Creeping Obama Authoritarianism

[FaninAma]

I would assert the imperialistic presidency kicked into high gear with GWB but Obama has injected it with steroids.


Obama's Creeping Authoritarianism Imposed law replaces checks and balances.
By DANIEL HENNINGER - Wall Street Journal, Aug. 1, 2013


If we learned anything about Barack Obama in his first term it is that when he starts repeating the same idea over and over, what's on his mind is something else.


The first term's over-and-over subject was "the wealthiest 1%." Past some point, people wondered why he kept beating these half-dead horses. After the election, we knew. It was to propagandize the targeted voting base that would provide his 4% popular-vote margin of victory—very young voters and minorities. They believed. He won.


The second-term over-and-over, elevated in his summer speech tour, is the shafting of the middle class. But the real purpose here isn't the speeches' parboiled proposals. It is what he says the shafting of the middle class is forcing him to do. It is forcing him to "act"—to undertake an unprecedented exercise of presidential power in domestic policy-making. ObamaCare was legislated. In the second term, new law will come from him.


Please don't complain later that you didn't see it coming. As always, Mr. Obama states publicly what his intentions are. He is doing that now. Toward the end of his speech last week in Jacksonville, Fla., he said: "So where I can act on my own, I'm going to act on my own. I won't wait for Congress." (Applause.)


The July 24 speech at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., has at least four references to his intent to act on his own authority, as he interprets it: "That means whatever executive authority I have to help the middle class, I'll use it." (Applause.) And: "We're going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress."


Every president since George Washington has felt frustration with the American system's impediments to change. This president is done with Congress.


The political left, historically inclined by ideological belief to public policy that is imposed rather than legislated, will support Mr. Obama's expansion of authority. The rest of us should not.


The U.S. has a system of checks and balances. Mr. Obama is rebalancing the system toward a national-leader model that is alien to the American tradition.


To create public support for so much unilateral authority, Mr. Obama needs to lessen support for the other two branches of government—Congress and the judiciary. He is doing that.


Mr. Obama and his supporters in the punditocracy are defending this escalation by arguing that Congress is "gridlocked." But don't overstate that low congressional approval rating. This is the one branch that represents the views of all Americans. It's gridlocked because voters are.


Wonder Land columnist Dan Henninger on how President Obama and his predecessors have eroded America’s constitutional checks and balances. Photo: Associated Press


Take a closer look at the Galesburg and Jacksonville speeches. Mr. Obama doesn't merely criticize Congress. He mocks it repeatedly. Washington "ignored" problems. It "made things worse." It "manufactures" crises and "phony scandals." He is persuading his audiences to set Congress aside and let him act.


So too the judiciary. During his 2010 State of the Union speech, Mr. Obama denounced the Supreme Court Justices in front of him. The National Labor Relations Board has continued to issue orders despite two federal court rulings forbidding it to do so. Attorney General Eric Holder says he will use a different section of the Voting Rights Act to impose requirements on Southern states that the Supreme Court ruled illegal. Mr. Obama's repeated flouting of the judiciary and its decisions are undermining its institutional authority, as intended.


The three administration nominees enabled by the Senate's filibuster deal—Richard Cordray at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Thomas Perez at the Labor Department and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy—open a vast swath of American life to executive authority on steroids. There won't be enough hours in the day for Mr. Obama to "act on my own."


In a recent Journal op-ed, "Obama Suspends the Law," former federal judge Michael McConnell noted there are few means to stop a president who decides he is not obligated to execute laws as passed by Congress. So there's little reason to doubt we'll see more Obamaesque dismissals of established law, as with ObamaCare's employer mandate. Mr. Obama is pushing in a direction that has the potential for a political crisis.


A principled opposition would speak out. Barack Obama is right that he isn't running again. But the Democratic Party is. Their Republican opponents should force the party's incumbents to defend the president's creeping authoritarianism.


If Democratic Senate incumbents or candidates from Louisiana, Alaska, Missouri, Arkansas, North Carolina, Montana and Iowa think voters should accede to a new American system in which a president forces laws into place as his prerogative rather than first passing them through Congress, they should be made to say so.


And to be sure, the other purpose of the shafted middle-class tour is to demolish the GOP's standing with independent voters and take back the House in 2014. If that happens—and absent a more public, aggressive Republican voice it may—an unchecked, unbalanced presidential system will finally arrive.


A final quotation on America's system of government: "To ensure that no person or group would amass too much power, the founders established a government in which the powers to create, implement, and adjudicate laws were separated. Each branch of government is balanced by powers in the other two coequal branches." Source: The White House website of President Barack Obama.


Write to [email protected]

[diverdog]

Show many any proof where Obama has issued more Executive Orders than Reagan or both Bushes!

