Obama Allows Holder to Assert Executive Privilege on Fast and Furious

a reply to: tmeister182

We could only hope.

I see a presidential pardon in someones future.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: tmeister182

We could only hope.

I see a presidential pardon in someones future.

Which is possible if Holder is impeached, charged, tried and convicted before Obama leaves office. After that the pardon becomes less likely.

Odd, the f&f "scandal" doesn't seem like much of one to me.

legal firearms bought legally and given to "job creators" Importers bringing to the US public products that are in demand.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

So you're saying only people that hold your views should be represented in congress. Do you also think that you believe in democracy? Or do you not care, and just want a one party system?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: MarlinGrace

So you're saying only people that hold your views should be represented in congress. Do you also think that you believe in democracy? Or do you not care, and just want a one party system?

Apparently you missed the part where I said I don't care what party they are from so long as they are conservative.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

No, I got that. You just seem incapable of separating ideology Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Anarchist, Statist from party, it's all the same. In a free society these things only hold meaning when there's capable and powerful opposition to a philosophy. A liberal utopia or conservative utopia are no different from each other, they both result in tyranny. Having a time where things lean more liberal or more conservative only has meaning when the opposite can just as easily be true because it means the political process is being influenced by the arena of ideas.

In short, everything in moderation.

Treason is punishable by death...isn't it? Forget impeachment, go for the gusto!

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: MarlinGrace

No, I got that. You just seem incapable of separating ideology Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Anarchist, Statist from party, it's all the same. In a free society these things only hold meaning when there's capable and powerful opposition to a philosophy. A liberal utopia or conservative utopia are no different from each other, they both result in tyranny. Having a time where things lean more liberal or more conservative only has meaning when the opposite can just as easily be true because it means the political process is being influenced by the arena of ideas.

In short, everything in moderation.

liberal, Republican, Democrat, Anarchist, statist, could hardly be called the same. In fact are you sure you understand the meaning of these words?

You say I'm in capable of separating the ideologies, then call them all the same. Which is it? Are they different and require separation or are they all inclusive?

Something I think you're missing, is this is one of the few countries in the world where opposition to a philosophy is standard practice, evidence by Occupy Wall Street, and the finest example Martin Luther King Jr.

Since a utopia is pure fantasy or perhaps an experience quantifiable by a deluded mind the US as you know is neither. The difference in liberal and conservative ideologies are easily noticeable by the the effects of policy in cities like a liberal controlled Detroit, and a conservative controlled city similar to Oklahoma City.

As you will note in the post you refer to this item I said "Follow the constitution, don't waste the taxpayers money, enforce the laws, and create jobs." this would hardly classify as causation for tyranny.

My friend the arena of ideas is where all political processes originate, liberal or conservative.

America has been called a lot of things in its short life, but moderate isn't one of them.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Treason is punishable by death...isn't it? Forget impeachment, go for the gusto!

Federal officials, President / V. President etc must be impeached in order to bring criminal charges, including treason.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
liberal, Republican, Democrat, Anarchist, statist, could hardly be called the same. In fact are you sure you understand the meaning of these words?

The philosophies are different but throwing out all the members of government you dislike and replacing them with conservatives brings about the same effect as throwing out all the people liberals dislike and replacing them with liberals. Ideologies hold no value unless viable alternatives and capable people to run those alternatives exist.

Something I think you're missing, is this is one of the few countries in the world where opposition to a philosophy is standard practice, evidence by Occupy Wall Street, and the finest example Martin Luther King Jr.

Correct, and it's something you are apparently against because you stated you want a government made up of just conservatives. Your own words were "They just need to be replaced with conservatives, and I don't care what party they are from. Just so long as they are conservative". Conservatism only means something when the government also has other opposing viewpoints, when it lacks that conservatism simply becomes the philosophy or the party.

Since a utopia is pure fantasy or perhaps an experience quantifiable by a deluded mind the US as you know is neither. The difference in liberal and conservative ideologies are easily noticeable by the the effects of policy in cities like a liberal controlled Detroit, and a conservative controlled city similar to Oklahoma City.

I'm not debating which is right and which is wrong plenty of examples of each could be pulled up throughout history: Mussolini's Italy, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Kim's Korea, Mao's China, Khomeini's Iran, Pinochet's Chili, and so on. Besides that I don't see it as a binary decision where there's only two options and think that viewpoint is close minded and frankly dangerous.

