, rather then give some meaningless one liner and having a crowd go wild.

 

Yeah, I really should be grateful for the "Regan doctrine". You know the one where we (the US) provided arms to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. *sarcasm* Or should I mention the Iran-Contra affair? Or, calling the former USSR, whom we did not have good relations with the "evil empire".

 

Whom does that sound like? replace evil empire with axis of evil? At least those countries couldnt launch hundreds of nuclear missles at us.

 

All that being said, I think Regan doctrine did some good.. I just wish we were more picky on whom we backed against the USSR.

[ed8020]

Whom do you know of that has been lead into doing things completely against the grain they've grown up with?

 

I was alive during the Reagan years and he was very charismatic but the rest of it is for another thread.

I will say this though, I have never known any Republican to expand personal freedom, which IS what the Constitution is all about.

How has Obama pulled people away from that?

[PureSnipe]

Whom do you know of that has been lead into doing things completely against the grain they've grown up with?

 

I was alive during the Reagan years and he was very charismatic but the rest of it is for another thread.

I will say this though, I have never known any Republican to expand personal freedom, which IS what the Constitution is all about.

How has Obama pulled people away from that?

 

Seems that you don't understand the Constitution then. It gives rights and liberties, also known as freedom. Every president ever elected has gone against it in one way or another, but those are usually minor. Liberal presidents have had the longest record of infringing on those freedoms. For instance, the assault rifle ban Clinton enacted, or the Fairness Doctrine that Obama wishes to reinstate.

 

The Liberal administrations tend to overstep the boundaries laid forth by the Constitution much more than the Conservatives do. Any research can tell you that.

 

When I say to abide by the constitution, I'm not speaking of the first ten amendments, but of the seven articles it has, saying what the federal government can and CANNOT do.

 

I can tell you're a supporter of Obama, and I congratulate you that you've found someone you can back. I do ask you, though, to not blindly follow without question. Take a step back. Look at what he's doing, not what he SAID he would do, and ask yourself if it is right.

[Michlo]

Whom do you know of that has been lead into doing things completely against the grain they've grown up with?

 

I was alive during the Reagan years and he was very charismatic but the rest of it is for another thread.

I will say this though, I have never known any Republican to expand personal freedom, which IS what the Constitution is all about.

How has Obama pulled people away from that?

 

Seems that you don't understand the Constitution then. It gives rights and liberties, also known as freedom. Every president ever elected has gone against it in one way or another, but those are usually minor. Liberal presidents have had the longest record of infringing on those freedoms. For instance, the assault rifle ban Clinton enacted, or the Fairness Doctrine that Obama wishes to reinstate.

 

The Liberal administrations tend to overstep the boundaries laid forth by the Constitution much more than the Conservatives do. Any research can tell you that.

 

When I say to abide by the constitution, I'm not speaking of the first ten amendments, but of the seven articles it has, saying what the federal government can and CANNOT do.

 

I can tell you're a supporter of Obama, and I congratulate you that you've found someone you can back. I do ask you, though, to not blindly follow without question. Take a step back. Look at what he's doing, not what he SAID he would do, and ask yourself if it is right.

 

Yet you don't show us where he is taking away our "freedom". Obama is being amazingly open and transparent, particularly when compared to the last eight years. He is STILL holding town hall meetings, even in foreign countries, the White House web-site is consistently updated and the blocked search words list went from the hundreds to 3 or 4 as soon as he took over.

 

You sore losers need to just get over it, support your President and help work towards the future rather than bitching and moaning.

[PureSnipe]

Yet you don't show us where he is taking away our "freedom". Obama is being amazingly open and transparent, particularly when compared to the last eight years. He is STILL holding town hall meetings, even in foreign countries, the White House web-site is consistently updated and the blocked search words list went from the hundreds to 3 or 4 as soon as he took over.

 

You sore losers need to just get over it, support your President and help work towards the future rather than bitching and moaning.

 

You know, it's that sort of mindset that scares me the most. You need to learn the difference between moaning and complaining, as compared to holding him accountable for his actions. It is the responsibility of the people to keep the elected officials to stick to their plans that they claimed they would do when they get elected, versus supporting anything they do blindly. If he wants to stay by what he claimed he would do, then sure, I'll support him. Other than that, I won't. His claims that he would go through bills "line by line" to make sure there were no earmarks, then when he passes this bull, err, bill, he signs his name on his own PERSONAL earmark.

 

This is the typical 'lie your way to the position, then do what you want' set of actions.

