If Obama was a white man......

[RiverDog]

Bob... the key words of that sentence was "At least not to the point where the U.S. could come out of a nuclear war with anything approximating a win". In shear numbers and delivery methodes there was an advantage but the advantage was such that we could just destroy the U.S.S.R. more times than the U.S.S.R. could destroy the U.S. But all it takes is the ability to destory the other guy once. Unlesss you could destroy the other guy's delivery methods before they were able to fire their missles in a counter attack it was effectively a stalemate regardless of the massive technical advantages the U.S. held in many areas.

If nuclear war broke out both countries would have ended up destroyed so the effective advantage Reagan had really didn't amount to much. That was Reagan's reason behind the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Riv... curious (Bob too for that matter) what's your take is on the economic factor. There are generally two camps. Those who believe that Reagan really didn't do a whole lot to directly bring about the end of the cold war, but rather it was the economic factors out of his control that he and his cabinet were able to take advantage of. And those who believe that the arms race under Reagan and in particular the Star Wars program put so much economic pressure on the Soviets that Reagan essentially broke them. I've heard compelling arguments for both points of view and I've never been able to settle on what I believe.

IMO it was a combination of both, along with other factors, including the availability of information to the masses, which gave them a yearning for their freedom. I often half joked that CNN was just as responsible for ending the cold war as was the actions of any of our Presidents.

[c_hawkbob]

I think the Soviet Union fell predominantly for social and economic reasons, the fact they were at a military disadvantage was not totally irrelevant, but not a driving factor. It was going to happen eventually under almost any circumstances regardless of any political pressures we were able to exert. Reagan was just the guy on watch when it happened.

[RiverDog]

I think the Soviet Union fell predominantly for social and economic reasons, the fact they were at a military disadvantage was not totally irrelevant, but not a driving factor. It was going to happen eventually under almost any circumstances regardless of any political pressures we were able to exert. Reagan was just the guy on watch when it happened.

IMO he did a little more than just sit around and eat jelly beans. Reagan promoted, both materially as well as psychologically, anti communist movements around the world, such as the solidarity movement in Poland. He also aided the rebels in Afghanistan with weapons and other materials that prolonged the war there and that severely weakened the Soviet economy. And that's just the material things he did and doesn't consider the intangibles in terms of moral support and encouragement the rest of the world derived from his position of leader of the free world.

But I do agree that the USSR would have eventually collapsed, that Reagan merely advanced it. But how many people's lives were saved or enhanced, how many billions of more dollars would we have spent, between the time it did fall and the 5-20 additional years it might have taken for it to fall if Jimmy Carter would have been re-elected vs. 8 years of Reagan?

[FolkCrusader]

The only strategically important thing the US did for the Afghan resistance was providing them with FIM-92 stinger missles. The Soviets relied on very expensive ground attack aircraft to control the battlefield. The aircraft in use such as the MI-24 Hind were highly susceptible the stinger while attacking ground targets. The Soviets lost an average of one aircraft per engagement after the introduction of the stinger, whereas previously their aircraft were for all intents invulnerable to Afghan fire. It's not known specifically where Reagan came down on providing stingers to the Afghans but since it was on his watch one has to assume he at least approved it. Generally the CIA is given credit for the action as is Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson-D.

The key thing to look at at the fall of the soviet union is worldwide economics at the time. Worldwide GDP growth was fairly high (about 4%) and sustained for much of the decade. At the same time GDP growth in the soviet union was flat. Literally the whole world was getting richer except in the hardline soviet states. TV and media growth during the 80s ensured that people in those states were well aware of the differences between the Euro economy and the Russian economy. It was the failed Russian economy that led to the downfall of the old soviet republics. Some people give credit to Reagan for "outspending" them and maybe that was an issue. He certainly spent a lot of money. On projects that person with a BA in science could have told you weren't possible.

if you look at Russia today they function very much like a highly corrupt european nation. They use elements of capitalism and socialism to maintain a business state. Classic communism probably had its strong points, but it just never meshed with the reality of human nature.