My friend the arena of ideas is where all political processes originate, liberal or conservative.

That arena of ideas only exists when there's competing ideologies, a total victory of one side over another wipes out opposition, at that point the development of new ideas rapidly declines if it continues at all. To phrase it more in business terms, what happens when you have a market of 15 competing businesses? What happens if one of them manages to beat the others and become a monopoly?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
liberal, Republican, Democrat, Anarchist, statist, could hardly be called the same. In fact are you sure you understand the meaning of these words?

The philosophies are different but throwing out all the members of government you dislike and replacing them with conservatives brings about the same effect as throwing out all the people liberals dislike and replacing them with liberals. Ideologies hold no value unless viable alternatives and capable people to run those alternatives exist.

This is where we disagree, liberal policies all lead to the same end result a socialistic society where we take from one and give to another based on someone else deciding what is the best for the whole of society. Not only does it ruin incentive, but divides populations. To say there are countless examples would lessen historical facts with needless typing. It's an overused quote but it fits perfectly, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money."

Something I think you're missing, is this is one of the few countries in the world where opposition to a philosophy is standard practice, evidence by Occupy Wall Street, and the finest example Martin Luther King Jr.

Correct, and it's something you are apparently against because you stated you want a government made up of just conservatives. Your own words were "They just need to be replaced with conservatives, and I don't care what party they are from. Just so long as they are conservative". Conservatism only means something when the government also has other opposing viewpoints, when it lacks that conservatism simply becomes the philosophy or the party.

I am not against our first amendment rights, lets take a stretch and say the whole of government was conservative. Would that stop protesting in the streets for change? I think not, is anything it would increase dramatically.

Since a utopia is pure fantasy or perhaps an experience quantifiable by a deluded mind the US as you know is neither. The difference in liberal and conservative ideologies are easily noticeable by the the effects of policy in cities like a liberal controlled Detroit, and a conservative controlled city similar to Oklahoma City.

I'm not debating which is right and which is wrong plenty of examples of each could be pulled up throughout history: Mussolini's Italy, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Kim's Korea, Mao's China, Khomeini's Iran, Pinochet's Chili, and so on. Besides that I don't see it as a binary decision where there's only two options and think that viewpoint is close minded and frankly dangerous.

Interestingly you mention only communist dictators. The ultimate liberal progressive examples, and might I say the most extreme. Must be why they don't last. The people finally rise up after decades of communist opression where millions are murdered and try to take there country back or the hand of their expansive reach of power goes to far and gets chopped off.

My friend the arena of ideas is where all political processes originate, liberal or conservative.

That arena of ideas only exists when there's competing ideologies, a total victory of one side over another wipes out opposition, at that point the development of new ideas rapidly declines if it continues at all. To phrase it more in business terms, what happens when you have a market of 15 competing businesses? What happens if one of them manages to beat the others and become a monopoly?

I never said you couldn't have competing ideas, I just want them based on a conservative foundation. The great thing about America is we have as citizens the ability to vote out those that don't perform to our standards. Lately expectations and standards can't be mentioned in the same breath and this administration.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
This is where we disagree, liberal policies all lead to the same end result a socialistic society where we take from one and give to another based on someone else deciding what is the best for the whole of society. Not only does it ruin incentive, but divides populations. To say there are countless examples would lessen historical facts with needless typing. It's an overused quote but it fits perfectly, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money."

You seem to be missing the point, it's not about the details of any given system. It's about there being no alternative systems. An all conservative government as you say you want leads to only conservative ideas. Perhaps that's fine with you, but there's still a very large percentage of the population that doesn't want that (only about 25% of the population fits firmly into the conservative camp... liberal too for that matter). Should that 25% be able to impose only it's ideals on everyone simply because they believe them to be correct, and the best system (for that matter... even if that's accurate why should we use the best system?).

I am not against our first amendment rights, lets take a stretch and say the whole of government was conservative. Would that stop protesting in the streets for change? I think not, is anything it would increase dramatically.

What good is a protest if it has no ability to result in a change? If you support protesting you must also support that if we have a completely conservative government that the people can protest and replace them all with the dreaded liberals, thus we can just as easily end up with an entirely liberal government. If you can't accept this, how can you say you actually support the right to protest?

