Random Political Thoughts

[Yorkshire pud]

Yorkie seems to think himself a subject of The Crown.  I don't see myself as subject of anyone but myself.

Does he? Oh right..Thank you for second guessing me and getting it incredibly wrong. I've grown up in a monarchy (Insofar a monarchy that is mainly of ceremonial significance, although the monarch can theoretically be made to sign her/his own death sentence), but I'm ambivalent towards it's worth. I see the positives and the negatives. many Amercans find it a positive thing, they come here to look for the Royal connections...

It's worth remembering that the Queens second son served in a war; both her grandsons serve in the military; one of whom has just come back from his second tour in Afghanistan. How many children/grand children of Congress and the Senate served in wars?

[onan]

Yorkie seems to think himself a subject of The Crown.  I don't see myself as subject of anyone but myself.

We as US citizens are subject to the laws of our country. We are all to some extent subjugated by the community we live in. It is a fairly narrow view to not have any awareness of our obligations to our community.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yes, why become a republic - a nation of laws - when one can remain a democracy under the whims of todays politicians chasing todays fads.   In my experience politicians are quite good at getting themselves elected, appointed, and reading tele-prompters, not so good at providing expertise or making good decisions on anything else.  Where this trust in government and eagerness to hand control of our lives to these people comes from absolutely baffles me - especially when getting our freedom and personal liberty and retaining them are so difficult in the first place.

Forgive me if I misunderstood the above. You don't agree with the principle of democracy? You're more inclined to allow the people decide their fate? Correct? So you advocate anarchy?  Or possibly as I outlined in a previous post, the true definition of it; Communism? The workers means and control of production; extrapolated too all facets of society, bypassing politicians as (and I do have some agreement with you here)
"at getting themselves elected, appointed, and reading tele-prompters, not so good at providing expertise or making good decisions on anything else."

But ask yourself (as all the electorate should), why do we get sub standard politicians? It's different in the UK, but on a basic level (here), if you can stand for local council elections if a) you're on the electoral roll b) A local resident c) get nominated d) seconded
Standing as a Member of Parliament is slightly different, but the principle is basically the same. Now..being an MP attracts an annual salary of (approx) $100 000. Now, being an MP (not a minister/secretary or shadow (opposition) minister/secretary) doesn't preclude outside incomes from other jobs/board membership. There is criticism of this of course because many believe they should concentrate on the job in hand...BUT..to address your valid point about making decisions (based on real world employment) they're stuck between a rock and a hard place..Do an outside job and get experience..or stick to being an MP and know jack shit about the outside world..damned if the do, damned if they don't. Why would a (insert field of expertise; engineer/ physicist/ surgeon/ industrialist/ philosopher/ renowned artist/ musician) throw in their lucrative and respected passion, to become a lower paid MP, who will get vilified no matter what they do? There is the disconnect. So therefore, not the best candidates step up, and by definition, get elected.

If you've read the Constitution, it's mostly about how political power is split up among people and groups (House, Senate, President, the Judiciary, the States, Individuals) rather than have it be centralized in just a few hands.  That was doing quite well until the 17th Amendment in 1913 removed power from the States - the Senators originally represented the State Governments in DC -  by making Senators directly elected instead of appointed by the State Legislatures, basically created a powerful National Government.

The first 10 Amendments codify our right to speak, publish, worship freely, assemble, protest, associate with who we please, be secure in our homes from govt intrusion, trial by jury, reasonable bail, not to be compelled to testify against ourselves, etc. 

What part of the main body or the Amendments should we do away with because it's 'old'?

I'm not suggesting doing away with any of it; I'm suggesting taking a hard critical look at what was then and what is now..If it ain't broken, don't fix it..but clearly something is badly broke when almost on a monthly basis someone is marching into schools/shopping malls/diners, and mowing down innocent people going about their lawful business? If you don't think it isn't broken, you really have got problems. Arming everyone isn't an option, and remember the puppet masters isn't the government (of any colour), but the manufacturers of ammunition and firearms. You cannot imagine the call for our Prime Ministers resignation if we had murders on the scale of the USA. It would be national news for months! 

You really ought to read it, it's a brilliant document.  By the way, the Founders didn't just draw it up out of the blue - it is based on political thought back to the Magna Carta and British Common Law.  John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Montesquieu, the Mayflower Compact, the Articles of Confederation, and much debate and thought for decades before.  Our Founders were giants standing on the shoulders of giants.

