Obama not measuring up (my apologies)

[crazyhorse1]

I owe the board an apology for recommending Obama. It looks to me that he's trickster after all or simply too weak in spirit to live up to his campaign promises despite overwhelming support from the public at large and a political deck stacked and ready. If he was sincere before, he is craven after. He has in almost every area used his overwhelming strenght only to retreat and almost always aided his enermies who will never support him and betrayed those whom he wrongly believes will always support him. He obstructs justice, allows torture, unlawful detention by unconstituationlly stalling and trying to change the law instead of enforcing it , and is guilty of step by step embracing Bush policies that violate civil liberties, violate the constitution, promote aggression, support the rich at the expense of the poor, and twart reform in areas such as environment, market, and bank regulation. I fully expect his health reform to become a sham that cooperates fully with the powers that caused the crisis in health care in the first place.

The guy wants everyone to love him, so will contine to try to fool those he has already won over while courting those who have opposed him-- the white establishment, maybe rightwingers too, by extendtion. There are those who think he is power hungry. He is not. He wants universal love as the weakest among us do. Further, his famed confidence is less heroic than many have it. Rather, he has the confidence of a chameleon who is sure that no one can see what he is up to.

[Deadskins]

He's just doing what he's told to do. Do you really believe that the President is his own man in this day and age?

[langleyparkjoe]

4 year term and he hasn't done 1 yet. Let's wait a bit before we all throw up our hands and call it a day

[Irn-Bru]

I was wondering what you thought of him, crazyhorse. My principled liberal friends are not happy with him. My anti-war friends and acquaintances never had much hope for him in the first place.

For me it just seems like business as usual. Interesting to hear your perspective.

[Countertrey]

My principled liberal friends

Isn't that an oxymoron?

[KazooSkinsFan]

I owe the board an apology for recommending Obama. It looks to me that he's trickster after all or simply too weak in spirit to live up to his campaign promises despite overwhelming support from the public at large and a political deck stacked and ready. If he was sincere before, he is craven after. He has in almost every area used his overwhelming strenght only to retreat and almost always aided his enermies who will never support him and betrayed those whom he wrongly believes will always support him. He obstructs justice, allows torture, unlawful detention by unconstituationlly stalling and trying to change the law instead of enforcing it , and is guilty of step by step embracing Bush policies that violate civil liberties, violate the constitution, promote aggression, support the rich at the expense of the poor, and twart reform in areas such as environment, market, and bank regulation. I fully expect his health reform to become a sham that cooperates fully with the powers that caused the crisis in health care in the first place.

The guy wants everyone to love him, so will contine to try to fool those he has already won over while courting those who have opposed him-- the white establishment, maybe rightwingers too, by extendtion. There are those who think he is power hungry. He is not. He wants universal love as the weakest among us do. Further, his famed confidence is less heroic than many have it. Rather, he has the confidence of a chameleon who is sure that no one can see what he is up to.

Bam! Well put, crazyhorse.

Particularly on war. I laugh at the liberals who said how we have to get Bush out of the White House over Iraq. Clinton continued HW, W continued Clinton, Obama continued W, that's reality. Though he renamed the War on Terror and renamed the Terrorists! Wow!

I said and meant if I believed Obama (or any Democrats) would actually END the wars in the Middle East and start removing our troops from the region, I would vote for them because that would be a material difference between the virtually identical parties. But based on the past I didn't believe it.

You may have bought the line, but unlike your liberal brethren you admitted it. Well done.

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

Silly crazyhorse, you actually believed a politician? LOL

Nothing has "changed".

[VetSkinsFan]

4 year term and he hasn't done 1 yet. Let's wait a bit before we all throw up our hands and call it a day

The most intelligent post so far.

[HEROHAMO]

First off Obama walked into a bad situation. The Economic downfall and the Iraqi war.

Now as far as his solutions go, I never wanted these bailouts. I believe in capitalism. Let the successful companys thrive and let the weak be weeded out. Why save a faulty Corporation with sub par business skills? The Banking Bail out may have been necessary? I still question it though. We may just be delaying the inevitable. Will it get worse or have we seen the worst?

