[Hoot Gibson]

I cannot support a President that is determined to make the USA into a socialist nation (which I believe Obama is). I cannot support a president that goes around the world apologizing for the USA to leaders of other countries.

IMO, our country will suffer, if Obama is able to pass his agenda. I agreed with Rush Limbaugh when he said he hoped the Obama administration failed. I say this because I simply do not want to see our country go down the wrong path.

:Thumbs:I will support Obama when he takes action worthy of support. I was glad to see him temporarily abandon his push for higher taxes, although it would be even better to see him truly embrace economic freedom and capitalism. No US president deserves the blind support of the American people and none have ever enjoyed that type of support in the past.

[Bob Seger]

You can talk about turning this economy around til doomsday. The fact is, the US will never be what it once was economically until the EPA and the unions are put under some sort of control. That's where it has to start. True economic prowess can only be acheived with the manufacturing sector running full throttle. At this point in time, we manufacture almost nothing. With ridiculous EPA regulations and the unions putting a stranglehold on American companies, the US will remain a substandard world economic power because both put domestic companies at such a distinct competetive disadvantage with the rest of the world.

If you notice, the exact thing that has happened during the entire Obama presidency to this point, has all been totally geared towards catering to the unions and strengthening the power of the EPA. With that philosophy at hand, we are a doomed nation people.

[vundy33]

I support any President we have. I don't have to like him, but I have to do what he says and stand behind him. Or in front.

[Wildcatk23]

I support any President we have. I don't have to like him, but I have to do what he says and stand behind him. Or in front.

You stand in front, Ill Stand Behind You!

[Hoot Gibson]

In a free society, there are even limits to the extent our military must support a president. For example, soldiers are not obligated to follow unlawful orders. That is what theoretically protects us against succumbing to a would-be dictator.

President Obama and Congress have taken several actions over the past couple of years whose constitutionality is extremely questionable. We are not obligated to support our own government leaders in denying us basic constitutional freedoms. Coercing us to buy health insurance is an example.

IMO, we are all obligated to vigorously oppose our government when it exceeds its constitutional authority. That is the only way to maintain a democratic republic.

[vundy33]

In a free society, there are even limits to the extent our military must support a president. For example, soldiers are not obligated to follow unlawful orders. That is what theoretically protects us against succumbing to a would-be dictator.

President Obama and Congress have taken several actions over the past couple of years whose constitutionality is extremely questionable. We are not obligated to support our own government leaders in denying us basic constitutional freedoms. Coercing us to buy health insurance is an example.

IMO, we are all obligated to vigorously oppose our government when it exceeds its constitutional authority. That is the only way to maintain a democratic republic.

Every President has done that. It's needed to get things done, for the good of the country. I really believe in that. People say they don't want secrets in our government and all that jazz...they don't want to know, they wouldn't be able to comprehend what some people have to go through and do to keep everything normal.

I'm not defending Pres. Obama really...like I've said, I don't like him and would much rather prefer a veteran in office, dem or rep. But I try to be fair, and I know that every President has to do some things that stretch the Constitution a bit.

[Hoot Gibson]

Every President has done that. It's needed to get things done, for the good of the country. I really believe in that. People say they don't want secrets in our government and all that jazz...they don't want to know, they wouldn't be able to comprehend what some people have to go through and do to keep everything normal.

I'm not defending Pres. Obama really...like I've said, I don't like him and would much rather prefer a veteran in office, dem or rep. But I try to be fair, and I know that every President has to do some things that stretch the Constitution a bit.

I understand what you are saying, vundy - but when it comes to stretching the Constitution, Obama belongs to an elite group.

When FDR attempted to expand the Supreme Court with enough hand-picked judges to ensure that some of his most controversial proposals would pass Constitutional muster, the Democratic-controlled Congress told him no. When Nixon thumbed his nose at the Constitution, Republicans sent Barry Goldwater to the White House to tell Tricky **** that it was time to go home because Republicans could no longer support him.

I have supported Obama on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that it must sound like I always oppose Obama's position because he is a liberal Democrat, but like you, I try to be fair where he is concerned. I just am more motivated to post when I disagree with Obama on issues. :biggrin:

For example, I respect Obama's decision on the repeal of DADT, not because I agreed with it, but because I believe that it is his call as the Commander-in-Chief. And although I don't like some things in the tax compromise that Obama struck with the Republicans, I believe that it is a good sign that he has finally decided to work with them. Maybe with a Republican House to check his power, Obama will do a credible job during his second two years as president.

