Who Wants Obama to Fail?

[Jeff_R]

[quote]anonym wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Oh, I wonder if you’ve noted that obama thinks the Constitution has “deep flaws.”

Do you know what “flaw”, specifically, he was referring to when he made that comment?

You are talking about “Slavery and the Constitution”, right?[/quote]

What’s next?

Once you state and believe the document to be fundamentally flawed, it’s been violated.

Once one believes this, doesn’t it follow that you feel other areas to be suspect?

Given his recent actions, is it such a stretch to imagine him talking about (or acting on) “flaws” in other areas?

Guns? Freedom of Speech (certain talk show hosts)? What other things might our fearless leader “feel” are flawed?

JeffR

[Jeff_R]

[quote]FutureGL wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
pushharder wrote:
FutureGL wrote:

1. This thread moves way too quickly, you snooze for half a day and end up with three pages to read.

2. This might be moot, but nobody seems to care to address it: Hoping that the current president will fail in a time like this implies that you have the economic endurance (money) to survive a MAJOR dive for the next 4-8 years. Those of us with smaller slow twitch monetary fibers can’t afford that.

Metaphorically speaking, as a college student I can’t exactly run a great 5k when my pre-meet nutrition just went from Surge to a handful of deli meat and Wonderbread. I’d like the next couple years to go well, actually.

Would this failure be worth it just to make a point?

The failure is not going to happen “to make a point”. It’s going to fail because the model is flawed. Obama’s running an experiment that has been tried many times before and each and every time it has failed.

Sooner or later even the most seemingly visionary theory must be discarded when it can never pass muster. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Push,

I’d like to field that question. It’s so hard to grasp because most people HAVE NO IDEA that these ideas have failed before.

They hear FDR and they see his statues. They hear “New Deal” in their liberal classrooms and they think “savior.”

They have no idea that his own sec of Treasury called it a failure in 1939.

It’s so hard to grasp because people are lazy or intentionally ignorant.

Try an experiment on random obama voters. Ask them direct questions.

I’ll bet you lixy’s propaganda money that the answers will depress you.

Ok you know what Jeff, you need to answer my question too. Don’t label me a Obama supporter based on my previous post.

I’m questioning this entire thread because it’s entitled “Who Wants Obama to Fail.” You can’t read that and intelligibly rule out his current effort to rescue the economy. Thus hoping Obama fails = hoping the economy continues in its downward spiral. This would hurt a lot of people, myself included.

Tell me hoping an economic stimulus plan fails isn’t un-American. Go ahead.

[/quote]

First of all, let’s get right to it: Did you vote for barack obama circa November, 2008?

Second, wanting America to succeed is American.

Third, no thanks on socialism.

Fourth, Push is right, this wasn’t a stimulus plan.

JeffR

[anonym]

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
What’s next?

Once you state and believe the document to be fundamentally flawed, it’s been violated.

Once one believes this, doesn’t it follow that you feel other areas to be suspect?

Given his recent actions, is it such a stretch to imagine him talking about (or acting on) “flaws” in other areas?

Guns? Freedom of Speech (certain talk show hosts)? What other things might our fearless leader “feel” are flawed?

JeffR
[/quote]

I’ll take it your answer is, “No, I did not know what Obama was speaking of when he mentioned the Constitution has a flaw (actually, I’ll say flaws; it sounds more unpatriotic). I’ll just toss that pearl out there and hope no one bothers with a quick Google search to find the quote in context.”

What Obama said was [i]"I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture - the colonial culture nascent at that time. African-Americans were not - first of all, they weren’t African-Americans. The Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers and that they didn’t see it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth…I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot.

I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."[/i]

As for it being flawed, George W. happens to agree with him: (the moral vision of the abolitionists) “caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race.”

Did Bush “violate” the constitution, as well? Do you feel the document is infallible?

I won’t waste time arguing over what stretches I, in my imagination, feel Obama may speak (or act) on based on this one quote (which I don’t think is all that terrible)… I’m not a mind reader, and I don’t feel that it is relevant to what you and I are discussing.

[draper]

Government can never creat economic prosperity, freedom or liberty. Government, no matter how well intentioned can only limit these cherished pursuits. This economy will recover when we have confirmation that the current administration can’t complete it’s socialist agenda. So to equate wanting Obama to fail(politically) to wanting the country to fail is simply ignorant. Our problem now is we need the Republicans to be the party of fiscal restraint. God help us.

[dhickey]

[quote]anonym wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
What’s next?