Personally I would hope our President adopts a fiscal Consertive approach.
I believe if our Country is stable Economically and well defended, then we can always work on the other issues.

Still I feel if Congress, Senate or the Presidency comes up with a sound plan to heal this economy. Then it is imperative that everyone cooperates. We cannot have a divided house.

It hasnt even been one year yet. So I am willing to see the whole thing through before I condemn this President. All though I am a Conservative myself.
I know that this mess was not started by Obama. The far right try's to paint the picture as if he made this mess. The fact is we had our guy in office and he fouled up. No way was America going to let another Republican in for another four years. I have since separated from the Fake Republican Party. My loyalty is to America. I still back Conservatism as the way to go.
Right now I am going to support Obama. It is still our jobs as Americans to help out. If we feel something is not going right then you let the President know. Enough voices will make him at least listen.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Personally I would hope our President adopts a fiscal Consertive approach

Still I feel if Congress, Senate or the Presidency comes up with a sound plan to heal this economy

This would be a non-sequitur.

[Countertrey]

It is still our jobs as Americans to help out. If we feel something is not going right then you let the President know. Enough voices will make him at least listen.

Naive, at best.

You describe sheep. If you are truly a proponent of conservatism, the LAST thing you want is government "solving" the economy.

The first tenet of conservatism is: "Government is almost NEVER the solution". Voices by the millions are screaming this now. Obama does not hear them.

Beer will solve it.

[Irn-Bru]

The first tenet of conservatism is: "Government is almost NEVER the solution".

Except in war, police forces, courts, firemen, delivering mail, schools, streets, roads, and highways, laws regulating behavior in all of these categories, and managing / regulating / monopolizing the money the country uses, right?

[tribeofjudah]

It's the end of the world as we know it! Revelation prophecies are coming true. USA is the "lamb" and is now speaking like a "beast"...

Rev 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

Lamb at countries inception: freedom of religion, a haven for those persecuted.

Now the secular progressives and liberals have got the country speaking like... The Beast...!!!

It started long ago, during Reagan and before..... Separation of church and state? Forget about it if Presidents are conspiring with the Vatican! Who is Obama's spiritual leaders? Rasputin, the Dalai Lama.....???

[Countertrey]

The first tenet of conservatism is: "Government is almost NEVER the solution".

Except in war, police forces, courts, firemen, delivering mail, schools, streets, roads, and highways, laws regulating behavior in all of these categories, and managing / regulating / monopolizing the money the country uses, right?

I'm sure that you noted this discussion concerns intrusions of the Feds into areas they have no business... NOT the various States (which the Constitution asserts have more authority to regulate than the Federal Government. The Constitution also clearly indicates the Federal Government should have very strict limits on it's ability to intrude into the sovereignty of the various states and the rights of individual citizens.)

1: Despite your list (which is still very limited, and is not inconsistent with "almost NEVER", I do not view "laws regulating behavior" to be generally consistent with a conservative philosophy, rather a perversion of it.

2: Since when is the intrusion and unconstitutional presence of an omnipotent Federal bank a conservative value?

3: The only areas you identified above where the Federal Government has any business are war and delivering mail. Everything else they do is a perversion of the Commerce Clause, and a clear violation of the tenth amendment.

Left to the state (versus the Fed), there is a natural tendency to minimize government intrusion, because it costs money... therefore, they tend to do only those things that you actually need state government to do.

I'm fairly certain that you actually concur with my statement... so what's with the bait?

[Irn-Bru]

1: Despite your list (which is still very limited, and is not inconsistent with "almost NEVER"

I would dispute that. Whether one thinks about it in terms of size as in $$, or the principle involved implementing it, or just the sheer number of people it impacts.

2: Since when is the intrusion and unconstitutional presence of an omnipotent Federal bank a conservative value?

