After reading the two letters by Agnes Bailey Bourgeois and Linda Reid (“Assertions about Obama are wrong” and “Democracy is gone,” The Daily News, Aug. 15), the first speaks to President Barack Obama’s golf game compared to former President George W. Bush’s.

I, for one, wish that he would play golf every day for the next two years that he has in office.

The only reason that our campaigner in chief didn’t have time to play more golf is that he was too busy raising money for the Democrats.

Last week, he held his 400th fundraiser at $35,000 per plate.

Every week, a new scandal emerges that Obama tries to dodge and blame on someone else.

It’s almost as if he’s thankful when something new pops up that he can use to control the news cycle and not own up to anything.

Yesterday — for the third time in recent memory — the president has stepped out prematurely to weigh in on an issue that he had no business being involved in.

He has instructed the Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the police shooting of Michael Brown in Missouri.

Stories that he was unarmed and there was no reason for the cop to have confronted him, we now know that Brown had just robbed a convenience store and his pictures have been released showing the strong armed robbery by Brown.

You stepped in it again, Mr. President.

Dick Hensley

Tiki Island

(38) comments

GW Cornelius

I will not argue the point that you are wrong. I have found that arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon, no matter how good you are, the bird will crap on the board and then strut around like it won anyway.

Paula Flinn

Ha,ha! Good one!

George Croix

Does the bird have a name, or is it, too, just an anonymous depositer of...deposits....


Paula Flinn

I like "stool" pigeon. Double entendre intended! It sure is not the Blue Bird of Happiness!

George Croix

The Blue Bird will be back in about 29 months...maybe....[wink]

Carlos Ponce

Most important question in the world today: Is Obama's golf game getting any better?[rolleyes]

Lars Faltskog

To the writer of this:

Wasn't the young man in Missouri indeed unarmed? Why shouldn't the President, and in this case, who better than he as an African-American, point out the continuing injustices and violence toward young minorities by law enforcement?

It is a President's obligation to respond to issues that grip the nation, and this event caused great conflict and uproar. Bush #2 would likely have made a comment, and rightly so. It's never a good thing for an officer to shoot a young person.

Paula Flinn

I agree. Fund raisers are important for the Dems to raise enough money to keep up with the Koch Brothers and other big donors that contribute to Republican PACS. Everyone knows that the R's raise more money for elections than the D's. It takes a great amount of money to compete.

Don't the police have tasers? If shooting was deemed necessary, why aim for the head? Why not shoot him in the knees or the genitals to disable him? The policeman in Ferguson should have to answer those questions along with why they all left Michael Brown's body in the street for 4 hours, uncovered.

I am glad that President Obama addresses civil unrest in this country. As President, he has every right to get involved to make sure the the country settles down and that the Ferguson police don't "whitewash" the evidence.

Brian Cann

Have you ever been bum rushed by a 6 foot 4 inch 290 pound man that has already beat you and tried to take your gun?? Of course you haven't, but you know everything about drawing down on an aggressor in life or death situations. You arm chair cops are sooo clueless as to be hilarious.

Tell ya what, next time someone robs you or your car or starts assaulting you, call Quannell to come protect you.

Lars Faltskog

Response to Rockstrongo posted at 11:08 am on Sat, Aug 23, 2014:

I think you're missing the point. It is to be expected that an alleged criminal act inappropriately and aggressively. He and the rest of us are law enforcement's patrons, or clientele, if you will.

We as patrons and clientele often misbehave, but it is the job of the law enforcement on duty who "serves and protects" to use the best methodolgies to qualm an aggressor. That is why it is, in many people's eyes, a great injustice that the officer apparently fired several shots at a seemingly unarmed young man.

And yes, if I get assaulted or robbed and it is done by someone who is supposed to be a server and protector on duty, then I will gladly call upon Quannell.

Paula Flinn

I am not pre-judging what happened in Ferguson. I would just like the answers to a few questions.

In 2005, I was assaulted in a classroom by a male high school student over 6 feet tall. After spending the rest of the year in Alt. school, he came back and apologized to me.

You do not know me, so you have no idea what my experiences are.

Carlos Ponce

"[A] great injustice that the officer apparently fired several shots at a seemingly unarmed young man"?????? Aren't you making many assumptions, sverige? Like I state earlier, the 18-year old man had two powerful ARMS that he allegedly used to beat a police officer to the point of breaking the bones of the officer's eye sockets. Put yourself in the officer's position sverige: How many blows to the head are you going to allow the young man to strike until you use your gun? Use of deadly force is permitted in Missouri when an officer is assaulted in such a manner. Why so many bullets? Try aiming with a broken eye socket. Wait until ALL the facts are in.

Lars Faltskog

Well, ponce....that's why I used the word "seemingly". Yes, the verdict is still out.

