DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... If the King had his way

In our kitchens, in our health care, in our brains.............well, some of our brains. The government has no business telling people what to eat, how to take care of their bodis and if they will vote. This is Obama's suggestion to control the population he has pandered to in order to keep his party in control. That's it!

All this would produce is MORE of voting along party lines with absolutely no education about the candidates. It happens a great deal now. Vote for whoever gives you the most free "stuff". This would just be leading the horse to water but not being able to make it drink. Well, maybe that is what they want. Who knows????

Are we a free democracy or what in 2015?

We are what the people vote for.

The janitor comment was a play on Atlas Shrugged. The whole idea is that when people can vote to take from others in order to give to themselves, sooner or later the producers will not produce. They will get on the dole like everyone else or they will just not participate in the scam at all. When there is not enough to produce for the non-producers, the government will be forced to take it by the barrel of a gun. I do not think anyone wants that. History is a really good teacher. Let us not be poor students.

You are correct, it absolutely is happening now and has been.

Look at the Obamacare Individual Mandate. Too many people support penalizing others for not having insurance because its "for the greater good". Sadly, what people are too ignorant/uneducated/naïve/or just don't care is that once you've given the gov't the power and authority to force you to participate for what IT believes is YOUR own good, that authority and force can now be used in other areas of our lives.

When you listen to Obama's rhetoric there is a consistent underlying theme of amassing power/control/authority within the Executive Branch. His genius is that he uses the guise of "common sense". When he phrases it that way people say "Uh yeah! It is common sense everyone should have insurance. They are stupid if they don't, and if they are stupid they get what's coming to them."... or take the changes in Obamacare he's made by Exec Order. Yeah, they might be tweaks to fix it, adjust dates, and so forth... that makes "common" sense... but when you have things written in to a law, they are hard and fast. No matter how small the change or necessary, he doesn't have the authority to do it in that manner. But people say, no big deal... it makes sense!

And this spreads to incrementally more overt statements... as per immigration i.e. "if Congress won't act I will". Exec Orders aren't meant to take the place of legislation (or lack of) or for when the Pres doesn't like what Congress is doing. But the way he phrases it makes it sound like there is a crisis and he frames it in a way that makes him a hero because he's the ONE willing to do something.

I know I'm probably starting to ramble a bit. I will say that his predecessor wasn't a whole lot different, at least in the sense of creating Homeland Security and signing in to law the Patriot Act. I really think that Bush helped create the launching pad for a lot Obama's power grabs.

As for before that? I can't comment because I was a bit too young under Clinton and Bush Sr and certainly Reagan.

Thats right.

Obama should just sit on his hands while republicans do nothing but complain like teenagers and try to go against everything Obama does simply because he's Obama.

I'm glad he uses his exec orders. I'd do the same damn thing if I had to work with people who's sole purpose is to block everything I tried to accomplish.

Complain about one person trying to actually make a difference, while defending the other who act like a bunch of babies who didn't get their candy.

There were a number of bills the republicans passed only to be stopped by Reid in the senate. Democrats are the party of no.

None of Obamas exec orders have made things better for Americans.

I hear what you're saying, but there have always been 3 branches. Each administration has had a congress to work with and each administration's executive orders has been justified with statements about the willingness of congress to work with the executive.

My point is our government is controlled by economic powers controlling the representatives in all 3 branches and how our country's policies are established by those powers.

I think they have.

Atlas shrugged is a theory that supports plutocracy and Machiavellian policy. It's the basis for the trickle down theory which has caused the destruction of the middle class.

I would be reluctant to assume how 100% voting would change our government and economy, but I do know Atlas Shrugged's dogma encourages a lack of public safety and protection of environment as essential for good profit.

There are other morally objectionable personality traits that are promoted as ideal in that book.

What evidence do you have to support such a claim?



I am not sure where you gained this knowledge. If you read the book, you would not associate individualism with trick down economics or the destruction of the middle class. For an example of the destruction of the middle class, I give you exhibit A, Detroit, Michigan.




