Why

[GS78]

President Obama , one nation , under attack.

Is this really the best way to climb out of this economic pit we find ourselves in?... and next time , maybe we could elect a pro capitalist.....just sayin....


http://www.silobreaker.com/obama-attack ... 1257590784



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 997681.ece

___________________________________________________
The senator also said he expects Obama to use the Jan. 27 nationally televised address before Congress to embrace creation of a commission that would suggest spending cuts and tax increases that Congress would be forced to vote on. Bayh met this week with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag to discuss such a commission.

Bayh said he doubts Congress would approve establishment of such an independent panel, and that Obama would have to set it up by executive fiat.

Getting the 60 votes likely needed for Senate passage of a bill to create the commission “will be very hard,” said Bayh, a second-term Democrat who will face voters in this fall’s midterm elections. He said that as a result, he expects Obama to “then come forward with an executive commission which is not as good, but is at least there’s a step in the right direction.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... pJ5uNs8bNc

______________________________________________

LONDON/PARIS (Reuters) – Major European economies offered support on Friday for U.S. President Barack Obama's plan to limit banks' size and trading activities but indicated they had no plans to follow suit.

Obama's dramatic proposals could rewrite the world financial order but experts said they were light on detail and could cloud the global approach fostered by the Group of 20 nations.

The European Union will not imitate Obama's plan, because it aims to reduce risk in the sector through other means, an EU source said on Friday.

"Look, we understand the U.S. position and we understand his reasons. But I can't see the EU going down this route," the source, who is close to EU financial policymaking, told Reuters.

"The U.S. finds itself a little behind us on this. The Obama plan is not fit for the purpose in the EU."

Obama made his proposals on Thursday, saying he was ready to fight resistance from Wall Street banks he blamed for helping cause the global financial crisis.

The plan would prevent banks from investing in, owning or sponsoring a hedge fund or private equity fund.

It would set a new limit on banks' size in relation to the overall financial sector and, perhaps most dramatically, could also bar institutions from proprietary trading operations, which are unrelated to serving customers, for their own profit.

Proprietary trading involves firms making bets on markets with their own money and has been the source of much of banks' bumper profits before and after the financial crisis.

French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde welcomed the proposal, saying it was a "very, very good step forward."

UK Treasury Minister Paul Myners said Britain already had acted to address problems in its banking industry.

"He's developing a solution to what he sees as the American issues, we've already taken the necessary action in the UK," Myners said in an interview with Reuters Insider TV.

But Britain's opposition Conservatives, tipped by polls to win an election to be held by June, offered more solid support.

"President Obama has created a lot of space for the rest of the world to come up with what I think would be a sensible system of international rules," Conservative finance spokesman George Osborne told BBC Radio.

"I have said consistently that we should look at separating retail banking from activities like large-scale propriety trading and that this was best done internationally."

DOUBTS REMAIN

Doubts remain as to whether Obama's scheme can be enacted unchanged, not least since his party lost a key Senate seat this week, depriving it of a "super majority" in that house.

But it will strike a popular chord.

Banks' return to paying massive bonuses has prompted public and media outrage in the United States and Europe after taxpayer money was used to bail out many of them.

Wall Street sold off on Thursday and the threat that other countries will follow Obama's lead rattled European lenders.

The EU source, who declined to be named, said the 27-nation bloc would focus on raising banks' capital requirements and tightening financial regulation, pursuing initiatives already under way in the European Parliament.

"The Obama plan is really back to the future. These sort of plans were implemented after the Great Depression and then taken away in the '60s. He is sort of reinstating the same plans to deal with this crisis," the source said.

"What is key to remember is that the U.S. is one market, the EU is 27 markets and we are trying to encourage cross-border financial services and more importantly consolidation in both national and trans-national markets. The Obama plan would be anti-competitive in EU terms."

The source said most top banks in the world were American or had roots there, so it was understandable that Obama wanted to curb their size.

"The EU does not have so many 'too big to fail' institutions, to be honest. Also, we have already started restructuring of our banks, forcing them to downsize, sell off units and open up to newcomers."

WILL IT FLY?

Washington will have to gain worldwide support for its measures or risk international banks fleeing its shores.

In September, a summit of Group of 20 leaders hosted by Obama called for crackdowns on bankers' bonuses and a build-up in banks' capital.

But while there are still signs of international intent, different centers are increasingly pursuing different paths.

An official involved in the global regulation process said many in Europe were caught on the hop.

"Everybody was coordinating their work through the G20, the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee," the official said. "Nobody knows the details or whether other countries may follow. This is creating regulatory confusion."

______________________________________________

Obama embraced many of Alinsky's tactics and recently said his years as an organizer gave him the best education of his life.
______________________________________________
Alinsky was a bluff iconoclast who concluded that electoral politics offered few solutions to the have-nots marooned in working-class slums. His approach to social justice relied on generating conflict to mobilize the dispossessed.
____________________________________________
In Artful Dodger style, Barack Obama, plays down his mentorship with Communist author Saul Alinsky. But Alinsky’s son, L. David Alinsky, credits Obama for “learning his lesson well” from the Communist guru.