Casey Alan

Why is it okay for Republicans to play all the golf they won't take all the time off they want and everybody is okay with that? Remember the Republicans took the month of August off. Did you not see the news conferences that Obama had while on vacation? It's called a working vacation. And I suppose you didn't hear the news report where it said the police had no idea that Brown had robbed a convenience store earlier at the time of the shooting. Let's not forget he was unarmed. It's a shame you don't pay full attention to the news.

Carlos Ponce

"Remember the Republicans took the month of August off." The Senate went on vacation first. The Senate has more Democrats than Republicans but it does have both. This was followed by the House of Representatives. The House does have more Republicans but it also has Democrats. And Michael Brown was NOT "unarmed". He had two huge powerful arms that he used to break the bones around a police officer's eyes. Concern, if you had a gun and someone was beating on you to the point where they were breaking the bones around your eye sockets, how many blows to your head before you'd had enough and fired your weapon? Under Missouri law, an officer shooting after being assaulted is justified. I admit, all this alleged. Let's wait until ALL the facts are in. Right now the chief witness against the officer has warrants against him in another case and is an accomplice to robbery. He is not credible.

Claudia Burnam

I'm glad to see everyone has so much knowledge of what happened in Ferguson, MO and made up their minds of the policeman guilt!!!!!!!!!

George Croix

"Remember the Republicans took the month of August off."
After they made some effort to do their job and passed a bill dealing with some aspects of the illegal alien situation.
Then, since the Senate had already left for vacation, and had no intention of doing their job, for close to 3 years now, and the President had already promised to veto anything except what he, personally, demands, no exceptions, there was nobody available to actually do any amount of governing at all, so the House, too, left.
You'd know that, and be better informed of issues that cover ALL of the apsects of government and both sides of politics and thus all of us, if you watched Fox, instead of those unilaterally 'progressive' channels, where you get 100% of half of the news.
Of course, it also helps to know the difference between commentary and news.
Example: Mahr, and Hannity, are not 'newsmen'...
Et al birds of a feather...
Of course number 2, one has to actually WATCH something to know about it... [wink]

George Croix

We began the process of doing away with being ruled by monarchial fiat nearly 250 years ago, and managed to become the greatest country the world has ever known.
Now that we've allowed a virtual monarchy to come back, even gave it a second chance to repeat the same rulings while hoping for a different outcome,should we keep it, get rid of it, or just do away with the Presidency entirely, lest we again fall victim to our worship of a gilded calf, and eschew the hard work of actually being the greatest country...again...?
In your job, if all of the employees are arguing, who's job is it, then, to bring order, and make some attempt to negotiate and compromise a way to getting back to business?
That's why we HAVE CEO's and Presidents and refinery managers and such...few things are more ultimately costly than an incompetent or do nothing boss....a cart follows wherever the lead horse goes...
Of course, in our politics, 'progressives' put the horse in front of the cart....

Casey Alan

FOXNews watchers. If you can search your memory, remember the speaker of the house said he had no intention to work with the president and that was before he was sworn into office. The Republicans have done everything in their power to work against him. Obama came up with several things he wanted to do for the border and they said our way or no way. And then they said see ya. And left for vacation. FOXNews is a propaganda channel.

Carlos Ponce

To Concern, instead of reaching across the aisle and working with the Republicans as he promised during the election, President Obama told the GOP "I won!" leaving no room for negotiation, nor compromise. All this in January of 2009 just after the inauguration. President Obama left no room to work with the Republicans. Search your memory, Concern.

George Croix

Do you recall when was Boehner sworn in as Speaker of the House?
If you'd watch Fox, you'd knwo that.
I'll help.
It was January 5, 2011.
Do you recall what effort was put forth in the 2 year period of time between January 2009, after the 'I won' comment by Obama to the Reps, and January 2011, when the voters tossed a bunch of Dems from the House, to even give a fat rats backside by POTUS towards the concerns or issues brought up by Republicans?
I'll help.
Zippiody doo dah...
AND a litany of regular trash mouthing and insults from the perpetual POTUS lectern on his daily campaign stops. Continuing to this day.
So, do YOU smile and soldier on when you are routinely insulted and ignored?
If you'd watch Fox, you'd know that the 'several things about the border' Obama wants to do do NOT, NOT include securing it, and DO include granting amnesty to millions of ilelgals...unconditionally....You figure anybody but a darn fool would vote to do that?
If you don't believe what I said about the left on vacation issue, Google it -- be sure and note who left town first, while at it...
While at it, Google up Presidency, and you'll see that election to it is not a license to do what you want, it's a license to participate with the other CO-EQUAL elected government members in the process of governing - ;participate, not dictate.
Regualr watchers of Fox, of cousre, already know that...

