Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

[Gerald]

WASHINGTON — As a young lawmaker defining himself as a presidential candidate, Barack Obama visited a center for scholars in August 2007 to give a speech on terrorism. He described a surveillance state run amok and vowed to rein it in. “That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens,” he declared. “No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime.”

Way to go,you talking with double tongues Mr.Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/us/obamas-path-from-critic-to-defender-of-spying.html?ref=world&_r=0

Note: JAN. 15, 2014

[Ducimus]

There's a whole litany of things he said in the past, and then did the exact opposite later. If one is bored, look around youtube, it's well documented on video. After all the reversals, i have come to the reasonable (yes reasonable) conclusion that If Obama says one thing, expect a high likelihood of the opposite of what he said to happen.

[vienna]

Not all that unusual: the history of the office of President is rife with changes of position by officeholders once they are sworn in as President. This is true of both parties. Sometimes it is a case of deliberate deception on the part of the candidate pre-election, but in many cases, the change results from a sudden awareness of actual situations faced once one sits in the Oval Office. It is one thing to criticize the person in office while campaigning or make unknowledgeable promises based on perceptions; once faced with the facts, limitations, or aspects hidden, for one reason or another from public knowledge (or sometimes from the actual Presidents themselves), not to mention the myriad of political cosiderations, the old saw of "the best laid plans" has a harsher ring of truth. I have often tried to imagine what it must be like to be a newly elected President and get the first official status briefings from the various Cabinet members, Department chiefs, national security/military chiefs, etc. Imagim=ne the things the new President hears we have no concept of...


<O>

[Ducimus]

The actions of past office holders needs to stopped being used as an excuse for the actions of current office holders. Just because Soandso did something doesn't give justification for doing it as well. "W" deciding to jump off a cliff or saying "stop shoving the constitution in my face it's just a damn piece of paper", doesn't mean it's ok for Obama to do so as well.

People need to stop towing their party lines and start demanding integrity and accountability from all ALL office holders. The "they all do it" excuse just doesn't wash anymore in my opinion.

[Tribesman]

Shocking news, it appears that politicians are suspected of not telling the truth

[Gerald]

Shocking news, it appears that politicians are suspected of not telling the truth :haha:

[the_tyrant]

Of course not, he is an addict.
For decision makers, there is nothing more addicting than information.
A friend of mine who is ex-stasi tells me that information is the greatest addiction, far more addictive than heroin or nicotine.
Think about it like this:
before we had easy access to information through channels like the internet, we make many decisions blind. Should I buy this car, or that car? Well back in the day all I had was magazines and what the dealer tells me to base my decision on. Nowadays with the internet, I can literally read millions of reviews, and check every little detail of the car in question. I would never buy a car without checking the internet now.
Imagine playing an RTS game, but with you as the only player who can see every unit on the map. Thats what the politician feels like.
Imagine the same thing with a politician. Why would he make blind decisions when he has a powerful source of information? Why would he “go blind” into a decision making process?
This is why at most I believe Obama would pay lip service to limiting the NSA, but not actually do anything about it. After all, if my buddy in the Stasi can find work post Berlin wall in intelligence (he is private sector now), and most of his Stasi and KGB buddies can still find work (mostly with successor organizations), I believe the same thing with happen with the NSA. Maybe some of them will get “fired”, some would end up working for the private sector, but most will be rehired as an “outside consultant”

[vienna]