Indeed. But it wasn't all plain sailing. Thomas Paine whose writing, the constitution is based on was an atheist who believed in the wealth being equally distributed & in socialised medicine etc. He fell out with the other signatories because he opposed their support of slavery & was against their ethnic cleansing of native Indians.

The people that would toss it out to follow someone like Obama or any of the rest of them are the same people that those who want to be free have been fighting for 1000's of years.

1000's? Shall we reappraise that? 

  We finally win our freedom and personal liberty, and here come the easily led who want to hand that back over to our would-be rulers.  Like I told you before, you would have made for a fine serf.

*sigh*  I know what you told me; It doesn't make you right. I'm self employed; I answer to customers, and business law. No members of royalty are involved.

And why stop there.  Extending your logic, shouldn't all the 'old' books be burned too?  You know, the ones written for a different age?  All completely irrelevant now?  Certainly several tyrants in the past thought so.  The only question is the cutoff - anything over 100 years?  50?  10?  Maybe on January 1st of each year we should burn all the books written in the prior year?  Film too of course.  Maybe writing and making films should just be banned altogether.

No..I haven't advocated that; but even books (especially reference books) have new editions when the initial ones are outdated. I have several editions of the same books where entire chapters have been re-written; evolution of thought and practice.

I would suggest the part you are missing is the part about human nature not changing much.  These 'old' books and documents have to do with discussing how we see the world, managing our relationships with each other.  Ever wonder why Shakespeare is still being read and performed? - it isn't about the stories, it's about human nature, the human condition.  The timelessness of it.  Are beach novels just as good, just as relevant and useful?  Why not, they are certainly 'modern', if that's the test?  Same with a lot of the rest of the 'old stuff'.  Are the people studying Greek philosophy wasting their time on pointless irrelevencies?  Should they be spending that time following Hollywood celebs on Twitter instead?  Same with the Constitution.  We toss the 'old stuff' aside at our peril.

see above.. Shakespeare may have invented several hundred of common used words, but he didn't write a set of laws that have been passed down the last few hundred years, that we live by.

[PB the Deplorable]

Forgive me if I misunderstood the above. You don't agree with the principle of democracy? You're more inclined to allow the people decide their fate? Correct? So you advocate anarchy?  Or possibly as I outlined in a previous post, the true definition of it; Communism? The workers means and control of production; extrapolated too all facets of society, bypassing politicians as (and I do have some agreement with you here) ...

I think they try to do to much (maybe even meaning well), then make a mess of it in part because they don't know what they are doing (the other part is government is inherently bad at performing certain functions) - how many politicians know anything more about, say, providing medical care or macro economics that the average person?  None, yet they want to make all those decisions. 

These people are supposed to be running the court sytem, dealing with foreign countries, making sure the military is prepared, keeping roads and bridges in good repair, stuff like that.  They aren't supposed to slyly be pushing us towards ever more socialism, creating a massive bureaucracy, spending us into bankruptcy, scheming to get ever more tax dollars out of us.

We are supposed to be a republic and not a democracy.   The very things our Founders warned us about a democracy are coming true now that we pretty much have one

About Communism being about the workers and all that.  I understand the appeal of this, I really do.  Around where I live we have quite a few co-ops - businesses owned and run by the workers and/or the customers.  No shareholders, no shit management making all the decisions, it's quite nice actually. 

But mostly businesses are started, built (despite what Obama said), and run by the person or small group that had the idea, took the financial risk, and put the time into them. The only way the 'workers' get ahold of it is to take it after the fact.  One needs a massive bureaucracy and a police state to do this on any kind of scale.   There is no other way around it. 

Marx was wrong.  Yet the easiest thing in the world for a politician to do is point at sucessful people and tell the others it's those peoples fault the rest are not as sucessful.  It's even working here in the US now where it never did before.  Wealth is not a limited, zero sum game.  People build wealth.  Whatever is left at the end of a period of earning and consuming is new wealth.  A farmer can create wealth by plowing, planting, fertilizing, watering, harvesting, or he can not do so and not create wealth.  Same with all of us going to work every day or not, no matter our profession.  The modern day 'Progressive', if I understand them correctly, thinks there is a certain fixed amount of wealth and it's been divided unfairly.

...  I'm not suggesting doing away with any of it; I'm suggesting taking a hard critical look at what was then and what is now..If it ain't broken, don't fix it..but clearly something is badly broke when almost on a monthly basis someone is marching into schools/shopping malls/diners, and mowing down innocent people going about their lawful business? If you don't think it isn't broken, you really have got problems. Arming everyone isn't an option, and remember the puppet masters isn't the government (of any colour), but the manufacturers of ammunition and firearms. You cannot imagine the call for our Prime Ministers resignation if we had murders on the scale of the USA. It would be national news for months!...