Once you state and believe the document to be fundamentally flawed, it’s been violated.

Once one believes this, doesn’t it follow that you feel other areas to be suspect?

Given his recent actions, is it such a stretch to imagine him talking about (or acting on) “flaws” in other areas?

Guns? Freedom of Speech (certain talk show hosts)? What other things might our fearless leader “feel” are flawed?

JeffR

I’ll take it your answer is, “No, I did not know what Obama was speaking of when he mentioned the Constitution has a flaw (actually, I’ll say flaws; it sounds more unpatriotic). I’ll just toss that pearl out there and hope no one bothers with a quick Google search to find the quote in context.”

What Obama said was [i]"I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture - the colonial culture nascent at that time. African-Americans were not - first of all, they weren’t African-Americans. The Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers and that they didn’t see it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth…I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot.

I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."[/i]

As for it being flawed, George W. happens to agree with him: (the moral vision of the abolitionists) “caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race.”

Did Bush “violate” the constitution, as well? Do you feel the document is infallible?

I won’t waste time arguing over what stretches I, in my imagination, feel Obama may speak (or act) on based on this one quote (which I don’t think is all that terrible)… I’m not a mind reader, and I don’t feel that it is relevant to what you and I are discussing.[/quote]

If it was corrected, how can it still be fundementally flawed? Amending it and dismissing it are quite different. How exactly is is still flawed?

[anonym]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
If it was corrected, how can it still be fundementally flawed? Amending it and dismissing it are quite different. How exactly is is still flawed?[/quote]

Obama was answering a question asked about the original Constitution - before the “corrections”.

I can’t get a quote because, believe it or not, my wireless mouse stopped working just now (seriously). I’m ‘Tabbing’ my way around right now, but I can’t discuss this anymore until I get this fixed, since my Interwebbing is slightly impaired until I can find some batteries.

You should be able to round one up in a minute or two, if you are so inclined.

edit: FWIW (and for the sake of specificity), Obama said the original constitution “reflected flaws/blindspots” of the time that carry on to this day.

[100meters]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
FutureGL wrote:

Tell me hoping an economic stimulus plan fails isn’t un-American. Go ahead.

What economic stimulus plan are you speaking of? We haven’t had a recent one, only a spending bill.

[/quote]

Oh god.

[Headhunter]

[quote]FutureGL wrote:
pushharder wrote:
FutureGL wrote:

1. This thread moves way too quickly, you snooze for half a day and end up with three pages to read.

2. This might be moot, but nobody seems to care to address it: Hoping that the current president will fail in a time like this implies that you have the economic endurance (money) to survive a MAJOR dive for the next 4-8 years. Those of us with smaller slow twitch monetary fibers can’t afford that.

Metaphorically speaking, as a college student I can’t exactly run a great 5k when my pre-meet nutrition just went from Surge to a handful of deli meat and Wonderbread. I’d like the next couple years to go well, actually.

Would this failure be worth it just to make a point?

The failure is not going to happen “to make a point”. It’s going to fail because the model is flawed. Obama’s running an experiment that has been tried many times before and each and every time it has failed.

Sooner or later even the most seemingly visionary theory must be discarded when it can never pass muster. Why is that so hard to grasp?

You answered a completely different question. Mine is why would someone WANT him to fail given the economic suffering it would put so many Americans through. Someone please answer this question.
[/quote]

Because he is attempting to cure the evils of an economy based on debt creation by dramatically increasing …debt?

He’s a moron. He doesn’t even know what money is. He doesn’t understand the long term implications of what he’s doing.

People use money as a store of value. What happens when they believe that the money they work for is no longer a dependable store of value? Yet Obama wants to save us by destroying our money as a store of value. He’s completely nuts (or a commie like his beloved daddy).

[Gregus]

These policies have actually always been successful and Obama will take this success even further. Where you guys come off seeing this has never worked is beyond me. Just when i thought there was intelligence here.

Of course the question is, what have those policies been successful at? Growing your government.

So he will in effect succeed. The burden of government will increase, bloat and intrude more then ever. It already does.

A politician wants to grow the government like a ceo wants to grow his corporation. It must get bigger and more dominating of it’s market. It’s progress. Get with it.

[dhickey]

[quote]anonym wrote:
dhickey wrote:
If it was corrected, how can it still be fundementally flawed? Amending it and dismissing it are quite different. How exactly is is still flawed?

Obama was answering a question asked about the original Constitution - before the “corrections”.