[Hawktawk]

Reagan was a giant, one of the best US presidents ever. He presided over a time when his power of persuasion and his policies spurred incredible economic growth. And he was who he said he was. He was a leader that led and he left an indelible mark on our nation. He was the president most responsible for crushing the evil empire and fighting communism globally. He has to be turning over in his grave watching the current poser undo all the good things he did.

[RiverDog]

The only strategically important thing the US did for the Afghan resistance was providing them with FIM-92 stinger missles. The Soviets relied on very expensive ground attack aircraft to control the battlefield. The aircraft in use such as the MI-24 Hind were highly susceptible the stinger while attacking ground targets. The Soviets lost an average of one aircraft per engagement after the introduction of the stinger, whereas previously their aircraft were for all intents invulnerable to Afghan fire. It's not known specifically where Reagan came down on providing stingers to the Afghans but since it was on his watch one has to assume he at least approved it. Generally the CIA is given credit for the action as is Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson-D.

The key thing to look at at the fall of the soviet union is worldwide economics at the time. Worldwide GDP growth was fairly high (about 4%) and sustained for much of the decade. At the same time GDP growth in the soviet union was flat. Literally the whole world was getting richer except in the hardline soviet states. TV and media growth during the 80s ensured that people in those states were well aware of the differences between the Euro economy and the Russian economy. It was the failed Russian economy that led to the downfall of the old soviet republics. Some people give credit to Reagan for "outspending" them and maybe that was an issue. He certainly spent a lot of money. On projects that person with a BA in science could have told you weren't possible.

if you look at Russia today they function very much like a highly corrupt european nation. They use elements of capitalism and socialism to maintain a business state. Classic communism probably had its strong points, but it just never meshed with the reality of human nature.

I was going to mention the Stinger anti aircraft missile. Giving it to the Afghans was huge. Some observers claimed that it was the single most significant factor in the Soviets losing that war. The Afghans shot down countless helicopters using those weapons. We also had other resources, covert resources, that provided assistance to the rebels. I used to play racquetball with one of them. Bottom line is that the US played a critical role in that war, albeit it not a very well publicized one.

I'm glad you chimed in, FC. I've come to respect you as an intelligent, level headed guy... not that any of the current participants aren't, but they already know the degree of respect that I have for them.

[Hawktawk]

They are at it again. Eric Holder, one of the most crooked Attorney Generals in history stated in a speech a couple of days ago that "racial animus" is a factor in opposition to the Obama administration. The most racially divisive administration in history strikes again. Its enough to make me want to vomit.

[RiverDog]

They are at it again. Eric Holder, one of the most crooked Attorney Generals in history stated in a speech a couple of days ago that "racial animus" is a factor in opposition to the Obama administration. The most racially divisive administration in history strikes again. Its enough to make me want to vomit.

Franklin Roosevelt forced from their homes and seized the personal property of over 100,000 loyal United States citizens that had not even been accused of so much as spitting on the sidewalk, their only crime being that they were of Japanese ancestry. Andrew Jackson authorized the removal of close to 50,000 Indians by subjecting them to a death march known as "The Trail of Tears." And that's just two that I can think of off the top of my head.

In all seriousness, you need to be more selective when choosing your sensational one liners that are meant to draw attention to your cause. It's enough to make me want to vomit.

[Seahawks4Ever]

The age of Jackson. Andrew Jackson was a true giant of American politics, he was the first "true" Democrat president. But, as a great an American he is perceived to have been, he was absolutely WRONG the way he dealt with the Cherokee. The Cherokee, ironically did their level best to become just like the white man, but it did not matter to Jackson and most of his cronies. They wanted Cherokee land and they broke every law and even ignored the U.S. Supreme Court to usurp that land. Jackson repeatedly turned Cherokee brother against Cherokee brother. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of the Cherokee was the ONE TIME the SCOTUS upheld the law the way the law was meant to be used, but it mattered little. Since that time the SCOTUS let the United States government break every single treaty it signed with the various tribes.

[Hawktawk]

OK

The age of Jackson. Andrew Jackson was a true giant of American politics, he was the first "true" Democrat president. But, as a great an American he is perceived to have been, he was absolutely WRONG the way he dealt with the Cherokee. The Cherokee, ironically did their level best to become just like the white man, but it did not matter to Jackson and most of his cronies. They wanted Cherokee land and they broke every law and even ignored the U.S. Supreme Court to usurp that land. Jackson repeatedly turned Cherokee brother against Cherokee brother. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of the Cherokee was the ONE TIME the SCOTUS upheld the law the way the law was meant to be used, but it mattered little. Since that time the SCOTUS let the United States government break every single treaty it signed with the various tribes.