 
... No..I haven't advocated that; but even books (especially reference books) have new editions when the initial ones are outdated. I have several editions of the same books where entire chapters have been re-written; evolution of thought and practice...

We have an amendment process.  I think guns, and even the idea there might be a gun, scare off plenty of potentially violent criminals and even the non-violent would be burglar types.  this isn't part of Big Media's narrative, so it doesn't make it into the discussion.  The mass shootings seem to involve young men on certain types of medicatons - that is practically ignored.  The other shootings mostly involve young men in the inner city - this wasn't the case until the Great Society welfare programs were implemented. 

We can't un-invent guns.  Heck, we can't even keep them out of the hands of prisoners in prisons, what chance do we have of keeping them out of the hands of criminals and the deranged, no matter what the laws are. 

The rest of us don't think taking our guns away is going to solve any of this.  It just isn't. 


.

... 1000's? Shall we reappraise that?  ...

10s of thousands?  Ever since the first guy declared himself chief of a small band somewhere and got his buddies to back him up

[Sardondi]

Speaking of the Constitution, while there are any number of reasons to oppose Obama's unprecedented campaign to undermine the Second Amendment, even if there were no other this would be all I need to oppose him as well: the Communist Party USA applauds Obama's efforts to neutralize the Second Amendment, and agrees wholeheartedly with his campaign, which the CPUSA sees as aimed at disarming the traditional enemies of labor and "progressives". http://www.peoplesworld.org/fight-to-end-gun-violence-is-key-to-defending-democracy/

What a surprise that Obama's attempt to ban entire classes of guns and curtail gun rights makes the Communists happy.

And I think the People's World article above (I guess PW it the US version of The Daily Worker) also has relevance in light of the discussion just had above about "democracy" and the fact the US is a representative republic. I find it interesting that the CPUSA, Communists and all manner of hard lefters so often talk about how they support "democracy". Every time I hear some person or institution like the CPUSA throw the word "democracy" about as if it was a trademark it owned, I can't help but think of Inigo Montoya and Vizzini in The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[HAL 9000]

Though the pace toward tyranny is slow compared to a coup d'éta, I see find it either already in my life in some manner, or at my doorstep in more menacing ways.

Unelected, faceless bureaucrats routinely publish tens of thousands of regulations in the Federal Register, which, while never having been voted upon, have the effect of law. Men and women in black robes recently upheld the notion that private citizens must engage in commerce against their wishes by the Federal Government in National Federation Of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Secretary Of Health And Human Services (2013). One of the "arguments" against this case was the reductio ad absurdum notion that at what point might the government compel one to do anything - perhaps eat broccoli?

Well, the argument is not so absurd, as shown in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), in which the Federal Government, through regulation, forbade private citizens from growing wheat, for their own personal consumption, beyond arbitrary government limits, or face fines and destruction of the "excess" wheat. The principles in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) are still cited by "the black robes" in cases to this day. Kelo v. City of New London (2005) affirmed the (new) notion that private property can be confiscated and assigned to another private concern for economic development.

Bloomberg bans the sale of soft drinks larger than sixteen ounces. New mortgage disclosure rules were released in July by the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with a stated goal of simplifying home loans. The rules are 1,099 pages in length. The result of this has been fewer consumer mortgage lending options and increased costs.

So, you thought you owned your $650 smartphone and could do with it as you please? Wrong. According to a new ruling by The Librarian of Congress (yes, the fucking Librarian of Congress) has made unlocking your cellphone illegal in the U.S., starting January 26, 2013.

reference: http://tinyurl.com/bdwwrf9 et al.

Obama, in his second inauguration speech said, "...preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action." Why am I nervous when Obama uses the term "collective?" Obama showed his academic brilliance by also saying, "No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores."

Shit! Here, all this time, I thought I'd be able to do it all by myself. Obama, you're so brilliant.

[attachimg=1]

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Juan]

Some of you may find interesting an article by law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds - Ham Sandwich Nation:  Due Process When Everything Is A Crime.  Ham sandwich, of course, from the old adage that a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713

"Though extensive due process protections apply to the investigation of crimes, and to criminal trials, perhaps the most important part of the criminal process -- the decision whether to charge a defendant, and with what -- is almost entirely discretionary. Given the plethora of criminal laws and regulations in today's society, this due process gap allows prosecutors to charge almost anyone they take a deep interest in.  This Essay discusses the problem in the context of recent prosecutorial controversies involving the cases of Aaron Swartz and David Gregory, and offers some suggested remedies, along with a call for further discussion."