I can’t get a quote because, believe it or not, my wireless mouse stopped working just now (seriously). I’m ‘Tabbing’ my way around right now, but I can’t discuss this anymore until I get this fixed, since my Interwebbing is slightly impaired until I can find some batteries.

You should be able to round one up in a minute or two, if you are so inclined.

edit: FWIW (and for the sake of specificity), Obama said the original constitution “reflected flaws/blindspots” of the time that carry on to this day.[/quote]

What Obama said was "I think [bold]it is[/bold] a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture - the colonial culture nascent at that time. African-Americans were not - first of all, they weren’t African-Americans. The Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers and that they didn’t see it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth…I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that [bold]carries on until this day[/bold], and that the framers had that same blind spot.

I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

I would say it’s not very clear what he is getting at. he waffles between the present and the past within the same sentence.

I really don’t care what he said about the Constitution. His actions speak much louder. Just trying to be accurate here.

[Jeff_R]

[quote]anonym wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
What’s next?

Once you state and believe the document to be fundamentally flawed, it’s been violated.

Once one believes this, doesn’t it follow that you feel other areas to be suspect?

Given his recent actions, is it such a stretch to imagine him talking about (or acting on) “flaws” in other areas?

Guns? Freedom of Speech (certain talk show hosts)? What other things might our fearless leader “feel” are flawed?

JeffR

I’ll take it your answer is, “No, I did not know what Obama was speaking of when he mentioned the Constitution has a flaw (actually, I’ll say flaws; it sounds more unpatriotic). I’ll just toss that pearl out there and hope no one bothers with a quick Google search to find the quote in context.”

What Obama said was [i]"I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture - the colonial culture nascent at that time. African-Americans were not - first of all, they weren’t African-Americans. The Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers and that they didn’t see it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth…I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot.

I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."[/i]

As for it being flawed, George W. happens to agree with him: (the moral vision of the abolitionists) “caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race.”

Did Bush “violate” the constitution, as well? Do you feel the document is infallible?

I won’t waste time arguing over what stretches I, in my imagination, feel Obama may speak (or act) on based on this one quote (which I don’t think is all that terrible)… I’m not a mind reader, and I don’t feel that it is relevant to what you and I are discussing.[/quote]

I’d appreciate it if you read what I write before replying.

Thanks,

JeffR

[Jeff_R]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
anonym wrote:
dhickey wrote:
If it was corrected, how can it still be fundementally flawed? Amending it and dismissing it are quite different. How exactly is is still flawed?

Obama was answering a question asked about the original Constitution - before the “corrections”.

I can’t get a quote because, believe it or not, my wireless mouse stopped working just now (seriously). I’m ‘Tabbing’ my way around right now, but I can’t discuss this anymore until I get this fixed, since my Interwebbing is slightly impaired until I can find some batteries.

You should be able to round one up in a minute or two, if you are so inclined.

edit: FWIW (and for the sake of specificity), Obama said the original constitution “reflected flaws/blindspots” of the time that carry on to this day.

What Obama said was "I think [bold]it is[/bold] a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture - the colonial culture nascent at that time. African-Americans were not - first of all, they weren’t African-Americans. The Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers and that they didn’t see it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth…I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that [bold]carries on until this day[/bold], and that the framers had that same blind spot.

I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

I would say it’s not very clear what he is getting at. he waffles between the present and the past within the same sentence.

I really don’t care what he said about the Constitution. His actions speak much louder. Just trying to be accurate here.[/quote]

Yes. You understand that A (the Constitution is flawed) leads to B (It’s flawed, let’s mess around with other areas) to C (gun control etc.)

Or, if the Founders where “wrong” about this, what else did they mess up?

Once you don’t believe in the underlying moral authority of the document, you may not feel constrained to follow it’s dictates.

JeffR

[pat]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
anonym wrote:
dhickey wrote:
If it was corrected, how can it still be fundementally flawed? Amending it and dismissing it are quite different. How exactly is is still flawed?

Obama was answering a question asked about the original Constitution - before the “corrections”.

I can’t get a quote because, believe it or not, my wireless mouse stopped working just now (seriously). I’m ‘Tabbing’ my way around right now, but I can’t discuss this anymore until I get this fixed, since my Interwebbing is slightly impaired until I can find some batteries.

You should be able to round one up in a minute or two, if you are so inclined.

edit: FWIW (and for the sake of specificity), Obama said the original constitution “reflected flaws/blindspots” of the time that carry on to this day.