[yermom]

how about "Creeping American Authoritarianism"

this has been going on since Lincoln ;)

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Uhmmm, How about the siliencing of the Benghazi CIA agents, the threatening of CIA agents on the ground and the secret arming of Syrian rebals with Libyan missiles that they want to keep secret and sacrificed, nay, murdered, 4 Americans for...

This will come out eventually, he will be found the fraud the Leftist is...

[diverdog]

Uhmmm, How about the siliencing of the Benghazi CIA agents, the threatening of CIA agents on the ground and the secret arming of Syrian rebals with Libyan missiles that they want to keep secret and sacrificed, nay, murdered, 4 Americans for...

This will come out eventually, he will be found the fraud the Leftist is...

Nothing will come of any of it. And if you are going to dredge up all of this then W needs to be held accountable for all the crap he did. But again Americans have no appetite for any of this.

[Soonerjeepman]

DD, you have to admit that obama's approach..."do it on my own" is scary. We have congress for a reason. We are not ruled by a dictator, king, or a single group...obama needs to understand that.

I've never heard a POTUS say so much of this....sure it has been said but not to the extent of obama, he is an arrogant prick...I don't like the "white" half at all.

[FaninAma]

Nothing will come of any of it. And if you are going to dredge up all of this then W needs to be held accountable for all the crap he did. But again Americans have no appetite for any of this.

Watergate was just a 2nd rate burglary. Nobody was paying attention to it, either.

I think it's pretty telling that CNN is starting to do a lot of the heavy lifting on the Benghazi investigation. I am sure the Obama administration's level of concern just got ratcheted up.

[FaninAma]

Show many any proof where Obama has issued more Executive Orders than Reagan or both Bushes!

He is on pace to sign about the same number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

I don't think it's the number so much as it is the scope of the orders. Signing an executive order authorizing the Dream Act is a lot more significant than sigining an EO that proclaims May 22nd as National Bow Tie Day.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

DD, you have to admit that obama's approach..."do it on my own" is scary. We have congress for a reason. We are not ruled by a dictator, king, or a single group...obama needs to understand that.

I've never heard a POTUS say so much of this....sure it has been said but not to the extent of obama, he is an arrogant prick...I don't like the "white" half at all.DD is one of our Goop Gobblers. If the MSM was to even attempt to do its job, the Left would be getting what they deserve.

[cleller]

Are we sure that some of Obama's EOs are not secret, more in line with all the domestic espionage that's going on these days?

[Curly Bill]

Are we sure that some of Obama's EOs are not secret, more in line with all the domestic espionage that's going on these days?

Who knows WTF the government is doing these days??? Nothing would shock me.

[FaninAma]

Who knows WTF the government is doing these days??? Nothing would shock me.

The Obama and Bush administrations have worked glove in hand to expand federal executive powers. Don't be so naive to think it was mere coincidence.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Creeping Schmeeping! It's bold and brazen, and the MSM JDGAS.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The Obama and Bush administrations have worked glove in hand to expand federal executive powers. Don't be so naive to think it was mere coincidence.Yeah, little doubt W and Obear are butt buddies, and are joined at the hip in the Banana Republic America hate thing. Yeah, They're all the same. Might as well just not vote, right?

IOW you, Sicem and the hardcore Libs should be able to organize a circle jerk, if you try a little bit.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Ooohhh, Obama...your cack taste sooooo good(slurp, slurp)...Ooooh yes(slurp, slurp)

Figures...

[FaninAma]

Yeah, little doubt W and Obear are butt buddies, and are joined at the hip in the Banana Republic America hate thing. Yeah, They're all the same. Might as well just not vote, right?

IOW you, Sicem and the hardcore Libs should be able to organize a circle jerk, if you try a little bit.

Rush, save the outrage. I voted for GWB twice. In retrospect it was a mistake. I am through voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Voting for candidates the GOP establishment offers just delays(slightly) the country going broke while it makes no difference regarding the ongoing erosion of civil liberties. The GOP is probably worse in regards to foreign interventionism. Both parties are the same in regards to corporate welfare.

The endpoint is the same with both parties: a corporate fascist style of government.

[Soonerjeepman]

I got no personal beef with DD, seems like a pretty good guy except some of his political vision (course sure he could say the same thing about me)...agree to disagree...

[Skysooner]

Yeah, little doubt W and Obear are butt buddies, and are joined at the hip in the Banana Republic America hate thing. Yeah, They're all the same. Might as well just not vote, right?

IOW you, Sicem and the hardcore Libs should be able to organize a circle jerk, if you try a little bit.

Rush is his own personal circle jerk except Turd is doing a reach around.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Rush is his own personal circle jerk except Turd is doing a reach around.Very astute!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Rush, save the outrage. I voted for GWB twice. In retrospect it was a mistake. I am through voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Voting for candidates the GOP establishment offers just delays(slightly) the country going broke while it makes no difference regarding the ongoing erosion of civil liberties. The GOP is probably worse in regards to foreign interventionism. Both parties are the same in regards to corporate welfare.

