Rush Limbaugh has said many times that President Barack Hussein Obama views the US Constitution as an impediment, as an obstacle to be circumvented, to be worked around. Limbaugh said, “…The Constitution is Obama’s obstacle.” The latest Obama “accommodation” drove home the point that Obama really does see the US Constitution as an obstacle to tyrannical rule that he, and many liberals, want to impose.
For some insight into his current thinking, Obama, while in the Illinois senate, in a 2001 interview, said that the Chief Justice Earl Warren court failed to “break free from the essential constraints” in the US Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution… that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”
That thinking is exemplified by his “We can’t wait” campaign to circumvent the US Constitution, to bypass Congress, and do whatever he pleases to extend “positive” rights when he thinks they are required. If Congress and the US Constitution gets in his way or don’t give him his way, he ignores them. He says “We can’t wait” and does what he wants.
Article II, section 1, of the US Constitution clearly states about the president: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That is the oath that Obama voluntarily took. Further, Article I, section 1, states “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” So when he says “We can’t wait,” is he hiding behind the phrase “to the best of my Ability?” Does his ability include in what he believes? And how does he get around the phrase “faithfully execute the Office?” Does he think that he is faithfully executing his duties when he invokes his “We can’t wait” stratagem?
Here are some examples of his “We can’t wait” strategy and executive fiat:
- In October, 2011, Obama, seeking to circumvent congressional opposition and to jump-start the economy, pushed a series of “executive branch steps,” beginning with “new rules” to make it easier for homeowners with little or no equity to refinance their federally funded mortgages, through Fannie May and Freddie Mac, which posted larger losses than expected, sought $6 billion in additional aid.
- In July, 2011, Obama told the National Council of La Raza that the idea of “doing things” on his own was “very tempting” when it came to bypassing Congress on immigration.
- In September, 2011 Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus he’d like to work his way “around Congress.”
- In July, 2011, during the debt limit debate, Obama asked lawyers if there was a way to interpret the 14th Amendment so as to get around Congress and establish a “long-term extension of the federal borrowing limit” on his own.
- Before Obama was president he said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry by imposing a cap and trade system that would be so harsh that “electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket.” Unable to get that bill through Congress, Obama bypassed them and used Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations to accomplish his goals. According to an analysis released in October, 2011, by the Institute for Energy Research, the EPA is “leading the Obama administration’s assault on coal with a number of new regulations.”
- Blatant subversion: Lybia war – In Article I, section 8 (Powers of Congress) of the US Constitution, there is the phrase “To declare War…” But Obama said the US actions in Lybia didn’t amount to war, so he didn’t need the approval of Congress. And he ignored the War Powers Act.
His latest decree, announced by Kathleen Sebilius, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), said that many church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for employees, even if that decree violated moral and ethical beliefs. Robbie George, law professor at Princeton, said, “They pursue this agenda with a religious zeal because, in fact, the ideology in which abortion is a “right” and “sexual freedom” is a core value is their religion.” That decree caused such an uproar that Obama had to “accommodate” it. The point here, however, is that once again Obama is trying to circumvent the US Constitution. Amendment 1 clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;….” So again we see Obama, using HHS, trying to bypass Congress and the US Constitution. At least this time he didn’t try to hide behind “We can’t wait.” Was that the reason for his problems and eventual “accommodation?”
So anytime the US Constitution and Congress doesn’t let him have free reign, he simply says “We can’t wait.” The US Constitution and Congress are, indeed, an obstacle to him – and to his agenda.
But that’s just my opinion.
@MataHarley:
Sorry, Mata. Next time I’ll try keep the tone of my remarks in line with your hankie-wringing defense of Dick Cheney in #48:
Oh I do believe I have the vapors! Where or where are my fainting pills?
Mata You’re losin your game going to that very weak “take your meds”
My patriotism has been called into question.But once I consider the source I rest easy.
Tom Good to see you back. Thanks
Hey, I’m not losing my game. I’m watching Tom lose it all together with the spittle laden, hyperventilating diatribe. LOL
But you misinterpret… your patriotism has not been called into question. Just your hypocrisy… which coincidentally matches your overwrought friend’s, Tom.
@Richard Wheeler:
I know you don’t need a hand with this crowd, but I just thought I’d throw my 2 cents in.
It’s nice to see that Mata is more upset about a perceived slight to Dick Cheney’s honor than the fact that John Gualt is advancing the concept that voting for Obama and keeping one’s military oath are incompatible. It’s not shocking, just interesting to note. She probably feels the same way, but is afraid to admit it.
Mata resulting to lame third grade insults: her way of saying she has nothing in the tank.
Mata I believe you are the one hyperventilating with your ” screw you and your intolerance”
Tom seems pretty calm. “vapors” over Cheney. You gotta admit that’s pretty cute.
BTW Sorry about Newt. RIP
You mean my response to your hyperbolic “wrap themselves in the flag” remark?
Why is it only you lib/progrs can take something as one’s pride in country and founding, and spit it out like an insult?