What Obama said was "I think [bold]it is[/bold] a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture - the colonial culture nascent at that time. African-Americans were not - first of all, they weren’t African-Americans. The Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers and that they didn’t see it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth…I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that [bold]carries on until this day[/bold], and that the framers had that same blind spot.

I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

I would say it’s not very clear what he is getting at. he waffles between the present and the past within the same sentence.

I really don’t care what he said about the Constitution. His actions speak much louder. Just trying to be accurate here.[/quote]

His motto is “Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you”

Thank God I am a spic in these times…I’ll get my bread before the honkeys.

[dhickey]

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
Yes. You understand that A (the Constitution is flawed) leads to B (It’s flawed, let’s mess around with other areas) to C (gun control etc.)

Or, if the Founders where “wrong” about this, what else did they mess up?

Once you don’t believe in the underlying moral authority of the document, you may not feel constrained to follow it’s dictates.

JeffR

[/quote]

I don’t know how anyone, that has actually read the constitution, could not be painfully aware of this.

[anonym]

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
Yes. You understand that A (the Constitution is flawed) leads to B (It’s flawed, let’s mess around with other areas) to C (gun control etc.)

Or, if the Founders where “wrong” about this, what else did they mess up?

Once you don’t believe in the underlying moral authority of the document, you may not feel constrained to follow it’s dictates.

JeffR[/quote]

So you don’t feel that it was an oversight for the Constitution to not tackle the issue of slavery? It’s still very consistent with the Declaration and that whole, “Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” thing?

That whole “3/5 Compromise” thing ain’t nuthin’ to voice a concern over?

You can’t see a black man looking back on that and thinking, Shucks, I’d have done things a wee-bit differently?

Anyone who thinks the Constitution should have addressed slavery with the interests of blacks in mind is secretly just itching to use the document as toilet paper?

I understand your whole “slippery slope” argument here…I’m just having trouble wrapping my head around this particular topic.

[anonym]

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
I’d appreciate it if you read what I write before replying.

Thanks,

JeffR[/quote]

Ditto in regards to my very first post. I understood the implications of what you are saying off the bat, but I was simply wondering if you knew what, specifically, he was referring to when he made that quote.

Because, at the time, it seemed silly to me that one could know what he was speaking of and somehow feel that he is 100% mistaken in that regard.

[Jeff_R]

[quote]anonym wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Yes. You understand that A (the Constitution is flawed) leads to B (It’s flawed, let’s mess around with other areas) to C (gun control etc.)

Or, if the Founders where “wrong” about this, what else did they mess up?

Once you don’t believe in the underlying moral authority of the document, you may not feel constrained to follow it’s dictates.

JeffR

So you don’t feel that it was an oversight for the Constitution to not tackle the issue of slavery? It’s still very consistent with the Declaration and that whole, “Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” thing?

That whole “3/5 Compromise” thing ain’t nuthin’ to voice a concern over?

You can’t see a black man looking back on that and thinking, Shucks, I’d have done things a wee-bit differently?

Anyone who thinks the Constitution should have addressed slavery with the interests of blacks in mind is secretly just itching to use the document as toilet paper?

I understand your whole “slippery slope” argument here…I’m just having trouble wrapping my head around this particular topic.[/quote]

You do know that there was a hell of a fight about slavery at the time?

Jefferson, of all people, pushed quite hard to abolish slavery.

Had they tried, it would never have passed.

They did what they could at that time. It was a POLITICAL DECISION.

Of course, everyone wishes they had AVOIDED THE CIVIL WAR and abolished slavery. But, they could not.

Go read the debates.

I could be wrong, but, I’ll bet obama doesn’t understand the compromises that were made.

He doesn’t do well with compromising to achieve a larger goal.

I don’t know how he SHOULD “feel,” but, I would hope he’d see that the document ultimately allowed the institution to be extinguished.

I’d hope he’d “feel” that it deserves more credit than to be called out for being “flawed.”

JeffR

[Jeff_R]

[quote]anonym wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
I’d appreciate it if you read what I write before replying.

Thanks,

JeffR

Ditto in regards to my very first post. I understood the implications of what you are saying off the bat, but I was simply wondering if you knew what, specifically, he was referring to when he made that quote.

Because, at the time, it seemed silly to me that one could know what he was speaking of and somehow feel that he is 100% mistaken in that regard.[/quote]

He’s 100% mistaken in that he acts as though the document is flawed in other areas.

If you read my response, I knew the context as well.

JeffR