Obama Has Blatantly Violated His Constitutional Oath of Office

[FaninAma]

To uphold and defend the laws of the country. By announcing that his DoJ will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act he is violating that oath. Agree or disagree with the law it is the law. If he doesn't like the law then get his evil little trolls like Harry Reid to repeal the law in Congress. I also understand that he could privately instruct the DoJ to be passive in their approach to supporting the law but to come out publically and actively oppose a duly enacted law sets a dangerous precedent.

If the President gets a pass on ignoring and actively opposing a duly enacted law which laws do the rest of us get to oppose and ignore.

Obama is nothing but a 3rd world dictator with about the same belief system and lack of respect for the Constitutional traditions of this country.

[yermom]

that's the issue that you are going with to declare that about?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Faninama, you forgot to mention that Obama believes that the law is unconstitutional and will fight it out in front of the supreme court. If the supreme court rules against his position then you'd be in a better position to argue your point.

But any reasonable person is likely to agree that the Defense of Marriage Act is indefensible under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

[FaninAma]

Faninama, you forgot to mention that Obama believes that the law is unconstitutional and will fight it out in front of the supreme court. If the supreme court rules against his position then you'd be in a better position to argue your point.

But any reasonable person is likely to agree that the Defense of Marriage Act is indefensible under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

Well of course you would think that. The citizens have the right to govern themselves and establish the rules of societal conduct unless the elitists disagree with them..

Listen I could care less if gays marry but I do care about the encroachment of elitist in the court system and the beaurocracies in the federal government on the ability of the electorate to make their own decisions. Remember when Chief Justice Roberts said it is not the court's place to save the citizens from their own stupidity(paraphrased) when he voted to uphold the ACA? Even though I think the ACA is horrible I agree with Roberts.

Elitists with a political agenda can always nuance an interpretation of the constitution to support their political agenda. What the people or their elective representatives pass in the legislative process should be very difficult to overturn. If their will is not given priority the rule of law deteriorates into a hodgepodge of judicial sheikdoms which is exactly where we are headed.

yermom, is the DOMA the law of the land or not? What is the Executive branch's duty under the constitution.....to defend and enforce the duly passed laws of the Congress or act as their own defacto judicial system picking and choosing which laws they choose to uphold.

Surely you see the slippery slope that is. Go visit Mexico and Latin America...that is exactly the type of things their political juantas do. And remember, establishing that precedent is a two-way street.

if you want to have gay marriage then do it through the legislative process. The eliists ramming things through the non-legislative processs damages and divides the country as it did with Roe v. Wade.

[diverdog]

To uphold and defend the laws of the country. By announcing that his DoJ will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act he is violating that oath. Agree or disagree with the law it is the law. If he doesn't like the law then get his evil little trolls like Harry Reid to repeal the law in Congress. I also understand that he could privately instruct the DoJ to be passive in their approach to supporting the law but to come out publically and actively oppose a duly enacted law sets a dangerous precedent.

If the President gets a pass on ignoring and actively opposing a duly enacted law which laws do the rest of us get to oppose and ignore.

Obama is nothing but a 3rd world dictator with about the same belief system and lack of respect for the Constitutional traditions of this country.

so you are going to nail him on defense of marriage act while you support all those who are against Obama Care.....you know the law of the land?

[Midtowner]

Following this logic, we should fire every cop who doesn't pull over every single person he sees run a yellow light.

[FaninAma]

We should fire every cop that comes out publically and opposes the laws he was hired to enforce. Like I said, there is a difference in selective enforcement and blatant opposition and undermining of duly passed laws. Also, once the status of the law is ajudicated in court the executive branch needs to be there to defend it.

On the bright side, Obama and his trolls are paving the way for the next GOP administration to do the same thing to his pet projects like ACA. See how that works?

[FaninAma]

so you are going to nail him on defense of marriage act while you support all those who are against Obama Care.....you know the law of the land?
Please explain ways that anybody is subverting implementation of Obama Care. It appears to be proceeding along the timetable outlined in the law itself. Those opposing it are private companies not anybody in the executive branch charged with enforcing and implementing laws Congress passes. Go take some remedial courses on Constitutional law and the dilineation of powers in the 3 branches of government.

