Millard Fillmore's Bathtub

109 Responses to Obama H8rs complain, “Obama’s not emperor!”

1. JamesK says:

   March 6, 2013 at 6:20 pm

   And what would you have had Obama do, Joe? Just let the government stymie absolutely everything while he’s President? Let the country wither away and die because of their petulance? Continue to not try and fix immigration because of their pissyiness?

   Did your party give him any choice, Joe? Has your party at all compromised except in extreme cases where it’s been dragged into doing so kicking and screaming like children throwing a temper tantrum?

   Sorry, Joe, if Obama has expanded the power of the Presidency it is because you and your party gave him no choice. He can’t just sit on his arse for 8 years just because your party wants to throw a fit.

   LikeLike

2. JamesK says:

   March 6, 2013 at 4:44 pm

   So how come you’re not concerned when a Republican expands the power of the executive branch but you’re oh so concerned when a Democrat does?

   See this is what’s wrong your party. You just love to say “Do as we say but not as we do.” Your party kvetches about spending now and yet when your party was in charge your party spent like coked up Vegas hookers who just stole the Koch Brothers platinum card.

   You say you want small government and government out of peoples lives and yet you guys have expanded the government the most and even now are trying to shove government up women’s hoohahs.

   You whine about the poor not paying taxes but you don’t bat an eye at the rich and the corporations not paying taxes.

   As long as you continue to turn a blind eye to your own party’s problems, Joe, you have no credibility so therefor what you say simply doesn’t matter.

   LikeLike

3. JamesK says:

   March 6, 2013 at 4:40 pm

   To quote: Beyond this, Obama truly HAS expanded the scope of the executive branch. He’s made the bully pulpit adequately named…bully. Talk to Bob Woodward and those like him who have dared to challenge him directly.

   First off, the Bob Woodward has been proven to be a hoax.

   Secondly…and again..you didn’t kvetch when George W Bush was expanding the scope of the executive branch. So why should we consider you anything other than one more mealy mouthed conservative hypocrite?

   You are suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome. Go get yourself cured.

   LikeLike

4. jsojourner says:

   March 6, 2013 at 3:57 pm

   Bob Woodward was bullied? Is this really the best the ODS sufferers can come up with?

   Jim

   PS: No. He wasn’t. Not even close. Read the emails.

   LikeLike

5. JamesK says:

   March 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm

   To quote: your mama’s coatails

   *sighs* mixing up my metaphors. That should be “your father’s coattails.”

   LikeLike

6. JamesK says:

   March 6, 2013 at 3:33 pm

   Oh I did leave out the part where you act like a little boy and hide behind your mama’s coatails saying “But I can do nothing!” when we point out how out of touch with reality your “friends” in your party are acting. You’re a former preacher right? Well that means you more than anyone else here has a moral responsibility to speak out against your own when they’re acting dumbly, ignorantly, stupidly, racistly, derangedly or immorally. Else really you’re just proving what Ghandi meant he was asked what he thought of Jesus Christ and his response was “I like your Jesus Christ. But you Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Well if there is an actual anti-Christ in this country it sure as **** is your party at least as far as behavior and actions go.

   In 5 years has your party proposed any actual solutions to any actual problems? Has it proposed anything that isn’t more of the same tired failed crap that they peddled on this country before?

   LikeLike

7. JamesK says:

   March 6, 2013 at 3:28 pm

   To quote: I think it’s getting a little incredulous to continue the “I have more credibility because I’ve criticized my party more than you” type gig, don’t you think? It’s one thing to point out an inconsistency and it’s another to have a whole back and forth over whether or not the other person has done enough to warrant credibility.

   Can we get back to the subject at hand?

   Sure. The subject being that Obama is a centrist President who is trying to fix the country’s problems and instead of doing their patriotic duty and helping your party is having a 5 year long conniption fit and is willing to let Rome burn while they fiddle and wallow in fear, paranoia, racism and outright delusional fantasy. Oh and did I leave out the part where your party is actively trying to destroy the middle class and the poor in service of the rich and their, meaning your party’s, bent and crackpot ideology.

   What I also find incredulous is your sitting there defending your party when your party is doing its level best to **** you and your family over six ways to sunday.

   LikeLike

8. Ed Darrell says:

   March 6, 2013 at 1:36 pm

   Boonton, writing at Mark’s blog, Pseudo-Polymath, makes a good point, I think:

   No. We don’t say that. We just tiredly remark that “not an Emperor” is a feature not a bug.

   We? Whose this we? The blog post you cited was about a specific person, Mike Savage. Are you saying Savage was being misquoted? Are you saying that Savage speaks for you and some larger subset of people who can be called Republicans or Conservatives or whatnot?

   A while ago you had some link about why it wasn’t right to call Nazis ‘mindless’. I asked you to speculate what the right wing media would say if Obama had actually given that ‘preferred speech’. You claimed it would either be ignored or they would say “Obama gets it”. I think here we see what would happen in real life. Right wing media works not by selling facts but by selling an emotion of righteous indignation. If that can’t be supplied by facts, the facts will be distorted as needed just as a shaddy bar will water down the drinks to keep the bottom line up.

   LikeLike

9. Ed Darrell says:

   March 6, 2013 at 1:30 pm

   Can we get back to the subject at hand?

   Sure. Obama’s not a dictator. Obama didn’t say he wants to be dictator. Our immigration policies would make Jesus weep, and need to be changed. Wondering about democrat Obama’s dictatorial tendencies distracts from serious discussions we need to have, including how to change our immigration system — which GOP now says they will filibuster in both the Senate and House (in the House withe the Hastert Filibuster “rule”).

   Still.

   LikeLike

10. lowerleavell says:

    March 6, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    I think it’s getting a little incredulous to continue the “I have more credibility because I’ve criticized my party more than you” type gig, don’t you think? It’s one thing to point out an inconsistency and it’s another to have a whole back and forth over whether or not the other person has done enough to warrant credibility.

    Can we get back to the subject at hand?

    LikeLike

11. JamesK says:

    March 5, 2013 at 11:08 pm

    To quote: No, I stand by my original assertion. I said that the only criticism was the president could do more, is not liberal enough, etc. I don’t see any direct criticism of policy that you are ideologically opposed to.

    And yet I listed a couple policies of the President’s that I’ve disagreed with. And that’s hardly the first time I’ve done so or Ed or Jim have. So knock off the stupid false equivalancy.

    Oh and by the way..I have never seen you either criticize W or any Republican. You have yet to voice any criticism of policy that you are ideologically opposed to when it comes to the last Republican president or the the current Republican House.

    So I find it hilarious that you’re trying to hold us to a standard that 1: we’ve already met before and that 2: you have yet to meet.

    LikeLike

12. lowerleavell says:

    March 5, 2013 at 4:12 pm

    Ed said, “Perhaps the lack of vitriol aimed directly at the president has confused you about what criticism is.”

    No, I stand by my original assertion. I said that the only criticism was the president could do more, is not liberal enough, etc. I don’t see any direct criticism of policy that you are ideologically opposed to.

    I’m not OK with vitriol aimed at the president. I’ve told my “right” friends many times that we have enough ideological disagreements with Obama that we don’t have to make stuff up. Sorry you weren’t privy to those conversations but they didn’t post them on their blog.

    But let’s go back to the original conversation, shall we? I challenged you to deny that the executive branch had expanded under Obama’s tenure. Your reply?

    “Madison said our Constitution can work only for a wise and moral people.

    God help us, as this discussion indicates, too many in our nation are neither.”

    You can say what you will, but you ducked the question. So, I’ll ask it again. Has the executive branch expanded under the Obama administration? If you can demonstrate how it has shrunk then I’ll be happy to backtrack from my “yikes” and apologize. I really do want to be wrong.

    But what do we see:
    We see a public continue to clamor for Obama to use dictatorial powers causing him to say yet again, “I’m not the dictator” last Friday I believe it was. Why would they do this if they didn’t think that he would act? I’m glad he said he wasn’t the dictator but Nixon also is quoted as saying, “I’m not a crook” and Clinton is noted as saying, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…” If what the public sees from him is a “flexing” (his words) of his administrative capabilities then those who are ideologically in agreement will only want him to do more flexing. This is problematic and dangerous and you won’t even admit that it’s there…even when Obama does. He addresses the problem and you won’t. This goes back to my original assertion that the number one problem is that there are people that WANT Obama to be dictator. You disagree that there are people like this?

    Beyond this, Obama truly HAS expanded the scope of the executive branch. He’s made the bully pulpit adequately named…bully. Talk to Bob Woodward and those like him who have dared to challenge him directly.

    Check out this article (a bit outdated) on some of the ways the Obama administration has expanded the executive branch’s powers…powers that he decried as a Senator.

    I’ve criticized Bush about the same thing, but even if I didn’t, I could still be speaking the truth.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812904577292273665694712.html

    LikeLike

13. lowerleavell says:

    March 5, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Ed said, “That would be true, Joe, if the taxes on the middle class hadn’t had to be increased, or deficits had to be obtained, in order to get that money to the rich.

    I never cease to marvel at the GOP and so-called conservative claim that we cannot afford to pay unemployment benefits, or food to the hungry, because it will make them lazy; but we must give billions to the very wealthy, so they won’t get discouraged.”

    Did you get any bailout money Ed? I sure didn’t. Who did they bail out again? The very people from whom you want to see taxes raised. You’re

    Taxes alone will not solve the problem, but the Feds continue to hand-out money like it’s going out of style. To who? Not to the poor. Maybe instead of just raising taxes and hoping that some of that tax revenue will trickle down to the poor, maybe the government should stop handing out (almost) free money to the top 10% and then say they’re not paying their fair share. Maybe that would help?

    If the government were serious about stimulus and helping the middle class/lower classes, they would have done so from the beginning. But it’s the “too big to fail” groups that got even bigger and fatter and now you just think taxing them more is going to help? Pah-lease.

    You know how you would solve the revenue problem and the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer? Jobs! What’s the president working on? It ain’t jobs.

    How are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? The rich are getting bailouts and cheap money from the Feds and the poor are getting laid off and falling off the unemployment list because they just give up.

    The stock market is higher than it’s ever been before…thanks to our Federal government and the Feds. Here’s hoping that trickle down prosperity effect that you guys claim doesn’t work actually works in this case, because the Feds are banking (literally) on it.

    LikeLike

14. JamesK says:

    March 5, 2013 at 12:10 pm

    Let’sget this straight, Joe.

    You have health issues, your wife has health issues. At least some of the rest of your family has health issues….and you don’t have health insurance.

    And not only are you a Republican but you support the GOP’s desire to destroy what little safety net exists in this country including medicare and medicaid.

    And you have a problem with the government providing universal health care even though under such an idea you and your family would benefit from it.

    Wow I didn’t think it was possible, Joe, but if this was, just to come up with a metaphor of the sheer boneheaded hypocrisy and stupidity you’re engaging in, 17th century Massachusetts I’d be asking you if 1: you were a witch and 2: supported the Salem Witch Trials and then I’d ask 3: if you were openly promulgating it. As in if you were accusing everyone around you of being a witch because you thought it’d be fun to have companions in the bonfire.

    LikeLike

15. JamesK says:

    March 4, 2013 at 10:14 am

    To quote: To quote:
    Figure one – taxes on the wealthy have been lowered considerably.
    Figure two – the wealthy’s share of the income has risen considerably and their wealth continues to increase.

    Lesson to be learned: Lower taxes = an immediate increase in wealth.

    ANd the wealth explosion among the rich disproves the other central tenent of Republican thinking.

    That the more money the rich have the more jobs and economic prosperity will be created for everyone else. That the wealth will “trickle down” to the masses.

    Well it’s not. It’s being stagnated at the top and stuck there.

    LikeLike

16. JamesK says:

    March 3, 2013 at 10:15 pm

    Oh and even better, Joe. In the case of Walmart do you and your party go after Walmart for paying it’s employees so poorly and thus creating the need for those employees to require government assistance?

    Does your party come up with ways to help those employees?

    Of course not.

    You and your party attack and insult the employees as if they had a choice in the matter. And then on top of it you and your party want to make them poorer.

    You and your party are in effect blaming the victims of economic rape for being economically raped and then defending the ones committing the economic rape when it’s *gasp* suggested that they pay some sort of price for their actions.

    LikeLike

17. JamesK says:

    March 3, 2013 at 10:12 pm

    To quote: SOrry, Joe, despite your right delusion to the contrary

    That should read “Sorry, Joe, despite your right wing delusion to the contrary..”

    LikeLike

18. JamesK says:

    March 3, 2013 at 10:12 pm

    Oh if you want evidence of that theft here. Mitt Romney and his little band of economic parasites bought KB Toystores. At the time that Mittens bought it, KB Toys was perfectly profitable and was the 2nd largest toy retailer in the country.

    Over the course of the next few years Bain used KB Toystores money to pay itself large consulting fees and such. To the point that KB Toystores ended up going bankrupt. And in the liquidation Mittens and his economic vampires walked away with a more than doubling of their investment…and the pension fund of KB toystores employees.

    Or another example. Quite a large portion of Walmart’s employees are getting government assistance. Walmart could afford to pay all of its employees an addtional $5000 a year lifting them all out of poverty, which means less need for government assistance, and still have made a profit of 7 billion dollars last year.

    SOrry, Joe, despite your right delusion to the contrary the problem with the middle class and the poor isn’t the taxes they pay..it’s the fact that they’re simply not being paid enough. And the problem with the rich isn’t that their taxes are too high..it’s that they’re taking too big a piece of the economic pie.

    If they want such a huge slice of the economic pie then they can pay the most in taxes. And that you and the GOP base sit there and kvetch and moan about the taxes that the rich pay only goes to prove that you and the Republican base are a bunch of gullible naive fools who are being conned into selling out your own economic interests for the economic interests of the likes of Mittens and the Koch brothers.

    LikeLike

19. JamesK says:

    March 3, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    To quote:
    Figure one – taxes on the wealthy have been lowered considerably.
    Figure two – the wealthy’s share of the income has risen considerably and their wealth continues to increase.

    Lesson to be learned: Lower taxes = an immediate increase in wealth.

    Yeah the problem with that is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. You’re assuming that the explosion of wealth among the rich is because of their lowered taxes. That’s a false assumption.

    The explosion of wealth among the rich is because they’ve been stealing the money from the middle class and the poor. The proof..as the income and wealth growth of the rich went up..the income and wealth growth of the middle class and the poor went down.

    From 1947 to 1979 this was the share of income growth among the classes:

    Bottom 20%: 116%
    Second 20%: 100%
    Middle 20%: 111%
    Fourth 20%: 114%
    Top 20%: 99%

    From 1980-2007 this was the share of income growth among the classes:

    Bottom 20%: 15%
    Second 20%: 22%
    Middle 20%: 23%
    Fourth 20%: 33%
    Top 20%: 95% (However this drops to 31% when you remove the top 1%)
    Top 1%: 261%

    The wage of the average worker has only increased 5% in the last 40 years. Meanwhile the average CEO’s pay has increased 700% in the same time period.

    It isn’t the cutting of taxes that caused such an explosion of wealth growth among the rich, Joe, it’s them along with your party staganting the income growth of everyone else and engaging in a grand round of income redistribution from the bottom and middle towards the top that caused such an explosion of wealth growth among the rich.

    Sorry, Joe, cutting taxes isn’t the answer. And do you really think you’re going to see an explosion of income growth among the middle class and the poor if you cut the safety net out from under them? The safety net is the only thing keeping the middle class in the middle class and is the only thing allowing the poor to surive.

    LikeLike

20. Ed Darrell says:

    March 3, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    That would be true, Joe, if the taxes on the middle class hadn’t had to be increased, or deficits had to be obtained, in order to get that money to the rich.

    I never cease to marvel at the GOP and so-called conservative claim that we cannot afford to pay unemployment benefits, or food to the hungry, because it will make them lazy; but we must give billions to the very wealthy, so they won’t get discouraged.

    LikeLike

21. Ed Darrell says:

    March 3, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    In 2010, 93% of all new income went to the top 1%, while the bottom 99% of people had the privilege of enjoying the remaining 7%.

    — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) March 3, 2013

    LikeLike

22. lowerleavell says:

    March 3, 2013 at 10:09 am

    I’ll hopefully have time to respond to Ed later, but there is an important economic principle that you all are missing here – even though it is an economic principle that you are complaining about.

