Could a Republican say this

From our point of view the first order of government is to protect the country and the people of our country. Government's point of view is to grow and amass more power just like any bureacracy. Originally Posted by john_galt

see: Unitary Executive Theory
see also: 8 years of Bush signing statements
see also: a bunch of Teabaggers that were never once outraged during those 8 long years, but are shocked (SHOCKED I SAY!) that Obama exercises so much power as the POTUS.

Longermonger please refrain from childish insults like "teabaggers". Try to be better than that.
As a conservative I remember being outraged by the excessive spending by the Bush administration, some personnel choices (Harriet Miers for one), the attempt to legalize illegal aliens, and not prosecuting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan with more aggression. Yes, I did call the White House, my Senators, and my representatives. I wrote letters to the Kansas City Star of which some were printed. So with all due respect Longermonger you know where you can stick your incorrect opinion.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution regarding the appointment of "czars". Subordinates of the executive branch are required to be vetted by the Senate as part of the "advise and consent" clause of the constitution. Obama has circumvented this process. With the consent of Obama the Senate has cut the GOP out of the healthcare debate completely. By doing this 14 states have no representation in the Senate (they have only GOP senators). By the standards of the founders how can you tax those who have no representation (Kansas is one such state)? Now we have SEIU moving into the West Wing and using the law to represent their union. Unions were initiated to bargain with PRIVATE industries and not the government. The Supreme Court struck down actions by Harry Truman when he interferred with private industry and unions in the winter of 1947.
I would like to see a well reasoned defense of Obama rather than name calling. I was at both the Liberty Memorial and Johnson County Community College on April 15. You are insulting me when you do.

see also: a bunch of Teabaggers that were never once outraged during those 8 long years, but are shocked (SHOCKED I SAY!) that Obama exercises so much power as the POTUS. Originally Posted by Longermonger

LM - the reason the "teabaggers" are outraged at Obama and not at Bush is because Obama is espousing a socialist methodology as a solution to his perceived problems in the US economy. The fact that in one year Obama has caused more debt that GWB did in his entire eight year presidency was probably part of that outrage; the other is the fact that Obama and his enablers in Congress are governing in opposition to their constituents' wishes.

I would like to see a well reasoned defense of Obama rather than name calling. I was at both the Liberty Memorial and Johnson County Community College on April 15. You are insulting me when you do. Originally Posted by john_galt

In defense of Obama, the solutions that he is attempting to enact have been stated by him for several years, in his books, his speeches and his associates. He is wrong and everything he has proposed has made the economy worse, but he is putting into practice through his enablers in Congress what he believes and was taught.

The President can not single-handedly do anything to effect the economy. The Executive branch can issue regulations that effect business, but constitutionally, the Congress (the House specifically) is the only institution that can enact legislation that can affect the economy directly (taxes, spending), and the nose-dive in the economy coincided with the retaking of the Congress by the Democrats in 2006. As a figurehead, he can persuade, request or bully his ideas through Congress, but Congress has the ultimate say. But also, as the figurehead, the President gets the glory (Clinton, Reagan) or the blame (Bush 43 and Obama) when things go wrong.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution regarding the appointment of "czars". Subordinates of the executive branch are required to be vetted by the Senate as part of the "advise and consent" clause of the constitution. Obama has circumvented this process. Originally Posted by john_galt

Also, the appointing of czars is extra-Constitutional, but is not without precedent. The White House chief of staff is a position that is not vetted through the Senate, but is probably the second most powerful position in the Executive branch, as the chief of staff hires and fires all White House staff, is involved in all high-level meetings with the President as well as all national security discussions, and provides (IMHO) the greatest influence on all Presidential decisions.

With the consent of Obama the Senate has cut the GOP out of the healthcare debate completely. By doing this 14 states have no representation in the Senate (they have only GOP senators). By the standards of the founders how can you tax those who have no representation (Kansas is one such state)? Now we have SEIU moving into the West Wing and using the law to represent their union. Unions were initiated to bargain with PRIVATE industries and not the government. The Supreme Court struck down actions by Harry Truman when he interferred with private industry and unions in the winter of 1947. Originally Posted by john_galt

The legislation affecting health insurance (not health care, a misnomer) will probably be challenged in the courts and probably have most or all of the legislation struck down as violations of the 10th and 14th amendments (states rights and equal protection clauses), as each state already regulates insurance and provisions are selectively targeting individual industries and excluding others through their tax laws.

