Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Obama should not get another four years

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, June 9, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 12:06 pm, Fri Sep 14, 2012.

The U.S. has vast untapped oil deposits, enough to make us totally independent of the Middle East. We also have the largest coal deposits and plenty of natural gas, but our president stopped all oil drilling on federal lands, put a moratorium on Gulf drilling below 500 feet, and helped regulate coal to such an extent that we'll probably be importing it from China.

However, Mr. Obama is underwriting off-shore drilling for Brazil. With his backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobas, for oil exploration, but the oil will stay in Brazil. This would benefit Brazil with the acquition of cheaper oil, but does nothing for the United States.

He has incurred more national debt than any other president in history. Our children and grandchildren are on the hook for all this debt. He has approved a health bill which will help bankrupt us when all provisions go into effect, and some of the provisions for seniors are really upsetting.

Every American should have access to reasonable health care, but this plan isn't it. One of its provisions applies a 3.8 percent sales tax to homes sold by married couples earning more than $200,000 per year. I believe everyone should pay their fair share of taxes, but this is a special fee penalizing one group of people. I would much rather he see that his tax-cheat appointees — like Tim Geithner, for example — pay up the thousands of dollars in back taxes he owes, plus the penalties that us ordinary citizens would be charged.

He refuses to salute the American flag, he bows to the Saudi elite, he apologizes for the U.S. on his travels, he vetoed the Canadian pipeline which could have provided many jobs, and has signed into law a bill which would allow the Secret Service to arrest any person who may be protesting in the vicinity of an Obama visit and charge them with a felony, if they so choose. I believe that is a violation of the First Amendment.

After his performance these last few years, I can't believe that he could be re-elected. I don't believe our country can survive another four years with him. I truly believe this man is no friend of the U.S.

Sonia F. Glick

Lockeford

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

58 comments:

  • Walter Chang posted at 11:57 am on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1079

    __.MMMMMMMMN____:MMMNMMMMMMM~___,MMMMM__.MMMMM________MMMM
    .MM_______MMN____:M________MM____,M______.MM?M_________MM.
    .M_________MN____:M________$MN___,M______.MM_MM________MM.
    .M_________MN____:M_________MN___,M______.MM__MO_______MM.
    .MM______________:M_________MN___,M______.MM---MI______MM.
    _.MMM____________:M________MM____,M______.MM____M______MM.
    ___.8MMMM________:M______~MM_____,M______.MM_____M_____MM.
    _______.MMMM_____:MMMMMMMO_______,M______.MM_____MM____MM.
    __________.MM____:M______________,M______.MM______MM___MM.
    .M_________MM____:M______________,M______.MM_______M8__MM.
    .M_________MM____:M______________,M______.MM________M__MM.
    .NM_______+M_____:M______________,M______.MM_________M_MM.
    __.MMIMMMMM____:MMMMM__________,MMMMM___.MMMM________8MMM.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 11:55 am on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1079


    __.MMMMMMMMN____MMMNMMMMMMM~____MMMMM___MMMMM________MMMMM
    .MM_______MMN____:M________MM____,M______.MM?M_________MM.
    .M_________MN____:M________$MN___,M______.MM_MM________MM.
    .M_________MN____:M_________MN___,M______.MM__MO_______MM.
    .MM______________:M_________MN___,M______.MM---MI______MM.
    _.MMM____________:M________MM____,M______.MM____M______MM.
    ___.8MMMM________:M______~MM_____,M______.MM_____M_____MM.
    _______.MMMM_____:MMMMMMMO_______,M______.MM_____MM____MM.
    __________.MM_____M______________,M______.MM______MM___MM.
    .M_________MM____:M______________,M______.MM_______M8__MM.
    .M_________MM____:M______________,M______.MM________M__MM.
    .NM_______+M_____~M______________,M______.MM_________M_MM.
    __.MMIMMMMM_____MMMMM___________MMMMM___MMMMM________8MMM.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 10:24 am on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1079


    . ....... ......... .. .... ... . ........ .......
    ..MMMMMMM,MN..MMMMNMMMMMMM,...MMMMMMN.MMMMM.... ..MMMMMMN
    ....MM.. ..MMN ...:M.... ..,MM. ,M.. .MM?M... ...MM..
    ....M=.. ...MN ...:M.... .$M. ,M.. .MM.MM.. ...MM..
    ...~M. ......MN....:M.... .,M= ,M.. .MM..MO. ....MM..
    ....MM... . ........:M.... .,M~ ,M.. .MM...MI......MM..
    .....MMM.... .... ..:M.... .MM. ,M.. .MM....M......MM..
    ,..8MMMM........:M... ..~MM.. ,M.. .MM.....M.....MM..
    . ....MMMM.....:MMMMMMMO.. . ,M.. .MM. .MM....MM..
    ........ ...MM....:M.... ,M.. .MM. ..MM...MM..
    ..~M.. ...MM....:M.... ,M.. .MM. ...M8..MM..
    ..=M.... ....MM....:M.... ,M.. .MM. ....M..MM..
    ..=NM.......+M:....~M.... . ,M.. .MM. . .....M.MM..
    ..~N.MMI .MMM....MMMMMMMM.. .MMMMMMM.MMMMMMN. ....8MMM..
    ....... .................. ............... ... ......
    .. . . ... . . .. . .. . . ..

