Welcome President Obama

[neon tetra]

Neon, it didn't want to play for me. It said 1 hr,, 38 minutes. Could you give me a summary. ,,, you know... attention span

Try refreshing it (F5). I had to do that twice to get it to play.

It's a really good film on the military industrial complex & the power it has over both parties. It's non-partisan & non-conspiracy-theory. Really well done.

Here's the wiki on it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fig ... 05_film%29

[can't sit still]

jkisha, this is an article from the Washington Times. It is somewhat condemning of our president. Would you take the time to rebut it. You must use rational arguments. You won't convince anyone,,, at least any Burners, with 2 word dismissals. Take your time and counter the claims one by one.


FIRST NEWSPAPER TO CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT!
Date: Monday, September 20, 2010,


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... 90/?page=2



President's socialist takeover must be stopped
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Washington Times

President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.

He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go.

He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was - and remains - opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson - taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.

Yet Obamacare's most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists - evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews - have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.

Mr. Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights. The BP oil spill is a case in point. BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf. There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia's Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda. Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims - much of it to Democratic constituents. This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.

Mr. Obama's multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America. He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass "cap-and-trade," which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life - beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds. Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.

To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Mr. Obama calls for "comprehensive immigration reform" - granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority. It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty. Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion. It means the death of American nationhood. We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.

Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama's Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama's decision on this case is treasonous.

As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site. A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. Mr. Adams says that under Mr. Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims - no matter how much they cry for justice - are not to be prosecuted. This is more than institutionalized racism. It is an abrogation of civil rights laws. The Justice Department's behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.

Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime. The Chicago way has become the Washington way. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political hit man. He is an amoral, ruthless operator. It was Mr. Emanuel who reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. It was Mr. Emanuel who offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary. And it was Mr. Emanuel - as the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has revealed - who acted as the go-between to try to have Valerie Jarrett parachuted into Mr. Obama's former Senate seat. The only question was: What did Mr. Blagojevich want in exchange?

This is not simply sleazy Chicago machine politics. It is the systematic breaking of the law - bribery, attempt to interfere (and manipulate) elections using taxpayer-funded jobs, influence peddling and abuse of power.
The common misperception on the right is that Mr. Obama is another Jimmy Carter: an incompetent liberal whose presidency is being reduced to rubble under the onslaught of repeated failures. The very opposite, however, is true. He is the most consequential president in our lifetime, transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would find not only unrecognizable, but repugnant. Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power - attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr. Obama's fledgling thug state must be stopped.
If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should - and likely will - launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from 5 to 7 p.m.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.

[Elderberry]

jkisha, this is an article from the Washington Times. It is somewhat condemning of our president. Would you take the time to rebut it. You must use rational arguments. You won't convince anyone,,, at least any Burners, with 2 word dismissals. Take your time and counter the claims one by one.


FIRST NEWSPAPER TO CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT!
Date: Monday, September 20, 2010,


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... 90/?page=2



President's socialist takeover must be stopped
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Washington Times

President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.

He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go.

He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was - and remains - opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson - taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.

Yet Obamacare's most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists - evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews - have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.

Mr. Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights. The BP oil spill is a case in point. BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf. There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia's Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda. Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims - much of it to Democratic constituents. This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.

Mr. Obama's multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America. He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass "cap-and-trade," which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life - beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds. Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.

To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Mr. Obama calls for "comprehensive immigration reform" - granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority. It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty. Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion. It means the death of American nationhood. We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.

Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama's Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama's decision on this case is treasonous.

As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site. A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. Mr. Adams says that under Mr. Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims - no matter how much they cry for justice - are not to be prosecuted. This is more than institutionalized racism. It is an abrogation of civil rights laws. The Justice Department's behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.

Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime. The Chicago way has become the Washington way. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political hit man. He is an amoral, ruthless operator. It was Mr. Emanuel who reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. It was Mr. Emanuel who offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary. And it was Mr. Emanuel - as the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has revealed - who acted as the go-between to try to have Valerie Jarrett parachuted into Mr. Obama's former Senate seat. The only question was: What did Mr. Blagojevich want in exchange?