Ah yes, Tom. The guy who defended the left when they accused the Republicans of being responsible for the Gifford’s shooting. Then he attacked the Republicans for pointing out how disgusting and dishonest it was. Boy, you leftists sure are a classy lot. Some company you keep there rich.
Rich, you are not a patriot and you are not honoring your oath. You are spitting on it. Your response is a cop out, but I expected no less from you.
Since you love socialism so much, why don’t you move to Europe, Venezuela, or even Cuba?
Oh and if you want to show how fearless you are rich, post your address online. Otherwise spare us your BS chest beating because you certainly aren’t much of a man.
@Hard Right:
So, Schoolmarm Mata, is this the composed and courteous tone we should aspire to when posting, particularly if we wish to garner your approval rather than a ruler across the knuckles? It’s so sad to see knuckle-dragging HR come along and ruin your clumsy and painfully obvious attempts at brushing aside the reprehensible attacks against Rich Wheeler. Are you still asserting that Rich’s, ”patriotism has not been called into question”?
You can take your time responding, Mata. I’d be embarrassed too.
Way to humiliate Mata, HR!!
Tom, I hardly think you possess any cyber creds to be lecturing *any* one about “composed” and “courteous” tones.
Then, of course, you move the goal posts. You spent your comments, wringing your hands about john“gault”, and now suggest you were speaking of HR?
Yup… past med time fer shore.
H.R Many here know my address and all know my real name,You are a crass,classless, COWARD hiding behind a phony name.
Mata I’m sure you know the Cheney “wrapped in a flag” was questioning the ease with which he sent our youth to war after securing 5 deferments for school and family and never serving a day himself.
@Tom:
Tom, your hypocrisy shows itself yet again. I remember how you came here and the way you acted after the Tuscon shooting. You really have no room to talk about civility or decency.
As for rich’s lack of patriotism, the only one calling him on it is me. Mata hasn’t questioned his patriotism and neither has John Galt. Yet you slimed them all the same. Again, it merely shows what a POS you are.
Rich, spare me your excuses. How many Rich Wheelers are there in CA? Again, if you want to show how brave and fearless you are, post your address. Otherwise, STFU.
Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself with false bravado. Besides, as I have just found, you have stated on another site you are a pacifist. How are you going to defend…anything? Harsh language?
H.R, You say I stated I was a “pacifist”? That’s an absurd lie, but par for the course coming from you.My e-mail is rjwheeler22@yahoo.com Happy to send you a personal invite to my home as I”ve done for others here at FA.
Why are you too COWARDLY to post your name?
@Tom:
I am hardly a liar, Tom. Please go back and re-read my comments to Rich. Then read them again. And if you still don’t understand it, then get someone else to read it, because I didn’t do what you claim that I did. If you are going to call someone a liar, then at least back it up with evidence to substantiate that charge.
And if Rich felt he was being “attacked” by me, or called a traitor, he surely would have let me know about it, since he and I have friendly discussions all the time. You butted into something that you have failed to understand, which, considering some of your past postings here on FA, isn’t a huge surprise.
I will probably be done responding to you at this point, since you clearly want nothing more than cause hate and discontent.
@Richard Wheeler:
Rich, Tom has attacked me with falsehoods, insinuating that I did something that I clearly didn’t. I have been nothing but considerate and congenial in interactions with you here at FA. If you want to side with Tom and his unwarranted vitriol against me, then fine. We are done. I certainly don’t need the headache of attempting to have a friendly discussion with someone who would do something like Tom has done.
Let me refresh your memory Rich
40 richard wheeler Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Fee was banned but hardly outwitted.Personally,like Cob, I’m a pacifist.However I do like my Bloody Marys.Best Richard
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=1828
@johngalt:
In other words, you will feign haughty umbrage in an effort to avoid facing head-on what you did to Rich, which was beyond vile considering his service, not to mention insulting to many others. The sheer arrogance to frame a Constitutional purity test, as if your interpretation of the Constitution somehow gives you the right to pass judgement on the honor of others, to decide who the “real Americans” are, speaks for itself and your character. Let us also point out your meek strategy of avoidance will allow you to weasel out of answering my question in #55:
Avoid on, good sir. Or perhaps apologize to Rich, an action that would raise you in the eyes of many, myself included. Your choice.
@MataHarley:
I’ll ask again: Are you still asserting that Rich’s, ”patriotism has not been called into question”?
H.R #71 This ain’ t hell was a site moderated by some hard nosed guys from 173rd airborne (screaming eagles) As a former Marine Officer and a Dem. I jostled with them. COB was a moderator and a tough “screaming eagle” grunt. Calling COB a pacifist was like calling Gen. Patton, or Old Trooper a pacifist and saying I was simarly so was an obvious joke.If you read my staunch pro military and particularly pro Marine posts during the two years I participated there you’d know that particular line was a joke. Any of the moderators including John Lillya or Cob would vouch for my pro Marine Corps,strong defense outlook.