Getting back to the original intent of the thread, the reason that Democrats can get away with making these kinds of statements and Republicans can not is because the mainstream media has the same political philosophy as the Democrats and will do what is needed to make Democrats successful and Republicans look like bigots, homophobes, nutcases, etc.

Republicans look like bigots, homophobes, nutcases, etc. Originally Posted by fritz3552

If I may make this statement. The reason that republicans are made to look like homophobes is because of their own doing. Most, if not all republicans are against same sex marriage and I don't understand why. What's wrong with lesbians or gay men having the right to get married?

There was a time where interracial marriages were considered not the norm and against the law in some states. Look how far we've come.

The system (read both political parties) is completely broken and corrupt. Our founding fathers envisioned and the author of our constitution wrote of a "citizen legistature", but over time, we, the voters, have created career politicians. There is no solution to this problem other than sending all 535 members of the U S House of representatives and the U S Senate home to find jobs like the rest of us have.

The system (read both political parties) is completely broken and corrupt. Our founding fathers envisioned and the author of our constitution wrote of a "citizen legistature", but over time, we, the voters, have created career politicians. There is no solution to this problem other than sending all 535 members of the U S House of representatives and the U S Senate home to find jobs like the rest of us have. Originally Posted by scorpio31

I just want their health insurance plan and pension.

Elena, I guess we will disagree on this subject. First, there is no such thing as gay marriage. It is a misconstruction. Marriage has been a legal, religious, and metaphysical union between a man and woman (women). There have variants but the basic premise has been a union between two sexes. Why is that? The bible (of which I am not an expert or true believer) promotes marriage for procreation. Man turned marriage into a way of amassing political power among the elites and for passing the power down the line inside the family. In the United States the government got involved to treat all marriages equally. That is why the US forced Utah to outlaw polygamy before entry into the union. The powers that were wanted one definition that would apply to all states. Yes, it is true that some states outlawed interracial marriage (I have to point out that most of these states were democratically controlled southern states) and until the decade of the 80s the Supreme Court could find no reason to interfere with the functions of individual states. The US Constitution promises freedom of religion and there is part of the rub. How can the government promote a form of marriage that is an afront to a majority of the population? If gay marriage is to become law then decades of persuasion will have to be used and not radical protest. Does anyone think that having gay men in sexualized drag, kissing, and fondling in public do anything for their cause? I'm sure that most of us here don't mind watching lesbian women doing the above but men are dogs...
As for the charge that the GOP is responsible for their situation let me say that those afore mentioned "misogenation" states were (and many still are) controlled by the democratic party. There are gay republicans who act in a responsible, non-outlandish manner but the media and democratic party hound them out when they are discovered. The democratic party has housed gay men who have sex with little boys (Gerry Studds, MA), gay men who have participated in prostitution rings (Barney Frank, MA), NAMBLA supporters (Safe Learning Czar Jenkins), gay men would have endangered the public by putting unqualified lovers on the public payroll in positions of public safety (Jim McGreevy, Gov. NJ) and gay women (I didn't forget them) who have abused the public trust by using their position to coerce sexual partners (Janet Reno, AG and PA of Broward County, FL).
To conclude; gay marriage does not exist as an institution today anywhere in the world. Some Islamic countries would brutally kill any gay person they find (so why are gay people politically opposed to the war on terror, hmmmm) much less allow them to marry. Quiet, dignified persuasion would work better than in your face brute force.
Gay republicans are, for the most part, dignified people who want to preserve their privacy. Gay democrats are, for the most part, in your face, angry, people who will usurp your rights to advance their "rights".

http://www.eccie.net/newthread.php?do=postthread&f=305

We are off topic, I think the question on this one is pretty well answered. How about a shift? Above is a new thread that this discussion might fit a little better. I'll see if I can transfer the last few posts?