Indeed, Alinsky Jr. who credits his late father for the success of last week’s Democratic National Convention, may have done something that Obama’s detractors couldn’t: blown the cover on the presidential hopeful’s communist leanings.

No one can blame Alinsky for the pretentiousness of the Ancient Greek Temple from which Obama addressed plebes, or for the tacky neon colours on display at the Pepsi Centre, but it was Alinsky who wrote Rules for Radicals, the bible of the far left.

Says Alinsky’s son L. David Alinsky of his father’s influence at the Dem Convention: “ALL the elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situation and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd’s chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people.”

“The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style, the Communist guru’s son wrote in a letter published yesterday in the Boston Globe.

The Artful Dodger may be less than pleased that he has been pegged as a Saul Alinsky Poster Boy by the guru’s own son.

“Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness,” Alinsky Jr. wrote to the Globe. “It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

“I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4784
_____________________________________________
"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." p.10

(rules for radicals)(Alinsky 1971)

____________________________________________

"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...." pp.10-11

______________________________________________

Alinsky's tactics were based, not on Stalin's revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci's transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.

Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins's wrath by suggesting that Lenin's revolutionary plan wouldn't work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:

"By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible.... Gramsci's master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity's transcendent God."


....and here we are , in spite of the "tea partys", the marches on D.C., the town hall meetings, the anger of the majority of the american people.....our president has vowed to "press on" until he can pass his agenda regardless of the people....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1BM9HM.DTL

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... obs23.html

__________________________________________________

"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent... He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises....
"The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict." p.117

........................................

ok I know its a long post.......I'm tired..........but Im just getting started......

[graybeard321]

Anything would be better than the Socialist That is currently in office.
Not really sure how this supreme court decision is going to affect elections, but I can now see big business's donating large amounts of money to elect officials who will help them and I see unions donating large amounts of money to put more liberals and socialist in to office. I guess either way the American people lose.

[zephyp]

obama came out Wednesday morning and said ok, we gotta focus on jobs - I get it. Then what does he do? Turns right around and starts hammering banks, talks about tax increases. I am more convinced than ever that he is out to destroy our economy as a means to push the country in socialism. Many think he doesnt get it or he is stupid. Dont be fooled. He is very intelligent, knows exactly what we want, and knows exactly how to get what he wants.

Regarding him attacking the SCOTUS decision on campaign reform...that is downright heinous. If we cant depend on a ruling from SCOTUS to stand (whether we agree with it or not) then where do we go from there. They are supposed to be our last and final line of defense regarding Constitutionality. If obama overturns SCOTUS decisions then we are indeed doomed. Also, then why have a SCOTUS to begin with...

[VBshooter]

A fine example of his disdain for the Constitution .. The man hates it!! It stands in his way to utopia of a Socialist America where everyone bows down to him..He amounts to a walking ego with a big mouth, nothing more.He shows his lack of ability to be the President of this country the longer he stays in office.. His little tirade in Ohio was a joke, I was waiting for him to start stamping his feet and bawling for a lolli pop.He reminded me of some high school freshman running for class office.His blatant disregard for the people is dangerous to say the least,, Makes ya wonder if he really is going off the deep end and about to do something really stupid in addition to the boners he has done already.

[zephyp]

Well, I'll say it again - the man is very smart and he knows exactly what he is doing. Dont be fooled into thinking he's an idiot or incompetent just because he's moving in a direction we hate. For this reason he is a danger to our country and will use this notion that people think he's "out of touch" against us.

[gatlingun6]

obama came out Wednesday morning and said ok, we gotta focus on jobs - I get it. Then what does he do? Turns right around and starts hammering banks, talks about tax increases. I am more convinced than ever that he is out to destroy our economy as a means to push the country in socialism. Many think he doesnt get it or he is stupid. Dont be fooled. He is very intelligent, knows exactly what we want, and knows exactly how to get what he wants.

Regarding him attacking the SCOTUS decision on campaign reform...that is downright heinous. If we cant depend on a ruling from SCOTUS to stand (whether we agree with it or not) then where do we go from there. They are supposed to be our last and final line of defense regarding Constitutionality. If obama overturns SCOTUS decisions then we are indeed doomed. Also, then why have a SCOTUS to begin with...

lol I about fell out of my chair. You mean Zephyp is defending SCOTUS? Hypocrisy knows no bounds! One thing the recent SCOTUS decision lays to rest is all those so-called Constitutional theories like original-ism, strict construction-ism, literalism and natural laws. I agree with justice Alito when he wrote in a memo, for the Reagan administration, after a SCOTUS defeat: We don't need new laws, what we need is new judges. So Mr Z you are in tune with the decision? You too believe that corporations have the same rights as human beings?