I was totally honest with those guys about who I was and where i lived and invited some to visit me IN SO.CAL.Provided them DD-214 showing my V.N. service. Provided it to Aye at this site.
Like here I was open and honest about my real name and where i lived
Ok Rich, I’ll take you at your word that it was a joke.
It still doesn’t change the fact you are in violation of your oath. Typical of a leftist you just ignore proof you are wrong. Obama is a major socialist and many in his admin are marxists. They are violating the Constitution and you know it. Your SC stance is moral cowardice.
The ability of the left to delude themselves is infinite and you are living proof.
John G. I feel our debate has been mutually respectful and I’ m willing to continue as time allows.
Tom Your questions to J.G and Mata are tough but fair.
I got a long day ahead
Semper Fi
@Tom:
Psst, Tom. Since you aren’t very bright I’ll spell it out for you. Mata and John did not call Rich’s patriotism into question. I did. That is what they mean when they say his patriotism hasn’t been called into question. It hasn’t by them. Just me.
Rich has betrayed all that he once fought for by enthusiatically supporting what he knows (on some level) are marxists and socialists. No wonder he needs to engage in such colossal denial of reality while lashing out at those who point out his hypocrisy.
You know, the problem with dealing with you hypersensitive, hysterical types is that conversations leave the realm of reality, and move to the nether lands of perpetual exaggerations , mis characterizations and embellishments. To those like you, Tom, a cold becomes a terminal illness, a scrap on a leg will be leading to an amputation, students become draft dodgers, anyone you don’t like who publicly expresses pride and love for country is “wrapping themselves in the flag” (a lib/prog favored trait, using patriotism as an insult…), and anyone who prefers this out of control central government returning to our founding principles laid out in the Constitution is akin to “calling someone’s patriotism into question”.
And you wonder why I think you’re a joke…
Rich’s hypocrisy, not his patriotism, was called into question on two different subjects by myself and johngalt (or as you say, johngault… which of course either indicates you are a poor speller or lousy typist, since it’s not even a valid insult).
My point of rich’s hypocrisy was to label students, “dodgers”… or that only his belief that Cheney’s student status, alone, made him a “dodger” because he doesn’t like him. Additionally, he was annoyed that Cheney did not drop everything and volunteer because he could. Yet rich doesn’t hold that same standard of measure to his hero, currently the temporary denizen in the WH. And his blanket assertion is an insult to a far greater majority of young men who did not serve during Vietnam because they, too, were in college.
Another hypocrisy is to consider service to the nation as a Congressional member, a Secy of Defense and a Vice President of the nation as substandard to his measure. While I treasure military service as much, if not more than the rest, I don’t necessarily find one level of service to the country superior to another… most especially based on an individual’s political views.
johngalt’s point was how rich could reconcile an oath to uphold the Constitution, while supporting legislation that is unquestionably debatable as constitutional. This is exhibited by lawsuits in the courts even now, for many of the items on his list. That isn’t calling his patriotism into question. It is asking whether he even has a clue about the document to which he swore to uphold.
Considering the deplorable understanding exhibited by so many of our founding document – you most definitely included – I’d say that rich’s patriotism lies in the right place, but that his knowledge of the Constitution is sorely lacking, as evidenced by his support for both legislation, and a POTUS who considers the Constitution an inconvenience to his agenda to turn the US into a Euro-socialist welfare state.
Tough? LOL As usual, rich, I do believe you suffer from a perception problem. You read too fast. Get unduly offended by taking things too personally. And leap to erroneous assumptions. Considering your own barrage of insults and characterizations, I find that trait extremely amusing and, of course, hypocritical.
@Richard Wheeler:
Rich, Tom’s “questions” to me have hardly been fair as he continues to accuse me of something I did not do. In #38, I have simply listed actions by Obama, seen by myself and other conservatives as being in violation of, or opposition to, the Constitution, and asked you to reconcile your support for such against your oath taken in service. I didn’t label you a “traitor”, as Tom attributed to me. I didn’t call your service into question, as Tom says that I did. I didn’t call your “patriotism” into question, as Tom claims that I did.
And I certainly did not LIE about that, as Tom states that I did.
Your own reply to my posting from #38, in your post #42, does not show ANY feelings from you that I did any of the things Tom claimed that I did. For a reminder, this is your reply;
My reply to that was simply to call relying on the SC a copout to the question I asked of you. Nothing more.
If you want to continue to believe that Tom was “fair” to me, then fine. As I said, we are done. I come here to have simple, calm, reasoned discussions. I have done so, thus far, in my entire time of posting at FA, including with you, Larry, Greg, and even Liberal1 a time or two. I have never had one with Tom, who comes here as nothing more than an instigator and false accuser, turning those simple, calm, reasoned discussions into something they never started out to be. He has done this on numerous occasions, including with myself.
I do respect your service, Rich. I do so as a fellow veteran, as I value the service of anyone who has ever served. That has been there from day one and I never wavered from that.
