Barack Obama is the president.

No matter how much you bash him, he is still the president.

You claim that the U.S. knew about the lack of security in Benghazi.

After 13 investigations, the Republicans can find no stand-down order or anything illegal about it.

Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush knew a month before 9/11 that terrorists were learning to fly planes and threatened to fly them into buildings.

They did nothing.

Iraq had no Taliban in their country, but George W. Bush perpetrated the lie that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction.

So, they got Colin Powell on their side and Congress to declare war on a country that did not have anything to do with 9/11.

Colin Powell apologized to the country for perpetrating the lie.

That illegal and immoral war was responsible for far more than the four or five deaths that Benghazi and Fast and Furious produced.

Even before President Obama took office, John Boehner and the right wing of the Republican Party declared that they would be the party of “no.”

President Obama has accomplished much despite the obstruction and racism from the other side.

Paula Flinn

Galveston

(205) comments

Claudia Burnam

See Mr. Hatch's letter to the editor. Yes, we should quit bashing Obama. He has finally found something he is good at. Fund raising.

Paula Flinn

Every president does some fund raising, goes on vacation, and plays golf. Get over it.

Claudia Burnam

Except for fund raising they were all better at it than Obama!

Paula Flinn

Ha, ha!

Carlos Ponce

More Donkey Party propaganda. Don't drink this Kool-Aid. Nothing new here, just a feeble attempt to try to prop up a failed presidency. Usual tactics: blame Bush and toss down the Race Card.

Paula Flinn

Bush Admin. is responsible for the deaths of more people than Obama. I brought that up as a comparison. Also many more overseas Embassies were attacked during President Bush's years.

Allan Knape

You should go back and check your numbers, because that is a very false statement. Look at the number of our military that have died under this admin. Do some research before making such statements.

Jennifer Lance

This is a failed Presidency. Liberal media feels the need to smear words around to disguise that fact.

Paula Flinn

More like a failed Congress.

Carlos Ponce

Yes,remember the Democratic Party controls half of Congress - for now.

Paula Flinn

OK, a failed and conflicted House of Representatives, under Speaker John Boehner...

Paula Flinn

1. The economy has improved just about every month of the Obama Administration.
2. No president in our history has cut government spending more than Obama. After all, he has cut the deficit he was handed about 60%.
3. He has had enormous achievements in foreign affairs; getting Syria to admit to and give up WMD without firing a shot for one; getting Iran to open up to inspections for another.

Maybe you did not know this.

Carlos Ponce

"Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies
(Tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)
Oh, no, no you can't disguise
(You can't disguise, no you can't disguise)
Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies"

Paula Flinn

Go to www.amazon.com Type in "President Bush's lies" under "Books" category. Many books have been written about the lies of President Bush and his Administration. I have already listed a few...Oil in Iraq paying for the war, WMD's, falling gas prices, Saddam Hussein being responsible for 9/11 + many more.

Carlos Ponce

Just more Donkey Party Propaganda. President Bush made mistakes but when compared to the current president, I really miss him. Question, were you certified to teach English and History in May 1971? I found a P Flinn in State Board for Educator Certification data base with that certification.

Jennifer Lance

Actually, the 9/11 pilots were practicing steering and landing our airplanes at a flight school in Florida in late 2000 on Clinton's watch.

And two of the 9/11 terrorists had been spotted in California as early as 1999; but thanks to Clinton administration rules the FBI could not share that information with the CIA so they went undetected. Why do you think Sandy Berger stole documents from the National Archives in order to keep the 9/11 Commission from finding them? Had this been made public by the media it was done terrific damage to the Democrat Party.

Paula Flinn

Ms. Rice and Mr. Bush received a directive from the CIA about this in August, a month before 9/11. They did not take it seriously.

Carlos Ponce

pflinn, give us an unbiased link that shows this or are we just supposed to take your word for it? An unbiased link would show something was coming but no specifics. Donkey Partiers like Michael Moore tend to read an awful lot into so very little.

Jim Forsythe

New York Times
Published: April 10, 2004

"President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.The warning came in a secret briefing
that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a ''closely held intelligence report'' that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford.The disclosure appears to contradict the White House's peated assertions that the briefing the president received about the Qaeda threat was ''historical'' in nature and that the White House had little reason to suspect a Qaeda attack within American borders.Members of the
independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks have asked the White House to make the Aug. 6 briefing memorandum public. The A.P. account of it was attributed to ''several people who have
seen the memo.'' The White House has said that nothing in it pointed specifically to the kind of attacks that actually took place a month later."
If You want to read more http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/us/august-01-brief-is-said-to-warn-of-attack-plans.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Carlos Ponce

NY Times an unbiased link? The August 2001 memo actually was a historical update to President Bush conveying information since 1997. The information referred to the possibility of overseas strikes using planes.
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer In her testimony Thursday to the Sept. 11 commission, Rice described Bush's Aug. 6 daily briefing as including mostly "historical information" and said most threat information in the summer of 2001 involved overseas targets.

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, please give list of approved newspapers. I never see other people saying that unless they agree with them (news source) they do not count.

Would the GDN be on the approved list?

Carlos Ponce

Approved link: The Congressional Record. Most newspapers and media are very skewed to the Left. While I find FOX News to be fair and balanced you would dispute that claim. Christan News Sources are okay, CBN and the like. As for GDN, take the source (local or wire), the writer of the news article, etc. before evaluating. Some are skewed, others not.

Jennifer Lance

Complete nonsense. The only chance of stopping this was to have followed leads that were over-looked in late 2000. "Possible al Queda plans to attack" is hardly an actionable directive. The separation of the two security services and their inability to share information was the "lost chance."

And that goes DIRECTLY to the Clinton administration rules and more specifically to the woman responsible for that: Jamie Gorelick

Paula Flinn

Thanks, Bigjim!

Here are some more sources:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=August_6%2C_2001%_Daily_Briefing_Memo

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript

Regarding the president's intelligence briefing of August 6, 2001, Ms. Rice said, in her testimony, that there was past intelligence reporting (mostly from the 1990's) regarding "possible al Qaeda plans to attack inside the United States," and " that terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft in an attempt to blackmail the government into releasing U.S.-held terrorists who had participated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."

Miss Priss

I guess you must of seen them doing it.

It was perpetrated during Bush presidency ..... I guess they thought him as week as Clunton. I want to know how much was paid to KBR - Halliburton for all their work and tax deferred dollars over in Iraq. The soldiers all know that it turned into a contract war.

Paula Flinn

Yes, and the Iraqi oilfields would be controlled by the U.S. and the oil from Iraq would more than pay for our part in the war, and in the U.S. our gasoline prices would fall. Do you remember the pictures of the oil fields that were set on fire and burning? I do.

KBR-Halliburton is still over in Iraq, paying good money to those who want to work there.

JBG JBG

Listen, let me say this! I really don't want to hear about Bill Clinton's watch! Bill was watching enough when his eyes were glued on Ms. Monica Samille Lewinsky! Now...Ahhhh-Rahh, those are the facts!!! Now at least he was watching something!
-
His best lying efforts were displayed while he filled in as the Chief Executive Explainer.... ( LIAR ) for Mr. Obama's second run at office. It seems, that is the chick in Mr. Obama's armor. He can talk like a fool from a prepared speech on a teleprompter but he cannot stand flatfooted in a crowd and speak a straight paragraph, without stammering,...looking down, lying, or bashing Mr. Bush without a teleprompter. Bill Clinton is much more different than that! He could and did look straight in the cameras and told all kinds of lies! STRAIGHT-UP LIES!!!!
-
Another thing. It is written and I'd be less than an ingrate if I did not mention this:
Galatians 6:7
-
"Be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
-
So to all those who are offended by the "BASHING" ( evaluating ) of Mr. Obama, please write a letter to "Uncle Sugga" and tell him, that he is ONLY GETTING BACK THE CROPS HE IS PLANTING OUT OF HIS OWN LYING ( EVOLVING )... MOUTH, when he constantly covers his butt by BASHING Mr. Bush for his own failures! [smile]

Paula Flinn

This is what I do not like--the disrespect you are showing by calling President Obama "Uncle Sugga," which is a racist slur. Do not try to deny that the name you called him is a racial slur. You would not have called any other President of the U.S. that name. President Obama is your President, everyone's President, and you should show respect for the office and for the man.

You do not have to agree with his ideas or his policies, but please show some respect for the office and the man who holds the office. President Obama is the president of every man, woman, and child in the United States. Over half of the voting population elected him, twice.

I am not so sure you are a Christian, on the one hand quoting the Bible, and on the other hand calling President Obama a name.

I would feel the same way about any of our presidents. I may disagree with their policies, but I would not refer to them like that.

Try to stay peaceful and civilized with your comments.

George Croix

No surprise.
There are still people convinced the earth is flat...[wink]

George Croix

"...within the United States..."!!
Well, there ya go...The NY Times, et al, at their finest - all we had to do was secure everything in the United States against a possible explosive attack from the air...by somebody, sometime, somewhere, somehow.

Lets do it now, after being told by the NYT, et al, that hundreds of ISIS members hold European passports, and as such can more easily fly under the radar, no pun, into the U.S. ... to 'visit'.
Gotta play the hand in front of us today, especially now that we know we can get hit on our own soil....
Shut it all down....America, take a vacation for, oh....an indefinite period of time, until the risk has passed...

Paula Flinn

It has been reported that the Obama Admin. has stopped many potential attacks in the U.S. from happening. It is called being alert and aware. Transportation (esp. airline) authorities have to do their jobs diligently, as if many lives do depend on them doing their jobs diligently.

George Croix

At what age is the difference between a report, and a resolution, supposed to become apparent? About, oh, 12?
It's no wonder this country is in the shape it's in.
One of the big problems faced by anyone in any level of leadership anywhere, anythime, is where to use the resources they have, how to use them, and on what to use them, and when.
I've personally had multiple reports about the exact same situation radioed to me, all of them different, describing what the individual saw, from his perspective, within seconds of each other.
And I'm just one insignificant former refinery worker...
Now, a difference would be if ALL of those reports about the same thing were all in agreement and describing the same situation, and all focused on the same location, etc.
THEN I could make a much easier call.

Perspective.
IS there any difference between being told that there may be an attack by somebody, somewhere, in the United States involving aircraft and explosives, sometime, and with specific information about an actual attack in progress or about to happen in a known location?
Yes
In East Texas, we'd call that knowing the difference between s..tuff and Shinola...[beam][beam][beam][beam][beam]

George Croix

IMHO
A person who begins his term of 'leadership by declaring 'I won',
who insists on using a term like 'overseas contingency operation' to describe the war on terror,
who calls it 'workplace violence' when a terrorist shoots up an Army post,
who declares deadly acts to be 'isolated incidents' before the details and extent are even known,
who ignores his military experts in favor of ''advice' from a bunch of desk jockies,
who insists that there is not 'even a smidgen of corruption' before the investigation is even done,
who looks EVERYONE in the TV eye and declares 'if you like your plan/doctor, you can keep them' while KNOWING that was a lie,
who almost daily declares his willingness to work with anybody to solve problems then in the very next sentence blames those same people for everything he himself has failed to lead on,
who repeats a known lie about a 'video' for over two weeks after the death of people who were refused the help they asked for,
who tells a Governor that an invasion of the border is HIS problem and he should solve it by getting 'his buddies' to hand over 3.7 billion dollars, then goes partying,
who illegally changes a 'law of the land' over 40 times to benefit cronies and himself and his party,
who 5.5 years into his terms of office is STILL blaming his predecessor for anything not going right,
who excoriates the 'evil 1%ers' then jets off to fundraisers at 10 grand plus for a single plate,
who gives speeches decrying our dependence on Middle East oil while refusing to build an oil pipeline,
who declares that we need MORE taxes for 'infrastructure' after 800 billion for 'infrastructure' has disappeared but the potholes and bad bridges remain 'shovel ready',
who says spending 2 MILLION bucks per job created on 'green energy' is a good 'investment' in the future while ignoring the 'investment's going belly up and the taxpayers screwed,
who declares his support for an increase in minimum wage but sticks with policies CAUSING people to not have good jobs that pay good wages or now only pay 29.5 hours a week instead of 40,
who excuses not making even a flyover of a crisis area, despite lambasting his predecessor for at least doing that much, as 'not wanting just a photo op, while giving a photo op to make the claim,
who accuses his political opponents of 'obstructing' his agenda because he 'was elected' yet ignores that THEY, too, were elected precisely TO counter his agenda,
who tries to close off the WWII Veteran's memorial due to 'lack of funds' but then goes on a golfing trip,
and who urges people to think about 'rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies' when supposedly having the job of representing all of us.
that man does not need anyone to bash him.
He's bashing himself well enough.

In fact, doing so well at it, it makes that Nobel for what might be done someday finally deserved...all you have to do is read the prize declaration by looking in a mirror...[whistling]

Paula Flinn

These are your views and your perspectives. Most of this is your honest opinion, as you state. I would not even try to change your opinions. You are entitled to them and your right to express them. That is one of the things that makes our country a great place.

My perspective is different from yours. I see a person who genuinely tried to get the House of Rep. to work with him. The GOP, the party of NO, decided to thwart his every attempt. No way, no compromises. So in order to get anything done, he had to find and try alternate methods.

My opinion is that President Obama is not a failed president. History will view him as a good president for restoring the economy and creating jobs. For these 2 things and for keeping our country safe, I think that he will be judged as being better than some of our more recent presidents. This is just my honest opinion.

George Croix

Ah, but the difference is, mine are ALL easily verified....
[beam][beam][beam][beam]
It was so easy, in fact, even an old East Texas Piney Woods stomper like me was able to do so. I simply used the facts to form my opinion that no bashing needs to be done to someone bashing his own reputation.
As a supervisor myself for over 30 years, a front line leader type supervisor, in both operations and emergency rsponse, I must admit that I've never known anybody who genuinely tried to work with anybody by telling them 'I won', ignoring them for 2 years, insulting them almost daily, then blaming them for doing nothing after that full two years of riding the Myway Highway. Since then, wh'od want to help anybody who cra__ed on them and can't go two days without hurling some insult at them. I think they SHOULD, ALL, get together and do some of that governing stuff, but, I also see why it's not happening. The voters will soon decide what to do about that.
But, that's just my personal experience in leadership - you get out, what you put in. No doubt, others think differently.
Half truths about why the WWII memorial was blocked off (and, yes, JBG, I KNOW the vets knocked the barricades down and went in anyway - good for them) - Moi? Easy enough to verify. It was closed along with a host of other federal government memorials and parks and such as part of a 'make it hurt' tantrum by the Administration in response to the Government shutdown when no agreement was reached on a temporary budget compromise. In fact, erecting the barricades to attempt to close off the memorial cost the taxpayers more than keeping it open does. That, too, easily verifiable. Repairs or clean-up? Odd that wasn't reported to be the case when the barricades were being moved from in front of old men in wheelchairs, but, I certainly may have missed it.
Of course that memorial wasn't closed permanetly - nor were any othe other closed tourist attractions. The whole 'shutdown' was a sham as they always are, as 80% of the government remains open. A bunch of children playing games.
My point was that if no funds were available to keep an open air memorial of such consequence open, then none should have been avaialble to keep the golf courses open, too. Where's the 'shared sacrifice' we hear so much about...[wink]
I don't know when you went, but the Washington Monument was closed for quite some time due to structural repairs following an earthquake.
Neither Congress nor POTUS caused that...[smile].