The endpoint is the same with both parties: a corporate fascist style of government.As long as the Libertarians have their strange view of the US military that sadly coincides with that of the Left, you will remain an impediment to strengthening conservatism. No conservative would argue that W was a principled conservative, but to put him in the same category as the blatantly anti-Americans now running the government into the ground is wrong.

As long as the MSM and the Public Schools have the power they do, we are probably in for some much harder times, unfortunately.

[diverdog]

DD, you have to admit that obama's approach..."do it on my own" is scary. We have congress for a reason. We are not ruled by a dictator, king, or a single group...obama needs to understand that.

I've never heard a POTUS say so much of this....sure it has been said but not to the extent of obama, he is an arrogant prick...I don't like the "white" half at all.

jeep:

Alll Presidents spew rhetoric. Do you remember how the left freaked out over the same thing during the Bush Administration? I tend to look beyond the speechifying and see what they have actually done. In truth Obama has not been able to do very much because of the House being in Republican hands. His record of actually doing what the right has accused him of is very little.

[diverdog]

He is on pace to sign about the same number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

I don't think it's the number so much as it is the scope of the orders. Signing an executive order authorizing the Dream Act is a lot more significant than sigining an EO that proclaims May 22nd as National Bow Tie Day.

My point is that you have to go clear back to Grover Cleveland to find a President who has signed fewer executive orders.

Secondly, several people accuse Obama of being a dictator yet Reagan signed more than 2 times the number of executive orders...381-147 and no one on the right on this board has accused him of being a dictator. Why the double standard?

On Benghazi I think a number of us have been saying for months this was a botched CIA operation and that the Ambassador was involved or at least complicit. That is now being borne out.

Whomever signed national bow tie day should be shot. Jeez!

[FaninAma]

My point is that you have to go clear back to Grover Cleveland to find a President who has signed fewer executive orders.

Secondly, several people accuse Obama of being a dictator yet Reagan signed more than 2 times the number of executive orders...381-147 and no one on the right on this board has accused him of being a dictator. Why the double standard?

On Benghazi I think a number of us have been saying for months this was a botched CIA operation and that the Ambassador was involved or at least complicit. That is now being borne out.

Whomever signed national bow tie day should be shot. Jeez!
The total for Obama is for a little over one term and again I will judge the impact
by how far they go in usurping the other branches of government.

Rush, so what do you and the GOP interventionists say to the families of all those
servicemen killed in Vietnam in a useless war. What are you going to tell them
when Afghanistan and Iraq fall back into the hands of the same extremists that
controlled them before.

Saddam Hussein got a lot of US support at one time and is a great example of
unintended consequences of our foreign interventionism.

[diverdog]

The total for Obama is for a little over one term and again I will judge the impact
by how far they go in usurping the other branches of government.

Rush, so what do you and the GOP interventionists say to the families of all those
servicemen killed in Vietnam in a useless war. What are you going to tell them
when Afghanistan and Iraq fall back into the hands of the same extremists that
controlled them before.

Saddam Hussein got a lot of US support at one time and is a great example of
unintended consequences of our foreign interventionism.

Don't get me wrong.....I do not like executive orders. They should be outlawed by a constitutional amendment.

BTW I am sitting in the Allagash Brewery in Maine. :)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Obeary doesn't GAS about our laws. He simply does what he wants, regardless of the separation of power in our government. If the MSM didn't defend and protect democrats, Beary would be in very big trouble.

We went to Iraq with congressional approval, and attempted to establish law. Our rules of engagement throughout, both in Iraq and Afghanistan have been absurd, assuring that our troops be in harms way, much more than was necessary. The MSM has blame for much of the unnecessary bloodshed, IMO.

[diverdog]

Obeary doesn't GAS about our laws. He simply does what he wants, regardless of the separation of power in our government. If the MSM didn't defend and protect democrats, Beary would be in very big trouble.

We went to Iraq with congressional approval, and attempted to establish law. Our rules of engagement throughout, both in Iraq and Afghanistan have been absurd, assuring that our troops be in harms way, much more than was necessary. The MSM has blame for much of the unnecessary bloodshed, IMO.

Our rules of engagement in Afghanistan has almost nothing to do with media. The Russians bombed the **** out of the place and the held very little of the country. So your theory is wrong. The US is fighting a war using classic counterinsurgency methods. You know win hearts and minds of the people. Read this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0275993035/ref=redir_mdp_mobile

[FaninAma]

Our rules of engagement in Afghanistan has almost nothing to do with media. The Russians bombed the **** out of the place and the held very little of the country. So your theory is wrong. The US is fighting a war using classic counterinsurgency methods. You know win hearts and minds of the people. Read this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0275993035/ref=redir_mdp_mobile

We're winning the hearts and minds of the Afghanis and Iraqis? Really?