[FaninAma]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government)


The separation of powers system is designed to distribute authority away from the executive branch—an attempt to preserve individual liberty in response to tyrannical leadership throughout history.[3] The executive officer is not supposed to make laws (the role of the legislature) or interpret them (the role of the judiciary). The role of the executive is to enforce the law as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judicial system.

[olevetonahill]

Following this logic, we should fire every cop who doesn't pull over every single person he sees run a yellow light.

Where is it written that Going thru a Yellow light is Illegal?
A yellow light is simply a caution to either Stop or proceed depending on circumstances .
RED means STOP Yellow means Caution

[olevetonahill]

We should fire every cop that comes out publically and opposes the laws he was hired to enforce. Like I said, there is a difference in selective enforcement and blatant opposition and undermining of duly passed laws. Also, once the status of the law is ajudicated in court the executive branch needs to be there to defend it.

On the bright side, Obama and his trolls are paving the way for the next GOP administration to do the same thing to his pet projects like ACA. See how that works?

Fan, I agree with YOU bro. Its UP TO THE COURTS to decide which laws are constitutional and which ones are wrong. Not the DOJ, Not Obammy, Not the podunk city PoPo.

If the Law is wrong that is why some one convicted of that law can Appeal that conviction.

[FaninAma]

OV, when the executive branch does that it is subversive to the rule of law. It basically says that laws passed by the legislative branch are only enforceable to the extent that the executive branch agrees with them. That is not the executive branch's role and it leads to transformation of a society ruled by laws to a society ruled by personalities and political dogma.

[olevetonahill]

OV, when the executive branch does that it is subversive to the rule of law. It basically says that laws passed by the legislative branch are only enforceable to the extent that the executive branch agrees with them. That is not the executive branch's role and it leads to transformation of a society ruled by laws to a society ruled by personalities and political dogma.

Agreed Bro
Way back when we rode dinosaurs to skool . we were taught there are 3 Branches of govenrment, and the purposes of each Branch .
Obammy must have missed that while he was Livin in Kenya

[Midtowner]

Where is it written that Going thru a Yellow light is Illegal?
A yellow light is simply a caution to either Stop or proceed depending on circumstances .
RED means STOP Yellow means Caution

And running a yellow light when you have time to stop can be a moving violation at the officer's discretion.

Many a yellow light has led to arrests for much more serious things or for a pretext to stop a suspicious vehicle in the first place.

[olevetonahill]

And running a yellow light when you have time to stop can be a moving violation at the officer's discretion.

Many a yellow light has led to arrests for much more serious things or for a pretext to stop a suspicious vehicle in the first place.


Yup, Like I said Its a CAUTION light . a prudent person should and will use Good judgement as to proceed or stop.

If you can safely stop then do so. How about NOT slaming on your brakes and causing the car behind you to rear end you?

[olevetonahill]

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHoqSLQuZ2H2d4xI6i3bUFUqjWg7IWo cdxrAQjddXKNypxsT6IFQ

[SCOUT]

Mid is doing a good job of redirecting the conversation.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...Elitists with a political agenda can always nuance an interpretation of the constitution to support their political agenda. What the people or their elective representatives pass in the legislative process should be very difficult to overturn. If their will is not given priority the rule of law deteriorates into a hodgepodge of judicial sheikdoms which is exactly where we are headed...

...Surely you see the slippery slope that is. Go visit Mexico and Latin America...that is exactly the type of things their political juntas do. And remember, establishing that precedent is a two-way street...

...if you want to have gay marriage then do it through the legislative process. The elitists ramming things through the non-legislative process damages and divides the country as it did with Roe v. Wade.Excellent! Concise and pertinent. This is NOT COMPLICATED. How any voters could fear people who believe in, and succeed in the private sector more than the thugs we have in political control is very hard to understand.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Mid is doing a predictable job of redirecting the conversation.FIFY

[olevetonahill]

Mid is doing a good job of redirecting the conversation.