@Richard Wheeler: A quick correction. The “Screaming Eagles” are the 101st Airborne Division which is actually air assault now. They switched to in 1968 so you probably do remember them from VN as an airborne division (paratroopers) as opposed to air assault (helicopters). The 173rd is an airborne brigade. They still fall out of planes (as I did for 7 plus years). I believe their motto is “Sky soldiers”.
@MataHarley:
Mata, did you limit your original statement in #59 to only posts written by you or John Galt? No, you didn’t. So you’re either your mistaken, or you’re fibbing. Certainly you’re being deliberately obtuse. It’s a less that artful dodge, and cowardly. You know exactly what I was referring to, but don’t let the truth get in the way of hyper-partisan spin.
Yet I can’t post anywhere on this forum without you chiming in and addressing me, which inevitability leads to me asking you questions you can’t directly answer. You spend an awful lot of time on jokes, huh, yet you don’t seem to get them.
To which I say, who the hell is John Galt to decide:
1: What is or isn’t Constitutional?
– Answer: he doesn’t get to decide – he merely gets to decide his own feelings on the topic.
2. Whether specific Obama policies are or are not Constitutional?
– Answer: again, unless he’s on the US Supreme Court, he d0esn’t have a say, only an opinion.
3. What Obama policies or actions Rich needs to “reconcile” with his Marine oath?
– Answer: A completely illogical request. Why would Rich’s oath be in jeopardy because of the actions of another? Rich has the RIGHT to his own personal opinion, the right to support whomever he chooses politically. The idea that Rich is personally and morally responsible for the actions of an elected official is outlandish and reactionary.
So there you have it. JG’s purity test was baseless in fact and illogical in execution. It rested upon some sort of transitive honor property dreamed up in JG’s head, where the ‘sins’ of Obama are somehow passed on to those citizens who have not demonstrated sufficient outrage at the President to satisfy JG. As the criteria were set up in a manner that no one short of a rabid Far-Right Conservative and Obama hater could pass, the test was rigged, the outcome preordained, and therefore it’s deeply offensive to anyone like Rich who has a different political opinion. It’s one thing to disagree with someone over politics, but another to set up a little parlor game where the only possible outcome is to disparage a man and his military record.
Perhaps you missed your own accusations which were solely confined to john“gault”. Since johngalt and I *both* accused rich of hypocrisy, I volunteered my own contribution to that act.
Oh, that’s rich. You “chime in and address” johngault, then say johngal has no right to “decide”, but you do? Then you resent it when I start LMAO at your schizoid and hypocritical diatribe? LOL
And of course, I have answered your questions. Your inability to read and comprehend isn’t my problem. It’s yours.
@MataHarley:
Why do you keep interjecting yourself and your Cheney disagreement with Rich into this? That has nothing to do with me. Look at my first post. It’s pretty obvious I’m referring to HR’s rabid comments about Rich and JG’s little Constitutional quiz.
Where did I say I would decide? I happen to be from the school of thought that two people who have different philosophies regarding interpreting the Constitution can still be Americans, or soldiers, or Marines, in good standing. When I disagreed with the outcome of Bush v Gore, I didn’t run around asking Marine vets where they stood on the topic, darkly insinuating that their answer was of vital importance to whether or not their Marine oath was still intact. It’s stupefying that you don’t understand why John’s line of questioning was insulting. And that’s before we look at his motive, which was clearly to buttress (or translate into English from Idiot) HR’s direct attacks on Rich. People can be sneaky or direct, it’s all the same in the end.
Can I also generally point out that no one has addressed my most pertinent point raised here: can one support the current President and still honor his or her military oath, or are the two mutually exclusive? HR has clearly indicated no. JG has avoided responding. Would you care to chime in Mata?
another vet Thanks ‘The Screaming Eagles” 101st Airborne were with us in and around Khe Sanh during Tet Offensive early 68. Incredibly mobile and tough as nails they decimated the N.V.A. on Hill 882 (Hamburger Hill). VERY proud and HIGHLY decorated they were the last Combat Division to leave V.N
Thanks for your service and contributions here.
Uh.. nope. Your @tirade in comment #53 only calls out john“gault”… and of course ends with the usual lib/prog hatred of patriotism as an insult… i.e. the “wrapping themselves up in the Constitution” type BS. It’s always so interesting that only progs see patriotism as in insult, but then are the very first to scream to the heavens when they perceive someone considers them “unpatriotic”.
Considering your penchant for that phrase, I’m surprised you don’t consider it badge of honor…. even when that was not what was said.
So now you’re redefining your accusation that JG was calling rich’s patriotism into question, and replacing that with the more benign question of oath vs Euro-socialist/Obama policies? Dang, this must have been what it was like dealing with Sybil.
Maybe you need a reminder of JG’s last paragraph in that original comment/question about agenda vs oath to rich.
What a reader, who isn’t a hothead ruled by his partisan emotions, sees is a question about Constitutional limitations on the authority of central government (to which an oath was sworn), and the support of an agenda that is (in JG’s opinion, and others) running contrary to that limitation.