They are at it again. Eric Holder, one of the most crooked Attorney Generals in history stated in a speech a couple of days ago that "racial animus" is a factor in opposition to the Obama administration. The most racially divisive administration in history strikes again. Its enough to make me want to vomit.

OK fair enough guys I really hadn't considered those things which were clearly persecution, not politics.In the case of FDR it was clearly an overreaction to a horrible crime that had been committed against America. Jackson not so much. I was speaking more in the modern political sense, post segregation etc.

So let me clean up the statement and ask a question. Do you agree or disagree with Eric Holder? Is it racist to oppose Obama on the issues? That card gets played over and over by these crooks. Is that OK with you?

[c_hawkbob]

They are at it again. Eric Holder, one of the most crooked Attorney Generals in history stated in a speech a couple of days ago that "racial animus" is a factor in opposition to the Obama administration. The most racially divisive administration in history strikes again. Its enough to make me want to vomit.

Franklin Roosevelt forced from their homes and seized the personal property of over 100,000 loyal United States citizens that had not even been accused of so much as spitting on the sidewalk, their only crime being that they were of Japanese ancestry. Andrew Jackson authorized the removal of close to 50,000 Indians by subjecting them to a death march known as "The Trail of Tears." And that's just two that I can think of off the top of my head.

In all seriousness, you need to be more selective when choosing your sensational one liners that are meant to draw attention to your cause. It's enough to make me want to vomit.

Very well put Dog, I get that feeling a lot in these political discussions.

[savvyman]

If?

Obama is a white man. What economic policies that Obama has supported are any different than Reagan? Goldman Sachs, the Banks and Wall Street all love Obama. Shoot - the people in the highest earnings and wealth are taxed at a lower rate under Obama than they are under Reagan. Reagan is a fuckin communist compared to Obama.

[savvyman]

Speaking of Eisenhower - anyone ever see his final message to the American people as President?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY


"only and alert and knowledgeable citizenry........."

f*** we're doomed.

[RiverDog]

Speaking of Eisenhower - anyone ever see his final message to the American people as President?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY


"only and alert and knowledgeable citizenry........."

f*** we're doomed.

I've read a lot about Ike. People assume that because he was a 5 star general that he was a hawk when quite the opposite was true. He saw the nuclear weapons build up in the 50's as overkill and feared defeat from within by means of a crippled economy more than he feared the Soviets or the Chinese. The problem for him was that just about everybody else in the country, including all but one member of his cabinet, his Treasury Secretary, wanted enough nuclear weapons to kill the Soviet Union 10 times over.

There was a raging paranoia in the country during the 50's that made people feel that there was no such thing as having too many nukes. If someone in the press put out a story that the Soviets had 5,000 nukes, we had to have 6,000. It didn't matter to us if 2500 would do the job, we had to have more.

[burrrton]

Obama is a white man.

Is that right?

What economic policies that Obama has supported are any different than Reagan? Goldman Sachs, the Banks and Wall Street all love Obama. Shoot - the people in the highest earnings and wealth are taxed at a lower rate under Obama than they are under Reagan. Reagan is a fuckin communist compared to Obama.

LOL. Reaganomics:

"The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2]"

Yeah, that just screams "Obama!"

[Hawktawk]

Trying to compare Reagan to Obama is ridiculous. Reagan said what he wanted to do and he did it,, with the support of millions of democrats. America enjoyed an amazing run of economic growth and had respect and if necessary fear from foreign governments. Obama couldn't carry Reagan's jock strap and its insulting to put them in the same sentence.

[RiverDog]

Trying to compare Reagan to Obama is ridiculous. Reagan said what he wanted to do and he did it,, with the support of millions of democrats. America enjoyed an amazing run of economic growth and had respect and if necessary fear from foreign governments. Obama couldn't carry Reagan's jock strap and its insulting to put them in the same sentence.