    Figure one – taxes on the wealthy have been lowered considerably.
    Figure two – the wealthy’s share of the income has risen considerably and their wealth continues to increase.

    Lesson to be learned: Lower taxes = an immediate increase in wealth.

    Before moving on, I hope that you all can agree with this principle. But then again, that would require less government.

    Maybe if we did the same thing with the middle class then their portion of the wealth would explode as well.

    Ed, taxes were raised twice – I’m including the taxes on the wealthy from Obamacare that are going into effect. Those are real.

    LikeLike

23. JamesK says:

    March 3, 2013 at 9:33 am

    To quote: I mean, if we’re talking “fair.” How about the percentage of Americans who get a rebate check and do not pay ANY federal taxes. Is that fair?

    Oh you mean like, and this is from Bernie Sanders website:

    1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

    2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

    3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

    4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

    5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

    6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

    7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

    8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

    9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

    10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

    You’re seriously kvetching about the Earned Income Tax? Really? The thing that Republicans and their savior Reagan championed as a way to help the poor without setting up a huge government program?

    Fine you want them to pay taxes…THEN THEY SHOULD BE PAID MORE.

    To quote: Let me ask you Ed (not the others on this site), what percentage of their income/investments, etc. would you consider the wealthy’s “fair share”?

    Let me ask you, Joe, and anyone else can chime in on this: what percentage of the wealth in this country would you consider the fair share of the wealthy?

    Since the 1950’s we have cut taxes on the rich by more than 2/3rds. When have we cut their taxes enough, Joe? Considering they used to pay a far higher share in taxes then they even do now then where do you get off trying to argue that they’re paying too high taxes now?

    LikeLike

24. JamesK says:

    March 3, 2013 at 9:27 am

    To quote:
    Ed said, “Raising taxes? Why are you opposed to fairness in taxes?”

    I’m not oppose to that at all. I’m just curious who gets to determine what the definition of the word “fair” really is? According to Forbes, the top 1% paid 37.4% of our nation’s taxes.

    And collected more than 40% of the income, right?

    The bottom 95% paid 40.9%.

    But collected less than 40.9% of the income.

    When we get to solutions, let’s not leave out the 4% missing from that your numbers.

    In 2010 the top 1% held 34.5% of the wealth. That means they’re paying more than their fair share, right?
    ~~~~~~

    Lets buy you a little clue, Joe, when it comes to fairness:

    You say the 1% paid 37% of the taxes.

    Lets just assume that’s true.

    Well as of 2007 this was the distribution of wealth:

    Top 1%: 33.8%
    Next 9%: 37.7%
    Bottom 50%: 2.5%
    The rest: 26%

    So if you want to claim it’s unfair of us to raise taxes on the top 1% when they paid 37% of the taxes then I’m sure you’ll have no problem in agreeing that it’s also unfair that between them and the next richest 9% they have 70% of the wealth.

    Oh and those figures have only gotten more skewed since 2007. The richest 10% have gotten more of the wealth and the 90% have gotten less.

    So if you and your side doesn’t want us to raise taxes on the richest 1% or the richest 10% then fine..all you and your side has to do to earn our agreement on that is to agree that the wealth needs to be more equitably distributed so that the vast majority of it isn’t going to the very few. And that if the free market doesn’t do so..and it hasn’t..then it’s the responsibility of the government to do so.

    Well?

    LikeLike

25. Ed Darrell says:

    March 3, 2013 at 12:40 am

    Robert Reich posted this on Facebook:

    In the summer of 1967 I went to Washington for my first job, as an intern in the office of Robert Kennedy. It was a difficult time for the nation. Many of our cities were burning, including parts of Washington. The Vietnam War was escalating. America was deeply split over civil rights and the war. It felt personal. A few years before, one of my friends had gone to Mississippi to register black voters and been viciously tortured and murdered. Now, other friends were being drafted. The future looked ominous. But RFK was upbeat. He was also busy and intense — drafting legislation, lining up votes, speaking to the poor, inspiring the young. I was awed by his energy and optimism, and his overriding passion for social justice and the public good. (Within a few months he’d declare his intention to run for president. Within a year he’d be dead.)

    I thought about Robert Kennedy yesterday as Washington ground to a halt. The nation is once again polarized, but I don’t hear our politicians talking about social justice or the public good. They’re talking instead about the budget deficit and sequestration. But at bottom, the issues are still about social justice. It’s because Republicans refuse to even discuss closing tax loopholes for the wealthy that federal money is no longer going to poor schools or into child nutrition or preschools or mental-health services, or any number of things we have done to help the less fortunate. Meanwhile, the nation has become far more unequal than it was in 1967. Then, the richest 1 percent got 9 percent of the nation’s total income and paid a top marginal tax of 78 percent (and an effective rate, after deductions and credits, of 54 percent). Now they get over 20 percent of the nation’s income and pay a marginal tax of 39 percent (and an effective rate of 23 percent — or, if you’re in Mitt Romney’s league, less than 19 percent).

    This is morally wrong. If Robert Kennedy were alive today he’d condemn the Tea Party Republicans (and the Koch Brother billionaires who fund them) for violating the basic ideal of social justice that is the moral foundation of this nation.

    LikeLike

26. Ed Darrell says:

    March 3, 2013 at 12:34 am

    Ed said, “Raising taxes? Why are you opposed to fairness in taxes?”

    I’m not oppose to that at all. I’m just curious who gets to determine what the definition of the word “fair” really is? According to Forbes, the top 1% paid 37.4% of our nation’s taxes.

    And collected more than 40% of the income, right?

    The bottom 95% paid 40.9%.

    But collected less than 40.9% of the income.

    When we get to solutions, let’s not leave out the 4% missing from that your numbers.

    In 2010 the top 1% held 34.5% of the wealth. That means they’re paying more than their fair share, right?

    Not at all. It means they’ve accumulated an untoward share of the wealth.

    If we’re talking about a progressive income tax, then it is only fair that the top group carry their fair share of the load. As it is, the top few income getters and the top few earners pay less taxes than either their share of wealth increase or their share of income.

    Warren Buffet is neither stupid, nor evil, and we should pay attention to his proposal, that a secretary should not pay a higher percentage of income to taxes as his billionaire boss.

    I mean, if we’re talking “fair.” How about the percentage of Americans who get a rebate check and do not pay ANY federal taxes. Is that fair?

    I think far too many of the 1% pay no taxes. No, that’s not fair. I think far too many of the top 50% pay no taxes. That’s not fair, either.

    We might want to pay attention to how much wealth has been redistributed, from the middle class and poor, to the top few percent. This is an unhealthy shift. When wealth is concentrated in the top few percent of a population, the economy is unstable and cannot continue.

    It’s a question of whether we want to continue with America. I vote yes — you vote no, Joe?

    Let’s take a look at real figures of income inequality:

    The distribution of pretax income in the United States today is highly unequal. The most careful studies suggest that the top 10 percent of households, with average income of about $200,000, received 42 percent of all pretax money income in the late 1990s. The top 1 percent of households, averaging $800,000 of income, received 15 percent of all pretax money income.

    That’s not fair. It’s not equitable. People who work should get fair pay for their work.

    I suspect these numbers come from a different source than yours, but if we look at these income inequalities, we start to understand why the nation struggles. Our country functions when the middle class gets wealthier. Our tax system isn’t helping that at all, but instead pushing wealth to the Marie Antoinettes and Donald Trumps.

    Beyond this, I thought that’s why Obama raised taxes two times on the 1% this year – so they could pay their “fair share.” This wasn’t accomplished?

    I am aware of only one tax increase, and one tax holiday lapse. One helped with the income maldistribution, but still left untouched much of the income of the very rich.

    The second, the lapse of the “payroll tax” holiday, hammers poor families and middle income groups. Someone making under $150,000 a year will pay between $1,000 and $3,000 a year more in taxes. Billionaires? If they get a paycheck, they pay about $3,000 more — but if they make their money in capital gains, or in interest or other investments, they pay zero.

    Here, let’s get some real figures on the payroll tax issue:

    Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he’s not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

    That’s the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it’s a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

    But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He’s paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who’s not getting a fair shake?

    Unfair, Joe. Surely your family could use an extra $2,000, and it’s unfair to make you pay, but let Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, and Paris Hilton off free, don’t you think?

    So, yes, there was a real tax increase on the middle class and poor, at the insistence of Boehner and the Tea Party. I think we should count that as their pound of flesh, and say no more spending cuts unless we get $2 more taxes for every $1 in spending cuts, just to be fair to the people who work.

    Joe said:

    Let me ask you Ed (not the others on this site), what percentage of their income/investments, etc. would you consider the wealthy’s “fair share”?

    Those who make more than $100,000 a year, and who earn more than 50% of the income, shouldn’t be paying less than 50% of the income taxes. Those who gain 80% of the wealth, shouldn’t be paying only 40% of the taxes.

    This is a difficult question, but also an easy one, in some parts. It’s unfair to make taxes a burden and a drag on the poor and middle class, the well from which most of our production comes from, most of our inventions, most of our geniuses, most of our jobs, while letting the very rich dance free from such burdens.

    Because setting the exact price points is difficult, we’ve avoided fixing the problem. The answer is to start somewhere, and adjust if we miss the goal.

    At what point do the poor and middle class get the most freedom? Where do we put the price points?

    Is that freedom point then a burden on the very rich? Is it a burden they cannot easily bear?

    How much should any entity pay toward public schooling? Should they cover only the costs of their children’s schooling (which about 80% of the people could not cover comfortably), or should everyone who benefits from public education pay a share? If the latter, then who benefits? Is it just the kid like Dick Feynman, who wins a Nobel Prize? Or is it the factory owner, who has a well-educated workforce that can operate the expensive and complicated machines that make the factory owner filthy rich?

    What is the obligation any citizen owes to continuing the government? What is the obligation any citizen has to perpetuate things like the preservation of Yellowstone National Park, or the National Science Foundation, or the National Institutes of Health, or the Patent Office?

    Under the sequestration we are under as of today, the government will stop much research similar to the research that developed the laser. Where would our economy be today, without lasers? Who benefits most from the laser printer, the corporate mogul, the rich dandy, the office worker, the student studying economics, or the cancer victim whose MRI pictures are printed out so the surgeon can see where to cut?

    Since the rich are already rich, the GOP argues, they shouldn’t have to pay for such things. Let those who benefit most from them, pay.

    Do we owe anything to the future?

    The rich get richer, and the middle class and poor get poorer. That’s disaster waiting to happen. We get closer to fair when the middle class and poor get richer.

    What do we have to do to make that happen?

    Taxes probably won’t solve it. Conservatives assume a fixed-size economic pie. When we have lots of jobs, however, the economy grows. We should tax the rich and use the money to create jobs — yes, government spending CAN create jobs — and do that until we’re booming again.

    Then, of course, deficits disappear on their own.

    When is enough really enough? If Obama raises taxes on the rich so they’ll pay their fair share, accomplishes this feat, and then continues saying the exact same thing, how can he be trusted?

    Call me when the taxes are raised on the rich so they are paying their fair share, when the minimum wage gets back to inflation-adjusted 1970 levels, and when less than 50% of the wealth gains go to the top 10% of Americans. Get back to us when unemployment is at 3%, and underemployment isn’t an issue.

    How can we trust anyone who claims giving money to the rich and taking it from the poor is “fair?” We haven’t had a trillion dollar deficit in two years. How can we trust people who say we have had them?

    Take a look at the real tax burden; progressive taxes mean the less people make, the smaller percentage of their income should go to taxes. We’re not there yet:

    Which is why, if you want to understand who’s paying what in taxes, you don’t want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes — you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes — which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more — paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

    

    As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you’re mainly getting hit by federal taxes. So that’s another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you’re omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

    Joe said:

    Lastly, when they pay this and when we still have massive deficits, what then?

    Let’s try it and see. If we solve the jobs problem, the deficits go away. If, instead, we reduce spending, deficits will increase.

    Last time we did away with our deficits — just 13 years ago — the GOP decided all the gains should go to the very rich. That killed economic growth for 7 years (Bush got 1 million new jobs in 8 years; Obama’s done almost six times that in four years, and it’s not enough) and then the GOP give-away crashed the economy.

    Now, because of that incredible stupidity (that the Democrats went along with, instead of shutting the government down as they would have were they so radical and America-hating as the Tea Party), we have massive deficits.

    Can’t we learn from history, Joe? America does well when the middle class does well. More middle class taxpayers means more federal income, and lower spending on social programs, and deficit reduction or elimination. Hammering the middle class, taking money from them and sending it to the rich, increases deficits, increases costs for social welfare programs, and makes government not work.

    Let’s get America working again, and let government do its work, too.

    LikeLike

27. lowerleavell says:

    March 2, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    Ed said, “Sequester was suggested first by the GOP in the House; it was the ONLY way they would agree not to toss our credit rating away, perfect from the administration of George Washington.”

    This is old news by today, but apparently the Sequester was Obama’s idea. “Moving the goal posts” and all that stuff.

    Exchange between Bob Woodward and White House official in spotlight

    Apparently it doesn’t go well when the White House gets negative press.

    James, forgive me but you ramble and rant and tell me to go to hell. Comment all you want but I’m done commenting on your posts as any conversations I’ve had with you bear as much fruit as a weed. No thank you. It’s not that I can’t answer you, it’s just a waste of your time and mine and I only have 24 hours a day.

    Ed said, “Raising taxes? Why are you opposed to fairness in taxes?”

    I’m not oppose to that at all. I’m just curious who gets to determine what the definition of the word “fair” really is? According to Forbes, the top 1% paid 37.4% of our nation’s taxes. The bottom 95% paid 40.9%. In 2010 the top 1% held 34.5% of the wealth. That means they’re paying more than their fair share, right? I mean, if we’re talking “fair.” How about the percentage of Americans who get a rebate check and do not pay ANY federal taxes. Is that fair?

    Beyond this, I thought that’s why Obama raised taxes two times on the 1% this year – so they could pay their “fair share.” This wasn’t accomplished? Let me ask you Ed (not the others on this site), what percentage of their income/investments, etc. would you consider the wealthy’s “fair share”? When is enough really enough? If Obama raises taxes on the rich so they’ll pay their fair share, accomplishes this feat, and then continues saying the exact same thing, how can he be trusted? Lastly, when they pay this and when we still have massive deficits, what then?

    Got to go.

    LikeLike

28. JamesK says:

    March 2, 2013 at 8:22 am

    So, Joe, where was your outrage over these remarks from W:

    From: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html

    GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other. But that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.
    ~~~
    Oh and lets not forget the talk of suspending elections if there was another terrorist attack while W was president.

    LikeLike

29. JamesK says:

    March 1, 2013 at 7:26 pm

    Since I wouldn’t want Joe to miss an opportunity to falsely accuse the President of wanting to be Emperor, I’m sure he’ll claim Obama is saying he wants to be Emperor Palpatine or Darth Vader here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/obama-jedi-mind-meld_n_2790521.html

    By JIM KUHNHENN, The ASSOCIATED PRESS

    WASHINGTON — A combative President Barack Obama blamed Republican lawmakers Friday for failing to stop automatic spending cuts that were to begin kicking in later in the day, calling the cuts “dumb, arbitrary.”

    Republicans said the fault was his, for insisting that increased taxes be part of the resolution.

    The president said the impact of the cuts won’t immediately be felt, but middle class families will begin to “have their lives disrupted in significant ways.” He said that as long as the cuts stay in effect, Americans will know that the economy could have been better had they been averted.

    “The pain, though, will be real,” Obama said.

    “This is not a win for anybody. This is a loss for the American people,” he said.

    Obama, pressed on whether he bears some of the responsibility for the stalemate, expressed frustration. “Give me an example of what I might do,” he challenged reporters.

    “I am not a dictator. I’m the president,” he said. He added that he can’t do a “Jedi mind-meld” or use any “special sauce” to get Republicans to negotiate.

    “I can’t force Congress to do the right thing,” Obama said.

    LikeLike

30. JamesK says:

    March 1, 2013 at 10:32 am

    From:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/state-income-tax_n_2784028.html

    Oh look..another oopsie for the GOP:

    Small-government advocates often claim that high taxes hold the economy back. But a new report finds that states without a personal income tax have experienced slower economic growth than states with high income tax rates.