Well, I'm not sure, but I hear a lot of conservatives who think the Fed and government monopoly over the money supply is a good idea. Most, for example, have praise for Volker and did have praise for Greenspan. (Funny how they change their tune.) Some are still trying to defend Bernanke. At any rate, most blast pro-sound-money advocates as "gold bugs" or misinformed about economics. They make silly claims like a free market in money would lead to worse business cycles and depressions.

Maybe it's not "conservative" per se, but if the overwhelming majority of conservatives (including the more revered columnists and pundits) think that way, I'm not sure what else to call it.

Also, the constitution explicitly grants the congress the authority to regulate money and assign legal tender status. Again, perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but having the government intimately involved in every financial transaction I make seems to me like a clear case of the government permeating society.

3: The only areas you identified above where the Federal Government has any business are war and delivering mail. Everything else they do is a perversion of the Commerce Clause, and a clear violation of the tenth amendment.

Are state governments government? Or did you mean "government is almost never the answer" as a reference purely to the federal government?

Left to the state (versus the Fed), there is a natural tendency to minimize government intrusion, because it costs money... therefore, they tend to do only those things that you actually need state government to do.

I would also dispute this claim. It seems to me that governments quickly grow no matter what their size or stated scope. (Also, NB: "the Fed" denotes the Federal Reserve. . ."the feds" denotes the federal government.)

I'm fairly certain that you actually concur with my statement... so what's with the baiting?

As you can see, I probably don't agree with as much as you may have supposed.

The reason for the "baiting" — could be we use different definitions of the word, but I've always associated "baiting" with flaming and ill will — is because I disagree that even the conservative view really sees the government as "almost" never the answer. If one looks at the size of the Department of Defense alone, and compares it to the size of our economy, it's clear that there are major deviations from that principle.

And, again, that's not even to mention police, courts, schools, roads, zoning laws, etc. . . .

[Countertrey]

Where we are at risk of taking this thread off topic, I'm only going to respond to this...

I said:

Left to the state (versus the Fed), there is a natural tendency to minimize government intrusion, because it costs money... therefore, they tend to do only those things that you actually need state government to do.

You replied:

I would also dispute this claim. It seems to me that governments quickly grow no matter what their size or stated scope. (Also, NB: "the Fed" denotes the Federal Reserve. . ."the feds" denotes the federal government.)

If the Federal government was not using cash to bribe or extort states, they would have to raise all of their funds through burdening their citizens with additional taxes. Historically, before the feds discovered the benefits of perverting the Commerce Clause, this provided a negative motivation for state legislators to add state government programs... if you added programs, you had to pay for them. To pay for them, you had to raise taxes. If you raised taxes, your windows got broken out of your home, PLUS, your chances for re-election were nil. State growth tended to be limited to only those things that were truly necessary, or to those things that could be funded by an increase in the tax base.

I stand by my statement that "Left to the state (versus the Fed) (meaning WITHOUT ADDITIONAL INTRUSION BY THE FEDS), there is a natural tendency to minimize government intrusion, because it costs money"

I'm done hijacking.

[KazooSkinsFan]

The first tenet of conservatism is: "Government is almost NEVER the solution".

Except in war, police forces, courts, firemen, delivering mail, schools, streets, roads, and highways, laws regulating behavior in all of these categories, and managing / regulating / monopolizing the money the country uses, right?

At first I was reading this thinking you'd drank the Obama juice. Especially when you said schools. Finally you hit your pet issue at the end and I was sure you were kidding. But you had me going a second. Don't get me wrong, I'm on the bandwagon with you on that, but I know you'd never agree with that one.

[KazooSkinsFan]

2: Since when is the intrusion and unconstitutional presence of an omnipotent Federal bank a conservative value?

Well, I'm not sure, but I hear a lot of conservatives who think the Fed and government monopoly over the money supply is a good idea. Most, for example, have praise for Volker and did have praise for Greenspan. (Funny how they change their tune.) Some are still trying to defend Bernanke. At any rate, most blast pro-sound-money advocates as "gold bugs" or misinformed about economics. They make silly claims like a free market in money would lead to worse business cycles and depressions.

