by Grand Forks Herald
January 1, 2011 at 2:24 am in Grand Forks Herald
President Barack Obama says Democrats and Republicans must work together in the new year and share responsibility for moving the country forward. Continue Reading
Tags: Barack Obama, Nation and World, obama, Politics, President Obama 55 Comments »
I’ll believe President Obama wants to work with Republicans when I see it. For the last two years there has been no evidence of it.
Like or Dislike: 7 2
Obama gave Republicans their tax cuts for the top 2% just so he could give the tax cuts for the middle class and provide unemployment benefits. He’s trying to do more but the filibuster happy Republicans won’t work with anything until they get their way.
Like or Dislike: 4 6
They were tax cuts when first enacted but would have been tax increases if allowed to expire. Nobodys taxes were cut.
Like or Dislike: 5 4
Didnâ€™t he say something to the effect of â€œwe won, you conservatives can get to the back of the bus nowâ€? Maybe my memory is not dead on accurate, but I donâ€™t think the Democrats wanted to share the power to badly a couple of years ago.
Like or Dislike: 4 1
Does anyone seriously believe Obama would be talking about co-operating with Republicans if the Democrats had been able to keep a majority in the house?
Like or Dislike: 3 2
I don’t think it’s any more likely than it ever was that Obama will cooperate with anyone outside his Marxist circle.
Like or Dislike: 3 1
The Left would have us believe he just wants bipartisanship ….. Such denial!
Like or Dislike: 3 0
You guys are so far right you can’t comprehend that the left wing of your Capitalist Party includes libs even to the left of the Potus. You wouldn’t know a Marxist if you woke up with one.
Like or Dislike: 2 4
Well let’s see now. There was Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and, oh yes, Obama.
Like or Dislike: 2 1
And you wouldn’t know them as Marxists even if you woke up with them.
Like or Dislike: 0 2
BTW , since it is legal to belong to the US Communist Party it is legal to be elected as a communist/socialist/Marxist to the Presidency. You could even legally be elected to Potus as an Islamic communist. The constitution implies so. This must be so because Communists are not against private property but just against the private ownership of the means of production.
Like or Dislike: 1 1
I’m a self proclaimed leading expert on communism and I can tell you I’ve never awakened with a commie in my life.Spearman did not refute that Obama is a Marxist. spearman, we can conclude, is cool with a Marxist el Presidente. We can also conclude that Rambo is not. If we use the past history of communism in Russia, for example, we would see that the common people became serfs to the state as opposed to serfs of landlords.Private property is the normal medium of production in a capitalist society. I’m aware that the far left, spearman wing of the Democrat party is totally opposed to capitalism. I think it would behoove our esteemed el Presidente Obama to be honest about who and what he really is.
Spearman, how much vodka do you have to drink to wake up with a Marxist?
Well Rambo, you don’t deny the constitution doesn’t prohibit a commie becoming President. The definition of Fascism is the merger of the state with corporations. I guess we have that and we are the serfs of those corporations aren’t we. Now that corporations have all the rights of persons we can say the Fortune 500 companies/persons rule. That’s the 5% of the population that controls 60% of the countries assets. So the answer toTucker’s question it wouldn’t take any vodka to wake up with a Marxist since when everybody realizes their condition vis a vis the 500 they will all become Marxists
Like or Dislike: 0 4
So what spearman is saying, as I’m also a self proclaimed expert on interpretation, is that Obama is taking the best of communism and fascism and melding them into one glorious utopia.
Like or Dislike: 2 0
Obviously you understand Rambo that Congress has been bought off by those 500 corp. Obama is just trying to resist their fascist designs. Since the Bush junta had a family history of supporting fascism we need to give the credit where it’s due.
It’s funny how leftists see corporatism. They actually think that there is a ‘partnership’ between state and big business. It’s more like ‘go along to get along’ spearman. The unfortunate result is that this is how small business gets smashed, when government writes laws with extensive input from big businesses, a la Obamacare.
Like or Dislike: 0 1
siouxforever is correct here. Businesses have only learned how to play the game that corrupt politicians have created. Crony capitalism can only exist if we keep sending corrupt politicians to represent us, and if we keep asking them to rob selected Peter to pay for collective Paul (Kipling).
Like or Dislike: 0 0
We know what a marxist is, he is the POTUS…
Like or Dislike: 1 0
But how would a Marxist operate in a free society? Rather, how does a Marxist get free people to give up their freedom?