I agree that Reagan and Obama are polar opposites philosophically and that I would probably have to give the edge to Reagan in terms of what he achieved (reversed a moribund economy, essentially ended the cold war.) I'll also agree that Reagan had more cross aisle support from his opposition.

But to steal a line from our 40th president..."There he goes again!" An insult to put them in the same sentence? Not hardly. Reagan was a great president, IMO the best in the 2nd half of the 20th century, but he had his warts just like Obama has his.

[Eaglehawk]

Interning Japanese folks not good in my book.

But starting with Bush 2 and you can even argue Clinton, the presidencies have been going further and further downhill.
Americans are losing more and more rights, especially that NDAA that Obama signed where he can arrest any American at any time for any reason without due process.

That stuff is Stasi-like. Of course everytime we go to the airport we are reminded of Bush and the TSA. But illegals are pouring through our borders without ID and TSA and Border Patrol waves them in.

TSA shows up at football games now and the national guard shows up at summer festivals and events throughout the country. Police are being militarized, a governmental agency(FEMA?) just ordered over a million coffins last year, along with purchasing now of millions of rounds and now ak47's. Why? No one seems to know. I sure don't. FEMA camps have been built throughout the country. They are empty now. Why?

Then we complain about other countries and their "police state".

Gradual erosion of Americans rights.

Trump said the following recently about Obama: "Either he is allowing the illegals to come in on purpose or he's incredibly incompetent".

Now another Malaysian jet falls from the sky this time being shot down, and the smoke is still coming from the plane when headlines around the world say : Russia shoots down Malaysian jet".

Really? Then I ask myself, why would Russia want to start WWIII? I can't think of a reason. So this has me scratching my head as well.

[savvyman]

Obama is a white man.

Is that right?

What economic policies that Obama has supported are any different than Reagan? Goldman Sachs, the Banks and Wall Street all love Obama. Shoot - the people in the highest earnings and wealth are taxed at a lower rate under Obama than they are under Reagan. Reagan is a fuckin communist compared to Obama.

LOL. Reaganomics:

"The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2]"

Yeah, that just screams "Obama!"

Get out the Handkerchiefs Boys - It time to pop some "Belief Systems" - I know from the past that whenever I pop a person's "Belief Bubble" they always respond with tears and anger - this is why I am usually hesitant to do this.

Now the accepted belief (that is about to be popped) - that many people hold is summarized below in Italics:

"The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2]"


Now please grab your hanky and have it ready for this first chart that deals with "Pillar #1" of the four pillars (Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending):





And This One





And who really increased the number of federal employees - Reagan or Obama?





SImple summary on this graph but I thought you Reagan worshipers would like the devils horns on Obama.





Yes - I see you are now reaching for a second handkerchief - Just in time because here is anotherfact - Obama is the first President in the modern era who "Shrank the number of federal employees".




Also presented in this manner - The number of Federal workers as a % of the population - During the Obama Term as President - Has Shrank significantly (I think this means "smaller government")





As you all can see - Your beloved Reagan (when compared to Obama) was truly a double agent - A free market capitalist on the outside but a raging Communist on the inside.

[Hawktawk]

Damn lies and Statistics....What a bunch of fuzzy math. We all lived with Reagan as president. And we've endured 6 years of Emperor Obama. Give us Reagan. Hell exhume his body and put it in the White house like weekend at Bernie's. The country would still be run better than this disaster.

[burrrton]

*sigh* Where to start.

Savvy, if you either don't understand what you're looking at or are, intentionally or not, misrepresenting it and resorting to addressing arguments nobody made, save the sarcasm- it sounds foolish.

Just hitting a few of the high spots:

A free market capitalist on the outside but a raging Communist on the inside.

Um, no. Even if your arguments were sound, which they're mostly not, that ain't Communism.

Obama is the first President in the modern era who "Shrank the number of federal employees".

I don't think, or care, that Obama has been bad in this regard, but (a) I don't recall this being a big opponent talking point, and (b) more importantly, that's not what your graph shows!

Did you read it before linking?

"*Includes state, local, and federal workers"

That's key because state and local budgets are required to balance. That means when the economy is in the crapper, they lay people off.