[somatichypermutation]

Some of you may find interesting an article by law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds - Ham Sandwich Nation:  Due Process When Everything Is A Crime.  Ham sandwich, of course, from the old adage that a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713

"Though extensive due process protections apply to the investigation of crimes, and to criminal trials, perhaps the most important part of the criminal process -- the decision whether to charge a defendant, and with what -- is almost entirely discretionary. Given the plethora of criminal laws and regulations in today's society, this due process gap allows prosecutors to charge almost anyone they take a deep interest in.  This Essay discusses the problem in the context of recent prosecutorial controversies involving the cases of Aaron Swartz and David Gregory, and offers some suggested remedies, along with a call for further discussion."

Agree completely, the system is broken.  This does not go to how easy it is to get a jury to find someone guilty once charged.

[Yorkshire pud]

Reading the last three posts (Above Hypermutation); Can I ask? Would you all prefer to not have any laws, statutes, commercial regulation of any description? Would you prefer to not have any government? On the point that HAL made regarding a coup and the subsequent tyranny..I think you'll find that the vast majority of coups are to overthrow one tyranny with another; just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic if you like. You go onto say that you don't like the word 'collective'. Why? Why is such anathema that it compels you to go into spasm about? If any society's problems are not addressed with a collective (i.e. 'society') input, discussion, agreement and implementation, how can you possibly address the problems?

You either want a society that has a collective spirit or you want 310 milllion individuals who have no interaction, empathy, association or tolerance of the other 309 999 999. Do you only feel dewy eyed when the stars and stripes gets run up the pole, but forget that because of a collective necessity and will, 65 odd years ago the USA, UK and the Commonwealth fought off Germany and Japan and you therefore can run up that flag?

It's faintly amusing how some have an ambiguous and in some cases diametrically opposite views of what they think 'left' is, in the same sentence! Communism is what you're advocating as an ideal..Communism ISN'T what Stalin, Khrushchev,Brezhnev or Andropov oversaw in the old USSR; that was a huge bureaucracy with a few highly privileged elite being supported by the masses who in many cases were ostracised (Jews, Gypsies, Poets, Writers, liberal thinkers). Stalin was many things; liberal wasn't one of them!

If the USSR had real Communism, it wouldn't be far removed from what you're advocating as the ideal; Almost no government administration, ability to move and work where you like without administrative hurdles, lack of red tape to do the simplest things. Pretty much no regulation of product, food and drink manufacture, packaging distribution etc. Mind you; Bloomberg brought in the (in my view, futile) drink size regs to try and bring down your epidemic of obesity; the cost must be in monetary terms phenomenal. Obama isn't your enemy: You're your own enemy. He was voted in last election, if you don't like him, then get yourself or a kindred nominee into the frame and get yourself/them standing in 2016..But if you do, remember: you'll be making decisions that will be difficult and in some cases politically suicidal--OR once elected you can move to motion the dismantling the structure of government in it's entirety (you might be on shaky ground if it wasn't the ticket you became elected on) and go back several thousend years to having small groups who choose their own laws, rules., regulations...Hmmm... difficult one isn't it?

[somatichypermutation]

Of course we want a government Yorkshire Pudding, but it is incredibly simplistic to say we either want anarchy or a government wherein prosecution is arbitrary.  Prosecution should truly be innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa.

[Yorkshire pud]

Of course we want a government Yorkshire Pudding, but it is incredibly simplistic to say we either want anarchy or a government wherein prosecution is arbitrary.  Prosecution should truly be innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa.

(bold)..it is in UK law..One thing you have that we don't is plea bargaining..In my view that is a gross miscarriage of justice for all concerned. I also think the one sided extradition treaty the USA has (introduced by Bush and Tony fucking Blair) should be abolished.


On a wider note...

It seems that some see democracy as burdensome too. I don't especially like our current government: In my view they've compounded the economic mess that were left them (sound familiar?) by the previous administration. Only yesterday the economic forecast presented by the government is at odds with top economists who have said they envisage absolutely no respite from our current dire situation for at least the next five years., probably a lot longer. Their (governments) approach to our health, social and employment long term futures is in my view catastrophic; the reasons would overload the bandwidth! However, the last administration had policies that have led us down this route and so for the foreseeable future we're stuck with this shower of shit.