I didn't say one president was using the actions of a predecessor as justification for his own actions. I said there are some aspects of some situations a new president might use as campaign fodder only to be hit with the harsh realities once he actually is sworn into office. Neither he nor any of us would know, to full extent, the many variables, "ifs, ands, or buts", or the posiible delicacies and tipping point of particular issues until he sits in that chair in the White House. This lack of full knowledge of the nature of situations is not limited to the realm of politics; it exists in everyday life. There are a great many situations where persons have siad "Well, if I were in charge, things would run differently" only to backtrack once they found out what the situation really is all about. I was once the Accounting Supervisor at a large Beverly Hills law firm. The high level financial decisions were made, originally, by a committee of senior partners. However, it became difficult to assemble all or the majority of committee members at any given time, so they hired a Controller. The Controller would then oversee both the Senior Accountant (my boss) and myself. THe new Controller came in and immediately went into meetings with the Senior Accountant to design new methods for dealing with his new position and the operations of the Accounting Department. I was not asked to be involved mainly beacuase I did not have a college degree (actually, no college at all and only a high school education with no accounting courses) and the Controller did not consider me "qualified". I actually thought one of his first actions would be to fire me. However, I did run the entire Accounting Department and the Senior Accountant merely received final figures on various aspects of the Department and really had know working knowledge of the flow of work or the ramifications of various Department activities. She just took my "bottom line" figures and created financial reports for the committee.

One day, the controller called me into his new office. The Senior Accountant was there, also. THe Controller started to lay out his new plans. Near the beginning of his presentation, I saw a major problem and tried to bring it up; he told me to shut up and wait until he finished. I had the sense he was going to use whatever objections I might have as an excuse to fire me. I waited as he continued, with the Senior Accountant nodding along her agreement with his plan like some sort of bobblehead doll. He finnaly finished and said "I want you to implement this immediately!" I said "I can't", and he shouted back "Are you saying you refuse to do as I say?!" The specter of termination was in the room. I calmly told him "I am saying your system is incompatible with almost all the reporting structures and the way the senior partners have demanded accounting operations be conducted". He was stunned. I thena asked if he had tolked to certain of the senior partnerswhose names I listed off; he had not I then asked if he was aware of the intricate relationship between the varios reports and the manner in which they interwove. He was not. I left his office and came back wirth several binders report binders. I laid out the entire process, showing him where his plan would conflict, and the various pitfalls that would draw the ire of the Senior Partners and the Chairman of the Board, in particular. The Senior Accountant had ceased bobbling and was now a bit panic stricken. She realized I was right and, with a bit of hesiataion and fear, told the Controller I was actually correct.

I was able to help the Controller to understand how the Department functioned in relation to the whole of the firm itself and aided him in coming up with a better plan that would achieve most of his goals and avoid any confrontations with the Seniors or any one else in the firm. If he had taken the time to become more aware of what existed before he got the job and consulted with the people who actually do the work, he could have avoided any turmoil.

But, in the situation of the Presidency, there is no real opportunity to do deep research. There is very little briefing when one is a candidate. The out going POTUS or defeated incumbent is not likely to tip his hand and play it close to the vest. The candidate never really knows where all the tendrills reach until he wins the vote and becomes the POTU-elect. It is only then he gets the briefings by the various agencies; it is only then he sees what is really behind the curtain of the great and mighty OZ. We don't know what sorts of highly classified, "need to know" situations exist beyond the data we get in the media and, really neither does he until the briefings. It is one thing to make a promise based on suppositons and another thing to realize you can't because of some very hard, cold facts. It is really not fair to make blanket condemnations about "failure" to keep rpomises when we don't really know the landscape of the entire situation. It is not an excuse, it is a fact of life, a fact at all levels...

BTW, I wasn't fired and actually had my salary increased by 60% over the next year after the arrival of the Controller. I also had the satisfaction, when I did decide to move on, of having the Controller thank me and tell me I had really "saved his ass" several times during our time working together. Knowledge is powerful; supposition is not...


<O>

[Admiral Halsey]

Time to grab some popcorn it seems.

[Armistead]

Not all that unusual: the history of the office of President is rife with changes of position by officeholders once they are sworn in as President. This is true of both parties. Sometimes it is a case of deliberate deception on the part of the candidate pre-election, but in many cases, the change results from a sudden awareness of actual situations faced once one sits in the Oval Office. It is one thing to criticize the person in office while campaigning or make unknowledgeable promises based on perceptions; once faced with the facts, limitations, or aspects hidden, for one reason or another from public knowledge (or sometimes from the actual Presidents themselves), not to mention the myriad of political cosiderations, the old saw of "the best laid plans" has a harsher ring of truth. I have often tried to imagine what it must be like to be a newly elected President and get the first official status briefings from the various Cabinet members, Department chiefs, national security/military chiefs, etc. Imagim=ne the things the new President hears we have no concept of...