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:53 am on Sun, Jun 17, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    For you K Lee...No Comment

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 7:45 pm on Fri, Jun 15, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell: You're not being clear or concise. Please restate your point.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:39 pm on Fri, Jun 15, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Darrell: Can you restate your point in more concise terms?

    That would be difficult since it is very clear already... but yes, if I wanted to be more concise, I probably could.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:05 am on Thu, Jun 14, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell: Can you restate your point in more concise terms?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:30 pm on Wed, Jun 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mike stated...The UN couldn't find them BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EXIST.(WMD)

    Sadam had 2 years to hide what ever he developed in a desert. Mike could very well be correct. There might not have been any WMD...however, it is silly to think Sadam as president could not have hidden what ever he wanted...

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:23 pm on Wed, Jun 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    K Lee stated...You need way too many explanations to understand others here on these boards.

    Thank you for the opportunity to help you understand more clearly. I do ask for explanations many times. That is the nature of a person seeking truth. If a word can be taken two different ways, it is appropriate to ask a question to determine what the intent was. People who do not clarify or ask for explanations tend to get results like you K Lee, that is... unreliable information that is no better than gossip and rumor.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:42 pm on Wed, Jun 13, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell (A Lodi Baumbach): You need way too many explanations to understand others here on these boards. You often need someone to restate or rephrase or even completely break it down. Maybe you need to do your own homework. Now go back to your corner in the post office parking lot and surf the net. No skyping this time!

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:13 pm on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Heuer, many things in your post at 8:08 PM I can agree with... but I am confused how it relates in the big picture of the discussion. Can you restate your points in more concise terms?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:09 pm on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    I also say that Bushes tax reduction (more than 5%) lasted longer than Reagans (because of the tax increases) therefore was greater in the long run.

    I posted the actual tax brackets before and after Bush at 4:20 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012....

    Clearly , tax cuts were less than 5% for anyone earning over $68,000 per year.... can you provide a post that shows what you claim as fact?

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 8:08 pm on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1333

    Oh Darreell
    I never know where to start you post so much but rather than start with I never said Reagan desired tax increases, no politician does even democrats since there is a santa clause role in every politician they can't resist. Its like when republicans set a new high in passing earmarks during the Bush years. However lets touch base on economics in general which is a numbers game which gets played in these posts so often. Seldom do numbers stand alone or without explanation. The times, mitigating factors, personalities, underlying circumstances which impact it all. Its like someone saying It wasn't just G Bush that took us to war in Iraq, some democrats voted for it too. An irrefutable fact however I was there and that isn't clearly correct. The mood of 9[11 created patriotic ferver and to look soft on terrorism is like taxes to the GOP today. The idea for the vote was to provide sufficient power to the president IF NEEDED in case Iraq was to suddenly launch an attack but surely after the inspectors were allowed to finish their job. However Bush got the vote pulled the inspectors and we went to war. Everyone thinking Bush must must know more than the rest of us. We hoped he knew more than the rest of us. The rest is history. I'm attaching a unique url that just happens to cover all three presidents tax histories. It shows a little more detail into the numbers. It bears my point there are more behind the numbers than meets the eye. I can't even begin to compare anything to Kennedys numbers because it is so far back and the world was so different. You have to consider the effects of the escallation of the cold war where we were driven by competion with the Ruskies. The middle class was booming suburbia sprawling, arms race (and defense) franticly expanding, the space race taking off and growing demands for entertainment. There is just too much to compare with the different dynamics today. I remember losing tax deductions with Reagans tax reform. Reagan began a new era that no longer had a cold warso its easier to begin comparisons. However Even reagan wouldn't fit into days republican party.

    Anyway the url is http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html

    I also say that Bushes tax reduction (more than 5%) lasted longer than Reagans (because of the tax increases) therefore was greater in the long run.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:41 am on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Heuer... I would not be surprised if I missed a point or two that you attempt to convey. By brain is not wired for "liberal think".

    and... without doubt... I will never again consider taking my laptop out of my car truck when in public (In USA)... I learned my lesson. If I want to use my laptop in public, I only do that when I am in Thailand as the police "there" would consider a call like this from the public as a crank call and not respond.

