Log In | Register
Good Morning
What an atrocious spelling day I had yesterday, here's hoping for improvement.
Rather than keep jumping up and down tracking multiple conversations, I figure it will be easier to start on a fresh page.
For the sake of continuity here is a link to the original article opening in a different window so that it can be referenced easily if necessary and so that newcomers can catch up with the subject matters.
I'll start out the day by saying that the failure of the super-committee really isn't worthy of being headline news. It does however strengthen my basic argument that Obama just isn't there. He certainly wasn't there for the super-committee. Once again he leaves it to others, in this case a stacked deck of mutually antagonistic people to solve one of the biggest problems we have. The blame most certainly can't be his, he wasn't even there. He likes it that way. 'I must be a good leader, after all nothing is my fault.' I am beginning to think he is just a simple little coward. He is so fearful of failure that he is afraid to lead.
Getting back on track here are the last couple of responses that I made last night. I am still looking for someone to give me a good reason for giving Obama another chance.
Just exactly what does the statement you just made mean?
What is it about conservatives that they don't understand the Constitution? This article is the equivalent of Palin proclaiming that the Vice President runs the senate.
Have you all never heard of the checks and balances inherent in our three branches of government?
The president of the United States does not run congress.
- 5
- !
#5.4 - Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:33 PM MSTowlsview
In theory you are right Susan. In practice you are way out of touch. Both parties are much more concerned about obtaining and maintaining power than they are about leading this country and solving our problems.
To establish and maintain the level of power that the Parties desire requires a strong organization that maintains discipline up and down the line. It is the job of leader of the Party, for the Democrats at this time President Obama, to let his subordinates know what the goal is so that they can use their relative positions to obtain that goal. He must let them know what is negotiable and what isn't. It can be said that Obama did this, but there is something very important that he didn't do. He failed to inform them on the parameters of negotiations. Obama said that taxes were negotiable but never how negotiable. He put spending cuts for certain programs on the table, but never let it be known how much he would consider allowable.
Is it any wonder many of his advisers, staff members and Democrats holding office have distanced themselves from him? How hard must it be to work for someone who doesn't give you all of the tools that you need to do the job? Me, I'd quit before I started.
The checks and balances contained in our Constitution are for the purpose of preventing any one branch of government to dominate the other two. There are no decrees what so ever that protect us from the frailties of human nature or the ambitions and machinations of those who seek power singularly or in group form.
The Constitution was not intended to be a document for those who refuse to face the realities of human behavior to hide behind.
The Vice President of the United States is the President of the Senate. He is a non-voting member unless a vote of the Senate ends in a tie, in which case the Vice President casts the deciding vote. The Constitution understands that the Vice President will not always be available and provides for a President pro tempore (literally, a temporary president). Like the House, the Senate leadership also consists of Majority and Minority Leaders and Whips. In the Senate, the whips are officially known as the Assistant Leader.-----http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_govt.html
Susan, perhaps you should redirect your first question away from the conservatives and towards yourself.
- 3
- !
#5.5 - Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:58 PM MSTSusan-649485
In practice you are way out of touch. Both parties are much more concerned about obtaining and maintaining power than they are about leading this country and solving our problems.
It certainly sounds like you are describing the Republican Party to a T.
Not so much the Democrats.
LOL
Sarah's actual quote:
Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, “What does the Vice President do?”
PALIN: That’s something that Piper would ask me! … [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.
No, I'm pretty sure it's the conservatives who need to brush up on the Constitution.
- 2
- !
#5.6 - Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:16 PM MSTowlsview
Susan, what part of her answer is wrong?
I have no particular liking for Palin. The Republicans robbed her of any potential she may have had to be a successful President by having her run with McCain, she was nowhere near ready.That doesn't mean that she is wrong about everything.
Ron Paul is running for President, I would much rather see him as Vice-President. For far to long our Vice-Presidents have assumed the role of the guy sitting in the wings. He is supposed to say what he is told to say when told to say it. Most of them tour the country, making appearances in the name of the President. In essence he is on the party circuit, the booze and b.s circuit.
So many have become Vice-Presidents over the last several years thanks to bargaining, trading of delegates, back room deals, quite often the Vice-President doesn't have much in common with the President. Mistrust develops. Instead of doing his job as the second in command of this great country he stays in the shadows.
We need a guy that is going to do his job. A person that will get out there and work with Senators from both sides. Keep their collective noses to the grindstone. See to it that bills get voted on . Policy changes get made. We need a Vice-President who will fulfill the duty of holding the second highest office in the country. This is the type of change we need in government. The type easily overlooked. That type that goes to the very core of how we need our government to operate.
cl1,
while you're at it, how bout a mention of lee atwater or karl rove? each side has its own army of political assassins.
- 2
- !
#16.1 - Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:05 PM MST
Baddestbob, many of you who support Barack Obama seem to think that your battle to get him re-elected is with the Republicans and you are mistaken. Obama's future lies in the hands of the moderates and independents, those with a more centralized outlook on our country. We don't need a playlist of who the bad guys are from both parties we are already aware of the fallacies of the Republican Party.
We put up with eight years of the GOP agenda, Bush wasn't such a bad guy, but he ran a stilted and plodding administration,expenditures on numerous wars were having a serious effect on our economy, the antics of people like Cheney and Rove was angering us. We wanted change and wanted it badly. No personal offense to McCain but four years of a Republican favorite son who got the nomination as a reward for his years of service(same thing they did for Goldwater), was not what we needed or wanted.
Along came Obama, young, vibrant, a fresh outlook, a new approach. We can survive the impending housing crash, we can save people from losing there homes to foreclosure, we can save our jobs and restore jobs to those who have lost the ones they had. We can put forth a healthcare plan that is fair and equal to all. We can reduce our dependency on foreign oil. We can save our schools, we can change the way government behaves.
We can! We can! We can! --We haven't, we aren't and we will not with the administration we have had for the last three years. The only change I have seen in the behavior of government has been from bad to very bad. We took a chance, Hilary would have been a shoo-in, but you gave us Obama a real change from old school politics. We loved him, we gave him a very respectable victory. A year later we were regretting it. All hope and no substance. Bankers getting richer, houses getting emptier.
Why should we give the Obama administration another chance? Is there a magic potion that will will bequeath upon him the knowledge, strength and "integrity" that we want in a President? It would be imprudent to let a mistake stand while dealing with other matters. We would be much better served, to remove Obama from office, replace him with a caretaker President even if it is another stuffed-shirt Republican and focus on making as many changes in faces of the people serving in the Legislative Branch as we can.
No one President is going to ever have enough power to make major changes on his own for good or bad. Future Presidents and other elected officials are going to be scrutinized more intensely than any other government in the history of the world has ever been. That is the only way we the people can be assured of remaining "Free Americans".
Save the left-wing jive for your fight with the Republicans. Do you think that you are going to convince me that the "leadership" and "extremists" of both parties are not the real enemies of American Freedom? I'd be a happier American if you could.
Comment collapsed by the community