Of course he is. Thats hids MO. Spin and deflect.
He does that with every thread topic that Shows his Lil Black Sambo up as an Idiot.

[Curly Bill]

Lil Black Sambo...that's funny! ;)

[Midtowner]

Yup, Like I said Its a CAUTION light . a prudent person should and will use Good judgement as to proceed or stop.

If you can safely stop then do so. How about NOT slaming on your brakes and causing the car behind you to rear end you?

And if you gun it to make it through the intersection, you're getting pulled over.

[olevetonahill]

And if you gun it to make it through the intersection, you're getting pulled over.

If,An elephant had wings it would be the biggest bird. IF a Frog had wings it wouldnt bump its azz.
What does this have to with the thread topic?

[Midtowner]

Mid is doing a good job of redirecting the conversation.

Vet wants to argue on something he's stated he agrees with me on. I'll oblige. The metaphor's a good one. Cops have the discretion to enforce laws and overlook other things. They see a car full of young black males in gang colors gun it through a yellow light, that's probably going to result in a DWB, request to search the vehicle, etc. They see a minivan piloted by a soccer mom do the same thing, they probably let it go. Is that violating the LEO's duty to make contact with the public for every ticky tack violation he sees? Nope. He has discretion to do what is best in his professional judgment.

The Executive has the same discretion to choose to enforce some laws and not others. Otherwise, we wouldn't need an executive. We'd just have Congress telling agencies and agents directly what to do.

In this case, he's chosen not to utilize his limited resources defending an unconstitutional law which he finds morally wrong. Are y'all equally as incensed that the EPA makes exceptions for some businesses who pollute?

[olevetonahill]

Lil Black Sambo...that's funny! ;)

TRhank ya, Now spek me, Just cause I cant return it dont mean I dont appreciate it.:congratulatory:

[Curly Bill]

TRhank ya, Now spek me, Just cause I cant return it dont mean I dont appreciate it.:congratulatory:

I still think you should get your spekker back. It's got to be some sort of constitutional violation that you had it taken! Maybe Matlock will take the case?

[olevetonahill]

Vet wants to argue on something he's stated he agrees with me on. I'll oblige. The metaphor's a good one. Cops have the discretion to enforce laws and overlook other things. They see a car full of young black males in gang colors gun it through a yellow light, that's probably going to result in a DWB, request to search the vehicle, etc. They see a minivan piloted by a soccer mom do the same thing, they probably let it go. Is that violating the LEO's duty to make contact with the public for every ticky tack violation he sees? Nope. He has discretion to do what is best in his professional judgment.

The Executive has the same discretion to choose to enforce some laws and not others. Otherwise, we wouldn't need an executive. We'd just have Congress telling agencies and agents directly what to do.

In this case, he's chosen not to utilize his limited resources defending an unconstitutional law which he finds morally wrong. Are y'all equally as incensed that the EPA makes exceptions for some businesses who pollute?

Whoa back that wagon up Skippy I never agreed with you about anything. I simply said what the purpose of a Yellow light is for .
Now as to Obammy forbidding his DOJ from enforcing a LAW thats wrong. If a C.O.P. tells his Officers to NOT enforce a Law because he dont agree Thats also wrong
Go back to 1st year dude

[olevetonahill]

I still think you should get your spekker back. It's got to be some sort of constitutional violation that you had it taken! Maybe Matlock will take the case?

He'd just **** it up.

[olevetonahill]

I still think you should get your spekker back. It's got to be some sort of constitutional violation that you had it taken! Maybe Matlock will take the case?

Good jorb. Thank ya.

[Midtowner]

Whoa back that wagon up Skippy I never agreed with you about anything. I simply said what the purpose of a Yellow light is for .

And you agreed with me.


Now as to Obammy forbidding his DOJ from enforcing a LAW thats wrong. If a C.O.P. tells his Officers to NOT enforce a Law because he dont agree Thats also wrong
Go back to 1st year dude

I've been to 1st year. You haven't. And it depends on the law. If, for example, the mayor is elected and doesn't see anything wrong with the kids on the local drag and the council is on board, a Chief might decide to stop enforcing u-turn violations and there'd be nothing illegal or in violation of his oath of office about that. Similarly here, if the SEC wants to turn a blind eye to illegal trades and focus on something else instead, that's within the discretion of the folks in charge.