However, I think that the power grab known as Obamacare will go down as one of the biggest, most unconstitutional, and costliest presidential blunders in history. I will be surprised if the mandate to purchase insurance is supported by more than two or three justices when the case(s) make it to the SC.

[Bob Seger]

I understand what you are saying, vundy - but when it comes to stretching the Constitution, Obama belongs to an elite group.

When FDR attempted to expand the Supreme Court with enough hand-picked judges to ensure that some of his most controversial proposals would pass Constitutional muster, the Democratic-controlled Congress told him no. When Nixon thumbed his nose at the Constitution, Republicans sent Barry Goldwater to the White House to tell Tricky **** that it was time to go home because Republicans could no longer support him.

I have supported Obama on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that it must sound like I always oppose Obama's position because he is a liberal Democrat, but like you, I try to be fair where he is concerned. I just am more motivated to post when I disagree with Obama on issues. :biggrin:

For example, I respect Obama's decision on the repeal of DADT, not because I agreed with it, but because I believe that it is his call as the Commander-in-Chief. And although I don't like some things in the tax compromise that Obama struck with the Republicans, I believe that it is a good sign that he has finally decided to work with them. Maybe with a Republican House to check his power, Obama will do a credible job during his second two years as president.

However, I think that the power grab known as Obamacare will go down as one of the biggest, most unconstitutional, and costliest presidential blunders in history. I will be surprised if the mandate to purchase insurance is supported by more than two or three justices when the case(s) make it to the SC.

I dont know Hoot, do you think it may have been his shot at trying to salvage what independent support he could for on down the road on an issue that he knew that he was beaten on? I cant help but think that 2012 was weighing heavily on his mind. I think that if he had had just a little more backing he would have held out to the bitter end. I'm personally not buying that he was worried so much about the middle class and small business as much as he stated with his compromise, and it all amounted to nothing more than a political ploy. He has never been interested in a bipartisan compromise until this bill, because he has been holding all of the cards with a stacked House and Senate before , so why start now. I think he just cut the best deal he could salvage for the liberal left, even though it is unpopular with their majority. I know that liberal criticism is that he caved in too early. I know time was running short, but I am not so sure that the republicans didn't have a card or two left in getting a little more out of the situation, and compromised maybe just a tad early as well themselves. I just plain dont trust him on any issue, now or in the future, especially if he has the upper hand.

[Hoot Gibson]

I dont know Hoot, do you think it may have been his shot at trying to salvage what independent support he could for on down the road on an issue that he knew that he was beaten on? I cant help but think that 2012 was weighing heavily on his mind. I think that if he had had just a little more backing he would have held out to the bitter end. I'm personally not buying that he was worried so much about the middle class and small business as much as he stated with his compromise, and it all amounted to nothing more than a political ploy. He has never been interested in a bipartisan compromise until this bill, because he has been holding all of the cards with a stacked House and Senate before , so why start now. I think he just cut the best deal he could salvage for the liberal left, even though it is unpopular with their majority. I know that liberal criticism is that he caved in too early. I know time was running short, but I am not so sure that the republicans didn't have a card or two left in getting a little more out of the situation, and compromised maybe just a tad early as well themselves. I just plain dont trust him on any issue, now or in the future, especially if he has the upper hand.

I don't disagree with anything that you said, Bob. I don't doubt for a second that Obama's motives are purely political but so were Bill Clinton's when Republicans took over Congress in 1994 and the results were a temporarily balanced budget and welfare reform.

Obama got what he could get while Democrats still controlled Congress. He knew that Republicans would have him over a bigger barrel come January and Republicans were maybe a little too eager to show that they were willing to work with Obama to get something done. Hopefully, the upcoming Congress will be willing to go toe-to-toe with Obama on the budget the way that Gingrich and the class of 1994 did during the Clinton years.

However, Obama has no experience dealing with Republicans on a bipartisan basis and I do not expect that he will be as pragmatic as Clinton was. By all accounts, Clinton was a very effective governor in a southern state with a large number of Republicans and conservative Democrats. Obama has demonized Republicans for so long, I don't think that he will be able to deal with them even to save his own thin political hide.

[vundy33]

Good post.

[outdoorsman43]

The EPA is an absolute disgrace and Obama gave them way way way too much power when he got in office. Lisa Jackson (the EPA's authority) may be the most nieve person to ever live (other than Nancy Pelosi).