Its all about the working middle class war with the rich elite corporate machine and all the dumbos they have bamboozled. With pensions about to be raped to increase the wealth of the top 2 percent you would think these idiots would figure it out. Just look at the numbers over the last 30 years-they don’t lie. Throwing around sound bites from Rush makes em think they are sooo rough and tough when all they are doing is supporting the rich robbing pensions to build more homes and yachts. Real smart boys. Try actually using your head for once and not just regurgitating.
Does it make you jealous that others might earn more money than you do?
No-It upsets me when old folks and kids have to decide between heating or food while our tax money is going for 200,000 buck bonuses for the real welfare kings. Thanks Henry Paulson and Mr. 9/11 Bush. What a Christian party you republicans represent.
Donâ€™t kid a kidder Jeff, 80% of your post reflect some sort of class envy and hatred for success.
I’m wondering why those who hate capitalism and corporations so much don’t just leave. It seems to me there are far more in America who favor free enterprise and American exceptionalism than there are those who hate it so much.
Don’t let the door bump your butt on the way out.
Hey force, since when is corporate capitalism the definition of democracy? Free enterprise is just “newspeak” for wannabe capitalists.
Good point, spearman. Also, Jeff H.
Makes you wonder why the force is so vehement about wanting the worker to leave the country, doesn’t it?
Maybe it’s because that would make it that much easier for him to hire illegals, (who he rails against on other threads), or send the jobs overseas?
Yeah, I’d say that’s the case.
Capitalism and corporations were just dandy during the 80′s when they were at least under some kind of control, hurting for labor, but since they’ve been able to get the ‘cheap crap’ in other countries, (never mind the sweatshops), they’ve been ‘grinning ear to ear’, ala harold rippe.
b.a.c that “cheap crap” from other countries is what you could call spreading the wealth around is it not? What is happening to the standard of living in China, India, and the other Asian Tiger countries? Isn’t it a good thing to leftists like yourself that the wealth is being spread around?
I have to agree spearman, since sometime in the early 20th century we ceased having a free market. I, and many others like me, want it back, and we will get it back.
Yup Force-Lets bring back the days when children work 14 hour days and nobody had weekends off. Why that’s getting way to uppity for you isn’t it?
Jeff H, the great lie is that unions brought us all of the work rules that we have now, when in fact siouxforever is correct about free markets. Ford implemented higher pay and shorter work weeks because he was competing in the â€˜free marketâ€™ of labor for good workers. Donâ€™t let the unions fool you, they just saw a trend and got out in front of it to look like they were leading the charge, when in fact free markets and trade have done more to bring prosperity to our country and now to the Asian Tiger countries. This is spreading the wealth around in a positive way, making our former enemies our trading partners. The more we rely on other countries and they on us, the less wars will be fought over resources and political differences.
Do you actually believe this?????
If the politicians can’t get along any better than you bloggers then there’s no hope. There is going to have to be cooperation if anything is to be done and believe me there are serious problems to deal with. Let’s get away from the devisive “talk radio” retoric and start thinking of some solutions to our problems. Your circular arguments don’t offer any solutions.
Is the mass conversational device of talk radio a bad thing? Do you oppose to all call-in formats, such as the type you occasionally see on C-Span, or is it just call-in radio talk shows? What about other formats that allow user feedback, for example, this forum right here, is this a divisive form of communication? Is it better to not participate? Or to let yourself be oblivious to competing ideas? Or is it better to just simply take what you see at face value? Do you think it is good to simply trust our elected leaders to do the right thing?
This entire thread with the exception of John is a perfect example of what is really wrong with this country. You are all simply spewing the same crap you’ve heard when you listen to only your side of any arguement. It doesn’t matter if you are Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, North, South, East or West. The country is more divided than at any time since the Civil War. Both sides of any arguement need to be listened to and respected and then through COMPROMISE you find a solution which means neither side gets everything they want.
What is most shameful is that there has not been a Congress in the last 50 years that could have accomplished what our Founding Fathers did in writing the Constitution because all of them have forgotten the art of compromise. Perhaps if we start listening to each other, really listening, there is still hope.
Compromise by our Founding Fathers that resulted in institutionalized slavery and a civil war 71 years later. Then came the collapse of post Civil War reconstruction and 99 yrs. later the Civil rights Act of 1964. Apparently the aversion for the racial equality we have striven for puts us at a point where we have more division since the civil war and thus hatred for President Obama is at its height. Rush Limbaugh leads the charge. He has 6 relatives that fought in the Civil War, ALL ON THE CONFEDERATE SIDE.