Maybe it's not "conservative" per se, but if the overwhelming majority of conservatives (including the more revered columnists and pundits) think that way, I'm not sure what else to call it.

Also, the constitution explicitly grants the congress the authority to regulate money and assign legal tender status. Again, perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but having the government intimately involved in every financial transaction I make seems to me like a clear case of the government permeating society.

Always the peace maker (or was that piece maker). I have a hard time believing that whether a conservative believes the Fed is either positive or neutral on the concept of the Fed, a true conservative would recognize ultimately the inherent destruction of conservative values that is actually caused by the Fed and ultimately oppose it. I would hope more Conservatives would achieve this by listening to people like Irn-Bru and studying history rather then having to learn it on their own before opposing it.

Which is how I became a libertarian. I considered myself a "conservative" until the mid 90s. However, I believed that ownership of our bodies, recognition of the inherent incompetence and corruption of government and opposition to use of the military for interfering in foreign affairs are conservative values. But since the people calling themselves conservatives were supporting that crap, I switched to "libertarian." But in the end, I do consider myself a conservative. Just as in the end Irn-Bru says he is a liberal. We arrived at (mostly) the same answers from opposite ends of the spectrum for the same underlying reasons. At least that's my take.

[Irn-Bru]

Actually, Kaz, I considered myself a very conservative Republican when I first became cognizant of political issues. I grew up in a house that fits the "silent majority" profile pretty well. For a long time I kept "conservative" views (in the mainstream sense, including being pro-war!). But I came around eventually.

So, it was only after I agreed with the basic ideas of libertarianism that I attached myself to the label 'liberal.'

[Countertrey]

a true conservative would recognize ultimately the inherent destruction of conservative values that is actually caused by the Fed and ultimately oppose it. I would hope more Conservatives would achieve this by listening to people like Irn-Bru and studying history rather then having to learn it on their own before opposing it.

Thanks, Kaz. Stated much more clearly than I could. This describes well what I was trying to say, but (apparently) did not.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Actually, Kaz, I considered myself a very conservative Republican when I first became cognizant of political issues. I grew up in a house that fits the "silent majority" profile pretty well. For a long time I kept "conservative" views (in the mainstream sense, including being pro-war!). But I came around eventually.

So, it was only after I agreed with the basic ideas of libertarianism that I attached myself to the label 'liberal.'

Interesting. I just remembered you saying you considered yourself liberal, so more background on that. As I've said before I personally see no conflict between a true conservative or a true liberal and I think either would be a political libertarian because that is the only way they are free to effectively advance their causes.

Unfortunately both sides have opted for the reverse of reality, that government is how they should advance the causes most important to them and we should be free to chose on the lesser important choices. Both ignore that government never accomplishes their goals and is usually even harmful to them.

[Cappster]

Actually, Kaz, I considered myself a very conservative Republican when I first became cognizant of political issues. I grew up in a house that fits the "silent majority" profile pretty well. For a long time I kept "conservative" views (in the mainstream sense, including being pro-war!). But I came around eventually.

So, it was only after I agreed with the basic ideas of libertarianism that I attached myself to the label 'liberal.'

Interesting. I just remembered you saying you considered yourself liberal, so more background on that. As I've said before I personally see no conflict between a true conservative or a true liberal and I think either would be a political libertarian because that is the only way they are free to effectively advance their causes.

Unfortunately both sides have opted for the reverse of reality, that government is how they should advance the causes most important to them and we should be free to chose on the lesser important choices. Both ignore that government never accomplishes their goals and is usually even harmful to them.

And so history repeats itself yet again.

[HEROHAMO]

Personally I would hope our President adopts a fiscal Consertive approach

Still I feel if Congress, Senate or the Presidency comes up with a sound plan to heal this economy

This would be a non-sequitur.

This should explain why I made those two statements.

I see myself as a "fiscal" conservative. Conservatism the ideology makes the most sense to me. Particularly the financial approach.