Anyway, thanks for your reply to mine. I haven't heard 'sheesh' in ages...[beam][beam][beam][beam]

Paula Flinn

Mine are easily verified, as well. BTW, people were put off their original medical plans because they were "bad" plans, in that they did not cover people with pre-existing conditions like the ACA stated, or for some other reason. Pres. Obama did not lie about it. He did not know that so many people's plans would not comply with the "rules" of his plan. He gave a speech and said that. I did not have to change my doctor or medical plan.

I would not expect a guy not to say, "I won," after he won the election (twice). If you disliked him from the beginning, then you probably were not willing to give him a chance. I would have given Sen. McCain or Gov. Romney a good chance to be a winner in my eyes, had either of them won.

I just see things a different way than you do, but I love my country, and want the best for its people. I am sure that you do, too!

I say "sheesh" because I am old, and I do not curse! But, old people do vote, and I respect your point of view. Thanks for commenting. God Bless the United States of America!

Willis Briggs

SHAZAM. !!!!!!!!!!!!! [beam]

JBG JBG

Gecroix,
When he closed off the WWII Memorial, I heard the VETS knocked down the barriers and went in anyway! I think the workers worked for free in order to facilitate the VETS!
A terrible way to treat a VET!

Paula Flinn

And it was closed for a weekend for repairs or clean-up. It was not closed permanently to the veterans. Tell the whole story, not just half-truths! The vets broke through even though they could see (well maybe some of them couldn't see) the monuments from outside the barrier. No one stopped them.

When I was in D.C. the Washington monument was closed for repairs. I did not whine and cry, nor did I break through the barrier to get a closer look. Sheesh! You complain about everything!

JBG JBG

pflinn,
It was my understanding that the monument was closed for lack of funds doing the government shutdown,.....funds needed in order to keep it open! It was thought that the Obama Administration was trying to maximize the government shutdown to the point veterans would start complaining on the Republicans which in my opinion would have made it a political ploy which failed.
-
Now, here is a link I took the liberty of coping and pasting:
http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=352177 [It states: ]
-
In an attempt to make the government shutdown as painful as possible, the Obama Administration yesterday chose to erect metal barricades around the World War II Memorial (an open air memorial that is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week) and stationed armed National Park Police to block World War II veterans from entering their memorial.

It’s ironic that while our Nation’s heroes are met by barricades, exactly two years ago back in 2011 the Obama Administration let members of the Occupy Movement camp at McPherson Square (also controlled by the National Park Service) for MONTHS before evicting them. Thousands of dollars in damage were caused by the participants who were illegally camping in McPherson Square.

Under the Obama Administration, the National Park Service chose to erect barricades to open-air memorials when they know World War II veterans are traveling to visit from across the country, while two years ago they stood by for months as the Occupy Movement erected illegal campsites on national park land in the Nation’s Capital. In addition, the Park Service is spending unknown thousands of taxpayer dollars to keep the public and veterans from their memorial, while in 2011 they spent thousands to cleanup the mess left by the Occupiers.
-
It’s time for some common sense by this Administration and federal agencies that work for the American people.
-
NOWHERE IN THIS INFORMATION DID IT SAY THE MOMORIAL WAS CLOSED FOR REPAIRS, LIKE YOU ARE ALLUDING TO.
-
Yes I complain and I will continue to complain! If you want to sit by and say nothing while this country is going to hell in a hand-basket, that is your right, just as it is my right to complain! WHICH I WILL DO!!!

George Croix

Anybody who doesn't believe it's possible for two people to look at the exact same thing and see two totally different versions of it, need only stay awhile right here in these forums.
[beam][beam][beam]

Ma'am, have you given any thought to why it is that the government should get to decide that, for instance, my insurance is 'bad' because it doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, when I HAVE NO pre-existing conditions, and force me to pay more for a product I have no need for? I'm a 63 year old male, so I don't think I'm going to need the 'prenatal care', and the 'lactation services', the ACA mandates, either...
See, that's the problem with one size fits all ... it never does.
You might want to look a little further into that 'he didn't know' statement, because you WILL find out...he did...
If you don't believe me, how about NBC news, a friend of the Obama Administration if ever there was one:
"By Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye
NBC News Oct. 28, 2013
President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

>>>>>Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.

George Croix

"Uncle Sugar is a combination of Uncle Sam & Sugar Daddy, combined to refer to the generosity of the United States federal government in bestowing money and benefits on citizens."

Ma'am, it has nothing to do with race. it's about government giveaways to curry favor - a practice not exactly new on the scene. The entire Congress and the Executive branches all fit that description nicely, no matter who's there.
If it was intended to be a racial slur, it's unlikely that Jbgood, a black man, would have used the term...

Paula Flinn

I have never heard of the term before, but when I clicked on "Sugga", it gave me Sugar. Thanks for explaining. But as far as racial talk goes, you should hear what some of the African-American teens call each other. Well, I am sure that you have.

Government giveaways to curry favor is not, as you said, anything new.

I am ready to "pack it up" so-to-speak and call it an interesting day. Thank you for adding to the discussion. I enjoy other people's thoughts and do not get my feelings hurt. I have actually learned from this, and consider it time well-spent. I do not know about you, but this is the first time i have done this sort of thing.

I love my country, state, and city, and I am sure that you do, as well.

Goodnight gecroix and everyone else!

Carlos Ponce

You've never heard of "Uncle Sugar"? Governor Mike Huckabee used the term to describe the Democratic Party's attitude toward women. The Democrats then tried to turn it around and said that the Governor used the term to degrade women. "Uncle Sugar" is the Combination of Uncle Sam and Sugar Daddy, the Democratic Party's concept that women can not take care of themselves, that the Federal government must care for a female's every need as shown in "The Life of Julia". "The Life of Julia" was an on-line tool used to promote Obama's policies as being "Pro-women". It fell under severe criticism because it actually showed women's dependence on government for everything. It was a big change from "I am woman, hear me roar" to " I am woman, I can't do anything for myself".

JBG JBG

Pfflinn,
I apologize if your feelings are hurt, but "Uncle Sugga" earned that name in my opinion. What do you have to say about "Uncle Sugga" taking my money or donations and my vote in 2008 and then a little later "EVOLVED" on me and others like me, reneging on the platform he ran on, leaving us looking foolish? What say you about that?
-
Now as for me not assigning a similar name to any other president, I don't think you are in a position to know that, do you? How do you know what I would or would not do? Unless you have the gift of prophecy or you are into witchcraft!
-
It is obvious you are fund of Mr. Obama and I am not. Now I think you and I have had enough dialog posting here, so I think we both need to just move on to other threads. Okay by you?

Paula Flinn

I did not say a similar name, I said THAT NAME.

OK to move on. Thank for a lively discussion! Never expected to change any minds, just give you a forum to blow off a little steam, and we certainly did that!

We will see what the next election brings forth. As I said before I love my country and want want is best for all of the people. I am sure that you do too!

Goodnight, Jbgood!

JBG JBG

You bet, ...goodnight to you too.

Carlos Ponce

Question: Why is Obama such a poor dancer?
Answer: All his moves are to the Left. [rolleyes]

Paula Flinn

Love it! Thank you for a lively discussion! I enjoyed your comments!

Good night carlosrponce!

Evelyn Clark

It beats yours, you can not move at all. But you are trying to keep up with the DO NOTHING MEN IN WASHINGTON.

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Response to pflinn posted at 1:24 pm on Sat, Jul 26, 2014:

This was the best post on this thread. Conservatives should be applauding, instead of ridiculing, in regard to the economy being on the upswing and the handling of deficits. I've read also that there's less federal workers than under Bush and that for a western economy, the US has a relatively small government in terms of social spending.

Aside from any of our disagreements with what our President thinks, his legislative accomplishments will go down in the history books as very significant.

He has been the right President for our times to fulfill the 2000s on into the last of this decade. Our social tolerance, under his leadership, has also made great strides in the cases of gay/lesbian marriage and health care.

Mr. Obama has brought us into the new millennium.


------ HILLARY FOR 2016 "Let's Keep Progressing" ---------------------------------

Carlos Ponce

So you really believe the economy is on the upswing? So sad. Too bad the "less Federal workers" includes primarily the American military who get their "pink slips" while still stationed overseas.

Evelyn Clark

Pfinn, I do not agree with you. My grandson and niece are both overseas and they supports our President. I did not \ see where you once complain when Bush/Chenny made a mess of the USA. Startting a war ,( WMD, Mission accomplished and etc. You know about the DO NOTHING MEN IN WASHINGTON, and yet you write more lies about Obama . Why not write a book. BUT BE TRUTHFUL NOT HATEFUL..

Paula Flinn

mytoby3113, Did you even read my original letter? I support President Obama, and I called the War in Iraq illegal and immoral. I think that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, and Bush allowed torture of prisoners (water boarding, electric shock, etc.) against the rules of the Geneva Convention, and they all should have been tried for war crimes.

Remember Abu Ghraib Prison and the pictures of the atrocities committed there? They had pictures of some of our military torturing Iraqi prisoners. Some of them died. The Bush Administration was not held accountable for that. The head of the prison lost her job, but not Rumsfeld.

Can you imagine the right-wing Republican furor if this had happened on President Obama's watch? We would've never heard the end of it!

If your grandson and niece are serving in the military, I thank them for their service. I support our fine men and women in the military.

Paula Flinn

I do not lie. I am forgetful and mistaken sometimes (like about why the WWII Memorial and the other Memorials were shut down). I did not remember that they were barricaded because the Republican House of Reps. shut down the government, rather than approve a budget or something.

Do not call me a liar.

Carlos Ponce

"They had pictures of some of our military torturing Iraqi prisoners. " Torture, pflinn? You've never been to a frat party have you?

Paula Flinn

Thank you! Also see the article in TIME magazine, July 28, 2014, on the 5 signs that the economy is getting better. Good news is difficult to find either on T.V. or in print.

Carlos Ponce

That explains why Time magazine (a liberal Obama Fanzine) has a declining subscription rate. For a comparison, Time magazine has a subscription number of 3.3 million. compare that to AARP Magazine with 22.3 million, Game Informer-7.6 million, Better Homes and Gardens -7.6 million, Readers Digest - 4.5 million, Good Housekeeping - 4.3 million, Family Circle - 4.1 million, National Geographic 4 million, People 3.5 million. Due to their editorial bias, subscription numbers have declined for Time over the last decade. So your message to those having trouble making ends meet,"Quit complaining, the economy is getting better, Time magazine says so!" Well, the economy isn't getting better for Time Magazine with declining revenue from ads and magazine sales.

Paula Flinn

AARP Magazine is FREE with membership. TIME does cost $$$ for a subscription. TIME Magazine is not as good as it used to be, in my opinion. It is very thin, doesn't have very many articles, and the print is small. (Or, maybe I just cannot see it as well.) I probably will not renew my subscription next year.

carlosrponce, don't put words in my mouth! That is not my message to those having trouble making ends meet. I was very surprised that there were more jobs, more cars sold, more home-ownership, and more consumer products bought last year than in the previous years. That doesn't mean that everyone has a new car, a great job, etc. But, if the economy shows signs of slowly getting better, then why not say so in a national magazine? People need hope, not false hope, but just hope for the future.

Carlos Ponce

Free with membership? I'm certain you know what an oxymoron is.[beam]

Evelyn Clark

Pfinn, I do not appreciate your statement about if my grandson and niece served id the USA matilary. I have a grandson , two nieces, one nephew and one sister who also had a husband served our COUNTRY. Please donot say if I had some close family You thank them. It not necessary I have already thank them. [beam][beam][beam]

George Croix

Pflinn,
Good morning.
Ma'am, while we're at least 160 out of 180 degrees apart in what we see happening up in DC, (and, I'm right...[beam][beam][beam][beam][beam]), I admire how you make your case, and willingness to consider and reconsider.
Obviously, somewhere back along the line you learned some manners.
I respect that, agree or disagree.
You could give lessons to a few of the characters herein...

Paula Flinn

Thanks! My mama taught me to be civil and to have manners (only room for one Yugoslav temper in the family, and she held that spot).

I respect your opinions and your perspectives, gecroix, and (believe it, or not) I have learned from you! Many of your points are valid, and I appreciate the way you deliver them, with 5 beaming faces.

As far as giving lessons in manners, I don't want to do that. I just find that what you say (and do) reflects on your character. How you say things does matter. I try to be respectful thinking that if I give respect, I will get respect back. Teenagers at BHS taught me that! Picking on someone for grammatical errors, like I did this morning, is really not me. I am sorry, Mr. Ponce. At 72, I am still learning and still going like the Energizer Bunny (Ha!)

George Croix

Actually, my enter key got stuck on the emoticons - I'm a natural sourpuss, about as inately friendly as a timberwolf...or, so my few 'progressive' friends tell me....[beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam]
Darn key.....!!!!

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Watch out, pfinn:

geocroix has it "in" for the younger generations who think for themselves and don't go along with the namby pamby Ronald Reagan-type of thinking. He's entertaining to a degree when he talks tongue in cheek about things being "so progressive". Yet there's unfortunately a cloister of opinion thread contributors here who will call anyone with a different (more liberal/moderate opinion) the following: troll, interloper, bully, part of the "entitlement" crowd, et cetera.

In short, there's quite a bit of anti-intellectualism in quite a few folks, you'll see. Keep contributing here so that their narrow little world of 1950s Father Knows Best can be shattered from time to time. And, you being from the babyboom generation might yield them listening to you a bit more than they do others. I'll have to admit, gecroix isn't the worst of them, he's rather teachable. He won't show it, but you can tell every now and then.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

I don't think that's a fair assessment of gecroix. Differing points of view don't seem to bother him much, unless those differing points of view are backed with, well aren't back up much, if at all.

