Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Is the GOP’s War on Obama Obstructionism or Nullification?
more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Is the GOP’s War on Obama Obstructionism or Nullification? was written by Hrafnkell Haraldsson for PoliticusUSA.
© PoliticusUSA, Dec. 13th, 2011. All Rights Reserved
Related Posts :
Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) spoke to the NRCC last night, and he proclaimed that wanting Obama to fail is perfe ...
By Blogsdna
16 Responses to Is the GOP’s War on Obama Obstructionism or Nullification?
Public Service Advertisements
Beaglemom
Dec. 13th, 2011 at 8:06 am
I personally think it’s treason. To declare publicly, as Sen. McConnell did, that the goal was to prevent the president from be elected to a second term especially during a period of economic turmoil, means that the Republicans in Congress deliberately chose to obstruct every measure to turn the economy around. It is amazing that President Obama has succeeded as well as he has with these obstructionists in office. Republicans, just like Democrats, swear to uphold the Constitution. They are in Washington to work for the American people. i think they simply decided that we, the people, are not their employers. Their employers of choice are the infamous 1%.
Rich
Dec. 13th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
The correct word is actually “sedition.”
In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.
SinghX
Dec. 13th, 2011 at 8:21 am
…”It is an attack, as has been noted elsewhere, on American democracy itself. They used the filibuster to procure a victory of the minority over the majority…”
The more they use the filibuster, the more the terrorist, radical minority who do not represent their own country either takes or withholds from the majority. The filibuster has become a murderous bludgeon used against all of America.
When is Reed going to end this and over-turn the rule? Reed knows it only takes a majority (51) to get rid of the rule…
EmmaLib
Dec. 13th, 2011 at 8:29 am
I believe these people are much more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda will ever be, as they pretend to do what they do under the guise of protecting American citizens. How is allowing the banks to rape every one of us, steal our homes, and charged unlimited interest rates in the best interest of the 99%? How is it when their BAD business choices that made the banks the were too big to fail, FAIL, and have every single one of us, BAIL their skanky asses out of Bankruptcy, and then turn around and charge us more to use our own money?
We need strict regulations to control these criminals, and anyone the GOP would agree to, is not someone we want watching the hen house! No way, no how!
VOTE BLUE, 2012, 2016, 2020…..etc.
buckeyewill
Dec. 13th, 2011 at 8:51 am
Why are you upset??? Don’t you know the party of Lincoln is now the party of Jefferson Davis and John Calhoun???
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2011 at 9:05 am
Out of the 99%, a goodly number of those people are Republicans. It is beyond my imagination why they would support a party that supports almost total corruption in the financial markets of this country. The very corruption him that affects their retirement and their day-to-day life. Why would they support this? Is voting Republican so important that when you give them your vote you are literally asking them to cheat and lie to you?
Anne
Dec. 13th, 2011 at 9:36 am
The thing that gets me about so many of them is that they have the Tea Party mentality which interprets the Constitution in the most narrow and backward terms, and which federal expenditures for things like education, job training, health care, and infrastructure “against the law.” They are so clueless that they don’t take into account how progressivism is responsible for so much they take for granted in 2011. We also have folks who voted for Obama in 2008, but in 2010 voted for regressive governors and/or Congressmembers. They are the ones whining like petulant kids about the predictable gridlock and who claim they won’t vote for Obama in 2012. Because they don’t look at the big picture, they can’t see the forest for the trees. Some of them will undoubtedly vote for whichever GOP clown wins the party’s nomination, and they will suffer more as a consequence if that nominee wins the WH. Then they will do even more complaining without acknowledging the role they played in how it all went down.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2011 at 9:55 am
I have recently read the book “signing their lives away” which was reviewed here on this site some time ago. Make no mistake about it, we prescribe 2011 values to something that was written a very long time ago and has little to do with what we claim today. The tea party freaks will insist that the Constitution was written to limit government power when that is not true at all. The tea party freaks think that the Constitution was written to ensure states sovereignty and rights from the central government. That is not true at all. it would do these people some good to read and understand who these people were that wrote the Constitution.
The people who supported Bush during his regime of terror today say that they were against Bush the entire time. And today support the fact that we have an unworkable Congress, and vote against their own best interests.
Jim Faubel
Dec. 13th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Yes, they have forgotten (if they ever learned it in school) that the Constitution was enacted because the previous Articles of Confederation (a Federalist Contract) had been found to be dysfunctional. The Constitution allowed for a centralizing of power in the Federal Govt (an idea that many opposed and refused to ratify until the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
the state of Rhode Island didn’t want anything to do with a Constitution. And you are right that the articles of Confederation did not provide for a centralized government, just a one party One house Congress. At this time each state had its own representatives in England and France and they wanted out of that responsibility. The articles also failed to provide for the regulation of commerce which meant that each state was free to go to any country and make its own deals which could contradict US interests. That was acknowledged as one of the biggest failures of the articles. The articles also did not provide for a president or taxation. Anyone who says the Constitution does not provide for taxation is absolutely wrong because that was one of the biggest reasons that the Constitution was written. The government had no way to carry out its business and reconcile its war debts.
john
Dec. 13th, 2011 at 10:12 am
its been my observation.. that those who support this travesty, are not only uninformed, they are misinformed… they hear propoganda daily on the radio, echoed in prime time by fokkks, and cemented by “Christain churches”..
over the last couple of decades i have been amazed by the nonsense that is presented as fact, to me it was a no brainer on torture, these folks are willing to throw out the Geneva conventions, as well as the 1964 civil rights act.. it is indeed ironic that many of them are benificiarys of the new deal.. which they view as “socialism”
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Agreed
Reynardine
Dec. 13th, 2011 at 9:52 am
I’m just reiterating here: the Dissocialists stir up hatred against *those* furriners, *those* gays, *those* uppity women aborting itty bitty fetuses so they can pretend they’re as good as men, *those* pagans, Mooslins, atheists, and devilworshippers, so that the ril uhMericun voter is far more motivated to punish those others than protect him (or especially her) self. It’s rather like starting a race riot among the steerage passengers on the Titanic or the Lusitania so they kill each other while the first-class passengers get all the lifeboats…only this isn’t just exgreediency, it’s malice aforethought.
Jim Faubel
Dec. 13th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
The old and venerable term “The Loyal Opposition” must be either shelved or somehow revived. Currently, the Republican opposition party is anything but loyal (to the Country). Their loyalty is only to the 1%.
Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis
Dec. 15th, 2011 at 9:30 am
Any discussion of American politics’ failing to “mention” the scientifically proven fact that Bush and Cheney committed 9/11 after being cheated into office by only the Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court is witting or unwitting or craven distraction from the truth. Those wishing to remain ignorant of Our Founder’s identification of the Big Oil/Vatican bank Rockefeller/Bush Fifth Column faction of the Roman Anti-Christ, and the full historical context of our whig covenant and Rome’s attempted usurpation of the People and Constitution wouldn’t miss being a real American should, G-d forbid, Our Republic completely fail.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 15th, 2011 at 9:59 am
I am afraid that that’s a bit out on the kooky side. There is no scientifically proven fact that Bush and Cheney committed 9/11. Bush is not part of the Roman Catholic scene. And quite frankly oil was not a big thing and neither was the Vatican during the time that our founders were alive. In fact Catholicism was a very much looked down upon religion.
I think you need to take some pills