Interestingly you mention only communist dictators. The ultimate liberal progressive examples, and might I say the most extreme. Must be why they don't last. The people finally rise up after decades of communist opression where millions are murdered and try to take there country back or the hand of their expansive reach of power goes to far and gets chopped off.

Only Communist dictators? Mussolini and Hitler were Fascist, Khomeini ran a Theocracy and Pinochet was a free market Capitalist. Of the bunch three I listed were left wing and four were right wing.

I never said you couldn't have competing ideas, I just want them based on a conservative foundation. The great thing about America is we have as citizens the ability to vote out those that don't perform to our standards. Lately expectations and standards can't be mentioned in the same breath and this administration.

It's amazing you don't see that a lack of competing ideas and only conservative ideas are the same thing. A real life example that's analogous to this would be Galileo and how his discoveries could only exist within the framework of the teachings of the church. You've decided that the only ideas worth debating or considering are those that fall within your predefined viewpoint, that's the exact opposite of being permissive of competing ideas and debate.

a reply to: Aazadan

You seem to be missing the point, it's not about the details of any given system. It's about there being no alternative systems. An all conservative government as you say you want leads to only conservative ideas. Perhaps that's fine with you, but there's still a very large percentage of the population that doesn't want that (only about 25% of the population fits firmly into the conservative camp... liberal too for that matter). Should that 25% be able to impose only it's ideals on everyone simply because they believe them to be correct, and the best system (for that matter... even if that's accurate why should we use the best system?).

I'm not missing the point at all, the bulk of the ill's of this country are the result of liberal policies. I understand exactly what you're saying you want an arena of competing ideas. If my choice is liberalism then I say no. 25% isn't accurate either, as of 2013, self-identified conservatives stand at 34%, moderates at 38%, and liberals at 23%. And I think moderates move towards conservative.


What good is a protest if it has no ability to result in a change?

Is this what you ask of the Chinese?

If you support protesting you must also support that if we have a completely conservative government that the people can protest and replace them all with the dreaded liberals, thus we can just as easily end up with an entirely liberal government.

This is what makes America great as I said before we can vote out anyone we think isn't doing as the electorate wants. Hence the reason I always vote conservative when I can find one.

If you can't accept this, how can you say you actually support the right to protest?

Of course I accept the alternative of an all liberal government are we not close to that now? Again this is the American way, we have no one but ourselves to blame for the current problems our government has put us in.
For those of us like yourself who stay focused and involved in our country enough can't be said, it's the ones the spend their free time watching the propaganda box being clueless to the world and their own government. They are fed a steady stream of propaganda creating a society based on someone elses opinions, leading in a direction that is often detrimental to the citizenry.

Only Communist dictators? Mussolini and Hitler were Fascist, Khomeini ran a Theocracy and Pinochet was a free market Capitalist. Of the bunch three I listed were left wing and four were right wing.

These are all dictators and What does every dictator have in common? Self Centered government that profits from the labor of the masses for those in the good graces at the top. What's the difference between this and communism? Might I remind you theory is different than reality, in your answer.

It's amazing you don't see that a lack of competing ideas and only conservative ideas are the same thing. A real life example that's analogous to this would be Galileo and how his discoveries could only exist within the framework of the teachings of the church. You've decided that the only ideas worth debating or considering are those that fall
within your predefined viewpoint, that's the exact opposite of being permissive of competing ideas and debate.

It seems to me you are the one with a predefined idea of what a conservative idea is, I have yet to mention an example. I have only mentioned the word. How you define conservatism is the narrow view of which you perceive your reality.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
I'm not missing the point at all, the bulk of the ill's of this country are the result of liberal policies. I understand exactly what you're saying you want an arena of competing ideas. If my choice is liberalism then I say no. 25% isn't accurate either, as of 2013, self-identified conservatives stand at 34%, moderates at 38%, and liberals at 23%. And I think moderates move towards conservative.

25% was an estimate, it will be a few percentage points off but in general holds in any duopoly, You're going to have around 25% at each end, and then a group of 50% in the middle who don't really agree with either side, but when vote time comes will take one or the other because those are the only choices. I do agree with you that the moderates in the US lean more to the right currently but I see that not because the right has a superior ideology but rather as a reflection of the political reality at the time. Obama is in the white house and many aren't happy with him, this sends many moderates in the other direction, you could see the opposite effect under Bush as many were revolted by the Republican party and went right to Obama. In addition to the the US as a whole is a very right wing country. Center looks far left to us.

