Is Barack Obama President of the University of America?.

[andymays]

Obama seems to think he’s president of the University of America.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTA4OWRmZTM3MmQwNzJlZWMyMDc4MTY1ZGE5NWMzODM=

Excerpt:

If you are confused by the first nine months of the Obama administration , take solace that there is at least a pattern. The president, you see, thinks America is a university and that he is our campus president. Keep that in mind, and almost everything else makes sense.

Obama went to Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard without much of a break, taught at the University of Chicago, and then surrounded himself with academics, first in his stint at community organizing and then when he went into politics. It shows. In his limited experience, those who went to Yale or Harvard are special people, and the Ivy League environment has been replicated in the culture of the White House.

Note how baffled the administration is by sinking polls, tea parties, town halls, and, in general, “them” — the vast middle class, which, as we learned during the campaign, clings to guns and Bibles, and which has now been written off as blinkered, racist, and xenophobic. The earlier characterization of rural Pennsylvania has been expanded to include all of Middle America.

[DJofSD]

What this administration seems to be forgetting is we allow the government to function -- we allow ourselves to be governed. If we don't like it, we can change it. And we certainly don't have to stay quiet about it, either.

Too bad BHO wasn't around in the 60's and 70's.

[illinoisbred]

What this administration seems to be forgetting is we allow the government to function -- we allow ourselves to be governed. If we don't like it, we can change it. And we certainly don't have to stay quiet about it, either.

Too bad BHO wasn't around in the 60's and 70's.
So true, we grant our government power/rights,not the other way around. His misbegotten idealism belongs in some banana republic that has no infrastructure and a extremely low literacy rate.

[Dave Schwartz]

What this administration seems to be forgetting is we allow the government to function -- we allow ourselves to be governed. If we don't like it, we can change it. And we certainly don't have to stay quiet about it, either.

I don't know that we can. What are we going to do? --- Elect republicans instead?


I wanted change... but not this change.

I want a government that is run by politicians who see life from my perspective; similar to your perspective, I am sure. They are not even remotely close to representing us. They represent them; the money.

Make no mistake... the Obama administration is no different than the Bush administration in that regard: They answer to the money that elected them.

Until that changes, "We the people..." are just empty words.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: On a lighter note --- You Star Trek fans might have said, "E Plebista" instead. (Anyone recall that episode?)

[DJofSD]

I don't know that we can. What are we going to do? --- Elect republicans instead?


I wanted change... but not this change.

I want a government that is run by politicians who see life from my perspective; similar to your perspective, I am sure. They are not even remotely close to representing us. They represent them; the money.

Make no mistake... the Obama administration is no different than the Bush administration in that regard: They answer to the money that elected them.

Until that changes, "We the people..." are just empty words.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: On a lighter note --- You Star Trek fans might have said, "E Plebista" instead. (Anyone recall that episode?)
Yes, I agree. R's or D's -- same self-serving narcissitic bastards.

Change - something that needs to happen if you want things to be different. I agree, not this change. I don't see how any of what has been done, is being done or has proposed to be done, is going to be for the better -- for my son.

Yes, I do remember that episode.

[Show Me the Wire]

Term limits equal real change.

[ArlJim78]

In the meantime, vote against ALL incumbents. It's time to clean house.

[NJ Stinks]

Make no mistake... the Obama administration is no different than the Bush administration in that regard: They answer to the money that elected them.



Yes, I agree. R's or D's -- same self-serving narcissitic bastards.



I must be missing something. Is Obama and the Democrats trying to reform health care? Are the big money players in the health care industry going to be the winners if health care is reformed? Would a Republican even dream of reforming health care?

Are the Dems trying raise income tax rates on the wealthy because we can't afford Bush's tax cuts? Is this somehow rewarding big money by raising their income tax rates? Would a Republican today even dream of raising taxes?

Dems & Repubs may eat from the same trough but they definitely don't drink the same beverages.

[LottaKash]

Barack is the "President of Everything" !!!....

:jump:... "He is a "Superstar"... :jump:

best,

[JustRalph]

Barack is the "President of Everything" !!!....

:jump:... "He is a "Superstar"... :jump:

best,

http://img2.allposters.com/images/ATA/26399M.jpg

[Tom]

Term limits equal real change.

Bingo!

New rule for me - always vote against the incumbent.

[Java Gold@TFT]

Bingo!