You are OK with money from US corporations owned by Arabs, the French, Russians, etc pouring into US elections on an unrestricted basis? Since you fancy yourself as a Constitutional scholar, how about you tell us when and how the Framers were so concerned about Corporations. When and how did they decide to grant a non-human, human status?

While you're at it please express your total displeasure with Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush for also criticizing SCOTUS decisions? Oh that's right I forgot. It's only Obama or any Democrat who meets with your ire! I'll give Republicans credit, apparently they have so fooled you until they can do whatever they want and you're in their corner. All they have to do is pay a little rhetorical lip-service and like a good foot soldier you follow their orders!

Btw Mr. Constitution in your feigned horror did you forget that the President leads a separate branch of government and does not in any way have to concur and agree with Supreme Court decisions? Abide by the decision yes, but agree no, take no action to reverse the decision, not necessarily. Have you forgotten all the Republican President who have openly and consistently excoriated SCOTUS about Roe V Wade. Your bent to take issue with anything and everything this President does or says puts your hypocrisy on display with increasing frequency! So now we can say that Mr Z was against SCOTUS decisions before he was for them! And of course you have forgotten that SCOTUS is not God, they are mortal humans whose decisions can be reversed!

Respectfully
Jim

[zephyp]

Dear Jim,

As I said sport, if we cant depend on rulings from SCOTUS to stand (whether we agree with them or not - as long as they are in agreement with our precious Constitution) then we are doomed. Regarding fearless leader's disagreement, he not only disagreed but urged congress to pass legislation that would usurp the ruling. And, corporations having Constitutional rights is not the issue. The issue is if the media, which are indeed corporations, can pump millions into candidate support or dissension then other corporations should be able to do the same thing. SCOTUS also ruled that unions can do the same thing which should please you and those like you.

Lastly, since you have ignored my friendly reminder to refrain from flaming other members, I'll post one here publicly. You have obviously not read the PM I sent you on 21 Jan as its still in my outbox and you continue to flame other members. As I have stated before, you are welcome to post freely here but please refrain from flaming other members. There are better ways to get your point across which will cause less dissension. We can have open and honest debate without name calling and harsh diatribe. The aforementioned PM was a friendly reminder. This is a warning.

Warm regards,
DK

[GS78]

see my thread " I'm sorry, Its not my fault"


Obammy blamed everybody and everything except himself. He made an enormous ass of himself, once again.

[allingeneral]

While you're at it please express your total displeasure with Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush for also criticizing SCOTUS decisions? Oh that's right I forgot. It's only Obama or any Democrat who meets with your ire!

Why do you insist on bringing up the past when it isn't applicable to the current situation? You don't know how any one of us did or didn't feel about Reagan's or Bush's (1 and 2) presidencies. We may have very well been climbing the walls regarding some of the decisions that were made. Since there was no internet back then, we were unable to really get the word out about how we felt other than to go to the local diner for some coffee and discuss with a couple of close friends.

Now, we have a president who is pushing a progressive, dare I say Socialist agenda, and since people have the internet to use as a tool for standing up for their beliefs, it's being used for exactly that.

I don't know how many times I've listened to or read the words from people like you about "Bush this" and "Reagan that". None of it matters because it's water under the bridge. We have issue with the current situation, and speak about it, we shall.

[zephyp]

[fireman836]

Where's Bluemont it's his turn.

[OakRidgeStars]

move along folks... nothing to see here

[gatlingun6]

Dear Jim,

As I said sport, if we cant depend on rulings from SCOTUS to stand (whether we agree with them or not - as long as they are in agreement with our precious Constitution) then we are doomed. Regarding fearless leader's disagreement, he not only disagreed but urged congress to pass legislation that would usurp the ruling. And, corporations having Constitutional rights is not the issue. The issue is if the media, which are indeed corporations, can pump millions into candidate support or dissension then other corporations should be able to do the same thing. SCOTUS also ruled that unions can do the same thing which should please you and those like you.

Lastly, since you have ignored my friendly reminder to refrain from flaming other members, I'll post one here publicly. You have obviously not read the PM I sent you on 21 Jan as its still in my outbox and you continue to flame other members. As I have stated before, you are welcome to post freely here but please refrain from flaming other members. There are better ways to get your point across which will cause less dissension. We can have open and honest debate without name calling and harsh diatribe. The aforementioned PM was a friendly reminder. This is a warning.

Warm regards,
DK

1. If you wish to discontinue my ability to post here, that's your right. I do not own this site so have no right to censor, apparently you do. My perceptions also do not matter, but yours do. The fact is I have been flamed by you and others on a consistent basis. You and others question my patriotism, think I ought to leave the country, disparage me personally at will, make deleterious assumptions, and anything else you feel moved to write that is negative. Then you have a good chuckle about it as you pat yourselves on the back in follow-up posts.