<O>

I don't buy that. I think any one with common sense knows a lot is going on behind the scenes and pretty much what is going on, most us average types can figure that much. I think he preached a hard party line to get in office and knew he would play the game in office. It's pure politics, say one thing, do another. We all knew Bush was doing a lot of spying and why he was, but the fact is Obama expanded it more to spy on Americans than the enemy.

[Jimbuna]

Shocking news, it appears that politicians are suspected of not telling the truth

Far too quick for me.

[Ducimus]

The most adept at bypassing and going around the supreme law of the land, is a constitutional lawyer turned Politican.

[Tribesman]

We all knew Bush was doing a lot of spying and why he was, but the fact is Obama expanded it more to spy on Americans than the enemy.
Is it a fact, and can you define "the enemy"?

Take jihad jane and the marathon nuts for starters.
Americans or "the enemy"?

[Wolferz]

http://news.msn.com/us/nsas-control-of-phone-data-will-be-terminated



Gonna cut it all back like a hedge that's become overgrown.:O:


Now, let's see what he trims and what he lies about trimming.:hmmm:

With age comes knowledge, with knowledge comes wisdom

[Ducimus]

http://news.msn.com/us/nsas-control-of-phone-data-will-be-terminated



Gonna cut it all back like a hedge that's become overgrown.:O:


Now, let's see what he trims and what he lies about trimming.:hmmm:

With age comes knowledge, with knowledge comes wisdom



If you like your Privacy you can keep it. :shifty:

[Tribesman]

I like Mark Mardells' summary of the speech on the BBC.

Basically there's a lot of stuff he now says the NSA shouldn't do. Unless they think they ought to. :woot:

[MH]

I don't buy that. I think any one with common sense knows a lot is going on behind the scenes and pretty much what is going on, most us average types can figure that much. I think he preached a hard party line to get in office and knew he would play the game in office. It's pure politics, say one thing, do another. We all knew Bush was doing a lot of spying and why he was, but the fact is Obama expanded it more to spy on Americans than the enemy.

Possibly or possibly you sometimes see only end results of things you are not aware of.
There also things better not decided upon on speculations but rather with all the info you might get.

[Wolferz]

If you like your Privacy you can keep it. :shifty:
Unless we think you don't deserve it.:shucks:

Let's make government bigger with overseers for the overseers.:-?

[Ducimus]

Unless we think you don't deserve it.:shucks:

Let's make government bigger with overseers for the overseers.:-?

Personally, I didn't even bother to listen to Obama. There really is no point. You know when he's lying if his lips are moving.

I was however, watching user commentary on the major news sources following his speech and thankfully, it doesn't look like too many are being fooled by the Liar N Chief anymore. Maybe there's hope yet for this nation.

[Wolferz]

Personally, I didn't even bother to listen to Obama. There really is no point. You know when he's lying if his lips are moving.

I was however, watching user commentary on the major news sources following his speech and thankfully, it doesn't look like too many are being fooled by the Liar N Chief anymore. Maybe there's hope yet for this nation.

It makes you thankful that presidents are limited to two terms.:up:

[Oberon]

It makes you thankful that presidents are limited to two terms.:up:

And this makes a difference, how? :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

And this makes a difference, how? :hmmm:
It makes the difference of them not caring about anything
relating to re election during their second term.
In the first term they have to maintain the pretence of doing good stuff, or just hope that their opponents run a complete muppet as a candidate

[Dread Knot]

Looking at his rather morose demeanor, I do wonder if our current president doesn't have a calendar tucked away in some back office of the White house, where he's frantically marking off the days until he's free at last to pursue a more lucrative and less stressful career, play golf and bask in the Hawaiian sun.

To enjoy the job of being an American president anymore, it seems you either have to be a political masochist or have an acute Messiah complex. Neither portends well for the future.