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Well, kev...I perhaps was in an altered state the handful of times I was referred to as a "troll" while trying to debate a point or two with said person.

Either way, I look at these forums oftentimes as a party setting. There's some folks that are fun to talk to and banter some. Others not.

Then, there's folks who you hardly hear from (months even), then all of a sudden, kerpow!!! They come along with quick burst of angst toward something said. Those are the most fun. Either way, I'm sure GDN wants as much from the subscription crowd as it can get.

BTW....are you going to subscribe to Palin's online subscription media forum/info center?

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

sverige1, yes, he has been know to refer to you as a troll, but he seems to have eased off on that in recent months. I think he's giving you more of a benefit of the doubt being as you keep renewing your subscription, and keep participating in the conversation. A true troll would just ignite the flame wars, sit in hibernation, and come back out when there's new fires to start.

George Croix

Kevjlang,
What 'assessment' are you going on about now?

Paula Flinn

Thanks for warning me, sverige1. I will not get my feelings hurt by being called names. Mama said; "Sticks & Stones...." If you put yourself forward to post on these sites, you have to be willing to take what comes, even name calling.

I do not lie or steal, so I don't like to be called a liar or a thief, but other than that, I can deal with it.

To: kevjlang and sverige1, thanks for backing me up. It is rough to be the Lone Ranger against the opposition. We all just see things different ways, through different lenses. We all have the right to express our opinions, I believe.

BTW, I really am not a baby boomer. I was born during WWII, not after it. Some of my ideas are "old school" and some of them are more modern. I am around young people most of the year. They think that I am "corny." I laugh with them when they laugh at me. It is not a disrespectful laugh, though.

George Croix

[whistling]
Again:
"Kevjlang,
What 'assessment' are you going on about now?'
This spaghetti bowl posting format is a royal pain in the whatever...

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Please refer to sverige1 [ aka troll :-) ] @ 2:23pm today.

George Croix

No.
When I say dismissed...I mean dismissed.
I don't read those postings.

George Croix

Kevjlang,
Can you hear me now?
Good...

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

gecroix, I didn't hear anything. Did I miss something? Or, are you trying to be crotchety and cantankerous like sverige1 says you are [beam]

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

A million "LOL's" [beam]

George Croix

Birds of a feather?
Ok by me....

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

gecroix, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to reply to. I completely lost my bearings here after I responded to sverige1's entry about you being among the "anti-intellectuals" and other things. I hope I didn't mis-characterize you when I noted that you aren't against opinions, just unfounded or unsupported ones. If I'm misunderstanding the direction of this thread, by all means help me get re-oriented.

George Croix

It's simple.
The troll has been dismissed for over a year, and when I say dismissed, I mean dismissed. I do not read those posts. I do not care what they say.
I waste zero time on them.

I am an equal opportunity dismisser, using my 14 buck a month subscription fee to choose what I want to interact with.
I encourage all to do the same....

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

You know, I wasn't even paying attention to whether you had responded to any of his comments.

In that event, my response to his assessment would really be for your consumption, but perhaps could be useful to others. Then again, it could be completely useless all around, but it's my attempt to contribute, nonetheless [beam][tongue]

Carlos Ponce

From now on, just sum up all the foul-ups of the current administration into three simple words:"THE OBAMA CRISIS". That says it all.

George Croix

Shame of it is, there are actually good, competent people in both Parties who are perfectly capable of helping solve or minimize the incessant Administration screwups and difficulties and all it would take to get started is POTUS to stop campaigning and insulting people every week/day, stop lying to us, adopt a little humility, ditch the arrogant A attitude, and ADMIT that he's in over his head, and needs help.
'Reset' to the rhetoric of Campaign 2008, and actually do what was advertised....
We'd all be better off, as neither a 100% right or left result is likely to be best for the country.
Best, of course, depending on whether you are giving, or receiving, as it always is....

Paula Flinn

True! Congress should be made up of ordinary people who have held ordinary jobs: plumbers, electricians, teachers, cabinet makers, accountants, nurses, computer whizzes, engineers, architects, small business owners, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, etc.

It should not be made up of just millionaire tycoons.

Impose term limits on members of Congress. 2 terms for Senators, 4 or 5 terms for House Members.

"Best" should be what is best for the citizens (tax payers) of this country, in combination with churches and charities (not just the govt.) stepping up to help the poor and homeless.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

I question the integrity of anyone that refuses to offer help where they can just because they don't like, or don't feel that the person needing the help has asked for it. If those smart, capable, wise, and competent people are there and they're standing by watching a crash and burn when they could be preventing it, then they really aren't very wise, capable, smart, or competent, in my book. You wouldn't stand by and let a refinery blow up just because you don't like the attitude of the guy running the plant, would you?

George Croix

The people in a refinery are not elected by the citizens of the town it's located in, (thank God...!!!!), and each has the authority to, by himself if possible, practical, and safe, take emergency action as needed to control or mitigate a situation.
Of course, an emergency in a refinery is not like one in an office, or even in the city at large, as the negative outcomes are nowhere near similar. A refinery emergency is acute, although some problems are systemic or chronic by virtue of a variety of varuiables.
I did NOT need to get my boss' permission or another supervisors agreement to validate and legitimize and complete the process for taking action.
I did not need the Plant Manager to sign off on my actions in such cases for them to be legal and to start the process.
A refinery is NOT a democratic republic.
HOWEVER, I HAVE, many times, been forced into emergency action precisely BECAUSE of people who knew better but ignored problems anyway, or refused to listen to anyone but themselves and made wrong moves, OR were just PO'd at how they were being treated or directed to work.
The only cure for that is real, participative, teamwork, and getting rid of the problems filtering down and causing them lower down the food chain. 'Getting rid' could be done one of two ways: literally replace the problem person(s), or in rare cases they wised up, learned from mistakes, relaized that just because nobody kissed their rear that they should not be offended, and moved forward in a positive manner.
I've ABSOLUTELY refused to help people, INCLUDING my boss(s), and, once at an emergency scene, the Plant Manager himself, who wanted me to do the wrong thing, that I knew was wrong, or that placed my people or the facility in danger.
Question my integrity? Face to face? Life is full of adventures....[whistling]
There are dozens of bills right now 'standing by' waiting to start the resolution of problems, but cannot even get to the floor for debate, much less action, because, in most cases, they have already been promised a veto - before even read.
The apples have to solve their problems, and the oranges theirs....
All the integrity in the world is useless in a system that cannot function without teamwork and governing leadership in all of it's parts, when the part with final authority has shown to have NONE.
Lets' get a 61 seat, veto proof Senate conservative majority, and a retained significant House majority, and give THEM two full years to fix the mess made during the first feckless two years, then we can decide who's been BS'g who about 'obstruction'....[beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam]

Paula Flinn

"Lets' get a 61 seat, veto proof Senate conservative majority, and a retained significant House majority, and give THEM two full years to fix the mess made during the first feckless two years, then we can decide who's been BS'n who about 'obstruction."

You know, I would agree with you if the said Senate conservative (or liberal) majority were not "bought off" by big corporations--both parties. AND if we had term limits for them. (2) 6 year terms in the Senate, then have someone else run--both parties.

I am not envious of the rich. I think that they deserve to have their money. I do believe that certain things should happen in our great country:
1. Taxes should be levied more fairly.
2. Minimum wage must be raised in accordance with rate of inflation.
3. We should all have Health Insurance (the U.S. is the last developed country to get it.)*

*Court of Appeals rejected another attempt to get rid of the ACA today.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

I believe you meant 67..... I think you'd also need another 56 Representatives. Regardless of which party or faction gets a super-majority, do you think that roughly half the country want's to be completely swamped by the other half? Whatever that super-majority rams through, half the people would be saying that the bills are the next coming of Obamacare.

Personally, none of us has any real say on anything more than 1 House seat and 1 Senate seat. Now, if I'm the swing voter for those two seats, I'm not sure I'm going to give my vote away to anyone that thinks that the only way he's going to get anything good done is if my fellow citizens give him a super-majority of like-minded legislators to work with. What the heck is wrong with working with the people you're assigned to work with?

I don't give a flip about whether my co-workers were "elected" to their job, or earned it through an interview process. We have jobs to do, regardless of who we're working with, or who is at the helm of the company. If I went in front of my board of directors and said that I can't do my job unless they fire 60 of my co-workers and put 60 new ones in of my choosing, I'm sure the board would do the right thing: fire me and bring in someone that's willing to do the work, and willing to cooperate with the rest of the team. The challenge in life is not in accomplishing something when you have just the perfect set of dominoes. It's in accomplishing things because you don't have the perfect set.

Our government IS a Democratic Republic. Our legislators are hired to represent ALL Americans, not just gecroix or kevjlang. I wouldn't want a legislature that was designed purely to represent me.

Carlos Ponce

Agreed that taxes should be levied more fairly.
If the mandatory minimum wage were to suddenly disappear you would see most wages go up. Market forces should prevail. Right now its an employer's dream, minimum wage is the starting rate. But let's say the mandatory rates disappear. A potential employee asks "How much do you pay?" $7 an hour. "Thank you, the man down the road is offering more."Okay I'll give you $7.50, $8, $10 with benefits. It's called negotiating, something lost when the government mandates a minimum wage.
And we should all EARN health benefits. Two students sit in class. One pays attention, does his homework, gets the lesson. The other plays around in class, gets his friend to do his homework, does poorly on tests. Do they both deserve an "A"? Why should I have to pick up the tab on health insurance for those who chose not to put any effort into their lessons? The Japanese have a saying: good education, good job, good life. Health care is one of the benefits of a good job. What you are saying is "It's okay to put no effort into your schooling, you will still reap the rewards." Take a lesson from the original "Ant and the Grasshopper", not the rewritten one. For those who for various reasons cannot there is Medicaid.

Carlos Ponce

I really don't think Liberals want taxes levied more fairly since currently the wealthy pay more than their fair share of the tax:
Top 1% pay 37% of all US Federal Income tax
Top 5% pay 57% of all Federal Income taxes paid.
Top 10% pay 68% of all Federal Income taxes paid.
Top 25% pay 85% of all Federal Income taxes paid.
Top 50% pay 97% of all Federal income taxes paid.
The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3% of all Federal Income taxes paid.

Chris Gimenez

We never have to wait more than a few hours to hear another obamination of a statement coming from the Liar-in-Chief. There is nothing he won't say or do for his ancestral brethren.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/28/Obama-Celebrates-Muslim-Contributions-to-the-USA

Evelyn Clark

Did you go to college.,ust asking [beam]

Chris Gimenez

I have a B.B.A. and an M.B.A. but based on you illiterate and grammatically disgusting posts I'd make a guess that you never finished high school.

Evelyn Clark

So you have all the time to go around and make fun of the other people. Just Asking[beam]

Evelyn Clark

Bvresident, I waited just to read how stupid you seems,. , You are rerally mad because a BLACK MAN became. wait a little longer and you can vote on another ptesident. Until then you can keep me laughing at you. . [beam] [beam]

Evelyn Clark

Bvresident. Sorry about that, I ment to put BLACK MAN became PRESIDENT. [beam] [beam]

Carlos Ponce

mytoby, would you vote for Dr. Benjamin Carson, Col. Alan West, Condoleeza Rice, Herman Cain or Senator J. C. Watts for President? Or do you limit yourself to Black Liberals?

Evelyn Clark

carlosponce, as a free American who I vote for is nobody business but mine. If the one I voted for lose i just grin and bare it.There will always be another election. [beam]

Evelyn Clark

bvresident, what nakes you think that because you have two degrees and I only have one,That you act as if this forum is only for a few people (YOU) .My son and daughter-inlaw have a Master degrees,I never heard them bragging like you.

As long as I pay the GDN I am able to be on this FORUM and there is nothing you can do to stop me.. So Stuff it and quit the name callking [beam] [beam]

Carlos Ponce

Thank you mytoby for expressing your views in these forums, I really enjoy reading them. You are an excellent representative of the Pro-Obama supporters of this nation.[beam]

Evelyn Clark

Carrrrrlosrponce, I am a Obama supporter now and forever. Just like some of the people backed Bush when there were no WOM destruction. Not one person in here can truthly say that liked everything there choise does. [beam] [beam]

Carlos Ponce

While I did not agree with everything George W. Bush did, I have to respectfully disagree with your perception of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Quite a few of my ex-students went to Iraq in the Military as Army Rangers and the like. They personally told me of finding WMD, securing and disposing of WMD while in the Iraqi heat in Haz-mat suits. They did not lie to me. Tests on the material showed it was mustard and Sarin gas. What they found could kill thousands.

Evelyn Clark

To Carlosrponce 8-6-2014 my grandson was there and said no WOM and I beleive him when he said he found no WOM.. You have your belief and I have
[sad] [sad]

George Croix

Where to begin, in a target rich environment....

First, I MEANT 61, because I screwed up....the correct number for a veto proof majority in the Senate is 67...thank you. It's a pipe dream, anyway....The Republicans will figure some way to snatch defeat from victory...
What I think about half the country is they didn't mind at all 'swamping' the other side for two years, with the 'fundamental change' we got, and it would not bother me one bit to do a two year 'swamping' in the other direction, only with SOME actual working together along the way, during that two years, rather than just getting the finger.
The point is coworkers in the private sector bear little if any resemblance to elected members of public government, and the same rules and procedures for one, do not and cannot work for the other. One man in private business can accomplish a lot. The only way one man does that in government, is to subvert and undermine his/her oath of office, and the Constitution.
You don't need to tell me about the supposition of representing ALL of the people - tell our leaders in DC, starting at the top, and while you're at it, remind him/them that 'perfect set' he/they insists on having, before doing squat, is NOT what governing is about - It WOULD help to not promise to veto legislation before it's even written...again....and again...and......................it's CO-equal government, all elected...not a monarchy....

