Topic: Barack to the Future!

[dmastous]

I think raping the Constitution, impinging individual rights, things are upsetting enough for right now.

I don't think this country was founded and built upon a collective mentality.
At every turn, as our Republic has grown, individual rights are at the heart of every struggle.  Witness the act of Obama himself becoming President.

He hasn't done that yet. I do think he wants to take this country into more of a socialist direction. A nanny state, rather than a country of strong self sufficient people. But it remains to see if Congress and the Judicial will allow that. I hope there is still enough fight left to derail that vision.

[dmastous]

]I think the belt tightening needs to come at all levels.
Enough of the unlimited credit mentality that pervades every aspect of our society.
From the Ponzi scheme called social security to the morgage companies that enticed financially insecure individuals into purchasing homes.
Until the mindset changes from 'buy now, pay later' to 'save and buy' there can and will be no real 'hope' or 'change'.

Yes, but there-in lies the stupidity of the whole TARP bailout fiasco. The problem is too much credit, too much debt.
The answer? Give the banks $700 billion so they can extend more credit, and increase the debt. How stupid is that?

[monstertruck]

I think raping the Constitution, impinging individual rights, things are upsetting enough for right now.

I don't think this country was founded and built upon a collective mentality.
At every turn, as our Republic has grown, individual rights are at the heart of every struggle.  Witness the act of Obama himself becoming President.

He hasn't done that yet. I do think he wants to take this country into more of a socialist direction. A nanny state, rather than a country of strong self sufficient people. But it remains to see if Congress and the Judicial will allow that. I hope there is still enough fight left to derail that vision.

Congress is already onboard, and Pelosi has pushed the envelope even further by changing the rules in the House to limit the Minority's power.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2009/01/03/pelosi-to-change-the-house-rules-against-minority/

Everywhere you look, the writing is on the wall.

[BGT]

I think raping the Constitution, impinging individual rights, things are upsetting enough for right now.

I don't think this country was founded and built upon a collective mentality.
At every turn, as our Republic has grown, individual rights are at the heart of every struggle.  Witness the act of Obama himself becoming President.

Were you just as upset when the Patriot Act was enacted, which allowed the American Government to search your telephone, e-mail, medical and finance records too? Or is it because it allowed the government to detain non-Americans without any legal aid and on the basis of mere suspicion that makes it alright? To me, that's one of biggest infractions on American privacy and individual rights that this country has ever seen. Here is a quote that I thought was interesting:

She warned that "Indefinite detention upon secret evidence — which the USA PATRIOT Act allows — sounds more like Taliban justice than ours. Our claim that we are attempting to build an international coalition against terrorism will be severely undermined if we pass legislation allowing even citizens of our allies to be incarcerated without basic U.S. guarantees of fairness and justice."[224] Many other parties have also been strongly critical of the provision. Russell Feingold, in a Senate floor statement, claimed that the provision "falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness [as it] continues to allow the Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion".

Now what is President Obama doing to impinge upon your rights as a citizen? Besides take your hard earned money and give it to bums who don't work, of course.

[BGT]

Change we can believe in.

$170 million for an inaguration, and $100,000 to redecorate the White House. 

Think of all the people who got to work that day -- the police officers who got some overtime, the interior decorators who probably got the biggest paycheck of their lives, the people who constructed the stage, the businesses that printed the tickets....

Ahhh so trickle down economics work for you now! 

It's not like the money went nowhere. Probably hundreds to thousands of hotesl were completely booked for days, not mention the restaurants and the car rentals.... I'm pretty sure those companies aren't complaining. I'm sure you wouldn't have turned down a photography job for that day.

Doesn't that happen at every inauguration?   Nothing to see here, move along.

And I'm sure they look forward to it. Probably saved their fiscal year.

[BGT]

Change we can believe in.

$170 million for an inauguration, and $100,000 to redecorate the White House. 

Think of all the people who got to work that day -- the police officers who got some overtime, the interior decorators who probably got the biggest paycheck of their lives, the people who constructed the stage, the businesses that printed the tickets....

Ahhh so trickle down economics work for you now! 

It's not like the money went nowhere. Probably hundreds to thousands of hotesl were completely booked for days, not mention the restaurants and the car rentals.... I'm pretty sure those companies aren't complaining. I'm sure you wouldn't have turned down a photography job for that day.

