Damage likely to be permanent

Forums: Politics, Damage, American Politics, U S Politics, U S Elections 2008
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2108348/posts

Quote:

So what if Obama is elected? After four years, Americans will realize they've been sold a bill of goods by the left-wing media, and vote him back out again. Then we can live happily ever after. Right?

Wrong. Four years is more than enough time to inflict permanent damage on this country, given the large majorities the moonbat messiah is likely to have in both houses of Congress. The Wall Street Journal warns that if Dems get BHO in the White House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we will enter "a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy."

Among the consequences:

Socialized medicine. This gargantuan entitlement would be extremely difficult to repeal, and would inevitably lead to low-quality, rationed healthcare in the short term, national bankruptcy in the long term.

Hostile business climate. Nancy Pelosi says the government has "harsh decisions" to make regarding assigning blame and doling out punishment for the financial panic. The ball and chain Sarbanes-Oxley put on American business will feel like a sweatband compared to the shackles coming next. The first victims will be the financial, energy, telecom, biotech, and pharmaceutical industries. Needless to say, this will not shorten the economic downturn. Fortunately for Democrats, the worse the economy, the more cover they have to inflict socialism, making it worst still. This vicious spiral will not stop until communist America finds itself rooting through Dumpsters for food.

Union supremacy. Unions are a cancer that have all but killed the American auto industry. Dems want to do away with secret ballot elections so that intimidation tactics can be used to make them vastly more powerful. The Orwellian "Employee Free Choice Act" " supported by Obama " entails forcing businesses to recognize a union even where the majority of workers don't want to unionize.

Taxes. Obviously an economic slowdown is not a good time to raise taxes. Yet Obama has made it clear he will jack taxes through the ceiling. Supposedly this will only affect "the rich." Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics knows that it will hurt us all by crippling the economy.

Ecolunacy. Cap and trade schemes based on the fictional global warming crisis would make a recession permanent by inflicting punitive taxation on all economically productive activity. I hope the polar bears appreciate it.

Voting rights. Election-day voter registration is already leading to chaos in Ohio. This would likely go national, as anything that facilitates voter fraud helps Democrats, whose appeal is to moral degenerates who don't feel they should have to earn anything, including election victories. Felons may get the right to vote nationwide " another big boon to Democrats, for obvious reasons.

Freedom of speech. Some new form of the "Fairness Doctrine" would be employed to shut up Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and anyone else who might use the airwaves to rally resistance against socialism. Next the Left would target the Internet, under the guise of "net neutrality." But don't worry, Keith Olbermann will still to be around to keep you informed.

Special interests. It will be Christmas every day for teachers unions and trial lawyers. There are limits to how much damage termites can do to a structure before it is no longer sound.

Terrorism. Look for O.J. Simpson"style civil courts for every last foreign terrorist who comes into custody. Hamas has its reasons for endorsing Obama.

As the WSJ concludes:

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined. If the media gets its way next month, moonbattery may corrode America past the point of no return.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,938 • Replies: 28

No top replies

@gungasnake,

Dateline: November 2000

So what if Bush is elected? After four years, Americans will realize they've been sold a bill of goods by the right-wing media, and vote him back out again. Then we can live happily ever after. Right?

Wrong. Four years is more than enough time to inflict permanent damage on this country, given the large majorities the moonbat dubya is likely to have in both houses of Congress. The New York Times warns that if Republicans get GWB in the White House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we will enter "a period of unchecked right-wing ascendancy."

It's deja-vu all over again!

1 Reply

@boomerang,

Gunga has a legitimate concern (one that I share). I hated the 6 years of republican rule and I think there are some repurcussions that we'll feel for decades.

I am equally worried about a democratic rule. We all should be.

For 6 years all of the democrats on this board, and myself, were asking for some checks/balances. I have a feeling that republicans will be saying the same thing for at least the next 4.

I am afraid.

3 Replies

Should read: Massive and Permanent

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Gunga has a legitimate concern (one that I share). I hated the 6 years of republican rule and I think there are some repurcussions that we'll feel for decades.

I am equally worried about a democratic rule. We all should be.

For 6 years all of the democrats on this board, and myself, were asking for some checks/balances. I have a feeling that republicans will be saying the same thing for at least the next 4.

I am afraid.

You don't think there's any difference, between the attitudes of George Bush - Mr. 'The Constitution is just a piece of paper' - and Obama, Mr. Constitutional Professor?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@maporsche,

I fall just barely left of moderate. My votes get split pretty evenly between both parties.

I'm just saying gunga's argument works both ways. We could tilt heavily to the left for a couple of years just to get balanced. I would be happy to see some fairly liberal judges appointed to the Supreme Court so that we can keep some balance there.

0 Replies

The Professor has already telegraphed that he will throw the Constitution out the window in favor of judges who are empathetic and compassionate. Of all the nutty notions the Professor has come up with, that one is the most dangerous.

4 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Source?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The Professor has already telegraphed that he will throw the Constitution out the window in favor of judges who are empathetic and compassionate. Of all the nutty notions the Professor has come up with, that one is the most dangerous.