It does not question anyone’s patriotism… just their understanding of the document to which they swore an oath.
If rich considers that Eur-social agenda – Obama’s or any one else’s (Pelosi/Reid) – to be within his purview of Constitutional authority, of course he isn’t seeing a conflict with the oath. Therefore JG was asking rich to document specifically why he believed the Euro-socialist agenda – as well as the Obama meme that “men are not really equal” in this unfair America – were *not* in conflict with the Constitution.
@rich answered in his comment #52, (the one that led to your diatribe, of course) with the summarized version that:
1: he didn’t believe Obama was actually engaging in the actions JG said he was, and that
2: if something was found to be unconstitutional, he would not support it
Then you showed up with hyperbole and spittle… flushing the possibility on further debate as to *why* rich doesn’t believe Obama is engaging in class warfare etal down the toilet.
In other words, in your comment #53 (your first appearance here) you interjected yourself into the fray, and dragged the very specific debate between JG and rich into the emotional gutter with your not so “composed” and “courteous” tangent of hurled insults and erroneous characterizations.
Thereby, you’ve spent last even and a good part of this day, wasting everyone’s time trying to parse simple English language for you.
Now… a very busy day here. No more time to waste explaining the ABCs . And I’m afraid that I’ve garnered all the amusement possible from your hypocrisy of demanding civil discourse, when you demonstrate none yourself. You’ll just have to declare yourself the superior winner of all things as the last word to feel good about yourself, then look for another discussion to mutilate.
@MataHarley:
Your attempts at spin get more and more looney and desperate. Now I’m against Patriotism? Hardly. What I am against is the self-proclaimed arbiters of what is Patriotic, those who would set themselves up in the role of judge and jury and try to parcel the rest of us into the categories of “Real American” or “false”, based on criteria of their own devising. This is the crux of my issue with JG. In a Free Land, who is he to pass judgement on the lifestyles, the politics or the opinions of 0thers? I know casting doubt upon the Patriotism of the political opposition is all the rage on the Right, but even you – I thought – would have drawn the line at a Veteran. But no, you choose to let it slide when HR multiple times writes that Rich is in “violation of his oath” just because of Rich’s politics. Shameful. I guess you’re “pro military” with an asterix.
Thank you for all0wing me the last word. It’s been stimulating.
@Richard Wheeler: They are definitely one of our country’s more decorated units. They did a fine job in Iraq as well. On OIF 1 under General Petreaus, they had their area under control long before most of the other divisions that were there had theirs under control. They were one of the few conventional units in the Army that understood Phase Four operations and low intensity conflict. The Marines understood it as well. Had there not been that big of a learning curve for the other commanders and elements over there, perhaps our victory in Iraq would have been quicker and easier but that is a topic for another day.
Richard Wheeler,
you ask , I fought for my COUNTRY, what are you doing for your COUNTRY? THAT IS A WEIRD question,
you are a marine you fought for your COUNTRY, you left it to a unworthy person to destroy it by trying to go around the CONSTITUTION and claiming that the CONSTITUTION IS IN HIS WAY,
DIN’T YOU GAVE AN OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION?
WELL THERE IS THE CONSERVATIVES THAT ARE DOING THE JOB TO EXPOSE THOSE TREASONOUS ACTS,
AND WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR YOUR COUNTRY NOW, WELL I’LL TELL YOU, WHAT,
you come here to disrupt their words by your lies, you fight the truth itself, by attacking here
anyone who expose OBAMA, WHAT DOES IT MAKE YOU NOW, APART FROM AN EX MARINE,
well now you have a new LABEL, YOU EARNED YOURSELF, and you fail your AMERICA,
don’t use your MARINE TIME FROM NOW ON, IT AINT FITTING WITH YOU.
Mata Couple of points. I’ve been accused of being many things here at F.A. Race baiter,socialist and names that would make a Marine Gunny blush.So be it.Comes with the territory.
But to insinuate I’m a traitor or not holding to my pledge as a Marine Officer simply cause I voted for Obama. That’s the kind of B.S. that will stain the Conservative movement irreperably if brought to the attention of the independant voters that will decide the election of 2012.For you as a moderator to “let it slide”?? Well you tell me.
Note on deferments Means to ‘delay” like deferred interest. Remember in the mid 60’s America was at war. Like our fathers and grandfathers before us we served.Whether high school dropouts or Ivy League grads like Bush and Kerry we served.Defer OK Then SERVE 2 or 3 years to your Country won’t ruin your career.
Mata #91 below Defer means to POSTPONE induction. I guess 5 of them will outlast most any war No draft under Bush One If draft were re-instated deferrment good for only one semester.
Bees#89 You’re part of the problem.Sad
Semper Fi and thanks to ALL THE VETS
I am not a “moderator”, rich wheeler. Only Curt “moderates”. I am just an author. Nor am I required to play mommy and point out if and when every commenter is insulting to another.
That I made a point about Tom’s interjection is directly related to his specific and only references to johngalt’s debate with you. They were hysterical hyperbole, and mischaracterized JG’s entire context.