******************************************************************************************
'Bought off by big corporations"?
Pretty good description of where all that 'shovel ready' round two stimulus money went - no small part utterly thrown away on 'green energy'.
'Hate the rich' is a divide tactic of the Democrat Party that usually works, precisely because so many of their members just don't seem to have the capacity to grasp that the ones telling them to hate the rich...ARE rich, themselves.
Aside from that, I have never met a single soul who told me 'I WANT to be poor...'although many, many have settled on that, rather than work for a living...
Taxes more fairly? Is that real fairly, or 'fair share' propaganda fairly? Because the only REAL fair tax is one that everyone pays.
It's absurd that half the people in the country pay NO federal income tax, and that the top 10% pay for 90% of all federal taxes. Fair? In La La Land, maybe....
No Free Rides. EVERYBODY should pay something, even if it's only a few % of income. Get some skin in the game, and thus stop the insanity of letting people paying in nothing, while taking out, outvoting the ones footing the bills, so essentially voting themselves OPM. Nutty, and nothing 'fair' about it.
Best bet = do AWAY with federal income tax, and go to a 5% minimum, 10% maximum federal sales tax. You play, you pay. Also gives some incentive to improve oneself, if we can ever get anyone into office again that thinks private sector jobs are better than government dependency
Minimum wage is supposed to be for youths and temporary workers looking for better jobs, not a career position - it's only that way now because of 'fundamental change'....
We should all have health insurance?
Fine. But, if you can't get medical care, and there's a big doctor exodus and further shortage, or get into a hospital, or have to pay 5 grand plus BEFORE your wonderful new insurance even STARTS to pay, how have you 'helped' the average person?
"*Court of Appeals rejected another attempt to get rid of the ACA today."
Hate to break it to you, but President Barack Obama 'got rid' of the ACA the first time he granted a unilateral, illegal waiver to his union buddies and other cronies, because the law forbids such. Since then, he's 'gotten rid' of the ACA about 40 more times, unilaterally, by delaying and waiving this and that, and the law NO LONGER EXISTS as written, due to HIM, not those darned Republicans, and the thusly stripped and ripped ACA remaining until 'after the election' is nothing but a monetary time bomb waiting to explode, with millions more to be devastated by it.
There's no way to even know who gets what money, who's covered and who's not, and what the total costs are, because the GAO itself has said it's so utterly messed up and bastardized by 'executive order' that they CANNOT figure out what's costing what, and where.
Blame for the effort to ditch the ACA? The name you're looking for is Barack Obama - the architect, and the demolition, all rolled into one....

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

To me, the only reason why workers in private enterprise and our legislators are different is because we voters keep rewarding these people that swear to not work together with another term in office to not work together. Most of the time, we elect vinegar and oil, but every now and then we replace some of the oil with baking soda to see the reaction. Every now and then, we manage to shake things up enough that we get something productive out, but then we let it sit and everything separates out again. Right now, it doesn't seem that we're even putting the vinegar and oil together in the same bottle. Their in different bottles, on different shelves, in completely different cabinets. Perhaps we're better off for it, but it still doesn't seem that's what we should be paying for.

If we had elected statesmen into office, we could see them using their partisan energy to some good use. However, no one wants to work with a statesman in fear of building up a potential presidential candidate.

George Croix

I have rarely, almost never, personally, seen two warring camps of people, private or government, with opposing ideas and ideologies, 'come together' on squat , all by themselves.
Probably 99% of the time, SOMEBODY of influence has to talk with them, cajole them, deal with them, to get them together to try to negotiate, then shepherd the process, encourage compromise, even settle for less if it means some good is done.
I KNOW it can be done, because I've done it, multiple times, and I'm just a simple old East Texas Piney Woods stomper...
What we have in D.C. is 'failya ta comoonicate', unless you consider insults to be 'communication, and a setting of a tomne of division, not working together.
It all started with 'I won', and has gotten worse, much worse, since then...
We don't elect a President to campaign for 8 years...he's elected to be the leader of the government, including the shepherd of the legislative flock.
So far, about all he's done is damn the one, and collude with the other.
In private enterprise, he'd be fired...or, become a college professor....[beam]

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Well, it's a two-sided failya ta comoonicate. I don't think it's much use to try and pinpoint the exact point where the failya started. The important thing is to fix the failya. To do that, however, would require convincing both sides that the state of non-communication is actually a failya. I believe they'd argue it's a success.

I think the House Speaker, the Whip's, and other House leaders have a responsibility to invoke procedures to open discussions and enforce decorum. The Vice President, President Pro Tem, and the other Senate leaders have similar responsibilities.

In the Executive Branch, and both houses of Congress, we have plenty of political leaders. However, spanning all of that, there appears to be a dearth of Government leaders. Considering that our next President is not currently sitting in the Executive Branch, it's quite likely that the legislative branch is where we'd like to find some quality of leadership. If it's there, no one is showing it.

Carlos Ponce

" I don't think it's much use to try and pinpoint the exact point where the failya started." gecroix is right. Instead of saying, it's time to compromise, cooperate, work together Obama told the Republicans "I won". That's "where the failya started."

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Jeez. These clowns are all politicians. It's politics. Time for them all to man up and get over it. That is the weakest excuse known to human kind if you really think THAT's why Congress and the President aren't working together. If I froze up for 5.5 years and counting every time someone smack-talked me, I'd probably be locked up in some institution somewhere.

Paula Flinn

Man, bvresident, you have a bleak outlook about everything!

How do you get motivated to get up in the morning with such a depressing outlook?

A friend just lost his job and told me it will cost him $160 a month for a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan. That's not so bad. That same friend was only making about $35K or 40K a year and pays plenty of taxes, so I don't know where you are coming from saying 1/2 the people do not pay taxes. Illegals don't pay taxes. The very poor maybe don't pay taxes.

10% pay 90% of the taxes? Really? So how come Mitt Romney paid less in taxes in 2011, than his secretary? Oh, that's right, loopholes for the rich. Off shore companies...trust funds...investments...other tax breaks ordinary people cannot get. The tax burden has shifted to the middle class. People in the middle class pay more percentage-wise than rich people do. I remember when SS income was taxed up to $50K. If you made more than that, you did not pay tax on it. Is it still the same way? Just asking....

Carlos Ponce

"So how come Mitt Romney paid less in taxes in 2011, than his secretary?"
Not true. His TAX RATE was less than his secretary because he gave away millions but he paid millions in taxes. In 2011 Mitt Romney made $21.7 million, gave $3 million in charitable contributions and paid $3.2 million in taxes an effective tax rate of 15.3%. So pflinn, do you want to take away the charitable contributions deduction, is that what you are saying? I dare say that Mitt's 15.3% for that one year is far more than you or I pay in taxes our entire lifetime. Unless you give $3 million to charity each year, don't judge.

Paula Flinn

Sorry, Above post (at 9:48 pm, July 30,2014) should not be to bvresident, but to gecroix. I got mixed up with "who wrote what" in this crazy mixed up format of posting.

I apologize.

You both, though, are very negative and almost despondent in your views of the future. I can only take it in small doses. Your pessimism is turning me away from continuing to post. I think that this will be my last one for awhile.

I do not see things your way, and my perspective is so different that I conclude that I do not belong here. So...goodbye.

Chris Gimenez

Negative and despondent? You forgot racist, angry, clinging to Bibles and guns, etc. You see, in your mind the country has finally almost proved it's not the dominant superpower running roughshod over the rest of the world because we have a black president. Now if the Hildebeast can be elected then we will be complete.

I wake up each day hopeful this country can recover from the "fundamental transformation" being promised to us and inflicted on us by a president who has about as much true American in him as do the illegal aliens swarming across our borders.

Sarah Palin stated in 2009 I think, that the Soviet Union would try to invade the Ukraine if they thought we had a president who was too spineless to stop them. She was 100% correct.

The boy president accused Mitt Romney of trying to bring back the Cold War when he said Russia was our biggest geo-political concern. Mitt was 100% correct.

Your boy president said Al Quaeda was "on the run" and was nothing more than a "JV" (junior varsity) terrorist organization. They've since taken over Iraq and are executing Christians and Iraq citizens by the thousands. Your boy president was 100% WRONG!

While it seems to be the mistaken belief on the Left that if we showed the rest of the world our "diversity" by electing a black Muslim for president, then everyone would become peace-loving and working together to stop the falsity of the global-warming hysteria and AIDS and world hunger and goals for nuclear weapons, etc., the reality has of course been far different.

Now we're being deliberately overrun by hundreds of thousands of criminals from foreign countries, the IRS is deliberately targeting political enemies of the president and the Entitlement Party, obamacare has caused millions of previously insured to be thrown off their policies (you know, the ones your president lied to the country more than thirty times about when he said we could keep our policies if we like them), our national debt has grown more under this administration than all those before him together, and the absolute lawlessness of this White House inhabitant goes on unabated.

Only those who despise this country can possibly believe we are better off under this community organizer's rule.

George Croix

If you can't post because of a large dose of reality, then I'm sorry to see you go, and wish you well. I will, personally, miss you.
While absent, I'd suggest learning the difference between negativity, and not swallowing a hook, line, ansd sinker whole.
And also the difference between despondent, and genuinely PO'd at the 'fundamental change' of the 'greatest nation the world has ever known'.
I KNOW it's a great country, and I'M MAD as HELL to see that what we got promised, a 'new Washington', and 'end to division', a 'new tone' turned into an incompetent, self-centered, arrogant pot stirrer at the helm of it.
Too many on the left, it seems HAVE to build straw men, call them haters or angry or demoralized or something, so they don't have to actually find an honest way to rebutt them. Don't become one of them, ma'am...you seem quite a bit more engaged and thoughtful than most of your compatriots.
I FULLY AGREE that this jumbled up mess calling itself a posting venue is enough to make anyone 'despondent'...[beam]
Imagine if the newspaper was printed like this.......................

Carlos Ponce

pflinn, sorry to see you go. The world would be boring if everyone agreed with one view of the world. Your postings reminded me of the many spirited discussions we used to have in the teacher's lounge. We respected each opinion even when it differed from our own. There was always one teacher who didn't like "politics" being discussed and had her lunch in her classroom. But what did you expect when the topic was of a political nature? bvresident and gecroix both express a view that is not unique. This is a great country but some do not like the direction in which it is heading. What you view as negative and despondent represents their thinking. The "P" in pflinn probably stands for something like "Paula" not "Pollyanna".

George Croix

Yes, really.
Mitt ALREADY paid full rate taxes when he made the money in the first place. Now, he's taxed again at a lower invetsment rate, but that's still DOUBLE taxation.
His secretary does NOT pay a higher tax rate on first earned money than Mitt (or, me, for that matter...)...he pays the TOP tax rate...she, lower.
This si the type of divisive, intentionally dishonest double speak that the 'leaders' on the left use to keep their supporters convinced that they have it worse than others. What it is, is a lie. Plain and simple.
Only the Left could possibly get away with saying, and get people to believe, that a person paying millions in taxes on earned income paid less than a person paying thousands...or hundreds.

Sorry you're leaving. I WILL miss you.
Maybe we'll get a President someday who's for ALL of the people, and can unite and encourage, rather than divide and demean.
Maybe....
Until then, NONE of us are mmade better by suffering ANY fools gladly...

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

To my knowledge, investors are never taxed when they take their invested funds out. Their capital gains, yes. The original investment, no.

For example, if I earn $1000 and get taxed 25% and then invest the $750 dollars and then sell it a few months later for $1000, I will be taxed only on the $250 earnings--the only part of the return that hadn't already been subject to taxes. If I pay 25% taxes on the $250, that's $62.50. So, that means that the $1000 originally earned will have put $937.50 net into my pockets. Unless my math or my information is incorrect, none of the money was taxed twice.

George Croix

The important thing is knowing the exact point at which the failure could begin to end.
That could be tomorrow...
It won't, because we do not have leadership that has any desire to do anything other than demonize, deflect, defame, and divide...at least until...after the election...

George Croix

"I think the House Speaker, the Whip's, and other House leaders have a responsibility to invoke procedures to open discussions and enforce decorum. The Vice President, President Pro Tem, and the other Senate leaders have similar responsibilities."
Must the most complicated answer always be the one chosen instead of the simplest and fastest way? Only ONE person needs to make a move, because unless he does, nothing anyone else does has a chance anyway.
The answer is SIMPLE, not complicated. One thing, not multi-faceted.
You remind me of some folks I was helping to instruct up at A&M fire school some years ago. Of the group of 3 instructors I was with, the only one who'd ever actually been to a real, rip roarer of a fire emergency was...me. The rest had, thankfully for them, only been to training schools and drills.
Long story short, on one project, a complicated, 3 level assault on multiple fires strung out over a large area, great and detailed plans were made by my 3 co-instructors with their respective groups for approach, which fires to attack and secure first, what to do then, etc., etc., etc. When it came my turn, I told the assembled 50 or so folks that the most important thing to remember at a real emergency scene is to keep your actions as simple as possible that will still get results, and don't get tunnel vision. We began.
Lots of fire, heat, smoke, shouting, commanding, and grunting and some cussing and off they all went toward the fires. After a couple minutes, a LONG time on such a project, I walked around behind them all, and shut off the main fuel valve to the project. Fires all out. 50 people staring at me like I was crazy.
Fellow instructors mad as H, and why'd you do that'g me, and insisting that they'd have gotten it done.
My answer. WHY would you go to all that trouble, when all you had to do was close ONE valve, at no risk to anybody. I KNOW you guys can handle the gear and have the courage. I'M trying to teach you to THINK, and use the simplest, fastest way that does the job.
The point?
Rather than dance around trying to get a dozen people to start making moves, ONE, our President, could call up the others, express GENUINE desire to meet and work out the governing thingy in actual negotiation and compromise, and I'd bet the farm that a majority would Do that with him.
ONE man. The one we elected to be the top leader, is all it would take to turn things around....
Occam's Razor would work just as well In D.C. as it did at Texas A&M...

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

It takes one person to start a conversation. It can be any person. It takes two to have a conversation. If you don't have the second, you'll never have anything productive. We have no idea if there will be a second in the conversation because no one wants to be the first.

It's completely ridiculous to credit one person for there being no communication when there is nothing anywhere that says that only one person is allowed to start it.

From what I understand, all of the office phones available to the elected officials work two ways. I don't give a flying gnats rear end if Obama won't call Boehner, or Boehner won't call Reid, or Cruz won't call Biden, or Feinstein won't call McConnell. Show some leadership. Instead of calling CNN or FOX, call Obama. If Obama won't answer the phone, Boehner can call Biden or Reid, and they can move WITHOUT the president. All it takes is 67 Senators and 290 Representatives, and the president doesn't matter. If it's the RIGHT thing to do, you can get the votes.

How many family feuds go unresolved because both parties are too stubborn and too proud to be the first to pick up the phone. No excuse. Those clowns in DC are all hired to be ADULTS. It's time one, and then some, and then, maybe all, make an attempt to show we're getting some of what we're paying for.

I just don't buy into all this "He dissed me, my feelings are hurt, and I won't call him" whiny BS. If their skins are that thin, how did they ever survive a single campaign without bawling their brains out?