Elena, I guess we will disagree on this subject. First, there is no such thing as gay marriage.......... Originally Posted by john_galt

John,

That's fine, we'll disagree on this. I don't believe that all gay men would be fondling and kissing each other in public, but if that's what you believe I respect it. But, as far as NAMBLA is concerned, those members are 99% straight men who are both dem and reps. This is a subject I know well and can argue with the best of them because my speciality in forensic psychology is pedophilia. Gay men make up less than 5% of pedophile's. You seem to have forgotten to add in the gay reps who have been busted also. My only point in my original post was that reps seem to look down upon gay individuals and wish to deny them the rights that they should be able to have.

You say that gay dems for the most part are angry, in your face and will step on anyone's rights to advance theirs. Why shouldn't they have rights? They should be angry that they aren't afforded the same rights as others. I believe that falls under discrimination, I could be wrong though. People who are disabled had the same problem, they weren't given the same rights as everyone else and they had to fight for their rights.

As for other countries who outlaw gay marriage, well I guess its a good thing we don't live in those countries huh? One day, gay men and women will be able to marry. The bible is the creator of what marriage is supposed to be, the men who "wrote" it have dictated the lives of many and will continue to.

Seeing as we got off topic and hijacked this thread, I'll end here. If you wish to continue this discussion, I'd be happy to in PMs.

Longermonger please refrain from childish insults like "teabaggers". Try to be better than that. Originally Posted by john_galt

Good point about the insults. I have very little use for political threads in the first place because they almost always result in personal attacks and name-calling. Let's all keep our comments respectful.

Hey guys it is totally useless to engage Longer Monger in a political discussion. To him everything is GW's fault including everything that happens in the next 8 years. Omahan please close this thread.

Hey guys it is totally useless to engage Longer Monger in a political discussion. To him everything is GW's fault including everything that happens in the next 8 years. Omahan please close this thread. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Is this because you disagree with his assessment of politics? I am as insulted with those constantly referring to Obama as a Socialist/Communist as you are of LM referring to tea party members as "teabaggers." Unsubstantiated claims of socialism run a muck when referring to Obama and is used as a fear tactic and not fact. Universal health care is available in many democratic nations around the world, which is why I don't understand all the references to socialism and health care. Fear mongering at its best. Here is a very interesting video about health care in other countries from PBS's Frontline. It is a long video, but if you have the time watch it.

Frontline's "Sick Around the World"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ource=proglist

The countries in the above video are Great Britain, Japan, Germany, Switzerland and Taiwan. All of which are capitalist democracies, same as the US.

Longer Monger was wrong to refer to the tea party as "teabaggers" though. His observation concerning their lack of outrage during the previous administration is interesting. I don't remember Bush being labeled in the mainstream media as a Socialist for bailing out AIG, the first stimulus package or warrant-less wiretaps.

Hi Papa, my assessment of Monger has nothing to do with anything you have written rather just many many many debates with him about politics. Its just not worth anyones time from my experience. As for Obama he is our President, just as Bush was, there will be things he does that I will not agree with much as there was with Bush. As I have stated many times, I am an Independent, moderate with conservative leanings.

Whoa there guys. I only called them teabaggers because that's what they called themselves in the beginning. You should be able to find several pictures of the early protesters wearing tea bag hats and other tea bag apparel. It took them a while to figure out why everyone was laughing at them and they now prefer to be called Tea Partiers. To my mind this is an insult to the men of the original Boston Tea Party. Besides there are TWO Tea Party organizations.

Also, the appointing of czars is extra-Constitutional, but is not without precedent. The White House chief of staff is a position that is not vetted through the Senate, but is probably the second most powerful position in the Executive branch, as the chief of staff hires and fires all White House staff, is involved in all high-level meetings with the President as well as all national security discussions, and provides (IMHO) the greatest influence on all Presidential decisions. Originally Posted by fritz3552

In all fairness the Czar positions has been used by many Presidents, so President Obama is not making fresh tracks. He has used more than any other president though.