If liberalism isn't one of the possible ideas you're debating, can you really be said to be debating alternatives? If they make their case and you say no, they lose votes and then lose elections that's totally fine. It's precisely what should be happening if their ideas aren't strong enough. Your position is that we just force a bunch of conservatives into office and to hell with anyone that disagrees.

Is this what you ask of the Chinese?

So you're defending the Chinese system as the way it should be here once we have our one philosophy system in place?

This is what makes America great as I said before we can vote out anyone we think isn't doing as the electorate wants. Hence the reason I always vote conservative when I can find one.

As someone who votes by the character of the politician and their nuanced position on issues rather than simply a conservative label (or perhaps an R/D, or a flag pin) I can see we completely disagree here on how to vote. I'll spare the spiel about the evils of party ticket voting though and stick to what I was wanting to say. Voting people out of office is great if they can't do the job, though I happen to take the more controversial stance that career politicians are good things. Anyways, reasons aside you're correct. This is what makes America great in theory. Multiple political parties with diverse opinions and we're free to vote or not vote for whichever we want and for whichever reason we want.

Of course I accept the alternative of an all liberal government are we not close to that now? Again this is the American way, we have no one but ourselves to blame for the current problems our government has put us in.
For those of us like yourself who stay focused and involved in our country enough can't be said, it's the ones the spend their free time watching the propaganda box being clueless to the world and their own government. They are fed a steady stream of propaganda creating a society based on someone elses opinions, leading in a direction that is often detrimental to the citizenry.

No, we are not near that now. The talking heads like to spin things that way because it makes for good politics but the government is far from being a bastion of liberalism. On the left/right scale Obama is not some left winger. Going by the political compass Ronald Reagan is 6, 4, Barack Obama is 6, 5, Mitt Romney is 7, 5.5. Those are fairly close scores and all high in on the left/right range, and moderately high on the authoritarian/libertarian range. What's most telling about those three men is that Reagan is the least conservative of the bunch when he used to be the most conservative. That should be a telling example of how far right the entire country has shifted. Yet even then, someone whose center right must be a liberal because he's not conservative enough. Makes you think about the guys in ISIS executing Muslims right now for not being Muslim enough.

Back to the point, when the Democrats had a super majority if you think they're synonymous with liberals you would be correct that we had a left wing government at that point. However the only things they did with that power were bail out some TBTF's, and give us a health care bill taken almost verbatim from the 1988 Heritage Plan. That's hardly the mark of radical left wingers. They didn't nationalize the oil industry, or create single payer health care, or hang the bankers. Since 2010 however the Democrats have lost seats, 2008-2010 was the most left leaning period under this administration if your assertion is true. Since then you have been winning the battle. We have a reverse of this in recent history too. In 2004 Bush got his super majority, the Democrat party was nearly wiped out (back in my less informed days I cheered it on and hoped they wouldn't come back) and we ended up with things like secret domestic spying, trillions spent in wars for resources, eventually TBTF bailouts, and the largest government expansion in the past 100+ years. I don't associate any of these things with traditional conservative values but that's what we got. So in recent years we've had an as left as possible government not act like liberals and an as right as possible government not act like conservatives. Perhaps the definitions aren't correct?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that is the case, because that's how most people identify. Politics are sports for non athletes. People find a tag they want to identify with... liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, socialist, communist, or whatever else and regardless of their personal opinion on the details of those points, they will agree or disagree based on what the more prominent in that group say. That's the real mark of a low information voter in todays society.

These are all dictators and What does every dictator have in common? Self Centered government that profits from the labor of the masses for those in the good graces at the top. What's the difference between this and communism? Might I remind you theory is different than reality, in your answer.

Thanks to legislation passed in the previous administration all Presidents are now also dictators. They agree to give up power, but there is no legal obligation to do so if they claim it's for national security. I had no doubt Bush would give up power... he screwed up everything he touched but he seemed to have great respect for the office. I'm not so sure about Obama, and I'm even less sure about the next one.

It seems to me you are the one with a predefined idea of what a conservative idea is, I have yet to mention an example. I have only mentioned the word. How you define conservatism is the narrow view of which you perceive your reality.