I can't believe that so many people want to give these clowns a mulligan over politicking. If Boehner, Reid, Obama, et al, can't get beyond the political "demonizing" thrown at them from their political opponents, then let them all resign and we can put people in place that aren't so hypersensitive.

George Croix

"I just don't buy into all this "He dissed me, my feelings are hurt, and I won't call him" whiny BS."
Why not?
All you have to do is watch any POTUS perpetual campaign speach, and see the poor, maligned, innocent thing drone on about how mistreated he is.
Don't you believe what's right in front of your own eyes?
WOULD our President lie to us....??[smile][wink][beam][whistling][huh][lol]

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Like I said. I don't buy it. However, there seems to be quite a few people that do. Probably the same ones that buy those diet products they sell on late night TV. You know, the ones that promise to make you 30 lbs lighter in about one month, without you having to exercise, change your eating habits, or any of that--the ones that actually make you 30 lbs lighter--in the wallet? I don't buy that BS, either.

It's all a circus freak show in Washington. The one that Ringling Bros. puts on is much more entertaining, and much cheaper, too. The one in Washington is adding around $1 Trillion to the debt each year.

Evelyn Clark

gecriox, every president we ever had has LIED .[beam] [beam]

Carlos Ponce

Message from David Boreanaz, American actor, television producer, and director star of television series " Bones", "Angel", and "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" - "So here we are in a Cold War now with Russia. Sanctions aren't going to cut it. Putin is Nuts and a serious threat to the USA. Grow some Obama."

George Croix

I can't find what I did with the 2013 info, so will stand corrected to this 'much better' 2010 report from the IRS itself until i get more time to look:
It's not me, it's not Mitt, it's not Limbaugh...it's the IRS' figures:

1. The top 0.1% of US taxpayers paid 18% of all federal income taxes collected.

2. The top 1% of US taxpayers paid 37% of all federal income taxes paid.

3. The top 5% of US taxpayers paid 59% of all federal income taxes paid.

4. The top 10% of US taxpayers paid 71% of all federal income taxes paid.
(NOTE: I had it at 90%...)

5. The top 25% of US taxpayers paid 87% of all taxes collected.

6. The top 50% of taxpayers paid almost all taxes collected (98%).

7. The bottom half of taxpayers paid only 2% of all federal income taxes paid in 2010. (NOTE: I had it at zero)

You'll note that the IRS figures vary significantly from the talking points that go with the 'fair share' BS.

George Croix

"To my knowledge, investors are never taxed when they take their invested funds out. Their capital gains, yes. The original investment, no.'
Where do you figure the ORIGINAL money made to start investing with came from, the Fairy Money Mother? It was all untaxed, free money that just magically appeared and was put into investments??? [beam][beam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHkT3RJJBCA

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Like I wrote, the initial income that yielded the investment capital was what was left after taxes. You work, you get paid, you pay taxes, and then whatever is available for after tax investments is not subject to taxation when you cash out.

Now, when you buy stuff, you pay sales taxes, so in that regard, you're getting taxed on dollars that have already been taxed. But, that's not the same as investing $750 dollars in Valero and then cashing out $1000 and then paying tax on the $250 gained.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Now, if you're investing with pre-tax dollars, you'll pay taxes on both the initial capital and the gains. But, that still is just single taxation.

George Croix

"You know, the ones that promise to make you 30 lbs lighter in about one month, without you having to exercise, change your eating habits, or any of that--the ones that actually make you 30 lbs lighter--in the wallet?'
I dunno - I just simply stopped eating too much, and exercising every day, in 1985, for free, and still have the 65 plus pounds off.
BUT, that does sound an awful lot like the ACA promises; everybody will save an average of 2500 dollars a year, everybody will have 'better' insurance, everybody will have more access to care, and not 'one single dime' will be added to the deficit'.
Anybody know where that one guy on the planet, Mr. Everybody, lives? Because it sure isn't in the U.S.A.....[beam]
Just like diet miracle promises...all more lies than a golf tournament....

George Croix

So, you pay the first time.
Then, you pay the second time on what you made with what was left after paying the first time, which you would not have had at all unless you made it the first time.
And, that's not really paying twice?

Well, I never was any good at math.....

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

The $250 buck you made on the investment is money you hadn't earned previously, so, therefore it's subject to taxation. The $750 you originally invested is not taxed again when you pulled the $1000 out of the investment, so therefore, you didn't pay tax on your original income twice, only on the new money. If the investment broke even, you would pay no taxes at all on the $750 you pulled out. If the investment lost $250, you could offset investment gains elsewhere with that loss. So, if you invested $750 from this paycheck, and then next month invested another $750 in a different investment, and one gained $250 and the other lost $250, your net gain was 0, so therefore your net tax liability is $0. However, you have to report all of it on your return.

Of course, it wouldn't bother me if the law were changed such that investment earnings aren't taxed, but that's another subject.

George Croix

I get it.
I buy a pack of seeds, and pay tax on it.
Then, when my cucumbers pop up, I pay tax on them.
Cucumbers I'd never have had if not for already paying tax on the seeds I bought.
But, I'm not REALLY taxed twice, just once on the seeds, and once on what I got from the seeds, which I'd never have gotten if I hadn't bought the seeds and paid the tax in the first place.
So, I had no money, then I had some, and paid a tax on that money, then, from that same money leftover, I got more money, which never would have been possible without the first money, already taxed, and I then pay tax on money made from the SAME original leftover money, but, I'm not really taxed twice on it...
This reminds me of how our politicians think when they claim to save us a lot of money by NOT doing something....


kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Actually, you got the salary first, You didn't have to pay the taxes to get the salary.

Each time new money comes into the equation, Uncle Sam gets a cut. The money left over after paying taxes is not subject to taxation again. When you harvest your cucumbers, you only have to pay taxes on that part of the crop that exceeds your investment. Yes, there are other things you could have done with the seeds that wouldn't have subjected you to more taxes, but few of those would have allowed you to finish with increase the number of seeds you have. So, you could be happy with $750, and pay no additional taxes, or you could turn that $750 into $1000, and keep $937.50. So, as far as growth goes, you have the option of being happy with 100% of 0 by putting it under the mattress, or you can get 75% of $250.

Yes, you are getting taxed a second time. However, the second round of taxes still isn't on the seed money, but on the crops you reaped.

Perhaps not the most ideal scenario, but, it's the time-honored one we deal with on our savings accounts, Lotto winnings, etc. Except, I don't think you can deduct the price of the lottery ticket that won. I believe you can, however, deduct the cost of the losing tickets, up to the amount you won.

George Croix

I'm just going to ahve to agree that I'm right, and call is a day on the subject....[wink]

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Look at it this way, if you didn't have to keep paying taxes on everything, what would our politicians have to play with throughout their careers? Heck, they're going to have to come up with some really creative ways to get us to pay for all the fun they've been having over the last few decades. It's going to take lots of years of us paying taxes on our taxes and our parent's taxes, and grandparent's taxes, all the way back to Adam and Eve, if we're going to avoid having to bestow decades of our descendant's earnings to pay off the debt. If you're convinced that they're already double-taxing us, they'll find it really easy to actually do that.

Carlos Ponce

"Let me tell you how it will be There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman Yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five percent appear too small Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman Yeah, I'm the taxman
(If you drive a car, car) I'll tax the street
(If you try to sit, sit) I'll tax your seat
(If you get too cold, cold) I'll tax the heat
(If you take a walk, walk) I'll tax your feet (Taxman)"

George Croix

I can hardly wait to hear how a 'government job' is as beneficial to our economy as a private one is, and how an unemployment check really is more 'bang for our buck' than a job is.
Nancy wouldn't lie...would she...?
Perhaps it depends on who's the banger, and who's the bangee....

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Are government contractor jobs beneficial to the economy? Now, I do know for a fact that government employees buy houses, cars, groceries, and utilities. Are those bad for the economy? Most optimal bang for the buck? Maybe not. The government jobs that seem to be the biggest waste of money are the 537 we elect people to fill. After all, they cost us over a billion dollars per year over and above their salaries and the salaries of the staffers. Now, there are many people getting paid with our tax dollars that do add value, some even more value than may private sector jobs. Beyond that, it's hard to put an economic value on our soldiers, police officers, fire fighters, and other emergency responders. So, certainly not every dollar spent on salaries by the government is wasted, but there are definitely things the federal government can't do as effectively and efficiently as private companies. There may be cases where that might not be a bad thing, though. However, regardless of whether the federal government should be doing something, should be hiring it out, or should be staying out of it all together, those things should be getting done much more cost-effectively than they are now.

George Croix

"...is as beneficial to our economy as a private one is..."
THOSE are my words.
Jobs paid with taxpayer money ARE less beneficial to the economy than those paid with private sector money, as in the former money is just recycled back to where it came from, the latter added anew.
'Waste' was your characterization...

If this were not so, then we'd be looking to Greece or France as economic superpower models to emulate, lands of plenty for all built on 'government money'....industrial and manufacturing superstars based on government control.
One can only wonder how we ever made it to the 20th century without a federal income tax...and without 'progressives'...

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

You can certainly make that argument. However, I doubt you'd say that the government shouldn't hire soldiers, defense contractors, public health and safety workers, border patrol and customs agents, etc. How beneficial would it be to our economy if we either didn't regulate our ports, or let Ikea, Dole, and Toyota run them?

I'm thinking that there are some government roles that, if they went away, would be detrimental to significant sectors of our economy.

I certainly wouldn't want the government making all of our cars, boats, planes, refrigerators, TVs, etc. However, I don't think our economy needs two or three companies going off and designing a bunch of weapons, vehicles, and war craft of various sizes, styles, and configurations, all more than what the government wants and needs, but selling them for nominal profits that yield a cost far greater than if they were built to government designs. Even worse, if they couldn't sell them to the US Government, that they used their free-enterprise privilege to sell them to countries not friendly to us.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

You try to make it sound like only 'progressives' are responsible for our government spending. That would be a pretty ridiculous claim. I don't think that Boehner would have any more difficult time spending 10 Trillion dollars than Pelosi would. I think Ted Cruz could burn through that much with relative ease, too.

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Response to gecroix posted at 6:29 pm on Thu, Jul 31, 2014,
Response to kevjlang posted at 10:31am on Fri, Aug 1, 2014:

I tire when I hear a blowhard "customer" at a DMV office or at a public school say things like "I pay your salary!" As if it's supposed to mean something that the customer MAY have a job from the private sector, while the lowly governmental worker (in the customer's eyes) doesn't work as hard for his/her salary. Or that the job itself is substandard, compared to a corp. exec at Texaco. Our President said it best:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Workers like you--for the federal, state, and local government--are so important for our vital services. And it frustrates me sometimes when people talk about "government jobs" as if, somehow, those are worth less than private sector jobs. I think there's nothing more important than working on behalf of the American people."

Way to go, Mr. Obama!

Carlos Ponce

There are those who take their government job seriously and work earnestly and there are those who refer a large number of people trying to abide by the law as "a**holes" using a government provided e-mail account on a government provided computer. sverige, how would you like to apply at a government agency then be called an"a**hole" by one hired to serve the public? Or was President Obama not referring to those who work for the IRS?

George Croix

On some planets, the obvious exceptions, including the ones mandated by the Constitution as in the purview of government, prove all rules.
Not on this one...
Also on this planet, the point that 'progressives' believe in government to run and solve all vastly moreso than non-'progressives' is a point, and actions on that point, easily observable, even to Stevie Wonder.
Why you have so much trouble just focusing on the plate of food served in front of you rather than specualting on all the other diners and even the kitchen staff is not something I can help you with......although, I've tried....
[wink]

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

You do, however, believe that "non-progressives" do find it appropriate to expect government to solve problems that government has no business solving, though, correct?

A few cases in point: what kinds of scientific theory should be taught in schools, what types of alcoholic beverages should be available during which hours of the day and days of the week, what is considered music and what is considered to be not. Conservatives tried to get the government to stop Elvis and the Beatles. Larry Flint and Hugh Hefner spent lots of money over the years to fight censorship attempts.

Which side costs the country and business more money in their fights to have government step into things it doesn't need to be in? I'll bet that you could get a grant to study it :-)

George Croix

Only the cherry tree knows for sure....

I expect robust DEBATE, not Myway Highway, and then whine about 'obstructionism'.
I see no reason why creation shouldn't be championed as much as evolution is. Actually, way I figure it, God created evolution. Problem solved....
I don't figure fewer drunks is a bad thing, and am surprised too hear that anyone would, except for the legalized pot heads, of course. We should have at least one day a week when we can drive with a little less chance of being killed by some idiot full of intoxicants, and that should be an easily bipartisan position. Isn't it? Make it Wednesday, if Sunday is just too much a burden...
I like the Beatles and Elvis, and still do. I was a Democrat back then, having not yet matured and wised up, but note their music is still the same now that I'm no longer denying reality as a political choice. I doubt I'll 'evolve' to the point of my 'progressive' friends and representatives who think that some rapper calling for cops to be killed is a good 'song'.
Larry and Hugh's efforts are easily matched and exceeded by the folks trying to protect their rights to avail themselves of the protections of the 2nd Amendment, without which, the First would soon cease to exist.
Which side promotes capitalistic principals, personal initiative, personal responsibility, and aid to our own citizens before aid to others, the foundations on which the country grew great. And which side promotes socialistic principals, personal dependency, it's always somebody else's fault, and letting the floodtide of illegal aliens grow?
I'll Take Curtain Number 1, overall, with a nod to the fact that no one system and ideology suits all circumstances, and nobody, but nobody, gets anything done if they wait until they get everything they want.
We can see that every day.....

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Well, just because Spec's can't sell Jack Daniel's on Sunday doesn't mean that no one's drinking it on that day. Despite shutting liquor stores down at 9 pm daily, and entirely on Sunday, Texas drunks still kill more people per capita per year than a large majority of other states. Among the states with lower drunken driver deaths are Nevada where you can buy liquor all day, every day, and such liberal strongholds as California and New York. Doesn't appear that social-conservative blue laws solve the problem.

George Croix

"gecriox, every president we ever had has LIED ."

I'm quite certain a lot of them have, certainly in my lifetime, on both sides, and you may well be right. I admit I can't verify that off the top of my head.
BUT, since you've made the all inclusive statement, how about listing one lie told by each of our 44 Presidents, to educate the rest of us?

As I wait for that list, I'll be living in the present, with the President we have, and not cutting him any slack for being a liar just because other people have lied. Same goes for the other politicians. What other people do wrong is NO excuse for doing the same.
I'm not offering any discounts based on their Party, Race, Color, Ethnic Origin, Sexual Orientation, Religion, or Being The First Of Anything.
I don't sell bait, and only play poker and Go Fish.
Others are free to make all the excuses their 14 bucks a month allow....