And how absurd to consider student “deferments” as akin to a 1031 tax deferred exchange or similar. A student deferment is not a reprieve in exchange for guaranteed future service. We were in a war in Iraq under Bush the elder. Where was Obama stepping up to the plate?
And why don’t you tell us what the percentage of all men of age in the country in the 60s actually served in the military. It is those you insult with your attitude… and I assure you, more young men did *NOT* serve than serve.
It seems that we have had someone come into the discussion, after the fact, leveling charges and conjecture that are not true. Was it due to reading comprehension difficulties? I doubt it, as Tom has shown in the past here that he will twist words around to project his own hatred towards conservatives into some false idea of what people here are actually talking about.
-One, I never called Rich a traitor, or unpatriotic, or called his service into question. I simply asked Rich to reconcile what conservatives felt, and feel, are violations of the Constitution, with Rich’s oath of service taken as a Marine some 30+ years ago. I never issued a proclamation that I am “Protector of the Constitution”, as Tom suggests that I did. I was entirely respectful towards Rich, as evidenced by his own reply
-Two, in Rich’s reply to my post towards him, he even referred to me as “respectful” as well as “smart”. Does that sound like someone who was offended by my question, or felt that I did those things Tom accuses me of?
Tom is a vile human being that cannot discuss an issue or topic in a calm or reasonable manner, instead choosing to level false accusations and call me the liar at the same time he posts his lies about others. I could really care less what Tom, himself, thinks of me, since he cannot even tell the truth about things that are in plain view, such as my postings above. Rich, on the other hand, despite our differences, and not just political, has been someone that I generally enjoy interacting with here on FA. It wasn’t until Tom’s unwelcome comments that Rich became hostile towards my comments, hence, Tom is an instigator choosing to derail what should be productive discussions. That Rich would choose to ally himself with such a despicable person is what has been truly surprising, considering the entirety of friendly, respectful discussions Rich and I have had up to this point.
Well, Rich. No longer. You continue to choose not to address Tom’s falsehoods, and would, it seems, rather have a jacka** like Tom “in your corner” spreading hate and discontent in what should have been the respectful discussion it started out as. Fine. I see now that you don’t really care about honest, thought-provoking debate, but rather, being on the “winning team” even as that team conducts it’s business without honor and integrity. Tom doesn’t deserve to be pissed on if he was on fire, yet you welcome him to your “side” anyway. I guess what they say about liberal/progressives is true. The ends justify the means.
johngalt
you got it right on the beam, TOM always come here to spread falsehood and don’t be surprise at Richard Wheeler ‘s game they both teamed together before this time, they can damaged anyone who is unaware of their game. they pretend to be insulted just to be able to insult CONSERVATIVES ANY WAY THEY CAN,
they should be considered as enemies of the CONSERVATIVES, and more dangerous because they encourage comments and hit you like snakes at the most unsuspected time,
bye
I am sitting here reading all this great stuff on here. I am impressed by the thoughtful input to the definition of the Constitution and it makes me proud to think I spent a career defending it from enemies within and without. Some where I think I read in it that individuals have a right to free speech. I am delighted to see the number of folks here exercising that option. One thing that always impressed me about the Constitution was that nowhere in it it did it say I have to vote. However, I always felt that if I was defending it I should at least use the privileges it afforded me. One of those privileges is the ability to vote for those whome I feel would do the best job of running the country. I can proudly say that I have voted in every election for national offices since 1962. I have voted for Democrats and I have voted for Republicans. I have not always had the candidate I supported win, but never have I held contempt for the individual who won. That includes Obama. I believe that this is a country that was found on the majority. As a result I have never thought fondly of those on the far right or the far left because they seem to willing to impose their thoughts on the majority without thought to the majority. Is this country perfect, no it isn’t but what makes it great is that those on the far right and left can say what they want and the rest of us have to put up with the noise. I would caution those who tend to be on the far extremes to be careful. Various notorious leaders have sprung up from the realms of far right and far left imposing their will on the masses with disastrous results. I find it better to listen to the reasonable folks and discuss it reasonably than to start loosing ones cool and making statements that are hard to defend. So I would like to encourage this exchange, but please remember if you are going to cite the constitution please respect the right of others to cite it as well. History is strewn with presidents who have abused power citing the Constitution and I am sure we have not seen the end of it.
I do presume everyone here votes.
Hang on J.G. As I’ve made clear my beef is not with you but with H.R. Tom can speak for himself.
Didn’t notice you taking humbrage with any of the “vile” accusations thrown at me.Would have suprised yet pleased me had you done so. Fellow Naval Service you know
Your knowledge of The Constitution is certainly greater than mine but not greater than the Supreme Court.Let them do their job.I’m not one that believes our great country is going to implode over night.How bout that multi year high in the stock market,improving employment #s and BHO’S rise in approval #’s. Are you rooting for or against a recovery over the next 3 quarters?