Your graph could be argued to be showing a bug of the Obama economy, not a feature.

The number of Federal workers as a % of the population - During the Obama Term as President - Has Shrank significantly (I think this means "smaller government")

First, as I just pointed out, no, it's *not* just Federal workers, and second, no, that doesn't necessarily mean "smaller government" as it's typically discussed.

You can lay off a few percent of the workforce, but if you argue for and/or get* higher spending, higher taxes, and increased regulation, you're still inarguably in favor of or getting "bigger government" by any reasonable definition.

(The reason I hold "arguing for" against politicians is because what they end up with can be the opposite of what they wanted. Look to the Budget Control Act for a good example of this. Obama was arguing against it (he wanted tax rates to revert), but it has, for better or worse, led to Federal spending *growth* coming down. Should Obama get credit for that? I think reasonable people can disagree, but it doesn't sound convincing to call Obama a "small government" pol due to it.)

We could move on now to discuss whether TARP and ARRA levels of spending were intended to be one-time or permanent, what TARP repayment did for Obama, who is responsible for the ARRA money despite it being in the FY2009 budget, and so on, but what's the point? At best, I don't think you want to argue about it honestly.

[RiverDog]

Savvy;

The post Vietnam War recession that Carter inherited from Nixon/Ford and handed off to Reagan was far worse and ran far deeper than anything Obama ever had to deal with. The "misery index", a term Carter used to hammer Ford with in 1976, hit an all time high in June of 1980. Double digit interest rates, double digit inflation, nearly double digit unemployment. You could get a 10% pay raise and see it eaten up by inflation in a matter of months. Care to guess what the interest rate on the loan for the first house I bought? 10.5%, and that was considered low. Strikes crippled the country and hindered productivity. There was a period of time where you could only by gasoline on either an odd or even day, and you couldn't buy it at all on Sundays. Whether you want to credit Reagan for it or not, it was a far better economy in the 80's when he was in office than it was in the 70's. I should know, I lived through it.

Also, I question those graphics you've posted. First, the government employment vs. population stat. Do they include military and DOD personnel? I suspect that they do. The DOD has by far the largest number of government employees, and it's not a fair comparison to leave them in that graphic as Reagan had a cold war superpower enemy to fight whereas Obama's had the luxury to be able to make large cuts in defense personnel. Secondly, you state that Reagan did not have any wars to pay for, which is absolutely false, as the cold war, as far as having to pay for it goes, was far more expensive than either of the two relatively minor engagements Obama has had to deal with. And lastly, the statement about Tip O'Neil working with Reagan is a lie. On some issues, Reagan was able to sway about 30 or 40 Democrats in the House, mostly the more conservative southern Dems, to form his bi partisan coalition. O'Neil and the Democratic leadership opposed Reagan on most issues but were unable to keep their slim majority in line.

[Hawktown]

who cares who did or is/was better! they ALL/both suck as reps for the people as a whole and have for decades!!! To hell with them all they only care about their status and pocket books. If any of them did the RIGHT thing they would have been assassinated by the underground leaders of the world.

[Hawktawk]

The President went out and said "my policies are on the ballet, every single one of them". He said things like"if you dont like my policies go win some elections"And his party got an epic rear end kicking in the midterms. Post election polls show that a majority of Americans favor Republican control of the congress at this time and that includes the majority of those who stayed home. And yet Obama is looking more and more likely to jam through executive actions changing the control and regulation of the internet, manipulation of Obamacare etc. But the huge one is his intention to grant amnesty to 4.5 million illegals before the end of the year. It is chilling to me to see the will of the people being ignored by this administration.Obama care, regulation of the internet by foreign interests, and amnesty are all widely unpopular with the American voters. His new pick for AG is looking to be as political and racially driven as her predecessor by saying that voter ID laws are taking away the gains made by MLK etc and that her justice department will challenge the laws in the "deep south" states. Politicians are continuing to stoke the fires in Ferguson to the point that my belief is that the greatest tragedies in Ferguson are yet to occur. And its about political posturing. Its shameful and irresponsible.MLK is probably turning over in his grave listening to the whining racially motivated drivel.