[diverdog]

We're winning the hearts and minds of the Afghanis and Iraqis? Really?

That is the goal. We had success when we left Iraq. Afghanistan we have done better than most. Had they not f**k up the initial phases of both wars we would have been in better shape. You can lay that on Rumsfeld.

[Curly Bill]

That is the goal. We had success when we left Iraq. Afghanistan we have done better than most. Had they not f**k up the initial phases of both wars we would have been in better shape. You can lay that on Rumsfeld.

It's Rumsfeld's fault the peeps in the Middle East don't like us? They don't like anyone, so how is it Rumsfeld's fault they don't like us?

[Sooner Eclipse]

That is the goal. We had success when we left Iraq. Afghanistan we have done better than most. Had they not f**k up the initial phases of both wars we would have been in better shape. You can lay that on Rumsfeld.
Jesus, we told both populations that were friendly to us that we were leaving them there to die, and told them what day we would be doing it. Rumsfield had nothing to do with the socialist being a fukking idiot.

[diverdog]

Jesus, we told both populations that were friendly to us that we were leaving them there to die, and told them what day we would be doing it. Rumsfield had nothing to do with the socialist being a fukking idiot.

Do you remember the beginnig of both wars? We had OBL bottled up in Tora Bora and pretty much knew where he was. Rumsfeld and a few regular army guys capitulated to a request by the Afghan government to let their soldiers go in and get him. Instead he got away. The SF operators on the ground were furious.

At the beginning of the Iraq war ole Rummy decides to go in light and fast. One of his general tells Rummy he needs more troops. Rummy fires him knowing full well they could not secure Iraq with such a small force. So we ended up with a protracted war and giving Iraq to the Iranians by proxy.

Any way you dice it Rumsfeld was a cluster f***. Things got much better after Gates came in.

http://armedforcesjournal.com/2007/01/2410339

[Sooner Eclipse]

Do you remember the beginnig of both wars? We had OBL bottled up in Tora Bora and pretty much knew where he was. Rumsfeld and a few regular army guys capitulated to a request by the Afghan government to let their soldiers go in and get him. Instead he got away. The SF operators on the ground were furious.

At the beginning of the Iraq war ole Rummy decides to go in light and fast. One of his general tells Rummy he needs more troops. Rummy fires him knowing full well they could not secure Iraq with such a small force. So we ended up with a protracted war and giving Iraq to the Iranians by proxy.

Any way you dice it Rumsfeld was a cluster f***. Things got much better after Gates came in.

You said earlier "we had sucess when we left Iraq". - bull****, we had sucess in Iraq at hand until we annouced we were bailing out. Should have managed the turn over. Not left it to the Iranians. The idiot in chief needs a boot to his nuts.

[diverdog]

It's Rumsfeld's fault the peeps in the Middle East don't like us? They don't like anyone, so how is it Rumsfeld's fault they don't like us?

He never understood the political realities/landscape of both wars and as such failed to plan what would happen after the invasion. Rummy was one of the worst SecDefs in history. It is ironic because he was the most prepared. I thought he was a great hire. A year into the war I thought he was arrogant and lost.

[diverdog]

You said earlier "we had sucess when we left Iraq". - bull****, we had sucess in Iraq at hand until we annouced we were bailing out. Should have managed the turn over. Not left it to the Iranians. The idiot in chief needs a boot to his nuts.

how long do you propose we stay?

i am also referring to the immediate success we had at the end of the initial invasion when people liked us. You are talking years later.

[Sooner Eclipse]

how long do you propose we stay?

How bout until we can ensure that it doesn't get handed over to the ****ing Iranians.

[Sooner Eclipse]

i am also referring to the immediate success we had at the end of the initial invasion when people liked us. You are talking years later. thats not what you said.

[diverdog]

thats not what you said.

You are right my bad.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Jesus, we told both populations that were friendly to us that we were leaving them there to die, and told them what day we would be doing it. Rumsfield had nothing to do with the socialist being a fukking idiot.In the minds of the Leftists, Rumsfeld is just another one of the truly evil and authoritarian people that the Republicans always seem to have terrorizing our country, and wrecking havoc on behalf of America throughout the world...Of course, it's actually the Leftists themselves(and their pervasive MSM) that do that. For some reason, the D voters don't seem to recognize that.:culpability:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

He never understood the political realities/landscape of both wars and as such failed to plan what would happen after the invasion. Rummy was one of the worst SecDefs in history. It is ironic because he was the most prepared. I thought he was a great hire. A year into the war I thought he was arrogant and lost.He and Bush were hamstrung by your socialist MSM. Gotta believe you are being disingenuous again.