    By the way, I was there at the post office in the evening, but it was open as it closes at 8:00PM to pick up mail. I hope you never experience what I did...it was not pleasant.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:33 am on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    A little history and substantiation of Democrats endless and enthusiastic thirst of more taxes and how Reagan did the responsible thing; compromised to get what he wanted, which was dramatic tax rate reduction.

    "Pete" Stark, the democratic party California liberal, presented the legislation
    (The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982), which Reagan eventually signed. This legislation which was presented by and demanded by the Democrats is credited for the majority of tax increases under Reagan's watch. Mr Heuer is disengenuous when he pretends reagan desired tax increases when in reality, he relucktantly agreed to them as compromise with the tax thirsty Democrats.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:30 am on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Heuer... is this your way of backtracking as you accuse me of? You stated that George Bush cut taxes more that any other president when in reality, he cut taxes by only 5%... very small compared to both Kennedy and Reagan. Kennedy even made speeches as I posted that demonstrated his philosophy was very similar to Reagan.

    As far as tax increases under Reagan's term, yes it happened.... However, that was the compromise that the democrats insisted on and demanded. They stated that if Reagan wanted his income tax rate cuts, that he would have to meet their demands of various tax increases..

    So yes, Reagan was forced to compromise. He made it clear that he wanted taxes to go down, not up. Democrats made it very clear, that they demanded taxes go up, just like that always do.
    Everyone is currently complaining that the left and right does not compromise enough since Bush was elected. I would think Reagan would be given high marks from Democrats for compromising and giving them the massive tax increases that they enthusiastically demanded.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 1:08 am on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1333

    Darrell
    Here is some information on Reagan
    http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm
    He cut taxes but had to raise them 11 times so Bush takes the lead.

    Jerome
    I don't know how to break this to you but Bush 43 did do the first stimulus. I say good for him

    Mr Adams
    good job. I don't have the energy. I did read the article but already knew about it. It is a d.mn shame. There has been no evidence of significant voter fraud. It is voter suppression. Its another conservative paranoia that just sidetracks them (and others) from doing an honest days work.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:54 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2324

    Mr. Heuer wrote that ". . . the stimulus packages kept us from being in even worse condition."

    Now let's not be too disingenuous here. Had George W. Bush thrown all that money into stimulus programs that saw no discernable improvement in the economy and then made that very same claim, the left would be LOL'ing all over the blogosphere - and rightfully so.

    I can’t imagine anyone writing such a thing on this forum with a straight face. Although I’ve seen that pathetic excuse before you tossed it out here (causing me to believe you’re simply parroting the party line), it still makes me laugh whenever it’s attempted to excuse this president’s abysmal performance with the economy.

    But let’s not forget, “the private sector is doing fine.” Again – I laugh!

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 7:58 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1346

    Well President got us OUT of Iraq, a war we had no business starting. And I don't want to hear all the c*rap about WMD. The UN couldn't find them BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EXIST. Saddam lied about having stockpiles that were never there. Unfortunate for Iraq and several thousand US service men and women, all the little republican chicken hawks (Chenny #1), desperate for anything to take the focus off of Bush's inability to find Osama Bin Laden and the soon to be crashing economy, all lined up behind the little man who spent money like his daddy was still paying the bills. There lies they continued to repeat over and over (fraud informants who just made stuff up) pulled enough democrats in to support our incursion of a soverign nation. Colin Powell, perhaps the only decent man in the cabinet refused to serve another term. And as a good general, he didn't criticize his commander in chief.

    The US government and our economy isn't like Chrysler and Obama couldn't just come in and make cut after cut. He's done his best (and done a very good job of it in my opinion, and I don't trap cats) with little to work with now thanks to republican politics.

    I see none of you conservatives bothered to read Leonard Pitts this morning or more likely (if you have any soul and sense of shame at all) you hope your dirty politics just won't get noticed. Republicans have a lot to be proud of: Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon (yes, I like Nixon) and Regan's first term....since then nothing but deceit, lies, and "through the roof" spending. Maybe you could look on your conservative blogs and find out what happened to our 600 ship navy or why nothing better happen in Korea, because all the vulnerable US service men and women have no chance of being reinforced since every available man and woman in the service is in Iraq and Afganistan. Yeah....republicans. It's too bad they're serious.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 6:19 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1333

    Darrell I hope you are not sitting in front of post office again typing all of this. You'll really look suspicious with the office closed. Don't call if you need cigarettes, 60 Minutes is on so I'm busy. BTW you missed my point of Obama getting re-elected however the history lesson is appreciated even though it is flawed.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:20 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    This chart shows the income tax rates by bracket. It is Obvious that the Tax rate only went down 5% under Bush. Clearly Mr Heuer needs to Brush up on his history. The first rate shows what the Tax rate was lowered to under Bush... that higher rate was the tax rate prior to Bush.