I worry for my son; he's 9 years old, what fucking future has he got, when the employment prospects of youngster leaving school, college, university now is as bad as it has been since the war? After all that do I still subscribe to the notion of one man/woman, one vote? Of course I do. If whoever I vote fr next time don't get in, I'll accept it- I do have misgivings about a minority having sway over the rest though which happens you have multiple parties and a 'first past the post' ruling that decides the winner. Having said that, I'm not entirely convinced of the present coalition government we have, which happened because no one party had an overall majority in parliament.
I guess I believe in an impossibility: That the people should have true leaders: inspired and motivated, revered, giants, who have true compassion and empathy for the underdog, and enable all to enjoy good health and motivate them to want to have good health with good diet and lifestyle. To not be owned by commercial puppet masters, but be aware that those same commercial interests have inspirational, brilliant and qualified leaders, whose expertise should be drawn on; It isn't weak to ask for help when you don't have the answers. To have a free health service at the point of need, paid for by taxes; but don't let it be an excuse to be used as a milche cow by those who have no desire to keep themselves in good shape. Invest in people; both financially and socially. Make short term gain anathema that simply keeps the banks singing; The great inventions of our ancestors wouldn't have made it if the returns were measured in a few years rather than decades. It's all idealistic I accept, but all it needs is motivation and a collective will.   

[PB the Deplorable]

... Can I ask? Would you all prefer to not have any laws, statutes, commercial regulation of any description? Would you prefer to not have any government?...

We want precisely what we say we want.  Limited government. 

The people that oppose that and want to run every aspect of our lives are very sly about presenting it as an all or nothing choice, giant bureaucracy or anarchy, but it is false to say those are the only choices. Limited.  Government. 

What individuals and families can't do, neighborhoods and cities should do (streets, police, fire, storm drains, etc).  What they can't do should be done at the state level (highways, courtsdealing with neighboring states).  Then finally at the federal level (FDA, patents, foreign affairs, military).

A bottom up approach, not this top down thing we have now.  Big Leftist Media convinces as many as they can that solutions only come from Washington DC.  They don't.  It's not a great idea to concentrate all that wealth (tax money) and power in far away DC.

The larger the entity and the higher the level, the further from the people and the more potential for waste and poor decisions.  When the govt does someting they are not diciplined by the market the way business is, so agian more potential for waste and poor decisions.  Govt should only be doing the things individuals and businesses inherently can't do well.

... Communism ISN'T what Stalin, Khrushchev,Brezhnev or Andropov oversaw in the old USSR; that was a huge bureaucracy with a few highly privileged elite being supported by the masses who in many cases were ostracised (Jews, Gypsies, Poets, Writers, liberal thinkers). Stalin was many things; liberal wasn't one of them!...

Maybe so, but in order for the Left to ultimately have things their way, they need the vast bureaucracy you mention with them at the top as the highly privileged elite making the decisions.  And they need a police state to enforce it on the rest of us.  There is no getting around that.

Look how they've behaved at 'demonstrations' over the years, look at the 'Occupy' thugs - angry and violent, while claiming to be 'enlightened', tolerant, non-violent.   Or just talking to them at the office or a party - again, completely intolerant and angry with anyone that doesn't agree wtih them.  Now imagine them with complete power and the police and military at their disposal...  Look at the way Obama talks and acts - he has no regard for any Constitutional limit on his power or the fact that Congress is an equal branch of government - a would-be dictator that looks at the Constitution as an impediment to his wonderfulness.

[Yorkshire pud]

We want precisely what we say we want.  Limited government. 

The people that oppose that and want to run every aspect of our lives are very sly about presenting it as an all or nothing choice, giant bureaucracy or anarchy, but it is false to say those are the only choices. Limited.  Government. 

What individuals and families can't do, neighborhoods and cities should do (streets, police, fire, storm drains, etc).  What they can't do should be done at the state level (highways, courtsdealing with neighboring states).  Then finally at the federal level (FDA, patents, foreign affairs, military).

I don't oppose what you desire (even if it is unrealistic), but to say opposing it is an exclusively left wing stance is a fallacy. As I said before (several times) what you're advocating is a left wing ideal..If the word 'left' is the thing that's hard to reconcile, let's use another one..utopia do? 

A bottom up approach, not this top down thing we have now.  Big Leftist Media convinces as many as they can that solutions only come from Washington DC.  They don't.  It's not a great idea to concentrate all that wealth (tax money) and power in far away DC.

Point of order: The media is not left wing..It's almost entirely controlled by an egotistical capitalist(s). In previous posts I've cited examples and the respective proprietor's' right wing leanings. Unless of course you think Murdoch, the Barclay brothers, Richard Desmond and Lord Rothermere are 'down with the people'?