We can't enforce all of the laws all of time time. That's why we have the executive--to prioritize. You don't see police officers out there arresting people for blasphemy and sabbath breaking (both are on the books). You similarly don't see Multi County Grand Juries being called over that same failure to enforce.

Unconstitutional and immoral laws fall low on his priority list. That's a good thing.

[olevetonahill]

Show me where I agreed with you. And as to Me never having been to 1st year, Are you sure about that?

[SCOUT]

Vet wants to argue on something he's stated he agrees with me on. I'll oblige. The metaphor's a good one. Cops have the discretion to enforce laws and overlook other things. They see a car full of young black males in gang colors gun it through a yellow light, that's probably going to result in a DWB, request to search the vehicle, etc. They see a minivan piloted by a soccer mom do the same thing, they probably let it go. Is that violating the LEO's duty to make contact with the public for every ticky tack violation he sees? Nope. He has discretion to do what is best in his professional judgment.

The Executive has the same discretion to choose to enforce some laws and not others. Otherwise, we wouldn't need an executive. We'd just have Congress telling agencies and agents directly what to do.

In this case, he's chosen not to utilize his limited resources defending an unconstitutional law which he finds morally wrong. Are y'all equally as incensed that the EPA makes exceptions for some businesses who pollute?

It isn't a fair analogy at all. In order for it to be, you would have to have your police officer informing the public that the police department has decided to no longer enforce that law.

I would be if the EPA decided to say that they are going to stop enforcing laws cause they didn't like them.

[Midtowner]

I would be if the EPA decided to say that they are going to stop enforcing laws cause they didn't like them.

They do it all the time.

[FaninAma]

Mid, then the executive branch has usurped the power of the legislative branch. I somehow feel Obama will also ignore court rulings he doesn't agree with. I find it suprising that an attorney would be on board with how this administration ignores the Constitutional checks and balances. It causes me to question what is taught in law schools these days.

i think several on the left will be shocked when they see Obama's disregard for the traditional rule of law revealed totally and undeniably.

[Midtowner]

Mid, then the executive branch has usurped the power of the legislative branch. I somehow feel Obama will also ignore court rulings he doesn't agree with. I find it suprising that an attorney would be on board with how this administration ignores the Constitutional checks and balances. It causes me to question what is taught in law schools these days.

i think several on the left will be shocked when they see Obama's disregard for the traditional rule of law revealed totally and undeniably.

Executive enforcement of law is always discretionary. Hence signing statements. I've found several of Obama's actions appalling. Extrajudicial killings, for example.

This, however, refusing to enforce an obviously unconstitutional law which is immoral until the courts get around to dealing with it, I have no problem with.

[StoopTroup]

I never really thought to much about the drone program until the media started that article on the American who was a traitor and a threat to our Country.

That said....It seems we may need to think some of the Drone Program through a bit. I have zero problem with it being a device we use in the Military but here at Home (?)....Maybe there are some really good reasons for restraint here at Home?

[StoopTroup]

I still think you should get your spekker back. It's got to be some sort of constitutional violation that you had it taken! Maybe Matlock will take the case?

While your passing out this so unneeded thing people call spek....You could throw some my way also. Just because Vet got us in this mess, doesn't mean I don't appreciate it. :D

[sappstuf]

Vet wants to argue on something he's stated he agrees with me on. I'll oblige. The metaphor's a good one. Cops have the discretion to enforce laws and overlook other things. They see a car full of young black males in gang colors gun it through a yellow light, that's probably going to result in a DWB, request to search the vehicle, etc. They see a minivan piloted by a soccer mom do the same thing, they probably let it go. Is that violating the LEO's duty to make contact with the public for every ticky tack violation he sees? Nope. He has discretion to do what is best in his professional judgment.