Given the Obama-mania I'm seeing, the local venders would have had a field day whether they spent $100 or $100 million. The teeming millions would have come either way. Including photographers.
My point is, in these economic times, is there room for excess? With the all the TRILLIONS of dollars the government is spending trying to right the economic ship, is a $100 million for an inauguration a good way to spend? Is it responsible? Go back and look at the guy Obama is being compared to, FDR. What did he do for his inauguration? He took the oath, had a chicken dinner and got to work (not that he did the right things once he got to work).
There is discussion, rightly so, about the CEOs of the banks for their excess, like the Merril Lynch CEO (now unemployed) who first tried to justify his $10 million bonus, then when he couldn't get that spent around a million redecorating his office (using the same interior decorator that Obama is using btw, Obama is getting him a lot cheaper though). Also the CEOs of the auto companies coming to Washington to beg for money in their private jets.
Now is not the time for conspicuous consumption. Now is the time for belt tightening.

Yeah, Obama is bad for the economy ; that's the same thing McCain said during the election because he wasn't getting enough private donations. The private inaugural balls and all that other fun stuff was privately funded... no taxpayer money involved. Just a group of people who wanted to donate. Besides, the 2005 and 2009 inaugurations cost the same, maybe the 2009 one is less considering inflation.

[monstertruck]

I think raping the Constitution, impinging individual rights, things are upsetting enough for right now.

I don't think this country was founded and built upon a collective mentality.
At every turn, as our Republic has grown, individual rights are at the heart of every struggle.  Witness the act of Obama himself becoming President.

Were you just as upset when the Patriot Act was enacted, which allowed the American Government to search your telephone, e-mail, medical and finance records too? Or is it because it allowed the government to detain non-Americans without any legal aid and on the basis of mere suspicion that makes it alright? To me, that's one of biggest infractions on American privacy and individual rights that this country has ever seen. Here is a quote that I thought was interesting:

She warned that "Indefinite detention upon secret evidence — which the USA PATRIOT Act allows — sounds more like Taliban justice than ours. Our claim that we are attempting to build an international coalition against terrorism will be severely undermined if we pass legislation allowing even citizens of our allies to be incarcerated without basic U.S. guarantees of fairness and justice."[224] Many other parties have also been strongly critical of the provision. Russell Feingold, in a Senate floor statement, claimed that the provision "falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness [as it] continues to allow the Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion".

Now what is President Obama doing to impinge upon your rights as a citizen? Besides take your hard earned money and give it to bums who don't work, of course.

1.  Patriot Act is just as disturbing.
2.  Actually Feingold voted 'Yea' .
3.  Obama was great for the economy.  He raised and spent the most money.  He spent nearly half again as much as McCain.

My rights aren't as a citizen, they are as an individual.
As I outlined above, the first assault will come on the 2nd amendment.

Here are a few questions you might want to think about BGT.
How are you going to like Mandatory Service?  Don't you find forced service a bit disturbing?  What is your justification for being compelled by the government to serve it?

As I've maintained all along, the core principles behind the collective mentality erode the basic rights and freedoms of both minorities and individuals.


On a side note, DMast must be laughing his arse off because he just can't picture this mind that fits inside the body he's seen!!!

[monstertruck]

]I think the belt tightening needs to come at all levels.
Enough of the unlimited credit mentality that pervades every aspect of our society.
From the Ponzi scheme called social security to the morgage companies that enticed financially insecure individuals into purchasing homes.
Until the mindset changes from 'buy now, pay later' to 'save and buy' there can and will be no real 'hope' or 'change'.

Yes, but there-in lies the stupidity of the whole TARP bailout fiasco. The problem is too much credit, too much debt.
The answer? Give the banks $700 billion so they can extend more credit, and increase the debt. How stupid is that?

I think it's hilarious to take tax dollars from the people you're trying to help and give it to the folks that helped screw things up in the first place.
Absolutely ludicrous.  This cannot and will not succeed.

[dmastous]

1.  Patriot Act is just as disturbing.
2.  Actually Feingold voted 'Yea' .
3.  Obama was great for the economy.  He raised and spent the most money.  He spent nearly half again as much as McCain.

My rights aren't as a citizen, they are as an individual.
As I outlined above, the first assault will come on the 2nd amendment.

Here are a few questions you might want to think about BGT.
How are you going to like Mandatory Service?  Don't you find forced service a bit disturbing?  What is your justification for being compelled by the government to serve it?

As I've maintained all along, the core principles behind the collective mentality erode the basic rights and freedoms of both minorities and individuals.


On a side note, DMast must be laughing his arse off because he just can't picture this mind that fits inside the body he's seen!!!

