What difference does it make?

[DeletedUser]

Are not ALL folks "EQUAL"?

I am a bit older than most of you. Maybe age has given me a different perspective. My parents would often ask me "If jimmy jumped off the cliff, does that make it right for ME to jump also?"

All 'folks' are certainly equal under the law, however that doesn't mean that they are all equal in competency in their employment. My quote simply reflected that some are better in their jobs than others, holding the office of Presidency being among those position that have seen its share of competent and incompetent people.

The original question for this thread is " What Difference does it make?"

We can not change what has happened, but like she says, what can we do to prevent it from happening again? Just because every Administration in the modern age has had it's share of scandal, flaws or mistakes, does not mean we must accept this as "NORMAL". We do not need to jump off the cliff, we can guide this nation back where it needs to be.

It is the resonsibility of who ever is in charge to place people in positions of responsibility that will do what is in the best interest of the Nation,not just as "political favors" and to supervise to make sure they are doing so. Clinton got his pass using the FBI and the IRS to target political foes, so it does not surprise me to see Obama doing the same. Seems as if some of you think that Bush used the military for personal retaliation, just remember that we knew the Chems were there, because we gave them to him.

Folks, take a look at the world around you. Could you and would you live in a Nation governed by a theocracy? (Sharia law?) Could you and would you live in a Nation like is being reported in North Korea? Could you and would you live in a world that would wipe you from the face of the earth because you are Jewish, Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, pink, purple, blue or green? I could go on with many issues facing us today. But it goes back to what difference does it make.

The difference is made by the people, and the choice of those they put into power to make such differences in their lives. As tempted as I am to claim that theocracy seems to be encroaching into many areas of the nation, the difference between those countries you cited and the U.S, is that they were set up to be as they are by those in power, and the U.S was not.

Also, bear in mind that it was Pres. Nixon that was caught with his hand in the cookies jar of political retributive malfeasance. Before you point those assertions towards Pres's. Obama and Clinton, have a quick trip down memory lane. Again, I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the current President had any personal hand in the targeting of Tea Party PACS, nor did the Attorney General, nor the head of the IRS. However, Pres. Bush and his closest Cabinet members did make false claims to mire the nation in an unnecessary and costly war...one, again, built out of deception and unethical justifications.

 

[Liberty]

No, Huntsman, I said CRONY-CAPITALIST. There is a huge difference between capitalism and crony-capitalism. Do you understand what that means? An example of a crony-capitalist is an employee of government who accepts payola from special interests in return for special favor. In other words, they sell their votes for money and it is rampant in our government. In some cases these special interests flat out write the laws. And yes, it happens in BOTH major parties.

The comparison is apropos as the other member was wont to do so. Suggesting that there is a comparable parallel to both Presidents is disingenuous and an example of false equivocation when it comes to scandalous behaviour as POTUS.

Only to someone who refuses to open their eyes.

Pres. Obama is inarguably disappointing in some ways while Pres. Bush was clearly either willfully deceptive or wholly incompetent. I'm not sure which was more detrimental to the nation of the previous Commander-in-Chief.

What? Both are terrible. Both trampled/trample the Constitution. Both are warmongers. Both have contributed towards the bankruptcy of the U.S. and continue to make it worse. Both continue GITMO. Patriot Act, NDAA, "free speech" zones, the militarism of our police and on and on. What was started under one administration is continued in the next. Wake up.

There's plenty of legislative evidence to conclude that Pres. Obama is thinking and acting on behalf of the 'little guy'. I won't suggest that Pres. Bush wasn't ever attempting to 'look out' for the 'little guy' but his legislative track record isn't as extensive in that area.

Sorry, but in a word, bull.

Both are capitalists, i agree. Both employ members of Wall Street, i agree as well.

I said crony-capitalist; not capitalist. They are very different indeed.

I'm not sure where the Constitution was trampled under Pres. Obama,

but that may just be paranoid parroting from sources that earn income and profit from espousing such opinion.

It is illustrative of what we have with our government so let's use that, shall we?

Our "public servants" pass laws for we mere minions that they opt themselves out of, or otherwise don't find it necessary to follow. Whether that be insider trading laws that they have jailed American citizens for partaking in, while they believe themselves immune from such laws, or them opting themselves and their cronies out of Obamacare. This was most certainly not what our Founding Fathers had in mind.

The examples are endless.

Traitors is a bold claim to make. I'd suggest moreso that there are opportunists on both sides of the aisle.

Willfully trampling the law of the land, the Constitution, makes one a traitor. I think both Dubya and Obama both fit that bill.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, Huntsman, I said CRONY-CAPITALIST. There is a huge difference between capitalism and crony-capitalism. Do you understand what that means? An example of a crony-capitalist is an employee of government who accepts payola from special interests in return for special favor. In other words, they sell their votes for money and it is rampant in our government. In some cases these special interests flat out write the laws. And yes, it happens in BOTH major parties.

I understand what you meant. I've never known capitalism to not be conducive towards or not be apart from cronyism. I'm not sure which particular utopian version of capitalism in the modern world you're speaking of therefore.

Only to someone who refuses to open their eyes.

Hallucinations are common when one's eyes strive ardently to seek what isn't there.

What? Both are terrible. Both trampled/trample the Constitution. Both are warmongers. Both have contributed towards the bankruptcy of the U.S. and continue to make it worse. Both continue GITMO. Patriot Act, NDAA, "free speech" zones, the militarism of our police and on and on. What was started under one administration is continued in the next. Wake up.

There's a lot here to sort through.

Explain to me in which way Pres. Obama 'trampled' the Constitution.

Explain to me how bringing the Iraq War to an end, drawing down the Afghanistan one to a close and turning over responsibility to the authorities there, taking a backseat in Libya, refusing to cow-tow to demands to take military action against Iran, even at the behest of a close regional ally, and refusing to commit troops to the civil war in Syria makes Pres. Obama a 'war-monger'.

Pres. Bush circumvented international and Constitutional law by creating the military tribunal process and indefinite detention without Habeus Corpus in Gitmo. Pres. Obama has sought to close this process, only to be rebuffed by members of Congress, which essentially stopped his administration from closing it and bringing the detainees to trial within the US Court system, something that has successfully prosecuted and incarcerated numerous other actors that have been found guilty of terrorism or hostile acts against the country. How are those two Presidents similar then in that regard?

I agree with you on the Patriot Act however.

Perhaps you should dig a bit deeper before making blanket comparisons.

Sorry, but in a word, bull.

In which way? The legislation is clearly there, as are the benefits for students, small businesses, low income working families, seniors, minorities, children, etc. Unless you have a different definition of 'the little guy', i'm not sure why you would suggest that Pres. Obama doesn't 'look out' for these groups.

I said crony-capitalist; not capitalist. They are very different indeed.

I disagree. I proffer that they are part in parcel.

It is illustrative of what we have with our government so let's use that, shall we?

Our "public servants" pass laws for we mere minions that they opt themselves out of, or otherwise don't find it necessary to follow. Whether that be insider trading laws that they have jailed American citizens for partaking in, while they believe themselves immune from such laws, or them opting themselves and their cronies out of Obamacare. This was most certainly not what our Founding Fathers had in mind.

The examples are endless.

There are many things that the 'Founding Fathers' did not envision. Some things have been beneficial, others not so. Remember, they were mere mortals, not a clutch of deities. They made mistakes even with the original Constitution. That's why the Constitution have things called Amendments.

Willfully trampling the law of the land, the Constitution, makes one a traitor. I think both Dubya and Obama both fit that bill.

Which part of the Constitution has Pres. Obama 'trampled'?