American GOP is an Impediment to Obama Governing.......

[Jim in Idaho]

I can only figure the "impediment" to his "governing" is that we won't bow down and worship him and his policies!
Sorry O, I feel YOU and YOUR policies are a DIRECT impediment to me, my family, and my freedom! I do not buy into you're programs and forced socialism. (hold your breath for my o-care application, kay!)

Wasn't there another dictator, that expressed these views, before he took over Germany?
With the praise of the masses, I might add!

Obama, at fundraiser, calls GOP an 'impediment'

He does not "seem" to be trying to implement his agendas, he is DOING it! Make no mistake!
Better take a stand or we'll all be his serfs!

The GOP's job is to be an impediment....that's how the founding fathers set this thing up. The idea was that ONLY the legislation that was important enough to BOTH parties would get passed. They wanted LITTLE government interference in our lives. It ain't rocket-science.
Jim

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

Both sides, stop the personal attacks or take a vacation. Keep thread on topic or posts are deleted.

Take post as a warning....

 

[packerbacker]

Actally, I'm kinda glad we have at least 2 main parties to keep an eye on each other. Odumbo finds the Constitution bothersome as well. I'll not be a "Uncle Joe" and smile and applaud everything this moron says.

 

[Chadeaux]

The GOP's job is to be an impediment....that's how the founding fathers set this thing up. The idea was that ONLY the legislation that was important enough to BOTH parties would get passed. They wanted LITTLE government interference in our lives. It ain't rocket-science.
Jim

Nice explanation ... especially the "They wanted LITTLE government interference in our lives" part.

Liked it so much, I had to repeat it myself. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy ... Thanks!

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

excuse me packer...incorrect statement...

the founders did not create two political parties...nice try.

 

[Dave44]

excuse me packer...incorrect statement...

the founders did not create two political parties...nice try.

What, Pip? I don't think anyone said the founders created 2 parties? Show us please.

 

[Chadeaux]

What, Pip? I don't think anyone said the founders created 2 parties? Show us please.

Because the word "Constitution" was mentioned, he thought that is what we were talking about.

It is a well known fact, basically because it came out of Obama's own mouth while he was a candidate for state Senator in Illinois, that he finds the Constitution an obstructive document with "negative liberties".

Maybe he can re-read what was posted and try again.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Dave44:

"...that's how the founding fathers set this thing up. The idea was that ONLY the legislation that was important enough to BOTH parties would get passed."

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Chad:

What Mr. Obama said is true. The US Constitution is largely a doctrine of negative liberties. That doesn't mean those liberties are bad. It means the powers of the Federal and respective state governments are restrained.

We tried having a weak Federal government. It failed almost right away. So badly that when the people met to revise the Articles of Confederation they threw them out - although they were not authorized to do so.

And - just to save some time here - it's obvious the states said it was OK when the Constitution was ratified. A near run thing, of course, but it did happen.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Chadeaux]

Chad:

What Mr. Obama said is true. The US Constitution is largely a doctrine of negative liberties. That doesn't mean those liberties are bad. It means the powers of the Federal and respective state governments are restrained.

We tried having a weak Federal government. It failed almost right away. So badly that when the people met to revise the Articles of Confederation they threw them out - although they were not authorized to do so.

And - just to save some time here - it's obvious the states said it was OK when the Constitution was ratified. A near run thing, of course, but it did happen.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Please remember rules, watch language, if post has off color or offensive language post is deleted I want edited it...

 

[Jim in Idaho]

excuse me packer...incorrect statement...

the founders did not create two political parties...nice try.

Yeah, Pip, I know where you're going, and you're nitpicking. Obviously, the founders didn't set up a party system, but they did understand that the best government was one where opposing viewpoints cancelled each other. Only when it was obvious to everybody that a law was needed, was it to be passed. I was hoping everybody could see all that without me having to take the time to put it in print....I guess not, at least in your case.
Jim

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

wow pat...you guys sure didn't need me to go off the deep end

lol@u

 

[JunkShopFiddler]

Junk accuses me of posting bogus facts because he dug up a quote from 20 years ago where Bill Clinton used the term Party of no to describe Newt's obstructionist ways and i said in my post that the term was a new term.

Seriously gentlemen, are you kidding me?

Even if my poll is off by 6 percentage points and the term Party of No has been dusted off after a 20 year hiatus, who cares!!!!?

Yes, I am serious, and I do care...If someone makes false statements it needs to pointed out, my own certainly included and I will thank you for it.
Bill Clinton coined the phrase the "Party of no" many years ago and it wasn't an isolated incident, It was way more common then it is today. Younger folks need to know that and not blindly take other people's posts for the truth. I happen to think Dole and Gingerich were American heroes for saying no to Bill and Hillary's socialist ways. We have a more free society today because the GOP is "and was" the party of no. The Governments of China, Cuba, Soviet Union, Syria, Iran, 1930s Germany, etc. and on back to Vlad the freakin' Impaler...all have something in common...their systems did not allow for a "party of no".

Killing the messenger is usually the last gasp of a dying point of view, just wanted to point out that the message was indeed flawed, nothing personal toward the messenger, I'm sure you are a great guy.

You also mentioned we need to move forward? ...Old Irish sayin' ..."When you're standin' on the edge of a cliff, moving forward is not a good idea"

You go, party of no!

 

[Native Floridian]

PIP isn't nit piking. The founding fathers never set anything up that would be an impediment to good government. Our system was intended to embody compromise. Everybody has a voice. That's not happening right now. And it is the pubs who are the rock in the road.

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

the senate and legislature and the supreme court are the checks an balance provided by the constitution...not political parties.

if that is nit picking...someone has nits that need picking.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

JunkShopFiddler:

Have you read Gingrich's "GOPAC" memo on language? I believe it was issued in 1994. He said the Republicans should demonize the Democrats. What possible good did that accomplish? Just drove people farther apart.

There has been a lot in the media recently about President John F. Kennedy. Look at the Kennedy-Nixon debates from 1960. They treated each other with respect. They agreed on the nation's goals. The disagreements were how to get there.

Until Gingrich and his ilk, they didn't accuse each other of being un-American, Communists, socialists, or any of that Tailgunner Joe garbage.

I was happy to see Ole Newt fall flat on his fat face in 2012. He deserved it for what he did to politics in this country.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Jim in Idaho:

Not only no political parties - no political campaigns.

Can we try that one on for size now?

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[JunkShopFiddler]

excuse me packer...incorrect statement...

the founders did not create two political parties...nice try.

Packer was right, the Founders allowed for multiple parties, and the last time I looked, 2 was a multiple of 1. (But Then I could be wrong as I am a product of the Government schools).

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Chad:

Very telling that the version you posted here not only includes Mr. Obama's edited words, it then attempts to tell one what he said and what he meant.

Perhaps there are those who require spin. I don't. The potted summaries are wrong. Anyone who listens to what he actually said can quickly figure that out.

Reminds me too much of Boss BlunderRush and Off-the-Mark Levine. "What he really is saying..."

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo