What I would like to see are all the clips of the Bush ADMINISTRATION blaming Clinton. I could give a rip what the talking heads say on either side.

I would blame them for deregulating the Banks. When the Glass steagall act was removed the banks went wild robbed and loot the treasury and ordinary people’s saving. And thanks to Mr. Paulson, who allowed the Investment bank to turn into Commercial Banks overnight. I don’t understand why treasury chiefs from Regan’s time to Obama have to come from wall street! I don’t get it. You put them in to police themselves, it’s lunacy and corruption at the highest level, despicable.

Colby: Since ya’ll like to report on the comedians and what they have to say, how about a story on Iowahawk’s take on Journolist.

No President in the history of the nation has acted like such a child in pointing the finger of blame everywhere other than themselves. How is it that the media consistently refuses to remind viewers that the dems took over congress in 06? And why is it that the media refuses to remind their viewers that Obama was a member of congress, trashed his new hero (General betrayus then, General prayforus (as seen on Drudge) now)?

Dear Reader is flailing big time….he has finally accepted foreign aid on the spill; only 70 days after the fact.

Bush was a man President, the guy we have in office now is not — Rush rightly referes to him as the manchild.

The libs just can’t handle that FOX NEWS is NUMERO UNO in cable news ratings.

“Blame it on Bush” Those crazy racist antisemitic communist socialist fascist anti American bleeding heart libs…

Yes the neocons did blame Clinton for the recession in late 2000 and early 2001. Additionally, they blamed Clinton for 9/11, although we can all agree that not one person shares this blame. Both of these parties are pretty much corrupt. They say one thing and do the other. Status quo Republicans talk of limited government the reality is they grow the government when in power. Like wise, the Democrats talk of being the party of peace while at the same time escalating the war in Afghanistan, supporting the Patriot Act and increasing the governments ability to stomp on your individual rights. A good example of this craziness is that Obama McSame-as-the-rest complained and complained about Bu$h giving Haliburton no-bid contracts, yet just three months ago Obama McSame gave Haliburton a no-bid contract.

You partisans had better recognize that these two parties are the problem.

Liberty,
You are right that the status quo sucks.

What we need to do, is start working on various amendments. No. I’m not talking about BS amendments to bills and laws. I’m talking about Amendments to the US Constitution. The last time an Amendment was passed was in 1990/1991 I believe. It’s been 20 freaking years. These politicians continue to stop on individual rights, and personal freedom.

Amendments, as I hope some of you know, are not 2000 page documents filled with Lawyer double speak. They are made to be read and understood by Americans, and not just lawyers (although they are of course subject to interpretation).
-Ban Politicians from taking lobbyist money
-Term limits should be enacted (That Byrd KKK should never have been in congress so long)
-Force the Federal government to protect the border and enforce our laws.

I would blame them for deregulating the Banks.

Hey Kam, do you blame Barney Frank and Chris Dodd at all for that, or was it all Bush?

ps, Consider myself checked, colby.

@MichelleF
That’s why I don’t respond to you. You’ve just shown your ignorance about Glass steagall act, it was removed by the Clinton administration. But your blind following of the GOP has restricted you to be patient and read through before commenting.

Cleary you don’t respond to me, Kam. Why don’t you read up on Frank and Dodd’s involvement in the banking crisis and get back to me. Oh and be sure to remove your blinders before reading it.

It’s all a bi-partisan debacle.

@Liberty

“Term limits should be enacted”

Although I am inclined to agree with you, would this not take freedom from voters? What if the voters wanted someone to remain in office? Wouldn’t preventing the voters from having that choice be a violation of individual liberty?

I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but I think it is an important question.

@Liberty Banned

<blockquote
You partisans had better recognize that these two parties are the problem.

and again @ Liberty Banned with my edit…

<blockquote
-Ban Politicians from taking lobbyist money
-Term limits should be enacted
-Force the Federal government to protect the border and enforce our laws.

Clearly, the people on the Hill and any/all Presidential supporters only want recognition for their band-aids rather than actual solutions.

My apologies if this post looks lousy…I’m trying to remember some HMTL stuff.

@MichelleF
You are ignored, you cant concentrate, can you? I was talking about blaming Clinton for removing Glass steagall act, as it turns out you don’t know what it is, but now you are attempting to start another topic. In summary, I blame them all and despise them for being too close to Big Banks and writing laws that favours them rather than Govern. I don’t care about Right or Wrong, I care about Justice and opportunity for everyone to achieve their best in on a level field.

Stephen Hogan said:
@Liberty

“Term limits should be enacted”

Although I am inclined to agree with you, would this not take freedom from voters? What if the voters wanted someone to remain in office? Wouldn’t preventing the voters from having that choice be a violation of individual liberty?

I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but I think it is an important question.

Well in that case, then the 22nd Amendment violates an individuals ability to vote for a president who has served two terms. There is nothing unconstitutional about term limits. If an amendment is passed, it is constitutional. Come on man, did you even know about the 22nd Amendment?

Let’s try this again…

@Liberty Banned
<blockquote You partisans had better recognize that these two parties are the problem.

and again…@ Liberty Banned with my edit …
<blockquote
-Ban Politicians from taking lobbyist money
-Term limits should be enacted
-Force the Federal government to protect the border and enforce our laws.

Clearly, the people on the Hill and any/all Presidential supporters only want recognition for their band-aids rather than actual solutions.