The Executive has the same discretion to choose to enforce some laws and not others. Otherwise, we wouldn't need an executive. We'd just have Congress telling agencies and agents directly what to do.

In this case, he's chosen not to utilize his limited resources defending an unconstitutional law which he finds morally wrong. Are y'all equally as incensed that the EPA makes exceptions for some businesses who pollute?

A law he just found morally wrong 6 months ago? For the vast majority of his life and presidency he found it fine. Or he is a liar.... Or both.

Either way, considering he just found it wrong means there is room for debate. The law should be defended in court by the federal government until it is no longer the law.

Speaking of ticky tack..

If the Executive has money to go after a steel mill for giving its new employees random alcohol tests to new employees because it goes against the Americans with Disabilities Act, then it has money to defend DOMA.

That lawsuit was just thrown out like last week's leftovers by the judge.

[yermom]

can someone enlighten me on how the DOJ enforces this law in the first place?

do married fags go to jail, or what?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Mid, then the executive branch has usurped the power of the legislative branch. I somehow feel Obama will also ignore court rulings he doesn't agree with. I find it suprising that an attorney would be on board with how this administration ignores the Constitutional checks and balances. It causes me to question what is taught in law schools these days.

i think several on the left will be shocked when they see Obama's disregard for the traditional rule of law revealed totally and undeniably.It's the Circle the Wagons philosophy from all those in the D persuasion. VERY seldom do they take out one of their own, regardless of how preposterous the behavior is. There's the race card in His case, as well.

[FaninAma]

Mid, we'll just have to agree to disagree. No system of government can function if one branch refuses to carry out its statutory duty. The legislative branch creates laws, the executive branch enforces and supports those laws. It is the judicial branch that reviews those laws and determines if they are constitutionally legitimate. That responsibility is not the purview of the executive branch. It certainly is not the purview of the executive branch to actively oppose and lobby against legitimately legislated statutes.

If all branches of the government decided to arbitrarily overstep their constitutional delineated functions the government ceases to function as it was intended. It takes disciplined and constitutionally grounded leaders to resist the impulse to overstep their limitations as defined by the constitution.

i think Obama has no such discipline and exhibits definite indications that he has no respect for the legislative role of Congress. I understand other chief executives have pushed the boundaries of their executive function but none as blatantly as has the current chief executive. Additionally there appears nobody with enough stature or statesmenship within the President's own party who will remind the President he is overstepping his authority.

[SoonerorLater]

Following this logic, we should fire every cop who doesn't pull over every single person he sees run a yellow light.

Every cop who REFUSES to pull over a person violating a law should be fired.

[diverdog]

Mid, we'll just have to agree to disagree. No system of government can function if one branch refuses to carry out its statutory duty. The legislative branch creates laws, the executive branch enforces and supports those laws. It is the judicial branch that reviews those laws and determines if they are constitutionally legitimate. That responsibility is not the purview of the executive branch. It certainly is not the purview of the executive branch to actively oppose and lobby against legitimately legislated statutes.

If all branches of the government decided to arbitrarily overstep their constitutional delineated functions the government ceases to function as it was intended. It takes disciplined and constitutionally grounded leaders to resist the impulse to overstep their limitations as defined by the constitution.

i think Obama has no such discipline and exhibits definite indications that he has no respect for the legislative role of Congress. I understand other chief executives have pushed the boundaries of their executive function but none as blatantly as has the current chief executive. Additionally there appears nobody with enough stature or statesmenship within the President's own party who will remind the President he is overstepping his authority.

How do you feel about Bush putting us into two wars without having congress declare war? That one really chaps my ***.

[sappstuf]

How do you feel about Bush putting us into two wars without having congress declare war? That one really chaps my ***.

There have only been 5 declared wars in our nation's history and none of the other 125 previous engagements without declaring war chapped your a$$?

Seems like selective outrage.

At least Bush had funding authorized by Congress. Vietnam didn't even have that...

[diverdog]

There have only been 5 declared wars in our nation's history and none of the other 125 previous engagements without declaring war chapped your a$$?

Seems like selective outrage.

At least Bush had funding authorized by Congress. Vietnam didn't even have that...

