Thread: Obama's new scapegoat - the Founding Fathers

Originally Posted by MattInFla

I thought Obama was a Constitutional scholar. Has he discovered some new information about the system that he didn't previously learn as a constitutional law professor?

Or is this yet another blame game from the President?

Politicians of all parties have been paying little mind to the Constitution since the ink dried but I'm really impressed with how Democrats have finally unified their message and figured out how to use their influence over the mainstream media more to their advantage. The party has seemingly always been clumsy in getting their message out despite having a very pro-Democrat media but those days are long gone. Justice Ginsburg gives an anti-U.S. Constitution interview in Egypt last week and by Monday both the New York Times and MSNBC are carrying anti-U.S. Constitution stories while the POTUS is making anti-U.S. Constitution speeches. Weekly news magazines will begin with the message starting next week and the monthlies two weeks later.

Come March when NBC launches their anti-U.S. Constitution replacement shows for their currently failing shows the U.S. Constitutional will enjoy the same reputation as Wall Street, the oil industry, and the Koch brothers. That sort of German-automobile like precision used to be reserved for Republicans and talk radio.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

And he lacked this "5th grade understanding" in 2008?

Matt

I think Obama believed Republicans would put the country first and be a loyal minority. Instead they put party first and made a collective decision to destroy the President of the United States. Sure sounds like domestic terrorism to me...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency




"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

I think Obama believed Republicans would put the country first and be a loyal minority.

Sure sounds like domestic terrorism to me...

What do you call arming Mexican drug traffickers along the US Border?


------------

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

I think Obama believed Republicans would put the country first and be a loyal minority. Instead they put party first and made a collective decision to destroy the President of the United States. Sure sounds like domestic terrorism to me...

A loyal minority, are you naive or what, Obamacare was passed using bribes within it's own party to get the votes to pass it, as not one Republican voted for it. Now Obamacare is so loved there are 30 states suing to kill it.. The minority tried their best to kill Obamacare which everyone hates.

Read this, another Dem wishes she did not vote for Obamacare

Dem Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper: I Wouldn't Have Voted for Obamacare If I'd Known About HHS Regulation | The Weekly Standard

Originally Posted by tsquare

Which our current president seemingly lacks... like is this a surprise? Should that statement end in a 'who knew?'

Or really is this meant to explain these things to folks like Danny and goober who expected so much more from their Lord and Master and Obama is trying to weasel his way out. Like: "vote for me again even if I didn't do what I said I would."

Yet what would you guys that hate the man have him say, in his bid to serve a second term? I know anything short of him saying he was born in Africa, that he hates america, that he is a communist who is trying to destroy america will always draw over reacted vile critiques, with "critique" being an understatement.

He is reaffirming the difficulty to attaining his goals, his promises(although he has kept the majority) given the way our gov't is structured. He isn't offering up any idea to change the constitution in this respect. You right side boys look desperate when you use such a minor statement, as an excuse to attack someone you apparently have a deep hatred for. It's personal, isn't it? I think this is an accurate appraisel in regards to some.

Generally when objections are driven by the emotions, the ears go deaf, and the only voice you hear is your own. Hell, you even see this going on in right wing talk radio as a matter of course. This topic's subject is a reach, a leap. And it takes me back to the school yards of my youth.

Originally Posted by Forplay

A loyal minority, are you naive or what, Obamacare was passed using bribes within it's own party to get the votes to pass it, as not one Republican voted for it. Now Obamacare is so loved there are 30 states suing to kill it.. The minority tried their best to kill Obamacare which everyone hates.

Read this, another Dem wishes she did not vote for Obamacare

Dem Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper: I Wouldn't Have Voted for Obamacare If I'd Known About HHS Regulation | The Weekly Standard

WOW, a Catholic who lost in 2010 says she wouldn't vote for the bill because of her dogma...I'm shocked...

Well, George W. Bush's former speechwriter was fired by the right wing think tank the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) because he told the truth about the health care bill. Republicans made a collective decision BEFORE any legislative process:

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

Waterloo | FrumForum

And then we also find out from Bruce Bartlett:

AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

"What's frustrated people is that I have not be able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008,that's just the nature of being president. It turns out that our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes."

I'm not seeing that as scapegoating the founding fathers, it's pretty much a 5th grade understanding of checks and balances.

I am not an Obama supporter AT ALL but I agree.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Think about his statement on the Constitution being a document of Negative Liberties. Sorry being lazy so I am not looking up the exact quote.

His negative rights concepts is appalling but he is making a simpler statement here, and if I may say, a more personal one.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

His negative rights concepts is appalling but he is making a simpler statement here, and if I may say, a more personal one.

Obama is a Constitutional scholar and he is absolutely right about the Bill of Rights.

Most people believe that the Constitution - specifically, the Bill of Rights - guarantees our rights to freedom of speech, religion, and press, to peaceably assemble, and so forth. People of all political stripes say this. But the truth is, it does no such thing. Almost all of our constitutional protections are expressed as the absence of a negative rather than the presence of a positive. So the First Amendment, for example, does not say, "All citizens are guaranteed the right to free speech"; it only says, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . ." The First Amendment just restricts the government from specific encroachments; it doesn't guarantee anything. This was not a concern for the people because they had strong bills of rights in their state constitutions, and at that time, the states had more power than the federal government. The US Constitution allowed slavery throughout the US, for example, but it was each state's constitution that created free or slave states. Over time, however, the states have lost power to the federal government. The federal laws are now usually ruled to supercede the states' laws. The federal Bill of Rights is where we look to protect our freedoms. The lack of positive protection of these rights weakens them greatly.

If those rights were actually guaranteed in the Constitution, people could, for example, take the Bill of Rights into the workplace, but we can't. Anyone who thinks workers have free speech while they're on corporate property should ask the workers or talk to a union organizer. Because corporations are property, and because the Constitution protects property rights above all, most people have to abandon the Bill of Rights in order to make a living. The way different groups of people - like African Americans and women - have, one by one, acquired rights and become persons under the law is by getting protection from abuse by the government, usually through amendments to the Constitution - not a guarantee.

Originally Posted by tsquare

It would seem that way.

Or more precisely, his minions did. In which case Obama knowingly and willfully lied to them to get elected.

So... we thinking people are left with the hard choice: did Obama knowingly and willfully lie to his followers, or is he just plain rock stupid.

Take your pick...

Rock stupid. The amazing thing is that some people are so stupid they think voting for that oxygen thief AGAIN is a good idea.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

"What's frustrated people is that I have not be able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008,that's just the nature of being president. It turns out that our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes."

I'm not seeing that as scapegoating the founding fathers, it's pretty much a 5th grade understanding of checks and balances.

I am not an Obama supporter AT ALL but I agree.

It is somewhat reassuring that not all those with many far-right views misinterpret and try to blame Obama for everything he says. Just many, if not most, of them...

Originally Posted by Lucidthots

What do you call arming Mexican drug traffickers along the US Border?


------------

Business as usual.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Rock stupid. The amazing thing is that some people are so stupid they think voting for that oxygen thief AGAIN is a good idea.

Consider that Obama has a twin brother ... Mitt Romney. I think they both were made at FOXCONN.