**OFFICIAL - tipmoose/slider outside thread

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:24 am

Man, I go away for a while and look what happens......

Been busy watch us kick the shot out of UGly and making calls for Obama. I called voters in FL tonight and from what I was told, things are looking good!

President Obama - doesn't that have a nice ring Tip?

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 1:21 pm

Man, I go away for a while and look what happens......

Been busy watch us kick the shot out of UGly and making calls for Obama. I called voters in FL tonight and from what I was told, things are looking good!

President Obama - doesn't that have a nice ring Tip?

It doesn't matter, Slider...the country's well beyond saving at this point. I think it will be a barrel of monkeys having Obama in the WH from a comedy standpoint alone. The late night shows, SNL and the like will be turning themselves inside out to be funny yet not offend the professionally offended. Will be a sight to behold. Hah.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 3:07 pm

I disagree - I think the country's best days are ahead of us. And I look forward to actually having an intelligent President in the White House (one who actually taught Constitutional Law and who acutally understand the Constitution), and a Vice President who is not the personification of evil.

It will be a great 8 years!

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 3:47 pm

Slider...honest question. You say that Obama taught Constitutional law...does he want to change the constitution? And if so, in what way and why?

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:23 pm

Obama taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.

A President cannot change the Constitution single handedly. Any amendments have to be approved by a 2/3 majority of both Houses of Congress, then approved by 2/3 of the state legislatures, in this case, 38 states. That is how to amend the Constitution. The process was made to deliberately be difficult so that passions of the moment cannot be put into the document.

I have not heard Obama say that he wants to change the Constitution. Where did you hear this?

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:39 pm

^^^Thanks...I knew that about the congress but knowing the power the Dems are going to have in all branches of gov't., I didn't think it was going to be all that difficult for him to do so if he so desired. As far as him wanting to change the constitution, I just wanted to know your thoughts. I think overall I assumed he would want to change it because a lot of what he wants to do appears to be to give government more power than the constitution allows...such as get involved with financial institutions, healthcare...business in general. Now, I realize as many have said here that no matter what party has been in power, this has been a constant struggle with understanding the role of gov't., but I just assumed because of his liberal tendancies that Obama would fall into the line of thinking that the Constitution should be changed with the times.

Just some thoughts. I am more concerned about the lack of a balance of power in the Congress and the Senate than I am about the Presidency to be honest. But one pundit had a good point and said it's possible the Dems really don't want all the power because with that, they get all the responsibility if and when things don't go well...which is likely in our current situation in this country.

Sorry to ramble on.

RickySlade · Post by **RickySlade** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:42 pm

Really?

I was joking around in this thread but you really can't get along with people that have radically-(my edit) different views then your own?

Slide is almost as far to the left as Tip is to the right...a civil political discussion between the two is probably out of the question.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:20 am

^^^Thanks...I knew that about the congress but knowing the power the Dems are going to have in all branches of gov't., I didn't think it was going to be all that difficult for him to do so if he so desired. As far as him wanting to change the constitution, I just wanted to know your thoughts. I think overall I assumed he would want to change it because a lot of what he wants to do appears to be to give government more power than the constitution allows...such as get involved with financial institutions, healthcare...business in general. Now, I realize as many have said here that no matter what party has been in power, this has been a constant struggle with understanding the role of gov't., but I just assumed because of his liberal tendancies that Obama would fall into the line of thinking that the Constitution should be changed with the times.

Just some thoughts. I am more concerned about the lack of a balance of power in the Congress and the Senate than I am about the Presidency to be honest. But one pundit had a good point and said it's possible the Dems really don't want all the power because with that, they get all the responsibility if and when things don't go well...which is likely in our current situation in this country.

Sorry to ramble on.

You are not rambling. I think I have mentioned this before, but both of my parents were in politics, so I follow it quite closely.

With respect to changing the Constitution, because it is so hard to do, there have only been 26 Amendments.

With respect to Constitutional Power things have been gray for a long time. Social Security isn't in the Constitution, neither is Medicare, Meidicaid, etc. And technically only Congress can declare war, but we went into Korea, Vietnam, and into Iraq both times without a Congressional declaration of war. This current Wall Street Buyout is definitely not in the Constitution.

The thing about the Constitution is that it was meant to be a living breathing document that could be modified with the times. A perfect example if the Amendment to lower the voting age to 18. Remember that originally only white male landowners could vote. The Constitution was changed as our society grew and changed.