    The report, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that between 2002 and 2011, the economies of the nine U.S. states without a personal income tax grew 37 percent less quickly per capita than states with high income taxes. Check out the chart below:

    

    LikeLike

31. JamesK says:

    February 28, 2013 at 10:07 pm

    So much for the Sequester being Obama’s fault: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/02/eric-cantor-the-sequester-and-the-death-of-the-grand-bargain.html#ixzz2MF8d6tY1

    One of the pieces of reporting in my article about House Majority Leader Eric Cantor that has received some attention is Cantor’s statement that it was a “fair assessment” that he is responsible for House Speaker John Boehner’s rejection of President Obama’s final offer during the Grand Bargain negotiations of 2011.

    Although previous reporting on those 2011 talks suggested that Cantor was a driving force behind scuttling the deal, as far as I know Cantor had never previously taken public credit for changing Boehner’s mind. I reviewed this history briefly in the piece, but here’s an expanded excerpt of my exchange with Cantor on the subject:

    LIZZA: There’s sort of a final meeting with Paul Ryan and you and Boehner where it seems like there’s a final sort of discussion about whether this offer needs to be rejected or not. The way it seems to be reported is—it seems like Boehner wanted to do it, you and Ryan sort of talked him out of it. Is that—

    CANTOR: I would say it’s a fair assessment, because, in the end, we felt that—well, let me back up, this is probably a longer answer. Yes, it’s probably an accurate conclusion.

    LikeLike

32. JamesK says:

    February 28, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    Oh I do too, Jim.

    But part of me likes it because it makes the GOP’s claim that he’s some raging liberal/socialist/communist all the more laughable.

    Still, it would be nice if he actually did some liberal things the next 4 years. Just to balance out the mess the GOP created.

    LikeLike

33. jsojourner says:

    February 28, 2013 at 9:03 pm

    Ed and Nick can confirm: I criticize President Obama a lot. For being too conservative!

    Jim

    LikeLike

34. JamesK says:

    February 28, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    Oh and by the way, Joe, here’s the difference between Ed and me do and what you do.

    When we criticize the GOP we’re being honest enough to criticize them for crap they’re actually saying or doing.

    You, on the other hand, engage in no such honesty when it comes to Obama. You criticize him on crap you’ve made up off the top of your head or your party has made up off the top of its head in it’s now 5 year long hysteria that *gasp* the United States dared to elect a black man President…twice.

    LikeLike

35. JamesK says:

    February 28, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    And I have a problem with Obama with his reauthorization of the Patriot Act. And his as of yet not closing Gitmo though I at least understand his reluctance to give the lunatics in the House something to howl about. And I don’t think Jack Lew should have been nominated for the position he was. And I think the “Too big to fail” banks should have been treated in the same exact manner as what Iceland did to it’s banks.

    Now..pay up, Joe.

    LikeLike

36. Ed Darrell says:

    February 28, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    Joe, would you recognize when I criticize Obama?

    If I don’t claim he’s a megalomaniac, if I don’t claim he’s not American, if I don’t hurl insults at him directly, would you notice the criticism?

    You missed these:

    https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/quote-of-the-moment-repeat-robert-c-lieberman-why-the-rich-are-getting-richer-american-politics-and-the-second-gilded-age/

    https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/photographs-for-which-there-are-no-words-going-to-school-in-palestine/

    https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/quote-of-the-moment-neil-gaiman-on-what-keeps-civilization-from-barbarism/

    https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/quote-of-the-moment-herbert-hoover-on-credit-in-des-moines-iowa-1932/

    https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/four-freedoms-really-at-risk-in-america/

    https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/odd-juxtaposition-of-images-but-it-gives-me-some-hope/

    https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/lyndon-johnson-as-visionary-great-society-speech-at-university-of-michigan/

    https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/you-need-to-watch-this-paul-krugman-jobs-now-the-key-to-our-recovery/

    https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/world-malaria-report-2012-malaria-still-declining-but-more-resources-needed-fast/
    https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/annals-of-global-warming-333rd-consecutive-month-above-20th-century-average-temperature/

    Nowhere do I call for his impeachment, resignation, nor do I call for violence on him.

    In some of those posts, I don’t even mention Obama’s name.

    Perhaps the lack of vitriol aimed directly at the president has confused you about what criticism is.

    LikeLike

37. JamesK says:

    February 28, 2013 at 9:27 am

    To quote: I also see a double standard here. You both keep asking me to address issues with the GOP and yet I have yet to date heard one…count them ONE criticism of Obama (beyond “he needs to do more” or “he needs to shrug off Republicans more” etc.) or the Democratic party. Let’s get an itemized list of the ills of the Democrats from you and then maybe you’ll have some ground to stand on. I’ve itemized problems with Bush on a regular basis, and I’ve vocalized issues with the Republican congress. Your turn.

    Not here you haven’t. What? You think we’re just going to take your word for it? Sorry, no. So do so here. You can start by explaining why you never accused W of wanting to be Emperor. Because..no you never made that accusation against him. And then you can acknowledge that your “I can’t do anything to fix the GOP because I’m just a member” is a copout. That a large part of the reason the GOP is as fragged up as it is is because you and yours sat on your fat arses for the last 12+ years doing nothing while the lunatics took control of asylum.

    Sorry, you’re not in a position to demand that we criticize Obama here when you 1: have never criticized the GOP here and 2: never criticized W here.

    Because let me point out the obvious to you..when Morgan and his little bedmate show up and start blathering their teabagging crap you are silent as a church mouse.

    So until you fix that…bugger off.

    LikeLike

38. JamesK says:

    February 27, 2013 at 7:33 pm

    To quote: The only binding theme I find here, Joe, is hatred for people of color, hatred of poor people, hatred for Obama, and hatred of “libruls.” All from the GOP. There is no other explanation for this series of actions from the GOP dating back to 2001. The GOP have been consistent with no other views, or values.

    You forgot hatred of gays and women, Ed.

    And Joe, lets do bother to remember that the only reason we’re facing this sequester business is that your party forced it by refusing to actually compromise. For some dumb reason your party thinks that you and I and the rest of the middle class and the poor should be the one to pay for the mess they created with their stupid wars and their stupider tax cuts to the rich.

    Why do you think you should pay for the problem the rich created?

    LikeLike

39. jsojourner says:

    February 27, 2013 at 7:10 pm

    Wait. Ed. You mean, the President is NOT proposing we raise taxes on low and middle income Americans?

    Is that what all the hullaballoo is about? Making sure Donald Trump is able to shelter more of his “money made from money” (rather than money made from work) in the Caymans?

    You mean all this hand-wringing and whining like babies on the part of Republicans is about making sure Exxon and Shell don’t pay any taxes in 2013? Like in previous years?

    Oh well…if THAT’S the case…count me in.

    Jim

    (Of course, I knew all along. There’s just something so starkly dishonest about politicians who claim to be fighting for ordinary Americans when they are really protecting billionaires.)

    LikeLike

40. JamesK says:

    February 27, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    Joe, your party repeatedly cut taxes on the rich and the result was that debt your party currently worries about.

    Why shouldn’t we be allowed to repeatedly raise taxes on the rich in order to pay the debt that the tax cuts to the rich created?

    Oh and by the way..every single Republican voted for the sequester. And as for “Obamacare” gee..it was originally a Republican idea.

    I somehow doubt you had a problem with it then. I sure as hell don’t remember you criticizing Mittens for his version of it….

    If you don’t like Obamacare fine..we’ll get rid of it. Just as soon as you and your side agree to replace it with single payer.

    LikeLike

41. Ed Darrell says:

    February 27, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    Why isn’t it fair to ask higher income people to carry their fair share? Yes, we made some progress a few weeks ago — stop now?

    Justice half-denied is still justice denied.

    LikeLike

42. jsojourner says:

    February 27, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    Ed,

    Just what additional tax increases is President Obama calling for in an effort to stave off sequestration? A leading Republican complained that “Obama got a huge tax hike just eight weeks ago. Now he wants to drain more tax money from the American people”.

    That hardly seems fair, Ed.

    Is he calling for an end to the Earned Income Tax Credit? If so, shame on him. Is he proposing a tax increase on steelworkers, cab drivers, firefighters and fry cooks’ wages? If so, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his underpants. Is he looking to hammer true small business owners with a tax increase — you know, actual small businesses with 200 employees or less? If so, a pox on his house!

    But I have a hunch, Ed — and I certainly could be wrong — that those are not the sort of “tax increases” he is proposing. Any thoughts?

    Jim

    LikeLike

43. Ed Darrell says:

    February 27, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    Sequester was suggested first by the GOP in the House; it was the ONLY way they would agree not to toss our credit rating away, perfect from the administration of George Washington.

    We shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists. Every time we do the terrorists seem to win. Lesson learned — don’t ever assume the GOP will NOT choose the most stupid and destructive path when there is a choice later, and so do not allow them to do that at any point.

    Got the point.

    Raising taxes? Why are you opposed to fairness in taxes?

    I can’t understand why you defend the filthy rich, if you’re not part of that group.

    Which reinforces my reluctant view, that we should never assume GOP won’t choose the stupid if given a choice.

    The only binding theme I find here, Joe, is hatred for people of color, hatred of poor people, hatred for Obama, and hatred of “libruls.” All from the GOP. There is no other explanation for this series of actions from the GOP dating back to 2001. The GOP have been consistent with no other views, or values.

    LikeLike

44. lowerleavell says:

    February 27, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    If the laws are changed to make it easier for people to come here to feed their families then there would be no need to come here illegally. Those who did would be doing so to avoid taxes and/or law enforcement. That’s why.

    Whose idea was the sequester again? Who signed it into law? Who won’t stop it without raising taxes for the third time (if you count Obamacare) this year? Not this Sheriff.

    LikeLike

45. Ed Darrell says:

    February 27, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    If someone crosses the border, “illegally,” to feed their family and live the American dream, why do you want them to be criminalized?

    If someone risks their life to get here, shouldn’t we consider them sort of “one of the club?”

    
    Rusty’s in the club, cartoon by Gary Larson, copyright by Larson and his syndicate

    LikeLike

46. lowerleavell says:

    February 27, 2013 at 1:42 pm

    Is that $250,000 collectively, because I certainly don’t come close to that in several years. :-)

    Oh, one more point on immigration: once the problem is solved then illegal immigration needs to be made more difficult on those who would break our laws as obeying the law is easier. If someone comes to this country illegally they need to be intelligible for at least 5-10 years. If they cross the border illegally that demonstrates that they are here to break the law (crossing illegally IS breaking the law). When compassion is given then it makes it more sensible to enforce the rule of law. Both need done.

    I may be contacting my reps in the next day or two anyway. There’s a lot on my mind.

    LikeLike

47. Ed Darrell says:

    February 27, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    In the Fox video: Pinal County Sheriff Babeu is a real tool, isn’t he? First he complains that he doesn’t think the prisoners need to be released — but that’s exactly what the sequestration law requires, no spending of money on current activities, across the board, no shifting of costs.

    Then he complains that he wasn’t notified (letters went to governors weeks ago . . .), and then he says he got a dozen phone calls from the feds telling him about the release.

    How did this guy vote? Has he called his senators and representative to tell them to apportion the cuts, or to stop them?

    If I cut his budget across the board, tell him 10% has to come out of each operation, is he going to keep his prisoners in jail in defiance of the law?

    This isn’t a game. I wish conservatives would love their nation more than they hate Obama, more than they love their guns, enough that they’d do what’s right for their children.

    LikeLike

48. Ed Darrell says:

    February 27, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    Releasing criminals 30 miles from my home before the sequester even takes effect isn’t going to help the issue either.

    Write to Sen. McCain, Sen. Flake and Rep. Salmon, and let ’em know. Their party’s position is that you won’t be affected, except beneficially because you get to keep more of what you make over $250,000, and this is a minor piffle.

    How do you plan to spend your savings?

    LikeLike

49. lowerleavell says:

    February 27, 2013 at 12:20 pm

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/2191791311001/illegals-released-in-arizona-because-of-sequester/?playlist_id=903226511001

    Releasing criminals 30 miles from my home before the sequester even takes effect isn’t going to help the issue either. Respect for law is a pillar of our society. This is a pillar that is sorely lacking right now.

    LikeLike

50. lowerleavell says:

    February 27, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    Ed said, “There are two problems with your criticism. The most important is that you’re on the wrong side of this issue. We’re talking human rights, and you’re advocated breaking up families — maybe you’re not aware of that, but pay attention.”

    As I’ve said before, you don’t know my stand on immigration and so you’re shooting in the dark with your entire point. So, let me un-muddy the waters for you so as not to be as “oblique” as you put it. I know you’re waiting with baited breath to know my stand on immigration, lol. :-)

    In summary, before getting into the points, both the liberals and the conservatives are right, and both are wrong.

    Ed, you did a great job of pointing out the compassionate side of the issue, and I am in complete agreement. It is shameful that we are separating families from people who just want to be here to work a job and better their lives. There is a humanitarian aspect to this issue that the right has completely forgotten. I agree. You are right that there are Christian principles here that have been forgotten by many on the right (like calling for the deportation of 11 million people – can you imagine???). Yet there is something you forget about Jesus – John 1 states that the disciples beheld His glory – full of grace AND truth. Here’s where liberals mess up – they are so full of grace that they have forgotten truth. Here is where the conservatives have messed up – they are so polarized towards the rule of law that they have forsaken grace. You need both pillars and in both the liberal position and in the conservative position you find the answer to immigration (and a myriad of other issues).

    You see, the GOP is correct that we need to be a nation that respects the rule of law. We need to protect our sovereignty and to hold people accountable. Frankly, in some ways this issue wouldn’t be an issue if our government had followed the rule of law. Yet, they didn’t and so here we are. What to do? Do we forcefully go back to the rule of law and deport everyone here illegally (who may have been here for 30 years and consider themselves to be a part of this country)? Many in the GOP say “yes.” I say “no.” We created this mess – illegals shouldn’t have to pay the price for our incompetence.

    Here’s how I look at it – it’s like the teens who want to attend a concert but can’t afford to get in. They know that the only punishment that will happen if they get caught is that they’ll be asked to leave, so what are they going to do? It’s worth the risk they wager. Some get caught, others don’t, so at least they got to catch some of the show. It’s the same with illegals. We have set up a system that makes it so hard for poor people to come here legally (especially at our southern border). They look at us with the pros and cons of coming here illegally and the pros definitely outweigh the cons. They want a better life for their families – I cannot blame them there. Beyond this, they come from countries that do not have a respect for the rule of law – why would be surprised when these country’s citizens do not respect our laws?

    So here’s what we need to do:
    One – we secure our border. Obama has done a good job on the border patrol front, but that alone won’t secure the border. We have to make it so the only people who would want to cross illegally are those who would do our country harm (like drug cartels, etc.). We do that by 1) making it easy for people to come here legally – a guest worker program, work visas, paths to citizenship, etc. We need to make it easy for people to come out of the shadows by removing the shadows entirely. Reagan tried with the Democrats to do that, but they kept the shadow in place and the problem perpetuated itself. Amnesty alone wouldn’t fix it. We need an immigration overhaul which makes it easier for poor people to come to this country to work. In that regard, we have to fix the system or the shadows and an underclass will remain. 2) We make it hard for people who do come here illegally to stay by making it harder for illegals to purchase social security numbers, get fake IDs etc. We need to do a better job of punishing employers who knowingly hire people illegally. 3) We need to give the people who are here now a fine, and then a path to citizenship at the back of the line. Those who are felons still need deportation and should not be allowed to stay. This will only work in connection with the other items. Unless we stop the flow of people coming here illegally then a path to citizenship would only be a stop-gap.

    That’s it in a nutshell. I do wonder if the Democrats would be pushing so hard if Latinos voted Republican 70% of the time, and I wonder if Republicans would be such a holdout in that case. :-) I do think there are political motivations on both sides that make real reform more difficult than it has to be.

    The bottom line is that I remember living in a country that said, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” We did it before, we should do it again. South of us there are millions yearning for liberty. They should not be denied the dream of the USA.

    Yet it should be done legally and in good order. Grace AND Truth. They both matter. Without both, you don’t have real love.

