In a letter to the editor published June 25, Clarence Cope used characters from “Chicken Little” and the “The Emperor’s New Clothes” to express his opinions about Barack Obama’s presidency.

 

Hey Chicken Little, the sky isn’t falling

Mixing the characters of a child’s imagination with facts that are questionable at best is not the way adults should discuss the very serious and dangerous issues we as Americans face.

Please do not confuse your obvious right-wing hate of the president with actual facts. 

There are reliable, truthful and nonpartisan informational websites.

Do yourself a favor: step away from the hate and educate yourself. 

You will see that the sky is not actually falling.

 

 

Trey Click lives in Galveston

(65) comments

Carlos Ponce

Trey, you are the one who is confused. Why do the Leftists of this country confuse policy disagreement with "hate". Whoops, I just disagreed with you. Will you now accuse me of "hate" too? WE need to pray for this country AND this President. The path he has put us on is not a good one.

Steve Fouga

Hey Carlos, why do you and bvresident refer to everyone not on the extreme right as Leftists? If you're not for me you're against me? Is that your attitude? It seems to be.

This is why your party is in trouble. You antagonize not just your enemy -- the far Left -- but everyone else in the middle who could be your friends! Because of this I can almost guarantee you'll lose the next presidential election, and possibly the House.

If you think the sky is falling now, just wait a couple years until it really is!

Jim Forsythe

Most people that try to and make it left wing or right wing foget that the Eagle (American people) must have a body to survive.
Just like an airplane body were people will move from one part of the plane to another, people will shift their political positions depending on topic, If they are part of body and not just a wing..
People should NOT be put in a box with a lable on them.
Some groups are trying to make it one part, of one party. If this happen what would we become. To see what it would look like, look back in world history.

Carlos Ponce

Jake, the Republicans may be in trouble but the Conservative Movement is alive and thriving. Check the latest poll. The Independents (those in the Middle) are seeing things the RIGHT way. We didn't force it on them. It just DAWNED on them.
"I saw the light, I saw the light
No more darkness, no more night
Now I'm so happy, no sorrow in sight
Praise the Lord, I saw the light"

Steve Fouga

And where do think those independents will land? Eventually they'll have to pick a candidate. For example, I tend to be more conservative than liberal, but not a TRUE CONSERVATIVE by your standards. Yet I couldn't bring myself to vote for, say, Ted Cruz. Not because I don't agree with SOME of his principals, but because he demands I agree with ALL of them.

I see no pragmatism whatsoever in the Republican Party, and eventually it has to be either Repub or Dem. There are no other choices. And the Republicans are in trouble. It doesn't matter EXACTLY how people believe or how they "see things." Ultimately it just depends on who they vote for.

Carlos Ponce

Funny, that's why they said Ronald Reagan WOULD NOT be elected. That's why they re-elected President Jimmy Carter in 1980 and President Walter Mondale in 1984. WHOOPS! Those things didn't happen!

Steve Fouga

Carlos, if you had to bet your retirement on who will win the 2016 presidential election, who would you bet on?

Carlos Ponce

All things being equal I'd bet on the Conservative candidate. BUT things are not equal. The Democrats always have the media on their side. And if the polling tends to the right the Libs always have an "October Surprise". I still prefer Governor Mike Huckabee. No matter who the candidate is, he or she will be immediately branded as a racist, a homophobe, anti-woman, an extremist, etc.

Steve Fouga

I'd prefer he be a sitting governor. Fox is the kiss of death. IMO.

Carlos Ponce

I don't think the voters are so shallow they would hold that against him. After all, even Obama constantly appears on FOX, so does Hillary. And look at all the Liberals who appear on FOX as contributors: James Carville, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Kirsten Powers, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Colmes, etc. They haven't lost their Liberal credentials by appearing on FOX.

Chris Gimenez

Jake, I don't think that I've ever referred to you as being on the Left although you've never given me any reason to think you were anything other than a progressive-bent liberal. If you are, as you state, more "conservative than liberal" could you give us just a couple of examples of that?

But here's what convinces me that you are totally on the left, "I see no pragmatism whatsoever in the Republican Party". So no pragmatism at all on the right but there's pragmatism coming from the democrat party? Where?

You see, when you say Ted Cruz demands that everyone who supports him must agree 100% with him you're being utterly disingenuous. The Left (and yes, I'm including you this time) says that kind of stuff-just like all the trash being uttered about the Tea Party-simply for one reason. Both Cruz and the Tea Party represent the greatest threat to the Entitlement Party's desire to make this country one that has a majority of its residents completely and totally dependent on the federal government for their every want and need from the cradle to the grave.

Now, tell everyone what thoughts your conservative side has. I can hardly wait.

Steve Fouga

bv, by pragmatism I mean the ability to get things done, mostly through the arts of statesmanship and compromise. I see no ability to do that by the Republican Party. I wish I could see it, but I can't.