New rule for me - always vote against the incumbent.
So if your Congressman is a conservative Republican who has the same beliefs as you and votes on Bills in the way you would do personally then you are going to vote for the socialist liberal democrat running against him just for the sake of getting rid of all incumbents? Or the other way around - if you are a poor innercity apartment dwellar living off welfare and getting subsidized housing thanks to your representative are you going to vote for the conservative oponent who vows to try to end the welfare state and government socialism? I want to get rid of Barney Frank but I can't because he's not in my district. My congressman votes the way I would on most things and I will continue to vote for him if he decides to run again. The whole "never vote for an incumbant" attitude is just silly.

[Tom]

Not silly at all. The message needs to be sent.
Mandatory term limits. The longer anyone is in office, the more power they get and the more they turn to lobbyist and away from us.
The reason we have the garbage in office that we do is everyone says it is the other guy, not my guy.

We had control of both houses and the WH and the court - how did that work out for us? They had the opportunity for greatness and chose failure.

We have to take control. ALL in congress are our enemies.

[Java Gold@TFT]

Not silly at all. The message needs to be sent.
Mandatory term limits. The longer anyone is in office, the more power they get and the more they turn to lobbyist and away from us.
The reason we have the garbage in office that we do is everyone says it is the other guy, not my guy.

We had control of both houses and the WH and the court - how did that work out for us? They had the opportunity for greatness and chose failure.

We have to take control. ALL in congress are our enemies.


So you are saying that you will cut off your nose to spite your face. You would rather vote for a socialistic member of the Green Party just to stop someone who you agree with from going back to Congress? what makes you think that the next one is going to be any different than the one that's already there? Go ahead and vote for the socialist that you don't agree with. Since you are in NY you can also vote for Andrew Cuomo next year because he will not be the incumbant. No matter what you still won't be able to do anything about the idiots in NYC who will continue to put the same senators and assemblymen back in place while you are helping them by voting in a democrat from your area because you don't want a republican incumbant to win. (And I don't know who your state senator or assemblyman is - it's just an example). I will continue to vote for the person on the ballot who I think will best represent my interests regardless of whether they have been there before or not.

[Tom]

You and I have no real effect no matter what we do as individuals, that is why I am suggesting we unite and impose term limits. Vote for whoever you want to, jut don't complain when people like mostpost cancel out your vote. :lol:

[ddog]

So true, we grant our government power/rights,not the other way around. His misbegotten idealism belongs in some banana republic that has no infrastructure and a extremely low literacy rate.


those times are PAST.

There MAY BE, MAY BE 20-30% that believe in what you posted and I am giving a giant benefit of the doubt.

The low literacy rate IS ALREADY HERE, it has come about through all types of admins.

The country is overwhelmed by a large cohort of weak and corrupt people.

As was said many times and demonstrated many times in the past, no system of laws , even ours can survive if the people or even a large minority of them are corrupt.

We are that country now.

It's foolish to expect that by voting for either of the wellsprings of that corruption you will get any type of real reform or change.

You won't.

The parties have a lock on who runs , the elections are not much better than the one held in Iran , the "choices" here are just as constricted.

Sorry, that's what it has come to on the ground.

good luck.

[Java Gold@TFT]

You and I have no real effect no matter what we do as individuals, that is why I am suggesting we unite and impose term limits. Vote for whoever you want to, jut don't complain when people like mostpost cancel out your vote. :lol:
Tom, I never said I have any problem with term limits. I have thought all along that they were a good thing. My only response to you was about voting out all incumbants under the current sytem regardless of how you think they do the job you elected them for in the first place. No, I don't want to have my vote benefit Mosts candidates just because I want to clean house. And I'm pretty sure that he isn't going to be voting for any Republicans soon just because the incumbant is a Democrat and needs to go. ;)

[Show Me the Wire]

those times are PAST.

There MAY BE, MAY BE 20-30% that believe in what you posted and I am giving a giant benefit of the doubt.

The low literacy rate IS ALREADY HERE, it has come about through all types of admins.

The country is overwhelmed by a large cohort of weak and corrupt people.

As was said many times and demonstrated many times in the past, no system of laws , even ours can survive if the people or even a large minority of them are corrupt.

We are that country now.

It's foolish to expect that by voting for either of the wellsprings of that corruption you will get any type of real reform or change.

You won't.

The parties have a lock on who runs , the elections are not much better than the one held in Iran , the "choices" here are just as constricted.

Sorry, that's what it has come to on the ground.

good luck.

Good Luck? Are you physically leaving the country? Let me play the ddog here? Assuming your position is correct, how would you solve the corruption and plundering of the system?

I am sure many people feel the same way you do. So what do they? How do the people become part of the solution or stay part of the corruption problem?

My suggestion is start with term limits.

Answers please.