I do not disagree. But of those 125 engagements only 4 ( I believe) were real wars. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan should have all been declared wars. I hold congress and the POTUS equally responsible for not declaring war.

BTW, I would love to know the constitutional bases for the defense of marriage act. I did not even know that was the law of the land. Seems to me it should be decided by the states. It also seems to me congress and DOJ have more pressing issues.

[Midtowner]

Every cop who REFUSES to pull over a person violating a law should be fired.

You're probably going to have to fire every single cop then. Lots of 'em have clocked drivers at <5 over and chosen not to do anything about it.

[Midtowner]

Mid, we'll just have to agree to disagree. No system of government can function if one branch refuses to carry out its statutory duty. The legislative branch creates laws, the executive branch enforces and supports those laws. It is the judicial branch that reviews those laws and determines if they are constitutionally legitimate. That responsibility is not the purview of the executive branch. It certainly is not the purview of the executive branch to actively oppose and lobby against legitimately legislated statutes.

The legislature routinely chooses not to address real problems or to even make a serious attempt at fixing many existential crises. The judicial branch, at least above the District Court level doesn't have to even hear appeals, or can simply affirm things without comment and not for publication. In a similar manner, the executive has the discretion as to where to allocate its resources. You can disagree all you want, but it's like disagreeing that the sky is blue and the grass is green and water's wet.


Additionally there appears nobody with enough stature or statesmenship within the President's own party who will remind the President he is overstepping his authority.

Oh come on... you ever hear of signing statements? They are exactly what you're complaining about. Your boy Bush made 200+ signing statements challenging 1,000+ individual laws. To date, Obama has made 20.

Selective outrage at its finest.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I think some of you guys are misinterpreting what is happening here. This is not about Obama refusing to enforce the law. He thinks the law is unconstitutional, asking the Supreme Court to rule on this issue, and is instructing DOJ not to defend the law in front of the Supreme Court.

Defending it in front of the Supreme Court will apparently be left to the Pubs in congress. They got it passed in 1996 and President Clinton signed it into law. I doubt he'll show up to defend it in front of the Supreme Court. After all, the pubs impeached him.

It's not an enforcement issue. Some lady is having to pay estate taxes on her deceased spouse's estate. Since her spouse was female, she would not have to pay the taxes had she been male. DOMA forbids exemption of estate taxes for same sex marriages. Obama is NOT telling the IRS or SSA to allow citizens of same sex marriages the exemptions and benefits given to opposite sex marriages. That would be the enforcement angle. Instead he is trying to get the law ruled unconstitutional, and rightfully so.




Surely you see the slippery slope that is. Go visit Mexico and Latin America...

But as long as you are talking about [lack of] enforcement, let me remind you, that you don't have to go to Latin America. Oklahoma has good examples. When I lived in Norman (70s-80s), there were at least 50 establishments that openly sold liquor by the drink even though it was illegal. Enforcement agencies ignored.

More recently, there were numerous tattoo parlors that openly provided tattooing before the law was changed allowing it. Apparently these illegal tattoo artists were given amnesty and allowed to become legal even though they had practiced their trade illegally. If you scan the SF archives, I doubt you'll find outrage over this.

[FaninAma]

Mid, when in my long posting history have I ever defended George Bush? I personally think he was the worst President in my lifetime up until now. His use of executive power and trampling of civil liberties is exactly what I am talking about. But once again you use a weak defense of justifying your guy by comparing him to the worst offender of trashing the constitution.

BTW, even as bad as Bush was I don't recall him ever coming out publically and undermining Congress. I suspect Obama doesn't even bother defining his opposition to a law in a signing statement because he doesn't like leaving a record of what he plans to do or not do......just like hiding his college records and transcripts. This is the most secretive administration since Nixon's. At least Bush trampled on our civil liberties in a public fashion.

But just stop using the fig leaf of always justifying what Obama does by comparing him to Bush. It only ends up proving my point that Obama is a bad President. It's sort of like trying to prove one of our coaches isn't so bad because at least they aren't Mack Brown.