I see, Clark, you and John are the only sane pundits of the bunch. Is that because each of you came to the debate with absolutely no idea how things should be other than that we should all compromise and just get along and sing Kum-Buy-a? Do you really think that the founding fathers didnâ€™t have spirited debates based on their principles and beliefs and perception of the times and the motivations of people in power? Do you think that we should all be in lockstep agreement and have total faith in one ideology, one party, or one leader? Do you believe that your freedoms are safer when a group of people in power are all in agreement as to what they want to regulate next? I have way more respect for spearman, b.a.c, Jeff H, and the rest of the bloggers that I thoroughly disagree with on these discussion boards because at least they come to the debate with an opinion of how they think things should be. You must have principles, donâ€™t you Clark? You must have certain beliefs that you will not compromise on, I would hope. Otherwise you, and possibly John, are just intellectually lazy, and havenâ€™t bothered to think deeply and developed opinions on political and economic philosophy. The intellectually lazy are the people who say â€œI just vote for the best person, rather than what party they are fromâ€, which really means you just vote for whoever runs the slickest campaign. As a Libertarian, I have to compromise every voting cycle, since there rarely is a Libertarian candidate on the ballot. I have to try to decipher which republican or which democrat is going to infringe on my liberty the least. Maybe instead of â€œcompromiseâ€ between the two parties, people should really give some thought to a third way that isnâ€™t a compromise between â€œa party that wages its crusades in the name of Christ and a party that wages its crusades in the name of Four out of Five Experts Agree.” (J. Walker)
Actually Clark, our government has been quite adept at re-writing the Constitution, it is why we have so many problems today. When judges stopped defending the Constitution, and started ‘interpreting’ their own prejudices into it is when our nation changed. Essentially they could have had a Constitutional convention to have effected as much change on our country, but getting an unelected justice to agree with them was much simpler.
There was a time that everyone understood that Congress operated under the purview of the enumerated powers granted. This began to change in the early 1900′s. This is when the scope of interstate commerce was defined, and necessary and proper became to mean ‘whatever you need to do’, and general welfare trumped the enumerated powers. A case like Wickard v. Filburn, which has perverted our government to a huge degree, just became a nose under the tent.
Because we live in a society that understands that trade will benefit both involved, nearly everything we use, read, eat, watch, or drink is involved (especially in light of how Wickard v. Filburn specified involvement!) in interstate commerce. If, and it is a big IF, the federal mandate to purchase health insurance is found to be constitutional, then the Constitution would really cease to have any meaning as it was once understood. To me, it would nullify the Constitution completely, because the freedom fighters of the revolution have turned into the tyrants of Old England.
Also, Clark, for compromise to occur there needs to be common ground. Is it possible that common ground can’t be found sometimes?
I happen to have very strong opinions on various issues. What they are is not important to this discussion. I have and have had friends who are very conservative and very liberal and I was able to discuss politics and issues with all of them because they respected my opinions and ideas and I respected theirs even if they did not agree with me nor I with them. The initial subject was cooperation which has to come from both sides of the aisle. I also happen to have a BA in history with a minor in Poli Sci so I know something about the Constitutional Convention. You are correct that there were very spirited debates but there were eventually solutions on numerous issues which led to the founding of the country and yes it was not perfect and did lead to a Civil War with hundreds of thousands dead but they ultimately accomplished the Constitution and the founding of the country. When I see the same legislation stuck in Congress time after time with no progress either way and filibuster after filibuster from each party over the last 50 years there is something wrong.
Clark, you assume that all legislation deserves to be passed, that legislation, in and of itself, is progress. Is there no bad legislation? What of the marketplace of ideas then? If there were a marketplace of ideas, then wouldn’t it reason that some ideas will succeed and that some will fail? Is progress simply agreeing to pass whatever comes in front of them for a vote? Why would we even bother having a Congress if they are simply to be automatons in order that all proposed legislation should become law?
I would also like to point out how I have been very civil, simply asking questions that never seem to be answered. I would think someone with your educational background would enjoy a discussion about the finer points of the Constitution and the way the justice system uses it in practice.
Filibusters are good. They reduce the amount of crappy legislation that comes out of the community of nit wits we refer to as Congress. Government in gridlock means a brief respite from another constricting law on something that a nanny state crusader wants to regulate. I didnâ€™t mean to come down on you too hard Clark, youâ€™ve obviously got the credentials. But give some thought to the idea that our Congress doesnâ€™t always have to be legislating something. They should really spend more time looking inward and riding heard over the hordes of bureaucrats and law enforcement officials that theyâ€™ve let loose to torment the general public.
