Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-29-2013, 09:07 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,733,986 times
Reputation: 9325

Advertisements

Our fearless leader just doesn't like our Constitution.


A physician’s expertise makes him capable of inflicting great harm, noted Plato a couple thousand years ago, and no one is better positioned to steal than a guard. So perhaps we should not be surprised that the most conspicuous foe of liberty and the Bill of Rights turns out to be a former professor of constitutional law.

As a general rule, politicians tend to whipsaw between two poles. Conservatives try to increase economic liberty but show less regard for civil liberties. Liberals care deeply about civil liberties while trying to restrict the economic kind.


But the Obama administration is remarkable for its degree of disdain for both.
The president’s principal first-term achievement was the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The law greatly increases government’s role in health care and includes an expansion of government power unprecedented in American history: a requirement that all citizens purchase a consumer good irrespective of their personal behavior.


The administration also has pressed relentlessly – and successfully – for tax hikes, which shift control over economic resources from private hands to government. It also has indulged a regulatory binge, which shifts control indirectly, by cranking out burdensome new rules at a rate far faster than the Bush administration ever did. (This holds true even if you count only “economically significant” rules – those costing $100 million or more – and rely only on administration-friendly accounts.)
The result: Government not only is taking more of your money, it increasingly is telling you how to spend what’s left. A recent study estimates the cost of regulation at nearly $15,000 per household. This means the three principal drains on the family checkbook, in order, are: (1) taxes, (2) housing, and (3) regulation. And Washington is working hard to move regulation into the second slot.
While trends like these drive conservatives nuts, they gladden liberal hearts. Yet liberals are not happy with the Obama administration these days – for exceptionally good reasons.
Most saliently, the Justice Department has been trolling through the phone records of reporters for the Associated Press and, even worse, has accused a reporter (Fox News’ James Rosen) of acting as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the unlawful leaking of classified materials. Rosen’s offense was to do what reporters are supposed to do: break a story. This, too, is unprecedented, and it goes too far even for Obama’s most knee-jerk defenders. The New York Times views the investigation as “threatening fundamental freedoms of the press.”

The Rosen matter alone would suffice to disqualify the administration from any Friends-of-the-First Amendment society. Yet it is only one of several such assaults. Others include the administration’s campaign, through its insistence on a contraception mandate underObamacare, against religious liberty, and the president’s suggestion after Citizens United that “we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process” to limit the free-speech rights of persons who incorporate their social organizations; and its thuggish targeting of its political opponents.
If the IRS’ treatment of tea-party groups were an isolated story, you could swallow the explanation that a few low-level bureaucrats went rogue. But that account does not explain why the EPA has been far more generous to freedom-of-information requests from liberal groups than from conservatives. Or why, shortly after the Obama campaign slimed Romney supporter Frank Vander Sloot as a disreputable fellow, he was audited three times – twice by the IRS and once by the Labor Department. Or why, after Texas resident CatherineEngelbrecht started a Tea Party group, she received scrutiny not just from the IRS but also from the FBI. And OSHA. And, just for good measure, the ATF. Or why the IRS took 17 months to respond to an initial tax-exempt status from the conservative Wyoming Policy Institute. Or why it shared confidential files from conservative groups with the liberalProPublica. Or why. . .
Enough on the First Amendment. The president also has tried with considerable vigor to undermine the Second, and has succeeded in subverting the Fourth: Under Obama, who has gone to court to defend warrantless wiretaps he once condemned, warrantless “pen register” and “trap-and-trace” monitoring has soared to unprecedented heights.
Obama's War on the Constitution - Reason.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-29-2013, 09:47 PM
 
7,540 posts, read 11,571,653 times
Reputation: 4074
SMH more Faux Snooze BS facts do not mean jack to Republicans say a lie enough times it must be true
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 09:57 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,088 posts, read 13,447,068 times
Reputation: 14266
I don't feel like any of my rights are being infringed any more or less than they were under Republicans. Where's the fire? I don't get it. Nothing has really changed much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 11:02 PM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,209,100 times
Reputation: 1640
Obama, like most Presidents before him, is by no means a libertarian and has no problem violating parts of the Constitution.

Obama is many ways is a disappointment and a poor leader, in spite of this, I don't hate him like you do.

Last edited by Don Draper; 05-29-2013 at 11:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 11:12 PM
 
571 posts, read 790,768 times
Reputation: 596
People realize that it isn't even Obama's job to interpret The Constitution, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 11:17 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,169,710 times
Reputation: 7875
So when Obama does something you don't like, then he is waging war on the Constitution? Yeah, not buying the title or the crackpot description that clearly is nothing more than a rant from a blogger....or writer from the Richmond Times....does anyone even read their paper anymore?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 11:21 PM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,209,100 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkfan39126 View Post
People realize that it isn't even Obama's job to interpret The Constitution, right?
Apparently Supreme Court justice is one of the many hats President wears
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 11:23 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,169,710 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
Apparently Supreme Court justice is one of the many hats President wears
It's because he is a dictator, dictators do everything. They are very versatile people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 11:29 PM
 
Location: Chesapeake Bay
6,046 posts, read 4,815,677 times
Reputation: 3544
Ah yes, and don't forget outing the CIA agent Valarie Plame.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2013, 12:40 AM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
6,926 posts, read 6,934,093 times
Reputation: 16509
If the OP is so worried about the Constitution, where was he and his little ultra right buddies when Cheney using George W. as his figure-head, passed freedom destroying legislation we've fondly come to know as the "Patriot Act"? You've lost the right to a speedy trial, lost the right to confront your accusers, etc., etc., and you're flipped out that someone may be forced to buy health insurance? Why? People with no insurance just go to the ER which is a much more expensive visit and takes money from the pockets of the insured in all sorts of ways.

Maybe you think it's a fair trade: we'll put up with the Patriot Act just so long a 5 year-old child whose parents can't afford health insurance will never be admitted to ANY hospital for treatment after having been run over by someone in a red car.

I have a better idea: You get to walk around with no health insurance, and I'll pay for my health insurance and get the Bill of Rights back - for ME. You're on your own on that one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top