This is not simply sleazy Chicago machine politics. It is the systematic breaking of the law - bribery, attempt to interfere (and manipulate) elections using taxpayer-funded jobs, influence peddling and abuse of power.
The common misperception on the right is that Mr. Obama is another Jimmy Carter: an incompetent liberal whose presidency is being reduced to rubble under the onslaught of repeated failures. The very opposite, however, is true. He is the most consequential president in our lifetime, transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would find not only unrecognizable, but repugnant. Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power - attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr. Obama's fledgling thug state must be stopped.
If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should - and likely will - launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from 5 to 7 p.m.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.

Let's just take the first two paragraphs. There isn't one example or actual statement of fact included in either of them; just inflammatory rhetoric. Usually I would stop reading such an article after the first paragraph, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

The third paragraph is pretty much the same bull shit, and nothing in it is true. Most of the 'deals' mentioned to 'push' healthcare through DID NOT HAPPEN. They were all dropped when the Senate passed the bill through reconciliation.

If the author of this article feels that reconciliation is "ramming something though congress" I suggest he take a hard look at recent history to see how it was used by the republicans in the Bush administration, yet I don't here him calling for GWB impeachment.

Additionally, to state that the majority of people are against the health care reform is not actually factual either. Because of all of the mis-information and lies that have been spread by health insurance companies, republicans and other special interests that didn't want the bill to be passed, many people will say that they are against "obamacare" when asked that question directly. HOWEVER, when asked if they are for all of the items that are provided for in "obamacare" one by one and not mentioning they are actually in the bill, those same people are overwhelmingly in favor of the reforms included in the bill.

The republicans now realize this, which is why articles one and two of their new pledge or promise to america or whatever they call it are 1. Repeal Obamacare. and 2. Reinstate all of the individual items in obamacare that the people overwhelmingly are in favor of.

His assertion that "Obamacare" uses any federal funding for abortion is another out and out lie.

I really can't go on any further with this, you should be more than capable of actually stripping out all of the inflammatory rhetoric and searching anything that even tries to resemble a fact in this article on Google yourself. Or just look them up on factcheck.org or MediaMatters.com, all of his false assertions have been addressed there.

Though thank you for giving me the name of another "journalist" to remember never to read and take seriously.

JK

[neon tetra]

I have to agree. It's a factually-false opinion piece, and a pretty bad one at that.


If you want to see a pretty decent back & forth between a Republican & a Democrat, Jon Stewart's interview of Eric Cantor was pretty good.

In 3 parts:

1 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-o ... ric-cantor

2 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-o ... view-pt--1

3 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-o ... view-pt--2

[can't sit still]

Thanks, jk
In the end, I see very little difference between the 2 parties. Tax and war seem to be universal.

[Elderberry]

I have to agree. It's a factually-false opinion piece, and a pretty bad one at that.


If you want to see a pretty decent back & forth between a Republican & a Democrat, Jon Stewart's interview of Eric Cantor was pretty good.

In 3 parts:

1 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-o ... ric-cantor

2 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-o ... view-pt--1

3 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-o ... view-pt--2

Eric Cantor is such a shit. He's so "reasonable" in this clip, but I have NEVER once heard a reasonable word pass his lips before this clip.

JK

[Elderberry]

Thanks, jk
In the end, I see very little difference between the 2 parties. Tax and war seem to be universal.

There's a lot of difference between the two parties and it is never as simple as tax and war being universal.

It doesn't even really matter which side's positions are the best for the country. It's about being able to intelligently discuss issues based on facts and not inflammatory rhetoric and lies--whether they are from the right or the left.

It matters that legislators do what they are sent to washington to do--legislate. Not obstruct and fight for power at the expense of our country. Not to mislead their constituents with lies. Not to feed the flames of conspiracy theories that rile up people that should know better, but unfortunately don't.

It matters that people go to reliable sources for information, not slander and malign those sources when they print the truth and it doesn't happen to be the convenient truth to support their power grabbing strategy.

How sad it is when the main stream media is maligned as biased and people have been persuaded to only get their news from Fox or MSNBC. Hell if all a person does is watch FOX no wonder the NYT sounds like a liberal publication.

It's also sad when so many people put religion over science, and hold ignorance in higher esteem than a college education. But the way the country seems to be trending, it won't be long before China and India both bypass us in the world and then everybody looks around and wonders why. But we'll still have the right to bear arms. (Just an FYI--during the Obama administration arms regulation has actually decreased--he is the one that signed the bill that gave you the right to carry in public parks for one example.)