You say you want conservatives from any party. My assertion is that limiting it to just conservatives means you actually want a 1 party system so give me a counterpoint and explain the substantive difference in the stance on gun control between hypothetical conservative members of the Green, Democrat, Republican, Constitution, and Libertarian parties?

Remember when Reagan armed the Iranians and the Taliban...

Did Republicans bat one lash?

I hope Obama defies these hypocrites til his dying day

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge
Remember when Reagan armed the Iranians and the Taliban...

Did Republicans bat one lash?

I hope Obama defies these hypocrites til his dying day

And Reagan paid for it.

Just like Obama and Holder must pay.

Who do they think they are anyway?

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge
Remember when Reagan armed the Iranians and the Taliban...

Did Republicans bat one lash?

I hope Obama defies these hypocrites til his dying day

meh, got the hostages back, didn't he?

and there was no taliban when he was prez.

that said, i just want to hear holder indignantly shouting, "you can't do this! i am the attorney general of the united states! don't taze me bro!!"

while he's face down on the floor, of course.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The 9 to nothing vote against Obama and his appointments to the NLRB by SCOTUS, ruling it unconstitutional, should have been a wake up call.

Wait, wait, WHAT?! I didn't know he appointed anyone to the NLRB...

If that's true it explains so much of what we've been experiencing in the workplaces; NLRB sanctioning/allowing labor management co-opt unions to make "sweet-heart" deals behind employee's backs, selling them out to employers, non-representation (and there's nothing you can do about it. Lawyers won't touch it).

Hell, the NLRB allowed the formation of "labor management co-opt unions" (which should be called "conflict of interest unions") long before Obama, but it's really taken a nose dive in terms of union representation the last 5-6 years. What a farce. BS.

Also interesting how so many union leaders are getting busted for federal crimes? Welcome to another face of organized crime.

Sorry, didn't mean to go off topic... but did I?

a reply to: Flux8

Supreme Court strikes down Obama recess appointments

In a rebuke to President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court struck down three of his recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board as unconstitutional.

The decision Thursday gives the Senate broad power to thwart future recess appointments, but did not go as far as some conservatives hoped to undercut the president’s ability to fill vacant executive branch posts and judicial slots.
Continue Reading
Text Size

The court ruled 9-0 that Obama’s appointments were unconstitutional because the Senate was not truly in recess when he made them during a three-day break in pro forma meetings of the legislative body.

Read more: www.politico.com...

Since the time Obama appointed them to the board, up until SCOTUS said it was invalid and unconstitutional, the board has issued over 1000 rulings.

As for being on or off topic, and with respect to the OP, I would say its a valid discussion for this thread. With the lawsuits by Congress, not to mention private individuals suing, the ruling in this case could possibly affect the other scandals.

It is an example of Obama violating the Constitution not to mention injuring separation of powers. Executive privilege does not exist in the Constitution. Nixon and Watergate was the defining moment where SCOTUS officially sanctioned executive privileged.

Nixon's lawyers argued in front of the Supreme Court that the President is not subordinate to another branch of government and that he could refuse turning over documents / recordings etc.

SCOTUS said bad Nixon, rubbed his nose in the poo, and order him to turn the items over. 15 days later Nixon resigned. The court recognized the ability of the Executive to refuse to turn over documents to another branch. The caveat is the person / group making the request must have a good basis for it to be granted.

Executive privilege, according to SCOTUS, cannot be used to cover up illegal actions.

1 ruling by the courts against something Obama did could be considered normal. However when we see more and more incidents heading to the courts it can no longer be considered a fluke - It demonstrates a pattern.

a reply to: Aazadan

So you're defending the Chinese system as the way it should be here once we have our one philosophy system in place?

No I was referring to current protest and tiananmen square. They have no hope of success with protesting but yet the endure....

As someone who votes by the character of the politician and their nuanced position on issues rather than simply a conservative label (or perhaps an R/D, or a flag pin) I can see we completely disagree here on how to vote. I'll spare the spiel about the evils of party ticket voting though and stick to what I was wanting to say. Voting people out of office is great if they can't do the job, though I happen to take the more controversial stance that career politicians are good things. Anyways, reasons aside you're correct. This is what makes America great in theory. Multiple political parties with diverse opinions and we're free to vote or not vote for whichever we want and for whichever reason we want.

If you vote by character then we vote the same based on persons position, is conservatism not a character trait?

