Obama wants us to put aside our "petty grievances." We should not have "conflict" or "discord" or "recriminations."
Apparently we're all supposed to agree with Obama. If we believe, due to "worn-out dogmas," that our government is too big (and therefore, necessarily, takes away too much of our liberty), then we are focusing on "childish things."
He explicitly stated we should not be asking whether a government program violates the Constitution: if a program "works" (by his standard), we should do it, the Constitution be damned:
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward.
Yet most small-government advocates base their views in large part on the Constitution, so according to President Obama, he intends to move forward, regardless of what the Constitution says. (Note that he said this mere moments after vowing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.")
To President Obama, I say: Screw You. (Oh yes, I did!) Whether government takes away liberty is far more important to me than whether by your standards it "works."
I will not stop fighting for liberty just because you try to make my fight into something dirty and un-patriotic. You will not decide for me what is important, what is patriotic, what is worth fighting for, what is good and just and right and meaningful.
Incredibly, Obama uttered one of the most Orwellian phrases I've ever heard from any politician: "To those who cling to power through ... the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Obama is telling people to not dissent while at the same time attacking people who are "silencing dissent."
Obama said at the beginning of his address, "... We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebearers, and true to our founding documents." If he cares so much about our forebears and founding documents, he would do well to read Federalist 10:
As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
This nation was founded on the notion that we will not agree. The entire republic is set up to deal with this fact of life.
It is not President Obama's job to tell me what to think. It is his job to protect my right to think it, to express it, and to act on it. Of course, this wouldn't be a problem is he actually followed his oath to uphold the Constitution, and didn't propose violating it in the first place.
Liberty, Liberty, Liberty. This is what matters. This is why the Constitution exists, and why it must be followed. And Obama, like Bush before him in various ways, are saying liberty and the Constitution don't matter.
I won't agree, and President Obama can bite me for saying I should agree.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 20, 2009 02:34 PM | Email ThisThis craziness from you and others on the left about how we should not judge him by his words makes no sense to me.
What he does is important. But when he says he is going to act regardless of the Constitution, and that we who disagree should just shut up about it, that to me is worthy of note.
Maybe he will act against his voting record, his campaign, his words, and the Democratic Congress and consistently push policies that follow the Constitution. It is possible.
But I won't give him a pass on what he says. Think of it this way: maybe if there's enough of an uproar, it will cause him to think twice about it.
Also note that I said the same thing about those on the left, during Bush's term: I never told them to not express their views. We argued over the merits of the views, and we argued over the facts, but I never told them to not express their views, and part of the reason why is because one of the great things about the American system is that we do have dissent, and dissent helps create moderation.
The worst thing to do is to not express outrage at Obama's outrageous statements, in the hopes that he won't act on them, simply because the less voiced outrage, the more likely he is to act on them.
The end result of this contiuum, sans opposition, is the emporer's new clothes.
Posted by: scott158 on January 20, 2009 03:08 PMLike Marxism?
Posted by: Michele on January 20, 2009 03:15 PMHere's the complete text of the speech.
Posted by: pudge on January 20, 2009 03:19 PMIt sure wasn't the one that Obama gave today. You totally distorted the speech.
For the record, here is one source for the full text of Obama's address.
Here are some examples where you distorted the speech:
1. We should not have "conflict" or "discord" or "recriminations. and "... worn-out dogmas
Your first paragraph is not in the speech. What was in the speech was
"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord."
This is not a statement that there should be no conflict. It is a statement that we have a lot more in common than our differences and it is time to move forward on our common values, instead of being bogged down in the petty bitterness of our differences. This, by the way, is an old theme for Obama, which was a general running theme in his book "The Audacity of Hope." Maybe if you read that, you would understand. Nevertheless, Obama revisits the theme later on when focussing on the common, historical values that has made America strong, by stating
"...that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness."
"But those values upon which our success depends hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism these things are old. These things are true."
For the second part, The actual line, I believe you are referring is
"On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."
He did not equate big or small government as you state. The government line was later in the speech and tied to a different thought.
2. "Childish things" This is Obama's hit on the leftist, atheist elite. He uses a passage from 1st Corithians. The audicity to actually quote the Bible. The actual line was
"We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness."
Again, he is talking to his general theme of focusing on common values and the common good, instead of being weighed down by pettiness and bickering. For you, he maybe should have thrown in Ephesians also, which has a passage to the church where Paul states the same point.
He isn't stating that there shouldn't be disagreement. Heck, he went to George Will's home the other day to make sure he go input from alternative voices. He didn't staff his cabinet with "yes" men or "yes" women. The Whitehouse site doesn't state submit comments only if you agree with the President. What planet have you been living on these past few months during the transition? One of Obama's strengths is the ability to welcome disagreeing viewpoints. He wants all sides to have a voice, not just those who agree with him.
3. "Regardless of what the Constitution says" Total fabrication. You do not have a bit of facts to back up this statement. The only thing close to this statement is his slight waffling earlier this month on This Week when it comes to whether he will pursue punishing people in the previous administration if they committed war crimes. He stated that he wanted to move forward, instead of looking backwards. This is one are where he is mistaken. He has to close this book, one way or another, like it or not. It will be up to the AG to determine if any crimes have been committed, but it needs to be addressed and resolved, no matter if it might also be uncomfortable for the country. A Bush appointee (and solid Republican) to a Federal (District, I believe) Court ruled within the last few weeks, that the interrogation of one of the Gitmo detainees did cross the line and was torture. This issue won't go away, not matter if Obama wants to just move on or not.
Part of the whole issue here, is your myopic view of the 10th Amendment and what the government can and cannot do. To put it bluntly, you are perfectly well to have your opinion on this. Others are also perfectly well to have different opinions. In the end, it is for the courts to decide. So, if Obama does something that you think violates the 10th Amendment, then fine, go ahead and file suit. If you think you are so right, then prove it in court. My guess is you will get as far as the atheist who tried to ban Obama's free speech during the inauguration to not say "God" in his oath.
4. "I will not stop fighting for liberty just because you try to make my fight into something dirty and un-patriotic."
Obama didn't state this in his speech. In fact, this is what he did have to say about the subject,
"As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment a moment that will define a generation it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all."
5. "... Orwellian phrase ..." Totally misrepresented. The line you refer to was as follows (in complete context):
"To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
The bottom line is you heard what you wanted to hear, which was selective quotes that you could use to state a point that had nothing to do with he actual speech. You totally took the "sound-bites" out of context and when that wasn't good enough, you invented points that were not in the speech. Your post gets a big fat "F." Go back and read the entire speech. Maybe, just maybe, you might get a clue what it was supposed to be about, instead of your contrived invention.
Posted by: tc on January 20, 2009 03:28 PMI do not question your other assessments, I think they are on target.
But the paragraphs about foreign leaders who stifle dissent mark a continuation of the policy goal of Pres Bush, to spread democracy. I think that's a good foreign policy goal.
===The paragraphs
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on January 20, 2009 03:29 PMI have observed that some Republicans and some conservatives, when they consider "bipartisanship" and "honeymoons" and "being conciliatory," tend to lose sight (to one degree or another) of their principles.
But, quite often, when liberals, socialists, leftists, and Democrats talk about "unity" and "bipartisanship" and "getting past old arguments," they don't mean THEIR old arguments, THEIR old solutions, or THEIR old dogmas.
They want a clear field - they want to avoid substantive debate by reducing liberty and making such debate more difficult.
One example is the rather serious effort to consider the so-called "Fariness Doctrine." It would force commercial radio stations to either increase liberal programming or (more likely) decrease conservative programming. Of course, NPR, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, the Seattle P-I, the New York Times, and the Seattle Times would not be covered by any such "doctrine" to guarantee conservative viewpoints.
Taken to the extreme (and this is how it has worked out in reality), the result of the socialist policy of enforcing "unity" and "political correctness" is a severe and pure monoply of politics - as in Cuba, North Korea, etc.
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 20, 2009 03:35 PMYou totally distorted the speech.
No, I did not.
Your first paragraph is not in the speech.
So? I never said it was. However, the quoted words and the sense he used them were accurate.
["we have chosen ... unity of purpose over conflict and discord"] is not a statement that there should be no conflict.
Um. Yes, it actually is. I don't need to explain how: it is self-evident from the text you quoted.
He did not equate big or small government as you state.
A belief in the unconstitutionality of our big-government state is an example of one of the "petty grievances" he is talking about that result in such "recriminations" because of "worn-out dogmas." He goes into this a minute or so later.
"Childish things" This is Obama's hit on the leftist, atheist elite.
No, it is not. It is a hit on people with "petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."
Again, he is talking to his general theme of focusing on common values and the common good, instead of being weighed down by pettiness and bickering.
Exactly: we should do what HE thinks is for the "common good" instead of bickering about whether or not it is Constitutional or respects liberty. That is precisely what he is doing, and it is evil.
"Regardless of what the Constitution says" Total fabrication. You do not have a bit of facts to back up this statement.
Shrug. I stated my case, and it's a damned good one: the people he is attacking when he says we should not ask whether government is too big rest base their views on the Constiution. So he is saying, literally, to ignore your views of the Constitution and just go along with what Obama thinks "works."
The only thing close to this statement is his slight waffling earlier this month on This Week when it comes to whether he will pursue punishing people in the previous administration if they committed war crimes.
Actually no, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about that issue.
Part of the whole issue here, is your myopic view of the 10th Amendment and what the government can and cannot do.
Shrug. Obama is the one who said to look to our forebears and our founding documents, and the guy who WROTE the 10th Amendment agrees with me.
To put it bluntly, you are perfectly well to have your opinion on this.