And by the way, I also see no reason to prove my conservative credentials to you or anyone else. I've made it clear I'm a moderate. Yes, I tend a little bit right of center -- pro defense, pro energy, pro gun rights -- but when it comes to bringing religion into politics, I detest it. I am also STRONGLY in favor of womens' rights of all types. I also believe in being as careful as possible with the environment, short of screwing up our economy. So, you see, it's a mixed bag. I tend to think, rather than follow. I get the impression the Republican Party prefers people who simply follow.

Carlos Ponce

"I get the impression the Republican Party prefers people who simply follow."
Based on what I read from the Democrats the opposite is true. Conservatives and Republicans will point out when their leaders falter. I'll point out where Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II, have erred. Democratic posters to this website on the other hand appear to repeat DNC talking points and find no fault with the current administration. They treat our disagreement with President Obama with hostility crying racism, hatred, bigotry. He's a president, not a god.

Steve Fouga

Well, I won't dispute that you read more from both sides than I do. I wasn't commenting on the Dems because I was responding to bv, who's a conservative. I feel the same way about the Dems. I don't want to follow an agenda. Anyone's. The only reason I'm arguing with you and bv is that you're the only ones arguing. No doubt I disagree with sverige and lisablair about a bunch of other stuff, but that's not this thread.

But here's an observation. The Dems I know, and there aren't many, are more tolerant of other viewpoints than the Repubs. I probably should word that a little differently: The Liberals I know are more tolerant of other viewpoints than the Conservatives. They're more chill. Friendlier, easier to get along with. Maybe come October they'll pull out a secret weapon, but right now they're more fun.
[smile]

Chris Gimenez

Jake, of course you don't have to prove anything you say. That's what's expected from the Left. As for me arguing with anyone, there were 13 comments on here before I made my first one and that was only because you brought my name up. Like I said previously, you're losing it.

I do think it's hilarious how you on the Left try to make the rest of us believe liberals are more "open and tolerant" when the truth is that you're more hateful, more spiteful, less tolerant, less inclusive of other viewpoints that don't agree with yours, and I think many liberals are flat-out racists.

Steve Fouga

Well, bv, now you're the one who's lost it. This is the silliest thing I've seen you say in these forums.

You are a bitter person, bv, or at least a fearful one. You need to chill out a little. Better for your health. You sound like someone awfully worried about what might happen in 2016. No confidence at all. Sure, TX is strongly conservative, but uh-oh, another 8 years of Dems in the White House...

It wouldn't have to be that way, but, well, it doesn't look like your party is inclusive enough to carry the day. Mainly because of people with your attitude...

Chris Gimenez

Jake, I'm neither bitter nor fearful but I understand that's what the Left has to resort to when they can't back up their opinions. Whether it's calling someone racist, bitter, hateful, fearful, etc., those on the Left prove they are neither inclusive of any thoughts or opinions that don't align with their own nor do they have any willingness to address our very real fiscal problems, their destruction of our foreign relations credibility, or maintain the integrity of our military.

Whether there is another Entitlement Party candidate in the WH in 2016 will be a direct result of how many more voters they're able to make totally dependent on the federal government for their every want and need between now and 2016.

Steve Fouga

"Whether there is another Entitlement Party candidate in the WH in 2016 will be a direct result of how many more voters they're able to make totally dependent on the federal government for their every want and need between now and 2016."

Nope. It'll depend on whether your party can find even one candidate who might get someone like me to vote for them. They already have your vote. Mine is the one that counts. Get it?

Chris Gimenez

Unless the GOP puts forth a candidate that can promise more government handouts than the democrat who's running, then no one expects your vote.

Steve Fouga

Sorry, what? I don't know what you're getting at.[huh]

Susan Fennewald

I try to learn from others and use their opinions to provide more information - but that also involves adjusting for those who keep posting over and over.
My comment : bvresident and carlosrponce - are right wingers and will keep posting over and over. At this point (Mon about 1:30 - carlosponce has 7 posts on this thread and bvresident has 3 posts. (and jake buckner - who I often agree with,-has 7 posts.)

Just because you see lots of posts supporting one view- doesn't mean it's the majority view - or a good view.

Chris Gimenez

smfennew, what I usually take away from these posts is that some have fact-based opinions and some don't-on both sides. Some go on and on and on trying to sound like they're fact-based but in reality they're just opinions. Somewhat like the silliness we get all too often from Heber Taylor. And then there are those posts like yours that simply don't make any sense at all.

Carlos Ponce

smfennew, when someone asks me a question, I respond. I'm a retired teacher, it's my nature to do so. When someone posts inaccurate information, likewise I post a clarifying post. Sometimes information has to be repeated in a different way. In education we call it "reteaching" when a student doesn't get it the first time around. If you feel you aren't getting anything from my posts, no one is forcing you to read them but you're missing some great stuff. Class dismissed.