One of my many complaints with the Republican Party is the fact that they have a contempt for govermment - government is bad, is the problems, sucks, etc. Put us in charge of it! Doesn't that seem to be a fundamental logic flaw on their part? Why would I want to put someone in charge of the government who fundamentally hates it?

Granted, I am partisan Democrat. I personally want 60 Senate votes so that Republicans cannot filibuster anything. What they have been currently doing in the Senate is preventing votes on cloture - cloture being a motion to end debate on a particular topic in order to vote on it. When their is no cloture vote, it is essentially the same thing as a filibuster. This country needs radical change and I want to get something done like investing in alternative energy sources for example. We don't need some Senator who is funded by Big Oil to have the opportunity to filibuster something like that.

The pundit was correct though - if Democrats have Congress and thw Presidency, they will bear the blame if things go wrong. Which is why Congress switched hands in 2006 - Republicans had the Congress and the Presidency and things were going wrong.

We cannot continue on the course we are on now. That is why I think it is crucial that we elect Obama. Change is not easy, but at this point it is what is needed.

Just my opinion.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:21 am

Really?

I was joking around in this thread but you really can't get along with people that have radically-(my edit) different views then your own?
Slide is almost as far to the left as Tip is to the right...a civil political discussion between the two is probably out of the question.

For the record, I have plenty of friends whose views I disagree with.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:10 am

With respect to Constitutional Power things have been gray for a long time. Social Security isn't in the Constitution, neither is Medicare, Meidicaid, etc. And technically only Congress can declare war, but we went into Korea, Vietnam, and into Iraq both times without a Congressional declaration of war. This current Wall Street Buyout is definitely not in the Constitution.

I believe these things have incrementally changed people's values and expectations to the point where it's currently palatable to most folks to have the level of government intervention we see in people's lives today. Fear is a great way to convince the masses that the government "needs" to do something and it's been utilized to expand the powers of government time and again for generations. I personally cannot understand the feeling most folks have whereby they embrace government action.

One of my many complaints with the Republican Party is the fact that they have a contempt for govermment - government is bad, is the problems, sucks, etc. Put us in charge of it! Doesn't that seem to be a fundamental logic flaw on their part? Why would I want to put someone in charge of the government who fundamentally hates it?

The logic is this: I hate government because I know the dangers of government all too well. Therefore, because I understand the dangers involved with centralizing the peoples' sovereignty into one single entity, it stands to reason that I will act cautiously and expeditiously in utilizing that power. I don't believe any number of "good" or "noble" people running a massive government like ours can overcome the evils associated with its power. Therefore, I want people running it who HATE when the government usurps individual sovereignty outside its bounds.

:afro:

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:58 am

Well then we disagree. I don't want people who have contempt for government hamstringing it and preventing it from functioning properly. Would you want a surgeon who hate being a doctor, or a lawyer who had contempt for the Constitution?

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:28 am

Well then we disagree. I don't want people who have contempt for government hamstringing it and preventing it from functioning properly. Would you want a surgeon who hate being a doctor, or a lawyer who had contempt for the Constitution?

the better way to put that would be:

would you rather have a surgeon insist you get that surgery NOW and rant about how he's the best to perform it or would you rather a surgeon insist you get a second opinion for your own peace of mind?

G8RKyle · Post by **G8RKyle** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:34 pm

slideman, can you name me one thing the government does efficiently or does well, besides taking our money and wasting it?
That's why conservatives can't stand the government. Most conservatives take care of their own business, and don't ask for
anything, and that's why we get sick of bailing out the failures in our society.

On that train of thought, can someone please explain something to me. If a religious person wants creationism taught in schools,
which I am not for by the way, they get shouted down about evolution. But when we have people in our society that aren't the
fittest, we go way out of our way to make sure they don't have to suffer the fate they would have if they were a wild animal. I mean,
if a lot of people believe totally in evolution why don't they let it happen here? We're the only country in the world where our poorest
people are fatter than the rich. Our poor would be wealthy beyond imagination in most countries in Africa. That's why I don't get it
when people like Obama want to spread the wealth around. We already do that. There are people for sure without health insurance,
but it doesn't mean they don't have access to health care. Hospitals aren't allowed to turn anybody away. We already have socialized
medicine, but now some people want more of that. I for one don't want some politician between me and my doctor. end of rant.

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:57 pm

You're wasting your time, Kyle...and AnnArbor.

More government is always better. Always. Unless of course a liberal doesn't agree with what that govt is doing.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:00 pm

Well then we disagree. I don't want people who have contempt for government hamstringing it and preventing it from functioning properly.