Fine for YOU to say, but Obama said I should not ask whether something violates the 10th Amendment, but only whether it "works." Frankly, Obama knows that most of his policies violate the Constitution. He just doesn't care.
In the end, it is for the courts to decide.
Cop-out. It's for the people ultimately, and any politician who violates the Constitution just because he thinks he can get away with it, because the Court won't act or is on his side, is still violating the Constitution.
So, if Obama does something that you think violates the 10th Amendment, then fine, go ahead and file suit. If you think you are so right, then prove it in court. My guess is you will get as far as the atheist who tried to ban Obama's free speech during the inauguration to not say "God" in his oath.
Yes, but this only shows you know jack about the law. Many laws have been struck down as unconstitutional violations of the 10th Amendment. But there's never been a case striking down such a use of "God" in government.
"... Orwellian phrase ..." Totally misrepresented.
Nope. He was attacking people who dissent, and then attacking people who "silence dissent."
The context was in reference to people like the Taliban and Iran. It had nothing to do with you, or other American citizens that may disagree with Obama.
I never implied otherwise. You're the one misrepresenting me ... again.
So, you did not show a single example of me distorting Obama's speech.
You don't like Obama, we get it - but tc did call you out with specific distortions.
Of course you're free to claim he did no such thing. I'm equally free to claim that I'm the king of Spain, that global warming is real, and that Iraq did have WMD - my claim doesn't make any of these things true.
Posted by: sorry pudge on January 20, 2009 04:00 PMOnce again, you attack me without substance. I rebuffed every claim tc made against me, backing up what I said with Obama's text. Your comment is nothing more than argumentum ad hominem.
Posted by: pudge on January 20, 2009 04:05 PMDavid Gergen, a CNN Bambi lover, called it the worst inaugural speech he has ever seen.
Posted by: Tom on January 20, 2009 04:06 PMAs for his programs violating the Constitution, he and the Democrats can easily use the 'Necessary and Proper' excuse for unlimited government, and if that doesn't work, they can throw in the 'Commerce Clause' excuse for unlimited government. Sadly, fewer Americans seem to care, but thanks for pointing these out Pudge.
Posted by: Palouse on January 20, 2009 04:09 PMBe a gloating winner...go for it...concentration camps...lets just have the purge and get on with it. Why stop at abortion?
The patience some of this nation has knows no bounds. Yours, however, you need to get on with it. Criminalize the rest of the few scraps of blogs where someone is not violating some law. Lets get past the petty old notion of liberty for all and help whitey embrace what is right!
He wiped out and the Matrix could not cover it up. good luck.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on January 20, 2009 04:18 PMThe next 100 days are going to be something else.
Just how fast can the dems & Obama blow the biggest hole in out debt. Something they "yelled" about for years, now it doesn't matter.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 20, 2009 04:28 PMgo for it...
wait...
BRING IT ON! Opps that was the last guy...
Concentration camps??? YES WE CAN!!
Posted by: Col. Hogan on January 20, 2009 05:07 PMYou are a naysayer. That means your memory is short. Why should I listen to a man with a short memory when I have Barrack Obama to listen to?
Posted by: Lysander on January 20, 2009 05:08 PMSo far, the one word I am judging him on is "Present".
We've had 8 years of hearing/reading/seeing the whines, the insults, the denegrations, the threats and the pure hatred toward a good, hard working, courageous man and the men and women who worked with him. That tehy suddenly expect everyone to bow to the Koolaid is laughable at best, sad and delusional at worst.
It's up to Bambi to earn goodwill. Words and platitudes for the masses won't do it.
Liberals got exactly what they voted for. Whether it's what they expect remains to be seen.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 20, 2009 05:47 PMHaving exactly zero executive experience to speak of and wanting the top executive position running the most powerfull Nation in the world, then yes, he is absolutely an affirmative action hire. Never underestimate the power of the "cult of personality".
Posted by: Rick D. on January 20, 2009 05:54 PMAmerica has spoken.
Posted by: not you on January 20, 2009 05:59 PMAmerica has spoken.
Posted by: Not The one on January 20, 2009 06:00 PMYes it has.
Exactly who among us "lost" remains to be seen.
I find it fascinating that you liberals fight that idea so hard. What exactly is it you're afraid of? To get what you wanted?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 20, 2009 06:06 PMYou guys are gonna be in the wilderness for a decade or two, but you can eventually come back to being significant in America again.
Stop whining and get to work!
Easy.
here is what you said:
"Yet most small-government advocates base their views in large part on the Constitution, so according to President Obama, he intends to move forward, regardless of what the Constitution says"
He never says we should not follow the constitution. This is total fabrication on your part. You are unable to listen and actually understand without injecting your own biased and inaccurate interpretation. People who "imagine" things that others say are usually diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Posted by: correctnotright on January 20, 2009 06:24 PM
"not you": do you really expect us to believe you just sat back and let Bush govern as he saw fit, without criticism? Riiiiight.
PI: now's the time to return to your roots of low taxes, small government, self-reliance, and not getting involved in useless foreign adventures. ... Stop whining and get to work!
What you call "whining" is, in fact, putting emphasis on low taxes, small government, self-reliance, etc.
Yawn: He never says we should not follow the constitution.
I did not say he said that. I said he said we should IGNORE the Constitution. Ignoring it might lead to following it, and might lead to violating it.
This is total fabrication on your part.
No. It's what he actually said. When he said that we should not ask whether government is "too big," that is absolutely synonymous with saying we should not question whether it violates the Tenth Amendment.
I replied as follows:
"Because we are in a democracy, we have the liberty to disagree and criticize. Honest criticism is not harmful; it is necessary and beneficial. The liberty we possess gives us the freedom to criticize, and that is positive and constitutional. Many of Obama's goals, and the overall thrust of Obama's agenda, would be very harmful to America. In order to push through more bailouts, higher taxes, expanded government, more wasteful spending, fairness doctrine, card check for union bureaucrats, and a weakened foreign policy, etc., Obama needs to discourage debate, disagreement, and criticism. Of course, we all wish Obama no injury, no harm, no slander, no insult, no danger, no mockery. But NO CRITICISM? That is counter to liberty!"
Only if you define "small-government advocates" as a small minority on the fringe with absolutely no support from even our most conservative Supreme Court justices. Most people who advocate smaller government just want to pay lower taxes and/or don't think government is using their money well. Only extremists like you see a constitutional issue.
And then Pudge claims, "He explicitly stated we should not be asking whether a government program violates the Constitution"
No, it would be explicit if he said it. At best, even if one accepted your fringe view of the constitution, it would be implicit.
Sadly, these days, it doesn't seem to matter much who violates the Constitution - like illegal immigration, where's the enforcement ?
I don't necessarily put stock in everything that Pudge is saying, but it's a good post, because it makes us think seriously and pay attention instead of fawning over American Idol or Dancing with the Stars or ridiculous pre-inauguration idolatry worship for Obama we saw from the leftwingnuts or naive Public school educated youth. That is probably the most scary and Orwellian phenomenon that took place. Whether or not, this is an omen for the next Administration remains to be seen. Therefore, we must pay attention to any totalitarian tendencies that are shown by this Administration, just as were done with the last one.
My hunch is, which is shared by numerous political scientists that I have read over the last few days predicts that the first two years of this presidency will be on the good side, but the last two years will not be so good.
Posted by: KS on January 20, 2009 08:34 PMWhat I have a problem with is Pudge MAKING STUFF UP and claiming that the President said things he DID NOT.
I happen to be fiscal conservative. I don't like the 1 trillion deficit Bush left and the largest deficit in history. I don't like that 1 trillion or more of my money went for an unnecessary war in Iraq.
When I look objectively at republican presidents - they create the largest deficits. Clinton turned around a budget deficit and left with a surplus. He also left with a strong economy. Bush has had the worst economic performance since Hoover.
I don't like the bank bailout with no transparency on how MY tax money is spent.
On the other hand, I do know that it is just plain STUPID to cut government spending in a depression. That is what Hoover tried to do - and by 1933 there was over 25% unemployment, massive bank failures and it took years to recover.
Posted by: correctnotright on January 20, 2009 08:35 PMObama did not mention or imply anywhere in speech or other speeches that he was going to violate the Constitution per your quote:
"Yet most small-government advocates base their views in large part on the Constitution, so according to President Obama, he intends to move forward, regardless of what the Constitution says. (Note that he said this mere moments after vowing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.")"
Score
10 Points for TC
10 Points for CorrectnotRight
10 Points for SorryPudge
Zero points for Pudge
Pudge - Thanks for posting your opinions. It is good to see what everyone thinks of the new government
I never discouraged criticism from the left, and I won't heed anyone's call to refrain from criticism now. Odd that this was the refrain from the left several years ago: they were reacting negatively to calls for THEM to stay quiet. I agreed with them at the time. You're right on.
Bruce: no one believes you.
Yawn: I made nothing up. You are free to disagree with me, but the position I laid out is clear and backed up very well. Also, you are lying: the one trillion deficit is from THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS. And while you may believe, without good reason, that it is "stupid" to cut spending in a depression, as we are clearly not in any depression, that is irrelevant.
tim hunter: Obama did not mention or imply anywhere in speech or other speeches that he was going to violate the Constitution
Again, I never said he said he would violate the Constitution in this speech (although he absolutely did say it in other speeches, but that's a different story). What I said is that he said he would IGNORE the Constitution. That's not the same as saying you will violate it. And yes, he did say that.
You quoted me, but you didn't actually rebut me. In order for you to rebut me, you'd have to try to convince people that when Obama said we should not ask whether government is too big, he was not talking about the one of the primary complaints of small-government advocates: the fact that those big-government programs violate the Constitution.