I'm just trying to work out where the whole clown persona fits with the libertarian persona.....

[BGT]

I think raping the Constitution, impinging individual rights, things are upsetting enough for right now.

I don't think this country was founded and built upon a collective mentality.
At every turn, as our Republic has grown, individual rights are at the heart of every struggle.  Witness the act of Obama himself becoming President.

Were you just as upset when the Patriot Act was enacted, which allowed the American Government to search your telephone, e-mail, medical and finance records too? Or is it because it allowed the government to detain non-Americans without any legal aid and on the basis of mere suspicion that makes it alright? To me, that's one of biggest infractions on American privacy and individual rights that this country has ever seen. Here is a quote that I thought was interesting:

She warned that "Indefinite detention upon secret evidence — which the USA PATRIOT Act allows — sounds more like Taliban justice than ours. Our claim that we are attempting to build an international coalition against terrorism will be severely undermined if we pass legislation allowing even citizens of our allies to be incarcerated without basic U.S. guarantees of fairness and justice."[224] Many other parties have also been strongly critical of the provision. Russell Feingold, in a Senate floor statement, claimed that the provision "falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness [as it] continues to allow the Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion".

Now what is President Obama doing to impinge upon your rights as a citizen? Besides take your hard earned money and give it to bums who don't work, of course.

1.  Patriot Act is just as disturbing.
2.  Actually Feingold voted 'Yea' .
3.  Obama was great for the economy.  He raised and spent the most money.  He spent nearly half again as much as McCain.

My rights aren't as a citizen, they are as an individual.
As I outlined above, the first assault will come on the 2nd amendment.

Here are a few questions you might want to think about BGT.
How are you going to like Mandatory Service?  Don't you find forced service a bit disturbing?  What is your justification for being compelled by the government to serve it?

As I've maintained all along, the core principles behind the collective mentality erode the basic rights and freedoms of both minorities and individuals.


On a side note, DMast must be laughing his arse off because he just can't picture this mind that fits inside the body he's seen!!!

I am having some serious typing and spelling problems this morning.

I have a religious argument. The government isn't going to make me disregard my religious convictions regarding the armed forces. I will not serve, nor will I be forced to.

And 2nd amendment? Right to bear arms or a well regulated militia? You can start your own militia, you know? Besides, Obama isn't disarming the military. He's just developing a time line to get them out of war. Or do you want them to keep dying?

[monstertruck]

1.  Patriot Act is just as disturbing.
2.  Actually Feingold voted 'Yea' .
3.  Obama was great for the economy.  He raised and spent the most money.  He spent nearly half again as much as McCain.

My rights aren't as a citizen, they are as an individual.
As I outlined above, the first assault will come on the 2nd amendment.

Here are a few questions you might want to think about BGT.
How are you going to like Mandatory Service?  Don't you find forced service a bit disturbing?  What is your justification for being compelled by the government to serve it?

As I've maintained all along, the core principles behind the collective mentality erode the basic rights and freedoms of both minorities and individuals.


On a side note, DMast must be laughing his arse off because he just can't picture this mind that fits inside the body he's seen!!!

I'm just trying to work out where the whole clown persona fits with the libertarian persona.....

It is an interesting combination, to say the least.

[monstertruck]

BGT
1.  So you won't serve your country?  I wonder how that arguement will stand up to the scrutiny of your fellow citizens.

2.  How do you propose to defend that right once the your means of doing so have been taken away?

I'm a bit confused as to your reasoning for using the withdrawal timeline or armed forces dying into a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.
Using unrelated, emotionally charged topics as your rationale for impinging on a Constitutional right seems illogical to me.

Of course I don't want people to needlessly die.  I don't see how that has any bearing on this topic.

[Babblelot]

I think raping the Constitution, impinging individual rights, things are upsetting enough for right now.

I don't think this country was founded and built upon a collective mentality.
At every turn, as our Republic has grown, individual rights are at the heart of every struggle.  Witness the act of Obama himself becoming President.

He hasn't done that yet. I do think he wants to take this country into more of a socialist direction. A nanny state, rather than a country of strong self sufficient people. But it remains to see if Congress and the Judicial will allow that. I hope there is still enough fight left to derail that vision.

Congress is already onboard, and Pelosi has pushed the envelope even further by changing the rules in the House to limit the Minority's power.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2009/01/03/pelosi-to-change-the-house-rules-against-minority/

Everywhere you look, the writing is on the wall.

Here's a perfect example of why Dems laugh at Rs. This is right out of your blog!