If it's too hard to actually back up that claim with one example for each of the 44, I'll be a sport, and settle for, oh, an even dozen prominent lies by the current POTUS, to keep it simple, and to save typing space....
That shouldn't take long at all.
I'll start it off:
"If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan. Period"
Next......
[whistling]

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Did George Washington lie when he said he couldn't tell a lie? I'm waiting anxiously to find out [beam]

Carlos Ponce

I cannot tell a lie. George did lie (on his bed). The tale of the cherry tree ("I cannot tell a lie, I did it with my little hatchet") was made up by Parson Weems in his book "The Life of Washington" published in 1800. It should be considered more of a parable extolling the virtue of telling the truth and not a fact.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Yes, I do recall learning that the cherry tree story was folklore.

Sylvia Szucs

He is taking a long view of things, and history will very likely show that he is charting a sensible path through extremely difficult political terrain.

Carlos Ponce

Sylvia, all presidents in the 20th and 21st century have charted a "path through extremely difficult political terrain". But this president has steered this country in a direction that no previous president would dare go. Not even President Clinton agrees with his policies. What you call "sensible" I call dangerous.

George Croix

Well, then in that case, those blue laws certainly have plenty of company with 'fundamental change' when it comes to solving nothing, and just making bad...worse...

Evelyn Clark

To anyone that knows what to do in this economy. RUN for President and then you can fix everything . 2016 is waiting.

Carlos Ponce

Calvin Coolidge inherited an economy in far worse shape than anything we have ever seen in our lifetime. His leadership inspired Congress to cut the budget in half, eliminating much unneeded burden on the American taxpayer ushering in an era of economic prosperity known as the Roaring Twenties. Problem is too many want their Pork preserved. We need to replace an entitlement mentality with work ethic. Run for President? Look at what the Left does to the families of any Conservative who runs. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, not even a Democrat.

George Croix

What's wrong with the economy?
Isn't it exactly what you voted for...twice....the 'fundamentally changed' economy?
The economy with more people on food stamps and other assistance than at anytime...ever.
The economy with real, non-phonied up unemployment at about 12%.
The economy where rather than a good job, the focus is on raising minimum wage.
The economy where the ACA has only begun to make it's miseries knwon.
The economy where so much worthless money ahs been printed to hide just how bad things are, that we are primed for another monetary meltdown.
The economy where a 'fair share' means somebody else pays...a lot....
The economy where we are told to hate and envy the 'evil 1%'...by people who, themselves, are in the 1%.
The economy where college graduates find their next step in life is moving back in with their parents because there are no jobs for them.
The economy where we have to call a 26 year old a 'child' so they can get insurance coverage, because they can't find a good job to get their own.
The economy that has seen the policies of POTUS lead the American Middle Class into second place behind Canada.
The economy overseen by a guy who after 5 1/2 years is STILL blaming Everybody Else but himself for the slowest recovery...ever.
The economy where business is literally strangled by THOUSANDS of new regulations.
That economy that we get another 29 months to enjoy before a new hand takes the reins.
That economy?
What's wrong with it.....????

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Can the President fix the economy? Any President? If so, then why do we need corporations and CEOs and entrepreneurs and production facilities? I guess that if we had socialism, then we could expect the government to fix the economy, since it would own the markets and factors of production and could compel people to buy stuff regardless of whether they wanted it or needed it.

But, wait, I thought conservatives thought that private enterprise is the way to go. Heck, I guess I don't know which way is up or down anymore. Too much rhetoric coming from too many directions.

I wonder what the economy would do if I and a whole lot of others didn't buy a new car, refrigerator, boat, etc. if we didn't need them? Something similar to what we've had over the past 6 years? Nah. Gotta be the government's fault that my car and my appliances are still running and that I don't want a boat.

For more than 3.5 years, Congress and the President haven't been able to agree on changing the economic playing field. That's probably a good thing. I'd prefer a government that didn't think it had some supreme means of maneuvering the economy and just insisted that companies and consumers figure out the game and play it. My observation is that over the past 6 years, there's been very few playing in the economic playground. Perhaps if Corporations decided to play the cards they have, rather than waiting for the government to start giving away a bunch of aces in the form of "incentives", we might get an economy back that go more than about 5 year or so between deep recessions.

Or, perhaps you're talking about a different government than the inefficient and ineffective one we've had, for the most part, for decades?

George Croix

Are you naturally prone to hyperbolic near hysteria, or is it a skill you've worked long and hard on....[wink]
Is it the Congress (that would be a Senate and a House, and both Parties in them) that in the last 5.5 years has caused quite literally thousands of new regulations to be put into effect by the various agencies that an Administration is responsible for, and appoints 'leaders' to?
No.
Is it the Congress that in the last 5.5 years has expanded the powers of the EPA to the detriment of business in general, and electricity production in particular?
No.
Is it the Congress sitting on Keystone, and limiting as much as possible energy production on federal lands?
No.
Can the President FIX the economy all by himself?
No. But he sure can make a royally bigger mess of it with ideologically driven Administration moves.
Can a President ASK for help when he's clearly in over his head and has created an atmosphere of trust in himself only slightly less poisonous than the atmosphere of Jupiter?
Yes.
Will he?
No.
Why?
Because a bad economy is such a useful tool for an ideologue 'progressive' who can then use it to divide people more, to put more under the government dependency wing, and to stoke class envy...alll of which are good for getting out the vote...of the people you screwed so you could get their vote...who do not know, or do not care, as long as more promises to give them stuff and take it away from others are made.
Well, actually, POTUS HAS fixed that part pretty darn good, or at least a word that sounds similar....[wink]
If you haven't observed that, then you've been an amnesia victim....or, a 'progressive'. Not much difference, except there's hope that the amnesia victim might recover some day, and return to normal.....

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Um, did I mention 5.5 years? No, I don't think that came from me.

So, I ask again, what has changed in the last 3.5 years to account for continued stagnation. From the government standpoint, everything has been stable. Aren't companies able to figure anything out without the government to help them? Seems to me that good companies recognize they can't, and shouldn't, depend on government whims to coincide with their own whims, and, instead, figure out how to work their way through and around what the government does or doesn't do.

Considering that lots of companies are doing reasonably well, especially based on the profit reports out of Wall Street over the past few years, it seems to me that the government isn't doing that bang-up a job of crippling the economy. So, could it be that consumers just aren't spending frivolously enough to give you the economy to meet your expectations?

I'm not going to claim that regulations don't cause businesses to alter their plans, or even impact profitability, but I don't think that businesses are as much a victim of government as you seem to think. After all, I don't think that the regulations enacted during the first half term were anything comparable to the regulations put in place in the early days of the EPA back in the 70's and 80's.

My thinking: quit giving businesses and consumers a free pass in your economic theory. And, quit expecting government to figure out what the market has more than enough capability to figure out.

We have a 3.5 year old playing field. I'm not buying your premise that the reason we don't have more people playing is merely because of the government.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Is it not true that the US is a net energy exporter, and that the US was a net energy importer for quite some time before 2009? While I don't know all the reasons why Keystone hasn't been approved, I don't think that beginning construction of it, nor having it online would significantly impact US energy prices. If it does, it could cost production jobs elsewhere--especially in sites where production and transportation costs are significantly higher than Keystone.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

When it comes to the government and the economy, my request is the following:

Do me a favor, and don't do me any favors. If I can't go from here on my own, I'm not going anywhere with the government's help.

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, are You saying Warren G. Harding was worse than The President?

You said "Calvin Coolidge inherited an economy in far worse shape than anything we have ever seen in our lifetime' ,so this would make Harding the worse?

Carlos Ponce

I should have elaborated and stated that President Harding and Vice President Coolidge inherited the worst economy ever. Coolidge adopted some of Harding's policies following Harding's death but the recovery was largely credited to Coolidge. To assume Harding's predecessor, Woodrow Wilson was the worse would be faulty logic.

Carlos Ponce

As for who is the worse president ever, the jury is still out but BO is trying his best for that title. There is still time for a last minute miracle. I'll let you know.

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Response to carlosrponce posted at 6:45 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014:

Carlos -
A few years back, did you ever see the "Boston Legal" episode where Cari O'teri was guest star? She was a secretary who got fired by her boss b/c the boss simply got tired of her being "ignorant" of life in general. Cari was going around the office, championing "the cause of women" and would say to vote for any woman who runs for office. At first, she supported Hillary. Then, when in real life Barack Obama overshadowed and became the nominee, Cari told everyone to get behind Sara Palin. Cari had no sense of thinking ability and would back ANY woman, just for the sake of having a woman as a leader.

Here's an interesting question: Would you support Colin Powell as a candidate for President, VP, secy state, et cetera? I might. He seems to be one of those rare individuals who can meet in the middle. I do know that if the big guy from New Jersey runs, he would also be a viable candidate.

Carlos Ponce

I never saw "Boston Legal". I seriously doubt if Colin Powell would ever be nominated again for any position you mention. He's burned too many bridges. Like I told my Republican friends in 2012 when Mitt Romney was nominated. Too many Conservatives would simply sit home. The same for Colin Powell.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

The fact that Colin Powell isn't prone to just say anything in order to get support from his "base" says a lot to me. Politically, a kiss of death. From the standpoint of statesmanship and pragmatism, it's a good sign. His honesty and straight-shooting are what earned him admiration within the Joint Chiefs and State Department. However, as a political candidate, I think he'd be too prone to telling the truth over following the script.

George Croix

Honesty and straight shooting oddly and uncharacteristically set aside for a couple years in the Valerie Plame 'outing' Special Prosecutor/National Media witch hunt....
I'd love to know what the reaosn for that was....

JBG JBG

In my opinion, We need more candidates who can meet with the other side and get back to bipartisanship and make the government work for the people! Years ago, we had that! what happened to it,... I would not want to say. One thing I know and that is the people's interests are not being served with all this infighting and gridlock.
-
I believe if John McCain had chosen the right Vice-Presidential candidate in 2008, he would be President now. He made a big mistake going after Palin. I've always thought he did. Of coarse, I was glad at the time because I was supporting Obama. McCain took a gamble with Palin, but it was the wrong gamble. Personally I think he would have faired better with a Romney or a Rubio.
-
I will be voting Republican in 2016 even if they run "Quick Draw McGraw!"

George Croix

The latest WSJ/NBC News polling shows POTUS with an new low in approval rating of 40%. This latest 1% drop came from lower Democrat and African-American support.
Do ya figure thay are just 'bashing' the President, or finally facing the reality of his incompetence and failures?

Paula Flinn

Not bashing! Stating facts. Press always goes for the negative, and sheep-like people follow, blaming Obama for what Congress has not done.

Obama Accomplishments:

The largest investment in clean energy in history.
The largest investment in education in history.
The largest middle class tax break in history.
The largest investment in infrastructure since the 50s.
Ending a ban on federal funding of stem cell research.
Saving the American Auto Industry.
Overhauled the Student Loan program.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell
SCHIP legislation providing health care for millions of children.
Preventing the economy from another Great Depression.
Justice Department will no longer defend DOMA
The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act.
The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.
Major Credit Card Reform.
Small Business Investment Act.
Increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Expanded the Nurse-Family Partnership to all low-income,
first-time mothers.
Sonia Sotomayor becomes first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.
Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Act.
Health Care Reform.
Education Reconciliation Act.
New START treaty.
Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services.
Established the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
Reformed deferral rules to curb tax advantages for investing overseas.
Cut salaries for 65 bailout executives.
Wall Street Reform.
Cancellation of the F-22 weapons program.
New global nonproliferation initiative to keep nuclear materials out
of the hands of terrorists.
Re-established United States standing in the world.
Kept us safe from another 9/11 type attack.
SWIFT JUSTICE FOR OBL
QADDAFY IS GONE

And all in the face of Republican obstruction.

Plus:
1. The economy has improved just about every month of the Obama Administration. Created more jobs in his Admin. than President Bush.
2. No president in our history has cut government spending more than Obama.
3. He has had enormous achievements in foreign affairs; getting Syria to admit to and give up WMD without firing a shot for one; getting Iran to open up to inspections for another.
4. He is getting ready to act on the immigration crisis, without Congress, if necessary. Speaker Boehner invited him and encouraged him to do so.

You Republicans are in trouble! The fringe "loonies" have taken over your party. They don't even get along with each other, much less the moderate Republicans or the Democrats. Better clean house and let them form their own party.

Carlos Ponce

"Ending a ban on federal funding of stem cell research." Really? Since when was it banned? George W. Bush approved of Federal funding for Umbilical Cord Stem cell Research and Adult Stem Cell Cell Research. All progress in Stem Cell research was through these two sources. He limited funding for embryonic stem cell research since these all produced tumors. All Obama did was overturn an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.
Whereas, Umbilical card and adult stem cell research has shown much success but there are still major problems with embryonic stem cell research so why go there?
See: "Ten Problems with Embryonic Stem Cell Research "
http://www.icr.org/article/ten-problems-with-embryonic-stem-cell-research/

J. Shaffer

The previous Administration allowed the National Institutes of Health to fund human embryonic stem cell research on cell lines created before an arbitrary date, August 9, 2001, but prohibited research on cell lines created after that date. The Executive Order signed by President Obama today lifts this restriction, which has no basis in science and was not required by any law.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Fact-Sheet-on-Presidential-Executive-Order

Carlos Ponce

Embryonic Stem cell research has not produced any positive results. All Positive results come from Adult and Umbilical cord Stem Cell research. Embryonic Stem cell research is just a dead end. Why throw money at something scientists and doctors say will will not work? Greed, perhaps?
"Dr Oz announces that embryonic stem cells are a dead end and will NOT be the cure! "
http://sue-catholicview.blogspot.com/2009/04/dr-oz-announces-that-embryonic-stem.html
"Stem Cells: Dr. Oz on 'Oprah"
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/tom-hoopes/stem_cells_dr._oz_on_oprah
"Is the End Coming for Embryonic Stem Cells?"
http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-january-and-february-2012/end-coming-embryonic-stem-cells.html
Embryonic Stem Cell "Research" Is a Dead End -- Practitioners Admit It!
http://vitalsignsblog.blogspot.com/2005/06/embryonic-stem-cell-research-is-dead.html

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Certainly, the evidence seems to indicate that there is no panacea with Embryonic Stem Cells. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude, though, that there is no promise there. Perhaps your sources are correct that Embryonic Stem Cells may not directly produce any cures to human ailments. However, there may be some indirect benefits. Perhaps they can complete the puzzle on cell mutation that triggers cancer. Or, perhaps they'll have a serendipitous discovery along the lines of penicillin. Or, perhaps they'll learn why Democrats and Republicans can't seem to come to terms with reasonable means to balance the budget and pay the debt.