[diverdog]

He and Bush were hamstrung by your socialist MSM. Gotta believe you are being disingenuous again.

You mean the same media who were complicit in allowing Bush to make a case to invade Iraq? The same media that never questioned the case for WMD's preinvasion?

If Rummy was so great then why did Bush get rid of him? Yeah I know he resigned.....technically. Why did Gates have a lot more success and yet he faced the same media?

[SicEmBaylor]

As long as the Libertarians have their strange view of the US military that sadly coincides with that of the Left, you will remain an impediment to strengthening conservatism. No conservative would argue that W was a principled conservative, but to put him in the same category as the blatantly anti-Americans now running the government into the ground is wrong.

As long as the MSM and the Public Schools have the power they do, we are probably in for some much harder times, unfortunately.

God almighty you are an idiot. Non-interventionism was the original conservative foreign policy position up until the Cold War and even then it only applied to US/Soviet strategic decisions. There is nothing "strange" about it....it was the foreign policy position of the Republican Party for decades and decades. After the Cold War, the GOP moved back toward non-interventionism. George W. Bush ran his first campaign with a promise of implementing a non-interventionist foreign policy....of course that didn't last after 9/11.

Non-interventionism is the conservative position. The interventionism advocated by the new-right/neoconservatives/modern GOP is utterly Wilsonian and lifted right from the guidebook of the radical left. The only difference is the type of interventionism and the policy goals. Interventionism is the traditional foreign policy of the left because it is post-nationalist/global and fits with their ideology of spreading progressive ideas on a global level...these ideas advocate certain universal principles that are not dependent upon a nation's traditional cultural or political heritage. This is why interventionism was so important to them. The new-right/neoconservative movement adopted this tactic to spread "Americanism" to the four corners of the globe largely to benefit American economic interests (ostensibly).

I swear to God Rush, I try to be patient with you but you're like the 20 year old 8th grader that can't grasp the concept of 1+1=2.

[diverdog]

God almighty you are an idiot. Non-interventionism was the original conservative foreign policy position up until the Cold War and even then it only applied to US/Soviet strategic decisions. There is nothing "strange" about it....it was the foreign policy position of the Republican Party for decades and decades. After the Cold War, the GOP moved back toward non-interventionism. George W. Bush ran his first campaign with a promise of implementing a non-interventionist foreign policy....of course that didn't last after 9/11.

Non-interventionism is the conservative position. The interventionism advocated by the new-right/neoconservatives/modern GOP is utterly Wilsonian and lifted right from the guidebook of the radical left. The only difference is the type of interventionism and the policy goals. Interventionism is the traditional foreign policy of the left because it is post-nationalist/global and fits with their ideology of spreading progressive ideas on a global level...these ideas advocate certain universal principles that are not dependent upon a nation's traditional cultural or political heritage. This is why interventionism was so important to them. The new-right/neoconservative movement adopted this tactic to spread "Americanism" to the four corners of the globe largely to benefit American economic interests (ostensibly).

I swear to God Rush, I try to be patient with you but you're like the 20 year old 8th grader that can't grasp the concept of 1+1=2.


I have come to the conclusion that other than red button items like gun control and abortion there is only fractional difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Essentially we are controlled by the corporations.

[MsProudSooner]

I have come to the conclusion that other than red button items like gun control and abortion there is only fractional difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Essentially we are controlled by the corporations.

And as long as the corporations can keep the Republicans and Democrats arguing about abortion and gun control, they'll continue to do whatever they want.

[Skysooner]

I have come to the conclusion that other than red button items like gun control and abortion there is only fractional difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Essentially we are controlled by the corporations.

I concur on this although I would add that it is more than the corporations. It is any big money including PACs, special interest groups and billionaires.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I swear to God Rush, I try to be patient with you but you're like the 20 year old 8th grader that can't grasp the concept of 1+1=2.I appreciate your patience, and willingness to not always use the stupid card for my not being overjoyed by your(and other Libertarians, as well as the Democrats) position on the nature of and use of the military. It's magnanimous of you to only do it maybe half the time when commenting here.

I can't seem to understand why you and others who vote third party can't grasp the divide and conquer nature of that decision. Well, I suppose that's due to my not understanding the basic math you referred.

[yermom]

i guess it just depends on who you count as a RINO

it seems you will jump into bed with just about anyone calling themselves a "Republican"

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

i guess it just depends on who you count as a RINO

it seems you will jump into bed with just about anyone calling themselves a "Republican"Bubba it's simple math. The democrats have been toxic since I have been around, and long before that, I learned. The Republicans have some good people, even today. If you split the conservatives into 2 or more groups, or convince enough conservatives to not vote, the democrats(socialists, progressives etc) have enough voting population to win. It is simple math. Always has been. Divide and conquer. YOU KNOW THIS ALREADY, and you have to be asking a disingenuous question.