[Father Goose]

There's a whole litany of things he said in the past, and then did the exact opposite later. If one is bored, look around youtube, it's well documented on video. After all the reversals, i have come to the reasonable (yes reasonable) conclusion that If Obama says one thing, expect a high likelihood of the opposite of what he said to happen.

Personally, I didn't even bother to listen to Obama. There really is no point. You know when he's lying if his lips are moving.

A fair and reasonable assessment of the situation, one that I share. :up:

[Oberon]

It makes the difference of them not caring about anything
relating to re election during their second term.
In the first term they have to maintain the pretence of doing good stuff, or just hope that their opponents run a complete muppet as a candidate

That's true, but the overall mood of the posting seems to indicate that some people are under the impression that come 2016 things will change. I think they may be in for a disappointment no matter who wins. :03:

[Tribesman]

That's true, but the overall mood of the posting seems to indicate that some people are under the impression that come 2016 things will change. I think they may be in for a disappointment no matter who wins. :03:
Well that's just the latest dose of a recurring fantasy hopey changey election situation some people already got sold in '12 and '08, though of course they only followed on from those of the election before that, who followed on from the election before, who followed on.....

But this time it is going to be different, honestly, I heard it from a politician:03:

[Sailor Steve]

Personally, I didn't even bother to listen to Obama. There really is no point. You know when he's lying if his lips are moving.
An old joke usually used to refer to all politicians, and all lawyers. Considered funny because of its truth.

It makes you thankful that presidents are limited to two terms.:up:
And this makes a difference, how? :hmmm:
It makes the difference of them not caring about anything
relating to re election during their second term.
Actually it makes a difference because the time in which we have to listen to his horrible lies is limited. All to soon we can elect someone who claims to be completely different, so we can listen to his horrible lies for awhile.

To enjoy the job of being an American president anymore, it seems you either have to be a political masochist or have an acute Messiah complex. Neither portends well for the future.
That's nothing new. It's my understanding that most ex-presidents have said they wouldn't wish the job on their worst enemy.

[Oberon]

Actually it makes a difference because the time in which we have to listen to his horrible lies is limited. All to soon we can elect someone who claims to be completely different, so we can listen to his horrible lies for awhile.

I stand corrected. :salute:

I do ponder though, Skybirdian daydreams aside, what the solution for modern politics could be, a realistic and plausible one, not the usual kneejerk 'hang them all' or 'ban them if they say they want to be a politician'.
And furthermore, who is to blame? The politicians for saying what they think we want to hear, or us for only wanting to hear what we want to hear?

[Wolferz]

Let us sit and talk of cabbages and kings.

At least something good can be made of a cabbage.:sunny:

[Catfish]

The potus really has to stop those ridiculous speeches of reforming the National Socialists of America, if not they will be dieing of laughter.
:yep:

[Ducimus]

It makes you thankful that presidents are limited to two terms.:up:

Now if we can only get the same limitation imposed upon congress.

[Wolferz]

Now if we can only get the same limitation imposed upon congress.

I agree. We need to stop giving these people lifetime paid vacations in DC.:hmmm:

[Platapus]

Now if we can only get the same limitation imposed upon congress.

They already have it. 2 years for Representatives and 6 years for Senators, unless the citizens of the respective states use their constitutional authority and re-elect them.

We may not agree with the decisions of the voting public, but I really don't want to place more restrictions on our dwindling civil rights.

Realize that the term "term limitations" really means that the government is telling the citizens who they can and can't vote for in an election. Is this really what we want?

A better solution is to educate the citizens so that they make informed decisions when it comes to voting. It is not an easy solution, but one I believe is the best.

Term limitations for congress sounds attractive as a short term solution, but I fear that it may be a cure worse than the disease.

What we really want is term limitations for those members we don't like, but no term limitations for those members we do like. :O:

I don't like term limitations for the president, but I understand the historical and practical differences between a president and a member of congress.

Given the choice of one or the other, I would rather eliminate term limitations for elected positions.