And again your opinions have been refuted by many others in this thread so even though you like your opinions - they are are wrong - Nuff said!
Posted by: me on January 20, 2009 09:21 PMUm.
I did not post anything YOU did not post, and I blocked nothing. You are wrong on both counts.
You posted your email address, which I won't repeat but anyone can see by mousing over your name "me." In your email address are the words "tim.hunter." You posted that, not me, right on this web page.
And I blocked nothing. I have no idea what you think I blocked, but it never happened. You should apologize to me.
And no, not a single person refuted my claim about what Obama said. People denied it, but no one refuted it.
Posted by: pudge on January 20, 2009 09:27 PMSo which phrase represents the true responsibility? If we accept the President's point of view, we place the burden of "passing" students on the schools. We know how schools can fix the problem President Obama identified. We simply have schools issue certificates to all students. It would be very simple - and extremely cost effective - to print certificates of graduation to all students on the day they enroll.
To object to the President's point of view is to ask students to learn the subjects taught in school - and to prove they have done so. Such a terrible burden to place on our students - to expect them to learn subjects schools work hard to teach. Maybe the President thinks this is too much to ask of Americans, too much sacrifice to ask for. He has often said we must sacrifice. Oh wait - he has never asked the youth vote to sacrifice. That would not fly, would it?
Please see the official stance of President Obama on gun control. Specifically "gun violence in cities":
They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
A direct infringement on the 2nd Amendment. That's the policy of your new President. Fits quite nicely with pudge's contention about the President and his intent to ignore the Constitution.
Oh, and as Peter so eloquently points out, it's not the object that's the problem - it's the person using the object. If guns kill people, then I have a house full of defective guns.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 20, 2009 09:42 PMI was also wondering if Obama would end or radically change the government programs like tenured union teachers and the public education system. He seems to aspire to this high ideal that if it "works" will do it, if it doesn't, we won't. Well, the public education system doesn't work. Will he end it? I seriously doubt it. He's a political hack just like his predecessor.
Posted by: blindman on January 20, 2009 11:59 PMTake Obama's train trip from Philadelphia to Washington, tracking the route Abraham Lincoln took in 1861. Imagine the media's reaction had Bush mimicked Lincoln in 2000. Back then the media delighted in reporting the protesters along Pennsylvania Avenue. In 2009, the media are lapping up the Obama drama, writing about their tearful reactions, already inclined to see Obama as Lincolnesque in stature. Sure they are both from Illinois. But analysis? None.
Indeed, for Odrama to present himself in this way as Lincoln's heir hints at the sort of hubris that usually sets in only towards the end of a presidency. To do so at a time in his career when he still has no executive track record of any kind and precious few achievements as a legislator suggests a vast presumptuousness.
But this has gone largely unremarked. For much of the media, the cocktail of colour, left-wing politics and grand rhetoric is enough to secure him immortal presidential greatness, whether or not he achieves anything.
This is deeply disturbing given the hefty issues that will require Obama's attention. Think climate change, the global financial mess, Iraq, the Middle East. How Obama handles each of these issues should define his presidency, not his stirring personal history, his charisma or his rhetoric. ...
...But there is likely to be a deeper, though related, reason for the bias. Progressive politics is essentially an emotional, rather than rational, pursuit. Its foundations rest on altruistic, even utopian, beliefs about the perfectibility of man and society. For progressives, hope triumphs over experience.
That causes leftist politicians to place a large premium on myth-making, rhetoric and romance. And leftist journalists swallow it whole. Results matter much less to both of them. ....
In a tough world, however, we will need more from Obama and from his press gallery. What will matter is whether Obama does a good job, not whether he's black, good looking and speaks well.
ps: Sorry pudge...I do like your posts but face it IMO - you lost this one..'tc' got it right
Posted by: Duffman on January 21, 2009 05:22 AM"so according to President Obama, he intends to move forward, regardless of what the Constitution says."
Now where in Obama's speech did he say this or even come close to implying it. When Pudsge has to INVENT a reason to criticize Obama - that tells me how VACANT his postions are.
When was the last outraged Pudge diatribe against Bush for VIOLATING:
1. The bill of rights: The president claims an inherent power to imprison American citizens whom he has determined to be this country's enemies without obtaining a warrant, letting them hear the charges against them, or following other safeguards against wrongful punishment guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
2. Article 6: The Constitution says treaties are the "supreme law of the land," the president has abrogated them on his own (specifically the Geneva convention rules on torture).
3. Violation of the fourth amendment on illegal search and seizure and the FISA law by using illegal wiretapping.
Pudge claims to be "against" these violations - but how many blogs has he actually written against ACTUAL violations of the constitution versus IMAGINED "ignoring" of the constitution.
I smell a HYPOCRITE. When a Democrat Pudger doesn't like says something, Pudge makes up stuff about the constitution. when a republican Pudge loves actually violates the constitution.....(crickets chirping).
Posted by: correctnotright on January 21, 2009 07:01 AMCheers and here is hoping for many more lively debates.
Posted by: tc on January 21, 2009 07:22 AMThat line jumped out at me as well when I first heard it. In Obama's deluded world view of "Social Justice", though, there is no personal responsibility, only blame of others for their personal failures. The ideals of our forefather's of 'Rugged individualism' have given way to current POTUS Obama's personal outlook on the American people as one of 'learned helplessness'.
Truly, a sad day in America.
Pudge pretends he did not write what he wrote
You're lying. I never did that.
Now where in Obama's speech did he say this or even come close to implying it.
Yes, he did imply it, and I explained HOW he implied it, and you could not rebut my explanation.
When was the last outraged Pudge diatribe against Bush for VIOLATING...
Oh, this oughtta be good.
The bill of rights: The president claims an inherent power to imprison American citizens whom he has determined to be this country's enemies without obtaining a warrant ...
Actually, I was on Jose Padilla's side in that case, and I said so. If the Supreme Court had actually decided the case on its merits, I would have been in favor of making sure Padilla had full due process rights, and I was very pleased that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 ensured that only alien unlawful enemy combatants did not have full statutory habeas corpus rights.
Article 6: The Constitution says treaties are the "supreme law of the land," the president has abrogated them on his own (specifically the Geneva convention rules on torture).
You cannot identify a single treaty that Bush has abrogated. You believe he abrogated the Geneva Convention rules on torture, but you have no evidence of it. That's not to say no "torture" happened, but it is hard to make the case that it was legally defined torture that amounted to a violation of any treaty.
Violation of the fourth amendment on illegal search and seizure and the FISA law by using illegal wiretapping.
From the very beginning, I expressed my belief that the wiretapping program was probably illegal (though there is significant evidence of legal precedent for it, and we don't know enough of the details to know for sure).
Pudge claims to be "against" these violations - but how many blogs has he actually written against ACTUAL violations of the constitution versus IMAGINED "ignoring" of the constitution. ... I smell a HYPOCRITE.
I've written probably a half dozen times about the warrantless wiretapping (including this post way back in December 2005). I don't recall if I wrote about Padilla (that was a long time ago), but I did write about the MCA of 2006 quite a bit, in favorable terms regarding the protection of the rights of citizens. And while I did not write about the fictional abrogation of treaties, I have written more than once about my belief that torture is illegal, and should remain so. Including this funny piece.
In other words: you have no point here.
And yes, I likely will post more about Obama than about Bush, for the obvious reason that fewer people are posting about Obama's proposed trangressions than Bush's. If as many people post about Obama's than did about Bush's, I'll likely not post as much about them myself. You may notice I tend to write about things that most people aren't writing about.
tc: yes, you stand by it, but you can't argue well to defend it. It comes down to you and tim and Duffman simply disagreeing with me, but obviously there's room for you to be wrong, since you can't show that I am wrong. Just saying.
Part of your problem here is that you don't see, as I do, the long history Obama has of doing precisely this: saying he wants to work with people and then framing the debate in terms that require the other side to do most of the compromising, and if you don't essentially agree to his terms, then YOU are the bad guy.
This was especially evident in his speeches on health care reform: he kept saying he wanted to work with everyone on a solution, but at the same time he said we had to have a solution that worked toward covering everyone. But conservatives ARE AGAINST any such thing. So he preemptively frames the debate so that if you don't agree with Obama, you're the bad guy who won't "compromise."
This is how Obama has always worked in the past. It is how he says in his Address he will work in the future.
I guess that would be reading too much into things.
Posted by: daveo on January 21, 2009 09:48 AM"For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do."
Harnessing the sun, wind and soil is code for huge subsidies for wind, solar and biofuels. Spending hundreds of billions annually has the potential to double, even triple production of electricity in ten years using these renewable energy sources. This translates into increasing renewable sourced electricity from 3% to 9% of our total requirements.
Ten years is optimistic because it may take one- half or more of that time to get the permits necessary to site and build the facilities. What is certain is that dost of electricity will increase more than 30% above current rates.
Use of biofuels is limited to ground, sea and air transportation. Current technology significantly limits the amount of biofuel that can be produced without severe damage to the environment and increased cost of the food crops consumed. These unacceptable consequences harm the poor first and foremost.
Here in Washington State we get a double whammy, costly electricity and biofuels plus the inflationary impacts resulting from implementation of the Western Climate Initiative's cap and trade system for CO2 emissions. Our state economy will be depressed for years.
The unsustainable economic damage, both nationally and locally, should be obvious within two years. Control of one or both Houses of Congress and our State Legislature should revert to Republicans. Then changes that we need can begin to replace changes that wrecked our economy.