2. Members have posted cartoons with a person's head stuck up his ass, or of a person vomiting as if that's me. And I'm the flamer? People have challenged me with lines like: He sounds like a person who has never pulled the trigger, or did he serve? Apparently it’s OK to belittle people if they haven’t served or pulled a trigger. What do comments like that have to do with any issue? Nothing, they are only intended as personal insults. When you call people stupid, dumb and idiots because they did not vote for your candidate, or you assume they didn't, you are personally attacking me, my family and my friends. I have even been called gay, simply because I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to serve openly in the Armed Forces.

3. Another example was your line about Arlington National cemetery. How do you know I do not have loved ones, relatives, buddies and/or friends interred there? How do you know I'm not the parent of a politically liberal son, daughter, or spouse who is interred there; or how do you know I don't have a gay son, or lesbian daughter interred there? Did you even stop to think that your statement could be considered a personal affront to anyone in any of the preceding situations?
4. In fact when it comes to those with a different perspective than yours almost no insult has been off limits. And I get a warning? Isn't that a double standard? Not once have I seen a single comment from you to the effect, hey folks let's not get personal. Did you send them a warning too? If you like I'll be perfectly happy to list everything written about me as a person. But that's not necessary because it’s absolutely immaterial to me, what anyone says or however they say it about me. I won't complain, I'm a big boy so personal insults have not one scintilla of effect. I'm not interested in personal assignation, and make every attempt to not do so.

5. Personal attacks have much to do with one's perception. You have made it quite clear that your perception counts, whereas mine doesn’t. I fear that the real problem is you simply don’t like my stance on the issues. Your solution is to cut off debate, that's too bad. I wondered why more dissenting voices were not present. Now I know why, the fact is they are censored off the site. I noticed that anyone who lends the slightest support to any post of mine is immediately slammed by the same few individuals who constantly slam me. The fact is you need to hear what I think, and I need to hear what you think.

6. It was my mistake to think this was a site about all things gun. I originally signed on because I wanted to know where were the best ranges, which gun shops were best, which gun show dealers/tables were the best for purchasing Glocks, AR type weapons, military weapons, ammunition and accessories? Such questions as who has built an AR15, did they start from a stripped lower and upper? Who handled the FLL? Where did they purchase the parts? A gun show? Online? That is why I stayed. There is indeed a great deal of information about many of the topics I was interested in. But I quickly found out there is another side to this site. A side that is totally and completely partisan, where political differences are simply not tolerated. This side of the site conducts a pervasive and sustained personal attack on anyone who does not conform to the party line. It belittles and makes fun of people with different views, and gos to any length to disparage, and attempt to delegitimize the President. It's a world where there are only 2 types of people the right kind, you and the wrong kind everyone else. You feel free to write almost any negative thing about the "wrongs". Then you seem surprised that someone would find much of that offensive.

7. It's as if you are shocked to find a gun owner who strongly disagrees with your characterization of other Americans. There seems to be a belief that gun owners are all of the same political persuasion, they are not. I'm proof positive of that fact and know plenty of other gun owners all across the country who feel the same. Here are some other facts: most Americans do not own a gun. Fact 2, the fastest growing demographic in America are less likely to own a gun. Fact 3, hunting as a sport continues to decline in America. Considering the preceding is it wise to alienate, demonize, and attempt to marginalize the majority of American Citizens? You have posted more than anyone and it’s a litany of sometimes vicious and always negative commentary, any and everyone who disagrees with you on anything is a pejorative liberal. You are not in the least bit hesitant in writing about people with contempt and disdain. Yet you demand I follow rules than you don’t. Perhaps you don’t see it, perhaps you think its humor, whatever you think I can honestly tell you that it comes across as ugly and stereotypical of how too many Americans see gun owners.

8. Here's one small example, from your post in our disagreement on the SCOTUS United decision: "SCOTUS also ruled that unions can do the same thing which should please you and those like you." That line is a personal statement about me. Now why would you think allowing unions to pour money into politics would find favor with me? Do you think I'm a member of a union? How do you know I’m not a manager? The intent of that line was obviously a personal dig at me as a person. Why? Because you have never written a single thing positive about unions, to you they are evil. The fact is I oppose unions, corporations, and individuals pouring money into political campaigns. Political campaigns should all be publicly financed. I also don't buy money as free speech. Why? Because money can be used to stifle and shutoff free speech, so I want the money out of electoral politics. I want to see anyone who can get enough signatures able to run, not just the millionaires or those financed by millionaires.

9. The SCOTUS can and does make wrong headed decisions, but that's unimportant since a bad decision is often in the eyes of the beholder. For example Brown V Board of Education, that decision did not find favor with southern states, not only did many states oppose the decision, they ignored it and continued right on with segregated school systems. It took the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Federal force and Federal Court takeovers to even begin to enforce the decision. Roe V Wade saw every Republican President since that decision in opposition. Protesters of that decision still march in Washington on the anniversary of the SCOTUS decision. Gore V Bush: States right people and proponents of the 10th Amendment thought this was wrongly decided. Hamdi V Bush SCOTUS decided stripping detainees in Gitmo of the right of Habeas Corpus was Unconstitutional. I'll bet you neither agreed with nor defended SCOTUS on that decision. Similarly another SCOTUS decision decided that the President's Military Courts for GITMO detainees were also unconstitutional, again I suspect you did not defend this SCOTUS decision either. President Bush and his people spoke out against these decisions, the same President Obama is speaking out against the United decision.