Most of the tea party candidates are a joke...how can any thinking man defend candidates like Christine O'Donnell or Carl Paladino or Alvin Green or Sharon Angle is beyond me and is a mockery to our entire political system.

And talk about "activist judges"...look at the amount of money being poured into this mid-term election...with the electorate not able to know who is even funding (manipulating) the electoral process.

Now these are things to get riled up about.

JK

[neon tetra]

Eric Cantor is such a shit.

Totally. But he also seems smart, which is almost worse in a way. Like he probably knows he & his party are wrong on a lot of these issues, but he does his job & plays the part anyway.

I enjoyed the interview.
And Stewart clearly won.

[neon tetra]

Christine O'Donnell or Carl Paladino or Alvin Green or Sharon Angle

The 1st 3 I'm thankful for, because they were very entertaining. And they pretty much can't win.

Sharron Angle though... it's a bit frightening. The woman is bat-shit crazy, but driving back from the burn I saw TONS of signs for her, and it's supposedly a close race.

[Box Burner]

How, can you say the dems have not had enough time?
How many years, in the last 100, have they controlled any or all branches of gov.?
and, how does it compare to the reps?

They don't really control all branches of gov't.

didn't say, at the moment, they do, if you read the entire statement. I was referring to, historically, who has and for how long, and, saying neither has done a good job.

That's another myth. Nonstop use of the filibuster pretty much neutered them for all intents & purposes.

yeah, 'cause, the dems have never filibustered....or used any other "parliamentary procedure" to derail legislation they don't like.
yup, I get it. They're just gettin' picked on.



On the other hand, the Democrats DO deserve plenty of blame for Bush's term. They were f&@king dumb enough to believe his lies & fear-mongering, and basically did nothing to stop him.

so, are you saying the dems voted for Bush? or, are you saying they're dumb? or, are you saying, they were dumb, but, now, are smarter?


The "lesser of 2 evils" thing is unfortunate, but it's also the reality of our current political system. And that's not likely to change anytime soon.

It's only the reality, if we allow it.
What about "none of the above"? What about write in candidates?
just some thoughts

This lesser of two evils crap has got to stop. Let me reiterate. If you voted for a republican or a democrat you wasted your vote. The two biggest gangsters have made a deal to have a protected rivalry.

Let me propose a scenario for you.

It is an election year. The democrats and the republicans each got 20% of the vote. None of the other parties (including the "none of the above" vote) got 20% but combined they have 60% of the vote. Clearly this indicates that the majority of Americans do not want to have a democrat or a republican in office. Obviously a new election must be held since nobody has a clear win. You can bet that (since the gov is 90% democrat or republican) what will happen is that a new election will be held in which the two, or maybe 3 highest winners will be the only ones listed on the ballot. Both the democrats and the republicans will have an underlying campaign to vote for the lesser of two evils.

I believe that if all those people who voted for the lesser of two evils actually voted for what they believed, we would have a situation like this. Then when the new election is held they should write in their choice or at least say "none of the above"

[neon tetra]

That scenario is nice in theory, but will never happen in reality thanks to the corporate media and the unlimited, often-anonymous (and now even foreign) funding for the 2 parties.

If (probably not when) we evolve past religions & see through the veil of the mass media, things might change. It doesn't seem likely, however. Soon even the internet will be more & more like cable tv, with a few big corporations deciding what information you can access. It's being pushed through right now.

[Elderberry]

That scenario is nice in theory, but will never happen in reality thanks to the corporate media and the unlimited, often-anonymous (and now even foreign) funding for the 2 parties.

If (probably not when) we evolve past religions & see through the veil of the mass media, things might change. It doesn't seem likely, however. Soon even the internet will be more & more like cable tv, with a few big corporations deciding what information you can access. It's being pushed through right now.

I might correct your first statement to read "and possibly foreign". there is no proof one way or the other, though when money is placed in one big pot, it certainly if fungible.

I really do not understand the SCOTUS decision allowing corporations to contribute money to elections. In my mind that is giving them voter status. One thing I believe would benefit our democratic system the most would be campaign finance reform. The amount of money spent on elections verges on criminal and when you consider what other purposes that money could be better used for, almost immoral.