    LikeLike

51. lowerleavell says:

    February 27, 2013 at 11:16 am

    Ed said “I think James’s point is that you complain about nits with Obama, and avoid the elephants in the corn with the GOP.”

    I also see a double standard here. You both keep asking me to address issues with the GOP and yet I have yet to date heard one…count them ONE criticism of Obama (beyond “he needs to do more” or “he needs to shrug off Republicans more” etc.) or the Democratic party. Let’s get an itemized list of the ills of the Democrats from you and then maybe you’ll have some ground to stand on. I’ve itemized problems with Bush on a regular basis, and I’ve vocalized issues with the Republican congress. Your turn.

    LikeLike

52. lowerleavell says:

    February 27, 2013 at 10:59 am

    I think I have some time to respond this morning. Not as much as I need, but I don’t think I’ll ever be able to fully respond. Too much going on in the real world right now.

    Ed said, “Did I note already that Obama didn’t add “unfortunately?” Adding words, which are then the parts criticized, seems the model of “straw man” argument, too me.”

    I did address this already – as did you. I’m not sure where I switched the word, “problem” with “unfortunate.” They’re somewhat synonymous but not totally the same thing. The word “problem” is worse.

    Ed said, “We live in a democratic republic. They’re your servants, Joe. You can speak up any time.”

    I often do. My point was that James often places the blame for the entirety of the Republican party’s issues (and the invented ones in his own mind) squarely on my shoulders. For his demands to be fulfilled he wouldn’t be content unless I quit my job, divorce my wife, leave my kinds, move to Washington, and become a 24 hour lobbyist for changes in the Republican platform, I haven’t done enough and never could.

    As I’ve stated before, I try to remain politically active and do my duty as a citizen, but for me, there are bigger fish than politics – i.e. the souls of men and the glory of God. Your criticism is akin to blaming a sergeant for the Iraq War when all he really cares about is keeping the soldiers around him and under him alive. Does he have an opinion about the big picture of the war? Yeah – but to him, the only thing that matters is getting his guys home alive.

    The analogy breaks down as I have it much easier than any soldier, but I care about my family, I care about my church, I care about the marriages and families that I counsel, etc. I have a little plot of ground and am doing what I can here.

    Beyond this, I really don’t answer to you, or James. I really don’t care if I have your approval – especially since I never will, no matter what I do. I am accountable to God, not you. The only way I would meet your approval is if I embraced liberalism in its entirety and became exactly like you, which I never will. Now you want me to deal with the “Hastert rule” which I’ve never heard of and even Ed is pretty unfamiliar. Sigh… forgive me if I don’t feel overly compelled to live up to your unreasonable expectations.

    LikeLike

53. Ed Darrell says:

    February 26, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    So, in practice, the Hastert rule turns control of the House over to the Tea Party minority.

    That’s nuts. Worse than the filibuster.

    LikeLike

54. JamesK says:

    February 26, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Oh and before you argue it, Joe, no Democratic speaker of the House has used the majority of the majority rule to date.

    So let me ask you a question. Obama shouldn’t be allowed to unilaterally create and/or ignore law but the Republicans should be allowed to unilaterally stymie the government absolutely?

    Really? That’s the position you’re taking?

    LikeLike

55. JamesK says:

    February 26, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    Correction: For a bill to be brought up to a vote it has to have the support of, currently, at least 118 Republicans as well as a number of Democrats so as to equal 50% plus 1.

    That “as well as a number of Democrats so as to equal 50% plus 1.” shouldn’t be there.

    LikeLike

56. JamesK says:

    February 26, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule

    It basically says that for anything to pass the House it doesn’t have to have to have a majority of the House…it has to have a majority of the House plus a majority of the majority in the House. It, in effect, gives the Speaker of the House sole discretion on whether a bill ever comes up for a vote.

    It has no noble intention that I’m aware of..it’s designed purely to ensure that the minority party is not able to pass bills with a small number of the majority party.

    So, to use an example, if all the Democrats in the House plus a small number of Republicans wanted to raise the minimum wage then it won’t pass the House even if their total numbers equals 50% of the House plus one vote. For a bill to be brought up to a vote it has to have the support of, currently, at least 118 Republicans as well as a number of Democrats so as to equal 50% plus 1.

    Quoting: A discharge petition signed by 218 members (or more) from any party is the only way to force consideration of a bill that does not have the support of the Speaker. However, discharge petitions are rarely successful, as a member of the majority party defying their party’s leadership by signing a discharge petition can expect retribution from the leadership.

    Now the rule is credited to former speaker Dennis Hastert but the rule goes back to Newt Gingrich. Newt applied it in practice but Hastert is the one who articulated it.

    Joe, I’ll be waiting for you to denounce John Boehner as wanting to be Emperor Boehner.

    LikeLike

57. Ed Darrell says:

    February 26, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    James, please, can you explain the Hastert rule, where it came from, what it was designed to accomplish (what noble purpose, if any), and why you regard it as tyrannical?

    I don’t know enough about it — Hastert was a long time after I left Congressional staff — and I’d like to understand the issue better.

    LikeLike

58. JamesK says:

    February 26, 2013 at 3:06 am

    Oh by the way, Joe, let me know when you’re going to criticize the “Hastert rule” in the House. After all..you seem to have such a problem with tyranny.

    LikeLike

59. JamesK says:

    February 25, 2013 at 10:37 am

    To quote:
    This is a deep-seated anger that is so upset with Republicans that these people would almost be willing to ditch our entire system of government and set up Obama as Emperor in order for them to get their way.

    Oh you mean like the ones that are so upset with Obama that these people would be willing to engage in high treason by committing seccession? Or openly talk about shooting the President? Or are so willing to stymie our entire system of government as to render it completely ineffective in order for them to get their way?

    Sorry, you can’t honestly point to any examples of anyone actually wanting Obama to be emperor. That’s a figment of your overactive right wing reactionary mind.

    LikeLike

60. JamesK says:

    February 24, 2013 at 9:59 pm

    To quote: Just as you feel that you can speak up and complain about Obama’s actions, even inaccurately, it would be nice to hear you level the same criticisms at the GOP when they commit similar sins, you know?

    I’d also like him to speak against the far bigger sins the GOP committs. Like spending the last 5 years doing nothing to help fix the economy they crashed just so they could use it to regain power. Or the disaster that is Citizens United. Or their rampant attempts to fix elections and skew the electoral college in their favor.

    Or the sin of birtherism. Or the sin of turning a blind eye to more than a few evangelical right wing Christians declaring that homosexuals should be treated in a manner similar to what the Nazi’s did to the Jews.

    Joe is the textbook definition of “See no Evil, Hear no evil, speak no evil” when it comes to his own party but he will gleefully make mountains out of very small molehills when it comes to Obama and the Democrats.

    LikeLike

61. JamesK says:

    February 24, 2013 at 11:34 am

    Yeah apparently the ones claiming that Obama wants to be emperor are taking their inspiration from the Copperheads.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperheads_(politics)

    LikeLike

62. JamesK says:

    February 24, 2013 at 8:28 am

    To quote: If you can legitimately assure me that Obama has done NOTHING to expand the power of the executive branch then I’ll totally back off and say there is no “yikes” to this “Emperor Obama” stuff

    oh hello false and double standard.

    Why? Because George W Bush did several things to expand the power of the executive branch and yet, Joe, you were nowhere to be seen objecting about that and you certainly never accused W of wanting to be “Emperor Bush.”

    So which is it? You have no objection when a Republican expands the power of the executive branch but have a problem when a Democrat supposedly does?

    Or you have no problem when a white President expands the power of the executive branch but have a problem when a half white/half black President supposedly expands the power of the Executive branch?

    Not only are you suffering from a case of Obama Derangement Syndrome you’re also apparently suffering from a full case of Romnesia.

    LikeLike

63. Ed Darrell says:

    February 24, 2013 at 2:31 am

    Let’s skip ahead, to Joe’s latest post.

    Joe said:

    OK, hopefully this post will accurately convey my viewpoint in a way that you will understand.

    There are multiple problem here with Obama’s words in this video, and in the videos I gave in which Obama said it was tempting to circumvent congress. The problem is not Obama’s words only, but in an arm of the American people’s desires.

    First, let’s talk about this branch of the American people. This woman who asked the immigration question was basically asking Obama to act as emperor, was she not?

    Those videos do NOT show Obama saying what you claim. Look at my earlier analysis. In each one, he specifically disclaims what you say.

    There are two problems with your criticism. The most important is that you’re on the wrong side of this issue. We’re talking human rights, and you’re advocated breaking up families — maybe you’re not aware of that, but pay attention. Our immigration policies hurt families, damage children, cost us a fortune in programs to mitigate or contain the damage, and stultify economic growth of our nation. In the course of this comment, I will explain. Maybe the explanation won’t be so opaque. The second is that the entire flap indicates the willingness of too many to frustrate the Constitutional processes by which our government is supposed to operate. That may be a bigger crisis, ultimately — but to surpass the immigration issue, it has to be a whale of a crisis.

    First, I didn’t read the question the way you did at all. She didn’t ask him to circumvent Congress at all. She asked him to justify his actions. She offered what I interpreted as a complaint: Obama’s administration has enforced our immigration laws tougher than any other president, ever, and that has resulted in more than 1.5 million deportations of immigrants who mostly wanted to stay here to work.

    Here’s what Jackie Guerrero asked:

    Hi, Mr. President. Your administration has deported a record high number, 1.5 million, of undocumented immigrants, more than your predecessors. And I know your administration took some steps last year to protect unintended undocumented immigrants from being deported. However many people say those efforts were not enough. What I’d like to know is what you’re going to do now, and until the time that immigration reform is passed, to insure that more people aren’t being deported and families are not being broken apart.

    She complained specifically about how this hammers families separated by citizenship. The U.S. breaks families apart, separating children from their parents, often young children — for years at a time. These are human tragedies.

    I think that’s a violation of human rights. You defend it, I gather — or you wouldn’t be complaining about Obama’s even talking about fixing the problem.

    She complained about a policy of our government that is quite contrary to any Christian understanding of how societies should operate. I do not understand why you don’t stand with Christian policy here, but instead make up complaints about the president.

    That’s why Obama responded the way he did. She wanted him to do things only a political leader with minimal accountability could do, and Obama called her on it, saying that her request was not in her power. Surely you’ll agree with that point.

    I think he was trying to justify his failure to do more to do the Christian thing. Breaking apart families is a tragedy by itself, but it causes more tragedy. Every study we’ve ever had finds that the children of these families do not get the education they should get, and consequently do not get the jobs they could have gotten, and do not pay the taxes they could have paid. Often they require social services that cost me a lot of money in taxes (you, too, but you’re happy to pay higher taxes when it hurts families, and to try to heal that hurt, right? I’m a cheapskate on that — I prefer the less expensive way out).

    Obama said he’s not emperor. He’s got to enforce the laws.

    What do you think? Should the president go around Congress when the law requires that we shatter families and crush human lives?

    The GOP was very clear on this issue last year: They think those families should be shattered, and more. They want those people to have to go to prison, go back to their home countries, and give up on the American dream. This is where the GOP, and conservatives — and you — demonstrate such a horrible tin ear.

    Jackie Guerrero asked the president why he’s not showing more mercy.

    Frankly? I think he should stop all deportations “as a money saving move.” If he did, you’d scream bloody murder.

    No, she didn’t ask him to go beyond the law; and shame on you for questioning whether it would be a good idea to do exactly that on this issue.

    You come down for shattering families. How can you not be embarrassed by that stand?

    Beyond this woman, it seems like “some people” that Obama refers to who want him to go around congress, would also fall into this category. They are asking him for dictatorial leadership! Beyond even these people are people like James who say “to hell” with Obama’s political adversaries and want Obama and the Democrats be able to do whatever they please free from any opposition, or subversion.

    You call protecting families, protecting children, letting people work and pay taxes, “subversion?”

    Our policies, I think, might be considered crimes against humanity if we didn’t control the tribunals that make such charges, and if there weren’t other more serious crimes to stop first.

    Check out these three articles from the Declaration of Human Rights, a treaty we signed by the Grace of God, and a treaty which most Americans support, and all Christians should:

    Article 23.

    (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
    (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
    (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
    (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

    Article 24.

    Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

    Article 25.

    (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
    (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

    Now, how do our immigration policies, which severely limit cross-border movement even to make money to feed a family in a job that desperately needs workers, and then which deports those workers and breaks up the families, support those three articles of the Declaration?

    Obama’s a bright guy, very much aware of human rights issues around the world. I think he’s embarrassed that he hasn’t done more, whether legally or not. I also think he has calculated that if he does much more, that will scotch the opportunity we have as a nation to do more for human rights, right now.

    Obama answered a question about our nation trampling human rights. You obscure the issue, ignore the answer, and pick a false nit with an introductory line to his answer.

    This is the underlying problem with this whole discussion is that there is a contingency of the American people who want Obama as their Emperor in Chief.

    The fundamental problem here is that too many people don’t understand the issue, and so fall for the hoax claim, or do understand the issue, and hope the hoax claim will leave our nation breaking up families, ruining the earning potential of parents, and destroying the future of children who really deserve better.

    I hope that wasn’t opaque.

    Motherhood and childhood are special conditions. Our immigration policies destroy motherhood and childhood for millions. We should be ashamed, and act quickly to fix it.

    We shouldn’t block that action, or stand in the way in any fashion, by making false claims on a side issue of what the president said.

    This goes beyond the people who chant “four more years” as the outgoing president leaves the White-House. This is a deep-seated anger that is so upset with Republicans that these people would almost be willing to ditch our entire system of government and set up Obama as Emperor in order for them to get their way.

    I have no doubt the GOP is pissed off royally at immigrants, and that they think anything we do to protect human rights is folly.

    The real issue is whether we continue as a nation to work for human rights, and to expand them, and to move our nation forward, morally and economically.

    Pretending President Obama was posing a threat to democracy blocks action on protecting human rights in this case.

    Let’s keep our eyes on the prize here. At no point did Obama claim he wished to be dictator; people who risked their lives to leave dictatorships, economic and political, to get greater opportunities for their families in the U.S.A., are not asking Obama to take on the role of dictator now. No fair reading of the question would think otherwise.

    You fear something that is not a problem, something that no one proposes. But the way you have chosen to cite that fear damages our democratic institutions, and our ways to deal with problems.

    We hope our nation is not so broken that we cannot act like Americans anymore, and deal with these problems in the American Way.

    But your claim that some want him to be dictators shows that at some level, even unconscious, you understand that the GOP opposition to our government’s working, is a serious problem that makes normal people think a dictator to override them is what we need.

    That’s the GOP’s problem to fix.

    But it is a problem for all of us. The GOP block on immigration policy change — just one of a dozen areas where the party has irrationally blocked action and put our nation and our families’ futures at risk — becomes a problem we all share. (Much like this.)

    Frankly, there has never been a president that good– not Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, or anyone, who I would sacrifice the wonderful system of government that they swore on a Bible to protect. We have had many amazing presidents, but even the best is not worth sacrificing our amazing system that our founders set up.

    So, my question for you Ed, is do you see this as a problem as well? Do you see this happening with people wanting Obama to overreach his authority?

    No, I don’t see that problem. Frankly, I think it is whole cloth invention.

    What do you know about Obama? Did you read either of his books? Did you ever read <a href="Let's skip ahead, to Joe's latest post.

    Joe said:

    OK, hopefully this post will accurately convey my viewpoint in a way that you will understand.

    There are multiple problem here with Obama’s words in this video, and in the videos I gave in which Obama said it was tempting to circumvent congress. The problem is not Obama’s words only, but in an arm of the American people’s desires.

    First, let’s talk about this branch of the American people. This woman who asked the immigration question was basically asking Obama to act as emperor, was she not?

    Those videos do NOT show Obama saying what you claim. Look at my earlier analysis. In each one, he specifically disclaims what you say.

    There are two problems with your criticism. The most important is that you’re on the wrong side of this issue. We’re talking human rights, and you’re advocated breaking up families — maybe you’re not aware of that, but pay attention. Our immigration policies hurt families, damage children, cost us a fortune in programs to mitigate or contain the damage, and stultify economic growth of our nation. In the course of this comment, I will explain. Maybe the explanation won’t be so opaque.