Carlos Ponce

pflinn, you really need to scrutinize your sources. First, lifting the ban on stem cell research is completely false since there was never a ban, just a limit on funding of one type of research. The rest were fully funded. As far as the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Act it was first passed in 1990 (George H. W. Bush), extended in 1996(Bill Clinton), 2000(Bill Clinton), 2006(George W. Bush), and finally extended once more 2009 under Obama. I guess you could list it as an accomplishment but so could every president beginning with George HW Bush so nothing special here.You really ought to check your sources.

Carlos Ponce

Change "Umbilical card" to "Umbilical cord". Plus most of the "accomplishments" listed are really questionable.

Carlos Ponce

"The largest middle class tax break in history." The Washington Post gives this claim FOUR PINOCCHIOS. John F. Kennedy seems to win the prize for biggest tax cut.George W. Bush tax cuts are more than twice as large as Obama’s tax cut over the same three-year time span.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-whopper-of-a-claim-on-tax-cuts/2011/09/06/gIQAmL2h7J_blog.html
Pflinn, where DO you get your information?

Carlos Ponce

Gaddafi is gone but are you seriously listing this as one of OBAMA'S accomplishments?
"Re-established United States standing in the world." Really? Tell that to our allies the United States spied on during Obama's presidency. I bet Angela Merkel doesn't think much of the "United States' " standing nor does Benjamin Netanyahu, nor Great Britain, nor Putin, nor...... (the list goes on and on).

Carlos Ponce

"Justice Department will no longer defend DOMA." Awww, President Clinton and a Democratic Congress worked so hard to get this. Is the Democratic Party turning on themselves?

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Response to pflinn posted at 9:23 am on Thu, Aug 7, 2014:

Finally, a counterbalance to the formulated knee-jerk anti-Obama mindset. Interesting that so many tenets of what you delineated are examples of the social progress that aim to make the quality of lives better in this great land of the free.

And, it is so evident that the Republican party is in shambles. It now consists of a moderately damaged faction (Republicans) being infiltrated with the even more extreme fringe of the Tea Partiers.

Carlos Ponce

Obama has 'authorized' targeted US strikes on Iraq - August 7, 2014. Time for a review. George H. W. Bush authorized airstrikes in Iraq, Bill Clinton authorized airstrikes in Iraq, George W. Bush authorized airstrikes in Iraq. Now since Barack Obama has authorized airstrikes in Iraq does this make it "Obama's War" and therefore okay in the eyes of the Left? Just asking.

Paula Flinn

Pres. Obama will not put troops on the ground. Airstrikes are A-OK!

Carlos Ponce

No troops on the ground? Really? Then why is the U.S. presence in Iraq now 775 troops and climbing? Sounds like "boots on the ground" to me!
See "Obama Orders More Troops To Iraq"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/obama-troops-iraq_n_5545435.html
and "Obama authorizes 200 more troops for Iraq"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-authorizes-200-more-troops-for-iraq/2014/06/30/191fb816-009a-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html

Paula Flinn

Carlos, I believe stem cell research was used as a "cure" for Parkinson disease for some people. I know there was talk about aborted fetuses and some people accepting or refusing the treatment back then. But, I remember President Bush putting a stop to using more than the 60 lines, as you said. That is how cell research started. Without stem cell research, who knows when they would have reached umbilical cord or adult cell research? (Not commenting about it being moral or immoral here.)

Carlos Ponce

The success in finding a cure for Parkinson's disease came from ADULT stem cell research, which was fully funded under George W. Bush. NO progress has been made using embryonic stem cells which is why funding for this research was limited to 60 lines. ALL success came from ADULT and UMBILICAL CORD stem cell research.
"In 2011, scientists from the University of Edinburgh reported in the journal Nature Communications that they had made a "breakthrough" in Parkinson's disease. They had successfully grown stem cells from the skin of a patient with rapidly progressing Parkinson's. The cells, which mimic Parkinson's features, should help researchers understand the disease more accurately. They added that with the stem cells they may also determine why exactly some nerve cells die."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/251154.php
There was NEVER a ban on research ANY stem cell research, just a limit on embryonic stem cell research to 60 lines. ADULT and UMBILICAL CORD stem cell research was fully Federally funded. So the statement "Ending a ban on federal funding of stem cell research" is completely FALSE.

George Croix

What? The same list of 'accomplishmnets' again. It was just on here a month ago.
Doesn't the DNC ever refresh their website, once it's all been debunked....[beam][beam]
I do see a few new items, so, first we reviwe (I, TOO, will simply re-post the first 25 or so items poured back in a bottle - time is in short supply...

ReadY?
Here we go....

1. The largest investment in clean energy in history.
But, the money mostly went down bankruptcy rat holes, and each 'green job' created has cost taxpayers nearly 2 million bucks.
2. The largest investment in education in history.
But, tossing more money at NEA education has yet to ever produce better education and students still often 'graduate' as functional illiterates
3. The largest middle-class tax break in history.
But, a 'refund' when one already paid no federal taxes is not a 'tax break', it's a one time gift, paid for by actual taxpayers, and under Pres. Obama's policies the middle class has shrunk greatly.
4. The largest investment in infrastructure since the 1950s.
But, the projects were mostly not 'shovel ready', the money is gone and mostly unaccounted for, and now more is being asked for, to do the same things supposedly already 'invested' in.
5. Ending a ban on federal funding on stem cell research.
But, federal funding was never 'banned' from all stem cell research, just new lines post-2001. Pres. Obama expanded federal funding to research on privately created stem cell lines, but left in place a prohibition against federal funding to create stem cell lines .
6. Saving the automobile industry.
But, Ford didn't need to be 'saved'. And GM still owes taxpayers billions, and is back in deep trouble already again with its latest mess ups. And Chrysler, after taking two federal bailouts over the years, sold out to Italian FIAT, as its way of thanking the American taxpayers.
7. Overhauling the student loan program.
But, the 'overhaul' is unequally applied, encourages students to borrow more than they are likely to ever repay, makes it easier to avoid repaying or be forgiven if they don't, thus screwing taxpayers footing the loans. Student loans are now in the trillions, creating yet another titanic unfunded future taxpayer obligation.
8. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
But, Pres. Obama pays women in his own Administration an average of 13% less than the men.
9. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
But, that was an order signed into law by Pres. Clinton, hardly a flaming conservative, who agreed that the mission of the military was national security, not political correctness.
10. State CHIP legislation providing health care for millions of children.
But, that was also already a law signed by Pres. Clinton, and what Pres. Obama did was expand it to cover 4 million higher income children, and even non-citizens.
11. Preventing the economy from another Great Depression.
But, that verbiage was from a press release issued by the White House itself. The first stimulus was actually set in motion under Pres. Bush, who, as a courtesy to the incoming newly elected Obama Admin., delayed signing so that the new Pres. could do so, who promptly left out any mention of that. Since then, the second 'stimulus' money remains largely unaccounted for and a great deal of it went to Admin. donors and backers, and the economy after 5 1/2 years of Pres. Obama economic policies went into negative territory by 2.9% last quarter, as real unemployment stays at about 12%..
12. Justice Department will no longer defend Defense of Marriage Act.
But, the President took an oath to faithfully execute the laws, not pick and choose the ones he likes. His action is un-Constitutional and violates a solemn oath he took with his hand on the Bible. Attn. Gen. Holder is no less culpable. and is in violation of his oath, too.
13. Omnibus Public Lands Management Act.
But, while doing some good by preserving natural areas, it also was intended to prohibit additional oil and gas leases and thus yet again obstruct attempts to use American resources for Americans, and had to be amended before passage to restore the guaranteed right of hunters and fishermen to continue their sports in the areas.
14. Edward Kennedy Serve America Act.
But, this was a re-authorization and expansion and re-naming of a 1993 act by Pres. Clinton, with greatly increased federal money directed to it, and the requirement for service time lowered. Many people believe that paying people to volunteer is not actually volunteering.
15. Major credit card reform.
But, while fees were lowered and more transparency were required, actual credit card interest rates increased about 2% by 2013, and interest rates on some other consumer credit went up, too, comparatively.
16. Small Business Investment Act.
But, the Small Business Investment Act was passed in 1958. The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 was on its surface well intentioned, but in the Admin.s' perpetually down economy and with the business crushing effects of the ACA, the actual benefits to small business have been overwhelmed.
17. Increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
But, the real goal was to declare more land 'environmentally sensitive', and thus place more under federal control.
18. Expansion of the nurse-family partnership to all low-income mothers.
But, while signed in 2009, little was done and in 2010 the ACA was enacted and now the funding is through it, and rather than improve low income mothers understanding and knowledge the pregnancy rate and associated problems for them has increased, suggesting that knowing what to do does not translate into doing it, just costs more.
19. Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
But, the act is discriminatory because it only includes as a 'hate crime' an action carried out against a 'protected class' member, and thus says that one man's injuries are more important under law than another man's same injuries. The law thus promotes inequality under the law, and assumes that 'hate' is a function of race or ethnicity or orientation.
20. Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act.
But, the original act was signed into law in 1990, under Pres. Bush 41, was extended several times since, and the 2009 extension by Pres. Obama was for 4 years, until 2013.
21. Health care reform.
But, the ACA 'reform' is in such a state of flux, that so far the promises of what you can keep if you want to have proven to be willful, known lies. The costs have gone up substantially, not down, for people paying for their own medical care, and the access to doctors and hospitals has been reduced, not expanded. A 'child' is now a 26 year old, hardly an improvement, and is mainly to cover the lack of jobs under Admin. policies and thus the terrible unemployment rates for younger Americans. And, to date, the ACA's back end, where payments are made and records kept, remains unfinished, and is currently leaving millions in the lurch for whether they even have coverage, how to get subsidies, whether the insurance companies can get paid, etc. It's a 'reform that's a debacle, to date, having made a hugely bigger mess of the mess it sought to eliminate.
22. Education Reconciliation Act.
But, this was actually a part of the act passed mainly to amend the ACA, and is properly called the Health Care and Education Reconcilliation Act of 2010. As its name says, it was passed under 'reconcilliation' rules. The 'education' part of it placed the gov't in control of student loans, and one provision of that is a 'forgiveness' of the loan if, after 20 years of 'faithful payment' (meaning regular, although no dollar figure amount/percent specified), the loan may be 'forgiven' which is simply stiffing the taxpayers by any other name.
23. New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
But, original START started in 1991, under Pres. Bush 41. The re-enactment of it by Pres. Obama was a particular focus on Russia, as one may recall the famous 'reset' button that wasn't that the Sec. of State offered the Russians on Pres. Obama's behalf. Considering the actions of Russian Pres.Putin since then, one might well question his commitment to any 'treaty', but joy at any reduction in our own defense capabilities, and in our screwing our European allies by not shielding them as promised.
24. Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act.
But, while well intentioned, our veterans care has actually declined, has it not, and benefits and payments due backlogged worse, have they not.
25. Established the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
But, Simpson-Bowles, well-intentioned, has hardly led to 'fiscal responsibility', and has been largely used as a tool of political ideology. As in the current gutting of our military forces to lowest levels since pre-WWII. And the federal debt has certainly shown no tendency to 'responsibility', having increased over 7 trillion bucks and climbing. The use of 'executive orders' to not just get around the law, but to actually ignore or even alter laws, by the Executive, unilaterally, have made S-B pretty much meaningless.
All in the face of Republican obstruction.
But, most of the things listed were done in 2009-2010, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and following the President's famous first words to Republicans, "We won".
Isn't it 'obstructionism' by the Executive to refuse to carry out his Constitutionally mandated imperative to represent all of the citizens by working with all of the members of Congress, or at least trying to, and not having the Senate Majority leader table nearly every bill sent to the Senate without even discussion? We elect a President, not a King, and 'obstruction' is not supposed to be defined as not letting someone do anything they want to, law and Constitution be damned.
*******************************************************
Now, for the new propaganda:
a) SWIFT JUSTICE FOR OBL
But, the final dispatch of OBL took place 10 years after the hunt started in earnest in 2001, and was ONLY accomplished because of the intial use of interrogation that Obama and the Dems decry as 'torture, then expanded on by the CIA spy network, and local informants. It's not fair to bad mkouth it, then take full credit when it works out for you.
b)QADDAFY IS GONE
But, he was killed in a Lybian uprising by his own people. By the uprisers that Obama had EARLIER REFUSED to help. In 2003, Qaddaffy renownced his WMD program and dismantled it, after fearing that George W. Bush would bomb him bck into the stone age...well, further back...
c) The economy has improved just about every month of the Obama Administration. Created more jobs in his Admin. than President Bush.
But, does anybody trying to pay bills, get a decent job, and not run through all their savings know that? Do they agree with the Admin. accounting gimmicks? Might take a look at those 'jobs' created, too. Numbers look impressive, but the fact that they are mostly low pay, service sector, and/or temporary/part time jobs does not make it better...just a bit less bad...except for those 26 year old 'children' in Mom's basement wondering if they'll ever find a job that they can support themselves with, and all the older people one sees now when we order our cheeseburgers and fries..
d) No president in our history has cut government spending more than Obama.
But, it's not fair when you raise spending and the debt more than any President in history, then take credit for lowering from where you raised it to (except the debt, climbing to Jupiter...). Also a bit two-faced to suggest and design the Sequester, thern oppose it and bad mouth your opponenets for it, then take credit for the spending cuts that have come from it - pretty much all of the spending that's been cut - a weee bit dishonest, that....
e)He has had enormous achievements in foreign affairs; getting Syria to admit to and give up WMD without firing a shot for one; getting Iran to open up to inspections for another.
But, his Adminsitration is a foreigns affairs basket case if you ask actual foreign affairs experts and not Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Syria only 'agreed' ( we can trust them....right?) after being really, really scared by Obama's 'red line' that he himself ignored, and has yet to complete such, AND they've successfully KILLED 200,000 of their own citizens as Obama has sat buy and refused meaningful aid to them. Iran is playing Obama/Kerry for suckers by endlessly dragging out 'negotiations' about their nuclear program by offering more of the same 'inspections' that saw them building undergpound complexes while the 'inspections' were being done. AND Obama DROPPED the crippling sanctions against Iran, that WERE hurting them, just so his Admin. could try to broker yet another 'agreement', AND has now given them billions of bucks to come talk again, after rejecting us again, in 4 more months, while 'promising' to sit still on nuclear developement. A promise that only two men in the world evidently believe.
f) He is getting ready to act on the immigration crisis, without Congress, if necessary. Speaker Boehner invited him and encouraged him to do so.
But, he wouldn't even fly over McAllen and told Gov. Perry it was HIS problem to get funds needed, then went off to fundraisers. WHAT does threatening to give amnesty to another 5 or 6 million illegal aliens have to do with the 'border crisis'?
Answer - NOTHING!!! It's jus more Obama show and in-your-face. He refuses to start securing the border, without which NO 'immigration crisis' can be solved, because the CRISIS IS illegal entry into the country. There's no 'crisis' to make illegals legal..!!! Boehner invited and encouraged him to do so? Even Wasserman-Schultz knows that for what it was....
g)You Republicans are in trouble! The fringe "loonies" have taken over your party. They don't even get along with each other, much less the moderate Republicans or the Democrats. Better clean house and let them form their own party.
But, it's the COUNTRY that's in trouble. It's not just Republicans out of work for years, facing a health care 'overhaul' that will drain them even further, facing a national debt that their great, great grandchildren will still be payingmon, if it's even ever paid, facing a President who thinks he got elected to do whatever HE wants and acting like a king instead to do so, facing global upheaval as a direct result of our feckless foreign policy that our enemies recognize as weakness and trepidation, and believeing that their children will have a worse life than they did.
We ALL still get hammered by lousy policies and ideology driving everything.
Get along? Pres. Obama doesn't 'get along' with anybody who diagrees with him. Period. Rather than badmouth Republcans, you and ALL Democrats should get down on tyour knees and thank God for Republicans, because without the ones who stayed home in 2012 and the ones who refused to vote for Romney, Pres. Obama WOULD have been a one termer, and we'd NOT have a second term of 'fundamental change'.
Don't like Republicans? THEY gave you Obama back again...blow the lazy and vote wasters a kiss for that....[whistling]

Paula Flinn

WOW! Thanks for all that hate and resentment. Maybe you will get your way next election. I cannot wait to see you implode or explode if the democratic candidate wins again. But, maybe a Republican will be elected who believes the way you do. Then I may be unhappy. I know one thing, the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. Maybe you are rich and don't care.