Posted by: Paddy on January 21, 2009 10:57 AMPlease refer to the following links:
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/15/guantanamo-bush-administration-torture-qahtani
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html
3. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479174,00.html
Money quote from 3
"G.W. BUSH: My view is that the techniques were necessary and are necessary to be used on a rare occasion to get information necessary to protect the American people. One such person who gave us information was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He was the mastermind of the September the 11th, 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people on our soil.
And I'm in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him, and they gave me a list of tools. And I said, are these tools deemed to be legal. And so we got legal opinions before any decision was made. And I think when people study the history of this particular episode they'll find out we gained good information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in order to protect our country."
The facts are Bush asked for legal cover and received it, but only from his advisors (most likely it was John Yoo and Gonzo). He did not receive it from the courts. Given the fact that despite what Bush and Cheney claim, the blind-Sheik did not provide any meaningful material. Add this to the case sited in references 1 and 2, Bush better pray that Yoo and Gonzo's opinions hold up. Given Holder's testimony at the AG confirmation hearings, this is questionable. Holder laid out the Geneva convention requirements. Add to this past war crime trials that have taken place in the world, and ref 2 (Judge overseeing Gitmo trials) conclusion, this is a something unfortunately that will have to be decided by the incoming AG (i.e., whether to pursue).
Posted by: tc on January 21, 2009 11:46 AMAs for Holder, he's no stranger to the use of pyschological torture, he just prefers those he terrorizes to be unarmed, non-threatening 8 year old children in Miami. A sign of things to come with Obama's National security force, tc?
Posted by: Rick D. on January 21, 2009 12:55 PMIf so, you suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome (Krauthammer will be so jealous!). Here's the prognosis: Not good. Probably gonna suffer for the next 8 years.
Here's the treatment: Take a long, long vacation. To one of them highbrow republican resort areas like Kennebunkport, or Crawford TX. Try deep breathing exercises. If all else fails take up a good respectable conservative republican drug habit, you know, Oxycontin or something (Rush Limbaugh and Cindy McCain would be sooooo proud!).
Posted by: Dick Nixon on January 21, 2009 01:30 PMI am looking for a point that isn't an ad hominem. Not seeing one, I move on.
Favorite term around here. Must have been in the memo.
Posted by: Dick Nixon on January 21, 2009 01:53 PMWhy is it so hard for you to understand that when you make obvious ad hominem attacks, that people will identify them as such? Perhaps you don't know what an ad hominem argument is?
Posted by: pudge on January 21, 2009 02:02 PMPlease refer to the following links:
None of them demonstrate Bush has violated any treaty.
Money quote from 3
Um. You realize he did not admit to any violation of the law, right?
The facts are Bush asked for legal cover and received it
As usual, you're lying. The facts are -- as best we know, from all available facts -- that Bush asked what legal methods were available. There is not a single shred of evidence that he asked for legal cover for particular methods.
He did not receive it from the courts.
Of course not. There is no provision in our judicial system for getting prior approval of actions from any court. If there's a question -- a difference of interpretation, and no Court precedent -- you have to simply use your best judgment, and then later the Court decides if it was right or wrong. That is how our system works.
Given the fact that despite what Bush and Cheney claim, the blind-Sheik did not provide any meaningful material.
Um. You're lying again, since in fact you COULD NOT possibly know that.
Given Holder's testimony at the AG confirmation hearings, this is questionable.
Yes, but Holder's the same guy who asserted just a year or so ago that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. So my opinion of his legal opinion is pretty low.
Um, because we train them in case they are captured by our enemies (who I assume you would admit are probably not as ethical and moral as we god-blessed Americans. Right?) who TORTURE people and are "backward scum."
I love this one:
"If it's good enough for the U.S. Military to use as a training tool for their troops, why the diaper-soiling over the use of the technique to extract valuable information from dangerous terrorists?"
See above. And add that it doesn't, and I quote, "extract valuable information from dangerous terrorists." Our own intelligence officials, in sworn testimony to the United States Congress, have admitted it is a highly INEFFECTIVE tool for information gathering and often leads to MISINFORMATION. I wouldn't expect you to know that though. I would expect you to continue to encourage America to become a rogue nation and uphold torture so that all the countries in the world have something to look up to when we go and tell them not to torture.
I would also expect you to like the fact that other nations will now torture our soldiers when they are caught because we do it too, all the while waving your American flag and blasting "librul lefties" for being unpatriotic "America haters." Who supports our troops again?
After 8 years of your mess America and the world have politely asked you to sit down and shut up. You had your chance and you screwed things ROYALLY. On all fronts. Foreign and domestic, economically and diplomatically. Your ideology has been rejected SOUNDLY both home and abroad. But I want you to think more about the torture thing okay? You seem to have missed some very important facts and points along the away regarding the issue.
Posted by: Dick Nixon on January 21, 2009 02:16 PMI expected oratory worthy of the occasion, particularly considering Obama's ability to deliver a convincing speech.
Instead we were treated to a nearly incomprehensible, rambling bunch of leftist blather that surely was hammered together by a committee. They must have been required to include everyone's input in order to avoid offending anyone. That's how liberals do things. The speech appeared to have been designed to plunge the nation into a perpetual state of despair and desire for government dependence. The fondest of all liberal dreams. If there was a hint of optimism in that speech we missed it.
We sat on our couch and looked at each other in stunned amazement.
I'm not saying this simply as a conservative partisan. I've watched every inaugural address since 1961. This was the worst. I don't think it could have been much worse.
Obama and his advisors have concocted this silliness in which Obama is portrayed as if he is somehow channeling Abraham Lincoln, (I bet he didn't actually eat those scalloped oysters Lincoln loved). After that speech I wondered if Obama has read a single thing Lincoln wrote.
Regardless of your political persuasion Obama's speech yesterday was a pathetic embarrasment.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2009 02:28 PMWho supports our troops again?
Whom do our troops support? Oh right: John McCain. FWIW.
After 8 years of your mess America and the world have politely asked you to sit down and shut up.
Huh. So ... um. You agree with me that Obama was trying to silence dissent? Most of your liberal cohorts say I'm wrong, but you appear to believe otherwise.
Or maybe you mean only a slight majority of Americans believe this, and Obama does not? If so, we can add it to the list of things that Obama's supporters thought they were getting, but won't.
You had your chance and you screwed things ROYALLY. On all fronts. Foreign and domestic, economically and diplomatically. Your ideology has been rejected SOUNDLY both home and abroad.
So why is Obama keeping most of the policies of "McBush" in place? Tax cuts? Keep em. GSEs? Tighten regulation on who they lend to. Gitmo? Keep prisoners there until we can create another place for them, along with procedures to deal with them. Iraq? Keep our troops there until Iraq can handle it on their own. North Korea? Keep the multilateral talks going, with a goal of disarmament, not merely freezing the program.
If these things suck so badly, why is Obama keeping them?
Could it be that he recognizes that the Democratic Party has long been attacking the Republicans for things that are actually good, just to win elections, because so many voters are gullible idiots?
Nahhhhhhh.
Where have all the Republicans gone?
Posted by: swatter on January 21, 2009 03:40 PMSee Dick counter Dick the sputterer: "I would expect you to continue to encourage America to become a rogue nation and uphold torture so that all the countries in the world have something to look up to when we go and tell them not to torture."
See Dick think he made a point in his confused ,contradictory statements above:
"But I want you to think more about the torture thing okay?"
So in Dick's confused world, waterboarding US citizens/Military personnel is "training" while waterboarding foreign terrorists caught on the battlefield is "torture".
Moral to the story: Don't be a Dick
Posted by: Rick D. on January 21, 2009 03:51 PMPudge@76 has the nerve to complain: "I am looking for a point that isn't an ad hominem. Not seeing one, I move on."
It is amusing to see you warn that Obama will destroy our country while simultaneously crowing that he's not changing anything. Obama has said what he will do differently on each of these issues. They are complex issues for which policy is not always changed in the stroke of a pen (although Obama has revoked some especially odorous Bush policies with a stroke of a pen already). If you really believe Obama will handle the issues you mentioned the way Bush or McCain would have, then I guess I should just welcome you to the Obama fan club rather than trying to show you that you are delusional.
Posted by: Bruce on January 21, 2009 05:41 PMApparently you've never heard of Justice Clarence Thomas.
Satisfied?
It is amusing to see you warn that Obama will destroy our country ...
Where did I ever imply that? You're lying.
... while simultaneously crowing that he's not changing anything.
Where did I ever imply that? You're lying.
Obama has said what he will do differently on each of these issues.
Yep. He said he would immediately close Gitmo. Oops, not happening. Well, he said he would withdraw ALL troops from Iraq by the end of the year. Oops, not happening. And so on.
They are complex issues for which policy is not always changed in the stroke of a pen
Yes, and when "McBush" said that, the Democrats said "uh uh! Obama can do it, just wait and see!"
although Obama has revoked some especially odorous Bush policies with a stroke of a pen already
No, he did not.
You are lying.
Pudge denies his own words.
Pudge thinks his arguments stand up - but he HAS nothing. Again, Obama never said that he would ignore the constitution and your INTERPRETATION and argument is simply FALSE.
Keep digging your hole, Pudge. You have NO credibility.
Must be tough to be so insecure that you have to call everyone else a liar to back up your false claims.
People who believe falsehoods against all facts are considered to have psychological problems. People who claim to be infallible and have delusions of grandeur are labeled as delusional and paranoid schizophrenics.
Posted by: correctnotright on January 22, 2009 08:15 AMNice self-inventory of yourself neithercorrectnorright. Now, your task is not only to diagnose your problems, but to ahem "correct" them. Good luck...
Posted by: Rick D. on January 22, 2009 08:47 AMObama never said that he would ignore the constitution
Yes, he did.
your INTERPRETATION and argument is simply FALSE
No, it's not.