Democrats may also end the current three-term limit for committee chairmen — a limit adopted by Republicans when they took over the House in 1995 and retained in the House rules adopted by Democrats when they regained the majority in the 110th Congress.

The Rs changed the rules to get the Dems out of those committee chairs. Since 2006, the Dems have been holding pat--much to many a progressive's chagrin--content to gobble up more and more seats in the House and Senate. Obama promised change, We the people voted overwhelmingly for change. After sitting on their hands for 2 years, the House and Senate are going to flex their considerable muscle.

L --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R
                                                                                                                               ^
                                                                                                                          Neo-cons (2008)

We the people said the Neo-con experiment was a colosal failure. We the people are going to see to it that the little arrow on that scale moves to the left.

The only ones who need be worried are the Neo-cons. I can't imagine Rs freaking out when the arrow move to mid-way... but they will. 

[dmastous]

L --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R
                                                                                                                               ^
                                                                                                                          Neo-cons (2008)

We the people said the Neo-con experiment was a colosal failure. We the people are going to see to it that the little arrow on that scale moves to the left.

The only ones who need be worried are the Neo-cons. I can't imagine Rs freaking out when the arrow move to mid-way... but they will. 

Didn't you notice. Bush was an imbedded liberal in a conservative's clothing. That arrow has been way left of your mark for that last 4 or 5 years. At least fiscally.

[monstertruck]

1.  I don't have blog.  Sad that you think this is a laughing matter.

2.  Interesting that a self-proclaimed 'progressive, liberal' would be in favor of limiting the powers of the minority.

3.  Only people that would like to retain their rights as individuals should be 'worried' or 'freaking out'.  Someone choosing to 'flex thieir considerable muscle' under
     the guise of 'We the People' will have to be careful that they continue to follow along with the rest of the lemmings lest their interests fall out of favor
     with those of their fellow comrades.   That should be relatively easy for someone like you Babble, you seem to get along great with everybody!

[BGT]

BGT
1.  So you won't serve your country?  I wonder how that arguement will stand up to the scrutiny of your fellow citizens.

There's plenty of other people who want to serve in the armed forces. Let them do it. My Bible trained conscious will not allow me to serve. Big props to those who do, like my father and 3 of my brothers and 4 cousins, I'm the dependent of a 100% disabled Vietnam War vet, and I reap the benefits of that with health insurance until I graduate and no college tuition... it's just not for me at all. And as for other citizens? I don't care what they think.

2.  How do you propose to defend that right once the your means of doing so have been taken away?

I'm a bit confused as to your reasoning for using the withdrawal timeline or armed forces dying into a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.
Using unrelated, emotionally charged topics as your rationale for impinging on a Constitutional right seems illogical to me.

Of course I don't want people to needlessly die.  I don't see how that has any bearing on this topic.

Well, my point was, what part of the 2nd amend were you referring to? Right to bear arms or right to a militia? What is he taking away? Your right to a gun or your right to form a militia? I'm really confused by what you think he will do? And if you think Obama is charming enough to change the Bill of Rights, then I'm sure you overestimate him.

And when I mentioned the time line (as I know) that is the only I've heard that the Obama admin is planning to do regarding the military.

[jeffrx]

It's a new world out there.  You know, Global and all.... Bush failed to realize that with computers and technology, we need to do things differently to thrive as a nation.  Obama understands more of the intricacies of this new, high-tech world and will move us in a forward-thinking direction, which will allow us to compete with China, India, and other developing nations who realize that this new technology will change everything.  Those who can adapt will thrive, those who can not will stagnate.  Bush and his crew failed to move us forward in any way, including education, computer technology for all, and green science.  Obama seems to understand these important issues.  That's why I'm glad we have him. 

I'd rather put a math book or a computer in a child's hand rather that a gun.

[BGT]

It's a new world out there.  You know, Global and all.... Bush failed to realize that with computers and technology, we need to do things differently to thrive as a nation.  Obama understands more of the intricacies of this new, high-tech world and will move us in a forward-thinking direction, which will allow us to compete with China, India, and other developing nations who realize that this new technology will change everything.  Those who can adapt will thrive, those who can not will stagnate.  Bush and his crew failed to move us forward in any way, including education, computer technology for all, and green science.  Obama seems to understand these important issues.  That's why I'm glad we have him. 

I'd rather put a math book or a computer in a child's hand rather that a gun.

I agree. Maybe I can't see eye to eye with you MT regarding the 2nd amendment because where I live, people are murdered everyday by guns. It wouldn't harm me at all to see the ease with which someone can obtain somewhat restricted.