Now I myself am a minority. I grew up in a poor part of town. I grew up mostly around liberals and democrats. In that time I could see a major flaw in the way maybe some of my family and others seen things. My father worked hard all his life but still seemed to cry out to government to help him out. When I got my first job it was very common for the workers to complain about the country and how the country needs to do more for them. As I got older I realized the oppurtunities are out there you make your own destiny. You cannot depend on government to do for you. Many and I mean practially all of my family is liberal. So I cant help it when I see my mom or dad on the liberal side. So that is why I am not all the way to the right.

I am a conservative in mind ,my heart will always be liberal. If that makes any sense. But, I tell you it is the doggone truth. I try to leave it all on the table. All that know me, know me. There is no questions about who I am. Since you guys are my Redskins brethren I will leave it on the table as well.

So I will make plenty of statments. The next sentence will follow with a But,.

In a nutshell I want smaller government. Empower the people of America. Let the experts in there respective fields do what they do. Independence, not reliance on the Government. Less taxes do not put a chokehold on the economy. I believe in education. But, I do not like the current educational system. When the government gives money to educational purposes I question if that money is really spent wisely. In fact I know it is not. Our dropout rates keep growing and yet we keep the same educational system? I do not want to offend any teachers here but in my opinion alot of these teachers are not that good. The educational system is old and should be revised. Remember the Vouchers issue? Bush actually proposed giving familys Vouchers to choose a private school if you wanted. Why did the liberals oppose that? Boggles my mind.

What has happened since Obama has taken office?

I have noticed every if not all Corporations have downsized. Since he has taken office every business man starts making cuts. Thinking of ways to survive rather then thrive. Oh and thus making the unemployment numbers jump to record highs.

Which is why financially I am all the way conservative. Alot of the Social issues I think of my liberal family and sometimes that will override my mind which knows the conservative way is the way to go.
Oh and being a minority. I got to admit that it felt kind of good seing a different race become president for once.
Even though I know darn well what my conservative beliefs are. Especially the financial approach.

So yes I do actually "hope". Even though there is a blueprint left by Ronald Reagan on how to attack the current situations. So I do "hope" Obama is enlightened somehow. Actually maybe the man upstairs can intervene.
Even though I am of conservative beliefs. It does not matter to me if a democrat happens to come up with a sound plan that sounds good to me. I have not seen that yet. LOL! But, I am hoping these guys in office get it right.

So hopefully that clears things up for you.

[HEROHAMO]

It is still our jobs as Americans to help out. If we feel something is not going right then you let the President know. Enough voices will make him at least listen.

Naive, at best.

You describe sheep. If you are truly a proponent of conservatism, the LAST thing you want is government "solving" the economy.

The first tenet of conservatism is: "Government is almost NEVER the solution". Voices by the millions are screaming this now. Obama does not hear them.

Beer will solve it.

If the Government has a plan to stay out of the way of financial experts, then that is a good plan. Let the experts do there thing. But, no best believe this four years will be the Government having a hands on approach.

Less taxes.
Right now the economy is in a chokehold. When Obama hit office every if not all Corporations and small business braced for the storm. Thus creating massive cuts in jobs. The unemployment rates have skyrocketed.

Ronald Reagan came into a very similar situation. The cold war, our country was actually in a recession at that time as well. The blueprint is there to follow. Like I said, I "hope" Obama considers looking at how Reagan approached a nearly identical situation.

[Deadskins]

Remember the Vouchers issue? Bush actually proposed giving familys Vouchers to choose a private school if you wanted. Why did the liberals oppose that? Boggles my mind.

The reason people oppose vouchers is that they take money away from the public school system which is desperately underfunded as it is. Vouchers do not cover the full cost of a private education, so that is still out of reach of the poorest citizens, and when you take more money out of the public school system, that leaves them at an even bigger disadvantage. The problem that I see is one of priorities (where the money is spent). It is to the public's advantage to have a well educated populace.