We have less than 100% participation in elections today and the government changes our lives daily. You cannot see how more participation by the citizenry would not produce more of the same? As for encouraging lack of public safety and protection of the environment, I give you Ferguson, Missouri, Chicago, Illinois, and Washington D.C. as examples of how progressive polices create public safety and environmental protections. Besides, if you read the book, Galt's Gulch was not an environmental hazard.



Please inform me of which morally objectionable personality traits did you find in the book? I am not sure I would suggest in any fashion having the government decide moral issues for me. Please feel free to enlighten us all about our morally objectionable traits.

I would like to see voting rights earned.

If you are a veteran, you earned the right.

If you volunteer X number of hours a year, you earn the right.

If you pay taxes and are employed, you earn the right.


There can be others.

It's a novel about the evils of government regulation toward industry and how individualism means screw others before they screw you because that's how humanity progresses. Business success is more important than people, but better for people in a totally plutocratic way.

We probably have 2 different interpretations and I'm ok with that. You're certainly not the only person who appreciates Rand's ideas as good for a successful country and world.

I doubt we'll change each others minds and I don't think we should try. I'd rather agree to disagree.

So from this point on, you have no credibility when it comes to criticizing police for what you see are violations of the Constitution because you point blank in this statement say the Constitution is irrelevant. If Obama doesn't have to follow it, why should anyone else? I'm kind of surprised at your stance seeing as you are a fellow veteran. I know we were in different branches but I'm pretty sure our oaths all said something about upholding the Constitution...


You do understand what the concept of "checks and balances" is right? We have 1 President because there are issues that do need to be a form of centralized leadership that 535 Senators and Congressman can't provide. The 535 elected Representatives are in place to be the voice of the People and protect us from the whims of a singular Madman. The Supreme Court further ensures our Rights by determining if the actions of the other 2 branches are in keeping with the Constitution.

What I don't understand is that many of Obama's policies have not been supported by consistent majorities. When the public does not support those policies, its the Legislative Branches JOB to make sure they aren't law.

Why is that so hard to understand? Is some of it petty games? Sure. I dislike Boehner and McConnell as much as anyone. But Obama's inability to get things done Constitutionally is due to the simple fact that he sucks at his job and wasn't cut out for it in the first place. He has shown virtually zero ability to lead and time and time again he's shown to be just as petty and no desire to compromise with the other side, which is hilarious because only the republicans are blamed for it...

Appreciate the effort, Arch and Clem. Looks like most everyone else in this thread has decided what they want to talk about, though.

nothing he has done is illegal.

nothing. If so he would've been impeached.

So i do have credibility. If what he did was illegal, why wasn't he fired? why hasn't he gone to jail.

why did the american people vote him in the second time?

And I believe that at that point in the Q&A, he was simply trying to give context to a bigger point about voter participation. I took his main point to be that fully just under 70% of eligible voters turned out for the latest vote... and that our political landscape would be very different with increased voter participation.

Sometimes, things are just what they seem to be on the surface. This might be one of those times. I can't say for sure, but I've seen the guy for 6 years now. I'm not convinced that he's a Machiavellian genius by any stretch of the imagination. Others' mileage may vary on that front... and that's cool with me too.



Nor do I.



Not really... if you accept arch's and my interpretation that he was speaking 'off the cuff' at that particular moment in time. It's the same kind of conversational stuff guys like you and I do all the time, when we're relaxed, conversing, and free-associating in real time.

I'll continue by first mentioning this concession: it's entirely possible that you are right about this... but I do find it highly unlikely.

One of the pitfalls associated with being a public figure in the 21st c is that everything one says is transcripted, word-for-word... ans as such, can be parsed in minutiae by anyone with a point to make or ax to grind. Pro AND con.

Take our ongoing conversation as example. At this point, you've drawn up a speculative, subjectively-based question regarding the psychological mindset of a person giving an extemporaneous answer to a question asked of him in real time.

Are we voters required to become 'forensic speech pathologists' now? Are we to examine every public figure's press conferences in slo-mo 4K HD (blown up) to examine "microexpressions" during a presser?

Or is this another example of ANY of us seeing/hearing what we are predisposed to see and hear?