My apologies if this post looks lousy…I’m trying to remember some HTML stuff.

If this doesn’t work, I won’t try again.

I was talking about blaming Clinton for removing Glass steagall act,

Then I applaud you for being right for once.

bleh, I have forgotten HTML

Basically I agree with Liberty Banned on term limits. No one person should represent an area for 50 years.

Additionally, I think a Presidential term should be one term of 6 years. That’s it. 1 year to get organized, 1 year to play party politics for the next election and 4 years of getting down to the business at hand…managing the country.

That term limit would also redefine the Presidency and less partisan politics would come into play.

Many people believe that an Amendment for congressional term limits couldn’t be passed because it would be very difficult to get 2/3s of Congress to vote themselves out of a job. This is true. However, we could use the Constitutional Convention which completely circumvents congress. In this process, 2/3s of the state legislators must agree to call for the convention, in which they propose one or more amendments. Then 3/4s of the state legislators must approve the Amendments. This process has never been used, but it is a legal means in which the people and the states can enact Amendments that the federal government does not agree with.

Since I’ve been born, there have been 10 Presidents…Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama. Each had/have their strengths as leaders and politicians and each had/have their weaknesses. Some used a veto…(Ford) and some used/fought the legislature. And Reagan did de-regulate.

Democracy forces a variety of voices that will change almost whimsically. When a President promises everything to get elected…some voters that bought into the hype will always get left out.

It’s certainly not the way an effective business is run.

Liberty Banned said:
Many people believe that an Amendment for congressional term limits couldn’t be passed because it would be very difficult to get 2/3s of Congress to vote themselves out of a job. This is true. However, we could use the Constitutional Convention which completely circumvents congress. In this process, 2/3s of the state legislators must agree to call for the convention, in which they propose one or more amendments. Then 3/4s of the state legislators must approve the Amendments. This process has never been used, but it is a legal means in which the people and the states can enact Amendments that the federal government does not agree with.

no HTML for me!

I remember the ERA …1st proposed in 1923 and I don’t believe it ever has been ratified. It would be the 28th amendment. As an example…http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

Constitutionally, that’s how you do it.

@Liberty

“Well in that case, then the 22nd Amendment violates an individuals ability to vote for a president who has served two terms. There is nothing unconstitutional about term limits. If an amendment is passed, it is constitutional. Come on man, did you even know about the 22nd Amendment?”

No, I know the 22nd amendment. As I said, I was playing devil’s advocate.

Also, I was not speaking of the constitutionality of term limits, but rather of the idea in general. The concept of term limits is antithetical to a representative republic/democracy, as both types of government exist under the premise that voters can rationally vote in their best interests. The existence of term limits is an example of the implicit understanding our country has that this is not always the case.

lazzzlo says:
June 30, 2010 at 10:36 am

bleh, I have forgotten HTML

I think you’re forgetting to close your tags. The same tag at the end, but with a “/” before the direction.

@Liberty: A Constitutional Convention scares the hell out of me because there’s no precedent which says that it’d only have to consider a single issue, so it could have the potential of throwing the whole thing into play.

Of course, there’s also nothing that says for certain that two-thirds of the states have to call on a similar or like issue, yet we haven’t had one because Congress has apparently made that determination. (Wikipedia says that 45 states have passed a call, while I believe that I saw a higher number somewhere, but either way, it’s more than 34)

Magister,
Wikipedia is wrong when it claims “Congress has the power to choose between two methods of ratification: ratification by the state legislatures or ratification conventions called for that purpose.”

The states can choose the Article V convention without congressional approval. No where in the constitution does it state that congress must approve of the convention brought forth by the states. The federal government needs to be put in-check via peaceful means, and a Constitutional Convention could do it. The congress would have no say.

@Liberty: Congress still has to call for the convention. I linked the Wiki because it was an easy way to show that more than the requisite number of legislatures have actually passed bills asking for a convention, but they’ve done on a few different issues, so Congress hasn’t counted it because no one issue has reached the two-thirds threshold.

It’d also be difficult for the courts to get involved because the only ones with “standing” would be Congress or possibly a state legislature, but I don’t know how that might work politically and I believe the courts have said “no backsies” toward a state’s call for a convention, but since some are a hundred years old, it’d probably have to go through again.

And again, the idea of a Constitutional Convention may actually be Mr. Beck’s “plan”, but it scares the hell out of me because there’s no proven way to limit its scope and if you think a US House race could get messy… just think, if they’d have the ability to rewrite the Constitution.

@ Stephen Hogan…

“The concept of term limits is antithetical to a representative republic/democracy, as both types of government exist under the premise that voters can rationally vote in their best interests.”

That is an arguable point.

The argument for a generally determined term limit is that the voter is the common denominator and the premise is that those “elected” set the limits of their term of office or not. The people that voted them into office can also recall them. Those that are elected have been elected to represent their constituents.

Im sure that there are plenty of clips of republicans putting the blame om Clinton. But I would be suprised to see and of Bush putting the blame on him. And thats what we have now, Obama putting everything on Bush.

Faux News commentators are tools of the man, complete douches, and unapologetic hypocrites.

Keep it up John Stewart.

You’re right, the material writes itself.

Kam, you’re a smart guy. Liberty, same to you.

It seems the tone of this site is starting to get a little less partisan. It’s only a good thing.