    Up to $16,750: Rate rises from 10 percent to 15 percent
    • From $16,751 to $58,200: Stays same at 15 percent, but entire bracket pays 5 percent additional on the first $16,750
    • From $58,201 to $68,000: Rises from 15 percent to 28 percent
    • From $68,001 to $137,300: Rises from 25 percent to 28 percent
    • From $137,301 to $209,250: Rises from 28 percent to 31 percent
    • From $209,251 to $373,650: Rises from 33 percent to 36 percent
    • $373,651 and up: Rises from 35 percent to 39.6 percent

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:10 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    The Reagan Tax Cuts... according to Wikipedia...

    After the inflation of the 1970s had pushed millions of Americans into higher tax brackets (even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising), President Ronald Reagan took office and promptly proposed sweeping tax-rate reductions. The cornerstone of his economic policy was a 25-percent across-the-board tax cut, enacted in 1981. According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan plan:

    As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, total federal government revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s. The average annual growth rate of America's real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 1983 to 1989 was 3.8 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it had been when they began. From 1981 through 1989, the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:06 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Mr. Heuer stated…Well the biggest tax cuts in history were passed under Bush but where are the jobs?

    Mr Heuer demonstrates that his knowledge in matters of history is not reliable…

    01. The Kennedy Tax Cuts… As a result of Kennedy's tax cuts, the federal government's tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

    After Herbert Hoover had dramatically increased tax rates in the early 1930s, and Franklin Roosevelt had pushed marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent, President John F. Kennedy recognized that high taxes were hindering the U.S. economy. To remedy the situation, he proposed across-the-board tax-rate reductions; the top tax rate, for example, was slashed from 91 percent to 70 percent. Said Kennedy:
    "Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.... In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:23 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    You missed the point.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 2:05 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1333

    Jerome wrote
    "considering all that President Obama has done during his first four years"
    is exactly what will get him re-elected. Your efforts to defy what polls are showing can only be equated with wishful thinking. The conservatives struggle to erase their own history makes them blind to the facts that challenge their beliefs. The fact that Bush stood at the helm watching helplessly as the economy crashed destroyed the idea that conservatives are the fiscal watch dogs.
    Republicans continue to say tax cuts are the job creating strategy. Well the biggest tax cuts in history were passed under Bush but where are the jobs? The tax cuts were continued even under Obama (no credit from conservatives) and again where are the jobs? Only the stimulus packages kept us from being in even worse condition. Nothing is going to do more for the economy now than Europe
    (the people that buy alot of our stuff) getting its economic house in order and getting the housing industry up and running.
    Conservatives manipulated the electorate with social issues that no longer resonate the same way with the public. Santorum tried to lead that charge again going even further to the right so that Romney has had to struggle to move back closer to center right. Republicans believe their own Fox directed rhetoric that anything Obama has accomplished gets the "yes but" wet blanket treatment that in their eyes null and voids each accomplishment. Many accomplishments have been listed on previous posts but because they go against message they are ignored. Even when you mention he got Bin Laudin, which Bush gave up, on was a national moment everyone had been waiting for but even it got the "yes but" wet blanket treatment.
    The economy yes will weigh heavily in the election but conservatives have to realize the weight of the Bush years against it coupled with the Debt ceiling debacle, the GOP primary where attacks on womens rights, disregard for civil rights of gays and latinos, the discussions of gutting if not destroying social security and medicare, being the architects of the abomination of torture and rendition, holding a principled stance over common sense by rejecting 10 spending cuts for 1 tax increase, promoting deregulation that fosters more unsavory activity than enterprise and as I say the many other accomplishments that are going to weigh in on the scale as counter to the common economic axiom.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 11:02 am on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2324

    The last sentence of the second paragraph in my post of 10:33 a.m. today should have read:

    Even though Bush guided us to a clear victory through a short war where the purpose was well-defined and supported by a majority of Americans, his shortened stint was directly related to his going back on his word of “Read my lips, ‘No New Taxes!’” that had him victorious over Michael Dukakis in 1988.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:33 am on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2324

    On contributor here wrote, “. . . President Obama will be re-elected (as he should) . . .”

    This is an interesting notion that really does deserve serious attention considering all that President Obama has done during his first four years. So the simple question in reply must be “why” should President Obama be re-elected?

    At least during the last 40 years or so it has been axiomatic that an economy in the state that it is at this moment would spell doom for whoever is in the White House. Indeed, where is the “It’s the economy, stupid” crowd that had the elder President Bush limited to just one term? Or was William Jefferson Clinton elected under false pretenses? Even though Bush guided us to a clear victory through a short war where the purpose was well-defined and supported by a majority of Americans, it was his going back on his word of “Read my lips, ‘No New Taxes!’“ that had him victorious over Michael Dukakis in 1988.