You make some really good points, but you see "through the glass darkly," and I just do not know how to respond to that, except to say, "Wait and see."

George Croix

What hate? Is that what you call responding to, rebutting, and pooring back into a bottle the 'accomplishments' cut and pasted...[beam]
Again, for the first 25 - another lady beat you to them last month.
Why does the left call EVERYTHING they don't agree with 'hate' ?
Projection.....?????[wink]
As for resentment, of COURSE! I fail to see how anyone can not be resentful of a national and international situation made worse...a lot worse. But then, I only pick my political favorites based on what I HOPE are ability and background - and could not care less what color they are, or whether they are the first of anything, or rich, or not, or left handed, or right....just results.
Maybe it's because I spent so many years required to actually perform a job as part of teams, and build the teams, and work with all members, nit just the ones more like me.
Know what, I always advised those team members to pair up with another member with the OPPOSITE of their basic character when possible - you learn more from differences than similarities - and miss less.
Besides, I use those Sam's Club lens wipes and keep my glasses clean and free of obstructions.
I do understand, though, because my President cannot talk about opposing ideas without deeming his opposition 'haters', either.
Doesn't make me mad, because I know better.....
Rich? No. Well off now, after wife and I spent 36 years working for a living in dangerous jobs, but grew up with the dubious unofficial title of 'poorest kid in my classes'. No SNAP cards. No housing assistance. No welfare checks. Not even handouts from the church - Dad was not a believer in taking anything not earned, and I was just along for the ride....a sometimes hungry ride...in a shack made of scraps of lumber...with shoes that had the soles tied on with kite string. Poor me?? No. he did the best he could, on his own, and when he died, that lesson stuck with me.
A darn GOOD lesson, too, for just about everything in life. I don't have much use for anyone taking without trying, if able to, no matter who they are.
Ma'am, I don't implode or explode - I just attend to whatever hand has been dealt me - while watching the dealer for any off the bottom of the deck moves...[beam][beam][beam]
BTW, when something is demonstrably untrue, does it make it OK, even acceptable, and repeatable, just because of who says it....?

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Response to gecroix posted at 9:39 pm on Fri, Aug 8, 2014:

I'd contribute to the possible conclusion that from the tone of your posts in regard to our President (and life in general) that you do seem to harbor resentment toward the progression of our country.

Just because many folks starved and lost everything in the Depression doesn't mean that we should applaud nowadays having a shrinking "middle class". Saying the line repeatedly that "poverty builds character" isn't going to 'wash' in this day and age. Our country should be able to utilize its resources to employ and make attainable a reasonable and decent way of living to those who work hard. I doubt if families with mom/dad working 2 to 3 shift jobs to keep food on the table are glad that they have to sign their children off for free/reduced lunches and make use of the Lone Star assistance card system. Most folks, if made available an opportunity, would rather be affluent, i.e. be able to afford a washer/dryer, drive a reliable car, live someplace safe, etc. It's easy for the rest of us to "judge".

George Croix

Don't make it so easy.
If you post it, back it up...or at least try to....[beam][beam]

Chris Gimenez

Hey pfinn, the hate and resentment being shown towards your president pales in comparison to the derision, hatred, and anger thrown at President Bush. The only difference is that your president has earned every bit of his.

Here's some factual information on this president's performance in turning our economy around.

http://www.latimes.com/business/jobs/la-fi-financial-stress-20140807-story.html

or this:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FED_ECONOMIC_WELL_BEING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-08-07-15-38-50

But it probably all boils down to this:

https://grabien.com/story.php?id=12376

Jim Forsythe

Unless You are no longer a USA citizen, he is our ( your) President. You may not like him, but he is still Your President!

Paula Flinn

Ha, ha! That's your view! President Obama is not responsible for the poor economy or slow return. He in fact, has created more jobs in 4 years than President Bush did in his 8 years. " The economy added more jobs during four years under Obama than it did in the entire eight years under Bush."
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/obamas-numbers-quarterly-update/
Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2012/jun/01/joe-biden/joe-biden-says-35-million-jobs-lost-during-bush-ad/

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ruined the good economy we had after the Clinton admin. GW Bush did not have an exit strategy, and we were stuck there for a very long time. The oil from Iraq was supposed to pay for the war, but that strategy failed.

When President Obama took over, he inherited the largest deficit in history. It has been difficult to turn around with all of the Republican obstruction in the House of Representatives. Don't give me that tired argument that Obama was arrogant, and said, "I won!" The House of Representatives are paid to work with the President and the Senate, not posture for re-election. They are paid for representing the people and caring about the country, not their own re-election. It is their job to work with the Senate, and they have failed. Like him or not, they are supposed to respect the President and compromise on legislation with the Senate, and they have not. John Boehner has not been able to lead the House of Representatives because from the very first, they decided that they would not work with him. That childish behavior has resulted in the poor recovery of the economy and hurt the American people.

And here is the proof: Why, when the President mentioned raising the minimum wage, which would help many, many people, would not the Republicans in the House even consider it?

Answer: Because the Repubs are obstructionists, and do not want the President to succeed at anything, even if it would help the (little) people of this country. One of your posted websites says, " 40% of all households are struggling." Raising the minimum wage would raise "all boats," eventually, and help some of the people who are struggling.


Paula Flinn

Speaker John Boehner lets the TEA Party control the House. The tail is wagging the dog. The dog has lost control of his tail.

Don't blame it all on Sen. Harry Reid. The junk that has come out of the House is so diametrically opposed to what the President believes that he would be betraying his values and beliefs to even consider the stuff.

***Meant to say, in previous post, "The members of The House of Reps. are paid to work with the President and the Senate...."

Carlos Ponce

pflinn, so Obama has "created" jobs? Read "Where Obama Fails, GOP Governors Find Solutions How red states are outdoing their blue state counterparts.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/07/23/states-with-republican-governors-lead-in-job-creation-and-growth
"Texas, Red States Beat Blue States On Jobs, Growth"
http://news.investors.com/052313-657271-red-states-beat-blue-states-on-economy-jobs.htm
"Red States Add More Jobs Than Blue States: Texas Adds Highest Number Of Jobs Over Decade, California Suffers Biggest Decline of Jobs "
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2011/05/red-states-add-more-jobs-than-blue.html#.U-09X6PQqw8
If it wasn't for Red State Policies, Obama wouldn't have decent numbers. Obama is not responsible for much job growth during his tenure.

Paula Flinn

I guess you can find opposing statistics anywhere, if you look hard enough. All of your RED states are right-to work states, which means they are non-union friendly and pay very little in wages (comparatively speaking).

Here is what I found:
"Employment Situation
August 01, 2014
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 209,000 in July, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 6.2 percent. Job gains occurred in professional and business services, manufacturing, retail trade, and construction."
http://www.bls.gov/cps/
United States Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

It really doesn't matter where the jobs are. Pres. O. is president of both red and blue states.

BTW, this is one of the comments from your blogspot:

"Bottom Ten States, per capita income:

41. Kentucky - $26,252 - Red
42. South Carolina - $26,132 - Red
43. Louisiana - $26,100 - Red
44. Montana - $25,920 - Red
45. Idaho - $25,911 - Red
46. New Mexico - $25,541 - Blue
47. Utah - $24,977 - Red
48. West Virginia - $24,379 - Red
49. Arkansas - $24,289 - Red
50. Mississippi - $23,448 - Red "

Thank goodness Texas has oil under the soil.

Paula Flinn

The study you quote is the decade 2001-2011. President Obama did not take office until 2009. Hardly representative of the jobs he created in his first term.

Carlos Ponce

the USNews report is from July 23, 2013, FOUR and one half years into Obama's tenure, after his re-election. And the rankings you give are skewed since states with a higher average income also have state income taxes and a higher cost of living. For instance, the highest ranking state is Connecticut with an average per capita income of $37,807 and an average household income of $69,519 but has a state income tax and a cost of living index of 126 with housing at 138. Mississippi has an overall cost of living rating of 89 with housing at 74. For comparison, Texas cost of living index is 90 with housing at 81. California has an overall cost of living index rating of 151 with housing at a whopping 237. 100 is considered average. So you may make the big bucks in the other states but you keep more of what you make in the "red states".
www.bestplaces.net
By the way, Rick Perry is the GOVERNOR of the Great State of Texas. Why don't you give him any credit?

Leonard T. Payne

You must be Obamas caddy.

Paula Flinn

No, for me the cup is half full, (positive outlook) and may get more full. For some the cup is half empty (negative, disgruntled teabagger outlook) and continues to get more empty.

Don't presume or resort to name calling. You don't know me. I just see things a different way than you do.
BTW, most of my friends agree with me. Only a few do not.

We are retired school teachers, middle class, pro-union, & pro-Obama.
And we vote.

George Croix

If you are going to tell people not to resort to name calling, don't you think it would be better to not use the term 'tea bagger'...[beam]

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Way to go, pflinn! Unadmittedly to many "conservatives" who don't want to face the truth: the bulk of Democrat voters are post-bachelor, highly educated, healthy-minded professionals. The conservatives are simply envious of not being as enlightened.

Regarding the "teabagger" term:...there's quite a few sectors in society that aren't offended by the word "teabagger", esp. in the vernacular of the gay/lesbian community.

To be a "teabagger" is a good thing, depending on what floats some people's boat. If a TeaParty member was called a "teabagger", yet was secure in his/her sexuality, then it would be no problem for that individual. He/she should be focusing on making strides to the platform of the current and steadily faltering TeaParty organization instead of taking offense to a nebulous term.

George Croix

Those left wing website's full of 'information' will get you every time.
Is it fair to cause the jobs to disappear, then 'create' new ones that are lower pay and/or less hours, then take CREDIT for that? Kind of like convincing your kid brother that the big 'ol nickel is better than the little 'ol dime...Adding more of things less valuable is only a positive where ideology trumps common sense...or even economic sense.
Don't forget thet Afghanistan was described by Obama, repeatedly, as 'the good war', and also that in fact under his terms in office 3 out of 4 combat deaths there have occurred...inconvenient, but true...As CIC, why do you suppose he didn't end it?
The President. lest we ignore it, is paid to work with the Senate and the House, not posture for re-election...a thing hard to do when you insult nearly 300 people almost daily, starting at your first meeting, then lie about being willing to work with them. That was worth a 3 Pinnochio award, I thing, but may be wrong...
The current number of bills awaiting Senate action, some for years, dwarfs those awaiting House action by, oh, what, a factor of 20? 30? But, who's counting....
The Republicans rejected Obama's minimum wage ploy because it's a dodge, a diversion, that is intended ONLY to take eyes off the lousiest economic recovery in over 50 years...they have several actual jobs palns pending Senate action, versus going along with helping people stay on the low end of the economic ladder...remain dependent...Only 'pogressives' see raising the value of the low end jobs as preferable to bringing back the high end ones lost to fundamental change.
The rest of us would like to get more people away from being a member of Obama's Food Stamp Army, and reduce the number 'still struggling' after 5 1/2 years of feckless, rob Peter to pay Paul, economic 'policy', by getting them gainfully EMployed, nit perpetually UNemployed or UNDERemployed.
That 'junk that comes out of the House that is diametrically opposed to what the President believes' is what the VOTERS who ELECTED those House members believe. Obama is not an annointed King, he's an elected President. A CO-EQUAL member of government with the Congress, as we learn in junior high civics. He has to compromise and negotiate just like any other ELECTED individual. The only reason he threatens to vetoe everything he doesn't personally want done in full is because he hasn't got a clue how to govern, and certainly doesn't have a clue how to lead...that king complex just doesn't cut it since King George III got himself tossed out. Evidently 'preogressives never took junior high civics, and are clueless about the working of their own government...
The President's 'values and beliefs'? I didn't realize the discussion had turned to 'evolution'...but, I digress....Tell us, how does Obama KNOW what goes against his 'values and beliefs' unless it's EVERYTHING he doesn't think of himself, because he proclaims anything else unworthy of his consideration BEFORE even reading what's in it...but, of course, he has that malignant little Reid character to block for him...I suppose one needs all the help they can get after a Senate 'career' of voting 'present' so never having to actually DO any of that governing stuff.

Well, it's not much fun when it's so easy, so, in closing for tonight, a couple of questions:
How does one 'inherit' something that they spent over 2 years and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to get people to let them have? Was he for the job before he was against it....[wink]
And, how do you compromise with someone who won't allow any debate?

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Hey, what's happened lately to geocroix??

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
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.