Steve Fouga

Did you teach history or poli-sci? You seem very knowledgable.

Or maybe music? [cool]

Carlos Ponce

For 31 years I taught math, from 5th grade TAKS prep to High School Pre-Cal. My last year I taught 6th grade Social Studies. My favorite was Geometry and Algebra I. And I still travel with the Hitchcock combined bands. They march 7th to 12 graders. I serve as videographer and chaperone and have done so since 1985. I have also announced halftimes and have served as the on-board directions giver when traveling out of town.

Steve Fouga

Good for you, Carlos. Hard to imagine a more fulfilling career than teaching. I loved Geometry as a student. I wonder how high on the list of human inventions analytical geometry ranks. Euclidean, more fun; but man, Descartes created a whole world for engineers...

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Where do we go to get our merit badges that prove our conservatism, progressiveness, liberalism, or whatever? What if we fail to pass the tests for these badges? Does that mean that bvresident can't call us Leftists merely for disagreeing with one of his points? Or, how many of his posts must we totally agree with before we're allowed to stray into the woods and not lose whatever conservative credentials we might be granted?

In my mind, if we're thinkers, we'll always find reasons to disagree with platforms based purely on ideology. Personally, I don't care which political wing one want to identify with. However, regardless of the wing, if you're unwilling to acknowledge any difference in degree, or any point of departure, as being reasonable thought, then I think what has us so paralyzed politically today. It should be possible to take a handful of people of various political persuasions, lock them into a room, have them discuss an issue, and come up with a consensus they can all stomach, despite no one agreeing 100% with, and have everyone come out with their principles intact. Instead, what we get is a bunch of "What a stupid leftist thought" or "What a horrendously out-of-touch fascist thought" remarks.

Carlos Ponce

John Cronyn, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, etc are Grocery Store Conservatives. They walk down the aisle of Conservatism pick the issues they are comfortable with and reject or ignore those they are not. It is up to the voters to decide which have enough Conservative values to merit their vote. If they embrace a value from the Liberal aisle like raising taxes that may disqualify them from my vote. But I don't speak for all Conservatives.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

I don't think there's any specific issue that would disqualify one from getting my vote. However, if you're going to state you're for or against something, I want to know why. If your rationale passes muster, even if I disagree with your conclusion, you're in the mix. However, even if we agree 100% on position, but you can't state any better rationale than the party platform, I'll probably look elsewhere, because if you don't know why you have a certain response, then I'd have to believe that if someone plants something different into your head, you'll just go where the wind blows you.

I also don't mind someone that changes their minds on issues--as long as the rationale is reasonable. If the game changes, I understand that sometimes the strategy needs to change, too, and with that, some of the decisions will change.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

I think if you're a political candidate looking for a demographic to win you an election, welfare recipients would have to be among the least reliable to count on. The middle-class and up are the ones that turn out more in proportion to their population numbers, and they're the ones that feel they have more to gain or lose during a presidential or legislative term. Strategically, the Republican Party does fight more for those not needing entitlement programs, which is the Middle and Upper classes. In the past couple of elections, the Republicans failed to bring home enough Middle Class voters to gain an advantage, and that allowed the relatively few Low and No income voters to provide a difference.

Strategically, I don't think it's a political mistake for conservatives to ignore the poor votes. However, if they are going to hand those votes over to the Democrats, the Republicans need to make sure they have strong--probably 55% or higher--support in the middle class, or else they risk having more painful losses in the presidency. Nationally, I don't think you can do that in enough of the big states by being more conservative than McCain and Romney.

Overall, I think people are looking for people that aren't typical Washington Politicians. However, people might be a bit more selective next time. Someone in the Obama mold probably won't do. I think that being outside the core leadership in DC would less important than a pattern of actually getting good, meaningful, things done, with support from both sides.

Chris Gimenez

"Strategically, the Republican Party does fight more for those not needing entitlement programs, which is the Middle and Upper classes. In the past couple of elections".

More silliness from the Langster. Absolutely and completely unable to provide any factual evidence of that and if he actually looked into it he'd find that what the GOP stands for is able-bodied getting off entitlements and into the workforce so they can support themselves and their families while providing tax dollars to the federal government rather than taking tax dollars from the federal government.

What Mr. Lang refuses to acknowledge is all the millions who have had their formerly full-time jobs reduced to part-time as a result of the (U)ACA. That's factual. He also fails to acknowledge the doubling of black unemployment under this boy president. He also looks the other way about the almost 20 MILLION more people who have been placed on food stamps under Hussein's regime.

While it's convenient left-wing talking points to describe the GOP as being for the rich and the 1% and the Middle Class and all that other nonsense, the real question is what do the democrats stand for? Unemployment, poverty, entitlement dependency, uncontrolled massive illegal immigration? Apparently so because after five years of the boy wonder president that's what this country has.