In our particular example, I'll offer this data to consider:

1. Arch and I are Friends.
2. Arch and I are on (mildly) opposite L/R sides of the GENERAL political spectrum (although we agree on almost all human/humanitarian/non-political issues- go figure...).
3. Arch and I are in frequent disagreement about POTUS 44's role, methodology, and efficacy as leader.


...and yet, we have almost total agreement on this (narrowly-defined) incident.

That set of facts alone should prompt you to at least consider the possibility that your own set of subjective parameters have influenced your view on this.

Did you watch the C-SPAN coverage of the Cleveland event? Did you get a feel for how things evolved during that get-together? If not, I invite you to take the time.

Earlier in my post, I alluded to the idea that each of us could use the internet (and its many resources) to become our own investigators... investigators who could use 'selective sight' and our own need for confrontational bias to fuel our motives. I'm asking you now to watch the event... and share with us your take on Pres O's Q&A at this point in the event.

I've truly enjoyed your posts in EE since you came here. They are well-thought, well-expressed... and speak with a voice that considers (deeply) what is meant/felt. Deep respect has been earned by someone who doesn't suffer fools gladly- or at all. I really want to know what you think.

You don't even have to listen to the entire event. Just start at about the 51:40 point, and listen through 1:15. It will give you enough context to understand the framework that sets up this conversation.

He hasn't been impeached simply because the House has been to gutless to do it.

The releasing of the 5 terrorists for Bergdhal without notifying Congress was illegal. Just because they refuse to impeach him on it doesn't mean he acted lawfully in the first place.

Its like a man who beats his wife. She refuses to send him to jail. Just because she doesn't send him to jail doesn't mean him beating her was legal.

And even if he were to be impeached, it doesn't mean automatic removal from office. Clinton was formally impeached for lying under oath, but he was removed from office.

And I'm not saying we should necessarily impeach a President for every single thing. I don't think we'd have a President sitting for more than 2 years at any given time if we did.

What I would really like to see is some form of automatic Judicial Review for any Exec Order and legislation passed. Currently a law that is outside the bounds of the Constitution can be passed and in effect, effecting millions, but will go on until someone has the money or resources to a) challenge it and b) have "standing" meaning they were directly harmed by the law.

The roles and limits of each branch are clearly defined. I don't think we should have to wait until someone catches the gov't going outside the bounds.

Three Branches

1.The Curly branch
2. The Larry branch
3. The Moe branch

Don't forget Curly Joe!

Devil, I think the only thing I would disagree with is that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government have one real purpose, to protect my individual liberties. When a foreign state wishes to take my liberties from me, it is the role of the government to protect my liberties. When a domestic power, (Congress, President, Regulator, Judge) tries to take my liberties, it is the role of government to protect my liberties. I feel the problem is that the government sees it's role as solving problems and not protecting liberties.

I'll go one further on this. The purpose of our government is not to write laws just to write laws. Our government was set up to be adversarial so certain laws would not get passed. The laws that are supposed to be passed are ones the majority of the people want, not the ones the government thinks will be best for us.

I have no idea why people think there should be laws being passed daily. To pass a law, you need a majority in the house, a majority in the senate, and presidential approval. The system is set up to make sure frivilous laws are not passed. Gridlock is supposed to be the norm, not the exception.

Conditioning. Every politician that runs does so on the premise that they are going to fix the problems.... the only way a politician can attempt to fix anything is through legislation... it's like the old adage, if you are a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

There isn't a problem we have, fiscal, social, educational, racial, foreign policy, that they can't fix with just the right legislation. The notion that we the people should actually have to work some of this out on our own is a completely foreign idea to politicians, because they are smart and we are stupid.. and they have convinced the populace that is the way it should be.

Well, all of that, plus it's just so convenient come re-election time for politicians to campaign on "look at the legislation I helped pass. It brought this much money back into my constituents hands." And, if you're a politician and you want re-elected, you almost HAVE to have your name on some bills that got passed.

Honest questions. I'm not looking to argue just looking for interesting insights.

Do any constituents have valid concerns that require asking their representatives to pass legislation?

What percentage of special interest groups have valid concerns?

Again, not "gotcha" questions.

Sure.
No idea. I'm sure each special interest group thinks "theirs" is worthy.

Sure. And you have to remember that the flip side to that is that it takes passing legislation to repeal previous bad legislation.