When I started this thread I made it clear that I felt Obama had committed impeachable offenses. I think if he pushes through something like fundamental changes to the internet or amnesty for 4.5 million people before the new congress has a say he should be impeached and enough Democrats with some cajones should help make it happen in the senate. I dont believe it will happen though. I think Obama will do whatever he wants over the next 2 years.

So I dont know, I'm worried about the future of this nation. I dont want to just be doom and gloom but I haven't lived at a time I feared the Administration this much since I grew up during Watergate.In the Watergate era people of character from both parties and the media came together to hold Nixon to account.The only difference I see is that the press and the politicians just let it happen now.

[c_hawkbob]

Unemployment in Oct 2009 was 10% ... Oct 2014 it's 5.8%

Consumer Confidence in Oct 2009 was 53.4 ... Oct 2014 it's 72.4

The Dow Jones in Oct 2009 was 9712.73 ... Oct 2014 it's 17,125

On the strength of those numbers alone if Obama was a white man he'd be a hero.

[Hawktawk]

Unemployment in Oct 2009 was 10% ... Oct 2014 it's 5.8%

Consumer Confidence in Oct 2009 was 53.4 ... Oct 2014 it's 72.4

The Dow Jones in Oct 2009 was 9712.73 ... Oct 2014 it's 17,125

On the strength of those numbers alone if Obama was a white man he'd be a hero.

Where are you pulling the fuzzy math from Bob? Not to mention Obama had already been in office nearly a year so why was it still so bad in Oct 2009? Bushes fault right?Just like everything that's still wrong. The economic #s except for the huge bubble that is the market based on printing money are all severely skewed, especially the unemployment rate. But I digress. Lets say the President has provided the most wonderful economy ever? Does it allow him the right to lie to and deceive the American people, or basically ignore our borders and rewrite our laws? Apparently does huh as far as you all are concerned?.

[Hawktawk]

Sorry, but I find laughable the idea that the president should be impeached for issuing executive orders. Especially on immigration. Would you have impeached Ronald Reagan when he used executive order to grant amnesty to about 40% of immigrants in this country in 1987? Or impeach George H W Bush for his similar action in 1980?

And the use of executive action is so objectionable that it is treasonous? Check out the graph in this site: http://mic.com/articles/80707/which-pre ... -not-obama

I am suggesting that the opposition would be outraged by anything that Obama decided to do, approve the name Redskins for the Washington team? Impeach him. Provide jobs for returning veterans? Impeach him, the very nerve of the man. OK, I made up those examples, but that is the tenor of the oppo to the president. I am not a huge fan of Obama, but the direction some of these attacks are taking are ridiculous. Laughable, as I said.

How about some real issues: jobs, jobs, jobs; the infrastructure; campaign finance reform; the economy. Anything?

The # of executive orders is irrelevant. Its the nature of them fundamentally changing laws and making new ones from the executive branch. Hes the most lawless man since Nixon and probably worse. I would think as good old school liberal like you would have the integrity to admit it. But you are with those now throwing Bob Woodward under the bus and calling him a doddering old fool because he dares criticize your hero and draw the comparisons with Watergate.

[burrrton]

On the strength of those numbers alone if Obama was a white man he'd be a hero.

The recession ended in June 2009. When your "recovery" takes half a decade, that's not a heroic performance on the economy.

[edited to remove personal reference that wasn't necessary]

[burrrton]

And on the issue of executive orders:

1. As already said, it's not the raw number of them, but the nature of them that's being considered an issue by both the right and the left.
2. No, Reagan and Bush41 didn't do the same thing Obama is threatening.

I think there's a lot of hypocrisy on both sides, but Reagan (and Bush 41 later) merely gave EOs that expanded on laws *duly passed by Congress*. Obama is threatening to give an EO that altogether contradicts the law, and there is broad agreement that this is going to create a serious constitutional crisis, which is nothing to laugh at in the interests of partisanship.

Here's a good write-up of the differences:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ty/382906/

I think this one's decent, too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/opini ... .html?_r=2

[edit]

And for the record, impeachment is a stupid thing to talk about because not only are arguments in its favor tenuous at best, but it *ain't happening*.

That's why nobody in leadership positions is seriously talking about doing it.