[Ducimus]

They already have it. 2 years for Representatives and 6 years for Senators, unless the citizens of the respective states use their constitutional authority and re-elect them.

If they are still electable then there is no real term limit is there?

We may not agree with the decisions of the voting public, but I really don't want to place more restrictions on our dwindling civil rights.

Career politicians are one reason why our civil rights are dwindling.

Realize that the term "term limitations" really means that the government is telling the citizens who they can and can't vote for in an election. Is this really what we want?

I don't see it that way. Term limitations exist to limit or reduce power and corruption in the government. There is something inherently wrong when one can say that presidents come and go, but some congressman are always there. It's a good ole boys club on capital hill, and many times, they act in a way that is summarized as "I know what's best for you". That in my view, is dictatorial.

A better solution is to educate the citizens so that they make informed decisions when it comes to voting. It is not an easy solution, but one I believe is the best.

That is part of the solution, but not "the" solution. Sometimes I don't know what is worse, the politicians, or the idiots who elected them.

Term limitations for congress sounds attractive as a short term solution, but I fear that it may be a cure worse than the disease.

I strongly disagree here. Term limits are part of a long term solution to put the government back in control of "We the people", in this fast fading constitutional republic. We need to irraticate the truth that we have the best government money can buy, and getting rid of career Politicans is part of that solution. We do not need the situation where public officials can be bought and paid for in order to maintain power of office; which coincidentally makes voting, more often then not, illusionary.

What we really want is term limitations for those members we don't like, but no term limitations for those members we do like. :O:

Can't do that without having a double standard. I think one standard will do, besides, resting our well being on the shoulders of an aging politician sounds like a very bad idea to me.


I don't like term limitations for the president, but I understand the historical and practical differences between a president and a member of congress.

Speaking of historical contexts of No term limits, "President for life" or "Congressman for life" is no different then "Dictator for life". Power corrupts, its a truth as sure as we are human.


Given the choice of one or the other, I would rather eliminate term limitations for elected positions.

I think you'd be trying to put a fire out with gasoline by doing so. We need congressional term limits, and we needed them yesterday. We don't need anymore Feinstien's or McCain's.

[Platapus]

I don't see how having "amateur" members of congress will automatically be an improvement.

If a congresscritter knows he or she only has short time in office, what is to prevent them from just doing what will benefit them in the short term and then leave the problems to the next "amateur"?

It is not the length of the term/terms that is the problem. The problem is the person.

[soopaman2]

Now if we can only get the same limitation imposed upon congress.


I wanted to spam a ton of positive emoticons as a response.


Ok I cannot help myself.

:yeah::yeah::up::salute::woot::woot::yeah::sunny:: sunny::sunny::rock::rock::rock::subsim::subsim::su bsim::rock::up::salute::salute::salute:

Congress and the house, and its elementary schoolyard bickering is why this country is fast approaching Nigeria, in political integrity.

If we didn't have a large army we would be as much of a joke on the world stage as N korea.

[Tribesman]

Congress and the house, and its elementary schoolyard bickering is why this country is fast approaching Nigeria, in political integrity.

If we didn't have a large army we would be as much of a joke on the world stage as N korea.
Those are two countries which also have the death penalty, you should be happy at becoming like them soopa.:03:
N.Korea also has a larger army, it doesn't stop it from being a joke though.

[Ducimus]

I don't see how having "amateur" members of congress will automatically be an improvement.

If a congresscritter knows he or she only has short time in office, what is to prevent them from just doing what will benefit them in the short term and then leave the problems to the next "amateur"?

It is not the length of the term/terms that is the problem. The problem is the person.


I would say that it is partially because of the length of terms and near unlimited time to hold the power of office, is one reason why we get the people we do in office. I've heard all the "amature" and "continuity" arguments before and I am unconvinced. I would give senator's like Feinstien as a great example why. The power someone like her wields through committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Committees) is frightening, and she or someone like her is at the center of our dwindling civil rights and liberties. Furthermore, the longer someone is part of the washington club, the more locked in to party politiics and ideology they seem to become.