[Midtowner]

A list of Obama's signing statements and direct links:

http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm

[FaninAma]

A list of Obama's signing statements and direct links:

http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm

And that proves? Mid, you're a partisan. That weakens your position on any subject dealing with Obama. You aren't objective. Counselor, you need to find some objectivity.

[Midtowner]

And that proves? Mid, you're a partisan.

And I suppose you are?

[FaninAma]

And I suppose you are?
A lot more than you. I am an equal opportunity cynic of the trolls of both parties in DC. You, on the other hand, are so partisan that you are willing to overlook things that Obama and the Democrats are wrong about. Do you see ANY legitimate criticism of Obama from your side of the political spectrum like the GOP has within their party from the TEA party?

No. I actually support Hagel because he didn't toe the Neocon line. Who within the Demoratic party plays the role of an objective voice? Some consider the fracturing of the GOP as a weakness. I consider it as a sign that they have a pulse in regards ro having some honesty. The hegemonic , lock-step approach of the Democrats and their supporters is dangerous and lends itself to extremism.

[Midtowner]

A lot more than you. I am an equal opportunity cynic of the trolls of both parties in DC. You, on the other hand, are so partisan that you are willing to overlook things that Obama and the Democrats are wrong about. Do you see ANY legitimate criticism of Obama from your side of the political spectrum like the GOP has within their party from the TEA party?

I think you're creating a strawman. I've been very critical of much of his foreign policy and his extrajudicial killings. I don't like the lack of openness. I don't like a lot of things. My biggest problem is that the only answer the opposition party has is a return to the Gilded Age.


No. I actually support Hagel because he didn't toe the Neocon line.

Me too. We need someone to occasionally acknowledge that Israel isn't always right and Palestine isn't always wrong, etc.


Who within the Demoratic party plays the role of an objective voice?

Elizabeth Warren is someone I'm encouraged about. Too soon to tell. Barney Frank says a lot of good stuff, but his actions don't mirror his words. John Stewart > Bill O'Reilly...


Some consider the fracturing of the GOP as a weakness. I consider it as a sign that they have a pulse in regards ro having some honesty. The hegemonic , lock-step approach of the Democrats and their supporters is dangerous and lends itself to extremism.

I don't see the lock-step approach. I see a willingness to compromise on the Dem side and virtually none on the Rep side, e.g., even consider trading cuts for revenue enhancements from the undertaxed. In fact, it was Democrats, not Republicans who compromised us into ObamaCare instead of single payer or fully socialized medicine.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...Do you see ANY legitimate criticism of Obama from your side of the political spectrum like the GOP has within their party from the TEA party?

...Who within the Democrat party plays the role of an objective voice? Some consider the fracturing of the GOP as a weakness. I consider it as a sign that they have a pulse in regards to having some honesty. The hegemonic , lock-step approach of the Democrats and their supporters is dangerous and lends itself to extremism. ^

[FaninAma]

Midtowner, name a Democrat politician who has opposed any of Obama's actions.

The GOP already caved on the tax issue. The Demorats aren't compromising. Lets see budget cuts this round to equal the tax increases then lets revisit the tax increase question.

i think the sequester takes place and Obama continues to campaign the entire 4 years of his second term against the GOP. At some point Obama has to attempt to lead or lose any chance of leaving a legacy. Bush was incompetent. Obama is even more incompetent.

[Midtowner]

Midtowner, name a Democrat politician who has opposed any Obama policies or actions.

Like I said, plenty of House and Senate Democrats fought Obama on the Affordable Care Act. Single payer, etc., were originally supposed to be part of the deal and those folks fought it.

Senator Heidi Heitkamp has come out against Obama on gun control. Reid has even been pretty cool on the subject. Feinstein and other Democrats have been very harsh over the drone killings. They've pushed back when Obama has clearly been in the wrong and that has happened multiple times.


Boehner caught major flak from his own party about how he has handled the budget negotiations. Name any doy in the Senate or HoR on the Democratic side that has questioned Obama about anything.