    So fast forward to 2012 . . . the economy is in the tank; nothing Obama has done in this regard has resulted in any appreciable change. Spending under his administration is through the roof with murmurings in the wings for even more stimuli.

    So once again (with feeling) – why should President Obama be re-elected?

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 8:55 am on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1843

    Difference being attendance at Providence Road Church is OPTIONAL, public schools are not for people who can't afford private schools. Apples and orange comparison come to mind?

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 8:54 am on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1843

    I disagree with Sonia Glick. Obama should get at least 4 years, should be 40, Leavenworth would be my first choice.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 7:52 am on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1346

    Jeez.... I guess I got the jump again on national news... Read Leonard Pitts' coulumn in today's Record (Stockton Record). Nice piece of work republicans. Cheating even more people out of their constitutional rights. I like the effort to keep a decorated WW II vet from being able to vote without proving he was a citizen first. Nice touch. Real classy move. And in spite of Kinderman's protestations about race relations in this country and blaming their decline on the President, just one more example of reading too much conservative c*r*a*p instead of getting the big picture. Well he's in the right political party.

    KLee: Republicans are always quick to point out the one oddity and believe this proves what ever point they feebly try to make. If you read or listened to all their exhaust, you'd think that there is one rich guy in the democratic party: George Soros. Neglecting to even list tens of millionaires in their party that fuel their hate of everything normal and decent about living in America. Darrell Isa is a good example of republican money dirtying the water. As the attempt to re-call legitimately elected Governor Gray Davis began to waiver, Isa poured in a ton of money, hopping to force the election and win the seat for himself. Arnold put an end to those dreams. Isa isn't even a rich republican.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 12:39 am on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Jerome R. Kinderman wrote, "Let's not forget the recent matter of a teacher in North Carolina ignorantly insisting that a student could be arrested for disrespecting Mr. Obama at http://tinyurl.com/7gb88tv. I'm confident there were (are) plenty of far-left liberals/progressives cheering her on!"

    Jerome: You must mean something like the members of the Providence Road Baptist Church in North Carolina as they speak out in defense of their pastor, Pastor Charles Worley, after he called for "lesbians and q u e e r s" to be detained inside electric fences until they all die off. This was during his sermon on May 13, 2012. Many of his parishioners support his view and agree with him (as noted in their interviews). They said that gays are worthy of death and that the pastor is right. These are conservative right wingnuts that I suspect you might like to disassociate yourself. So, let's not assume that all democrats or republicans think like, and agrees with, every ol' wack job that decides to spout off stupid comments and support moronic views and opinions. And do you not think that there were (are) plenty of far-right conservatives cheering on Pastor Worley?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 11:10 pm on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell: You still haven't posted anything that refutes what snopes has posted as far as the national debt and Brazilian oil go. Why is that, Darrell?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:44 pm on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mike stated... As we got closer to this year's election, they put the brakes on everything, ruining the economy ( in reference to the Republicans)

    Mike, if they put the brakes on everything, Obamacare would be on hold...News Flash... Everything Obama wanted, he got... and none of it has stopped.

    There is one thing that has stopped however, the senate has not passed a budget in three years... not three months... three years. Oh... who is it that controlls the Senate? Of course, the do nothing Senate who has stopped our economy from moving forward.

    Of course the Conservative house has responsibly acted in the best interest of Americans and passed legislation for the Dems to vote on...but of course, they vote that down as well...DOA... A do nothing president and senate ... how sad.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:30 pm on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    sorry K lee... If you think it reliable to depend on Snopes, I do not wish to burst your reality bubble.... personally, I would never suggest such a biased resourse for a quick visual as it would make me look subjective.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 5:23 pm on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1346

    Mr. Maple... you'll be glad to hear that I am firmly embedded in the middle class. The upper end of it, but still the middle class. My parents were about in the middle. I don't know why you would take issue of my position, it's not my political party that driving people into poverty.

    Darrell, as to President Obama's accomplishments in his first two years, well the republicans knew they were going to have to give and begrudgingly they did. As we got closer to this year's election, they put the brakes on everything, ruining the economy, forcing a couple million out of work that were recently re-hired after the disaster of the previous president. Did you think I wouldn't know that? Come on bring your "B" game at least. That was a softball. Slow pitch.

    Kinderman, well who cares what his opinion is. He's pro everything the right stands for. Putting it into little folksy ways doesn't get any traction. What could he possibly know about race relations in the US? He thinks poor, hungry kids wear signs that say "I'm a poor hungry kid". He also is on record supporting those who trap family pets and either turn them into the pound "for processing" or releasing them out in the country. If you live in his neighborhood, keep close track of your pets.