Overall, all arguments considered, I think a maximum of 4 two year terms for a Representative, and a maximum of 2 six year terms for a Senator, is quite reasonable.

[soopaman2]

You forgot the power the California wicked witch of the west, Nancy Pelosi has, despite not being in charge anymore.

It reminds me of an Eddie Murphy movie, called the distinguished Gentleman,. He was a con man, who got himself elected because he shared a name with the old congressman who died, he preyed on idiots who pull the lever based on habit, and not education. Funny enough, this happened in Florida, long before the Bush Brothers election rigging debacle.

This is the main problem, partisan nonsense.


"Well,we always vote Jefferson"

movie quote.


Except in real life, the conman never has a change of heart.

[Admiral Lutjens]

There's a whole litany of things he said in the past, and then did the exact opposite later. If one is bored, look around youtube, it's well documented on video. After all the reversals, i have come to the reasonable (yes reasonable) conclusion that If Obama says one thing, expect a high likelihood of the opposite of what he said to happen.

This is particularly frightening because of how quickly people are to forget how much of a malcontent and hypocrite this man really is. Not to mention the people behind him pulling the strings such as Valerie Jarrett and George Soros.

Liberals just don't get it and it's amazing how blind they are, in particular their blind hatred of traditionalist American values. It's getting to the point where even some of the most hardcore Liberals are calling out Obama, that's extremely sad.

[Tchocky]

There was a great influx of new faces after the 2010 House elections, people who campaigned on not being Washington insiders, having new ideas and an outside-the-Beltway perspective.



That worked out............great.

[Admiral Lutjens]

There was a great influx of new faces after the 2010 House elections, people who campaigned on not being Washington insiders, having new ideas and an outside-the-Beltway perspective.



That worked out............great.

Oh, but it did work. The Tea Party revolution of 2010 brought....holy cow! The ordinary citizen back to the forefront. Liberals and establishment Republicans alike despise and dismiss the Tea Party because they are a threat to the status quo. What those people call 'crazy' I call 'realists'.

[Tchocky]

Oh, but it did work. The Tea Party revolution of 2010 brought....holy cow! The ordinary citizen back to the forefront. Liberals and establishment Republicans alike despise and dismiss the Tea Party because they are a threat to the status quo. What those people call 'crazy' I call 'realists'.

Er, no. Unless you define "working" as "making themselves look terrible and accomplish nothing".

Which I suppose might be the end goal of electing people to offices they don't believe should exist at all.


The ordinary citizens preferred cockroaches to the 112th Congress. Least productive and most disliked in history.


EDIT - What exactly was the "Tea Party Revolution". What changed? Aside from the aforementioned holy cow.

[Admiral Lutjens]

Er, no. Unless you define "working" as "making themselves look terrible and accomplish nothing".

Which I suppose might be the end goal of electing people to offices they don't believe should exist at all.


The ordinary citizens preferred cockroaches to the 112th Congress. Least productive and most disliked in history.


EDIT - What exactly was the "Tea Party Revolution". What changed? Aside from the aforementioned holy cow.

When Harry Reid refuses to allow legislation to pass through, nothing gets accomplished. If any anger should be directed at anybody, it should be at him. Liberals know nothing other than "take, take, take" and "mine, mine, mine", and when you have politicians that benefit off of this - both politically and financially (fun fact: there's far more millionaires in Congress on the left, than there is the right).

Why is that? Simple...Liberal Democrats control nearly every major city and brainwash and pit the less-well off folks against the better off folks because that's how the left consolidates their power. I mean look at these numbskulls....Jerry Brown, Cuomo, Bloomberg, de Blasio....there's a reason why this country is turning into a joke. They also control the media, the entertainment industry, the edumacation system....

The goal is to turn people into drones and keep them naive, because when someone is kept naive, they are able to be controlled with that carrot at the end of the stick.

In regards to the Tea Party, people rose up and elected candidates that they felt represented the individual. I'm for anybody that's anti-political establishment, because those are the nutjobs that are running our society into the ground. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz get deemed as nuts because people are perplexed that these folks have the gall to take on the big money establishment, whether it be Democratic or Republican. And both establishment types go out of their way to smear these folks.