Must be tough to be so insecure that you have to call everyone else a liar to back up your false claims.
You're lying. There are many people who disagreed with me whom I did not call a liar. Duffman, for example. There are many more.
People who believe falsehoods against all facts ...
Which "fact" do you have that demonstrates my "interpretation" is incorrect?
People who claim to be infallible and have delusions of grandeur
You're lying. I never in any way claimed infallibility, nor do I believe I am greater than anyone else. Including yourself, which some might find incredible, but it's true.
Why don't people like you just be quiet? What sucked was the last 8 years of criminals running the country. You obviously loved that because you're all in the same 'party'. But it was really only a party for the criminals.
Remember Bush' line, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." Remember that line? What total BS. I didn't hear you complaining about THAT.
Time for a real President to run this country. Complain all you want. You'll be on IGNORE now.
Dave
Posted by: Dave on January 22, 2009 10:12 AMWhy don't people like you just be quiet?
Ha! Thanks for helping to make my point for me. You agree with Obama that dissenters should be silent. Very un-American of you.
Remember Bush' line, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." Remember that line? What total BS. I didn't hear you complaining about THAT.
What was wrong with it? Oh, do you buy into the revisionist history that Bush was talking to individual people, rather than nations, in regard to our fight against al Qaeda and its allies? What he said was:
We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
Now, what you have not heard from me, that I have said, could fill many volumes. And actually has. In fact, I have many times defended the right -- and even the obligation -- of people who oppose Bush or the Congress or the military to speak their minds.
Or your phrase:
"Very un-American of you."
So me telling you to keep quiet is 'UnAmerican' huh?
Only in dumbed down America does the word UnAmerican get used with frequency. You don't even realize how stupid it is until you view it in a different context.
Do people in other countries say:
Very un-French of you.
Very un-British of you.
Very un-Canadian of you.
Very un-Iraqi of you.
Very un-Mexican of you.
Very un-Spanish of you.
Very un-Russian of you.
Only in America do people utter the phrase "Very un-American' of you" and expect to be taken seriously.
Dave
Posted by: Dave on January 22, 2009 10:46 AMSo dave, I'll ask you the same question that I asked dickie ...(the very one it appears he ran from)...
The GOP is out of power in the state, across the country and in the country and yet here you are being nasty instead of celebrating your victory.
That can mean one of two things: either you are simply a vile, small minded, vicious, hate filled SOB ... or you are afraid.
Pray tell: which his it?
Here's what I think: I think you lemmings got the exact thing you voted for and it scares the living hell out of you. I "hope" you can handle it.
:)) "dissent is patriotic"?
So dave, I'll ask you the same question that I asked dickie ...(the very one it appears he ran from)...
the GOP is out of power in the state, across the country and in the country and yet here you are being nasty instead of celebrating your victory.
That can mean one of two things: either you are simply a vile, small minded, vicious, hate filled SOB ... or you are afraid.
Pray tell: which his it?
Here's what I think: I think you lemmings got the exact thing you voted for and it scares the living hell out of you. I "hope" you can handle it.
:)) *---me laughing all the way to 2010 and beyond.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 22, 2009 11:06 AMIt's only the tighty righties who use the word "UnAmerican".
Oh, really?
Hero of the far left, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., in his last post before he died, directed a Teddy Roosevelt at President Bush, saying "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
"Morally treasonable to the American public" is a nice synonym for "un-American." Progressive Teddy Roosevelt called it un-American. Leftist Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. approved.
And I agreed with them. I disagreed with Schlesinger in that his criticism of Bush was misplaced, because, in fact, Bush never said there should be no criticism or that those who do criticize are unpatriotic. That never happened. But if Bush HAD said that, then his doing so would be un-American. Absolutely.
And Dave, what, no apologies for your misrepresenting what President Bush said?
Dissent is Patriotic!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 22, 2009 08:03 PMJust like they felt the need to go out and buy (some for the first time in their pathetic existence) an American flag to fly after the election. Everyone knows that liberals are "sunshine patriots" that'll desert their Country, its Constitution and its ideals as soon as someone other than a Democrat reaches the oval office, but some are more forthcoming in admitting it than others.
Posted by: Rick D. on January 22, 2009 08:52 PMDid learning the rules of debate entitle you to purposefully misrepresent Obama's strong condemnation of Islamic leaders taking a hard line against America as silencing dissent?
I defy you to explain how I misrepresented that. I didn't.
I only pointed out it was hypocritical for him to condemn them for silencing debate, while at the same time attempting to silence debate himself at home.
Obama did not ask for people to withhold dissent. He asked some to put aside petty grievances, not all grievances. You're also lying by quoting Obama without context. Here is context:
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
(Aside: why not spend the time to defend your constitutionally protected right to make false promises?)
In a line of thought clearly meant to inspire bipartisanship ("unity of purpose over conflict and discord"), you reach for a way to feel quashed and -- dare I say -- victimized. His point is clear to someone not looking for a punch that wasn't there: These times call for working together and compromising where appropriate. Your right to dissent is vanished because you can no longer make false promises, or withhold a plan to put Americans back to work in the face of crisis over petty differences.
The President can ask you to stop bitching about the tenth amendment on loop when people across the country are losing their jobs and tens of millions are without health care. You can ignore him, if you'd like. You can dissent. And it's your liberty. You can say anything you'd like to, as can Obama in his inaugurate address.
I only pointed out it was hypocritical for him to condemn them for silencing debate, while at the same time attempting to silence debate himself at home.
Silencing debate in a hard-line country means jail time, violence, or rape. It isn't asking people to work together. Sometimes silencing debate is rhetorical (questioning one's patriotism), but most seriously it throwing people in jail or shooting them. Not saying, "let's work together through tough times, and stop bickering."
This is simply a false equivalency.
You are also lying about Obama asking people to ignore the constitution. No where in our founding documents is a size, "big or small," required, mandated, or limit for our government. The words "big" and "small" do not have a constitutional meaning, and it is absolutely misleading for you to construe his phrase to mean, "Welp, let's ignore the tenth amendment."
As an aside, a very intrusive federal government can be in the tens of thousands. There are only about 18,000 parking spots at NSA headquarters, for example. Yet I have a feeling you wouldn't have said "screw you!" to John McCain.
Posted by: John Jensen on January 23, 2009 03:20 PMObama did not ask for people to withhold dissent.
Yes, he did.
He asked some to put aside petty grievances, not all grievances.
Except that he defines MY IMPORTANT grievances as "petty."
You're also lying by quoting Obama without context.
You're lying. I did no such thing. The entire speech was provided. I figured everyone could find it easily enough, so it was not in the initial post, but I added it in @11.
(Aside: why not spend the time to defend your constitutionally protected right to make false promises?)
Why would I? You are implying I discussed my constitutional right to grievances, but I did no such thing: you're lying again.
In a line of thought clearly meant to inspire bipartisanship ("unity of purpose over conflict and discord")
False. That is not bipartisanship, that is monopartisanship. Conflict is essential. And Obama's purpose -- as described in his speech -- is not mine, so I reject his form of unity. His purpose, that he desires unity for, is to use government to "help[] families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."
I reject such a purpose for my government.
His point is clear to someone not looking for a punch that wasn't there
Incorrect. His point is clear to everyone. The problem is, you believe that we SHOULD have that unity-of-purpose-without-conflict that he describes. You think that's a good thing. I do not.
These times call for working together
Not on most of his agenda, no, these times call for no such thing. These times call for rejection of his big government agenda, of his health care plan, of his stimulus package, of his bailouts, of his handouts.
Your right to dissent is vanished ...
No, it has not, although you and Obama wish otherwise.
The President can ask you to stop bitching about the tenth amendment
And I can tell him to screw himself. Which I did.
This is simply a false equivalency.
It would be if I were saying they were equivalent. I wasn't. But they are similar, of course.
You are also lying about Obama asking people to ignore the constitution.
False.
No where in our founding documents is a size, "big or small," required, mandated, or limit for our government.
So? "Small government" implies, to most conservatives, the notion that the federal government is limited in SCOPE by the Constitution. Which it is.
As an aside, a very intrusive federal government can be in the tens of thousands. There are only about 18,000 parking spots at NSA headquarters, for example. Yet I have a feeling you wouldn't have said "screw you!" to John McCain.
I have no idea what you are babbling about here.
Progressives like me are fine with "big government" as long as it works. That government must of course be limited in scope as the constitution defines. The constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, not just you. So you are obviously taking something very subjective and twisting it to say, "OMG, Obama doesn't respect the constitution!" which is just, frankly, bullshit.
Yes, he did.
No, he did not. You are lying.
These times call for rejection of his [...] health care plan, of his stimulus package, of his bailouts, of his handouts.
Not in my opinion. They call for solutions to the costs of health insurance and the 38 million who are uninsured. They call for action to fix our economy. That's what Obama's calling for.
Now, we should disagree on those ideas. Of course congressional republicans are going to disagree with Obama's health care proposal. But they should form their own proposals in the minority, and get concessions where they can. They shouldn't simply oppose anything and everything simply because they're in the minority. Though they certainly have the right do, I feel like all members of our congress should have ownership of our government's plans.
However, pudge, if you think that the federal government has no business in these decisions, well... Look, the supreme court has nearly a century of rulings contradicting you, and the republican party has certainly embraced, for example, the dept. of education, so I don't really want to spend time arguing about the 10th amendment. You certainly have your ideals and dogma, but that doesn't mean you should sit here and lie about our President's words.
Though, once again, you have that right.
No, it has not, although you and Obama wish otherwise.