My problem with filibusters is its like a petulant child that simply stops discussing options. I’m certainly not naive enough to think that every piece of legislation should be passed, far from it. Frequently there are two different pieces of legislation, be it bills or amendments that are on each side of any issue. It is up to the two separate sides to take the two sides and compromise on the issues that the most important to them and give on others for any issue. How many Congresses have tried to pass some type of Immigration bill. Both sides can agree that something needs to happen but can’t see past their own issues to agree on anything, which is only one of many examples.
Fair enough Clark, I’ll cede you the point.
Oh yes. The GOP should cooperate with the Dems exactly as the Dems cooperated with Bush.
That’s a good point Zardoz, the way that some people on the leftward side of the aisle behave blocks the way of communication and common ground between the two parties. That is if there really is any common ground to begin with. And if there were not, then we would be foolish to pursue consensus in the first place.
Wait…what? The Dems didn’t cooperate with Frmr President Bush? How on earth did all that horrible legislation get passed then? How did we get into two wars? How did our nation go into such incredible debt? Who approved all that spending? Crazy! I had NO idea it was all the GOP’s fault. This IS news!
Of course some did Mr. Spork, but then on a lot of issues George Bush’s position was not necessarily the conservative position. For example, No Teacher Left Behind, and the prescription drug benefit, as well as the failed immigration bill. Of course, the president doesn’t spend money, the House controls the power of the purse. Naturally, if I were president, I would veto nearly everything I saw on my desk, and that is the only power the president has over spending.
The point I was trying to make was the difference between say Tea Party protesters and say Code Pink protesters. One group protests in a much more civil way than the other. And of course, there are the pie throwing protesters, and they always seem to be protesting conservatives. I’m just saying, liberals are much less civil, so I find it quite humorous to hear all of the whining about civil discourse now, when we never heard it then.
My comment was meant for Zardoz, not sure why it was posted below you’re comment. I don’t agree, tho, that Zardoz has a good point, since the D’s did vote for an awful lot of Frmr President Bush’s stuff.
I find it hard to believe anyone would think one side is more civil than the other. I can’t even begin to fathom what political circus you’ve been watching over the last 10 years that would give either side the edge in civility.
I have never seen a conservative protester throw a pie in anyone’s face, but perhaps they should start. Often the tactics of one side become acceptable after a time, and so then the action is then mimicked to achieve similar results.
until people let go of us vs. them mentality when it comes to politics, nothing is gonna get fixed in this country. why is it so hard to cooperate? why is it so anti-american to oppose one party or the other. give me a break. vote with common freaking sense and not with your party just because your party says to.
us vs. them = Americans vs. socialists
It interests me how many people mix the notion of government associating itself with or as a “big business”, the two are polar opposites and must remain so. Large corporations exist to produce a product and earn profits for their shareholders, they would not last one day if they somehow tried to become “democratic” not as in the wing, but the principle.
This news article describes how the POTUS sees a need for the congress to work together to solve the problems that face the nation. He is not an executive of a large corporation, he is the POTUS, if this were a large corporation we would have been otta here long ago.
The only way we can pay for our democracy is through taxation, we have no means to produce a profit, nor should we. We can tax the crap out of wage earners and big business, we have even gone as far as looking at the profits and wages that are not taxed as “debt”. Imagine how Target corporation would love to deduct from their bottom line of profit before paying taxes (deductions) if they could include money that consumers had available to spend, but, chose not to spend at Target. This is what congress has been doing and its a waste of time.
We can argue which side of the aisle is more capable of leading this country, and I really enjoy reading these blogs. I dont, however, think for one second that the leaders of large corporations have any interest whatsoever in whats going on in the White house or congress other than what laws impact their bottom line and how much they will need to add to the price of their product to make a profit. I leave it to the smart bloggers to explain the consequences of this cost……….
Amen siouxfan! The only time they care about what happens in Washington is when they are seeking influence peddlers in Congress. Big business is often our legislature, because they are often involved in the legislative sausage making. However, their influence is really only a means to stifle their competition.
The more we get down this road, the more attractive these articles about peaceful separation appeal to me.
I think the liberals should work with conservatives to pass the conservative agenda most agreeable to the liberals, not the other way around.
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company