Why? Because they are dangerous. Not to you or me, but to the status quo. Anytime the status quo gets scared, that's a good thing for the ordinary citizen.

Heaven forbid we live in an American society where people are mature enough to make their own choices that benefit - or don't benefit - their daily lives or even be allowed to defend themselves.

In conclusion, the establishment, particularly the left in this country, are systematically destroying it. Social policies are for the most part fantasy. It's divide and conquer....and the folks that fight against that get smeared.

[Sailor Steve]

Yep, heard that one before. Everything that's wrong with the country is aways the fault of the "other side". It's just what your opponents do, and they're just as convinced they're right as you are. Me, I don't have a side. Would you care to discuss the subject, or is a tirade the preferred method of communication these days?

[Wolferz]

Both sides of the aisle have been complicit in the divide and conquer strategy.

Once a politician gets elected, they get indoctrinated to siddown and shaddup.:hmmm: Do your duty with the insider trading scheme and Wall Street will make you and your staff rich beyond the dreams of Avarice.
Once a junior rep gets a taste of that pie they become worthless to those who elected them.

[Admiral Lutjens]

Yep, heard that one before. Everything that's wrong with the country is aways the fault of the "other side". It's just what your opponents do, and they're just as convinced they're right as you are. Me, I don't have a side. Would you care to discuss the subject, or is a tirade the preferred method of communication these days?

I'm always open to discussion.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm always open to discussion.
Cool. I just tend to get my back up when someone starts blaming the other side for everything. I think it started when I read the 1800 newspaper headline promoting John Adams for re-election: " If Jefferson is elected, murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes."

[Admiral Lutjens]

Cool. I just tend to get my back up when someone starts blaming the other side for everything. I think it started when I read the 1800 newspaper headline promoting John Adams for re-election: " If Jefferson is elected, murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes."

:haha: Nice touch! If you haven't watched the series on John Adams, I'd highly recommend you do so. Washington didn't believe in political parties, and Adams was a Federalist. I don't have a party designation, but I do kind of consider myself a new-age Federalist.

It's not so much me blaming the 'other side' as I'm neither Democrat or Republican, it's moreso me blaming the status quo. I can relate and respect the Tea Party movement because they're standing up to and directly challenging the status quo, and that's a refreshing concept to see in this day and age.

People disparage these folks because it's almost like they're stunned that people would have the audacity to run against them. In the last couple of cycles, several 'establishment' candidates got bumped out office. I firmly believe in term limits and respect the constitution.

However, the Tea Party gets absolutely blasted at every turn by folks from both sides of the aisle. Labels such as 'crazy' or 'racist'....just silly and unfounded attacks. Why does the establishment attack them? Because they fear the Tea Party. The Tea Party champions truly placing the power back with the individual, and to the establishment, that's dangerous.

If you watched Obama's SOTU speech, basically it was a couple name drops here and there to help with the mid term elections, and the rest of was talking about how he's not getting his way so he'll find a way to get things done whether anybody likes it or not. Case in point, this president is the most dangerous, overreaching ideologue this country has seen in generations. I firmly believe he didn't even want to be president, but was coaxed into it by the powers-at-be after his keynote address at the 2004 DNC because he'd be the perfect tool to further a social agenda that's been on the mind of many egalitarians in this country for a long time.

And I firmly believe that he is doing just that, and because of that, we all are in trouble. Then we have Hillary and Elizabeth Warren potentially running in the next election....I'm genuinely fearful of the road this country is going down. 9/11 was the turning point in this nation's history, and it's all downhill from here.

[Sailor Steve]

:haha: Nice touch! If you haven't watched the series on John Adams, I'd highly recommend you do so. Washington didn't believe in political parties, and Adams was a Federalist. I don't have a party designation, but I do kind of consider myself a new-age Federalist.
Watch it? I own a copy. At the same time I'm loving it I also find myself complaining about the things they left out, most of which was so as not to confuse the audience.