[Hawktawk]

Great article on Amnesty. I dare the proponents of this unlawful action to read the article. I particularly like how it points out that the previous actions by Reagan and Bush, while lawful, WOUND UP MAKING THE PROBLEM WORSE. And also the fact that Obama's previous,illegal act of stopping law enforcement on the border from enforcing laws has greatly worsened the recent problems.

As for it being "stupid" to talk about impeachment maybe so, maybe not. The discussion is purely hypothetical. Many politicians believe there are impeachable offenses but they refer to Biden as Obama's insurance policy. But this president hates America so bad he is willing to play chicken with this executive order and hope to god the congress does try to impeach him, never mind the damage.

The thread title was stupid to begin with although I think Obama's race and his politics relative to his supporters in the media protects him in his position. Maybe the title should,have been "If it was the 1970s Obama would have been impeached". Because in that era a far more competent President was forced to resign under the threat of impeachment because of similar lapses in honesty and manipulation of tax agencies, cover ups etc. I grew up on it and studied it very intently.This administration is no different other than the era in which we live and the entrenched partisans for whom winning is more important than doing the right thing.

[burrrton]

But this president hates America so bad he is willing to play chicken with this executive order and hope to god the congress does try to impeach him, never mind the damage.

I disagree with the "hates America" part, but I think it's almost unquestionably true that he'd welcome a bunch of "IMPEACHMENT!" talk. It only helps him politically and has no chance of going anywhere.

[Hawktawk]

Ok how about he hates the America he inherited. I certainly believe that. No question he would welcome an Impeachment. Frankly I think he would see it as a win win.Hes a very lazy president to begin with so if it succeeds its more time to golf and never ending victimhood status. If it fails it sets up the Dems to take control of everything in 2016, especially with millions of folks Obama just granted amnesty to going to the polls along with an energized base. I agree its political suicide for the congress to contemplate doing the right thing.

[monkey]

Savvyman, here is your president.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/DL_Adams/Saul_Alinsky_and_the_Rise_of_Amorality_in_American_Politics/

He is a haughty, Saul Alinski disciple, a Marxist, a friend of the terrorist and admitted bomber, William Ayers (who ought to be in prison); he is a thoroughly corrupt individual for whom the ends always justifies the means.
(Here he is as a community organizer, code word for communist activist, teaching the principles of Saul Alinski.

The ends for him are the same as they were for his Marxist/Satanist hero Saul Alinski. Read Rules for Radicals if you have any questions what those are.
For that matter, read his own words in any of his autobiographies, (he wrote three before he'd ever even done anything because he's so full of himself.)

Just so there's no excuse not to know, here's the man in his OWN WORDS.


“The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it’s always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility."

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

"I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old, I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen. "

"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That’s the world! On which hope sits!"

"What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice. He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics. "

“I can no more disown him (Rev. Wright) than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.”

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away, and that sometimes comes out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

"We've got to get the job done [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." (oh the irony!)

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a (flag) pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest..."

"I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though.

"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: (White) People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national-security objectives we've set, we've got to have a civilian national-security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." That ought to terrify you!

"I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." So should that!

“If you talk to Warren [Buffet], he’ll tell you his preference is not to meddle in the economy at all — let the market work, however way it’s going to work, and then just tax the heck out of people at the end and just redistribute it,” Obama said. “That way you’re not impeding efficiency, and you’re achieving equity on the back end.” He continued by saying that he thought there was merit in Buffett’s argument.

"If we are willing to work for it and fight for it and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless. This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Here are videos where those quotes come from, just so you can see it's his own words.