When have I ever asserted you shouldn't have a right to speak your mind? For that matter, when has Obama ever said that? Feeling victimized, pudge?
You have an obvious right to state your mind. I also have a right to inform you when you're lying.
So? "Small government" implies, to most conservatives, the notion that the federal government is limited in SCOPE by the Constitution. Which it is.
Yes, it is limited in scope by the constitution. You're lying when you claimed that Obama said that he would go outside of that scope. Clearly, asking that government regardless of its headcount or budget is effective (or "works") is not an open invitation to dismantle the constitution.
For example, the constitution explicitly gives the government the ability to regulate most of the financial industry (i.e., interstate commerce). The debates about the scope of these regulations are not constitutional arguments, they are arguments of principles and ideals. In this case a set "big" government regulations is not unconstitutional in any way, but still against many of the principles of the GOP.
Except that is less flashy than lying and saying that Obama wants us to ignore the constitution.
I mean, I have no idea what you think the NSA has to do with John McCain.
Regarding warrantless wiretapping: "We do not know what lies ahead in our nation's fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution."
Of course there is pretty severe disagreement over whether Article II allows for warrantless wiretapping of US citizens. Though I admit McCain's position is more nuanced than his campaign made it out to be.
PS, if the "you're lying" meme you've introduced in this thread is obnoxious. It is a petty attempt to attack ones credibility rather than their ideas. When I say you're lying I am being facetious.
Posted by: John Jensen on January 23, 2009 06:49 PMPudge, you're lying.
You keep saying that, and yet, you cannot show any way in which I am wrong.
That government must of course be limited in scope as the constitution defines.
Progressives do not believe that, and Obama does not believe that.
So you are obviously taking something very subjective ...
No, I certainly am not.
Not in my opinion. They call for solutions to the costs of health insurance and the 38 million who are uninsured. They call for action to fix our economy. That's what Obama's calling for.
Yes, and he is also calling for people who disagree that those things should be done, to shut up.
Look, the supreme court has nearly a century of rulings contradicting you
Incorrect. I am not surprised you are ignorant about the Supreme Court rulings on the Tenth Amendment, since you are ignorant about the Tenth Amendment.
They shouldn't simply oppose anything and everything simply because they're in the minority.
Who said they should?
When have I ever asserted you shouldn't have a right to speak your mind? For that matter, when has Obama ever said that?
Um. Wow, what a short memory you have. You just said, "Your right to dissent is vanished." And Obama, of course, told me not to question whether his programs should be done, only whether they work. I detailed his sin here already.
You're lying when you claimed that Obama said that he would go outside of that scope.
Obviously not, since he quite clearly said the ONLY question is whether or not a program "works," and many of his proposed legislations DO fall outside of the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 that the Tenth Amendment literally forbids the Congress from legislating outside of.
For example, the constitution explicitly gives the government the ability to regulate most of the financial industry (i.e., interstate commerce).
Yes, but buying their businesses is not regulating their businesses. Two different things, obviously.
The debates about the scope of these regulations are not constitutional arguments
The FORM of these "regulations" are constitutional, obviously.
Regarding warrantless wiretapping: "We do not know what lies ahead in our nation's fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution."
So your panties are in a wedge about McCain saying he will follow the Constitution. Wheeeeee.
PS, if the "you're lying" meme you've introduced in this thread is obnoxious. It is a petty attempt to attack ones credibility rather than their ideas.
Not remotely. It is, in fact, an attempt to correct people when they are being intentionally deceitful, as tc has been many times, as Yawn and Bruce usually are, and as YOU were when you said I did not provide context for Obama's remarks, and when you falsely and directly implied that I complained about my Constitutional right to have greivances.
and taking Obama's statements completely out of context such as:
"Incredibly, Obama uttered one of the most Orwellian phrases I've ever heard from any politician: "To those who cling to power through ... the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Obama is telling people to not dissent while at the same time attacking people who are "silencing dissent."
So you have been refuted not matter what you reply. Your reference 'People denied it, but no one refuted it." IS TOTALLY WRONG and you have been refuted by many people no matter what your future replies are.
So please in future threads make better arguments to support your suppositions cause this time you have been refuted even though you still deny it.
(Should you choose to reply please explain why you took comments totally out of context!)
Tim
Posted by: Tim on January 23, 2009 07:38 PMPudge
- you are wrong with with many of your statements to include the title of your post and making statements such as:
"regardless of what the Constitution says"
and taking Obama's statements completely out of context such as:
"Incredibly, Obama uttered one of the most Orwellian phrases I've ever heard from any politician: "To those who cling to power through ... the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Obama is telling people to not dissent while at the same time attacking people who are "silencing dissent."
So you have been refuted no matter what your reply. Your reference 'People denied it, but no one refuted it." IS TOTALLY WRONG as you have been refuted by many people no matter what your thought are and future replies are.
So please, in future threads make better arguments to support your suppositions because this time you have been refuted even though you still deny it.
(Should you choose to reply please explain why you took comments totally out of context!)
Tim
Pudge - you are wrong with with many of your statements
Nope. None of them.
and taking Obama's statements completely out of context such as ... 'Obama is telling people to not dissent while at the same time attacking people who are "silencing dissent."'
Nope. That wasn't out of context at all.
So you have been refuted not matter what you reply.
Incorrect. You have said I am wrong, but you have not backed up that claim with anything that would amount to a refutation.
Your reference 'People denied it, but no one refuted it." IS TOTALLY WRONG
Incorrect. For example, your silly "out of context" claim above: some people tried to make the point that these are two different groups. But that is completely irrelevant to my claim; in fact, this claim, far from being a refutation, is, rather, a straw man fallacy: it is attempting to attack an argument I never made.
I never implied equivalency, only similarity, and the similarity is obvious. He is obviously criticizing dissent (he explicitly attacks "conflict" in our political process), and he is obviously criticizing certain people for "silencing dissent." There's no way to slither out of Obama's contemptible rhetoric.
(Should you choose to reply please explain why you took comments totally out of context!)
I never did. If you choose to continue to make that claim, perhaps you could actually back it up with an argument that isn't a straw man fallacy?
You could prove your points you have attempted to make by referring to facts other than the Inauguration speech so please enjoy your weekend and make another post besides trying to reply to this thread as you are wrong and have been refuted.
Tim
Posted by: Tim on January 23, 2009 08:18 PM
you are totally wrong and refuse to even acknowledge that fact
If it is such an obvious fact, how are you so completely incapable of demonstrating it? Simple question ... all you've done is make a few assertions you can't back up (like this lame "out of context" nonsense) and refer to nonexistent refutations.
In fact, I've utterly refuted every argument made against me, except for one: "I think Obama didn't mean what you say he meant." And even that is, obviously, unconvincing, since he actually said he was against dissent, and then demonstrated it quite clearly by trying to set the terms of the debate to exclude those who would dissent.
That sentence was meant to end in a question mark. It was a rhetorical question. Of course you have a right to dissent. It is preposterous to suggest anything to the contrary. That is why your comments are preposterous, partisan, and simply sound insincere.
I thought you were a reasonable person. But given that I talked about the tenth amendment and then gave a brief reference to the supreme courts rulings on it, yet I'm somehow "ignorant"... Great, frustrating.
Not every ideological difference comes down to someone else's faults. You seem to have trouble realizing that.
Posted by: John Jensen on January 24, 2009 02:32 AMNo, fool. Article II of the constitution does not give the executive the ability to break any law it deems necessary. Warrantless wiretaps were expressly made illegal by previous FISA legislation. Furthermore, there was never a declaration of war. Do you wish to go down that route for a war "on terror" that has no end? For all the lectures on the constitution, I thought you would make the connection yourself.
Pudge, I was never deceitfu or lying. I doubt anyone else here was either. It's a weak and pitiful thing to accuse another of doing. It must be your inability to present an effective argument at work.
He is obviously criticizing dissent (he explicitly attacks "conflict" in our political process)
No, he was not. One can dissent or and two can disagree while still working across party lines, and still working toward solutions. It happened all the time in the 90's, even in a pretty partisan situation.
As for whether buying shares of banks (or capital injection) is constitutional or not: Great conversation topic for when you're feeling bored, but let's base our political discussions in the current accepted reality? Every branch of government seems to feel it's constitutional, as do both major parties, and the leaders of those parties.
And is it some travesty? I don't know, that's some wax philosophical stuff to rattle on about. But we are a representative democracy that allows for the constitution to have amendments. Is this some typical "living document" argument? No. If small federal governments, or a very limited (strict?) interpretation of the word "regulate" then that could be clarified to the SCOTUS via the amendment process.
Pudge, I don't think you've refuted anyone. You've just repeated yourself and are unwilling to admit your rhetorical flourish is worthless analysis.
Guess what? Asking people to work together and set aside petty disagreements is not "similar" to stoning people to death. Asking people to expect a government that works isn't asking them to violate the 10th amendment.
Here's what you're doing. You're cherry picking phrases out of a speech to make Obama sound like he's "silencing" dissent. For some reason you choose to be the flag-waver for recriminations and false promises.
It is plainly obvious that Obama was engaging and rhetorical flourish and simply asking Washington to work together and stop letting politics get in the way of governance. Now, how you choose to interpret this line:
"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord."
into some sort of silencing of dissent that is "similar" to outlawing political parties and shooting political activists is beyond me. No doubt you've proven this similarity beyond a reasonable doubt with your great argumentative tactics but... saying so.
Would you rather we be fearful, spend our nights arguing with each other, and live in chaos rather than have hope for our nation's future and unite toward the goal of fixing it? I doubt you would. But does that mean your political differences go away? No.