I'd like to see, in no particular order...

1. Balanced budget legislation. Maybe not even 100% balanced but definitely a cap on the deficit we are able to run would be a good start.
2. I'd like to see the vote to go to war require more than the standard majority vote except in instances of imminent danger.
3. I'd like to see gay marriage legalized.
4. I'd like to see some form of legislation on what electronic information the government is allowed to collect on private citizens and what exactly it is allowed to do with that information.

That's just off the top of my head.

Special Interest groups all have valid concernes for somebody.

I really wish they would just decide to change the tax code to remove some loopholes for corporations.

I'm not sure anything could be done about it, But the loss of jobs to other countries is a problem. In fact, I'm thinking it's one of the biggest problems we have.

Ahhh,, wishful thinking

I'd also like a flat tax.

I would like to see the Bill of Rights respected and adhered to by the government. I do not wish to have the government deny any citizen the freedom to practice their religion as it states in the 1st Amendment. There is no exception made for business or otherwise. A citizen does not lose their Constitutional Rights when they elect to do commerce.

I would like to see the governments of all levels stop trying to protect the people from themselves by violating their rights to own arms.

I would like to see the repeal of all legislation that spies or otherwise undermines a citizen's expectation of being secure in their person and property.

I would like excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishment to be defined and not done arbitrarily by a judge.

I would like the government to explain to the people why each and every action they take legislatively is Constitutional and why it must be taken.

I would also like to see Senators again chosen by the States and not a general election. The Senate has become a smaller version of the House with a 6 year term. It is not some slow moving, deliberate body as intended by the founders.

If the King had his way he would antagonize Israel even further and jeopardize them in his effort to strike a deal with Iran in an attempt to create another legacy in his own mind.

You can't antagonize those you subsidize.

Oh really?

I would say that it's true to a very large extent.

I mean when you fund any government, it's they who owe you, not the other way around. One might say that a foreign government who needs and depends on funding from us, should go to some reaches to appease us, not the other way around.

And consider this. Netanyahu said he was against a Palestinian state then turned around and said it would and could be considered. He pointed out the perils of Arab Israelis voting, then back tracked on that. So far he's spoke out of both sides of his mouth on both of those issues within a week.

To me that would cause any rational person to ask who is antagonizing who.

Perhaps, however, it would behoove us to attempt to maintain some civility with our long standing and greatest ally in the middle east. Things aren't exactly cozy for us anywhere in the world right now.

Screw israel.

seriously.

It's crazy how myself and others have proven over and over again why you guys are blindly throwing support at israel without knowing ANYTHING about the situation.

Yet you and Erik got the nerve to call voters uninformed?

The

Agree with talking out of both sides of the mouth. Obama and Netanyhu should be best buddies with that commonality!

"Prove" What? To whom? Opinions prove nothing, absolutely nothing. I don't try to prove, I simply opine. That is really what we all do on this board, nothing more. There is nothing to prove.....at least not to me. I just enjoy different "opinions".

I guess the multiple Facts on that situation is being ignored because "Israel #1!!!"

A suggestion from a guy that avoided voting almost completely when he was a senator....Obama is a jackass

First of all, stop putting words in my mouth. I said uniformed people should not vote. Please let me know what you know about the Israeli situation that I don't. I love insider information.

I agree with everybody's answers about specific needs from constituents for legislation.

I also believe a lot of money is spent to convince people that certain legislation is way more critical than it might actually prove to be.

I think it's getting harder to have knowledgeable voters and we've found ourselves with a congress full of zealots and puppets. Maybe more of our media should offer basic information about separating facts from opinions and how the government should function.

I still believe there are quality representatives, but they've been limited in effectiveness and a lot have quit or retired or are planning to.

I'm still a big supporter of campaign finance to help guarantee campaigns focus on facts instead of endless negativity. Why should campaigns last as long as they do?

Campaign finance would also limit lobbying, which I think is probably the main reason we're getting less qualified representatives. If a rep cannot write their own legislation they should be impeached and an immediate election to replace them should happen.

IMO this would help insure real constituent concerns could be presented for legislation and MIGHT get us closer to 100% voter participation.