The larger the entity and the higher the level, the further from the people and the more potential for waste and poor decisions.  When the govt does someting they are not disciplined by the market the way business is, so again more potential for waste and poor decisions.  Govt should only be doing the things individuals and businesses inherently can't do well.

I partly agree; but it's not a proven maxim in entirety. Businesses have to make profit. Therefore their first priority isn't the 'right' thing, it's the least cost/most return priority. One of the main reasons the USA and most of the rest of the world is in dire financial shit is because of the un regulated gambling the banks and other financial institutions conducted with our money. The bankers got rich (How many of those do you think are left wing?) and many millions are walking past the locked up factories handing their home keys back to the mortgage companies.

Maybe so, but in order for the Left to ultimately have things their way, they need the vast bureaucracy you mention with them at the top as the highly privileged elite making the decisions.

No it doesn't.. Don't keep hanging onto what you think communism means; TRUE communism doesn't have an elite. Everyone is equal.

  And they need a police state to enforce it on the rest of us.  There is no getting around that.

No they don't: because the population govern by mutual consent. A fascist state needs a police state, but that isn't communism; it's fascism.

Look how they've behaved at 'demonstrations' over the years, look at the 'Occupy' thugs - angry and violent, while claiming to be 'enlightened', tolerant, non-violent.   Or just talking to them at the office or a party - again, completely intolerant and angry with anyone that doesn't agree with them.

Unlike for example Bush who stated 'you're with us, or against us'...And then introduced one of the most punitive and draconian pieces of legislation that ever was: Not exactly leaving room for descent is it? Look; thugs are thugs, they don't have political allegiance, but use politics as a vehicle to be unlawful. Same happened in the UK, most couldn't tell the difference between a political stance and a front loading washing machine. In some countries, thugs are run by governments and suppress the people (Iraq under SH, most Arab countries, China, some African countries)

  Now imagine them with complete power and the police and military at their disposal...  Look at the way Obama talks and acts - he has no regard for any Constitutional limit on his power or the fact that Congress is an equal branch of government - a would-be dictator that looks at the Constitution as an impediment to his wonderfulness.

Perhaps you should write to him and remind him that he's answerable to you, and point out where he's going wrong?

[The General]

...what you're advocating is a left wing ideal..If the word 'left' is the thing that's hard to reconcile, let's use another one..utopia do? 
 
... Don't keep hanging onto what you think communism means; TRUE communism doesn't have an elite. Everyone is equal.

Speaking of an unrealistic utopia, only 100 million people died in the 20th century trying to make one.  No biggie.  To make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs, don't ya?


Someone that calls the idea of limited government an idea of the left has truly confused leftism with liberalism.  True classical liberalism, like the type practiced by Thomas Jefferson, calls for a limited government.  The political right are the only ones advocating that these days.  Unfortunately there are very few of those people around.  Most republicans are not on the political right anymore.

[Yorkshire pud]

Speaking of an unrealistic utopia, only 100 million people died in the 20th century trying to make one.  No biggie.  To make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs, don't ya?

Many believe all Germans were Nazis; They weren't. Not all Nazis were German. More Russians died than all other countries' people combined. Of the three signatories to carving up Germany after the war, the Russians (under Stalin) came off the worst. None (other than the Nazis-and few of those near the wars end) were fighting for a utopia; they were fighting to prevent being subjegated. Sadly the Russians were after 1945, just not by the Nazis.

Someone that calls the idea of limited government an idea of the left has truly confused leftism with liberalism.  True classical liberalism, like the type practiced by Thomas Jefferson, calls for a limited government.  The political right are the only ones advocating that these days.  Unfortunately there are very few of those people around.  Most republicans are not on the political right anymore.

Do liberals get led by leaders such as erm...generals? The elite?

[somatichypermutation]

Someone that calls the idea of limited government an idea of the left has truly confused leftism with liberalism.  True classical liberalism, like the type practiced by Thomas Jefferson, calls for a limited government.  The political right are the only ones advocating that these days.  Unfortunately there are very few of those people around.  Most republicans are not on the political right anymore.

Actually the insane thing is that the Democrats advocate for limited government in the social sphere - why is it the governments business who you choose to marry or how you have sex?  On the other hand, it is the Republicans that want the government out of your pocketbook.  People for true limited government have no party.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Perhaps you should write to him and remind him that he's answerable to you, and point out where he's going wrong?

