Previous 11 - 20 Next
You're exactly right. You've got 5 years on me, but I too am absolutely flabbergasted by every one of the unprecedented facts you list. . .and that so many of our fellow Americans seem to think it's all okay. And that our "political leaders" do nothing effective to put a stop to this utter disregard of Constitution, laws, and heritage, and of the social, economic, and political foundations of our entire society.
Right, Dan, but as you suspect, it won't make "a whit of difference" to Obama (or Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, etc.) And at most, Boehner will convene meetings to see if he needs a select committee to consider analyzing the problem, so that subsequent committees can eventually consider whether to pass a weakly-worded criticism of Obama. . . .blah, blah, blah. On the other hand, he may just fuss a quick sound bite into a microphone, and count that as all he can do. "After all, we just control one branch. . .wah, wah, wah."
This is oh, so true. Express train to national suicide, because the "connected" want cheap (and fairly dependable) labor, and the "progressives" want to make "Polar Bears" a minority in this country, so they can exact some serious payback. Deport the illegals, and tell the "permanent" welfare folks that, if able-bodied, they're working for a living now, or they don't eat. There. Nobody pining away in "the shadows," nobody sitting in the front yard with a brown paper bag-wrapped beverage at 10:00 a.m., no "baby mills" to qualify for government subsidies. No unemployment to speak of.
In response to:

A Policy So Bizarre, So Obama

LouisianaMan225 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 3:56 PM
My only reason for confidence that Obama will step down in 2016 is the apparent fact that he hates his job. OTOH, if he could rule untrammeled by any resistance, he might want to stay.
In response to:

A Policy So Bizarre, So Obama

LouisianaMan225 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 3:51 PM
Eric, I agree with Neal that Obama should be impeached--on numerous counts. But I agree with you that he won't be. The Republican Party, as usual, is utterly intimidated at the thought that it would be branded "racist," as though it's not already so branded. The Democrat Party is so far off the reservation that it cannot be counted as an ally of the Constitution anyway, and Reid's Senate would never even vote on impeachment charges. Doesn't matter if they might be required to do it or not, Reid would blow it off publicly, announce that action as a positive good despite its unconstitutionality, and bask in the ensuing tongue bath of adoring media lapdogs and Obamabots. And I also agree with Neal: MANY, MANY of us out here in flyover country have been concerned for quite a while that Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, et al. will engineer some way for Obama to remain in power in 2016. Yes, it sounds tin-foil, except that he has made clear since jump street that he considers the Constitution a "charter of negative liberties" that should be reinterpreted. . .by him and others like him. He has done so at every opportunity, with minimal resistance except the screaming from an outraged populace (well, maybe only 47% or so). And if he pulls some such stunt, there will be a "March on Washington" unmatched since the Brits chased out our government and burned the White house in the War of 1812.
In response to:

Policing America

LouisianaMan225 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 12:00 PM
One of the surest ways to instigate a REAL fight down here in the South is to shoot a man's dog. Talk about mean, no-'ccount, and low-down. . . !
In response to:

A Policy So Bizarre, So Obama

LouisianaMan225 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 11:52 AM
John is making the point that it's inappropriate, as well as pathetic, to single out "rich people," essentially private individuals, in order to "punish" a sovereign state for its policies & actions. As the president of a sovereign state, Obama's policymaking or retaliatory actions towards Russia should be aimed at the Russian state. If we need to "target" some specific barons because of the support they're providing to a dictator's misbehavior, then we aim our actions at those sectors of the economy. In extreme cases, e.g. Nazi Germany, target Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, Ribbentrop--the true head of the snake--if you can. Or perhaps you boycott Krupp, Thyssen, Rheinmetall if their owners are cozily bankrolling Hitler. If it's Gaddhafi, you may drill his tent with a missile if you're prepared to go to war. But what you don't do is pull a weird community organizer move: "Hey, let's boycott Russia's one-percenters!" They're rich, so the USA punishes them as individuals??? No attempt to identify or publicize specific misbehavior? Merely target them for economic pain because of the size of their bank account? The whole thing is preposterous and amateurish in the extreme.
In response to:

Policing America

LouisianaMan225 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 10:53 AM
. . .and nobody in his right mind wants that.
In response to:

Policing America

LouisianaMan225 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 10:51 AM
It's not an "either-or" choice for law enforcement: a .38 revolver like it's 1950 or a paramilitary infantry squad called a SWAT team. That's why we discuss a "spectrum" of force. Any well-trained, well-led US Army unit in Iraq strove to determine whether they should knock on a door and talk to the occupants, go in shooting, or something in between. As American citizens, we expect and demand similar analysis and judgment from our law enforcement agencies. I'm a peaceable, lawful citizen--if you treat me and my family like an Al Qaeda cell, expect to be treated like a criminal home invader. I have little doubt about the eventual outcome of such a raid, but let's just say that it will be messy.
In response to:

Policing America

LouisianaMan225 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 10:41 AM
Truth: Well-put comment that gets to the heart of the matter. Pity that so many in law enforcement apparently allow themselves to forget this fundamental reality.
In response to:

Bordering on Madness

LouisianaMan225 Wrote: Jul 22, 2014 9:29 AM
". . .the call of blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny." Sounds like an excerpt from Mein Kampf, doesn't it? Adolf would certainly agree with and applaud such sentiments, although he would have considered it the "inevitable destiny" of the Central American peasantry to serve the Herrenvolk as serfs. The idea that they ARE the Herrenvolk would have caused Hitler to die laughing. The ironies are never-ending. How did I wind up on this side of the looking glass???? We are living a theater of the absurd.
Previous 11 - 20 Next