10. As coequal branches of government no President or legislator is obligated to refrain from criticizing a SCOTUS decision. They often go on to reverse SCOTUS decision's by legislation usually, or more rarely Amendment. The Lily Leadbetter Act that deals with gender discrimination was a bill that overturned a SCOTUS decision. In my opinion the current SCOTUS is an activist court, and is an example of be careful what you ask. This SCOTUS has been most consistent in its rulings in favor of corporations. They could be considered the corporate court. What evangelicals thought they were getting with the appointment of Justice Roberts was a court that would overturn Roe V Wade. That remains to be seen since they have not granted cert to any abortion case.

11. I have written over and over that ideological rigidity makes no sense in the real world. You claim the opposite with your posts. Yet here you are on the ALCU’s side and I’m in opposition. So who is taking the liberal view of the Constitution, you are. Who is being conservative and positing that SCOTUS should have upheld precedence, I am. I simply see no intent on the part of the Framers that the Bill of Rights should be applicable to the corporations. Nothing I found in the Federalists Papers spoke to that issue. If corporations had been denied any ability to speak in the political arena maybe I would agree with SCOTUS. But corporations do speak long, loud and clear through an army of lobbyists and money. In essence the decisions give corporations rights without the responsibilities or accountability of human beings.

12. In the last Presidential election $2.4 billion was spent by the candidates, and that did not count spending during the primary phase. The 2006 midterms saw Oil and Gas industry spending $14 million, health care concerns spent $72 million, financial services and insurance industries $190 million. To run for a Congressional seat you had better have a minimum million dollars, and even more for the Senate. From their first day in office their major activity is raising money. In VA a delegate is paid roughly $18K per yr which works out to apprx $38 dollars a day provided they only work 8 hrs a day, which is impossible. Who pays over $500,000, the average cost of a campaign, for that kind of pay?

13. Is this what you think the framers intended? Do you think all this corporate money goes to benefit you or me? Exxon/Mobil had profits of $45 billion last year. SCOTUS says, if they wanted to spend every last penny supporting or opposing a candidate they can. Worse still, the Exxon/Mobil’s of the world can now hint that should a candidate support an anti-big oil position they are prepared to roll out a multi-million dollar campaign to defeat them. Under this ruling what stops foreign owners of US Corporations from funding political ads. All manner of skull duggery is now permitted.

14. There are corporations that opposed the SCOTUS decision. Why? Because they are tired of the incessant calls for money from politicians. I also ask how they can eliminate spending limits on constitutional grounds but keep limits on coordinating the spending directly with candidates. What compelling interest does the Federal Government have in prohibiting a corporation that can spend unlimited amounts from coordinating directly with the campaign? If money is protected speech why is spending money now unrestricted, but contributing money is still restricted. At least Justice Thomas was consistent, he wanted to eliminate any and all campaign finance restrictions.

15. If ever there was an issue where you and I should agree, this is it. Neither you nor I are well served by unlimited money in electoral politics. Corporations already wield enormous influence in our political system. This decision gives them even more power. This decision directly benefits incumbents. Finally, does your Representative or Senator allow you to write portions of legislation, or does he answer your call personally, or have lunch or dinner with you when you ask? I’ll leave it at that.
Respectfully
Jim

[gatlingun6]

While you're at it please express your total displeasure with Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush for also criticizing SCOTUS decisions? Oh that's right I forgot. It's only Obama or any Democrat who meets with your ire!

Why do you insist on bringing up the past when it isn't applicable to the current situation? You don't know how any one of us did or didn't feel about Reagan's or Bush's (1 and 2) presidencies. We may have very well been climbing the walls regarding some of the decisions that were made. Since there was no internet back then, we were unable to really get the word out about how we felt other than to go to the local diner for some coffee and discuss with a couple of close friends.

Now, we have a president who is pushing a progressive, dare I say Socialist agenda, and since people have the internet to use as a tool for standing up for their beliefs, it's being used for exactly that.

I don't know how many times I've listened to or read the words from people like you about "Bush this" and "Reagan that". None of it matters because it's water under the bridge. We have issue with the current situation, and speak about it, we shall.