Misleading the public about being, "more caring, more sympathetic, more inclusive, yada, yada, yada," is just that-TALK. Talk is cheap and that's what we've gotten from Hussein and the democrats.

Has anyone seen the more than 50% of Detroit residents who are unwilling or unable to pay their water bills? Pretty amazing but that is one of the most (in)famous democrat-run strongholds in the country. And their water bills, as noted by Rush Limbaugh today, is the only service they have that isn't subsidized in some way by the federal government-yet. Rent, electricity, food, gas, phone, everything else they have subsidies but not water. So much for demonstrating the strengths of the Entitlement Party.

Steve Fouga

"So much for demonstrating the strengths of the Entitlement Party."

I'd say they demonstrated their strength by kicking the snot out of the Republicans two elections in a row, despite a mediocre candidate.

Politics is a results-oriented business. [beam]

Chris Gimenez

Well Jake, you can say that again. Now tell us just exactly what the results of electing your community organizer boy president has been. Let me help you.

An additional increase of $7 TRILLION in debt.

Black unemployment has more than doubled what it was under Bush.

More than 17 MILLION people added to food stamp rolls.

Our foreign allies don't trust your boy president to stand by his word or behind them.

The (U)ACA has cost BILLIONS and has been a massive failure. It has driven more people into part-time employment and cost MILLIONS more their health insurance plans which Hussein lied about and said they could keep.

The Entitlement Party is predicted by everyone except you and Servitude to lose control of the Senate in November. Good riddance to bad baggage.

The boy president illegally traded five of the most dangerous terrorists in the world for one U.S. deserter.

The boy president has unilaterally and illegally changed his health insurance law more than thirty times without Congress' approval.

Hussein's feckless threats in the Middle East have turned virtually everyone over there against us-even our allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel.

Hussein went fund-raising in Las Vegas while he let four brave Americans die in Benghazi. At least we know what his priorities are.

The boy president says he made the illegal trade for Bergdahl because we "don't leave our soldiers behind". That is unless you happen to be a Marine being held in a Mexican prison.

The boy president's statements have caused a massive humanitarian disaster on our borders by encouraging illegals from Mexico and Central America to flood our borders. Our Border Patrol agents are warming baby bottles and changing diapers now rather than enforcing our immigration laws.

The boy president announced today that since the GOP will not cave in to his onerous demands on amnesty those in this country illegally then he will do it through executive action.

The boy president lost us about $15 BILLION by saving GM for which GM repayed us by sending 70% of their manufacturing overseas.

The boy president claimed executive privilege to prevent his AG Eric Holder from being convicted, impeached, and imprisoned.

The boy president proclaimed his outrage at the IRS targeting of his political opponents and then before any of the investigations were completed he stated publicly there wasn't "a smidgeon of corruption".

So Jake, while you may be laughing about your boy president being "a winner" (much like Charlie Sheen's rants), the truth is this country is being decimated by the boy president and the Entitlement Party. Sounds like that makes you very happy though.

Steve Fouga

No, really I was thinking how weak the Republicans must be to let all that happen.

But that strong Conservative state of Texas will turn it all around next time! Oh wait, the Dems won the presidency WITHOUT Texas... Guess that means it doesn't matter what happens down here in the job belt. Politically, at least.

Steve Fouga

A funny aspect of this particular thread is that I'm not even an Obama fan.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Yes, you're right, as usual, bvresident. The Right does fight most for the votes of those getting welfare and unemployment, and those on the fringe of that. The Republicans want everyone on those entitlement programs. I guess that's the very reason why they keep arguing that too many people are on these programs, huh?

Gosh, you are really the master of comprehension, aren't you?

Perhaps this is a little bit clearer: The Republicans would rather people able to work would get jobs and then see the value of voting for them. If you're on entitlements, and you wish to stay that way, you'll probably not be very happy should a Republican candidate take office, because you will be pushed to get to work.

As for the rest of the drivel you posted, there's no need for me to respond, as you'd choose to either ignore, twist, or fail to comprehend it.

Chris Gimenez

I have no problem comprehending what you write as it's really not that deep or complex. When people are unable to factually back up there opinions they simply write incessantly and that is enough to make people like servitude and jake and mytoby and dumb47 believe it's got to be accurate because there so much there.

We had a fella like you on the Bayou Vista city council. His name was Todd Sutherland and he was going to be the one who brought everyone together and united the council so they could do wondrous things. He never failed to let everyone know about the PhD he was working on but when it came to applying his superior skills he failed miserably and left after a year. He couldn't bring himself to ask questions or make decisions if it was somehow going to hurt someone else. That's what you remind me of. Someone who goes on and on and on and when we're finished reading I'm going, what does Lang stand? He's written a thousand words and it's this and it's that but there's no clarity as to what or where you stand. That's not a comprehension problem on my part. That's an inability on your part to succinctly establish where you stand on anything.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

bvresident, I'd be more than happy to levy critiques of the Democratic party. However, in this thread, they aren't the ones being put on a pedestal. I will choose my candidates based on my belief of their willingness and ability to do the job that's needed. When one Party is able to present itself as such, I'll gladly espouse it at the one with all the virtues. However, as I write today, there is no such party. If you want to present me with some stick-in-the-mud ideologue, I'll vote against him/her any day, and twice on election day.