How can elections be fair when it is now one dollar one vote rather than one person one vote; and what does the ability to spend money have to do with free speech anyway?

JK

[ygmir]

That scenario is nice in theory, but will never happen in reality thanks to the corporate media and the unlimited, often-anonymous (and now even foreign) funding for the 2 parties.

If (probably not when) we evolve past religions & see through the veil of the mass media, things might change. It doesn't seem likely, however. Soon even the internet will be more & more like cable tv, with a few big corporations deciding what information you can access. It's being pushed through right now.

I might correct your first statement to read "and possibly foreign". there is no proof one way or the other, though when money is placed in one big pot, it certainly if fungible.

I really do not understand the SCOTUS decision allowing corporations to contribute money to elections. In my mind that is giving them voter status. One thing I believe would benefit our democratic system the most would be campaign finance reform. The amount of money spent on elections verges on criminal and when you consider what other purposes that money could be better used for, almost immoral.

How can elections be fair when it is now one dollar one vote rather than one person one vote; and what does the ability to spend money have to do with free speech anyway?

JK

I don't think it'd be nearly so expesive to run, if people would bother to read, listen, and think.

the money, is aimed at those, who have little interest in facts or thought.

sound bites is their world.
And, it takes lots of money to put sound bites and talking points out there.

How about, an essay, from each candidate, and, a rebuttal from each.
and, an independent "fact check" page.

that's it.

we can all read it,
if we can't read, listen.

then, decide and vote.

no money, but, it'd take some thought, on both sides.

[can't sit still]

jk, you're missing a fine point. Denial is NOT rebuttal. Denigrating other politicians is not rebuttal. Claiming that he is the lesser of 2 evils is not rebuttal. The theme of the article is that obama is following a socialist agenda. Ron Paul said the same. Vladimir Putin said the same. It's quite true that Reps are going to try to destroy anything that he does. So, they can be expected to say whatever they think is most damaging.
You did notice that everyone is bailing out. He is left with his hard core socialists that have never had a real job.
The U.S. is the biggest manufacturer in the world. His science czar wants to de-industrialize America. Do you want to see socialism in America? Do you want to see America de-industrialized? I didn't post that article for the specifics,, only the theme. No point on focusing on the always-included rhetoric.
Do you think that obama and his core of insiders have the correct answers for America? I'd like to hear your thoughts and answers.

[neon tetra]

It's hard to take someone seriously when they keep claiming Obama is a Socialist, IMO.

[Elderberry]

jk, you're missing a fine point. Denial is NOT rebuttal. Denigrating other politicians is not rebuttal. Claiming that he is the lesser of 2 evils is not rebuttal. The theme of the article is that obama is following a socialist agenda. Ron Paul said the same. Vladimir Putin said the same. It's quite true that Reps are going to try to destroy anything that he does. So, they can be expected to say whatever they think is most damaging.
You did notice that everyone is bailing out. He is left with his hard core socialists that have never had a real job.
The U.S. is the biggest manufacturer in the world. His science czar wants to de-industrialize America. Do you want to see socialism in America? Do you want to see America de-industrialized? I didn't post that article for the specifics,, only the theme. No point on focusing on the always-included rhetoric.
Do you think that obama and his core of insiders have the correct answers for America? I'd like to hear your thoughts and answers.

Let's just say that I am confident enough to unequivocally assure you that Obama could be the president for the next 50 years and we will never become a socialist country.

JK

[Elderberry]

That scenario is nice in theory, but will never happen in reality thanks to the corporate media and the unlimited, often-anonymous (and now even foreign) funding for the 2 parties.

If (probably not when) we evolve past religions & see through the veil of the mass media, things might change. It doesn't seem likely, however. Soon even the internet will be more & more like cable tv, with a few big corporations deciding what information you can access. It's being pushed through right now.

I might correct your first statement to read "and possibly foreign". there is no proof one way or the other, though when money is placed in one big pot, it certainly if fungible.

I really do not understand the SCOTUS decision allowing corporations to contribute money to elections. In my mind that is giving them voter status. One thing I believe would benefit our democratic system the most would be campaign finance reform. The amount of money spent on elections verges on criminal and when you consider what other purposes that money could be better used for, almost immoral.