The past is always relevant. As one observer wrote the past is really not about the past, it is about the present. If you read my previous lengthy post you will see what I meant. For example, President Bush, VP Cheney and certain members of Congress vehemently disagreed with SCOTUS decisions about GITMO detainee rights and the ability of the the President to indefinitely detain American citizens. The two problems I had with some of the posts were: 1. Was there consistency did people complaining about Obama, also complain about Bush and every other President who opposed SCOTUS decisions, and wanted to do something to overturn it. I believe there are 5 separate bills in Congress that would reverse the United decision; however, I don't think a one would pass the Constitutional Amendment. What I opposed was the sentiment that somehow the President should shut-up once SCOTUS decides an issue. 2. SCOTUS has the last word only if the other 2 branches allow it. Congress can and does craft legislation to overturn SCOTUS rulings, then there is the Amendment process. If SCOTUS overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, I'm guessing that many of you would demand a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. Evangelicals and some politicians still want a Constitutional amendment to effectively overturn Roe V Wade.

Btw could you please flesh out with specificity what is this so-called socialist agenda? What is the President proposing that's beyond the already accepted elements of small d democratic socialism within our society, and have been an integral part of the American fabric for years? Since the term socialism has so many different precepts across a wide political spectrum can you define what you mean? Here's the standard definition: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. If you are saying he is pushing us towards that definition. Please state how he wants to do that when every economic adviser both formal and informal are all capitalists? And most are so-called free market capitalists.
Respectfully
Jim

[moss20]

Dear Jim,

As I said sport, if we cant depend on rulings from SCOTUS to stand (whether we agree with them or not - as long as they are in agreement with our precious Constitution) then we are doomed. Regarding fearless leader's disagreement, he not only disagreed but urged congress to pass legislation that would usurp the ruling. And, corporations having Constitutional rights is not the issue. The issue is if the media, which are indeed corporations, can pump millions into candidate support or dissension then other corporations should be able to do the same thing. SCOTUS also ruled that unions can do the same thing which should please you and those like you.

Lastly, since you have ignored my friendly reminder to refrain from flaming other members, I'll post one here publicly. You have obviously not read the PM I sent you on 21 Jan as its still in my outbox and you continue to flame other members. As I have stated before, you are welcome to post freely here but please refrain from flaming other members. There are better ways to get your point across which will cause less dissension. We can have open and honest debate without name calling and harsh diatribe. The aforementioned PM was a friendly reminder. This is a warning.

Warm regards,
DK

1. If you wish to discontinue my ability to post here, that's your right. I do not own this site so have no right to censor, apparently you do. My perceptions also do not matter, but yours do. The fact is I have been flamed by you and others on a consistent basis. You and others question my patriotism, think I ought to leave the country, disparage me personally at will, make deleterious assumptions, and anything else you feel moved to write that is negative. Then you have a good chuckle about it as you pat yourselves on the back in follow-up posts.

2. Members have posted cartoons with a person's head stuck up his ass, or of a person vomiting as if that's me. And I'm the flamer? People have challenged me with lines like: He sounds like a person who has never pulled the trigger, or did he serve? Apparently it’s OK to belittle people if they haven’t served or pulled a trigger. What do comments like that have to do with any issue? Nothing, they are only intended as personal insults. When you call people stupid, dumb and idiots because they did not vote for your candidate, or you assume they didn't, you are personally attacking me, my family and my friends. I have even been called gay, simply because I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to serve openly in the Armed Forces.

3. Another example was your line about Arlington National cemetery. How do you know I do not have loved ones, relatives, buddies and/or friends interred there? How do you know I'm not the parent of a politically liberal son, daughter, or spouse who is interred there; or how do you know I don't have a gay son, or lesbian daughter interred there? Did you even stop to think that your statement could be considered a personal affront to anyone in any of the preceding situations?
4. In fact when it comes to those with a different perspective than yours almost no insult has been off limits. And I get a warning? Isn't that a double standard? Not once have I seen a single comment from you to the effect, hey folks let's not get personal. Did you send them a warning too? If you like I'll be perfectly happy to list everything written about me as a person. But that's not necessary because it’s absolutely immaterial to me, what anyone says or however they say it about me. I won't complain, I'm a big boy so personal insults have not one scintilla of effect. I'm not interested in personal assignation, and make every attempt to not do so.

5. Personal attacks have much to do with one's perception. You have made it quite clear that your perception counts, whereas mine doesn’t. I fear that the real problem is you simply don’t like my stance on the issues. Your solution is to cut off debate, that's too bad. I wondered why more dissenting voices were not present. Now I know why, the fact is they are censored off the site. I noticed that anyone who lends the slightest support to any post of mine is immediately slammed by the same few individuals who constantly slam me. The fact is you need to hear what I think, and I need to hear what you think.

6. It was my mistake to think this was a site about all things gun. I originally signed on because I wanted to know where were the best ranges, which gun shops were best, which gun show dealers/tables were the best for purchasing Glocks, AR type weapons, military weapons, ammunition and accessories? Such questions as who has built an AR15, did they start from a stripped lower and upper? Who handled the FLL? Where did they purchase the parts? A gun show? Online? That is why I stayed. There is indeed a great deal of information about many of the topics I was interested in. But I quickly found out there is another side to this site. A side that is totally and completely partisan, where political differences are simply not tolerated. This side of the site conducts a pervasive and sustained personal attack on anyone who does not conform to the party line. It belittles and makes fun of people with different views, and gos to any length to disparage, and attempt to delegitimize the President. It's a world where there are only 2 types of people the right kind, you and the wrong kind everyone else. You feel free to write almost any negative thing about the "wrongs". Then you seem surprised that someone would find much of that offensive.