Chris Gimenez

It doesn't matter what the thread is, you never critique the Left other than very generically.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

My critiques of the right are pretty generic, too. I don't demonize either side. There is demonic behavior coming from both sides, but, as a whole, neither is the Freddy Krueger that the other tries to proclaim.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Another message the GOP would like the poor to get from them is that the GOP policies will strengthen the middle class, enabling the middle class to create jobs to employ the poor. Reagan did a great job at delivering the trickle-down message. However, the current generation of poor people isn't buying into the delivery method of today's GOP. Whether that means that the message is wrong, or the delivery needs to change, that's a matter of debate, as is all of this mumble jumble we call political analysis. What we know is that the Democrats, in the past two elections, managed to get the votes they needed, where they needed them, so that they could get their candidate elected. From an income standpoint, both parties slugged it out pretty well, and were pretty much toe-to-toe. The battle wasn't close at the lower rungs of the ladder. Is it because those at the bottom didn't get the message, or is it because only one party attempted to deliver a message to them--one that got plenty of lower-income voters in their camp, but didn't hurt the middle-income base much at all?

Carlos Ponce

kevjlang you can learn a lesson from one of my former students Sam Collins. In assemblies presented to schools he tells them the adage: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life."
The Democrats managed to win the last two Presidential elections with a slick campaign slogan and demonizing their opponents. The Republicans did not offer real opposition. McCain and Romney spoke Conservative with an accent. The poor are still poor.

Chris Gimenez

Lang, you and Jake both seem to be gloating that your boy president won. The election was only the starting point and you two are still hanging out there. The reality is where we are now and it's ugly. Your president has decimated this country and in spite of your accusations that he's done what he's done because somehow or another he's been hamstrung by the House is just another excuse. Read my post above to see the reality of what the "winner" has accomplished.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

bvresident, I'm not gloating about anything. I'm telling it like it is. If Romney had won, I would still be saying it was more about tactics than message, especially to the bulk of the voters. When it comes right down to it, neither party is talking to me, or most of us in the middle class. They're both talking to strawmen, and hoping that we see a bit of ourselves wrapped around those bones. Most of my pieces aren't anywhere to be seen on either party's strawman.

Neither party wants to put any meat on the bones because they know that they can't deliver without a lot of good fortune and a huge dose of divine intervention. They also know that the devil is in the details, and when it comes down to paying for their pie-in-the-sky ideas with blood, sweat, tears, and dollars, they can't placate enough people to actually do anything meaningful. Which explains why, after decades of promises by both parties, we're no closer to solving the major problems of our generation than we were when Nixon was in office.

As I stated, the Republican Party doesn't try to pander for the poor's vote. Their claim is that the Republican programs will boost the middle class enough to where the poor will be sucked up and we won't need those poverty programs anymore. The Democrats message to the poor is that those big bad rich people are keeping all the money to themselves and keeping you poor. Sounds to me to be a battle of dreams versus alternate reality for the poor. I can't see either party offering a hope they can take to the bank or to the polls. So, they appear to be voting--when they do vote--for the party that is at least promising that their programs will still be there.

As both parties stand today, they're both all hat and no cattle. Neither has done much lately of any real substance. Until I see that either party can start accomplishing things in a split power situation--one that requires true leadership--I'm not jumping head first into either pool. Prove to me that you can convince me to do things your way, rather than calling me an idiot purely because I don't see things the same as you. I'm not looking for both sides to be passing honey back and forth, but it would be nice if one side were willing to do something other than hydrochloric acid and plutonium.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

carlosrponce, save me the lecture. I know all about fending for myself. I've done it all my life. That's why I'm not looking for either the Democrats, Republicans, or even the Tea Party to do my fending for me. You and bvresident are just as much after the Big Bad Government fixing all your problems as those Entitlement Hounds you constantly berate.

Steve Fouga

bv, I'm not gloating about Obama. I'm disappointed in his presidency. I'm just jabbing you because you constantly jab and insult others. Sorry, I shouldn't do that.

"When people are unable to factually back up there opinions they simply write incessantly and that is enough to make people like servitude and jake and mytoby and dumb47 believe it's got to be accurate because there so much there."

I bet if Lang applied his logic and intellect to supporting your position, you would praise him to high heaven. I find it funny that you consider a string of links lying in the middle of a conservative rant as "fact." Much more convincing is a logic stream with embedded facts, presented in an understandable manner.