    I also noted that the letter writer didn't say anything about Reverend Jerimiah who-ever. That's a good point to put in your next scribbling. Also, I've noticed calling the president a socialist or progressive or a liberal all get some good nodding heads going up and down. Try and hit these points next letter. They won't change that President Obama will be re-elected (as he should), but all the conservatives here will lavish you with praise.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 5:23 pm on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1079

    Wow, it's Pat Maple!!

    Nice to see you're still up to same shenanigans.

    Been beatin' that same drum for at least 4 years now, huh??

    Sometimes you'd say some pretty wacky stuff, I guess you still do.

    Good for you. Enjoy your freedom of speech!

    Are you still mad at Jimmy Carter and Jane Fonda these days??

    I'm sure you are. You probably still blow up at tax time too?

    HeHeHe..

    Have fun Pat but pace yourself.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 3:12 pm on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell: Using snopes' links in response to Ms. Glick's letter was a quick and easy visual for Ms. Glick. I thought she'd appreciate the simple approach. Let me know if you find data that refutes what snopes has posted as far as the national debt and Brazilian oil.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:18 pm on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Chiang…I always find it interesting that left leaning people like yourself make fun of and put down the intelligence of people like Ms. Glick. You could have explained why you perceived her points are in error. You could have explained why things she said were lies instead of mistakes… but you did not. It is as if it was beneath you… Your intelligence is so far superior to this person that you couldn’t bother articulating your truth and reality as she would not be able to comprehend… Right?
    If you were sincere in your post, you would have dealt with these questions below… but you did not.
    . How is she partisan from your perspective?
    .In what way was she more effective than some of the recent others?
    Why do you perceive her statements are outright lies? What if some things she stated were mistakes?
    I think it amazing that you have a superiority complex that results in making light of people like Ms Glick.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 12:21 pm on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mra: Starting something in the gov is only a prelude to corruption. In your own argument you state that Reps hate the EPA and their regulations... Hmmmm

    Then WHO made all of the idiotic regulations and laws that people must deal with today? The Dems.

    OMT: The middle class isn't disappearing we are just re-grouping. Is that what YOU aspire to...the MIDDLE class?? Wow

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 12:15 pm on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    No need mr chang...Ms Gullickson hit the nail on the head at least 20 times...BO is a bo-b...one only has to look as far as the little girl and her Alex's lemonade stand to realize this empty suit and his teleprompting message didn't work. Neither did his Trillion dollar "stimulus" to his cronies and union buy-outs. SHOW ME what we got for our money...SHOW ME some "shovel ready" jobs! They aren't there.

    BO is an empty suit and his policies an empty book. It IS the ECONOMY their policies have sunk it to depression era quantities.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 12:07 pm on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2324

    Up until this election it would seem that most presidential incumbents would consider themselves in very big trouble if they were to answer the following question "no": Are we better off today than we were four years ago? Clearly we're not, unless we're to believe President Barack Hussein Obama's exclamation that the private sector is doing fine insofar as the economy is concerned.

    Not only that, but I've never experienced such a divisive president. As far as matters of race are concerned, we're no better off than we were in the early sixties. Whatever forward movement we've made since then has been thwarted by the actions by this president and his minions. No one now is permitted to disagree with him and his policies without the race card being thrown down. To oppose the president is first racist and never as a matter of opinion or even fact. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of it and for that one matter alone, this guy should have never been elected in the first place. There are plenty of "people of color" who would have at least attempted to bring us together rather than split us further. The list is long and distinguished on both sides of the political spectrum. Just why Obama was "chosen" will probably always remain a mystery.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:55 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mike Adams stated...Perhaps things wouldn't be so bad if republicans would get off their fat bottoms and stop obstructing progress.

    Mike, you know better than that. President Obama had overwhelming control and power his first two years... if he had not, Obamacare would not have passed. Every Republican voted against the massive expensive health care bill but it did not stop the Obama express from shoving the legislation down the throats of every American.

    Obama had all this power and control and could have put all his energies into creating jobs in the private sector without the republicans able to stop anything he wanted to do. Instead, all we got was a jobs killing health care plan that increased the cost and burdens on all Americans.Now that it is looking like the Supreme Court will rule that Obamacare is unconstitutional, he is looking incompetent.

    Four more years? I guess if you want more of the same... Obama has never run a company or had to meet payroll. He is very inexperienced in what makes the private sector work and his decisions as president reflect how inexperienced he is.

    Hope and change?... not with Obama .Even Palin's teen daughter or Obama's two girls could do a better job.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 10:53 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1079

    Sonia, great partisan letter.

    More effective then some of the recent others.