Thanks for the comic relief, Fox.

On the question of day to day governance, I'd rather have someone who studied the Constitution for years, and believes in it's power, than someone who thinks that it is just a list of problems to be worked around, like Bush.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

It seems to me that he would have to dig the Constitution out of the White House's dumpster before he could throw it out the window.

I'm not trying to be snotty but I am curious as to how you think he "telegraphed" this?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

We will see Cyclops.

I already filled in the Obama balloon so obviously I *hope* there is a difference. It doesn't mean that I don't feel fear that I made the wrong choice.

I still think Obama is sort of an unknown when it comes to what he'll do. I know what he's said he'll do, but you can automatically throw 80% of that out the window (like any politician running for president). It's the 20% that he decides to keep that has me fearful.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I think it is valid to be concerned about a veto-proof majority of either party, especially when coupled with the white house. It is a legitimate concern. I also think, though, that this is one of those equal and opposite reactions. Because we had six years with Republicans running both non-judicial branches, now we are swinging the other way. I sincerely hope that the one party rule lasts only 2 years until the midterm elections. We need for the Republican party to pull its head out of its ass and rebuild itself around a solid core of principles and to kick the neocons to the curb before they can return to power in any form.

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

I agree.

If republicans return to being fiscal conservatives (which you can be sure they will act like with Obama's policies), agree to stay out of everyone's bedrooms, and fight for personal freedoms......they'll have me voting for them.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Quote:

We need for the Republican party to pull its head out of its ass and rebuild itself around a solid core of principles and to kick the neocons to the curb before they can return to power in any form.

I agree with the duck on this.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I agree.

If republicans return to being fiscal conservatives (which you can be sure they will act like with Obama's policies), agree to stay out of everyone's bedrooms, and fight for personal freedoms......they'll have me voting for them.

Well heck - I'd consider the same thing, IF that's how Republicans are.

The problem is that the modern Republican party is an unholy alliance between fiscal and social conservatives, and the latter ensure that the former never take full control of the party.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

It seems to me that he would have to dig the Constitution out of the White House's dumpster before he could throw it out the window.

I'm not trying to be snotty but I am curious as to how you think he "telegraphed" this?

Here ya go (bearing in mind that the conservative judges on the Court are all committed to more strict constructionism and oppose legislating from the bench):

July 2007

Quote:

Speaking at the Planned Parenthood conference in DC this afternoon, Barack Obama leveled harsh words at conservative Supreme Court justices, and he offered his own intention to appoint justices with "empathy." Obama hinted that the court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart -- which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion -- was part of "a concerted effort to steadily roll back" access to abortions. . . .

Obama also won a laugh at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts, saying that judgments of Roberts' character during his confirmation hearings were largely superficial. "He loves his wife. He's good to his dog," he joked, adding that judicial philosophy should be weighted more seriously than such evaluations. "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/17/274143.aspx

November 2007 - Democratic debate

Quote:

SEN. OBAMA: I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy. But you're right, Wolf, I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and I -- when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it's not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it's their conception of the court. And part of the role of the court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15debate-transcript.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=39&oref=slogin

Whatever happened to the concept that when the law is silent, so is the court? When the Court becomes a legislative branch, there is no separation of powers.

Quote:

Now there’’s going to be those 5 percent of cases or 1 percent of cases where the law isn’’t clear. And the judge then has to bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings. And in those circumstances, what I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can’’t have access to political power and as a consequence can’’t protect themselves from being "" from being dealt with sometimes unfairly. That the courts become a refuge for justice. That’’s been its historic role. That was its role in Brown v. Board of Education.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/25/sitroom.03.html

At the Saddleback conference, Rick Warren asked Obama what one Supreme Court justices Obama would not have appointed, Obama quickly named all the Conservative justices and especially criticized Clarence Thomas:

Quote:

Obama's answer was even more revealing. He quickly named Justice Clarence Thomas, which at first glance isn't such a shock. Obama is the liberal candidate, after all, and he needs to signal his support for abortion rights whenever the subject of the Court comes up. And Thomas has held that Roe v. Wade (1973) should be overturned. But that wasn't how Obama justified his choice. Instead, he essentially described Thomas as an affirmative action case, telling Warren, "I don't think that he...was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/128245.html

(This from a candidate who has been questioned himself on his qualifications/credentials for the Presidency speaking about a Supreme Court Justice that the American Bar Association proclaimed fully qualified prior to his appointment.)

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

What part of 2A and the Heller resolution does O-boy not understand?

He just got endorsed by the Brady Bunch. Not to mention every other anti-gun organization going, even f-mans's AHSA. Plus the Democrap party platform says they intend to reinstate the so called "assault weapons ban" despite the fact that after it lapsed, crime went down.

O-boy is as anti-gun as they come. Thus, besides being a socialist, is about as anti-American as he can be. Don't tell me he understands the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He only understands them as they apply to him, and his vision for "change".

Damage likely to be permanent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know