It's also funny that you lump me, Lang, drumb, sverige, and mytoby into the same category. It shows you're not really paying attention.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Jake, we are all in the same category. We're not bvresident. And we aren't in nearly complete agreement with him or his presentation style. The fact that we don't agree with each other isn't enough to avoid getting lumped together.

Chris Gimenez

"I'd say they demonstrated their strength by kicking the snot out of the Republicans two elections in a row, despite a mediocre candidate.

Politics is a results-oriented business. [beam]" Written by Jake Buckner

"bv, I'm not gloating about Obama." Written by Jake Buckner

Herein lies the problem with the Entitlement Party. They can't remember what they said from one minute to the next. Of course, when I listed all the failures of the boy president's administration Mr. Buckner didn't dare respond other than to say he doesn't believe any of the facts. Little wonder why this country's in such sad shape after five years of a Socialist-driven president.

Steve Fouga

Silly person, I'm not a member of a political party, remember? I'm not gloating about Obama, I'm making fun of you. Can't you see the difference?

BTW, bv, can you guess how much influence I have over the Obama Administration? Do you think it's my policies they're enacting?

Bv, I can't tell if you're really dumb or if you just act like it on these forums.

Chris Gimenez

You're making fun of me by expressing how great it is that your boy president won two elections and is destroying our country? Hmm.

As for being dumb, you're the one who can't back up anything you say with a single fact, you admit that you don't read any political stories because they're either left or right (which is ridiculous on the face of it), and you sound like Lang in that you can't seem to come out and say who you voted for. Somebody's being pretty dumb here but it ain't me Jake.

Steve Fouga

He's your boy president too. I can't recall stating I think it's great he's destroying the country. Please quote my words from the thread where I said that.

I'm simply poking fun at your lack of logic. It's comical. But I shouldn't do it; I usually feel guilty afterward.

As for not being able to back up my assertions with facts, let me assure you it's not a lack of ability; it's a lack of desire. I consider it a waste of my time to search for links. It's not important enough for me to defend my political positions to a bunch of bloggers. Some things, yes. Politics, no.

Yes you're right bvres, I almost refuse to read anything from either the liberal or conservative press, but mainly I don't read political stories because they usually don't interest me.

As for who I voted for, I dont mind saying. I thought I had said at some point in the past. I voted for Nixon, Reagan twice, 41 twice, Clinton once, W once and Obama once. As for why I voted for Obama, I was voting democrat as soon as I saw the republican ticket. No way I would vote McCain for any public office. Palin either. I didn't vote for Obama again because I was disappointed with his first term.

Chris Gimenez

Jake, you're not losing it-you've already lost it. I'm not making logical assertions, they're factual. It's obvious you neither understand the difference between logic and facts but if you hang in here and keep riding my comments you'll learn something. As for Ms. Palin, she runs circles around the boy president or Crazy Joe Biden for that matter. She has a better grasp of the Constitution than the Constitutional lawyer we have occupying the WH now. You have great Independence Day also Jake. We should enjoy it while we're still allowed to celebrate it.

Chris Gimenez

This is exactly what the boy president wants to happen to this country. Apparently with the support and admiration of the likes of Jake, mytoby, island runner, Lang, servitude, and the rest of their ilk.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/01/gohmert-us-will-become-third-world-nation-if-feds-dont-enforce-immigration-laws/

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

bvresident, you should try comprehension and reality sometime. They really aren't all that bad.

Hey, let me know when you find the citations to my writings that show how much I admire your president. It might make for entertaining reading. In the meantime I'll continue to be entertained by your delusion that we're all your political enemies.

I think I want our country to fix its problems just as much as you do, and I'm probably just as frustrated that the combination of people we've elected to solve them won't do it. The difference is that you want to blame it all on a handful of members of one party. I think the tent holds a few more clowns than that. Proportion of blame? I'm not going there. To me, there's just no excuse for this BS, regardless of whether you're 1%, 5%, or 99% to blame.

Chris Gimenez

Lang, I've been accused of a lot of things-some of them were actually true-but one thing no one has ever accused me honestly of is being unable to comprehend.

As for your "citations" expressing your love and adoration for your boy president, they're not available which is exactly the point I've made in previous comments. You are always trying to parse your comments and end up looking like someone who doesn't know where he stands. And we all know that someone who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

Here's where I get my opinion that you're an Obama-boy. You almost always explain away or excuse the boy president's actions by either accusing the GOP of somehow being partially responsible or going back to Bush and saying that XYZ actually started under his watch.

The (U)ACA is 100% democrat and Obama. Nancy Pelosi said they had to pass it to find out what was in it. It passed without a single democrat voting against it or a single Republican voting for it.

The IRS scandal is another. You were just making excuses about how the missing emails could just very likely be the result of some hapless technology employee even though the hard-drive "crashed" just ten days after her emails were requested by the Congressional investigative committee. Then the hard-drive was "destroyed" rather than holding onto the evidence. And of course all this happened just after Ms. Lerner invoked the Fifth rather than answer any questions about her actions targeting conservative groups.

