John Wilkes Booth said something to this effect shortly before he murdered Lincoln. I'm reminded of his words because I am hearing this sentiment expressed a lot lately in relation to Obama and all the sweeping changes occurring under his Administration. And I hate to say it, but I've also heard others talk of "wishing" Obama was dead. I don't advocate murder or assassination in anyway, but people are getting very frustrated. I also don't think that others have any intention of trying to harm Obama, either. But it is instructive to see the sense of anger and frustration that exists "out there" right now. I can understand more today how Booth felt than before. Just ramblings from me, folks. Hope you understand what I'm saying.

(05-03-2013 02:00 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  . . . people are getting very frustrated . . .

Growing up in the South, I used to hear such things said about JFK and Martin Luther King quite a bit.

I haven't heard that said concerning President Obama, but I have heard some intense frustration from folks regarding his performance in office.

This is a tough time for a lot of people and there are some who are blind to that for some reason.

--Jim

Jim: and look what happened to the two individuals you mentioned! Someone else commented today that South Carolina has proposed a law against Obamacare-prompting that person to state that "South Carolina is leading the way again." -a reference to its leaving the Union and the Civil War following on the heels of that action.

I'm worried at the number of people in this nation who are channelling Booth in that they are explicitly and vehemently blaming a figurehead for perceived personal wrongs. I had a chat last weekend in Gettysburg with an owner of a shop who was quite anti-Obama. We are all entitled to our own opinion, of course, but what concerned me is how she viewed the President with a distinct wrath as if he was her personal arch villian.

Now, I was in high school and college G. W. Bush was in office and I remember disliking the man at the time, however, I never doubted that as President he was working to the best of his ability for the betterment of the nation. This lady in Gettysburg was talking about how, as a secret Muslim, Obama is trying to destroy the United States, wants to start a race war, etc. She honestly scared me. While she is an extreme case, I worry about how certain modern movements and rhetoric are directed towards blaming a figurehead rather than attempting to fix the problem.

To me, much of our personal circumstances are the product of our perception. If you expouse that the country is going down the tubes and that you can't get ahead because of this person or that person, then of course you're not going to be able to rise up. When we start blaming someone specific for our own situation and we start obsessing over the perceived blame we put on them, that's when assassins are born.

Dave: as a Cognitive-Behavioral Psychologist- I say "Amen!!!" to your post.

I think that the frustration over the changes that are happening in our government are more likely to include Congress as well as the President at this point. During the first two years, I heard a considerable amount of discussion similar to the lady in Gettysburg; since then it seems to be comments about the two branches - and even fear about the Supreme Court's upholding of laws.

In regards to assassination, there will always be those types of comments. Frankly, I am more concerned with what will happen in this country if the current President were to be assassinated. I think it would be a hundred times worse than the assassination of King. At the time of that event, I was teaching in a school that was two miles from the D.C. line and could see the flames and smoke from the areas of the city that were burned and looted. It was also a bit unnerving to show up at school one morning to find that it had been taken over by state police and National Guard units as a command post from which to protect Maryland because of its close proximity to Washington.

I really don't want to experience those same feelings again.

Having lived through the 1967 Detroit riot, I couldn't agree with you more Laurie. I never forgot the sight of tanks rolling down Gratiot Avenue- and the seeing the burning a of blocks and blocks of the city.

There are so many lessons to be learned from the events leading up to the Civil War. There has always been huge conflicts between all the political parties and people wanting to leave a legacy. Today we can see that we are mostly governed by politicians, not statesmen. The art of compromise is lost on many currently in office, including our "Commander in Chief".

What we need is another "Era of Good Feelings" Too bad we have not had one since James Monroe!

(05-03-2013 04:53 PM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  What we need is another "Era of Good Feelings" Too bad we have not had one since James Monroe!

The era of good feelings was a phrase coined by the Democratic Party after they destroyed their only opposition, the Federalists.

Be careful of what you wish for.

Good point Jerry.

The country needs a man like James Buchanan again.

(05-04-2013 06:33 AM)Rsmyth Wrote:  The country needs a man like James Buchanan again.

He was everyone's hope. The country's greatest and most diplomatic statesman would surely deliver the country from this downward spiral of this conflict!

Everyone can't wait for Obama to leave office.
And who'll probably replace him???

Hillary!!!

and you think the country's in trouble now.....

The optimism in Buchanan reminds me of my personal optimism when George H.W. Bush (#1) was elected. I felt that we had had very few presidents with as much experience in various levels of government and that he would change things with great leadership skills. He was a decent man, but evidently our country doesn't accept decent men anymore. Sorry, my age and acquired frustrations are showing.

I went to look him up on Google- and found an entry that Buchanan was the first gay president. Didn't expect to see that. He had a wide range of experience in politics- and even served in the War of 1812. Very much criticized for his handing (or mishandling) of the secession crisis.