It just means that being arrogant about it ("refute me!!! you can't!!!") and calling the other side "liars," or people who don't believe in the constitution, or folks who want to take away your first amendment rights... Well, yeah. People are tired of having politics divide the country so harshly and severely.
I'm sure you can magically refute this post (according to yourself, the most impartial of judges), but it's just a silly, partisan joke.
Posted by: John Jensen on January 24, 2009 03:18 AMYou had several assertions in your discussion which you did not prove:
1. Obama intends to move forward "regardless of what the Constitution says".
There is not mention in the speech that that is what Obama intends to do - it is only your opinion. Prove with more factual quotes from the inauguration speech that that is what Obama intended. Your opinion is a claim to spite and is not fact. You need to restate your argument with more facts so it is not an opinion (Begging the Question)
2. "Obama is telling people to not dissent while at the same time attacking people who are "silencing dissent."
You took the quote from the speech totally out of context which is logically wrong. The full paragraph that you neglected to post was directed towards the rest of the world leaders.
So please make another thread and prove your points correctly and logically and use any quotes or facts you can find as part of your argument. Until you do so, the readers of this blog will continue to disagree with your logic and opinion. The burden of proof is on you to prove your points as they have been refuted many many times in this thread even though you continue to not believe that fact.
Posted by: Tim on January 24, 2009 09:01 AMhttp://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm
Those comments are outside of this thread and your total dependence on the Inaugural speech rhetoric as proof to support your opinions.
Posted by: Tim on January 24, 2009 09:28 AMSee, you attack me for saying people are lying, and then you lie:
Of course you have a right to dissent. It is preposterous to suggest anything to the contrary. That is why your comments are preposterous, partisan, and simply sound insincere.
Except that I never suggested any such thing, except in the context of your claim (that you now say was an accident) that I did not. I only stated the fact that Obama was trying to silence dissent, not that he was trying to take away my right to dissent. Two extremely different things.
I thought you were a reasonable person. But given that I talked about the tenth amendment and then gave a brief reference to the supreme courts rulings on it, yet I'm somehow "ignorant"...
Yes, you are. You think that the Supreme Court disagrees with me on the Tenth Amendment, when in fact, it has many, many rulings agreeing with me. In fact, FDR's court-stacking plan was designed to fill the Supreme Court with new justices, specifically because so many members of the Court shared my view of the Tenth Amendment: in fact, many of FDR's proposals WERE shot down by the Supreme Court, such as the National Recovery Administration, the Frazier-Lemke Act, and so on.
Even in recent history, the Court has struck down laws due to Tenth Amendment claims, such as in NY v. U.S. (1992), where the Court said that Congress' claim that various mandates against a state having to do with commerce were based on overbroad interpretations of the Commerce Clause.
So when I say that you are ignorant to claim that there's a century of the Supreme Court disagreeing with me, it's only because what you say demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.
Not every ideological difference comes down to someone else's faults. You seem to have trouble realizing that.
Not every time I "blame" someone else is it due to ideological differences. You seem to have trouble realizing that.
Article II of the constitution does not give the executive the ability to break any law it deems necessary.
And McCain never implied that it did. Not remotely.
Warrantless wiretaps were expressly made illegal by previous FISA legislation.
And there are many precedents -- and Obama apparently agrees -- that give the President this INHERENT authority, which means Congress cannot legislate it away. The FISA Court of Review itself mentioned this inherent authority, as did Bill Clinton's Justice Department.
I've been on record from the beginning saying that I think the wiretapping is illegal. But a. I cannot deny the long history of precedents in the matter and b. since I do not KNOW the DETAILS of the program, I can't really evaluate it for certain anyway.
Furthermore, there was never a declaration of war. Do you wish to go down that route for a war "on terror" that has no end? For all the lectures on the constitution, I thought you would make the connection yourself.
Then let me lecture you again: NO Constitutional power of the government is contingent on the declaration of war. None. Zip. The fact that there was no declaration of war has absolutely no constitutional significance of any kind.
The only reference the Constitution makes to a declaration of war is that IF THERE IS such a declaration, it comes from Congress. That is it. Such a declaration is a purely political act, and no other power of government relies on it unless specifically legislated that way.
When politicians talk about "time of war," that in no way implies an actual declaration of such. Again, a declaration of war is a purely political act: you can have military engagement without such declarations, and you can have such declarations without military engagement. You can even call it War without a declaration of war. This is not any problem whatsoever in fact, only in politics.
That said, as I've noted many times over the years, I have never accepted the argument that the power of the executive increases at a time of war, except in an emergency where Congress cannot be convened to act in time, of course (which the War Powers Act explicitly recognizes). So I part company with John Yoo and Dick Cheney here. I've never seen McCain, however, make such a claim, and your quote of him certainly implies no such claim.
Pudge, I was never deceitfu οΏ½or lying.
You obviously misrepresented what I said, several times. Shrug.
No, he was not. One can dissent or and two can disagree while still working across party lines
So? What Obama said he didn't want was conflict. You cannot have no conflict, and still have meaningful disagreement. That is impossible.
It happened all the time in the 90's, even in a pretty partisan situation.
Yes, with a significant amount of conflict. That's how it works. And Obama wants an end to it.
As for whether buying shares of banks (or capital injection) is constitutional or not: Great conversation topic for when you're feeling bored, but let's base our political discussions in the current accepted reality?
Um. Do you actually believe that has not been happening? Newsflash: it has been.
Pudge, I don't think you've refuted anyone.
Obviously, you don't. More's the pity.
Guess what? Asking people to work together and set aside petty disagreements is not "similar" to stoning people to death.
I never said it was. You're lying again.
Asking people to expect a government that works isn't asking them to violate the 10th amendment.
It absolutely is, when those specific proposals being offered violate the Tenth Amendment. Obviously.
Here's what you're doing. You're cherry picking phrases out of a speech to make Obama sound like he's "silencing" dissent.
I am quoting his actual claims that he wants people to not dissent.
It is plainly obvious that Obama was engaging and rhetorical flourish and simply asking Washington to work together and stop letting politics get in the way of governance.
EXACTLY. That's my point! He wants people to give up their principles and values that are the basis of their "politics" and just agree with HIS principles and values of how "governance" should be.
Thank you for agreeing with me, finally.
Would you rather we be fearful, spend our nights arguing with each other, and live in chaos rather than have hope for our nation's future and unite toward the goal of fixing it?
I am all for uniting toward the goal of fixing the few problems we have in this country. That requires a significant amount of partisanship and conflict and, yes, discord (those things that Obama is against). Only in such fights can we gain any sense of unity. Putting aside principled differences on one side to give in to the other side is not unity, it's surrender, and it results in animosity and tears for all.
Posted by: pudge on January 24, 2009 10:57 AMYou had several assertions in your discussion which you did not prove
Incorrect.
Obama intends to move forward "regardless of what the Constitution says".
I proved this assertion from the beginning.
"Obama is telling people to not dissent while at the same time attacking people who are "silencing dissent."
Obviously, if you deny the fact that Obama is telling people not to dissent, you won't agree with the rest. The only question here is whether the first part is true; I assert it is, and that I have sufficiently proven it.
You took the quote from the speech totally out of context
No, in fact, I did not.
The full paragraph that you neglected to post was directed towards the rest of the world leaders.
Yes, and? That is, of course, entirely irrelevant to my point. It is pathetic that you keep trying to attack this straw man: nothing in my argument states or implies anything in contradiction to this.
Pudge - in your new post please don't forget to mention Obama's comments to Rep Eric Cantor and also his comments about Rush Limbaugh.
Why would I do that? They have nothing to do with what I am talking about. Again with your logical fallacies.
your total dependence on the Inaugural speech rhetoric as proof to support your opinions.
See, this is just the sort of illogical nonsense I've come to expect from you. Yes, I confess to basing my views about his speech on what he said in his speech. Guilty!
I have only been talking about Obama's speech, but he sure is, in practice, backing up his speech's message of silencing dissent.
Of course capital injection has been happening. The "reality" is that it is accepted as constitutional by nearly everyone in DC. I highly doubt it'll even be brought before the court. If it were to be, it'd certainly be withheld.
It absolutely is, when those specific proposals being offered violate the Tenth Amendment. Obviously.
You never named a single plan of his that violates the 10th amendment. Or, more to the point, that courts would rule violate the 10th amendment -- not just you, Pudge. (You are not the arbiter of the constitution, our courts are.)
You're attacking a strawman. Obama never asked people to violate the 10th amendment.
And when I say nearly a century of rulings not on your side regarding the 10th amendment, indeed there is more nuance to that statement. Interstate commerce has been interpreted very broadly by the courts and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Congress doesn't agree with you. The executive doesn't. The courts don't. The public doesn't, or there would have been amendments to restrict the interpretation.
Now, that doesn't mean you're wrong since you are making a subjective point. But it does mean it's kind of ridiculous to pretend that you're "proving" things when all you're doing is saying your opinions and then repeating them. You are by and large being contradictory solely. That is not a strong argument.
So, if you want to actually start introducing "proof": What plans are going to violate the 10th amendment, and what rulings in the courts support your claims? And yes pudge, this is your claim, the burden is on you to provide evidence that Obama will violate the 10th amendment, and that the courts will interpret his laws as violations as such.
I am all for uniting toward the goal of fixing the few problems we have in this country. That requires a significant amount of partisanship and conflict and, yes, discord (those things that Obama is against). Only in such fights can we gain any sense of unity. Putting aside principled differences on one side to give in to the other side is not unity, it's surrender, and it results in animosity and tears for all.
I think you could have made that point without saying that Obama is trying to "silence" dissent. Him saying "let's work together!" is as much of a call to silence dissent as you saying "screw you!" is sedition.