My beliefs about government are such that I'd rather see government hamstrung than functioning properly. Don't you see the difference by now? You trust the government, I don't. You believe the government can be good, I don't. I'd rather see the government do nothing in 90% of possible circumstances. You believe we can be better with more, better, government. I believe we are always worse off with more government.

Would you want a surgeon who hate being a doctor, or a lawyer who had contempt for the Constitution?

False parallels. First, with a doctor we're talking about practicing medicine which is a science. Worlds apart from the realm of government which is a social system. They call them "soft" sciences for a reason...there are no fast and hard rules. We make them up as we go because these areas deal with humanity instead of biology. As for the Constitution-hating lawyer...she has very little power compared to elected officials. We elect people specifically to create and enforce our laws. The lawyer is a side player, whose actions depend on finding a client with a meritorious case who's motivated to pursue some Constitutional claim or attack. The lawyer can accomplish nothing on her own, whereas the elected officials are collectively GIVEN the task of creating policy.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:12 pm

You're wasting your time, Kyle...and AnnArbor.

More government is always better. Always. Unless of course a liberal doesn't agree with what that govt is doing.

My arguments against government will never stop, but I do appreciate the thought. I'm one of the folks that will likely end up in jail (if I can't get out of the country) if I'm ever ordered by the Selective Service to report for induction into the military. I will likely report, but I doubt I'll submit to induction.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:35 pm

^^ The chances of that are pretty slim (unless President Obama gets his slavery "national service" plan off the ground).

Draftees aren't good for much in the modern military, as they are often uneducated and poorly-motivated. Most military leaders will tell you that an all-volunteer military is much better at killing folks and breaking things.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:40 pm

^^ The chances of that are pretty slim (unless President Obama gets his slavery "national service" plan off the ground).

Draftees aren't good for much in the modern military, as they are often uneducated and poorly-motivated. Most military leaders will tell you that an all-volunteer military is much better at killing folks and breaking things.

The Obama program is actually what got me thinking about the draft to be honest. Of course, I have the feeling he will be tricky with it like the federal gov't always is...attaching strings to funding for schools that require the schools to require "service" for students to receive their diplomas, etc.

Agreed about draftees in the military. I'd be literally worthless.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:47 pm

Side note...i was thinking in our economy the way it is, i bet military recruiting offices may get a lot more people intersted in joining...it's a job. But then again, if military spending is cut, i don't know how many jobs will be available. But even if Obama gets them out of Iraq like he wants to, he's likely going to have to just be putting them somewhere else in the middle east anyway.

So we got that goin' for us.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:12 pm

And Slider, I respectfully disagree with you about Republicans hating government...especially thinking about the sixties and the groups that REALLY hated the government (coughBillAyerscough ...just playin). I just think it's the role of government that they disagree on. Most Reps believe the role of government is to provide security and protect the rights granted in the Constitution...that's it. It's not the gov't's role to take care of all your daily needs...get you a job, make sure you have a good salary, make sure you have health care etc. None of that is in the Constitution as something that is the responsibility of the gov't.

Now of course, both parties have done their fair share of screwing up the focus on what the gov't should be responsible for...case in point, the bailout. I think that was a stupid idea and totally unneeded. Our economy just needs to have the band-aid ripped off and heal on it's own. It will be pain, but I truly believe the pain is just going to drag out now with all these bailouts.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:52 pm

I disagree - I think the country's best days are ahead of us. And I look forward to actually having an intelligent President in the White House (one who actually taught Constitutional Law and who acutally understand the Constitution), and a Vice President who is not the personification of evil.

It will be a great 8 years!

pfft...

I went through law school...

I assure you, just because someone teaches it, doesn't mean they teach it or understand it properly.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:29 am

The worst professor I've ever had in my entire lifetime taught me Constitutional law. I felt bamboozled every single day. I remember trying to pay attention and coming to points where I questioned my sanity.

And I betcha I wouldn't get a very good grade in Obama's conlaw class. Just a hunch. :afro:

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:28 am

Who knows, he might take an A from someone, give them a B and give you a C just so you can pass.

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:15 am

I made my peace with the Obama presidency a long time ago...back in the primaries. I decided that I would rather have anyone in the WH than the Hildabeast. And, assuming Da Big O doesn't tote one, he will effectively prevent the Hildabeast from running again for at least 8 years. And THAT is a good thing no matter what side of the aisle you're on.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:34 am

clinton was first choice for many a dem...remember the infighting at their convention?