Barack Obama supports redistribution of wealth marxist philosophy in a 2001 NPR interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTCNK7v3J6w
Barack Hussein Obama's mocks the Holy Bible and its application in American society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FCNKwHRCQM&eurl=

Barack Hussein Obama complains that US Troops watch too much FOX News
http://blip.tv/play/nGnEkFaIoik

Barack Hussein Obama proposes the creation of a huge internal, civilian defense force to meet his policy needs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sEhzvyblUy4

Barack Hussein Obama himself indicates in 2004 he will not run for President in 2008 because he lacks experience
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BnLozS- ... re=related

Barack Hussein Obama's campaign admits he does not have the experience to lead as President
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9nqOBxm ... re=related

Barack Hussein Obama's hypocritical actions as an agent for change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sawN7uJ8 ... re=related

Barack Hussein Obama supporter attempts to list Obama's U.S. Senatorial acocmplishments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o

Barack Hussein Obama's own words flip-flop on his Pastor's controversial Statements
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU2Yv-rn ... re=related

Barack Hussein Obama - Don't tell me words don't Matter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCkvvFJt ... re=related

Barack Hussein Obama's vision for the U.S. Military...in his own words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRBLi-Th ... re=related

Barack Hussein Obama's negotiating strategy revelaed in his handling of NAFTA and Canada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY5CQnOn ... re=related

Barack Hussein Obama - FOX Report on William Ayers Association
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ52cE1O ... re=related

Brack Hussein Obama questioned in a debate on association with William Ayers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28c9OdVV ... re=related

Barack Hussien Obama's own words about whites
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3j ... re=related

Barack Hussien Obama - A Video Portrait
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036

[burrrton]

voting without suppression

C'mon, OBS- asking for a freaking *ID* is "suppression"?

It's 2014 for chrissakes- asking for an ID to get on a plane isn't "suppressing" you from flying... asking for an ID to buy booze isn't "suppressing" you from drinking. If you're really worried about the 7 people on the planet who don't already have (or can't get) ID, do something about getting them ID instead of arguing to eliminate eligibility requirements for voting because you heard of a 103 year old who lost his/her birth certificate. It's ridiculous.

And nobody sane is trying to eliminate the government from having any functional role, for heaven's sake- that's intellectually dishonest and a textbook strawman argument.

Just stop. It makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about government's appropriate role in our lives.

[monkey]

I don't always have a form of voter identification, but when I do, I am usually ordering a cerveza.

[Hawktawk]

For a guy who says hes a "vertical liberal" OBS sorry you sound like a good old fashioned left wing liberal making comments like you just did. Check yourself you aren't who you think you are.

[burrrton]

If you would like to see the results of liberal thinking, look at the results that we can see in red states versus blue states.

Er, do we agree that California and Texas are two prototypical states for the respective views? Lol.

Let me know...

[Seahawks4Ever]

OBS; Psst. don't tell conservatives but I understand that red states get more federal dollars than blue states even though the people in blue states pay more in taxes to the federal government. Have you ever heard anyone in a red state offering to only receive back from the federal government what they pay in?

[c_hawkbob]

Thanks for the support Sea4, it was beginning to feel lonely in here.

Actually, I enjoy sparring with these knuckleheads (said with affection, they are Seahawk fans, after all), and I like a good natured political squabble. I can disagree with someone and still get along with them (if I couldn't, it would be a lonely time down at my local). I got my bachelors in philosophy, so political and social back and forth comes with pleasure for me.

Unfortunately, it is becoming difficult for me to type these days, as I have intermittent tremors that make it impossible to type. Doctor says nothing serious, but it is very frustrating. hmmmm, seems better when the Seahawks win, like today. Just the downside for being a septuagenarian. At least for me.

you ain't alone ObS. I consider myself more a centrist, but I agree with most everything you've said here.

[c_hawkbob]

The reasoning behind my centrist stance is the notion that the two parties need to work together to get things done. I recognize that there are different ways of looking at things and respect that everybody's opinion matters. That's why we the people have representatives in the government, to bring these differing viewpoints to the table and hammer out enough of a compromise that we as a country are able to move forward in a way that, while not pandering to any one sector, is at least representative of a fair compromise. To work together to address the country's issues in a timely manner.

In recent years this has stopped happening and I blame extremists and hate politics. This "my way or no way at all" position that seems to have poisoned the Republican Party is disgraceful. I've never seen so many take so much pride in getting absolutely nothing accomplished. And they are not serving the needs and wants of their own party (let alone the nation) but rather are specifically pandering to the extremists in their party. They are doing more harm than good for everyone.

"If we can't have our guy in office we'll make damn sure your guy can't get a damn thing done. We can stall for 8 years. It's the party that matters, to hell with the country"

Grow the f*** up.