Casey Alan

They must have got their potty mouth from you. If you Google you will see that while Reagan sign 381 , G W Bush signed 291 and Obama as a date sign 183. And Roosevelt who was a member of the progressive party of the year 1912 signed over 3000 executive orders in his presidency. I'm sure Pres. Obama will have to sign more because they Republicans refused to work with him. If you would stop watching propaganda news you would know this. With all your ranting and raving above you've proven my point. Thank you.

Carlos Ponce

To Concern: Everyone is fully aware that even George Washington signed executive orders, nothing wrong with them as long as they fall within the realm of presidential authority. It was Senator Obama who questioned President Bush's use of Executive Orders. It is when a president exceeds his Constitutional Authority that an Executive Order can be questioned. The question of whether President Bush or Obama exceeded authority is open for conjecture. Your enumeration of the Executive Orders is just a Red Herring.

George Croix

What potty mouth?

The President is the LEADER of the nation. Why didn't he call Harry Reid to bring the Senate back and work on the House bill?
In seventh grade civics we learn that what the Presdent WANTS is not different from what the House and Senate want, because they are ALL Constitutionally co-equal branches of government, and are supposed to discuss, negotiate, and compromise on legislation, not say 'that's not what I wanted, so I'll veto it until it is... The President wanted to 'give' more money to house the illegals but NOT to provide more border security. You left that little fact out.
One has to understand how their own government is supposed to work to separate the wheat from the chaf. Failing a successful passing grade in seventh grade, watching Fox will remind the viewer of the ACTUAL Constitutional mandates, not the monarchial aspirations trumpeted by too many other outlets.
Counting executive orders is like a bunch of children arguing about who got more jelly beans, while Little Johnny has taken off with an entire 7 course meal.
The issue, as one can learn by watching Fox, or by repeating 7th grade, is the scope and even Constitutional legality of what's included in those executive orders. The 'progressives' would seem to be saying that a guy running 30 stop signs is worse than one committing one murder. After all, that's MORE numbers of crime....
Ultimately, if EVERY executive order ever written by anybody, ever, were all bad, that doesn't make the current writer of them any less culpable.
But, it's very 'progressive' to excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior...
I'll ask you again, would YOU want to work with anyone who insults you and trashes your beliefs nearly every day? Why won't you answer the question?
Name ONE time that the President, in nearly 6 years now, has actually sat down with all the leaders of Congress, as his predecessors have done, and worked on legislation and all negotiated and compromised and he signed into law a bill that gave all something, but none all, and skipped the perpetual campaign insultathon while doing so?
Just he was elected to do...

Now, again, what potty mouth?

Casey Alan

By the way. The The president didn't leave for vacation until after the Republicans left. And the president wanted to give a larger amount of money for securing the border the Republicans did not. Like I said thank you for proving my point out FOXNews [smile]

Lars Faltskog

Hooray for Concern:

It takes a lot out of us to try to set the extreme fringe of the FOX and Limbaugh crowd into some type of reasonality. It is indeed hard work.

It's scary to see that many of these fear-wagers are fathers, mothers, grandparents. They've unfortunately let life pass them by and they spend their golden years in despair. Obama has worked hard and done quite well for what he's been handed.

George Croix

Pf, the Kochs are small timers compared to Tom a factor of about 3, so far...
Ever hear of Steyer?
Take a guess where his money goes....[wink][smile][beam][whistling]

Eventually, the Left will realize that the very people yammering about the 'evil 1%' and the 'evil rich', ARE, themselves, rich 1% ers...won't they...???[lol]

Carlos Ponce

And how about George Soros, “the single most destructive leftist demagogue in the country” ?

Jim Forsythe

Take a pick at what you want to believe,. If it gets down to a money war, the brothers Koch"s will win. Steyer personal wealth is only about $1.60 billion

"Liberal billionaire Tom Steyer is laying plans to go big in money, 2014 election.
The former hedge fund manager is hoping to spend $100 million — $50 million from his personal fortune and $50 million from other donors — to make climate change a top-tier issue in the election, The New York Times is reporting."
Read more:

"Q: How much money do Charles and David put into politics?
A: That's the big question. It's unanswered because the Kochs channel lots of money into nonprofit groups that don't have to identify their donors. The Washington Post and the Center for Responsive Politics have calculated that the donor network organized by the Kochs took in at least $407 million in the 2012 election cycle. However, not all of that money came from the Kochs themselves. David Koch's charitable giving has included $58 million donated to nonprofits that could include groups such as Americans for Prosperity, the CATO Institute and the Heritage Foundation, according to company spokeswoman Missy Cohlmia. In addition, the two brothers' direct political contributions to federal candidates and party committees totaled at least than $2 million over the past two decades."

Read more here:

George Croix

Jim, do ya figure anyone is going to give away their entire personal wealth?