    First, I didn’t read the question the way you did at all. She didn’t ask him to circumvent Congress at all. She asked him to justify his actions. She offered what I interpreted as a complaint: Obama’s administration has enforced our immigration laws tougher than any other president, ever, and that has resulted in more than 1.5 million deportations of immigrants who mostly wanted to stay here to work.

    Here’s what Jackie Guerrero asked:

    Hi, Mr. President. Your administration has deported a record high number, 1.5 million, of undocumented immigrants, more than your predecessors. And I know your administration took some steps last year to protect unintended undocumented immigrants from being deported. However many people say those efforts were not enough. What I’d like to know is what you’re going to do now, and until the time that immigration reform is passed, to insure that more people aren’t being deported and families are not being broken apart.

    She complained specifically about how this hammers families separated by citizenship. The U.S. breaks families apart, separating children from their parents, often young children — for years at a time. These are human tragedies.

    I think that’s a violation of human rights. You defend it, I gather — or you wouldn’t be complaining about Obama’s even talking about fixing the problem.

    She complained about a policy of our government that is quite contrary to any Christian understanding of how societies should operate. I do not understand why you don’t stand with Christian policy here, but instead make up complaints about the president.

    That’s why Obama responded the way he did. She wanted him to do things only a political leader with minimal accountability could do, and Obama called her on it, saying that her request was not in her power. Surely you’ll agree with that point.

    I think he was trying to justify his failure to do more to do the Christian thing. Breaking apart families is a tragedy by itself, but it causes more tragedy. Every study we’ve ever had finds that the children of these families do not get the education they should get, and consequently do not get the jobs they could have gotten, and do not pay the taxes they could have paid. Often they require social services that cost me a lot of money in taxes (you, too, but you’re happy to pay higher taxes when it hurts families, and to try to heal that hurt, right? I’m a cheapskate on that — I prefer the less expensive way out).

    Obama said he’s not emperor. He’s got to enforce the laws.

    What do you think? Should the president go around Congress when the law requires that we shatter families and crush human lives?

    The GOP was very clear on this issue last year: They think those families should be shattered, and more. They want those people to have to go to prison, go back to their home countries, and give up on the American dream. This is where the GOP, and conservatives — and you — demonstrate such a horrible tin ear.

    Jackie Guerrero asked the president why he’s not showing more mercy.

    Frankly? I think he should stop all deportations “as a money saving move.” If he did, you’d scream bloody murder.

    No, she didn’t ask him to go beyond the law; and shame on you for questioning whether it would be a good idea to do exactly that on this issue.

    You come down for shattering families. How can you not be embarrassed by that stand?

    Beyond this woman, it seems like “some people” that Obama refers to who want him to go around congress, would also fall into this category. They are asking him for dictatorial leadership! Beyond even these people are people like James who say “to hell” with Obama’s political adversaries and want Obama and the Democrats be able to do whatever they please free from any opposition, or subversion.

    You call protecting families, protecting children, letting people work and pay taxes, “subversion?”

    Our policies, I think, might be considered crimes against humanity if we didn’t control the tribunals that make such charges, and if there weren’t other more serious crimes to stop first.

    Check out these three articles from the Declaration of Human Rights, a treaty we signed by the Grace of God, and a treaty which most Americans support, and all Christians should:

    Article 23.

    (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
    (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
    (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
    (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

    Article 24.

    Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

    Article 25.

    (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
    (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

    Now, how do our immigration policies, which severely limit cross-border movement even to make money to feed a family in a job that desperately needs workers, and then which deports those workers and breaks up the families, support those three articles of the Declaration?

    Obama’s a bright guy, very much aware of human rights issues around the world. I think he’s embarrassed that he hasn’t done more, whether legally or not. I also think he has calculated that if he does much more, that will scotch the opportunity we have as a nation to do more for human rights, right now.

    Obama answered a question about our nation trampling human rights. You obscure the issue, ignore the answer, and pick a false nit with an introductory line to his answer.

    This is the underlying problem with this whole discussion is that there is a contingency of the American people who want Obama as their Emperor in Chief.

    The fundamental problem here is that too many people don’t understand the issue, and so fall for the hoax claim, or do understand the issue, and hope the hoax claim will leave our nation breaking up families, ruining the earning potential of parents, and destroying the future of children who really deserve better.

    I hope that wasn’t opaque.

    Motherhood and childhood are special conditions. Our immigration policies destroy motherhood and childhood for millions. We should be ashamed, and act quickly to fix it.

    We shouldn’t block that action, or stand in the way in any fashion, by making false claims on a side issue of what the president said.

    This goes beyond the people who chant “four more years” as the outgoing president leaves the White-House. This is a deep-seated anger that is so upset with Republicans that these people would almost be willing to ditch our entire system of government and set up Obama as Emperor in order for them to get their way.

    I have no doubt the GOP is pissed off royally at immigrants, and that they think anything we do to protect human rights is folly.

    The real issue is whether we continue as a nation to work for human rights, and to expand them, and to move our nation forward, morally and economically.

    Pretending President Obama was posing a threat to democracy blocks action on protecting human rights in this case.

    Let’s keep our eyes on the prize here. At no point did Obama claim he wished to be dictator; people who riske their lives to leave dictatorships, economic and political, to get greater opportunities for their families in the U.S.A., are not asking Obama to take on the role of dictator.

    You fear something that is not a problem, something that no one proposes. But the way you have chosen to cite that fear damages our democratic institutions, and our ways to deal with problems.

    We hope our nation is not so broken that we cannot act like Americans anymore, and deal with these problems in the American Way.

    But your claim that some want him to be dictators shows that at some level, even unconscious, you understand that the GOP opposition to our government’s working, is a serious problem that makes normal people think a dictator to override them is what we need.

    That’s the GOP’s problem to fix.

    But it is a problem for all of us. The GOP block on immigration policy change — just one of a dozen areas where the party has irrationally blocked action and put our nation and our families’ futures at risk — becomes a problem we all share. (Much like this.)

    Frankly, there has never been a president that good– not Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, or anyone, who I would sacrifice the wonderful system of government that they swore on a Bible to protect. We have had many amazing presidents, but even the best is not worth sacrificing our amazing system that our founders set up.

    So, my question for you Ed, is do you see this as a problem as well? Do you see this happening with people wanting Obama to overreach his authority?

    No, I don’t see that problem. Frankly, I think it is whole cloth invention.

    What do you know about Obama? Did you read either of his books? Did you ever read that Vanity Fair story by Michael Lewis on him? I find it difficult to believe you know about Obama, and have such a negative view of him.

    One more sign, I fear, of how the propagandists who hate Obama more than they love America and our children, have made great headway in getting buy-in to the propaganda. Here you are defending doing nothing to stop these gross violations of human rights made in our name, and happily obfuscating the issues, and thinking you’re doing the patriotic thing instead.

    We have a president who is an outstanding student of history, a guy who has been able to live much of the American dreams, and rather than line his pockets, take the money and run, he has dedicated his life to public service, to changing things for the better.

    Everything in his life screams that out. How could you miss it?

    Obama says he has had “some people” want him to. I see this viewpoint of certain people who want Obama to act as a dictator as problematic. What do you think?

    Since Lincoln’s time the White House has had a team of lawyers looking for executive action that gets done what the president wants to be done, what the American people need to have done, with minimum change in law — because Congress is often an obstacle when things need to be done. In a handful of cases presidents have exceeded their authority. If that excess is harmful, generally Congress complains, and generally the courts strike it down — the Japanese internment and German and Italian internment notwithstanding (the Supreme Court approved it, in one of the most glaring blind decisions in legal history). Truman’s takeover of the steel mills was rolled back. But he had tried to do the right thing, and the companies and unions essentially ratified his actions later.

    In short, I think you have a short view of history. Coupled with a false view of Obama, I think you’re way out on a limb.

    As a pragmatic matter, SMERSH is a fictional group. There are not enough bad guys who want a payroll job to staff the fantastic takeovers of government proposed in the James Bond movies. Claims that such things will happen simply are not realistic.

    Why? Because every soldier knows she or he should disobey illegal orders. So does every law enforcement officer, even though in law enforcement illegal actions are a greater problem.

    How could any president “grab power” that would not earn automatic opposition from the agencies the president must have to make such a power grab work?

    You have far too little faith in the patriots who staff our government, and far too much gullibility for James Bond-style villains getting elected.

    We have a much greater problem in that it’s easier to block necessary actions in the legislature, than it is to get done what our nation badly needs to have done.

    Were Obama a tyrant, Rush Limbaugh would be floating off a bridge in Miami, and John Boehner’s affairs would be all over the newspapers to force his resignation.

    In the telescope on America’s problems with governance and power, you’re looking through it backwards.

    The video I posted was not edited (like those voice overs of the debates, Ron Paul, etc. Have you seen those? They are hilarious). The video I posted was a clip from this discussion.

    The video you posted cut off the entire meat of Obama’s answer to the question, making him appear flip, and misleading you into thinking he gave an answer much different than he gave.

    Obviously a one minute clip will not show the entire surrounding context, but to say it is an “edited” video is incorrect. Yet giving the surrounding context does not change much.

    Bull. It even misled you. You still haven’t gotten tot the immigration issue.

    We called that “strip quoting” in high school debate. Dastards feature, “unedited,” an answer that is introductory, right up to the point the speaker says, “However, that would be wrong.”

    It makes a speaker appear to say something quite at odds with what the speaker meant.

    That’s exactly what that edited video you posted, did.

    I watched a few minutes on either side of the clip and it didn’t change anything but give more of the immigration discussion itself.

    I don’t believe you’re that insenstitive to the words and what they mean, Joe. It’s an absolute lie to claim that Obama said he wanted dictatorial powers. There is NOTHING in that answer to get close to that.

    Stripping out context that makes a statement false, is pretty serious stuff, to me.

    This leads us to Obama himself. This is where my ‘yikes’ from Obama’s video comes in. The woman in the video was asking him to be “Emperor in chief” and Obama recognized that fact.

    No, she wasn’t. She was pleading for the families ripped apart by our immigration policies. She was calling Obama on the carpet for enforcing ugly, human rights-violating laws.

    Go back and watch it again. This woman is not pleading to start a dictatorship. She’s pleading for an end to deportations that tear families apart.

    He correctly stated that this was not his role. I give him props for that. He understands this fact to be true. Here’s where I say ‘yikes’ was how he handled that fact. Since he has been a “senior lecturer” (not professor) of the constitution . . .

    You insult us with even minor lies like that.

    “Senior Lecturer” is a distinguished title at the University of Chicago Law School — it goes to federal judges and Nobel Prize winners. It’s superior to “professor,” to hear officials there talk about it.

    Why should that even matter here? Why do you think it necessary to question Obama’s profound achievements. At best it’s rude and cheap.

    Here’s Chicago’s statement:

    Media Inquiries

    The University of Chicago Law School handles media requests through the University of Chicago News Office. The Law School is happy to work with the media to provide access to our faculty members, who are experts on myriad subjects, or to provide comment on news stories where appropriate. For all media inquiries, please contact Sarah Galer at sgaler@uchicago.edu or 773 702 8365.

    Statement Regarding Barack Obama

    The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.”

    From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

    So you’re wrong. He was a professor. He was a distinguished teacher. Belittling his outstanding credentials is another sign of the pathological hatred of Obama the GOP and so-called conservatives suffer from — and which contagion they try to spread.

    Joe said:

    . . . you he should have readily understood the attack against our system of government and squashed it like a bug. How? Not simply by saying, “The problem is, I’m the POTUS, not the Emperor of the US.” In the full version of the conversation, Obama goes on to state, “We’ve stretched our administrative capabilities as far as we can.” So what’s he saying? He’s identifying the problem as our system of government. He is basically saying, “Well, the problem is – that’s just the way it is. I’ve done all I can but my hands are tied.” He’s right -that’s the way it is. But it’s not a PROBLEM. That’s the point. His stated problem is actually what our founders set up as the solution.

    You may regard it as a little problem, but our immigration policies have torn apart more than a million families. The cost us productivity and prosperity. They are racist and anti-free enterprise.

    So what should we call the GOP members who block action?

    You know, back in the Bush administration we had an agreement among both parties and the Bush White House on an immigration bill, but the GOP blocked action for an election — and has stood against acting ever since. This is an issue we could have resolved six years ago, and that resolution very well may have saved three or four million jobs in our economy and brought about a quicker, greater recovery.

    What should we call the policy assassins who killed that agreement, and who now stand in the door of immigration reform and shout “Stop Obama now, stop Obama forever?”

    George Wallace recanted and repented before he died. Why should we repeat that folly, when we know it’s wrong?

    So here’s the crux of the “yikes.” Instead of extolling this woman (and the “some people” who ask Obama to circumvent congress) of the virtues and merits of our system, Obama just says, “I can’t” or “It’s tempting, but I can’t.”

    That’s what he said, Joe. Quit denying it.

    He does not extol the virtues of our system and deflate those who would see him as our King. He basically just tells them, “Well, that’s just the way it is.” By saying, “The problem is, I’m the POTUS, not the Emperor of the US” Obama is legitimizing this woman’s frustration with our system. This is my “yikes” with Obama. He sees our system not as virtuous, but as “just the way it is” and has done everything he could to flex his “administrative capabilities.” You defend the things you care about – and Obama has not defended the virtues of our system. He merely tells people, “Well, it’s tempting, but I can’t.”

    This is the other side of the issue. If this was said by a president who has properly used his power then I would be OK and let it slide. But I’ll give you a challenge Ed. If you can legitimately assure me that Obama has done NOTHING to expand the power of the executive branch then I’ll totally back off and say there is no “yikes” to this “Emperor Obama” stuff. Show me that the executive branch’s powers have remained stationary and I will totally concede your point and allow you to use me as your whipping boy for jokes. The problem is, you know that’s not the case. You should know because you do research, that Obama has used all of the same powers of the executive branch that were expanded by Bush (and we were all freaked out about Bush’s power grabs – now they’re the norm). Not only has he used Bush’s power, he has throttled it. Tell me I’m wrong. I wish I were. That’s why the “yikes.” You can say he’s using the power virtuously…but will the next president? That’s the danger here. We’re losing our whole system of government by an exponential expansion of the executive branch and Obama just calls it flexing his administrative capabilities.

    I’ve got to go. I’ll tell you my views of immigration when I get a chance. They are fairly close to McCain’s and Jeff Flakes.

    God save us. I hope people will stop sharing your views, but I know they won’t. Flake is a neo-fascist flake, and McCain has backtracked on his formerly nearly-wise views.

    We have a serious issue here. That video you posted, and all your commentary defending its distortions, take away from the immigration discussion we should be having — which also you mischaracterize.

    Madison said our Constitution can work only for a wise and moral people.

    God help us, as this discussion indicates, too many in our nation are neither.

    LikeLike

64. JamesK says:

    February 24, 2013 at 12:00 am

    To quote:
    Unfortunately James, I’m just a member of the GOP and not the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. I can only do so much….but some have said that it would be nice if I could go around my Republican representatives….sometimes it’s tempting.

    We live in a democratic republic. They’re your servants, Joe. You can speak up any time.

    I think James’s point is that you complain about nits with Obama, and avoid the elephants in the corn with the GOP.

    Just as you feel that you can speak up and complain about Obama’s actions, even inaccurately, it would be nice to hear you level the same criticisms at the GOP when they commit similar sins, you know?

    ~~~~~~~~~

    Bingo. Exactly. You and those like you, Joe, have been sitting on your fat arses while the GOP goes steadily more insane. And instead of rising up and doing something about it you sit there and conjure imaginary issues to attack Obama with.

    You’re just a member of the GOP? Well that means you have a responsibility, Joe, to stand up and stop your party when its gone off the deep end. And you can’t argue that it hasn’t. A large part of the problem with the GOP is that you and your fellow members of the GOP go “Well I’m just a member, there’s nothing I can do as I’m not the Chairman of the RNC.” Individually you’re powerless…but together you’re not. And for 40 years now you and those like you have sat on your fat arses doing nothing as the party marches steadily more rightwards and steadily more insane.

    You and yours, Joe, are just as much to blame for the crappy state of the GOP and it’s teabagging insanity as John Boehner, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Michele Bachmann and all the rest.

    To be blunt..quit throwing your arms up in surrender at what your party has become and quit telling yourself that you’re not a coward by conjuring false arguments to attack Obama with.