He (Obama) already knows - he is a Constitutional scholar and has lectured on it as a professor, which in this country usually means he is an expert in using sophistry to advocate getting around it.  I doubt very much he was surprised yesterday when the Federal Appeals Court ruled against him (just so you know, the President has a shared power on some appointments with the Senate, although he may appoint people to those positions during a Senate recess.  What he can't do, and what the court ruled on yesterday, is declare the Senate is in recess then make his appointments).

I could list all the different attempts he's made to tear off small pieces of the Constitution like that over the past four years, but it is easily googled by anyone interested and I'd hate to leave anything off (and yes, all Presidents do this from time to time, but nothing like the current scale).

[Yorkshire pud]

(and yes, all Presidents do this from time to time, but nothing like the current scale).

I'd say you're fucked then old son. You're going to have to wait until 2016. I know strictly speaking the election hustle starts a good two years before that, but you know what I mean..You could always put in for emigration to the UK? I'll buy you a pint.

[Juan]

The election hustle started early this month.  It's going to be four long years.

[PB the Deplorable]

The election hustle started early this month.  It's going to be four long years.

It will be interesting watching his cabinet and White House staff leave one by one, and the Democrats - especially in the Senate - begin to abandon him as they look to their own elections.  Obama has always been a special case and handled with kid gloves - due to race - so it will be interesting to see how the lame duck period plays out this time. 

Obama is a fairly thin skinned angry guy with a giant ego and something silmilar to a messiah complex, so this might get fun.  Michelle won't be able to contain herself at some point.  Some Senate Dems are already distancing themselves on the gun issue.

[Eddie Coyle]

            Second terms are a killer anyway, the last relatively seamless one was Eisenhower and even that is full of major missteps like the Powers shootdown in '60, the run up the Cuban fiasco... But since...Nixon(duh) Reagan(86-87 were disastrous) Clinton(98-99) and Bush('Iraq/'06 mid-terms) so will Obama escaped unscathed?
         

[Sardondi]

            Second terms are a killer anyway, the last relatively seamless one was Eisenhower and even that is full of major missteps like the Powers shootdown in '60, the run up the Cuban fiasco... But since...Nixon(duh) Reagan(86-87 were disastrous) Clinton(98-99) and Bush('Iraq/'06 mid-terms) so will Obama escaped unscathed?     

Well I certainly hope not. I mean, it would be unfair, dare I say racist, to deprive O of something the other second-termers have had.

[ItsOver]

Well I certainly hope not. I mean, it would be unfair, dare I say racist, to deprive O of something the other second-termers have had.

Absolutely.  It's all about getting that fair share.

[Eddie Coyle]

Well I certainly hope not. I mean, it would be unfair, dare I say racist, to deprive O of something the other second-termers have had.

     It's inescapable fact that Nixon, Reagan,Clinton, Bush were men of Northwestern European extraction and therefore tainted by all the baggage that entails. They were doomed by that genetics that make them despoilers, plunderers and rascals. Devils!

         Excerpted from this week's The Final Call

[PB the Deplorable]

So following Obama's court defeat this week - when the Appeals Court told him he couldn't arbitrarily declare the Senate in recess then make recess appointments - the President still refuses to follow the law. 

The Administration is claiming the Court ruled against the specific case in front of the National Labor Relations Board and not the illegal NLRB appointments of the board themselves.  This is clearly false.  The appointees are refusing to step down and plan to continue ruling on cases that come before them.

This is the same President that said during his first campaign he wanted to fundamentally transform the United States.  He told the R's that he won and they lost and that things were going to be done his way - the Obama Media then went on a 4 year rant about the R's not working with him.  He belittles entrepeneurs - the backbone of or economy - telling them they didn't build their businesses.  He recently said he plans to operate without Congress as much as possible and would work without them wherever he could when they tried to block his legislation, and that he would refuse to take 'no' for an answer.  And he is busily doing just that issuing thousands of new regulations, abusing the power of Executive Orders, and now ignoring unfavorable court cases.

Is is not the Presidents job to fundamentally change our country.  In fact he takes an oath to defend the Constitution.   He isn't going to take 'no' for an answer?  Does that sound like someone defending the Constitution, someone supporting separation of powers or that even believes in democracy?

This is a very truncated list of items that show what Obama is about, things we already new or should of know about anyone coming out of the Chicago Political Machine and Rev Wrights church. 

So when people talk about our little dictator wannabe, this is what we are talking about.  The man has no regard for the rule of law, limits on his power, or the country itself.

It doesn't matter where he was born, as the child of a foreign student he can't possibly qualify as a 'Natural Born' Citizen.  He is exactly the type of person the Founders tried to screen out.  He is not one of us.