7. It's as if you are shocked to find a gun owner who strongly disagrees with your characterization of other Americans. There seems to be a belief that gun owners are all of the same political persuasion, they are not. I'm proof positive of that fact and know plenty of other gun owners all across the country who feel the same. Here are some other facts: most Americans do not own a gun. Fact 2, the fastest growing demographic in America are less likely to own a gun. Fact 3, hunting as a sport continues to decline in America. Considering the preceding is it wise to alienate, demonize, and attempt to marginalize the majority of American Citizens? You have posted more than anyone and it’s a litany of sometimes vicious and always negative commentary, any and everyone who disagrees with you on anything is a pejorative liberal. You are not in the least bit hesitant in writing about people with contempt and disdain. Yet you demand I follow rules than you don’t. Perhaps you don’t see it, perhaps you think its humor, whatever you think I can honestly tell you that it comes across as ugly and stereotypical of how too many Americans see gun owners.

8. Here's one small example, from your post in our disagreement on the SCOTUS United decision: "SCOTUS also ruled that unions can do the same thing which should please you and those like you." That line is a personal statement about me. Now why would you think allowing unions to pour money into politics would find favor with me? Do you think I'm a member of a union? How do you know I’m not a manager? The intent of that line was obviously a personal dig at me as a person. Why? Because you have never written a single thing positive about unions, to you they are evil. The fact is I oppose unions, corporations, and individuals pouring money into political campaigns. Political campaigns should all be publicly financed. I also don't buy money as free speech. Why? Because money can be used to stifle and shutoff free speech, so I want the money out of electoral politics. I want to see anyone who can get enough signatures able to run, not just the millionaires or those financed by millionaires.

9. The SCOTUS can and does make wrong headed decisions, but that's unimportant since a bad decision is often in the eyes of the beholder. For example Brown V Board of Education, that decision did not find favor with southern states, not only did many states oppose the decision, they ignored it and continued right on with segregated school systems. It took the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Federal force and Federal Court takeovers to even begin to enforce the decision. Roe V Wade saw every Republican President since that decision in opposition. Protesters of that decision still march in Washington on the anniversary of the SCOTUS decision. Gore V Bush: States right people and proponents of the 10th Amendment thought this was wrongly decided. Hamdi V Bush SCOTUS decided stripping detainees in Gitmo of the right of Habeas Corpus was Unconstitutional. I'll bet you neither agreed with nor defended SCOTUS on that decision. Similarly another SCOTUS decision decided that the President's Military Courts for GITMO detainees were also unconstitutional, again I suspect you did not defend this SCOTUS decision either. President Bush and his people spoke out against these decisions, the same President Obama is speaking out against the United decision.

10. As coequal branches of government no President or legislator is obligated to refrain from criticizing a SCOTUS decision. They often go on to reverse SCOTUS decision's by legislation usually, or more rarely Amendment. The Lily Leadbetter Act that deals with gender discrimination was a bill that overturned a SCOTUS decision. In my opinion the current SCOTUS is an activist court, and is an example of be careful what you ask. This SCOTUS has been most consistent in its rulings in favor of corporations. They could be considered the corporate court. What evangelicals thought they were getting with the appointment of Justice Roberts was a court that would overturn Roe V Wade. That remains to be seen since they have not granted cert to any abortion case.

11. I have written over and over that ideological rigidity makes no sense in the real world. You claim the opposite with your posts. Yet here you are on the ALCU’s side and I’m in opposition. So who is taking the liberal view of the Constitution, you are. Who is being conservative and positing that SCOTUS should have upheld precedence, I am. I simply see no intent on the part of the Framers that the Bill of Rights should be applicable to the corporations. Nothing I found in the Federalists Papers spoke to that issue. If corporations had been denied any ability to speak in the political arena maybe I would agree with SCOTUS. But corporations do speak long, loud and clear through an army of lobbyists and money. In essence the decisions give corporations rights without the responsibilities or accountability of human beings.

12. In the last Presidential election $2.4 billion was spent by the candidates, and that did not count spending during the primary phase. The 2006 midterms saw Oil and Gas industry spending $14 million, health care concerns spent $72 million, financial services and insurance industries $190 million. To run for a Congressional seat you had better have a minimum million dollars, and even more for the Senate. From their first day in office their major activity is raising money. In VA a delegate is paid roughly $18K per yr which works out to apprx $38 dollars a day provided they only work 8 hrs a day, which is impossible. Who pays over $500,000, the average cost of a campaign, for that kind of pay?