@johngalt:
I’m curious, JG. You expect Rich to address my alleged falsehoods: can you point out where you addressed Hard Right’s? Here are just some of the thinks HR has written about Rich in this thread:
from Post 30:
From Post 34:
From Post 75:
From Post 77:
So JG, since you preach “addressing falsehood” please point out where you’ve addressed HR’s? If you are a man who practices what he preaches, you either called HR out on his slanderous lies, or you obviously agree with him. Let’s be honest, you DID attempt to assist HR’s efforts in slandering Rich by trying to box him into a corner with your little quiz. You call me an instigator, but this is all self-evident: just read the thread. Now obviously Rich is too smart to play your little games, but your attempt is illuminating about who you are and what you believe. And now like a baby you turn on Rich, who – as you yourself pointed out – has been nothing but civil to you, and why? I think I know why actually . I think both you and Mata deep down realize that you’ve raised political partisanship above something much greater, and I think it scares you to see that in yourselves. That question of mine you keep ducking, “can one support the current President and still honor his or her military oath”, you’re completely incapable of answering that question, because deep down you realize the absurdity of your stance, how trivial it really is. Do you honest to God think two guys sitting in a foxhole, in a fire-fight, are wondering what the other one thinks about Obamacare? But this is world you now inhabit, where considerations like that trump all others. What a sad little reactionary you are.
Ed
I hope you have good eyes to see what we are all about here , the respect of debating facts
and thoughts
here the CONSTITUTION IS RESPECTED,and nobody restrain any one to vote for whoever they choose to,
we have many highly intelligent and knowledged people debating all VERY SMART POSTS,
don’t be afraid to come in and express your views, you are among the SMART CONSERVATIVES
WHO LOVE AMERICA with a passion, and those from other sides who visit here are received politely, as long as they don’t use insult or sneaky quotes to demise this group, or try to promote their own
ideas which are known to be wrong for AMERICA’S INTEREST, already known here.
bye
@Richard Wheeler:
Exactly, Rich. I have tried to be careful not to put words in your mouth, or to act like I’m representing your view in anyway. And I certainly know you don’t need mine or anyone else’s help to crush a clown like HR. I am writing about what I am seeing here and how I feel about it.
@Ed:
I hesitate to write this (because my endorsement will win you no friends here) but great post.
TOM
you still attack the smart CONSERVATIVES, i KNOW YOU CAN’T STAND IT to look so stupid everytime you come here, and dirty the floor, you are the sad little joker, and nobody will miss you.
you did not add nothing but you sure soil the POST along with Rich who thought he had a friend to help breaking the chairs just useless robots encroched in libstard mud.
ED those are the one I mentioned disrupting the smart conservatives so tolerant to let them have their dirt spill
on the floor
Bees 100 You’re nuts lol
Tom Think you do a great job holding the far right’s feet to the fire.
BTW, rich… the next time you’d like to demean all those evil
dodgers… er, students… as dirt beneath your feet, you might want to include Bill Clinton.Dick Cheney was eligible for the draft from 1959. But we did not send troops officially into Vietnam until 1965. Cheney was no longer eligible for the draft by 1967. Two years of deferment during the active conflict with boots on the ground.
On the flip side of the political aisle, Bill Clinton was eligible for the draft thru the searing heat of the war – from 1964 thru 1972. That’s eight years during the boots on the ground era where student Clinton didn’t serve, nor later serve. Surely Clinton could have, as you say, put his career on hold and serve a few years. /sarc
While some made issues of Clinton’s draft status during his campaigns and presidency, nothing compares to what your side (and you) have done – and still do – to excoriate Cheney, and what others have done – and still do – to demean Bush’s service in the TX Air Guard.
So, ya got any choice words of disdain for him too, just to remain consistent?
Richard Wheeler
congratulation
it’s about time you get the 100, but I help you on this one, to give you a chance to cool of,
after the beating you put yourself in, next time choose your friend better.
there are non better than the SMART CONSERVATIVES,
bye
Ed
you see how Richard Wheeler are, we beat them and they still love us,
and come back for more,
TOM will do the same, he will show up for more beating, that’s who they are.
bye
Mata Let me be clear I believe all able bodied males should serve in time of declared war.No more than one deferrment for max of one year.Strap em up. Yellow ribbons on your Mercedes ain’t gonna get it. As you know most all of our POTUS have served and they do garner a greater respect from me.
Not the deciding factor in who I support but a definate plus.
This is my opinion and I certainly understand those that feel otherwise.
BTW In the good ol days many men joined the Officer Corps to improve their future be it in business or politics.Things have changed.
So for clarification, let me see if this is a proper statement from you, as you said in your comment #36:
Dang… I really hate to have to find myself defending Teflon Bill, but against this characterization of him, I certainly would.
BTW, 12 POTUS had no military service… among them Obama, Clinton, and FDR.
@Richard Wheeler:
No, Rich, you didn’t make that clear, not one little bit. Or did you forget this?
I’ve already addressed Tom’s “fairness” you applaud him for, in numerous posts after his first interjection.