    Oh and by the way, Joe, and pay attention here: AT NO POINT DID OBAMA SAY THE WORD “UNFORTUNATE” IN WHAT HE SAID.

    So..if you can’t criticize him honestly..what makes you think you’re worth listening to? If your party is going to act like a bunch of insane jackanapes with a heavy dose of racism then pray tell..why is your party worth listening to? Why should we Democrats give your party the time of day when your party isn’t going to bend on anything? Why should we listen when your party will object to everything no matter what and will do absolutely nothing while the country burns?

    As I said..sorry we can’t just freeze the government for years on end just because your party is having a childish conniption fit.

    Your party is now the problem. Either fix the problem, Joe, or get the **** out of the way.

    I swear to God if Obama said that drinking Drano was a bad idea your party would go to Walmart, buy every container of Drano there is and proceed to drink it just because Obama said drinking it is bad.

    LikeLike

65. Ed Darrell says:

    February 23, 2013 at 11:39 pm

    Unfortunately James, I’m just a member of the GOP and not the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. I can only do so much….but some have said that it would be nice if I could go around my Republican representatives….sometimes it’s tempting.

    We live in a democratic republic. They’re your servants, Joe. You can speak up any time.

    I think James’s point is that you complain about nits with Obama, and avoid the elephants in the corn with the GOP.

    Just as you feel that you can speak up and complain about Obama’s actions, even inaccurately, it would be nice to hear you level the same criticisms at the GOP when they commit similar sins, you know?

    LikeLike

66. Ed Darrell says:

    February 23, 2013 at 11:35 pm

    Ed, the “unfortunate” thing here is the word “unfortunately” Obama saying, “I’m the POTUS, not the Emperor.” That would be a factual statement. Obama saying, “Unfortunately…” makes it commentary/opinion of the factual statement. He is stating his viewpoint of the facts that it is an unfortunate fact.

    Did I note already that Obama didn’t add “unfortunately?” Adding words, which are then the parts criticized, seems the model of “straw man” argument, too me.

    It’s a joke, a line in passing, and an accurate statement: Obama says he’s not an emperor. It was true every time he said it.

    Would he stand by his statement if pressed? Doubtful. Was it an unfortunate choice of words to use the word “unfortunately”? Freudian slip at best – as yet, no retraction.

    1. Awfully odd that you offer a video showing Obama saying this line several times, and then wondering whether he’d “stand by it.” Of course he would: Obama’s still president of the U.S., not emperor.

    2. Why should he retract a factual statement? It’s a laugh line, but that you don’t laugh doesn’t make it false, nor in need of retraction. It shows a lack of humor and judgment on the part of his critics and those who wish to smear him, but it doesn’t make it false, nor his problem.

    LikeLike

67. JamesK says:

    February 23, 2013 at 6:50 pm

    JOe writes:
    Beyond this woman, it seems like “some people” that Obama refers to who want him to go around congress, would also fall into this category. They are asking him for dictatorial leadership! Beyond even these people are people like James who say “to hell” with Obama’s political adversaries and want Obama and the Democrats be able to do whatever they please free from any opposition, or subversion

    Let me know when you’re going to bother to actually read what I said instead of what you think I said.

    THere’s a difference between being an honest opposition party..and what the GOP now is. As long as your party wants to be the latter and not the former..then yes..to hell with your party.

    When Reagan was the President did the Democrats at any time act as intractable as the GOP is doing to Obama? Did they block or attempt to block every single thing that Reagan did even if what he was doing was what they supported before? Did they go after Reagan with the same zeal and invective and hatred? Just so you know..if you answer “yes” I’m going to ask you to provide actual evidence to back that answer up.

    As for your supposed problem with what Obama said..yeah he didn’t say he wanted to be Emperor or wished that he was. since he didn’t say that you lose any grounds to object to what he said honestly. Which is why you’re being completely dishonest about it, conjuring a fake strawman Obama to fight against and then pretending the fake Obama that exists in your mind is the real Obama. Hence my saying that you’re suffering from “Obama derangement syndrome.”

    LikeLike

68. lowerleavell says:

    February 23, 2013 at 12:24 pm

    OK, hopefully this post will accurately convey my viewpoint in a way that you will understand.

    There are multiple problem here with Obama’s words in this video, and in the videos I gave in which Obama said it was tempting to circumvent congress. The problem is not Obama’s words only, but in an arm of the American people’s desires.

    First, let’s talk about this branch of the American people. This woman who asked the immigration question was basically asking Obama to act as emperor, was she not? That’s why Obama responded the way he did. She wanted him to do things only a political leader with minimal accountability could do, and Obama called her on it, saying that her request was not in her power. Surely you’ll agree with that point.

    Beyond this woman, it seems like “some people” that Obama refers to who want him to go around congress, would also fall into this category. They are asking him for dictatorial leadership! Beyond even these people are people like James who say “to hell” with Obama’s political adversaries and want Obama and the Democrats be able to do whatever they please free from any opposition, or subversion. This is the underlying problem with this whole discussion is that there is a contingency of the American people who want Obama as their Emperor in Chief. This goes beyond the people who chant “four more years” as the outgoing president leaves the White-House. This is a deep-seated anger that is so upset with Republicans that these people would almost be willing to ditch our entire system of government and set up Obama as Emperor in order for them to get their way.

    Frankly, there has never been a president that good– not Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, or anyone, who I would sacrifice the wonderful system of government that they swore on a Bible to protect. We have had many amazing presidents, but even the best is not worth sacrificing our amazing system that our founders set up.

    So, my question for you Ed, is do you see this as a problem as well? Do you see this happening with people wanting Obama to overreach his authority? Obama says he has had “some people” want him to. I see this viewpoint of certain people who want Obama to act as a dictator as problematic. What do you think?

    The video I posted was not edited (like those voice overs of the debates, Ron Paul, etc. Have you seen those? They are hilarious). The video I posted was a clip from this discussion. Obviously a one minute clip will not show the entire surrounding context, but to say it is an “edited” video is incorrect. Yet giving the surrounding context does not change much. I watched a few minutes on either side of the clip and it didn’t change anything but give more of the immigration discussion itself.

    This leads us to Obama himself. This is where my ‘yikes’ from Obama’s video comes in. The woman in the video was asking him to be “Emperor in chief” and Obama recognized that fact. He correctly stated that this was not his role. I give him props for that. He understands this fact to be true. Here’s where I say ‘yikes’ was how he handled that fact. Since he has been a “senior lecturer” (not professor) of the constitution, he should have readily understood the attack against our system of government and squashed it like a bug. How? Not simply by saying, “The problem is, I’m the POTUS, not the Emperor of the US.” In the full version of the conversation, Obama goes on to state, “We’ve stretched our administrative capabilities as far as we can.” So what’s he saying? He’s identifying the problem as our system of government. He is basically saying, “Well, the problem is – that’s just the way it is. I’ve done all I can but my hands are tied.” He’s right -that’s the way it is. But it’s not a PROBLEM. That’s the point. His stated problem is actually what our founders set up as the solution.

    So here’s the crux of the “yikes.” Instead of extolling this woman (and the “some people” who ask Obama to circumvent congress) of the virtues and merits of our system, Obama just says, “I can’t” or “It’s tempting, but I can’t.” He does not extol the virtues of our system and deflate those who would see him as our King. He basically just tells them, “Well, that’s just the way it is.” By saying, “The problem is, I’m the POTUS, not the Emperor of the US” Obama is legitimizing this woman’s frustration with our system. This is my “yikes” with Obama. He sees our system not as virtuous, but as “just the way it is” and has done everything he could to flex his “administrative capabilities.” You defend the things you care about – and Obama has not defended the virtues of our system. He merely tells people, “Well, it’s tempting, but I can’t.”

    This is the other side of the issue. If this was said by a president who has properly used his power then I would be OK and let it slide. But I’ll give you a challenge Ed. If you can legitimately assure me that Obama has done NOTHING to expand the power of the executive branch then I’ll totally back off and say there is no “yikes” to this “Emperor Obama” stuff. Show me that the executive branch’s powers have remained stationary and I will totally concede your point and allow you to use me as your whipping boy for jokes. The problem is, you know that’s not the case. You should know because you do research, that Obama has used all of the same powers of the executive branch that were expanded by Bush (and we were all freaked out about Bush’s power grabs – now they’re the norm). Not only has he used Bush’s power, he has throttled it. Tell me I’m wrong. I wish I were. That’s why the “yikes.” You can say he’s using the power virtuously…but will the next president? That’s the danger here. We’re losing our whole system of government by an exponential expansion of the executive branch and Obama just calls it flexing his administrative capabilities.

    I’ve got to go. I’ll tell you my views of immigration when I get a chance. They are fairly close to McCain’s and Jeff Flakes.

    LikeLike

69. Ed Darrell says:

    February 23, 2013 at 11:41 am

    Ed, this was your apology, “I regret you took offense.” That’s why I made the comment that you were merely sorry I was offended.

    That’s accurate. I don’t apologize for calling you out on an inaccurate and false charge against a good man. You haven’t apologized for the false charges, either.

    I devoted a lot more words to Michael Savage’s stuff, and to 20 other sites that exhibited the same animosity to Obama and history. Not sure why you think the post was chiefly directed at you. I offered your post as an example of how people can take off with inaccurate stuff like Savage posted (for that matter, I’m not sure Savage originated the video edited to cut off the immigration discussion; he doesn’t give credits). I offered your post as an example of how people can be misled. You’ve often posted here before. I’ve referred to your posts in various fora here several times before.

    Especially if you’re not apologetic for your post, I’m really confused what your complaint is.

    LikeLike

70. lowerleavell says:

    February 23, 2013 at 11:35 am

    Ed, this was your apology, “I regret you took offense.” That’s why I made the comment that you were merely sorry I was offended.

    I know you didn’t make up the eating yellow snow. I said it was you who USED the comment, not made it up. You didn’t give yourself any credit in your original post. I’m not sure why – maybe to make it sound like it was a discussion with more people than just you and me?

    I understand where you’re coming from that you thought that our conversations weren’t private. Yet the only people who were privy to that conversation was you, me, and our friends. Now, you’ve had this post re-blogged how many times? Who knows how many people have read this?

    For me, it’s more about the courtesy of asking. “Hey Joe, I think other people would benefit from this discussion. Do you mind if I re-post it on my blog?” “Sure Ed. Not a problem, as long as your portray my viewpoints accurately.”

    You didn’t ask, and you portrayed my name in the most negative light possible. Beyond those two points, I’m not upset and I understand where you’re coming from. But those two points really do matter to me. Other times that you have used my name it was from something I had posted on your blog, which is fine. This time, it wasn’t even me posting on your facebook page, it was me posting a video on my own wall. Do you think the courtesy of a request for permission and a request that my position be portrayed accurately without slander is too much for me to ask?

    LikeLike

71. The Man Who Would(n't) Be Emperor | ***Dave Does the Blog says:

    February 22, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    […] Obama H8rs complain, “Obama’s not emperor!” Can’t make this stuff up as fast as the unthinking anti-Obama folks can dish it out. Their criticisms often vaporize at the slightest investigation, though. Why not talk serious policy? They won’…… […]

    LikeLike

72. Ed Darrell says:

    February 21, 2013 at 10:56 pm

    I wonder what is the excuse for those other sites, all 20 of ’em? What’s the excuse of the guys who edited out the content of the videos they gave you, so you couldn’t see immediately they were pulling your leg?

    LikeLike

73. Ed Darrell says:

    February 21, 2013 at 10:54 pm

    Okay, I get the point that you’re tired and harried. I hope you can get help for your son soon, and I hope you don’t have to go bankrupt first — Obamacare doesn’t kick in for another year.

    Didn’t know any of that.

    So should I excuse your misinterpretation of Obama’s speech?

    What I complained about was that the distortions of Obama’s work run throughout a cadre of so-called conservative sources, and you gut suckered by them.

    Okay, you’re tired. Maybe after a few nights’ good sleep, you’ll see things differently. I hope more accurately.

    LikeLike

74. Ed Darrell says:

    February 21, 2013 at 10:49 pm

    I didn’t say that at all. I said I was unaware you thought our conversation private.

    On the other points, I suppose, Q.E.D.

    LikeLike

75. lowerleavell says:

    February 21, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    Ed, I’ll try to have a few minutes in a few days to respond to your post directly, but here’s what I can say in the meantime:

    Since you feel that everyone should know about me from Facebook, Facebook usually asks how I’m doing. Well, let me see – I worked a nine hour split shift today which would have been longer except my son woke me up at 3:30 in the morning about a medical problem we’ve been monitoring. Since my duties require me to work pretty much no matter what, it took me from 5-9AM trying to find a replacement so I could take him to the emergency room. Finally I spend the afternoon at the ER only to be told that he needs to see a specialist because they can’t figure out what’s wrong so I have to re-arrange my work schedule again so I can take him to the specialist tomorrow which means I have to pick up even more work hours than I was originally working in the process. Then tonight I returned to work for the evening and came home exhausted and read about me, “To hell with you” pretty much because I’m a racist because apparently I disagree with Obama….why? Because he’s black and I have a disease.

    And you wonder why I’m a tad bit upset that you took a post I made on Facebook and put it on your blog?? If I want to be called a racist who should go to hell then I’ll post on your blog at my own choosing or make a comment on your facebook page. I shouldn’t have to worry if I post a link or say something on Facebook (on my own page no less) that my friends are going to use it as a smear tactic to induce blood-lust in their ravenous commentators who seem to have nothing better to do with their lives than to call “your party” evil people who deserve hell (we all deserve hell regardless of political affiliation, which is the ironic thing), invent a disease, which is a mockery to those who have real mental illness (akin to calling someone a “retard” – not cool), and spew venomous hate towards anyone who begs to challenge their worldview. I’m just flabbergasted that your only apology is that you’re sorry I was offended – not your sorry for your own actions, you’re merely sorry for how I reacted to them. Your honor is found in your friends Ed. You have always defended your liberal friends here and have never defended me, but have simply used me and my opinions to advance your blog. Calling me “our old friend” on your site does not seem genuine. How about “our old whipping boy”?

    I don’t know what it takes to be a Facebook friend, or a friend of Ed Darrel in general, but Ed, I interact with you more than most – honestly I do. Communication is the key to any real relationship and by gum, we’ve had a bit of the most bizarre conversations over the last few years – enough to make a book! I honestly have imagined what it would be like to meet you one day and be like one of those old time political friends/enemies who would rail against each other while congress was in session and then go and have a beer afterward. But this is different. I don’t know how I could have a beer with you guys (besides the fact that beer tastes horrible – you could probably talk me into a milkshake though). This is just wrong. If you guys want to see hate, you’d do well to just look in the mirror because your words are drenched in hate. James, especially you – you’re words are filled with murder (the very definition of “go to hell” is I wish you dead…yeah, you just told me you wished me dead in eternal damnation…and I’m the hate-filled one?). Honestly, you all scare me and I fear for this country as there is more and more hatred towards the things that I love and hold dear.

    It really gets me that you all have the nerve to tell me that I “hate” Obama and then tell me to go to hell (which is an impossibility because of Christ – a fate which I do not deserve but He has purchased my redemption with His blood) with as much venom and hate as you can muster. Then, you guys call me a racist for who knows what reason?? But I’m the evil one because I’m a freaked out citizen who sees our executive branch grasping for more and more power – and say “Yikes!” when our president says it’s a “problem” (not unfortunate – you’re right he didn’t say unfortunate -don’t know when I started saying that. He said it’s a “problem”) that he’s the POTUS and not the emperor.

    What’s really funny to me is the conversation at church the other night when we were discussing Dr. King’s letter from the Birmingham jail and how none of us could understand how the races could hate each other or treat each other that way. I grew up with the understanding that there was one race – the human race. Look, I disagree with our president on many issues…but mostly he just scares me, and for good reason. He’s taking away things that I hold as fundamental rights, infringing on my 1st amendment, my 2nd amendment, and shoot, I’m not even guaranteed a right to a trial anymore thanks to his drone campaign. I have no right to life, no right to liberty, and he’s destroying my pursuit of happiness (only the happiness I once found in my country – not in my God). But thank goodness he gave me the right to free condoms!! You think he’s a champion for all you hold dear – he’s dismantling my country, piece by piece…and I’m left with people who should be my countrymen, my brothers who could die side by side with me as we fight arm in arm for our liberty, shouting at me to go to hell.

