Ah, now the progressives attack our constitution

Ah, now the progressives really begin the attack our constitution:



We Do Not Crown Kings. by ~ONI-Defense

http://oni-defense.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d5t3edx

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for." - Thomas Jefferson

Others of Obama's clique are attacking our constitution and our rights under it as old fashioned. Some are degrading our founding fathers, SHAME!

Right or left despotism is never a good thing. Wake up to the monster we now have in the White House before our country, liberties, and very lives are lost.

Poker

What do you mean now? This has been going on since at least Wilson.

Can you provide a reputable citation for that quote?

pokermind wrote:Ah, now the progressives really begin the attack our constitution:



We Do Not Crown Kings. by ~ONI-Defense

http://oni-defense.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d5t3edx

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for." - Thomas Jefferson

Others of Obama's clique are attacking our constitution and our rights under it as old fashioned. Some are degrading our founding fathers, SHAME!

Right or left despotism is never a good thing. Wake up to the monster we now have in the White House before our country, liberties, and very lives are lost.

Poker

From an outsider's viewpoint this appears to be simply a statement of fact. To paraphrase it sounds like he's saying "the US constitution does prevent a president from dictating to the government". Which is what you folks from the right want isn't it? I can't see anything in the quote that says he is going to breach the constitution or overturn it. Possibly he is explaining to some others why he can't do what they want?

I was only thinking in terms of is the quote real, I hadn't considered that it would have been out of context in that way. Context is everything.

Daryl wrote:From an outsider's viewpoint this appears to be simply a statement of fact. To paraphrase it sounds like he's saying "the US constitution does prevent a president from dictating to the government". Which is what you folks from the right want isn't it? I can't see anything in the quote that says he is going to breach the constitution or overturn it. Possibly he is explaining to some others why he can't do what they want?

I really have issues with soundbite politics, they are for the weak-minded or for those wishing to obscure the truth. This is a prime example of this tendency and political operators on every side rely on them to confuse the electorate.

I hate it when the left does it.

I hate it when the right does it.

So please just stop it.

An angry centrist.

Washington was right.... forget parties, they will destroy this country.

BrightSoul wrote:
Washington was right.... forget parties, they will destroy this country.

Whats wrong with parties? You get to booze and schmooze and... oh wait you werent talking about college parties were you...nvm...

Seriously though, I agree with you. We need people on all sides of every issue or else we get railroaded in one direction with no discussion, however, everyone being divided on opposite sides and not willing to talk gets us nowhere either. Political parties dont seem to be helping us at this point in history. I sometimes wonder how often this happens throughout the history of American politics. Having concentrated more on European history than American I couldn't say for sure.

My question is: is such divisiveness between the two parties commonplace in American politics? Or is it a relatively rare/unique phenomenon that only raises its ugly head every so often?

Darman wrote:

BrightSoul wrote:
Washington was right.... forget parties, they will destroy this country.

Whats wrong with parties? You get to booze and schmooze and... oh wait you werent talking about college parties were you...nvm...

Seriously though, I agree with you. We need people on all sides of every issue or else we get railroaded in one direction with no discussion, however, everyone being divided on opposite sides and not willing to talk gets us nowhere either. Political parties dont seem to be helping us at this point in history. I sometimes wonder how often this happens throughout the history of American politics. Having concentrated more on European history than American I couldn't say for sure.

My question is: is such divisiveness between the two parties commonplace in American politics? Or is it a relatively rare/unique phenomenon that only raises its ugly head every so often?

Party wrangling and rancor are all too common throughout history, ever since George Washington. Adding pork to important bills also has a long and odious heritage.

Rancor got so bad in the early days that duels were fought before they were outlawed, Hamilton-Burr being the most infamous, and President Andy Jackson carried a bullet from one where the opponent had slandered his wife to his grave.

So US bare knuckle politics is nothing new, and oddly gentler now than in the early days. It just doesn't seem that way.

Poker

pokermind wrote:

Darman wrote:Whats wrong with parties? You get to booze and schmooze and... oh wait you werent talking about college parties were you...nvm...

Seriously though, I agree with you. We need people on all sides of every issue or else we get railroaded in one direction with no discussion, however, everyone being divided on opposite sides and not willing to talk gets us nowhere either. Political parties dont seem to be helping us at this point in history. I sometimes wonder how often this happens throughout the history of American politics. Having concentrated more on European history than American I couldn't say for sure.

My question is: is such divisiveness between the two parties commonplace in American politics? Or is it a relatively rare/unique phenomenon that only raises its ugly head every so often?

Party wrangling and rancor are all too common throughout history, ever since George Washington. Adding pork to important bills also has a long and odious heritage.

Rancor got so bad in the early days that duels were fought before they were outlawed, Hamilton-Burr being the most infamous, and President Andy Jackson carried a bullet from one where the opponent had slandered his wife to his grave.

So US bare knuckle politics is nothing new, and oddly gentler now than in the early days. It just doesn't seem that way.

Poker

Politics is mostly talking pork, with the rest of the time trying to tie your opponent to the barrel.....

Australia is slightly more complicated as; on the conservative side we have the Liberals (not as you know Liberals) and the Nationals in a formal Coalition, while on the progressive side we have Labor and the Greens in an informal alliance, while there are a number of independents who side with whoever will give them a smidgen of power. A big difference I've noticed is that it is rare here for a member of the bigger parties to cross the floor and vote with the other side, being almost guaranteed to get them deselected next election, while the US and UK seem to have it happen more often. As it should.