Are you kidding? Plenty were even threatening to kill the bill because the tax hikes weren't going far enough.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/16/1110476/-Senate-Democrats-threaten-to-step-off-fiscal-cliff


The GOP already caved on the tax issue. The Demorats aren't compromising. Lets see budget cuts this round to equal the tax increases then lets revisit the tax increase question.

They didn't "cave," they gave up very very little.


i think the sequester takes place and Obama continues to campaign the entire 4 years of his second term against the GOP. At some point Obama has to attempt to lead of lose any chance of leaving a legacy. Bush was incompetent. Obama is even more incompetent.

We'll see. I think Central Oklahoma isn't going to be rocked too hard by the sequester. I think Western and NE Oklahoma should be worried.

[pphilfran]

Too deep for me...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Not to worry! Barry's making decisions!

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/c29.0.403.403/p403x403/644439_606441462703797_444831105_n.jpg

[olevetonahill]

Not to worry! Barry's making decisions!

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/c29.0.403.403/p403x403/644439_606441462703797_444831105_n.jpg

Heh good one

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...44831105_n.jpg

[sappstuf]

I do not disagree. But of those 125 engagements only 4 ( I believe) were real wars. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan should have all been declared wars. I hold congress and the POTUS equally responsible for not declaring war.

BTW, I would love to know the constitutional bases for the defense of marriage act. I did not even know that was the law of the land. Seems to me it should be decided by the states. It also seems to me congress and DOJ have more pressing issues.

Aren't you using the advantage of hindsight or things you are familiar with? Read this description of the Filipino/American war and tell me it doesn't count as a "real war"?


United States attacks into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns in which entire villages were burned and destroyed, the use of torture and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones". In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported: "The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog...."

I think we killed 34K Filipino soldiers and somwhere around 200K civilians died in 5 years.

That sounds like war to me...

[sappstuf]

Like I said, plenty of House and Senate Democrats fought Obama on the Affordable Care Act. Single payer, etc., were originally supposed to be part of the deal and those folks fought it.

Senator Heidi Heitkamp has come out against Obama on gun control. Reid has even been pretty cool on the subject. Feinstein and other Democrats have been very harsh over the drone killings. They've pushed back when Obama has clearly been in the wrong and that has happened multiple times.

Are you kidding? Plenty were even threatening to kill the bill because the tax hikes weren't going far enough.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/16/1110476/-Senate-Democrats-threaten-to-step-off-fiscal-cliff

They didn't "cave," they gave up very very little.

We'll see. I think Central Oklahoma isn't going to be rocked too hard by the sequester. I think Western and NE Oklahoma should be worried.

They gave up exactly what Obama and most of the Dems on this board wanted... Tax rates to go on the rich to go back to the Clinton era. We were led to believe that would cure just about everything(shockingly with this tax increase and even with sequestration CBO projects deficits to be above $1 trillion annually 10 years from now). Currently, Obama is demanding more tax increases, pretty much ignoring the tax increases that just happend.

I won't even start on the tax increases included in Obamacare. Tax increases on "the rich" are much, much higher than they were a year ago. At least it has helped pick the economy back up.

Oh wait....

[diverdog]

Aren't you using the advantage of hindsight or things you are familiar with? Read this description of the Filipino/American war and tell me it doesn't count as a "real war"?



I think we killed 34K Filipino soldiers and somwhere around 200K civilians died in 5 years.

That sounds like war to me...

I agree and it should have been declared as such.

[diverdog]

They gave up exactly what Obama and most of the Dems on this board wanted... Tax rates to go on the rich to go back to the Clinton era. We were led to believe that would cure just about everything(shockingly with this tax increase and even with sequestration CBO projects deficits to be above $1 trillion annually 10 years from now). Currently, Obama is demanding more tax increases, pretty much ignoring the tax increases that just happend.

I won't even start on the tax increases included in Obamacare. Tax increases on "the rich" are much, much higher than they were a year ago. At least it has helped pick the economy back up.

Oh wait....

I do not think tax rates are quite as high as they were during the Clinton era. The CBO predicts the deficit in 2013 to fall below 900 billion dollars.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43907

so it has helped with revenues. We will still need to cut spending.