We were discussing donations pledged from personal fortunes.
If you want to drift off into raisning money for political causes, then no doubt the leader of them all would be Barack Hussein Obama.....!!!

That kind of 'altenative view' , though, is pretty much how folks like the Clintons can be sitting on 200,000,000 bucks and still with a straight face claim to be 'npot really rich'......[beam][beam]

Carlos Ponce

"If it gets down to a money war, the brothers Koch"s will win." Sorry, George Soros wins. Soros started the Open Society Institute in 1993 as a way to spread his wealth to "progressive" causes. Soros has given more than $7 BILLION to a who’s who of left-wing groups. This partial list of recipients of Soros’ money says it all: ACORN, Apollo Alliance, National Council of La Raza, Tides Foundation, Huffington Post, Southern Poverty Law Center, Soujourners, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, and the National Organization for Women. Of course, the Leftist will say there is nothing wrong with these organizations. He also financed a community organizer named Barack Obama.

Jim Forsythe

"Jim, do ya figure anyone is going to give away their entire personal wealth?" Of course not ,as You can see below, they all have more money than most. If they got into a money war , the one's with the most money would most likely win . At least they are not just setting on the money, but putting into what they believe in. It may not be what You and I believe in , but it's their money.

David Koch 41.7 Billion
Charles Koch 41.7 Billion
George Soros 28 Billion
Tom Steyer 1.6 Billion

"The brothers pledged to donate $60 million in the 2012 election season to defeat President Barack Obama"

Carlos is this the 7 Billion You were talking about?
Time magazine in 2007 cited two specific projects—$100 million toward Internet infrastructure for regional Russian universities, and $50 million for the Millennium Promise to eradicate extreme poverty in Africa—while noting that Soros had given $742 million to projects in the U.S., and given away a total of more than $7 billion

Tom and Kathryn Steyer of San Francisco gave $20.4 million to candidates, causes and political action committees in the 2013-14 election cycle

Carlos Ponce

"Net worth" is a matter of book keeping. There is "personal wealth which you cite, but then there is is foundation wealth, company wealth, etc they have control over. George Soros has CONTROL over far more than the $28 billion cited. Just one company, Soros Fund Management adds another $25 billion to what he controls. As stated earlier Soros' OSI has given $7 billion to Leftist causes so that one segment is worth more than that. The contributions you cite come from Soros' Open Society Foundation and his Stefan Batory Foundation, in addition to the Soros Foundation. It's just a bookkeeping thing. He has FAR more than $28 Billion. Instead of financial transparency like the Koch brothers, Soros spreads his money out through corporations, foundations, various organizations so it doesn't look like he has that much.

Jim Forsythe

"We were discussing donations pledged from personal fortunes George asks about wealth, and Carlos want to talk about foundation wealth .I guess I'm stuck in middle. Some may not like someone giving the left or the right, but it's their money.
Just because someone gives to a group You do not like, does not make them a bad person.

Carlos Ponce

George Soros is in control of far more money than what is posted. You would be surprised over the total amount. I am not. Question: If George Soros funds Planned Parenthood, why do the Leftist of this country cry when we suggest that controversial Federal funding cease? And his daughter, Andrea Soros Colombel, gave $250,000 to Planned Parenthood Votes on top of that. Follow the money, Bigjim, follow the money.

George Croix

"Just because someone gives to a group You do not like, does not make them a bad person."

Jim, don't go getting like that other male poster who has a habit of reading things in that were not said - nobody so far has said squat about 'bad persons'.

Heck, Jim, you and I are politically different for the most part.
Do you figure I think YOU are a bad person...[wink]

Jim Forsythe

George , it sounded like Carlos was saying that when he said.
"And how about George Soros, “the single most destructive leftist demagogue in the country” ? "." Instead of financial transparency like the Koch brothers, Soros spreads his money out through corporations, foundations, various organizations so it doesn't look like he has that much" as Carlos has no way of knowing if The Koch's are hiding anything , unless he does their books. Most that have BIG money have people that help them with the books,(hiding money} some are just better at it.

George , politically we are not that far apart, as I have got to the point
that they are all the same.
I was in a hurry, as my house water main had just started flooding my front yard. The bad person comment was that I had thought that Carlos was trying to say George Soros was a bad person for giving away money, not that you or Carlos are bad people. I will never try to respond to two post at the same time again!
George, I'm sorry if You took it as I was saying that about You.

George Croix

Jim, we've known each other too long, and been through too much ...stuff (![beam]) .... to sweat the small stuff....
Apology NOT accepted, simply because one was never called for in the first place....[beam][beam]
I cut a LOT of slack for people I respect....[wink]

BTW, I SWEAR, it wasn't mE who broke your water line....[beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.