Actually, Rich, the reason I posted in the middle of the mudslinging between you and HR was because I felt a meaningful exchange could be had on the subject WITHOUT the insults. If you noticed, I also didn’t berate you for your own nasty comments, either.
Tom interjected himself into a discussion between you and I, throwing out false accusations and assertions of my commentary to you. You didn’t have a problem with my comments prior to his unwanted intrusion, but yet you applauded his commentary afterwards. What else should I think but that you approve of Tom’s lies about me?
And while I do claim a higher than average knowledge of the Constitution, and of the founder’s writings on it, I certainly don’t claim any title of absolute truth over it either. Larry and I have had many discussions on the topic, and I’m not too proud to deny that I’ve learned things from him, just as I’m sure he’s learned from me. I certainly don’t claim that my words on it are the final verdict, even though I believe that I have a pretty good handle on the subject.
He can, and he has, and in so doing, has called into question my integrity and the previous respect I have shown you. I certainly don’t expect an apology from someone who cannot recognize the truth even if it were to hit him in the head, however, I would expect you to not cheer him on from the sidelines when he utters his insults and vile lies about someone you have previously had respectful discussions with. You ARE better than that, as I and others know. Tom isn’t. The only way of “discussion” for Tom is to hurl insults and lies about the people within the discussion. So, if that’s what you wish to applaud, fine. I certainly don’t have to continue on the respectful track I try to maintain here.
johngalt, I doth believe that Tom’s huffing/puffing demands that you call out HR’s “alleged falsehoods” is the usual red herring by a guy incapable of reading.
First of you, you began your “quiz”, as Tom likes to call it, with the first sentence:
Secondly, why should you be required to call out HR’s “alleged falsehoods” when his diatribe in his first comment was leveled solely at you, by name?
duh…
@Tom:
HR’s comments have nothing to do with it. The difference between the two, me and HR, and you and Rich, is that I never posted any applause for HR’s comments. Do you understand that? No, don’t even bother answering. I already know what you will say.
Unless you wish to attempt reasoned, respectful discourse on an issue or subject, which I don’t believe your capable of considering your past here, then stay the hell out of my discussions with others. I neither need, nor want, your vile, filthy lies and insults. As that is the only way I have seen you interact with others here, I doubt they want it either.
@johngalt:
Are you finished crying? Can you possibly answer some questions instead of tearfully reinventing history?
I posted some of HR’s insults above. Now how many posts went by between those insults and my “interjection” into this discussion? Your arrogance is astonishing, as you try to pose as some benevolent umpire for Rich and HR, when your questions were completely one-sided against Rich and the preordained outcome an insult. You think it’s fair to peg Rich’s faithfulness to his Marine oath on whether he supports policies of Obama when you know very well he voted for Obama? That’s a “fair” intervention to you, one that will lead to an exchange “on the subject WITHOUT the insults”? What is your question if not insulting?
And I asked you a question now FOUR times and you can’t answer. Here’s the fifth time. Will you answer?
@MataHarley:
I think that it is truly a sad state of affairs when I finally start drawing Rich into a lengthy discussion simply to have a jacka** come in throwing his ignorance around the room. Top that off with Rich applauding him for it, and my respect for Rich is much lower than it was, especially when Rich cannot even see Tom for the liar he is.
@johngalt:
Oh, are you calling me “vile” again, John? Yes, I am so vile. Ha ha ha. You are really clueless aren’t you? Here’s something I learned when I was five years old: nothing really hurts unless it’s true. Generic insults aren’t going to cut it. That’s why I don’t feel a thing while you’re having a complete hissy fit meltdown. You were easy to figure out, just like it’s easy to figure out that you know what you did, and that you’re ashamed. You should be, but i threw you a lifeline way back in post 72 and you didn’t grab it. So you can keep flailing in the dark, you won’t land a punch on me . I’m not out here ducking direct questions, I’m not out here lashing out at Rich for ridiculous reasons, I’m not out here pretending I did or didn’t ‘write things that are now set in stone above. That’s you buddy.
Mata You say 12 didn’t serve which confirms a large majority did serve.
NOTE FDR’s son James was a highly decorated Marine Captain with Carlson’s Raiders in WW2
Guys and Gal With H.R. hopefully gone can we cut back a bit on the ugliness and maybe answer some of the questions asked in today’s posts.
I’ll start. I do think Cheney AND Clinton dodged military service in V.N.
@Richard Wheeler: Careful about bragging about those unemployment numbers. It looks like February won’t be a bed of roses unless of course they can spin it that way like they’ve been doing. According to RCP, his poll numbers have been dropping off the last couple of days as well. He’s inching back down to the mid 40’s for approval. The mid 40’s are still better than where he was last year, but given all the favorable press he gets, the fact that he has been campaigning without an opponent since at least August, plus all the negative press that has been given to the Republicans and those approval numbers should be a lot higher almost to the point where he would already have the election sewn up.
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/michael-shedlock/gallup-reports-unemployment-in-february-increases-to-nine-percent