[monstertruck]

BGT
1.  So you won't serve your country?  I wonder how that arguement will stand up to the scrutiny of your fellow citizens.

There's plenty of other people who want to serve in the armed forces. Let them do it. My Bible trained conscious will not allow me to serve. Big props to those who do, like my father and 3 of my brothers and 4 cousins, I'm the dependent of a 100% disabled Vietnam War vet, and I reap the benefits of that with health insurance until I graduate and no college tuition... it's just not for me at all. And as for other citizens? I don't care what they think.

2.  How do you propose to defend that right once the your means of doing so have been taken away?

I'm a bit confused as to your reasoning for using the withdrawal timeline or armed forces dying into a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.
Using unrelated, emotionally charged topics as your rationale for impinging on a Constitutional right seems illogical to me.

Of course I don't want people to needlessly die.  I don't see how that has any bearing on this topic.

Well, my point was, what part of the 2nd amend were you referring to? Right to bear arms or right to a militia? What is he taking away? Your right to a gun or your right to form a militia? I'm really confused by what you think he will do? And if you think Obama is charming enough to change the Bill of Rights, then I'm sure you overestimate him.

And when I mentioned the time line (as I know) that is the only I've heard that the Obama admin is planning to do regarding the military.

I'll have to check further and see if you'll be excused as a concientious objector.
I can't imagine the attitude of 'let someone else do it' will go over very well.
Does anyone know what the justification is for having a Civil Force made up of Mandatory volunteers?

To clarify, I mean the right to own a gun.( i.e. personal property rights.  ) 
Obama has already stated that he is all about changing the constitution.  I think you underestimate him.
There is a 'New Deal' coming the likes of which has never been seen in the U.S.  I'd like to go on record as saying it's going to be a 'Raw Deal'.



The text from Obama’s change.gov website, which went online shortly after the election result, originally appeared as follows-

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

The text was changed at some point on Friday afternoon/evening to the following-

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

 

On a separate area of the website, the program was also described under the heading “Require 100 hours of service in college,” but this has also since disappeared.

Clearly, the use of the word “require” suggested that the program would be mandatory, stoking fears that such community service programs would be one aspect of Obama’s promised “civilian national security force” that is “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military.

[BGT]

BGT
1.  So you won't serve your country?  I wonder how that arguement will stand up to the scrutiny of your fellow citizens.

There's plenty of other people who want to serve in the armed forces. Let them do it. My Bible trained conscious will not allow me to serve. Big props to those who do, like my father and 3 of my brothers and 4 cousins, I'm the dependent of a 100% disabled Vietnam War vet, and I reap the benefits of that with health insurance until I graduate and no college tuition... it's just not for me at all. And as for other citizens? I don't care what they think.

2.  How do you propose to defend that right once the your means of doing so have been taken away?

I'm a bit confused as to your reasoning for using the withdrawal timeline or armed forces dying into a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.
Using unrelated, emotionally charged topics as your rationale for impinging on a Constitutional right seems illogical to me.

Of course I don't want people to needlessly die.  I don't see how that has any bearing on this topic.

Well, my point was, what part of the 2nd amend were you referring to? Right to bear arms or right to a militia? What is he taking away? Your right to a gun or your right to form a militia? I'm really confused by what you think he will do? And if you think Obama is charming enough to change the Bill of Rights, then I'm sure you overestimate him.

And when I mentioned the time line (as I know) that is the only I've heard that the Obama admin is planning to do regarding the military.

I'll have to check further and see if you'll be excused as a concientious objector.
I can't imagine the attitude of 'let someone else do it' will go over very well.
Does anyone know what the justification is for having a Civil Force made up of Mandatory volunteers?

To clarify, I mean the right to own a gun.( i.e. personal property rights.  ) 
Obama has already stated that he is all about changing the constitution.  I think you underestimate him.
There is a 'New Deal' coming the likes of which has never been seen in the U.S.  I'd like to go on record as saying it's going to be a 'Raw Deal'.



The text from Obama’s change.gov website, which went online shortly after the election result, originally appeared as follows-

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

The text was changed at some point on Friday afternoon/evening to the following-

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

 

On a separate area of the website, the program was also described under the heading “Require 100 hours of service in college,” but this has also since disappeared.

Clearly, the use of the word “require” suggested that the program would be mandatory, stoking fears that such community service programs would be one aspect of Obama’s promised “civilian national security force” that is “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Not trying to sound condescending, but I don't know where you're going with this.