How can elections be fair when it is now one dollar one vote rather than one person one vote; and what does the ability to spend money have to do with free speech anyway?

JK

I don't think it'd be nearly so expesive to run, if people would bother to read, listen, and think.

the money, is aimed at those, who have little interest in facts or thought.

sound bites is their world.
And, it takes lots of money to put sound bites and talking points out there.

How about, an essay, from each candidate, and, a rebuttal from each.
and, an independent "fact check" page.

that's it.

we can all read it,
if we can't read, listen.

then, decide and vote.

no money, but, it'd take some thought, on both sides.

Voters would have to READ?!?! Oh my, that will never work, people today are way to lazy to read to get their facts. Sounds like a pretty elitist plan to me--are you sure you didn't go to some ivy league college?

That would be a wonderful idea, oh but wait--we already do that! I have a 127 page "Official Voter Information Guide" sitting on my desk right now; and I've read it from cover to cover, and some sections explaining the propositions several times. And frankly, that wasn't enough information. (And do you have ANY idea how BORINGLY DULL reading that is?)

There was absolutely nothing about the Judges on the ballot even mentioned in the guide other than their names. I literally spent 1/2 a day searching the internet for information on them.

But, I would venture to guess that less than 10% of the people that will actually vote in the election will have read the guide at all. Let alone have done any research on their own. (And what is the pathetically low percentage of the population that actually even bothers to vote?)

You know, I just saw that 80% of the millions of dollars being spend in the Nevada Senate race came from out of state (maybe some from out of the country). How can this be justified?

Not to beat a dead horse, but the same thing happened with Prop 8 in California--almost all the money that opposed that proposition came from outside of California.

This, IMHO, should absolutely be illegal.

Unfortunately, that old saw about people getting the government they deserve seems to be proving itself more true every election cycle.

JK

[ygmir]

I might correct your first statement to read "and possibly foreign". there is no proof one way or the other, though when money is placed in one big pot, it certainly if fungible.

I really do not understand the SCOTUS decision allowing corporations to contribute money to elections. In my mind that is giving them voter status. One thing I believe would benefit our democratic system the most would be campaign finance reform. The amount of money spent on elections verges on criminal and when you consider what other purposes that money could be better used for, almost immoral.

How can elections be fair when it is now one dollar one vote rather than one person one vote; and what does the ability to spend money have to do with free speech anyway?

JK

I don't think it'd be nearly so expesive to run, if people would bother to read, listen, and think.

the money, is aimed at those, who have little interest in facts or thought.

sound bites is their world.
And, it takes lots of money to put sound bites and talking points out there.

How about, an essay, from each candidate, and, a rebuttal from each.
and, an independent "fact check" page.

that's it.

we can all read it,
if we can't read, listen.

then, decide and vote.

no money, but, it'd take some thought, on both sides.

Voters would have to READ?!?! Oh my, that will never work, people today are way to lazy to read to get their facts. Sounds like a pretty elitist plan to me--are you sure you didn't go to some ivy league college?

That would be a wonderful idea, oh but wait--we already do that! I have a 127 page "Official Voter Information Guide" sitting on my desk right now; and I've read it from cover to cover, and some sections explaining the propositions several times. And frankly, that wasn't enough information. (And do you have ANY idea how BORINGLY DULL reading that is?)

JK

ergo, my idea above:

[Elderberry]

ergo, my idea above:

Your idea works for me.

I also like the debates; but ONLY if they did them in true debate style with neither candidate knowing the questions in advance or demanding any special format that might favor them. Maybe three televised debates.

I think we'd have a hell of a time getting all paid advertising our of the elections, and as long as there were reasonable limits on the amounts that could be spent on each type of election and that all the ads had to be Fact Checked and found truthful BEFORE they are aired; I'd be ok with that.

JK

[geekster]

First of all, get rid of the gold-plated pensions for politicians. They can fund their own 401k or IRA and pay into social security with exactly the same limitations and regulations as the rest of us without being exempted from their own laws as they are now. Simply eliminating Congressional pensions should put an end to people serving 342 years in Congress. They would have had to have had a career in something productive at some point in their life or move on to something productive after their stint in Congress. As it stands now, you get a pension for 5 years of Congressional service that begins at age 62. You can retire at any time after age 50 if you have been in Congress for 20 years.

a Congressman who worked for 22 years and had a top three-year average salary of $153,900 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,645 per year

That's for the rest of their life.