So why don't you fess up and tell us who you voted for in the last two elections and we'll be able to clear all this up. I voted Republican both times.

We'll be waiting for your answer.

Jim Forsythe

You think Your president is still a boy. That is the only way You could think he's a boy is You think he is under 16.

.UNLESS IT HAS TO Do WITH RACE.

Can't be race from You, so You must think he is under 17 years old.

A boy become a man after the years of puberty. Puberty is between the ages of 12 to 16..

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

bvresident, I don't owe you a darned thing with respect to my votes. How dare you demand ANYONE on this board to tell you how they vote. Regardless of what I put down here, you're going to claim that my vote went to Obama.

My position on the scandals is quite clear. Get all the information you can. Test the statements to see if they can be validated. Build the timelines. Identify any motives and opportunities, see what else might be there, and make sure that you have identified all the culprits as well as rooted out the culture that allowed things to happen. All you want is to lay it on Obama, whether or not he did it or no matter how much help he might have had. I say that if Obama did it, I want to know how he did it, why he did it, and who all helped him do it. Even if it was all a coincidental mix of random activities, I want to make sure that we make sure that it doesn't happen again. Even if we happen to lose the chance to impeach Obama. It does no good to impeach Obama if you leave everything in place to ensure that the same kind of stuff can happen again.

Yes, the ACA was passed without Republican votes. However, if you want to say it had no Republican elements, then I'd like to know when the Republican plan is going to be amended to eliminate the "pre-existing conditions" and College Students on Parent's Policy clauses. As I've stated before, it was wrong to take ACA to the floor with only Democratic votes. I would have rather there be a return to committee to get more Republican input, scaling back the overall plan as necessary, to ensure a bipartisan bill. However, we can't rewrite the past, and we aren't going to see the law go away anytime soon, definitely not soon enough in your book.

In the meantime, those elements that might be cancerous have had years to infiltrate areas that the next Congress--IF it turns out how you'd like--won't begin to be able to clean up, even if it can override a veto. Which is why I've been saying that the Republicans should quit wasting time on repeal attempts, and, instead, work on managing it until they can either fix it or replace it. If there's a raging fire burning in my neighbors yard, I'm going to my darnedest to spray enough water on it to keep it from sucking up my house, while I'm waiting for the fire department to come and put out the whole fire. Yes, I have insurance. But, that doesn't mean that I'd rather my house burn. Your mileage varies. Your strategy to let it take your house and the neighbor's on the other side, too, I guess, is valid, too.

Doesn't it seem to make sense that when you know that the change you want is going to come perhaps 7, or, egads, 15 years too late, that it would make sense to put a little effort into mitigating the potential damage. I guess that only makes sense to low-comprehension idiots like me.

Chris Gimenez

Bigjim, my moniker for your president has nothing to do with race although your characterization of it being racist fits right in with the Left's modus operandi.

I call him a boy president because he's not got the maturity needed to lead this country. He was elected without credentials and he's proved that he's basically a petulant little man who blames everyone else for the problems he owns himself. So when I call him a "boy president" it's to describe the election to the highest office in this country of someone who is far too immature for the position. Kind of like the term "shrub" to describe George Bush by the Left.

Chris Gimenez

Lang, I haven't "demanded" anything of you so spare me your faux indignation. If you are too afraid to put some validity behind your views that's up to you. I don't have a problem telling anyone who I vote for in local, state, or federal elections because I try to be informed about the candidates and then vote for who I believe will do the best job based on my personal philosophies and I always want to publicly support those I vote for. I understand that terrifies others and that's okay. And no Lang, if you said you voted for Romney or for Obama I'd believe you. I've never called you a liar-misguided, yes-but not a liar. Independence Day is upon us so relax, do something you enjoy with your family, watch the fireworks, and this country's mess will be here when we get back on Monday.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

bvresident, I have voted in every legislative or presidential election since I became eligible to vote. That's all the qualifications I need to be able to levy my own critiques against both sides, and I will do so freely. My specific votes are personal. And regardless of who I voted for, I will hold them to the same standards of performance while in office. Since I don't see anyone elected to represent me doing anything substantive to fix the problems, I'd like to vote them all out today and replace them with someone that would. However, that's not something the Constitution allows. All I can really do is push, prod, and hope that someone in our government will get the cajones and the maturity to use them, to save the campaigning for the election, and save the rest of the time for the people's work--what we pay them for. I get paid to do the best I can with what I have. I expect no less from them. We're all getting far less than that. Of course there are ways that I'd like to see things happen, but this country isn't about me. It's about doing the best we can within the bounds given to us. With the current balance in DC, both the liberals and the staunch conservatives don't have the balance needed to get their way on much of anything. So, it seems to me that they need to pick one or two points in each piece of legislation that they'll really fight for, and, a few more that they'll ask for, and then be willing to listen to what those in the middle have to say. Of course, no one listens to anyone in DC, so while I believe that's what SHOULD happen, I know that's not what will happen. What will happen is what we've seen for 5 years or so.

