All of that stuff is thanks to the collapse of a massive housing bubble both here and in abroad. That happened before his watch. I blame cheap money from the Fed combined with banking deregulation (securitizing toxic mortgages) more than I blame Obama (or Bush for that matter).
All their canddiates all want to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan, except without all the big-government spending, tax increases, debt accumulation, foreign aid, defense of Social Security, bombing in Libya...
Isn't it obvious? Their problem is that Obama is doing Reagan better than any U.S. President since Reagan.* The only way they know how to respond to that is move further to the right. To make that work, they've had to adopt a 19th-century view of the constitution, and replace Reagan's principled anti-authoritatarianism with principled anti-Federal-governmentism.
Which is, of course, reactionary.
* There's no way they'll let him get away with comprehensive tax reform.
but certainly does hang with very abnormal questionable hateful people who would rather see me, a white man, dead.
Still claiming to not be a racist?
3 of the 4 people you mention here are white men.
2 of the 4 Obama has never even spoken to (one died when he was 10 years old!)
Only one of those people on your list is even someone that you could say had any influence on the man, and the only things you know about him are a few controversial out-of-context video clips that were used to attempt to harm Obama in the 2008 election.
And the funny thing about that one person is that the "controversial" stuff that he said would be completely agreed upon by most of the Obama haters if it came out of the mouth of a white conservative. It's all very anti-government, pro-God, pro-individual rah rah bullshit.
Father Flagler (Radical racist advocating black liberation theology)
William Ayers (anti-american terrorist who helped launch his career, leader of a group which bombed the pentagon)
Reverend Wright (race baiting spiritual mentor who espouses black liberation theology and was his paster for 20 years, baptizing his children and conducting his marraige ceremony)
Saul Alinsky (mentor, author of Rules for Radicals, an anti-american instruction book in which he dedicated to satan)
All these specious arguments were already used in the last election and failed miserably. A losing strategy is a losing strategy.
The whole "Obama is a Fascist, Socialist, Communist, Kenyan, American-hating, freedom-hating, corrupt, anti-Christian, swimming pool hating, Christmas tree taxing devil incarnate" argument will get you EXACTLY where it got you in 2008.
is that why libs still think man caused global climate change?
Yes, all the scientists who are far more intelligent than you, and who work very hard at being unbiased and relying on logic, analysis and data, made an exception this time, and decided to be biased and reach their conclusions based on emotion,....why ?
Obviously it's because they were liberals, and they ascertained the huge benefits that would accrue to the science world if it were in fact true that global warming is caused by man's activity.
(they also conveniently ignore all of the average to below average intelligence types who have the common sense and gut feelings to know that the massively significant impact humans have on our atmosphere coinciding with climate change is just a coincidence.)
Science has a well known liberal bias. The conservative viewpoint knows that God Did It and doesn't need any of this fancy research and experimentin'
He had trained ACORN workers in Chicago
> and served as an attorney for ACORN.
Obama served as an attorney in a case where ACORN, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the League of Women Voters where all co-plaintiffs in a case against the state of Illinois. He won and forced Illinois to enforce the new motor voter law.
You hate Obama because he won a lawsuit against the state of Illinois and forced them to follow the law, or you hate Obama because some idiot on some right-wing website said "HAY YA KNOW OBAMA WAS A LAWYER FER ACORN!!!!!"?
Obama has done nothing to lower the cost of energy. In fact, the environmentalist under Obama hurt energy production, delay production, etc.
I wouldn't exactly call him an environmentalist but at the same point the government generally should be neutral with prices.
Natural gas is how most people heat their homes (outside of the northeast)
It has tanked over the past few years. I'm not saying Obama is responsible but the prices have dropped to the point where the USA might switch from being a net importer to net exporter pretty soon
"In 2009, the US surpassed Russia as the largest producer of natural gas, while shale gas production in the US has increased from almost nothing a decade ago to about 30 per cent of its natural-gas supply, and likely to be 50 per cent in the next few years. This has created more than 200,000 jobs, no small boost at a time of mass unemployment in the US. More importantly, it has kept gas prices down while other energy prices are rising."
If anyone owns property in the northeast I'd highly recommend they convert to natural gas.
"The constitution says plenty of things that the government CAN'T do. They CAN'T establish a state religion, they CAN'T force a person to condemn themselves, etc."
"The constitution establishes up powers and limits, it does not set up laws."
Huh? If a law is determined to be unconstitutional by the courts it is repealed. Ever hear of Brown vs Board of Ed?
"Since there's no article barring forced purchase of a service, you're left with the framework that establishes laws."
You are establishing the concept of prerogative. So you mean to tell me that the government can force us to do anything as long as it isn't banned specifically? That is way too open ended.
"And yet the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly on the issues, and past rulings argue strongly that the insurance mandate is well within the federal government's rights."
Um no. Past ruling as I've illustrated clearly illustrate that there are limits to the commerce clause. States can do whatever they want with this but there is nothing within the Constitution that specifically allows the government to force a product onto anyone.
In order for a "tax" to exist it has to be levied upon an action or a product. If you buy gasoline there are taxes on it. Same with tobacco and alcohol. If you have income there are taxes, if you have capital gains there are taxes.
How much sense is there for taxation on a non activity? How is the proper rate even established? If we all pay the same amount then it is clear that some will have higher bills than others.
"What do you mean "will not pass"? It's already passed, and becomes effective in a few years. The only thing that might change is if the supreme court rules that the mandata is unconstitutional, at which point only that specific part of the legislation becomes invalid. There's no "passing" to be done."
Huh? Where did you study law? If the mandate is not allowed (not passed) by the courts then it is thrown out pure and simple.
Also if the argument is that health care is to become a "right" how can that be enacted given that it is dependent on other people. What if those people do not want to go along with it? Having police and fire is a government service but it is not a right. If there are fires all over your town and they don't get to your house before it burns then that is a possibility. If a gangster takes hostilities at a bank downtown and you get mugged that is also a possibility. What specific "right" do you have to another persons labor?
How can the government regulate a non economic activity? Would the actions of participating in boycott be next? What if the occupy groups boycott banks (which they have a bit with the withdrawal from bank of america and others). Should they be arrested for that non economic activity.
This has to go to the supreme court because if it is legal in some states but illegal in others it runs aground of the equal protection clause. If the ballot measure passes next year in mass to withdraw romneycare that could also be a setback.
If the individual mandate is take off then the effectiveness gets weakened quite a bit. Younger people will opt out and create a rise in the cost of anyone else that is older (I'm generalizing here I'm sure there's plenty that are younger with aliments and older that are perfectly fine)
One bit that hasn't been talked about is how some groups use their health care plans to woo potential employees. In Mass that changed. The Teamsters advertised a job near me that had full health and dental (but low pay). With romneycare why would anyone accept that if they can pay $1,000 or so to the state and get it for a year. We might actually do the same with sick time here and mandate that too. Unions are probably the most screwed in this since everything they've fought for pretty much is going to be given away by the left.
It's up to you Comrade FortWayne, but at this rate, you might not have a choice or the right to vote the next time around.
Really? That's the crap you're going to shovel on this one?
Define "at this rate". Name a single action by the Democrats or Obama that has inched us down the road toward banishing the constitutional right to vote for our political leaders?
Republicans? Oh hell yes! Movements to defund elections and make voting centers more remote or difficult to get to, abolishing or strictly limiting absentee voting, overzealous attempts at documentation, and convictions for outright voting fraud are hallmarks of the Republican party.
But Democrats? Go ahead, lets hear your support your assertion.