    Yeah Facebook, that was my day. How was yours?

    LikeLike

76. Jim says:

    February 21, 2013 at 6:45 pm

    Ed,

    It’s usually a case of shuck and jive with people who suffer from ODS. They hear thing no one outside their circle heard. They are just positive they read a quote somewhere — and it must be true because someone else in their little klatch is sure he read it, too. Plus, they just know the truth in the bones. The way your kooky uncle knows in his bones that the flying saucers are on their way. The way the cranky old fart in the barber chair next to you knows in his bones that they faked the moon landings.

    Obama Derangement Syndrome is real. True is false and false is true. Certainty that the false is true will doggedly resist any presentation of the actual facts. The facts come from those ODS sufferers refer to as “college boys”, “pointy-headed academics”, “the intellectual elite”, the “lamestream media”, university professors and people with actual degrees in real subjects.

    I don’t know how ODS is acquired. Perhaps the water in GlennBeckistan has tragically seeped into the water table in the US. Possibly, it’s handed down genetically. After all, there are many similarities between Obama Derangement Syndrome and Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Maybe it’s in the pork rinds vendors sell at NASCAR events and gun shows. Who knows for sure?

    It could also have a simpler explanation. Not saying that this is it or that this is what inspires every person with ODS. But in some cases, it probably is true. As one acquaintance of mine summed…

    “Obama is a black, you see.”

    Yes. I see.

    LikeLike

77. JamesK says:

    February 21, 2013 at 10:50 am

    Well one would think if Person A loves Person B but disagrees with Person’s B’s political views then Person A should be able to do so honestly.

    That is apparently not the case with Joe.

    So why is it, Joe, that you’re engaging in the standard right wing/Faux News bulldung idea of pretending that Obama said something he didn’t actually say?

    There’s something colloquially called “Obama derangement syndrome.” It’s a mental condition of the right wing that makes them vehemently disagree with the President because he’s either black and/or a Democrat even when the President is proposing something that, if it had been proposed by a Republican, they’d have no problem with. It also makes them conjure straw man arguments regarding the President that they can then fight and argue against.

    You seem to be suffering from it, Joe.

    And I have yet to figure out why you still apparently think the government should stop doing anything and everything just because your own party wants to be a bunch of arrogant childish nincompoops who are in the middle of throwing a so far 5 year hissy fit because they lost and continue to lose.

    At no time in at least the last century has the Democrats, when they’ve been the minority party, acted with such vehemence and intractibility as the GOP continues to operate with now. Hell you guys are trying to fillibuster the nominated Secretary of Defense..something that hasn’t happened ever. And your party’s reasons? That they’re pissed that Hagel dared to criticize W and company correctly and that he *gasp* dared to say that Israel has a bit too much influence on our policies.

    Yeah there’s a term when a group of people can’t stomach the idea of someone in their own group thinking differently…that term is “cult.”

    Enough is enough, Joe, if your party wants to continue to act this way then the best thing that can happen for this country is that your party die and some other more sane party rise to take it’s place. But as long as your party wants to continue Whigging out then to hell with your party. And as long as you want to continue being part of the problem they’re creating, Joe, then to hell with you. We have real problems to deal with and fix and your party, Joe, is not remotely interested in doing so. So why should we continue letting them standing in the way?

    LikeLike

78. Ed Darrell says:

    February 21, 2013 at 1:28 am

    Joe complains:

    Ed, Obama’s comments were a gaffe at best, and an “unfortunate” usage of the word “unfortunate.” I’m not trying to invent something here. If he wanted to, he would clarify his statement.

    I don’t think a good explanation that the president is not an emperor is a gaffe. It’s legally and historically correct.

    He didn’t use the word “unfortunate.”

    You take what is an explanatory and introductory line in a statement, and you ignore the substance of the statement. Were we in a court of law we’d have your complaint thrown out as wholly irrelevant and not probative; if you continued to complain, we’d ask for sanctions for gumming up the works of the trial.

    He doesn’t need to “clarify” an accurate statement he made, just because some people fail to understand or report it accurately — even if they do it maliciously. Especially if they do it maliciously.

    Can we discuss immigration now? Too much deporting, or not enough?

    LikeLike

79. Ed Darrell says:

    February 21, 2013 at 1:14 am

    I regret it’s taken some time to get back here. Joe Leavell raised some questions.

    Joe wrote:

    Thank you Ed for taking a private conversation between friends on Facebook and using me as fodder for your blog.

    You’re welcome, as sincerely as you thank me. Our conversation wasn’t on a private channel; nor was it the first time I ran into the argument, though your dealing with the quotes confirmed what I feared, that distortions of President Obama’s words from this appearance had gone mainstream and was intended to screw up the discussion of immigration reform.

    You fell victim to the hoax, but it’s clear you’re a willing victim.

    I noted your comments appeared on Facebook. Considering you and I have carried on conversations there and here, in full public view, for several years now, it never occurred to me that you might think it a private conversation. (Have you and I ever corresponded through private channels?)

    I regret you took offense. But as I carefully noted in the blog post, your Facebook post is just one of a score of equally irresponsible twistings of the President’s words. If you don’t want to me call you on such things, don’t do ’em.

    I thought you to be a gentleman Ed. Considering you did not ask for my permission to use my name and twisted words (like failing to mention you were the “wag” who tritely used the “yellow snow” comment) to make your point, I hope your “dear readers” will take this information into account.

    I didn’t invent the yellow snow comment, nor did I ever claim I did. Thank you for thinking me clever enough.

    You might be embarrassed for being in the company of the many sites I list and link to which took that same remark and stretched it as badly as you did — but those who board trains go the same direction as all the other riders at the same speed. If you don’t wish to be among them, you’ll need to step off that train.

    The only “slander” going on here is you taking my words and twisting them to jump on a point that you are hoping to make. You didn’t play nice in the bathtub Ed. I have soap in my eyes.

    Not my splashing. I didn’t make the claim that Obama said he wants to be emperor, you did. He didn’t say that, especially in context. Not my claim.

    You also invite your readers to “tell” what my position is on immigration reform. They don’t know me. They don’t know where I live, who my representatives are, who I’ve worked with, etc.

    So, you favor Obama’s immigration plan? Do tell. Why do you find it superior to Boehner’s or Rand’s plans?

    What I said is you can’t be pinned down on your views. Here was another opportunity for you to state your views — but you accuse me of getting them wrong, or something, without taking the opportunity to simply clear the issue by stating your views.

    This political discussion thing isn’t that difficult, really.

    I don’t have a problem with using our conversations within reason, but at least ask, Ed. If you continue to use our facebook conversations without my permission just so you can make a ‘zing’ on your blog in my name – using me as the whipping boy of “Obama haters” (which I am not) then consider yourself ‘unfriended’….and I’ve never unfriended anyone before, ever. our conversations will be relegated solely back to your blog, if at all. This is a big deal to me – it’s a breach of trust.

    I regret you took offense. I’m curious why you think this is more exposure than Facebook.

    I’ve been unfriended by birthers, by Mitt Romney voters who blamed me personally for fixing the election illegally in Cleveland and Philadelphia, by DDT advocates, by anti-vaxxers, by creationists, and a host of others. I’m sorta used to it.

    I’ve used your name “in vain” here before. I thought you’d be used to it by now.

    If your readers want to know what I said on Facebook, here it is:

    “I take no issue when Obama stays within the law. That’s not the problem. The problem (again, in Obama’s own terms) is that he has to work within those laws and can’t do whatever he wants. He doesn’t see working within the framework of the law as a virtue, it’s holding him back from doing what he wants to do. The constitution and the laws of this country are seen as a vice – one in which he would discard if he could if only he were the emperor.

    And he does discard laws…whenever he can get away with it. Don’t get me started on his drone war including American citizens, failing to uphold the laws of DOMA and his DREAM act which are all completely illegal (failing to uphold the law).

    This is a president that picks and chooses which laws he will defend and which ones he will discard. The questioner wanted to know if he’s going to continue to break the law – he admits he can’t get away with it because he’s not emperor. What a shame, right?

    Even if he meant nothing by it, it’s still not the smartest thing in the world to say in a free society. (it’s a problem that I’m not the emperor of this country) This should scare the socks off of anyone who loves freedom.

    You’re making my criticism more broad than it is (like normal).

    What I read/heard is a citizen of the US state that it was unfortunate the he was the President and not the emperor of the US. That doesn’t make the hair on the back of your patriotic neck stand on edge? No twisting of words required. I know what he was saying. He’s saying that he is limited in power to change things – he would like things to be different in immigration, but they’re not and he is powerless to change it by the wave of his hands. I’m not making more of it than there is – he’s just saying his power is limited. The problem is not that truth – the problem is that he say’s that the fact that his power is limited to merely president and not emperor is unfortunate. What a frightening notion for those of us (I include you) who love their liberty.

    What I heard was a professor of Constitutional Law explaining why the President sometimes enforces laws he may not completely agree with, and that he can’t unilaterally change the law.

    Are you really in agreement with Obama that he should greatly curtail deportations? Do you think he’s deporting too many undocumented aliens now?

    You didn’t also hear our president say that it’s awful tempting to circumvent congress as “some people” want him to?

    No, I didn’t hear that. That’s not in the transcript.

    In fact, Obama didn’t come close to saying anything like that. What he said is that he’s got to wait for Congress to change the laws.

    Here’s the transcript of that question:

    Immigration Question by Jackie Guerrero (sp?)

    Q: Hi, Mr. President. Your administration has deported a record high number, 1.5 million, of undocumented immigrants, more than your predecessors. And I know your administration took some steps last year to protect unintended undocumented immigrants from being deported. However many people say those efforts were not enough. What I’d like to know is what you’re going to do now, and until the time that immigration reform is passed, to insure that more people aren’t being deported and families are not being broken apart.

    President Obama: Well, look Jackie, this is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed, and Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are placed, even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. And what we have been able to do is to make sure that we’re focusing our enforcement resources on criminals — as opposed to somebody who’s here, just trying to work and look after their families.

    What we have tried to do is administratively reduce the burdens and hardships on families being separated. And what we’ve done, obviously, is pass the deferred action which made sure that the dream, uh, dreamers, young people who were brought here and think of themselves as Americans, or American except for their papers, that they’re not deported.

    Having said all that, we’ve got to stretch our administrative flexibility as much as we can. And that’s why making sure we get comprehensive immigration reform done is so important. And frankly, my goal is to make sure we get that done in the next four or five months. And the reason is precisely because every day that we wait, every week that we wait, every month that we wait, there are going to be some stories that break our hearts. And more importantly, we’re going to continue to have an economy that is stifled by a really inefficient system where, not only are we deporting folks, but we have a legal immigration system that is so bottle-necked that it forces sometimes people into the illegal system, it prevents us from recruiting and keeping top flight engineers and tech people who are ready to work here or invest here but because the legal immigration system is so broken we’re not able to track them. And so often times we train them here, and then we send them back to their countries of origin to start businesses there. The good news is I think the opportunity for immigration reform has never been higher. We’re seeing some good bipartisan discussions and possible legislation and my hope is that we can actually get this done in the next few months.

    Joe said:

    You don’t have a problem with that? That doesn’t scare you to think of a president – any president good or bad, wanting that power?

    At no point did Obama say he wanted power to override Congress. You’re reading stuff into his remarks unfairly, stuff that he simply did not say.

    It’s a straight up, patriotic explanation: The President is charged by the Constitution with enforcing laws, Obama said, even laws that he doesn’t like; he can sometimes temper the enforcement, but he has a duty, and he does that duty even while asking Congress to change the law.

    Why in the world would anyone have a problem with that? It’s accurate legally and historically, and it shows a high regard for the political and governmental processes in our democratic republic.

    The alternative is tyranny or revolution, right?

    No, I have no problem with peaceful resolution of tough issues.

    And you have the nerve to say that the problem is that I hate Obama? Seriously?

    I think it’s a problem that Obama haters have distorted his remarks; I see zero evidence that your motivations are noble in this case. You show no love for Obama, nor much respect for the office of the presidency. You repeat a falsehood designed to derail the political processes of our democratic republic.

    I don’t think I’m the one being cheeky here.

    The fact that I pray for him virtually every day and keep current as much as possible is a sign of hate? I can love the man and completely disagree with his policies and his actions. Jesus said to even love our enemies, let alone our presidents. Let me turn this around though Ed – are you not sure your love of Obama (not just the man, but everything he stands for) is not clouding your judgement?”

    All I can go on is what I see. I regret I don’t see your love of the president in your remarks.

    You also failed to post this video these quotes from Obama. You can’t make this stuff up. My point was simply what I said. “Yikes!”

    Why in the world did you say “Yikes?” Do you really dislike the American system that much?

    I mean, did you listen to this video you posted? It’s pretty straight up. Obama says, accurately, in the first snippet, that he would appoint a commission to deal with the deficits and budget problems, because Congress failed to. He did. It got cheers from both sides of the aisle when he did.

    Of course, that demonstrates a huge part of the problem we have with gridlock now. There was widespread agreement that we should get a high-powered group outside of Congress to study the deficits and make recommendations. But the GOP blocked the law to set it up. Fully within his powers under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974, and the Government Reorganization Act of 1947, Obama set up the commission, now known as the Simpson-Bowles Commission. They filed their report, and Rep. Ryan and Rep. Boehner made it clear they would not even entertain the results in the budget process. “Dead on Arrival,” Ryan said.

    You think Ryan’s and Boehner’s arrogant disregard of the welfare of our nation is Obama’s fault?

    Not only did Obama NOT say he would bypass Congress, he did what the majority in both houses wanted to have happen, and he did it under the laws Congress passed governing the establishment of such commissions. No bypass of Congress, no high-handed action, nothing that Congress didn’t want to have done, nothing not squarely in Obama’s authority as Congress granted it and the Constitution allows.

    Why didn’t you offer the full transcript, and explain the history yourself? What are you guys trying to cover up?

    Seriously — what planet do these odd ideas come from?

    (Did you even know what that first remark on the tape was about?)

    At Miami-Dade College, Obama said, accurately, “Some wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself.”

    Then he went on to say he can’t — the part cut out of that video.

    But in the part we do see, what’s the problem? He’s accurate. Do you deny it?

    At Esperanza, he repeated the news: “Some wish I could just bypass Congress. I can’t.”

    Where’s the problem? Not with Obama — maybe the way you look at it, but that’s not Obama’s arrogance or power grabbing. It’s your invention.

    At NCLR, he got a laugh when he said that the idea of doing stuff on his own, without Congress, is tempting. It’s a laugh line, not a policy statement (though I can understand your concern that the GOP is being laughed at in their obstinate blocking of Congressional work).

    The final scene, without sound, is Obama taking the oath of office.

    That video makes zero mention of any power grab. If you interpret it to mean Obama wishes to bypass Congress, plans to bypass Congress, or has bypassed Congress, you’re reading your own invention into the words. That’s not Obama’s problem; it’s a speech comprehension problem and listening problem, and it’s yours and whoever put that video clip together to mislead you and others.

    You’ve never offered any rational explanation for why you’d be unhappy that Obama disclaims power to be an emperor. Instead, you attribute to him, falsely, an opposite view, that he wants such powers.

    If you’re really embarrassed, why not just retract?

    We have a serious issue on immigration. Fogging the discussion with videos aimed to distort Obama’s obiter dicta on the issue, and completely ignoring and completely covering up what Obama actually said and proposed on the issue, is not a good citizen’s good work.

    LikeLike

80. lowerleavell says:

    February 20, 2013 at 7:02 am

    I’m confused about your post James. Are you supporting Obama as emperor here and just trying to justify it? That’s how you’re coming across. Just so you know.

    Ed, Obama’s comments were a gaffe at best, and an “unfortunate” usage of the word “unfortunate.” I’m not trying to invent something here. If he wanted to, he would clarify his statement.