And, I would like to see the Senate quit playing procedural games to keep people from making points, or bringing stuff up to vote.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

bvresident, I'd like to with you and yours a safe and Happy Independence Day. I'm glad we have the right to disagree. I just wish that sometimes we could do it a bit less pointedly. Not too often. We don't want to completely eliminate the "Jane, you ignorant bleep" from the dialogue completely [beam]

JBG JBG

Yall know what? I'm of the mind that it would seem that we'd be better off as a nation if our President and leader is chosen from a body of candidates who have at least minimum experience in leading and directing an executive branch of a state government before they ascend to the Presidency of they United States. Certainly more than one term as a congress person.
-
I'll tell you why. That way, whoever is elected will not walk in "cold turkey" and inexperienced in dealing with the other two branches of governments. They will have some kind of working knowledge of how things work and how to interact with those individuals who they will have to deal with in order to get things done for the good of the country.
-
One or two years as a senator is not enough experience in my opinion for someone, ANYONE, to sit in the seat of the United States Of America, and lead the Free World! Mr. Obama is a nice enough person, but he just did not have and therefore did not bring with him the respect, relationships, confidence, or the working knowledge, of that which a Four Star General "COLIN POWELL" would have bought to the table.
-
Oh our military people will cheer Mr. Obama when he comes around, but we know they don't really respect him, and after what happened to those veterans, probably never will. Colin Powell would be not only different at home, but would have made much more of a difference with our allies, friends, and enemies. Think Mr. Putin respects Mr. Obama? Think he would respect a FOUR STAR GENERAL, ex-Chief Of Staff, ex-Secretary Of State LIKE COLIN POWELL? You bet!
-
The man was not only a Four Star General, but was Joint Chief Of Staff, and later Secretary of State of these United States! Now All that vs. one term as a Senator?? Come on now! We as Americans have a need to revisit how, and who we let run for the highest office of this country! that's all I'm saying! I don't hate nobody, and if I did I would not have voted for the man his first term, nor donated money to it. The problem is he lost my confidence in him to be the kind of leader he promised to be. It is that simple.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

JBG, it's been awhile since we've had a president that served even 2 years in the Senate before Obama. I think Nixon was the next previous president to have served in the Senate, and that was barely 2 years. Nixon did have a couple years in the House, and a term as VP, albeit all were years before he became President. Ford had lots of Congressional time--nearly 25 years. However, since then, George H. W. Bush is the only president with significant national and foreign service experience. Just taking a brief look at our past presidents, it doesn't look like you can generalize prior experience and the impact on their level of success in office. By your criteria, Reagan should have never been proposed as President, nor should Clinton. McCain should have had no real challenge.

JBG JBG

"Yall know what? I'm of the mind that it would seem that we'd be better off as a nation if our President and leader is chosen from a body of candidates who have at least minimum experience in leading and directing an executive branch of a state government before they ascend to the Presidency of they United States. Certainly more than one term as a congress person." .....JBG
-
"By your criteria, Reagan should have never been proposed as President, nor should Clinton. McCain should have had no real challenge." ......Mr. Kevin Lang
-

-
Mr. Lang here is a little heads up Information for you:

Ronald Wilson Reagan
Thirty-Third Governor Of California 1967-1975
-
William Jefferson Clinton
40th and 42nd Governor of Arkansas 1979-1981 then 1983- 1992
-
You don't equate these years of experience in prior leadership with my statement of executive state qualification? If you would, then my next question is: Why then would you say Reagan and Clinton would not have had the chance to serve as President of America if my criteria was adopted?
-

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Sorry, JBG, I zeroed in on the Senate experience. George H.W. Bush had never held elected office. Jimmy Carter had the executive experience. Not many would say it served him well in DC. Clinton had his executive experience in a state even smaller than Carter's. Wilson only served 2 years as Governor of NJ after 8 as President of Princeton. Not sure if your scale would qualify him as one of the top 25% of US Presidents. Taft's experience was pretty minimal, but he did a middling job as president, and left with at least a good enough reputation to be appointed Chief Justice. Abraham Lincoln's experience consisted of 3.5 months in the military, 8 years in the Illinois House, and 2 years in the US House. In comparison, Obama served almost 8 years in the Illinois Senate, and almost 4 in the US Senate.

Herbert Hoover served as US Secretary of Commerce, and he was undone by the economy. LBJ had more than enough experience to qualify, but he wasn't one of our most effective presidents.

James Buchanan had a pretty extensive career, and he's generally ranked near the bottom.

It still looks to me like trying to put some kind of experience parameters around the selection process still leaves us with pretty much a coin flip of a chance of determining who's going to be a good president.

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.