No, we are not near that now. The talking heads like to spin things that way because it makes for good politics but the government is far from being a bastion of liberalism. On the left/right scale Obama is not some left winger. Going by the political compass Ronald Reagan is 6, 4, Barack Obama is 6, 5, Mitt Romney is 7, 5.5. Those are fairly close scores and all high in on the left/right range, and moderately high on the authoritarian/libertarian range. What's most telling about those three men is that Reagan is the least conservative of the bunch when he used to be the most conservative. That should be a telling example of how far right the entire country has shifted. Yet even then, someone whose center right must be a liberal because he's not conservative enough. Makes you think about the guys in ISIS executing Muslims right now for not being Muslim enough.

Reagan less conservative than Obama? Reagan was much more conservative than Obama on social issues, and hugely more conservative on economic issues. I can't say about Romney considering he practices his religion faithfully I would "assume" he is conservative on on social issues as well as economic issues. All I see from Obama is the standard left approach to everything. He thinks we need to level the wealth disparity among classes by taking from one and giving to another. This is an opinion based way to govern and creates a division among the population. The question that needs to be asked of Obama is how does he expect to legislate wealth equality among a population while providing incentive for growth? He has created a economic dichotomy of immense proportion in the US trying to level a playing field that will never be level. But if you demonize the wealthy and promise the poor you have made a reelection bed that will be difficult to sleep in for future presidents.

Reagan understood the need to stimulate growth through tax incentives for the people with money. Tax incentives for poor buys a meal, tax incentives for the rich builds buildings. This is a conservative approach to growing an economy. The opportunity is to achieve balance, something liberal democrats want to argue, but it is opinion based and not factual. I have said in previous post from other threads the way for the man on the street to tell if the economy is going gang busters is to look at any rental yard of construction equipment. I had to wait weeks for equipment during the Reagan era now thanks to both Bush and Obama most yards have gone out of business.

Back to the point, when the Democrats had a super majority if you think they're synonymous with liberals you would be correct that we had a left wing government at that point. However the only things they did with that power were bail out some TBTF's, and give us a health care bill taken almost verbatim from the 1988 Heritage Plan. That's hardly the mark of radical left wingers.

Remember when they had the majority they no longer had a demon to blame things on so if they slow legislation and play their cards right they can demonize the right to perpetuate the division they need to remain in power for a longer time. Like Bush they lost it giving it away to the other resulting in what most consider a carbon copy party. Of course they lose it because it isn't based on what the people want or need. It is indeed based on power, greed, and obtaining votes for the system to remain status quo.

They didn't nationalize the oil industry, or create single payer health care, or hang the bankers. Since 2010 however the Democrats have lost seats, 2008-2010 was the most left leaning period under this administration if your assertion is true. Since then you have been winning the battle. We have a reverse of this in recent history too. In 2004 Bush got his super majority, the Democrat party was nearly wiped out (back in my less informed days I cheered it on and hoped they wouldn't come back) and we ended up with things like secret domestic spying, trillions spent in wars for resources, eventually TBTF bailouts, and the largest government expansion in the past 100+ years. I don't associate any of these things with traditional conservative values but that's what we got. So in recent years we've had an as left as possible government not act like liberals and an as right as possible government not act like conservatives. Perhaps the definitions aren't correct?

Now your getting there, Bush wasn't conservative, on the surface he appeared that way, but with the advent of the patriot law, and the questions it calls into constitutionality he could hardly be called conservative.The definitions are correct and so is our understanding, now if you can just get the politicians to perform within the definitions it will make better sense and we won't make the mistake of thinking the difference between republicans and democrats is the spelling.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that is the case, because that's how most people identify. Politics are sports for non athletes. People find a tag they want to identify with... liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, socialist, communist, or whatever else and regardless of their personal opinion on the details of those points, they will agree or disagree based on what the more prominent in that group say. That's the real mark of a low information voter in todays society.

My definition of a "low information voter" is someone who requires the media to determine their opinion.

Thanks to legislation passed in the previous administration all Presidents are now also dictators. They agree to give up power, but there is no legal obligation to do so if they claim it's for national security. I had no doubt Bush would give up power... he screwed up everything he touched but he seemed to have great respect for the office. I'm not so sure about Obama, and I'm even less sure about the next one.

This I will agree wholeheartedly. Although I think Obama has little respect for the office or America.