    The problem here…and I mean right here, is that you started this discussion by means of gossip (guess what Joe and his like say), and slander (you inaccurately portrayed my position to make a jab), and have placed a private conversation between friends front and center on your blog. I had no intention of writing here, getting into another pointless political conversation with James where he rants and raves against everything “my party” does, nor do I have time. I made a comment “Yikes” on my own Facebook page to Obama’s gaffe (unfortunate slip of the tongue which may be more accurate than he’d like to admit) and you choose to make that headline news on your blog without my permission. There are other things that I’ve commented on your stuff on Facebook and as I think of it, I’m done – I don’t want to end up with more stuff on your blog. It’s just not the right way to have a discussion between friends. If you’re using my friendship as political fodder then as I said before, count me out. Friendship means something entirely different to me.

    LikeLike

81. JamesK says:

    February 19, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    So because the Republican party has become a party of religious whackjobs and ideological nitwits, Joe, we should let them do whatever they want and stop every act of the government? Hell they’re even stopping their own ideas from being passed.

    If Obama is “subverting democracy” then it is in response to the fact that your party has been subverting it the last 5 years. Hell considering how W won his elections I can make an argument that they’ve been subverting it the last 13 years.

    Sorry, joe, we can not unilaterlly stop the government for 5+ years just because your party has gone out of it’s cotton-picking mind.

    Enough of this tyranny of the minority party nonsense that you support, Joe, just because that minority party is your own.

    LikeLike

82. Ed Darrell says:

    February 19, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    Friend Randy Creath passed this one along:

    

    LikeLike

83. lowerleavell says:

    February 19, 2013 at 10:21 am

    James said, “Oh and as for that “laws should take time” yeah there are times when they should. There are times when they shouldn’t though. Civil rights and equality is one of the latter. If we had gone your way on that subject blacks would still be slaves.”

    My family were/are abolitionists (there are more slaves today than at any point in history – what are you doing about it?) and fought for freedom for slaves. You don’t have a right to say this.

    As Dr. King said (paraphrase) justice deferred eventually becomes justice denied. Civil rights were not about simply changing law (like how high should the tax rate be) – they were a matter of justice. Our government’s main responsibility is enacting justice for its citizenry. These matters should be front and center in our political discussions. The fact that comprehensive immigration reform has not taken place yet is unforgivable in my mind. It’s akin to the the debauchery of it taking our country roughly 50 years past Brittan to abolish slavery. Not cool. Our country needs to find a way to both enforce our sovereignty and act with compassion at the same time. We’ve done it before – we should do it again.

    LikeLike

84. lowerleavell says:

    February 19, 2013 at 10:07 am

    James said, “If Mittens had won and he was acting like an emperor you wouldn’t utter a $%@! word in protest. The proof? You didn’t do so before.”

    James, you didn’t know me when Bush was making some of the largest power grabs for the executive branch in history (all under the guise of keeping us “safe”). I wasn’t really blogging back then as I was in college and just starting out my family. I didn’t start talking with Ed until 2006 and even then it was mostly about creation/evolution stuff.

    So no, you don’t get to say I have no credibility. I’m just wondering why you protested against the “white” man but are silent under the “black” man. And what the heck does race have anything to do with it?

    LikeLike

85. lowerleavell says:

    February 19, 2013 at 9:57 am

    James said, “….but not when they block or try to block absolutely everything.”

    So, if I can cite Democrats doing the same thing to Bush and you agree they were wrong, then again, maybe we can talk (Bolton nomination, stopping Bush’ guest worker program, stopping making the tax cuts that Democrats are now saying would hurt the middle class from being made permanent, etc.).

    This is the thing James, our founders set it up for the minority party to still have a voice – and a powerful one at that. They were smart to do it that way so that the majority wouldn’t ramrod their way down the country’s throat and change everything with two years’ majority. You should be thankful James. As a Democrat, what you’re complaining about now is what kept Bush from enacting his agenda. Now it’s happening to Obama. Ultimately, it’s what the country voted for as there are still a LOT of us who do not like Obama’s spending and tax-hiking “solutions” and see things through a different lens. Sorry, it’s just democracy at work.

    LikeLike

86. JamesK says:

    February 19, 2013 at 8:43 am

    TO quote:
    James said, “Let us know, Joe, when you can provide evidence of you objecting to all the times our last President did the same @$*% thing.”

    “And you will publicly say that former President George W Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney, among others, should be sent to the Hague and tried as war criminals for their authorizing the use of torture in violation of US and international law, right?”

    Let me know when two wrongs make a right, then we’ll talk.

    Oh they don’t. but see you haven’t proven that what Obama is doing is wrong because you haven’t proven he’s thinking he should be emperor and that he’s acting that way.

    But sorry, your little double standard here doesn’t wash.

    You never uttered one word of protest when W was acting like the “lil Emperor” but you object loudly when you think the black man is. Gee..wonder why.

    As for this: Unfortunately James, I’m just a member of the GOP and not the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. I can only do so much….but some have said that it would be nice if I could go around my Republican representatives….sometimes it’s tempting.

    Yeah you are only one person. But unless you’re going to claim that you’re the only sane Republican left in the country then..there’s more than one of you. So you and the others should organize and take your party back. Instead for the last 12 years as your party has sunk further into outright insanity you and your fellow sane Republicans have sat on your fat white lazy asses doing nothing because then just like now..you’re more worried about your party having power than your party being right and doing the right thing.

    If Mittens had won and he was acting like an emperor you wouldn’t utter a damn word in protest. The proof? You didn’t do so before.

    So why should any of us consider your objections to what you claim Obama is doing as anything other then the blatherings of a mealy mouthed hypocrite throwing a fit because his party isn’t in charge?

    Oh the other proof of what I said? That you sit there and dismiss the subversions of democracy that your party has been engaging in for the last 4 years in their attempt to block anything and everything.

    Sorry, if you’re going to kvetch about the supposed subversions of democracy that Obama is engaging in then be honest enough to go after your own side too.

    If not..well then your words are meaningless.

    Oh and as for that “laws should take time” yeah there are times when they should. There are times when they shouldn’t though. Civil rights and equality is one of the latter. If we had gone your way on that subject blacks would still be slaves.

    Your party lost. I have no problem with it voicing objections to things…but those things should still come up for a vote. If the vote fails that’s fine..the vote fails…but it is a subversion of democracy, child, to never let those things come up for a vote at all.

    And like I said..when it comes to DADT, DOMA, the “Dream Act” and others…your party simply won’t even let those things come up for a vote.

    And you want to pretend that’s not a subversion of democracy?

    Sorry, no, it is. So when your party stops subverting democracy in that matter then you can complain when you think Obama does the same thing.

    Until then you’re just being a hypocrite throwing a hissy fit not because Obama is acting like an emperor…but because Obama isn’t bending down, kissing your ass and doing what you want.

    So put up or shut up.

    LikeLike

87. JamesK says:

    February 19, 2013 at 8:30 am

    JOe writes:It must be tough to live in a free society when you have to deal with opposing viewpoints, huh? Poor James. Wouldn’t it be nice if Obama could just like circumvent the whole process and be our emperor?

    Oh I have no problem with opposing viewpoints, Joe. And I have no problem with those with opposing viewpoints acting on them…

    ….but not when they block or try to block absolutely everything. You’re kvetching about Obama’s supposed desire to act like an Emperor while blithely ignoring that your party is acting the same exact way. You apparently have a problem with a supposed tyranny of one and yet you’re turning a blind eye to the tyranny of the minority.

    So when you turn a blind eye to the actions of your own party then why should any of us give a damn about what you think the President is doing?

    LikeLike

88. Immigration Reforms, Whodunit? | elcidharth says:

    February 19, 2013 at 5:29 am

    […] Here’s a complete video transcript: http://timpanogos.wordpress.co&#8230; […]

    LikeLike

89. lowerleavell says:

    February 19, 2013 at 12:06 am

    James said, “So, sorry, Joe, when your party subverts democracy in that manner and you and your fellow conservatives don’t utter a peep in protest then you lose your $%!# right to protest when we find work arounds (sic) to your sides obstruction.”

    It must be tough to live in a free society when you have to deal with opposing viewpoints, huh? Poor James. Wouldn’t it be nice if Obama could just like circumvent the whole process and be our emperor? That would make things so much better, no?! Unfortunately, it’s not the case and Obama has to deal with the system that our founding father’s set up to slow down tyrannical dictators from taking over like they saw in King George. Obama says its unfortunate – apparently you agree.

    Laws take time to pass – they should take time. They should take thought and careful consideration of their pros, cons, and consequences. They should take discussion, argument, and hearing out of opposing viewpoints. They should not be made on the whim of public opinion polls. Our founders were smart and set up a slow, thought out system that has checks and balances and is based on sound law. It’s been the best system in the history of the world. Forgive my hesitation to see it changed on the whim of those who are frustrated that a fellow citizen has a different opinion. But again, by definition that makes me a conservative because I believe our way of government is worth conserving.

    LikeLike

90. lowerleavell says:

    February 18, 2013 at 11:56 pm

    James said, “Let us know, Joe, when you can provide evidence of you objecting to all the times our last President did the same @$*% thing.”

    “And you will publicly say that former President George W Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney, among others, should be sent to the Hague and tried as war criminals for their authorizing the use of torture in violation of US and international law, right?”

    Let me know when two wrongs make a right, then we’ll talk.

    LikeLike

91. lowerleavell says:

    February 18, 2013 at 11:54 pm

    james said, “I have told you countless times when it comes to your party you and yours need to either put up or shut up.”

    Unfortunately James, I’m just a member of the GOP and not the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. I can only do so much….but some have said that it would be nice if I could go around my Republican representatives….sometimes it’s tempting.

    LikeLike

92. JamesK says:

    February 18, 2013 at 6:11 pm

    Oh and as for the Dream Act, DOMA and DADT, let me point out the obvious.

    If Obama and the Democrats brought that up in Congress..your party would never ever let those things come up for a vote at all. Your party would block it in committee, they’d obstruct it, they’d do everything possible to make it disappear and they’d filibuster it.

    According to the polls more than half the country thinks gays should be allowed to marry. In a democracy that would mean that gay marriage should be legalized. And yet in this country it wouldn’t be. Why? Because your party would never let it come up for a vote.

    Your party would never let any of those things come up for a vote.

    So, sorry, Joe, when your party subverts democracy in that manner and you and your fellow conservatives don’t utter a peep in protest then you lose your damn right to protest when we find work arounds to your sides obstruction.

    I have told you countless times when it comes to your party you and yours need to either put up or shut up. You will take back your party from the crazies, the obstruct everything at all costs crowd, and the lunatics, Joe, or we will do our absolute damndest to go around your party.

    The time when you and your fellow more rational Republicans could sit on your fat asses and hide behind the lunatics in your party, Joe, is over.

    So put up or shut up.

    LikeLike

93. JamesK says:

    February 18, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    So, Joe, you will vocally oppose all those Republican governors and legislatures when they attempt to ignore any new federal gun control laws right? Same goes for the provisions they’re supposed to follow with regards to “obamacare” right?

    And you will publicly say that former President George W Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney, among others, should be sent to the Hague and tried as war criminals for their authorizing the use of torture in violation of US and international law, right?

    You really quite so sure you want to play this particular game?

    LikeLike

94. JamesK says:

    February 18, 2013 at 5:55 pm

    To quote:And he does discard laws…whenever he can get away with it. Don’t get me started on his drone war including American citizens, failing to uphold the laws of DOMA and his DREAM act which are all completely illegal (failing to uphold the law).

    This is a president that picks and chooses which laws he will defend and which ones he will discard. The questioner wanted to know if he’s going to continue to break the law – he admits he can’t get away with it because he’s not emperor. What a shame, right?

    Let us know, Joe, when you can provide evidence of you objecting to all the times our last President did the same damn thing.

    LikeLike

95. lowerleavell says:

    February 18, 2013 at 12:40 pm

    Ed, the “unfortunate” thing here is the word “unfortunately” Obama saying, “I’m the POTUS, not the Emperor.” That would be a factual statement. Obama saying, “Unfortunately…” makes it commentary/opinion of the factual statement. He is stating his viewpoint of the facts that it is an unfortunate fact.

    Would he stand by his statement if pressed? Doubtful. Was it an unfortunate choice of words to use the word “unfortunately”? Freudian slip at best – as yet, no retraction.

    LikeLike

96. lowerleavell says:

    February 18, 2013 at 11:32 am

    Thank you Ed for taking a private conversation between friends on Facebook and using me as fodder for your blog. I thought you to be a gentleman Ed. Considering you did not ask for my permission to use my name and twisted words (like failing to mention you were the “wag” who tritely used the “yellow snow” comment) to make your point, I hope your “dear readers” will take this information into account. The only “slander” going on here is you taking my words and twisting them to jump on a point that you are hoping to make. You didn’t play nice in the bathtub Ed. I have soap in my eyes.

    You also invite your readers to “tell” what my position is on immigration reform. They don’t know me. They don’t know where I live, who my representatives are, who I’ve worked with, etc.

    I don’t have a problem with using our conversations within reason, but at least ask, Ed. If you continue to use our facebook conversations without my permission just so you can make a ‘zing’ on your blog in my name – using me as the whipping boy of “Obama haters” (which I am not) then consider yourself ‘unfriended’….and I’ve never unfriended anyone before, ever. our conversations will be relegated solely back to your blog, if at all. This is a big deal to me – it’s a breach of trust.

    If your readers want to know what I said on Facebook, here it is:

    “I take no issue when Obama stays within the law. That’s not the problem. The problem (again, in Obama’s own terms) is that he has to work within those laws and can’t do whatever he wants. He doesn’t see working within the framework of the law as a virtue, it’s holding him back from doing what he wants to do. The constitution and the laws of this country are seen as a vice – one in which he would discard if he could if only he were the emperor.

    And he does discard laws…whenever he can get away with it. Don’t get me started on his drone war including American citizens, failing to uphold the laws of DOMA and his DREAM act which are all completely illegal (failing to uphold the law).

    This is a president that picks and chooses which laws he will defend and which ones he will discard. The questioner wanted to know if he’s going to continue to break the law – he admits he can’t get away with it because he’s not emperor. What a shame, right?

    Even if he meant nothing by it, it’s still not the smartest thing in the world to say in a free society. (it’s a problem that I’m not the emperor of this country) This should scare the socks off of anyone who loves freedom.

    You’re making my criticism more broad than it is (like normal).

    What I read/heard is a citizen of the US state that it was unfortunate the he was the President and not the emperor of the US. That doesn’t make the hair on the back of your patriotic neck stand on edge? No twisting of words required. I know what he was saying. He’s saying that he is limited in power to change things – he would like things to be different in immigration, but they’re not and he is powerless to change it by the wave of his hands. I’m not making more of it than there is – he’s just saying his power is limited. The problem is not that truth – the problem is that he say’s that the fact that his power is limited to merely president and not emperor is unfortunate. What a frightening notion for those of us (I include you) who love their liberty.

    You didn’t also hear our president say that it’s awful tempting to circumvent congress as “some people” want him to? You don’t have a problem with that? That doesn’t scare you to think of a president – any president good or bad, wanting that power?

    And you have the nerve to say that the problem is that I hate Obama? Seriously? The fact that I pray for him virtually every day and keep current as much as possible is a sign of hate? I can love the man and completely disagree with his policies and his actions. Jesus said to even love our enemies, let alone our presidents. Let me turn this around though Ed – are you not sure your love of Obama (not just the man, but everything he stands for) is not clouding your judgement?”

    You also failed to post this video these quotes from Obama. You can’t make this stuff up. My point was simply what I said. “Yikes!”

    LikeLike

97. Achy Butt; disbelief and cheap shots « blueollie says:

    February 18, 2013 at 10:44 am

    […] an emperor” means “I am charged with enforcing existing law, not passing law”. But leave it to the right wingers to take this statement out of context and claim that President Obama is COMPLAINING about not being an emperor. (note: I am linking to […]

    LikeLike

98. blueollie says:

    February 18, 2013 at 10:36 am

    […] an emperor” means “I am charged with enforcing existing law, not passing law”. But leave it to the right wingers to take this statement out of context and claim that President Obama is COMPLAINING about not being an emperor. (note: I am linking to […]

    LikeLike

99. Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e249v1 says:

    February 18, 2013 at 8:31 am

    […] We don’t say that. We just tiredly remark that “not an Emperor” is a feature not a […]

    LikeLike

100. Monday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath says:

     February 18, 2013 at 8:31 am

     […] We don’t say that. We just tiredly remark that “not an Emperor” is a feature not a […]

     LikeLike

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.