[FaninAma]

I have come to the conclusion that other than red button items like gun control and abortion there is only fractional difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Essentially we are controlled by the corporations.
I have felt if we aren't a corporate-fascist nation already we are well on our way to becoming one.

[FaninAma]

Bubba it's simple math. The democrats have been toxic since I have been around, and long before that, I learned. The Republicans have some good people, even today. If you split the conservatives into 2 or more groups, or convince enough conservatives to not vote, the democrats(socialists, progressives etc) have enough voting population to win. It is simple math. Always has been. Divide and conquer. YOU KNOW THIS ALREADY, and you have to be asking a disingenuous question.

i understand your point but I have come to the conclusion that as long as we keep voting for weak GOP candidates the party will have no motivation to really change their Democrat-lite approach to governing.

[soonerhubs]

What's crazy about not meddling with cluster-****s such as today's Egypt, Lybia, Iraq, or Syria?

List the crazy for me. I'll take bulleted points.

[FaninAma]

What's crazy about not meddling with cluster-****s such as today's Egypt, Lybia, Iraq, or Syria?

List the crazy for me. I'll take bulleted points.

*The US Dollar might not continue being the reserve currency of the world and we would then have to quit borrowing so much money........oh, wait.

There is only one reason the US has become the most interventionist country in the history of the world.

[soonerhubs]

I'll list why it's a bad idea to intervene.

1. Loss of American lives.
2. Taking sides wastes billions of dollars. (Shouldn't conservatives CONSERVE tax dollars?)
3. Coups can come up to replace American-installed coups.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

i understand your point but I have come to the conclusion that as long as we keep voting for weak GOP candidates the party will have no motivation to really change their Democrat-lite approach to governing.Look, even the full-blown RINOS are not nearly as socialist/authoritarian as the democrats. If we hadn't put the democrats in control again in '06, with their having both houses of congress, and then go full-on socialist/fascist, adding Obeary as pres. in '08 and again in '12, we wouldn't have had Obamacare, and believe me, we don't even yet have an inkling of the shi*storm it is going to cause. That issue is just for starters, and reason enough not to allow more democrats to win elections and control government.

[FaninAma]

Look, even the full-blown RINOS are not nearly as socialist/authoritarian as the democrats. If we hadn't put the democrats in control again in '06, with their having both houses of congress, and then go full-on socialist/fascist, adding Obeary as pres. in '08 and again in '12, we wouldn't have had Obamacare, and believe me, we don't even yet have an inkling of the shi*storm it is going to cause. That issue is just for starters, and reason enough not to allow more democrats to win elections and control government.

Sometimes to fix the system you have to crash the system.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Sometimes to fix the system you have to crash the system.
It would have been MUCH better for (nearly)everyone if we hadn't opted for crash. Instead go for the fix/repair. But crash it will.

[SicEmBaylor]

It would have been MUCH better for (nearly)everyone if we hadn't opted for crash. Instead go for the fix/repair. But crash it will.

Except you have done absolutely nothing to repair the party. In fact, you have contributed to the problem by voting for anyone and everyone with an (R) next to their name regardless of how big a ****head they may be -- voting for McCain is a case and point. Romney was almost but not quite as bad. The point being that you aren't going to fix a god damned thing so long as you continue to vote for absolutely disgraceful individuals.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; the only thing parties and politicians understand is electoral wins and losses. The only way to make them change is to ensure they lose and that they understand why they lost. The Republican Party is on the cusp of figuring this out, but it took getting taken to the woodshed by the Democrats a few cycles to figure it out. Finally, the GOP is on the verge of possibly moving in the right direction and it's because they lost and the result is that the party is moving toward the kinds of Republicans that I support and that you continually reject time and time and time again.

So please, don't f'n lecture me or anyone else anymore about how the party needs to be "repaired." Either the party changes or the party will die and if it doesn't change then it deserves the be buried 6' under. I'm not interested in a Diet Democratic party....I'm interested in a party that truly represents and fights for limited-government and individual liberty. If t hat means replacing the GOP with a true alternative to the Democrats then I say bring it on!

This **** with the GOP has got to stop, and I won't vote another damned so-called "conservative" until it does. I'm only interested in limited-government/individual liberty politicians and I won't settle for anything less.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

... the(Republican) party is moving toward the kinds of Republicans that I support and that you continually reject time and time and time again.


Wait, you are going to vote for "good" republicans and you say I'm NOT going to ...who do you have me voting for then, effing democrats or fool 3rd party types?

Really Sicem, this is some silly banter. The screwy authoritarian socialists have the government, and they DGAS about America and its laws. The only hope to beat them, assuming that elections can be run honestly, is to have a party that is not democrat win. Whether it's republican or whatever their name might be. Not voting or going third party is STUPID MATHEMATICS(roughly 50%/2 = half of the votes needed to beat the pinks), and hands the victory to democrats, yet again.

You don't have to call me a name again this soon, but I know you are refusing to acknowledge that what is happening to us, and has far too much in recent times, is pending calamity.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

The screwy authoritarian socialists have the government, and they DGAS about America and its laws.

Nice to see you think that this is a singular party problem. This is a POWER problem and power corrupts absolutely, not just folks you classify as "authoritarian socialists".

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Nice to see you think that this is a singular party problem. This is a POWER problem and power corrupts absolutely, not just folks you classify as "authoritarian socialists".Agreement, but the ONLY hope to peacefully change for the better is not with the democrats.

[diverdog]

Wait, you are going to vote for "good" republicans and you say I'm NOT going to ...who do you have me voting for then, effing democrats or fool 3rd party types?

Really Sicem, this is some silly banter. The screwy authoritarian socialists have the government, and they DGAS about America and its laws. The only hope to beat them, assuming that elections can be run honestly, is to have a party that is not democrat win. Whether it's republican or whatever their name might be. Not voting or going third party is STUPID MATHEMATICS(roughly 50%/2 = half of the votes needed to beat the pinks), and hands the victory to democrats, yet again.

You don't have to call me a name again this soon, but I know you are refusing to acknowledge that what is happening to us, and has far too much in recent times, is pending calamity.

Socialist huh?

Who increased government payroll by 300,000 federal workers? .....could it be Reagan
Who doubled the payroll tax.....Reagan
Who increased taxes a dozen times in office.......Reagan
Who increased wilderness lands under management? Reagan
Who started deficit spending....Reagan
Who raised taxes where folks were paying more than when he entered office...Reagan
Who set the course for unsustainable military pay and benefits? Oh shaw. Reagan
Who bears some responsibility for the banking crisis...let me guess...Reagan
Who raised taxes when they promised not too? Bush I
Who set us on a course of 20 plus years of wars in the ME....Bush I
who signed into law an $800 Billion dollar prescription drug program...Bush II
Who bailed out the banks? Bush II

i could go on and on. There isn't one iota of a difference between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to fiscal policy. At least the Dems are honest about it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well.. .Reagan lowered taxes, laying the groundwork for the largest and longest economic expansion and proserity in history, and rebuilt the military(a government authorized function) that Jimmuh Crackcorn had taken apart. Those 2 acts lead to the demise of the Evil Empire(Soviet Union), as well as providing the base for America's prosperity. IOW, tigah, you've been watching/listening to too much Leftist propaganda. What a strange reality you experience.

[diverdog]

Well.. .Reagan lowered taxes, laying the groundwork for the largest and longest economic expansion and proserity in history, and rebuilt the military(a government authorized function) that Jimmuh Crackcorn had taken apart. Those 2 acts lead to the demise of the Evil Empire(Soviet Union), as well as providing the base for America's prosperity. IOW, tigah, you've been watching/listening to too much Leftist propaganda. What a strange reality you experience.

He lowered the marginal rate on income taxes and cut income taxes. That is accurate. However most of those rates were never paid by the ordinary taxpayer. The payroll tax was the largest tax increase in the history of the world. Not only did he double the rate he almost doubled the income it was exposed to. Payroll taxes hurt the average taxpayer more than income taxes. Reagan also increased the fuel tax, shut out a bunch of tax deductions and raised other taxes. He was a RINO on fiscal policy.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

I see you glossed over his defecit spending.

Reagan's economy does not even come close to be the best economy since FDR. Kennedy, Johnson, Ike and Truman all had better economies.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/democratic-presidents-are-better-for-the-economy.html

As far as the cold war is concerned Reagan did not win it by himself. He never claimed to have won it. The CIA had reported severe cracks in the Soviet economy before Reagan took office. The Cold War was a cummulation of efforts that started with Truman and followed through to Reagan. To discount Korea, Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis is inaccurate. And there are some that support the view that the Soviet Union changed because its citizens wanted change. There is nothing to support your neocon view of what really happened.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/01/22/why-neither-reagan-nor-the-united-states-won-the-cold-war-2

You sit there and accuse me of living in a "strange reality". These are all facts and you can look them up yourself. I voted for Reagan twice and thought he was the right man at the time. The problem is we are still paying for some of his policies.

In todays political environment Reagan would not get his parties nomination. He would be too moderate for them and also had a history of working with Democrats. The Reagan your boy Rush touts is a myth on many levels. I would never disagree that he was a great communicator, built up our military and made Americans feel good about themselves. I would strongly disagree that he was fiscally responsible. When it came to tax and spending Reagan was worse than most Democrats.