[PB the Deplorable]

Has anyone heard Big Media ask Obama what his plan for the economy is lately?  They didn't during his first four years, or during the campaign.  But they thought it important enough to ask Mitt Romney several times a day.

Obama has no plan.  No ideas.  Just spend more, dig us in deeper, and build his party and the bureaucracy.  I thing Big Media is happy with that.

What we are doing is pretty much what Carter did before Reagan, and what Japan is doing.  The Japanese called it a 'lost decade' but are continuing on and are well into their second lost decade.

There really isn't much a president or government can do either way - Presidents like Clinton get credit when they are in office while the economy is going well (can anyone explain exactly what Bill Clinton did for the economy?) and take blame when it's not doing so well (Bush was a terrible President, but what exactly did he do to destroy it?).   Administrations are mostly limited to helping or hurting the economy by raising or lowering certain incentive sensitive types of taxes, and adding to or eliminating destructive regulations.  What did Reagan do when he set the economy on it's 25 year upward run?  Which of these is Obama doing as much of and as fast as he can?

[somatichypermutation]

PB - watch mainstream media and learn they ask him about it all the time:


Obama MTP Interview: Economy a big problem will get worst


AP Interview: Obama on the Economy


PRESIDENT OBAMA interviewed BY MATT LAUER -ECONOMY CRISIS


Pr. Obama - Iowa Backyard (4) Jobs Economy Debt - Des Moines

And this term he had one press conference with questions on economy:


President Obama Holds a News Conference

I bet it also comes up on 60 Minutes tonight, even though it should focus on foreign policy.

FACTS - and there are hundreds more, maybe thousands if you count each question. 

And the DOW is 300 points from an ALL TIME high?  Remember when the DOW collapse was evidence of Obama's economic failure?  Is the inverse true?


Economic Recovery Dow Jones Index 300 Points From All Time High

[somatichypermutation]

Obama has no plan.  No ideas.  Just spend more, dig us in deeper, and build his party and the bureaucracy.  I thing Big Media is happy with that.

LOL!  Nothing like Carter, look at inflation and monetary policy - COMPLETELY different.

As for Obama spending, it is surprising, but we have the lowest growth in government since Eisenhower, and much lower than Bush: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

"Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year â€" the last of George W. Bush’s presidency â€" federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 â€" the first budget under Obama â€" spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 â€" the final budget of Obama’s term â€" spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook."

CONFIRMED BY BLOOMBERG:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-22/obama-channels-eisenhower-with-anemic-government-spending-growth.html

"Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says it’s time for the president to “get serious about spending.” The budget numbers suggest Barack Obama already has, with beneficial effects on the deficit.

Federal outlays over the past three years grew at their slowest pace since 1953-56, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president. Expenditures as a share of the economy sank last year to 22.8 percent, their lowest level since 2008, according to Congressional Budget Office data. That’s down from 24.1 percent in 2011 and a 64-year high of 25.2 percent in 2009, when Obama pushed through an $831 billion stimulus package.

“If you strip out the stimulus, discretionary spending over the last few years has been quite modest and is scheduled to go to levels we haven’t experienced in modern times,” Robert Reischauer, a former director of the CBO, said in an interview. “Obama signed on to that,” partly in response to Republican pressure. "

[Juan]

Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace ...

There's the rub, and you're too smart to fall for it.  Federal spending is rising - meaning President Obama is spending what President Bush did, and then some.  That's the way these clowns in Washington measure things - not by how much is spent, but by how much they increase.

[somatichypermutation]

No UFO, I am not wrong,  Let me try to walk you through it:

1) The bailouts were started by Bush and he gave Obama little room when he took over because of some choices already made, at least in autos: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html

2) The worst of the bank bailouts, to AIG who insured risky practices at other banks as well as their own, and who we backed completely (like idiots we paid dollar for dollar their bad insurance) - even with all that we made money on their bailout: http://wonkwire.com/2012/09/12/the-wildly-successful-bailout-of-insurance-giant-aig/

3) The entire cost of the bailout will $19 billion according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  This is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the federal budget (about $3.5 trillion yearly): http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-tarp-bank-bailout-cost-government-19-billion

4) Now to government growth rate overall, Obama has the growth of the government to be the lowest in decades, see above, and see: http://wonkwire.com/2012/06/12/chart-of-the-day-20/

5) Here it based on out best economic numbers from the Fed, bailouts included: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/obama-most-fiscally-conservative-president-in-modern-history/254658/ "The most fiscally conservative president in modern history"

Thus, a fair attack on Obama is not the he spends too much, but that he has spent too little in s recession.  In my next post, we add Obamacare.