End it.

Second, return at least ONE Senator to being appointed by the state legislature. The state governments need a check on federal power and lost it when the Senate was changed to popular vote. At the time that was changed at the turn of the 20th century, America was still a rural nation with the population scattered across the state. Today America is an urban country and in most states, whichever party machine controls the political machine in the state's largest metro controls the Senate. This is particularly true in states with one or two major cities in what is otherwise a rural state. Illinois is a good example, whoever controls Chicago controls the state's entire Senate delegation. Pennsylvania is another example with Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Returning at least one Senator to appointment by the legislature would mean that at least half the Senate is taking the impact on state government into account when passing legislation. Would require (another) change to the Constitution.

Third, eliminate "winner take all" electoral votes in Presidential elections. States get a number of electors equal to the number of seats they have in the House and Senate. So if you have 5 House districts, your state has 7 electoral votes (5 House + 2 Senate). Divide the electoral votes according to the corresponding Congressional seats. Winner of the overall state popular vote gets 2 electoral votes. Candidates get 1 electoral vote for each House district they carry. This would allow third party candidates to actually accumulate electoral votes and do real damage to candidates of the mainstream parties. A third party candidate with a popular platform could then accumulate enough electoral votes to actually make a difference. Also, the electoral vote count would more closely match the popular vote count and there would be no need for any other changes in the electoral college system. This could be done at the state level with no changes needed in federal law. It would also act to moderate extreme positions by forcing candidates in the established parties to address issues raised by third party candidates if they are a valid concern and have some traction with the people.

Fourth, eliminate "winner take all" primaries. Divide delegates according to the votes for the candidates. As it stands now, a candidate can accumulate so many delegates early in the process that the rest of the primaries become a joke. If that candidate begins to fade or people learn they really like another one later in the game, it is often too late, the damage is done. By dividing the delegates according to vote, the candidates arrive at the convention with a weight of delegates that matches their real popularity. It returns the convention to being a convention rather than a coronation. The number of delegates a candidate arrives with at the convention has little bearing on the candidate's true popularity in their party. This would require changes by the individual political parties, no changes required in federal law.

Those changes right there would give us better government.

[Elderberry]

First of all, get rid of the gold-plated pensions for politicians. They can fund their own 401k or IRA and pay into social security with exactly the same limitations and regulations as the rest of us without being exempted from their own laws as they are now. Simply eliminating Congressional pensions should put an end to people serving 342 years in Congress. They would have had to have had a career in something productive at some point in their life or move on to something productive after their stint in Congress. As it stands now, you get a pension for 5 years of Congressional service that begins at age 62. You can retire at any time after age 50 if you have been in Congress for 20 years.

a Congressman who worked for 22 years and had a top three-year average salary of $153,900 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,645 per year

That's for the rest of their life.

End it.

Second, return at least ONE Senator to being appointed by the state legislature. The state governments need a check on federal power and lost it when the Senate was changed to popular vote. At the time that was changed at the turn of the 20th century, America was still a rural nation with the population scattered across the state. Today America is an urban country and in most states, whichever party machine controls the political machine in the state's largest metro controls the Senate. This is particularly true in states with one or two major cities in what is otherwise a rural state. Illinois is a good example, whoever controls Chicago controls the state's entire Senate delegation. Pennsylvania is another example with Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Returning at least one Senator to appointment by the legislature would mean that at least half the Senate is taking the impact on state government into account when passing legislation. Would require (another) change to the Constitution.

Third, eliminate "winner take all" electoral votes in Presidential elections. States get a number of electors equal to the number of seats they have in the House and Senate. So if you have 5 House districts, your state has 7 electoral votes (5 House + 2 Senate). Divide the electoral votes according to the corresponding Congressional seats. Winner of the overall state popular vote gets 2 electoral votes. Candidates get 1 electoral vote for each House district they carry. This would allow third party candidates to actually accumulate electoral votes and do real damage to candidates of the mainstream parties. A third party candidate with a popular platform could then accumulate enough electoral votes to actually make a difference. Also, the electoral vote count would more closely match the popular vote count and there would be no need for any other changes in the electoral college system. This could be done at the state level with no changes needed in federal law. It would also act to moderate extreme positions by forcing candidates in the established parties to address issues raised by third party candidates if they are a valid concern and have some traction with the people.