[soonerhubs]

He lowered the marginal rate on income taxes and cut income taxes. That is accurate. However most of those rates were never paid by the ordinary taxpayer. The payroll tax was the largest tax increase in the history of the world. Not only did he double the rate he almost doubled the income it was exposed to. Payroll taxes hurt the average taxpayer more than income taxes. Reagan also increased the fuel tax, shut out a bunch of tax deductions and raised other taxes. He was a RINO on fiscal policy.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

I see you glossed over his defecit spending.

Reagan's economy does not even come close to be the best economy since FDR. Kennedy, Johnson, Ike and Truman all had better economies.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/democratic-presidents-are-better-for-the-economy.html

As far as the cold war is concerned Reagan did not win it by himself. He never claimed to have won it. The CIA had reported severe cracks in the Soviet economy before Reagan took office. The Cold War was a cummulation of efforts that started with Truman and followed through to Reagan. To discount Korea, Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis is inaccurate. And there are some that support the view that the Soviet Union changed because its citizens wanted change. There is nothing to support your neocon view of what really happened.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/01/22/why-neither-reagan-nor-the-united-states-won-the-cold-war-2

You sit there and accuse me of living in a "strange reality". These are all facts and you can look them up yourself. I voted for Reagan twice and thought he was the right man at the time. The problem is we are still paying for some of his policies.

In todays political environment Reagan would not get his parties nomination. He would be too moderate for them and also had a history of working with Democrats. The Reagan your boy Rush touts is a myth on many levels. I would never disagree that he was a great communicator, built up our military and made Americans feel good about themselves. I would strongly disagree that he was fiscally responsible. When it came to tax and spending Reagan was worse than most Democrats.

Some folks need to see things in simple dichotomous paradigms.

The deification of President Reagan by neocons is quite laughable, as they have to pretend that he cut taxes all day and shrank big government by night.

I think he was a great leader, but he wasn't the fictitious character Limbaugh followers pretend him to be.

[diverdog]

Some folks need to see things in simple dichotomous paradigms.

The deification of President Reagan by neocons is quite laughable, as they have to pretend that he cut taxes all day and shrank big government by night.

I think he was a great leader, but he wasn't the fictitious character Limbaugh followers pretend him to be.

I agree. Like I said the right man at the right time. We needed a great leader after Carter and Watergate.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Some folks need to see things in simple dichotomous paradigms.

The deification of President Reagan by neocons is quite laughable, as they have to pretend that he cut taxes all day and shrank big government by night.

I think he was a great leader, but he wasn't the fictitious character Limbaugh followers pretend him to be.What do you think he did right that makes him a great leader in your mind?

[FaninAma]

Rush, it is developments like this that have really turned me off on US military interventionism. How much blood and money have we wasted in this area only to see
our efforts bring about even a worse situation than before.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/8/al-qaeda-drives-iraq-toward-chaos/

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Rush, it is developments like this that have really turned me off on US military interventionism. How much blood and money have we wasted in this area only to see
our efforts bring about even a worse situation than before.

The initial foray into Iraq was to stop Saddam's taking over the oil resources of the Middle East. It WAS important to do that. Now, we have a POTUS that is against American domestic development and use of fossil fuels. We are royally screwed.

[FaninAma]

The initial foray into Iraq was to stop Saddam's taking over the oil resources of the Middle East. It WAS important to do that. Now, we have a POTUS that is against American domestic development and use of fossil fuels. We are royally screwed.

as much as I think Obama mishandled the withdrawal it was painfully obvious that we had neither the money or political will to occupy Iraq for much longer. We have been meddling in the Middle East since WWII and it just keeps devolving into more and more chaos.

[diverdog]

The initial foray into Iraq was to stop Saddam's taking over the oil resources of the Middle East. It WAS important to do that. Now, we have a POTUS that is against American domestic development and use of fossil fuels. We are royally screwed.

Do you ever talk in facts? The US is on track to be energy independent in less than 10 years. I will give you that fact that Obama has not helped energy development. Despite that a lot of new technologies have been game changers. We are far from being royally screwed.

[diverdog]

as much as I think Obama mishandled the withdrawal it was painfully obvious that we had neither the money or political will to occupy Iraq for much longer. We have been meddling in the Middle East since WWII and it just keeps devolving into more and more chaos.

We need to get out and never look back.

[yermom]

The initial foray into Iraq was to stop Saddam's taking over the oil resources of the Middle East. It WAS important to do that. Now, we have a POTUS that is against American domestic development and use of fossil fuels. We are royally screwed.

i thought it was about human rights, WMDs and "god's work"?

[sooner_born_1960]

The other initial foray. To kick Iraq out of Kuwait.

[soonerhubs]

Although I don't see him as an islamo-communist-fascist, I still think our current president is a failed leader.

This video comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgTydr4gAaI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The actual initial foray. To kick Iraq out of Kuwait.FI