    I especially enjoyed the outright lies. Yes mam!

    But you missed a couple of opportunities...

    You failed to mention that the President is a Muslim and that he was born in Kenya.

    Please consider adding those to you tool kit in the future.

    Thanks for sharing and participating in the process.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 10:23 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1346

    Joanne, has this been passed and signed already? This truly would be anti-1st amendment.

    To clarify my previous comments: Barack Obama SHOULD be re-elected in 2012!!

    Perhaps things wouldn't be so bad if republicans would get off their fat bottoms and stop obstructing progress. All this dismay and misery works to their advantage. I can't believe the still vast but disappearing middle class can't get over their anger and tell their republican overlords to come up with viable solutions and work with democrats. Their jobs and benefits are contracting at an alarming rate thanks to republican "leadership". Maybe when they are laid off by October they'll see the light.
    Well probably not. Their symbol, the elephant, is well known for having a long memory but exceedingly poor eyesight. Like the elephant, they remember the past like Richard Nixon resigning (And I for 1 thought he was a pretty good president), but can't see past tomorrow. I would like to point out that republicans mindlessly complain about the EPA which was started by Nixon, but always blamed on democrats.

    Also, with all the complaining about drilling for oil here in America, has anyone thought to check if we even have the refining capacity to produce the gasoline and other side products from cracking process. I believe I saw a story, now somewhat distant, that our oil has a high sulfur content and we had not the ability to deal with it so our gasoline came from other countries, like Japan. Also, I would prefer to use up all the oil in the middle east before we deplete our sources. Again, the poor eyesight thing.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:09 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "Now it is a possibility that Ms Bobin secretly wants Obama to be King as she would be correct that in Thailand one cannot protest publicly in the presence of their King."

    Last I heard, the King of Thailand is the Head of State of that country, no matter what his powers may or may not be, just as the American president is our head of state.

    Under Thailand's "Lese majeste" laws: "Political activists, university professors, webmasters and now even a U.S. citizen have found that out the hard way — arrested and charged with lèse majesté: criticizing or insulting the King, Queen or heir to the throne."

    No word on protesting publicly in the presence of the Royal Family.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:08 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2324

    And what of the website created to report other attacks against this president at http://tinyurl.com/68c9mlt? I don’t have to wonder how many contributors on this very forum have copied/pasted some of the comments posted here in an effort to assist in this Communistic endeavor.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:06 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2324

    Yet there are those here who would like that to be the case. Let's not forget the recent matter of a teacher in North Carolina ignorantly insisting that a student could be arrested for disrespecting Mr. Obama at http://tinyurl.com/7gb88tv. I'm confident there were (are) plenty of far-left liberals/progressives cheering her on!

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:55 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Adams: HR347 - here's the text:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:7:./temp/~c112Os2C5Z::

    This was a bill submitted to the Congress by a Republican and a Democrat at the request of the Secret Service and is generally refered to as the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." It amends an already existing section of US Code.

    And, as we all know...at least those of us who believe that our do-nothing Congress rarely passes anything...that it HAD to have bipartisan support.

    The bill applies to ANYONE with Secret Service protection, i.e., Barack Obama and his immediate family, Mitt Romney and his immediate family, past presidents/vice-presidents, visiting foreign dignitaries, and on and on.

    I, for one, believe that Ms. Glick's entire 5th paragraph is INFLAMMATORY. I wonder why Mr. "anti-inflammatory writing" has not come out AGAINST these statements.

    Oh, that's right....he agrees with them.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:48 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2324

    Actually, I don't think anyone would doubt that Barack Hussein Obama "could" be reelected in November. The real question is why "should" he be given a second bite at the presidential apple? With the economy still in the tank and the unemployment picture turning south once again, no one in their right mind would vote for a man who unabashedly stood before the People and pronounced the private sector as doing just fine (economically). In fact, the battle cry for Romney and the Republican Party ought to be We AREN'T Doing Fine!

    Obama cannot run on his record. Even his beloved health care bill is likely to be reversed to such a degree that it will be dead. Considering all that he squandered in political and fiscal capital to force that travesty down our collective throats, it alone should be enough. But we have so much more to point to that should convince even the staunchest of middle-of-the-road Democrats that he's simply drowning (the far-left crowd would vote for him even if it were proved beyond all doubt that he committed murder).

    Although when asked just a few months ago whether Obama would be given another term and I responded in the affirmative, my mind has since been changed. The American People appear to be waking up - Wisconsin is a wonderful example - so my confidence is high. But if I'm wrong, then I won't blame Obama - I'll just come away on the second Wednesday in November wondering how and why people can be so foolish (or should that be stupid?).