13. Is this what you think the framers intended? Do you think all this corporate money goes to benefit you or me? Exxon/Mobil had profits of $45 billion last year. SCOTUS says, if they wanted to spend every last penny supporting or opposing a candidate they can. Worse still, the Exxon/Mobil’s of the world can now hint that should a candidate support an anti-big oil position they are prepared to roll out a multi-million dollar campaign to defeat them. Under this ruling what stops foreign owners of US Corporations from funding political ads. All manner of skull duggery is now permitted.

14. There are corporations that opposed the SCOTUS decision. Why? Because they are tired of the incessant calls for money from politicians. I also ask how they can eliminate spending limits on constitutional grounds but keep limits on coordinating the spending directly with candidates. What compelling interest does the Federal Government have in prohibiting a corporation that can spend unlimited amounts from coordinating directly with the campaign? If money is protected speech why is spending money now unrestricted, but contributing money is still restricted. At least Justice Thomas was consistent, he wanted to eliminate any and all campaign finance restrictions.

15. If ever there was an issue where you and I should agree, this is it. Neither you nor I are well served by unlimited money in electoral politics. Corporations already wield enormous influence in our political system. This decision gives them even more power. This decision directly benefits incumbents. Finally, does your Representative or Senator allow you to write portions of legislation, or does he answer your call personally, or have lunch or dinner with you when you ask? I’ll leave it at that.
Respectfully
Jim

Jim
I believe this is the best post of yours that I have read on this forum. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but you made some good points. Most of your other posts on political topics have been hard to read due to a lack of substance( no harm intended--just my opinion).

Maybe I missed them, but I have not seen any posts by you concerning ranges, guns, etc. Most of your post are attacking a post or opinion on a political issue--usually with a very liberal viewpoint, which is your Constitutional right. You have been a little nasty with a few members here, and some have returned it in kind. Just as a suggestion--why not focus on the gun related topics and avoid the political ones. I would like to see you stay a member here and be able to contribute to the forum.

I don't post comments or my opinion to a lot of post here, because they would be considered hasrsh or extreme by some members. If I posted how I really feel about Obama and Congress on this site the Secret Service would be knocking down my door and the FCC would probably shut this site down, so I keep them to myself or close friends and family.

For this topic--if we had term limits and a cap on election spending this ruling wouldn't matter.

Doug

[zephyp]

move along folks... nothing to see here

But but but...the troll is feeding us...can I keep him...

[zephyp]

Dear Jim,

Wow.

Warm regards,
DK

[GS78]

oh please jim, cry me a river, you write like a little kid whinning because the "popular" kids won't play with you. I am probably not the only one who could not stomach much more than the first two paragraphs, you see Jim, I already raised my kids. MAN UP, act like you have set, and get on with it. You are the one who goes on the attack anytime you run up on someone who hasn't fallen for the Obama crap. This tirade of yours is actually freakin PITYFUL. You want a pity party, go join a freakin sorority . You make wild accusations about this site because most people don't agree with you politically, just like your President, Jim at least have manhood to admit that this too was laid out by uncle saul. We are the ones who are wrong, NOT YOU. We are the ones who are intolerant, NOT YOU. I was the one who said you speak like someone with little trigger time, and If you will kindly post it in CONTEXT, I will stand by it 100%, the problem with your type is you won't do that. I forget the context myself jimmy, surprisingly you didn't repost it along with your diatribe. I also said on numerous occasions "jim has a valid point" or "Jim is an intelligent ....." why didn't you mention that jim? because it doesn't fit with your ambitions does it jimmie? You want to be able to say "that site is ...blah blah blah..." right? how many times did you inquire about anything other than politics? I admire someone who is able to argue their position Jim, but you are the one who drew first blood .

[zephyp]

Dear GS78,

Now now. Jim does bring up some valid points, mainly that trolls will only grow if you feed them. Please don't pick on him. It wouldn't be good publicity for us if he has a complete meltdown and we take the heat. [Just between me and you I think he's pretty close so be careful.]

Warm regards,
DK

[Palladin]

several thoughts before I toddle off to bed...

Aww Paw! can't we keep him? We need a token "one of those people" around here...

I still think the guy with his head up his arse was funny - chuckle chuckle snort

Jim gives me a glimpse of how "other people" think, not that I know what I'm looking at, but a glimpse just the same.

Jim - When was the last time you warmed the barrel up on that Gustav? And why do you need that much horsepower?

Re: Post by gatlingun6 » Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:52:31- I agree with Doug, this was your best yet. As for more money in the mix, I can't help but wonder if this is a good thing...

And this one's a little off topic, but I neglected to chime in at the time. Concerning amnesty and illegals, they are here because of our greed. We let them in and employed them to save an almighty buck. We should man up to that, and give them a free ride back home - but no amnesty... Wow - I can see it now - all those jobs created, plus taxable income and the $29B stays home.
yawwwwwwn... G'nite all - still don't know of anywhere I'd rather be than right here...