Fourth, eliminate "winner take all" primaries. Divide delegates according to the votes for the candidates. As it stands now, a candidate can accumulate so many delegates early in the process that the rest of the primaries become a joke. If that candidate begins to fade or people learn they really like another one later in the game, it is often too late, the damage is done. By dividing the delegates according to vote, the candidates arrive at the convention with a weight of delegates that matches their real popularity. It returns the convention to being a convention rather than a coronation. The number of delegates a candidate arrives with at the convention has little bearing on the candidate's true popularity in their party. This would require changes by the individual political parties, no changes required in federal law.

Those changes right there would give us better government.

These ideas are definitely worth consideration and debate. I'd like to hear some more pros and cons of each suggestion.

At first blush, I don't have a problem with congressional pay or pensions--you need to pay a decent salary and benefits to attract qualified people. And I always struggle with 'career' politicians.

I think the problems here are more associated with the actual quality of the candidates elected into office--many, I would agree, do not deserve the money they are paid.

Don't have time this AM to comment on the rest.

JK

[can't sit still]

Here's a quote from a comment on the election;
"Krugman hopes that “voters will have second thoughts about handing power back to the people who got us into this mess, and a weaker-than-expected Republican showing at the polls will give Mr. Obama a second chance to turn the economy around.â€

[can't sit still]

Here's a good example of ,,, talking out both sides of your mouth.
"Barack Obama knows this. In 2006, he said that taking money from the rich is “the original sin of anyone who’s ever run for officeâ€

[Elderberry]

CSS you are the most negative person I know. You will never be happy no matter who is elected. It's easy to bitch, moan and complain, but you never put forward any (practical) ideas to solve the problem.

IMHA That's what is really wrong with this country. (Well, that and all the special interest money and lobbyists in Washington.)

JK

[Elderberry]

[quote="can't sit still"]Here's a quote from a comment on the election;
"Krugman hopes that “voters will have second thoughts about handing power back to the people who got us into this mess, and a weaker-than-expected Republican showing at the polls will give Mr. Obama a second chance to turn the economy around.â€

[Ugly Dougly]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Elderberry]

[youtube][/youtube]

LOL Great find. I'm putting this on my FB page.

JK

[can't sit still]

Here's a simple quote. Now, I'm not assigning blame. I didn't follow the debate at all.
"Senator Bob Corker said on CNBC on Oct. 22 that “there is no one, not one person, in Washington who
believes the health care plan will work. It will have to be dismantled. It’s a Ponzi scheme."

[can't sit still]

This is getting VERY interesting. Both the founding fathers AND the supreme court have made it clear that a natural-born citizen must have TWO natural born parents.
The supreme court has been able to avoid applying this framework to Obama with technical maneuvers. It appears that these maneuvers have run out of steam.
Obama is NOT eligible to be president by ALL applicable precedents. The major one being the work of Vattel.
"cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition. "
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=232073
It is abundantly and historically proven that 2 natural born parents are required for eligibility. Regardless of Obama's other qualifications, he very plainly is not eligible to be president. The Supreme court can prevaricate for a certain amount of time but, the Republicans have quite a bit of power.
The supreme court conferred on the 23. I suspect that they won't be allowed to stall for very long. The fact is; if they even dip one toe in the water, Obama will be blown out of office. There is no possibility of him being eligible, as spelled out in about 4 centuries of law history.
They can roll out the same carpet that they rolled out for Nixon

[ygmir]

wow, that would/will be very interesting to watch..........

and, to see the anger that would come forward, if he is proven ineligible.
Even if, the fact is, he's ineligible, his supporters would want him there anyway. They'd see it as "unfair" that he would get kicked out, even though, (if actually ejected), it would have been "unfair" that he ran and won.

Wow, makes one sort of nervous.
One might also, wonder, if this is in fact true, and goes ahead, why his "people" didn't see it coming........or chose to ignore it........or, (more sinister), it was the plan all along..........

don't say it, because I want him kicked out.
Even though, I'm not his supporter, if in fact he is eligible, then, he should stay.
But, if not eligible, seems only right he leave.

*waiting for hornets to arrive*