I should also mention if that this is your idea for republican governance, then okay. The most plausible interpretation of the phrases you picked from Obama's speech is that he wants to work across the aisle. If you'd rather everything get passed by all democrats, all the time, well I'm glad your ideals will be represented but I'd be careful since the democrats have the votes to get things through both houses. (Or am I ignorant of cloture votes in senate, pudge? I can't wait for the lecture on this one.)
And again, the false similarities you drew between middle eastern despots who use the law and violence to silence dissent is disgusting and below you.
And when did you say they were similar? Here: It would be if I were saying they were equivalent. I wasn't. But they are similar, of course.
Which is in response to what I said: Silencing debate in a hard-line country means jail time, violence, or rape. It isn't asking people to work together. Sometimes silencing debate is rhetorical (questioning one's patriotism), but most seriously it throwing people in jail or shooting them. Not saying, "let's work together through tough times, and stop bickering."
So yes, pudge, you called them similar. It was a stupid comparison to draw, and you were wrong to make it. And now you're pretending you never said they were similar.
In that meeting he is telling people to not think a certain way, to not hold certain beliefs, and that if they do, well, it sucks to be you because Obama won and they lost.
Absurd. Cantor has every right to think a certain way, and to verbalize it, but he has no right to make his beliefs law when he doesn't have the majority to back him up -- unless the majority passes his bills.
What's next? Is Obama's first veto going to be an attempt to silence dissent? Is the government allowed to function as accorded to in the constitution without you feeling the victim?
(For the record, accounts of that conversation have Obama's phrase given in humor not while brandishing a Colt .45.)
Finally, as for your point that Obama is talking about bipartisanship but really expects to get his agenda through while making the opposition party look unconstructive... Yes, that is certainly a political tactic that has been used often through history. I do hope, sincerely, that conservatives find a way to take ownership of some of the policies that are developed over the next few years even while sticking to their ideals.
Posted by: John Jensen on January 24, 2009 04:05 PMOf course capital injection has been happening. The "reality" is that it is accepted as constitutional by nearly everyone in DC. I highly doubt it'll even be brought before the court. If it were to be, it'd certainly be [upheld].
False, of course. By the majority, yes. By nearly everyone, no. And so what? Many atrocities have been incorrectly accepted as constitutional by a majorirty of people and upheld by the Court. Gun bans and segregation to name a couple of obvious ones.
As Justice Felix Frankfurter said, the touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself, not what the Court says about the Constitution. And as James Madison said, the Constitution is a democratic document for the people to read and interpret for themselves.
You never named a single plan of his that violates the 10th amendment.
Incorrect, of course.
(You are not the arbiter of the constitution, our courts are.)
I am not the arbiter of it, no. But I interpret it just as validly as anyone does (more validly than most, including people, like you, who do not understand it very well). Including the aforementioned Madison, who wrote the Tenth Amendment, and agrees with me.
But bluntly: anyone who believes -- for example -- that Social Security is constitutional either does not understand the Constitution, or does not believe in the rule of law. (Justice Breyer and some of his colleagues fall into the latter camp: they literally do not believe in following what the Constitution says; Breyer wrote a book attempting to justify his fallacy called "Active Liberty").
Now, that does not mean the Supreme Court should overturn it: there's other considerations for overturning laws than constitutionality. As Judge Bork noted, even the most conservative judges would not dismantle many of the unconstitutional systems we've adopted, as this would plunge us into chaos. So the fact that something is not overturned does not imply the Court believes it is constitutional, either.
You're attacking a strawman. Obama never asked people to violate the 10th amendment.
You're attacking a straw man: I never said he did. I said he asked that people IGNORE the Tenth Amendment. Which he did.
Interstate commerce has been interpreted very broadly by the courts and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
Where "very broadly" is "not nearly as broadly as it used to be," thankfully.
Congress doesn't agree with you. The executive doesn't.
So? They're obviously wrong. Just like they were wrong when they passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which (presumably) you and (definitely) your liberal friends railed mightily against because it suspended statutory habeas corpus for alien unlawful enemy combatants. Their disagreement holds no weight with me, just like it probably holds no weight with you.
The courts don't.
That remains to be seen.
The public doesn't, or there would have been amendments to restrict the interpretation.
Wow. First, that's a blatantly illogical claim, since amendments require more than a majority, but even moreso because the public will is not easily discernable from what the public does NOT do.
Second, this is irrelevant, since the Bill of Rights, including and perhaps especially the Tenth Amendment, exists to restrict the tyranny of the majority. The Tenth Amendment is an embodiment of the entire concept of limited republican government that the Constitution was designed for. You really need to read Federalist 10. The Bill of Rights exists to protect us from "the public."
Now, that doesn't mean you're wrong since you are making a subjective point. But it does mean it's kind of ridiculous to pretend that you're "proving" things when all you're doing is saying your opinions and then repeating them.
I did more than merely say my opinion, I backed it up with precedent and quotes from the guy who WROTE the Tenth Amendment.
So, if you want to actually start introducing "proof": What plans are going to violate the 10th amendment
For starters, the ones he mentioned in his address. Helping families find jobs at a decent wage, health care they can afford, and a retirement that is dignified. The federal government is quite obviously prohibited from doing any of those things.
His health care plan is obviously unconstitutional, most clearly in the part where he would make the federal government a public health insurer, paying health care providers directly for care given to citizens. The federal government is clearly prohibited from doing this.
I think you could have made that point without saying that Obama is trying to "silence" dissent.
He could have given us his address without SAYING he wanted dissenters to shut up. But he didn't.
Him saying "let's work together!" is as much of a call to silence dissent as you saying "screw you!" is sedition.
Agreed. However, his claims that we should avoid discord and only ask the questions HE deems worthy of asking are a contradiction to his claims of unity, because we cannot have unity where we suppress opinions. Again from Federalist 10: "There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests."
Obama is trying to do the latter, and Madison wrote that "the second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise."
I should also mention if that this is your idea for republican governance, then okay.
Not my idea, no. It's the essential notion of the Constitution.
The most plausible interpretation of the phrases you picked from Obama's speech is that he wants to work across the aisle.
Yes, by making the other side of the aisle share his views.
And again, the false similarities you drew between middle eastern despots who use the law and violence to silence dissent is disgusting and below you.
You just keep beating that straw man. In fact, I made no such comparisons at all.
And when did you say they were similar? Here: It would be if I were saying they were equivalent. I wasn't. But they are similar, of course.
I said the act of silencing is similar to what Obama is doing, not that the despots themselves were similar to Obama. And they are similar, of course, in that while the despots are using Madison's first expedient (destroying liberty), Obama is trying to do the second (giving everyone the same opinions).
In that meeting he is telling people to not think a certain way, to not hold certain beliefs, and that if they do, well, it sucks to be you because Obama won and they lost.
Absurd.
Um. That is actually what Obama said.
Cantor has every right to think a certain way ...
What's that got to do with anything? Can you not understand the difference between saying someone has no RIGHT to do something, and telling them not to do it? Obama has been telling people not to think a certain way, but he hasn't been trying to take away their right to do so. I have never in any way implied that Obama is trying to take away anyone's right to dissent. But he is telling them to not do it, and trying to make them seem unpatriotic for doing so.
I thought this was going to be the age of coming together and really changing things
No such age has ever or will ever exist, not unless we face an existential threat, because "coming together" for too many people, including Obama, means "agree with me."
For those who say "shut up" or "we won, you lose"...do you not see the hate in that? The hypocrisy?
Apparently, no, they don't.
I don't care if McCain won, I think it is sad that any American would have that attitude torwards their fellow Americans.
I agree. I condemned it when Republicans had that attitude, too, just as I am condemning it now.
Anyways, Pudge, you must disagree with me ...
Why would you think that? I disagree with your calling Bush a thug, but other than that ...
Yes, this is the impression I first got of him back in 2007 and this attitude of many people and Obama is so surreal! Obama worries me more than Bush ... The media's love affair with Obama is something in need of questioning. It was insane the way the media manipulated the whole presidential election! Pudge what were your thoughts? It was just mind boggling and no one seemed to notice. Pudge, were you aware of how the media elevated some and totally silenced others? It was not truthful nor fair and should I be surprized?nope. Gravel, Kucinich, and Paul were totally left out and it was no accident. These fellows were not so bad ...not as bad as Obama and Clinton. It just irked me how Obama and Clinton were too spineless... more like too crooked to speak out against the media abusing those three men. The media's image of the good integral crusading Obama was at odds with Obama's actions... a good integral man would stand up against the media's manipulation that silenced those three men but of course Obama did not because he was created by it...he is everything that is wrong with the media-a bunch of BS. I was outraged how some people would justify the medias treatment of Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel-they would say that these three were "kooks" "crazy" etc...And then the media were so petty that they would use mockery to belittle these three instead rationality while Obama and the other frontrunners but mostly Obama were paraded around like they were impecable. Now I was not really a supporter of Paul, Kuccinich, or Gravel but I did follow their campaign and so my perspective of Obama comes from this angle and it was not a pretty sight. He seemed so slimy and spineless-how he totally disregarded Gravel and Kucinich. Gravel exposed Clinton's vote on war with Iran and Obama not being present to vote(like always) and all they could do is grin and laugh while some of the audience laughed like zombies. Look for the videos with Gravel or Kucinich during the summer 2007 debates on cnn , not to so much see these former candidates but to see Obama in a different perspective. Obama doesn't look to good next to men with more integrity.
Anyways, The media hates Bush too much (I still think he is a thug) and loves Obama too much. Obama is just the same old boss-the people controlling him equal bad news!
Posted by: mexican food on January 26, 2009 10:10 PM