Adams a Federalist? Don't tell Hamilton that. By the standards of wanting the Constitution passed, Washington was a federalist (small 'f'), as was Madison. Hamilton supported Adams mainly to keep Jefferson, whom he hated, at bay. Adams accepted Federalist aid, but once in office he was quite independent. Once Adams did things Hamilton didn't like, Adams was suddenly no more Federalist than Washington or Jefferson.

It's not so much me blaming the 'other side' as I'm neither Democrat or Republican, it's moreso me blaming the status quo. I can relate and respect the Tea Party movement because they're standing up to and directly challenging the status quo, and that's a refreshing concept to see in this day and age.
Fair enough. I don't like Obama myself, but when I see people blaming him for anything and everything I just have to say something.

However, the Tea Party gets absolutely blasted at every turn by folks from both sides of the aisle. Labels such as 'crazy' or 'racist'....just silly and unfounded attacks. Why does the establishment attack them? Because they fear the Tea Party. The Tea Party champions truly placing the power back with the individual, and to the establishment, that's dangerous.
Ultra Liberals hate the Tea Party because at heart the party is still quite conservative. Hardcore Republicans hate the tea party because the party is stealing some of their thunder. That seems fairly obvious to me. Both sides hate the fact that there is a third party which has actually gained some momentum. That's the status quo that's really being disrupted, and most of us are resistant to change.

The bad news for the Tea Party is that they really aren't organized or centralized. This makes it easy for the party's fringe elements to engage in questionable activities, and it makes it easy for opponents to blame those activities on the party itself.

I'm genuinely fearful of the road this country is going down. 9/11 was the turning point in this nation's history, and it's all downhill from here.
Possibly, but the losing side of every election for the past two hundred years has said the same thing.

[Admiral Lutjens]

Watch it? I own a copy. At the same time I'm loving it I also find myself complaining about the things they left out, most of which was so as not to confuse the audience.

Adams a Federalist? Don't tell Hamilton that. By the standards of wanting the Constitution passed, Washington was a federalist (small 'f'), as was Madison. Hamilton supported Adams mainly to keep Jefferson, whom he hated, at bay. Adams accepted Federalist aid, but once in office he was quite independent. Once Adams did things Hamilton didn't like, Adams was suddenly no more Federalist than Washington or Jefferson.


Fair enough. I don't like Obama myself, but when I see people blaming him for anything and everything I just have to say something.


Ultra Liberals hate the Tea Party because at heart the party is still quite conservative. Hardcore Republicans hate the tea party because the party is stealing some of their thunder. That seems fairly obvious to me. Both sides hate the fact that there is a third party which has actually gained some momentum. That's the status quo that's really being disrupted, and most of us are resistant to change.

The bad news for the Tea Party is that they really aren't organized or centralized. This makes it easy for the party's fringe elements to engage in questionable activities, and it makes it easy for opponents to blame those activities on the party itself.


Possibly, but the losing side of every election for the past two hundred years has said the same thing.

I didn't know much about Adams until watching the series really sparked my interest in him. The feuds between those men are very entertaining to read about. With Aaron Burr right in the thick of things too. :know:

[Sailor Steve]

I didn't know much about Adams until watching the series really sparked my interest in him. The feuds between those men are very entertaining to read about. With Aaron Burr right in the thick of things too. :know:
Those guys (all of them) have always been a particular favorite subject of mine. My favorite part of the series was Laura Linney's portrayal of Abigail. Of course there wasn't an actor in the show I didn't like. Have you seen the old George Washington miniseries with Barry Bostwick and Patty Duke. It has some flaws, and it has a completely different flavor than John Adams, but it is well worth seeing. Also there's Sally Hemings: An American Scandal, which takes some extreme historical liberties and speculates quite a bit, but in my estimation Sam Neill gives the best characterization of Jefferson ever, which makes it well worth seeing. It also has Mario van Peebles as James Hemings, Rene Auberjonois as James Callender and Mare Winningham as Jefferson's daughter Martha. Overall worth seeing.