 

I guess you don't even know what the Constitution says.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; (The government can use the treasury's money to pay for things relating to the general welfare of the nation, not pay for pet projects and for earmarks to pad their wallets)

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

 

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

 

To establish post offices and post roads;

 

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

 

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

 

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

 

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

 

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

 

To provide and maintain a navy;

 

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

 

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

 

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

 

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

 

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

 

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

 

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

 

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

 

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

 

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment I

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Fairness Doctrine violates this, as does the removal of religious phrases being used in the private sector)

 

Amendment II

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (Any gun law violates this, such as the Clinton assault rifle ban that Obama wants to reinstate, along with revoking the bill passed by Bush to allow CHLs to carry in national parks)

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (Again, if it isn't said that they can do it, it's up to the states)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it isn't stated here that the federal government can do it, then it's up to the States to do it.

I don't see in there that they can buy up the private sector, do you? I do recall a statement made by the current administration that they "owned 80% of AIG"

 

And tell me, why the hell should I support something that will put our country another 1.3 trillion dollars in debt, and why should I support Obama printing off another trillion dollars when we don't have the assets to back it?

I'm the generation who is going to be hit the hardest, since I'll still be working in thirty years.

[ed8020]

The constitution is not something that you can pick and choose which parts to enforce. It's all or nothing.

Unless we keep the Bill of Rights squarely in our focus, the rest of it is meaningless. The articles you speak of, though they are important, are nothing more than the articles of incorporation. That means that whether they like it or not, Democrats have to ACCEPT the 2nd amendment and Republicans have to accept the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc., etc..

You can say I don't understand the Constitution but that doesn't make it so.

And you may notice that I try to stay away from Lib / Con labels.

They are very misleading because there is absolutely nothing "conservative" about the Republican party and the apllication of their philosophy. There may have been a good idea there once but I have not seen it in my lifetime.

If you want to find a true conservative you would have to look to the Libertarians or in the extreme, the Anarchists.

Yes I am an Obama supporter but not because he is a liberal or a democrat.

I support him because.....

1. He never uses the word nucular. It's nice to have a president that has at least a 6th grade grasp of the english language.

2. He understands that we are in a world of poo and isn't afraid to talk about it.

3. He has a clear vision of where we need to go to survive in the 21st century. Not just as a country but as a race (human).

I could list more but honestly, those 3 are good enough for me.

And you're right. I should not "read his lips" so to speak, but give him a chance and see what he accomplishes in his 1st year/term rather than his 1st 100 days before I start trashin the guy.

For the 1st time in my life I actually voted FOR someone rather than AGAINST someone.

And no I won't take a step back. I have stood in the back for far too long.

And just to show that there is some common ground here.

They can have my assault rifle when they pry it from my cold dead hand.

Because without the 2nd amendment, the rest of the constitution is just promises that are easily broken.

You should be careful who you are being condescending to.

You never know where you' may find an ally.

Well there it is finally.

Ok, I'll make you a deal.

Item 2. You support the anarchists right to burn the flag and I'll support Rush's right to keep doing what he does.

And by private sector, I'm hoping you don't mean public schools.

Item 3. Well I already covered that with the cold dead hand thing.

Item 1/4. How the hell is any state supposed to deal with AIG? AIG sneezed and the entire frakkin world caught a cold.

Do you really think that letting them fold was even an option? The biggest problem with THAT situation right now is that we are not ACTING like we own 80%. Thats one point where Barney Frank is inarguably right.

Sorry dude but we are both totally hosed by the national debt. Our only hope is that only HALF of what are are spending now is totally wasted. Because what we have spent for the last couple decades has been to support a very big party that only a few of us attended.

[Michlo]

/snip

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment I

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Fairness Doctrine violates this, as does the removal of religious phrases being used in the private sector)

 

And Obama instituted that? No.

 

Amendment II

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (Any gun law violates this, such as the Clinton assault rifle ban that Obama wants to reinstate, along with revoking the bill passed by Bush to allow CHLs to carry in national parks)

 

Again, not Obama and the amendment there says "arms", it does not distinguish ALL types of arms nor does it say they should be readily available to all and sundry to be used accidentally, etc.

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (Again, if it isn't said that they can do it, it's up to the states)

 

And what, pray tell yet again, has he done which contradicts this?

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it isn't stated here that the federal government can do it, then it's up to the States to do it.

I don't see in there that they can buy up the private sector, do you? I do recall a statement made by the current administration that they "owned 80% of AIG"

 

So they were just supposed to throw money at them and let them do what they wanted with it? We've already seen how that goes.

 

And tell me, why the hell should I support something that will put our country another 1.3 trillion dollars in debt, and why should I support Obama printing off another trillion dollars when we don't have the assets to back it?

I'm the generation who is going to be hit the hardest, since I'll still be working in thirty years.

 

You're an utter joke. You sit and rip apart everything you perceive that he is doing but you don't offer YOUR solutions, nor do you seem to even consider for a moment the utter crap he has inherited that would be a VERY tough job for ANYBODY to fix.

 

So yes, you ARE bitching and moaning. What have you done for the country lately?

 

I've nothing more to say to you.