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 8:20 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1346

    Ms. Glick: On the second Wednesday in November you will see that President Obama CAN be re-elected and will be re-elected. Everyone knows it, even the GOP knows it. Why do you think Romney was nominated?

    I think with a small amount of investigation, we will find out that outlawing protesting against Obama is a farce made up by republican extremists or possibly submitted for the edification of right wing talking heads.

    During the Bush years, the White House routinely had the Secret Service pull out ANYONE in the crowd who carried or wore any sort of anti-Bush sentiment. Talk about your police state! Typical republicans, always angry at something, mostly something about democrats.

    I wonder what dirty tricks the republicans will pull just prior to the election. Let's see..... they sent out a letter in So Cal informing minority voters that due to the expected heavy vote that republicans would vote on Tuesday and the democrats on Wednesday. In Florida, they pulled the registration of every democrat they could find who had the name of someone in prison. In several states they cross referenced the names of college students with voter registration polls and pulled anyone who had the same name in local precincts. Gotta hand it to the republicans, they really know how to s.crew everyone over. Are there any decent republicans left or all they just a bunch of angry white people who don't know they are being duped?

    Obama in 2012!!

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:09 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    K Lee stated… Please ( in reference to Ms. Glick questioning the patriotism Of president Obama)

    When Obama was senator, he not only blamed George Bush for adding more national debt than his previous 42 predecessors combined, but also questioned Bush’s patriotism for the same policies that Obama continued as President himself. ( Obama added trillions more debt than Bush which would indicate that Obama agrees with Ms. Glick as to his patriotism.)
    Seems to me that each person, like Obama, should have the right to question any politician based on the behavior of that politician.
    Personally, I do not question Obama’s patriotism and think he “intends” good things for our country. However, this is a clear case of intent not meeting reality as his policies have been a disaster.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:41 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Another example of distortion... In Thailand, the president of their country is an elected female. Many people protest their president without any problem at all.

    Now it is a possibility that Ms Bobin secretly wants Obama to be King as she would be correct that in Thailand one cannot protest publicly in the presence of their King.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:24 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Sounds like Ms Glick understands her stuff...


    Domestic Energy Supplies
    Fortunately, we have many untapped resources in the Outer Continental Shelf, Rocky Mountains and Alaska. The government estimates our federal lands hold enough oil to power more than 65 million cars for the next six decades and enough natural gas to heat 60 million households for 160 years. And these are just estimates.

    Because today’s technologies can locate previously unknown deposits of oil and natural gas, government estimates could grow even higher. For instance, the Gulf of Mexico was initially said to contain 9 billion barrels of oil, but estimates now place the region’s holdings at 45 billion barrels—a 500 percent increase.

    http://tour.energytomorrow.org/efficiency/chapter-1-oil-and-natural-gas-and-the-economy/domestic-energy-supplies/index.html

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:20 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    What do liberal democrats do when they want to substantiate their point of view is correct and factual?

    Of course, they go to fact check and Snopes, say see...SNOPES says I'm right, therefore it is fact.
    Unfortunately, these two organizations are completely tilted left and not objective or factual.
    Maybe it more appropriate to explain why Snopes is correct from your perspective and provide independent substantiation from a non Snope source.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 5:27 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Sounds like Ms. Glick (that name sounds vaguely foreign, doesn't it?) just received her latest issue of the John Birch Society Newsletter.

    I'm surprised she didn't mention Agenda 21.

    Just a foreshadowing of all of the usual crazies coming out of the woodwork before the November election.

    And HR 347? We can't protest in the presence of President Obama? What is this? Thailand?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:55 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Ms. Glick writes, "He refuses to salute the American flag..."

    Oh, please.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:54 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Regarding the national debt, again you look to be incorrect, Ms. Glick.

    debthttp://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:47 am on Sat, Jun 9, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Regarding Brazillian oil... mostly false says snopes.com

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp

     

Recent Comments

Posted 16 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Editorial: Let’s take a deeper look at …

This has been a real silly argument. Hot, uncomfortable bleachers is not a tradition worth maintaining if you can't upgrade an already up…

More...

Posted 17 hours ago by Simon Birch.

article: Letter: The path to Benghazi

Thomas: I was doing some work in the comments admin. Nothing sinister, although I'm sure someone will accuse me of conspiring with the Musl…

More...

Posted 17 hours ago by Jerome Kinderman.

article: Letter: Questions for Obama supporters

Oh sure, it was real alright. But if one looks at the polls right now regarding Barack Hussein Obama's performance, me things there's a tad…

More...

Posted 19 hours ago by stan taves.

article: Letter: Questions for Obama supporters

The load that the left bought -- but have yet to pay for -- is real. It's really real; but until you actually have to pay for it, you won't…

More...

Posted 20 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

Hey, you're right about something! That picture didn't change my mind one bit.

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists