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

Letter: Questions for Obama supporters

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:13 am

Leaders don’t just happen. They’re first chosen as candidates by their supporters, and then, if all goes as planned, they’re elected by the voters.

Our president didn’t just walk in off the street, throw his beret in the ring and declare for the world’s most important and powerful job. He was identified as a “possibility.” An articulate, confident, good looking man of integrity. Somewhere along the line a “power base” was assembled, a platform was formed and a run for the presidency was begun.

So far, so good. The “handlers” owned the day. The president won with more than 50 percent of the popular vote. Speeches were delivered, promises were made and his term got off to a strong start.

Early on, even the casual observer began to notice a marked difference between the candidate Obama and the elected President Obama. As time passed the difference became more and more noticeable, until today the gap is shockingly wide and his job approval rating has dramatically taken a nose-dive.

Now his supporters/handlers are obviously in disarray. What they thought to be a man to carry forth their platform has morphed into a “man on his own mission.” Different opinions of his “mission” float through the airways but none appears to satisfy many of the voters.

Let’s now ask a few simple questions to his remaining supporters:

  • Is he living up to his pre-election promises?
  • Is there transparency in his administration?
  • Has he lied to us?
  • Why does he have so many inept people around him?
  • Why aren’t the borders sealed?
  • How long will he allow Eric Holder to ignore his responsibilities?
  • Where was he during the Benghazi murders?
  • Does he actually think all of Lois Lerner’s computers crashed?
  • Are children used as pawns less important than a photo op?
  • Is it right for the IRS be used as a political arm for the Progressives?
  • Will you, his avid supporters, ever realize that this isn’t the same person that you once so confidently backed?
  • Politicians work for and are paid by the citizens. Is it too much for an employer to ask an employee for straight and direct answers to the above 11 questions?

Richard Viall


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.


  • Jien Kaur posted at 2:05 pm on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    Jien Kaur Posts: 372

    If you have live in more than one country like me many with different goverments you can not really think what it like to live in socialism. It nothing like anything the president Obama has done now or later.
    And I perhaps may think that you confuse the globalism with the globalization - two different but related. Perhaps maybe you are mean a idea about a whole world economy which very different from globalism or globalization.

  • stan taves posted at 10:22 am on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    Stan Taves Posts: 320

    I've never been one to spend much time wondering why people do the things that they do. So... if you won't tell me who you are, then I have no choice but to tell you, for you -- yes, you can thank me. Barack Obama is a globalist and a socialist. Unfortunately, most people don't know what socialism / globalism is. Simply put, the socialist believes that the best result, for the greatest number of people, is only achievable by advancing the centralized control of govt bureaucracy. Capitalism, on the other hand, favors the individual who is motivated to create and/or innovate. They, the entrepreneurs, provide us with all kinds of wonderful things that we use and enjoy. What motivates the capitalist / entrepreneur is the "free-market" which provides opportunity for it's participants. That's the deal, opportunity comes from the market , and that is how we get growth and prosperity. People like Obama, however, go to the market, shrug their shoulders, and say, " ...you didn't build that". You see... the left believes that gov't is the source of prosperity; And that could be reasonable if only they were to function as was originally intended -- keeping the market safe. But the fact is that the bureaucratic left has become an impediment for growth. Strange, they call themselves progressives, while thwarting progress on numerous economic fronts -- which would enhance our position here, and abroad. Here's the problem: the left is infected with wonder-lust; so, they (Obama) will use terms like "climate change" and "fairness" to stake out their position as savior of the people and the planet. They will claim that they have undeniable evidence that they, and they alone, hold the key to our survival. The fact is that they have nothing but b... s... to back their entire power-grabbing scheme. So far, their b... s... has been enough to create $17trillion in debt ; but, unfortunately for them, their wonder-lust will live on as their credit line disappears. And it's not the "right" talking, either; it's the money -- and she always gets the last word. Believe it!

  • Christina Welch posted at 9:35 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 460

    A very solid indictment against Congress, Mr Kinderman, and the need to change the climate of Washington DC in general. Partisanship and special interests run far too deep these days within our government and I do believe more and more people are seeing that. Something like 40% of voters are independents now, tired of both parties' BS, just like myself. We want men and women who will govern, not politick. I think maybe the only way to accomplish that would be through term limits and stronger campaign finance reform.

  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:24 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2370

    And one other thing Mr. Heuer, as for you contention that I might not understand how our legislature works, don't be so quick to judge. I know full well how things work; and how they're supposed to work. But there's a few things I know for sure when it comes to voting for or against a bill.

    Anything as monumental and potentially life-changing as the ACA is concerned, whoever has a hand in its passing had better understand what's in it prior to either voting for/against it or ascribing their names to it. Most of that act was crafted under dubious conditions and we were set up by false pretenses. Anyone who would deny that either weren't watching or listening as it was going through the process.

    But before it made its way up Pennsylvania Avenue, there were a couple of votes taken first. Prior to those votes being cast, we were promised that the bill would be posted on the Internet for 72 hours for all of us to peruse if we so chose. That was a lie. And Congresswoman/Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi with her now infamous exclamation that it needed to be passed before knowing what was in it was actually confessing that she hadn't a clue what she was voting for.

    Now we've got some pretty big problems with the law don't we? Will President Obama's pen and phone be enough to fix them? I sure hope not - because once a bill becomes a law, it's out of his hands. Yet he extended certain time provisions of it against the law - and without anyone doing much about it.

    We're left with a nation being driven and guided by a ship of fools and reprobates. We've elected people to high office who promised by their oaths that they would protect, serve and defend the Constitution and by extension their constituents, but have at nearly every turn turned their backs on those sacred promises. I often wonder what the original Congress and the first President under the Constitution would think of us now - would they be pleased with our progress, or would they realize - as I have - that our better days are indeed behind us?

    What would Martin Luther King, Jr. think of us as well? Would he believe his dream had finally come alive with the election of this nation's first black president, or would he realize - as I have - that rather than being led by someone elected due to the content of his character, he was put into the White House by little more than the color of his skin. I believe that anyone who votes for or against anyone based upon their skin color is the embodiment of racism. Clearly, we are a nation of racists. But I know for a fact that I'm not one of them.

    Thank you Mr. Heuer for the opportunity to respond to your questions.

  • Mike Adams posted at 6:19 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1561

    For those possibly suffering "buyer's remorse" over the re-election of President Barack Obama, good news. You don't have "buyer's remorse". You're just a republican who voted for the team (Obama/Biden) who you determined to have the greatest potential in finally righting this country after 8 years of Bush.

    You're probably more likely suffering from repressed non-directional anger at your party who for the 2nd time in a row, submitted incredibly weak candidates. If there's a story, this is it. Are there any "electable" republicans? Now don't start in with the Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz. Only the nuts in your party are going to support them. Unfortunately, with the decreasing number of possible voters, you have a higher percentage of "nuts" than non-"nuts".

    For the rest of us, we will enjoy the shrinking of the GOP and the minor increase in newly established fringe parties like the tea baggers and the anti-immigration zealots.

    Hey, you think all those gun toting wackos you send down to the boarder are making hispanic voters more/less likely to support republican candidates? Or maybe all of those good right wing fringe GOP helping out that racist rancher down south until everybody heard his views on slaves, you think he's making you popular again with African Americans?

    GOP: What a joke

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 5:53 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    I want to make sure I understand Mr. Heuer.

    The Supreme Court rules unanimously that President Obama has violated the Constitution and your attitude is "SO WHAT"...

    Is that correct?

  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 5:34 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2370

    Of course when "addressing them" I would use their title - especially if one is the President of the United States. I'm well known for my respect of the office even if the person occupying that office isn't worth too much either personally or professionally. But here I am addressing no one, except those I am responding to - and then most of the time I use the appropriate title, e.g., Mr., Mrs. Ms., Miss, and maybe even Master. Such as you, Mr. Heuer - you should note that especially when responding directly to you and even indirectly if I suspect you might happen to read the post, I do use the appropriate title.

    However, I NEVER use any disparaging names when referring to ANYONE either directly or indirectly. This is how I was raised - to respect people even if deep, down inside I don't believe they are entitled to mine or anyone else's respect (like for former President Clinton). Sadly, that is not nearly the case of others here who have responded to me in the past. But when that happens, I do simply consider the source, smile and then move on.

    Just like I'm going to right now. No, I won't begin to use those absolutely stupid emoticons to express my feelings or mood. In a word I consider them ridiculous.

    I place into that category a number of those you mentioned, specifically William Jefferson Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi (what, because I use middle names for some, I MUST use middles names for all or I'm automatically suspected of what exactly?), and Hillary Clinton.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 4:24 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    Sorry jos = jobs above in my post. My bad.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 3:23 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    MR Kinderman
    Just for your information because I now know it to be important to you Ms Pelosi's full name is;

    Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi.

    I assume your use of the middle name for people of prominence must also include women of prominence as well. Do you also need Ms Clintons's or Ms Obama's full name as well? I would not want you to, not only be accused of belittling minorities, but women as well. It is hardly immature to NOT use middle names however it is suspect when not using titles when addressing them. I mean honorifics were an important matter to you ina past thread.

    I know you and other conservatives and especially Tea Baggers are so afraid this preident will be seen for the successful man he is. Anything that can be done to smear him, is and has been underway continuously. You did the same thing to Bill Clinton (before Lewinsky and after). Its simply partisan BS.

    You don't know much about legislation do you? The experts are not the legislators, all the different departments, public input and their staffs and attorneys say whether this is what they want. You know like you listening to Fox news and accepting what they say to form your opinion.

    At any given time polls will produce different results for various reasons. Its not different than stock market up and downs or temperature fluctuations during global warming.

    We can agree we have a dysfunctional congress though we probably won't agree on the reasons why. However you aren't going to change it by electing someone else. We've been trying that and Tea Baggers promised a new and different candidate and what happens we have a congress worse than any in the past. Why becaause we (conservatives) refuse to do anything about the gross role of money in politics which is the basis of all the kaboki theater we have for fund raising. Thats the buyers remorse people keep complaing about not Obamacare. Obamacare complaints are just the conservative version of Kaboki theater for fundraising and agitating the base. Jos should be a work in process but conservatives have already written off the remainingnemoployed as NOT MY BASE and not worth spending our energies on. Conservatives see them as the lower 43%.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 1:42 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    Do you even understand the difference between denial and "SO WHAT"? Its called reality awareness-speak.

    Its like I can't believe you do this without being paid for it.

  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 1:41 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2370

    Is "Hussein" not the president's middle name? I've often used peoples' middle names, especially those in prominent positions, when discussing them and their performance. Richard Milhous Nixon comes to mind, as well as George Herbert Walker Bush. Oh, and let's not forget James Earle Carter, Jr. aka "Jimmy" Carter I suppose used to make him appear more a man of the people or even kind of folksy.

    But I have NEVER come close to even suggesting that our current president is not a citizen of the United States of America. So please, why should it ever be improper to refer to a president - either current or former - by their full and complete names? Really, who's behaving immaturely?

    As for the ACA, oh yeah - I certainly DO believe it "passed" because the American people were fully and very craftily duped. It WAS Democrat Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California - then Speaker of the House - who suggested that we needed to wait until it passes to find out what was in it. Now THAT was juvenile thinking, in my humble opinion. That suggestion was really an admission that most (if not all) members of our federal legislation hardly (if ever) read and/or understand a bill prior to voting to make it a law. How much do they get paid to do those jobs? Insofar as the ACA is concerned, the American people did NOT get their money's worth.

    I am not surprised that the president's approval ratings are tanking as are the ratings for the House and Senate. Why could they not be so low? Finally, the People are waking up to the reality of what is happening - or in reality what is NOT happening - in Washington, D.C. These men and women, voted by their districts or their states do nothing but sit and play solitaire or other such inane things on their pc's or iPads to while away the hours. And then - based on nothing but their ideology or what their handlers insist - they cast their votes. But they have no idea what they've voted on or for.

    And we're supposed to accept this as "business as usual." Well, I think it's time to change that way of "working." It's beyond time to really make some changes that will mean these elected political hacks will be sent packing to be replaced by others who actually have enough respect for the country, their constituents and themselves by finally putting in a day's work for a day's pay. At this point minimum wage is way too much for them to be earning. But as long as they continue to manage their own salaries, I doubt we'll see that change soon.

    So yeah, I DO see this as buyer's remorse not only regarding Barack Hussein Obama's second term, but for the rest of those lazy, "honorable" slobs who claim to represent We the People.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 1:11 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    If you were to research the dates rather than admit, "No I don't know the dates" you could easily find out the date each writ of certiorari was filed.

  • Mike Adams posted at 12:05 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1561

    This is so typical.....the little play on the semantics...giving the plagiarist room to wiggle. Note how:

    " I already provided 13 cases which were ALL argued and decided unanimously during Obama's presidency."

    This doesn't mean All or any of these actions were brought before the court at the bequest of the Obama administration, just that they were decided during the Obama registration.

    Well I've proved that 8 of andrew's mythical 13 court cases were started at the bequest of the Bush administration and were decided during Obama's presidency. He just can't let it go that who ever he copies these from is wrong also, but not more that andrew who insists on copying and pasting these incorrect statitistics.

    No I don't know the dates and neither could you until you google it.

    Here's a better question:
    "When, if it has ever happened, did andrew actually write a complete, and lengthy post here (let's say 300 words), that means on his own, no plagiarism, no copying and pasting?" Can you supply this here? I don't want no high school term paper on the Kennedy Assasination either.

    Thomas and I will wait until forever probably cause it will probably take you that long to write your first right now.....

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 11:42 am on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    MR Kinderman
    Lets see did I read this right "...regarding Barack Hussein Obama's performance, me things there's a tad case of "buyer's remorse" in play?

    Do you really wish to remain credible with your immature focus on the presidents middle name...again? Are you insinuating the Tea Bagger "Birther" nonsense that he's not an American?

    Do you really believe the "...(ACA) legislation only passed because the American people were fooled into believing it was good for us...?" Fooled by a republican idea ("Mit Romney and Heritage Foundation originated)? Do you think the American people are still being fooled now that they have affordable health care and only pretend to like it? Is that the same as republicans restricting voting rights for minorities because the minorities were only pretending to like voting?

    So you agree with the Tea Baggers we should be at the border yelling and screaming at the young children (a total disgrace) who try to find border guards to turn themselves into? Since Lindsey Graham and John McCain will advocate for any war in another hemisphere why don't they advocate invading Central America to clean it up like we've done in the past?

    And Kerry is doing a great job advocating for a cease fire in Gaza. However Israel is determined to extract a pound-of-flesh for injustices much like we are bound and desperately determined to kill something in the name of capital punishment (even the wrong people). To suggest Israel is not our allies fails to consider the country would cease to exist without our support. They completely depend on us. In fact their whole march into Gaza is emboldened because they know we got their back. They may be gods chosen but America allows them to exist.

    And I know you will be thanking god if Hillary becomes president just like when Obama became president. Hmmm divine will??? or lucky stars?

    And in the final analysis, as you said of the young border refugees "...so long as they appear to be over 18, just hand them a ballot, a pencil and permit them to join in the fun of ruining this once-great country once and for all." Your apocalyptic vision is very telling on your view of minorities. They will destroy the county? I think the Tea Party groups are the ones h..l bent on destroying this great country. Immigrants seem to have more respect for the meaning of our constitution.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:53 am on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    I understand. Denial offers comforts you find appealing.[rolleyes]

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:47 am on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 was a bipartisan effort Jien, and was originally written partially by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.) and introduced in the Senate by then-Senator, now Vice President, Joe Biden.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:10 am on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    Another repeated "SO WHAT" questiion from Andrew. I pass.
    [yawn] [thumbdown]

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:40 pm on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Guess again Mr. Heuer. Mike, as usual, hasn't any idea what he is talking about. I already provided 13 cases which were ALL argued and decided unanimously during Obama's presidency.

    Check the dates.[sleeping]

    *Bonus Question:
    Can either of you name just one 9-0 Supreme Court ruling that said President Bush violated the Constitution?

  • Christina Welch posted at 5:24 pm on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 460

    I must definitely check out the "Sixties"series you have referenced. Sounds like it might be pretty good. And, I agree with you that many Republicans have done a lot to alienate minority voters, especially at the State level, and the current House refusing to address immigration reform as their colleagues in the Senate have. In addition to that, sociologically speaking, minorities tend to radiate toward the Democratic party anyway, so the Republicans should double-up their efforts to court their votes. Even then, though, I'm not sure that would be enough. I think the Republicans could come up with lots of pro-minority ideas, and still minorities would stick with the party of their parents. 9 out of 10 people do. Basically, I just don't see the Republican party ever gaining a large number of minority voters, no matter what they do.

  • Jien Kaur posted at 4:57 pm on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    Jien Kaur Posts: 372

    Can it be wrong that the two laws one from 2002 and one from 2008 that make it law that US to proceed with humane treatment for the childrens from the Guatamala etc could have been signed by the president George Bush?

    Thats the question the Jerome Kinderman is wonder why the George Bush could be blamed but it sound like he really did do the mess we have with childrens - can I not understand this correct?

  • Eric Barrow posted at 3:33 pm on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1604

    Don't think Obama's running again and pretty sure your right Hillary will be our next President.
    You are mistaken about one thing we do care deeply, that's why we want to fundamentally change this country back to one envisioned by the founding fathers where everyone has a right to life's basic needs and the pursuit of happiness as they see fit.
    As far as the kidlets I'm saving the repub talking points so when they turn 18 I can send them to them. How do you think they'll vote then?

  • Eric Barrow posted at 3:28 pm on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1604

    Rhyming is good.

  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 2:23 pm on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2370

    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 case of "buyer's remorse" in play.

    Naturally, for the life of me I can't understand how he won a second term. After all, his landmark legislation only passed because the American people were fooled into believing it was good for us and that Ms. Nancy Pelosi's suggestion that we needed to have it passed prior to understand what was in it actually made sense. But if any of what happened during that debacle had occurred under let's say, umm George W. Bush - oh, the left would be screaming a whole lot louder and with much worse language to emphasize their outrage.

    Nevertheless, now we sit and watch our borders literally invaded and no one (and I do mean NO ONE!) on the left is at all concerned that the violation of our laws are thwarted left, right, upside down and inside out. Yet if that happened under let's say, umm George W. Bush - oh, do I really need to type it all out again or cut and paste? Nah, I didn't think so. After all, those little tykes being distributed all around the country will soon be voters! So to heck with the rule of law.

    Yeah, what a great nation we've become. Oh, and just today we watch the oh-so-intelligent and wonderful Secretary of State stomp all over Israel - who at one time not so long ago were actually allies of ours!! I'm so proud of him!!

    In the final analysis it seems to me that Americans have just gotten to the point that it doesn't matter. Kinda when Hillary realized what a mess she made with Benghazi. Thank God SHE just might be our next president!!! Perhaps by those Americans who really don't believe this administration has done such a wonderful job will finally wake up and do the right thing by actually voting - before those kidlets turn into citizens and become 18 years old. I think though so long as they appear to be over 18, just hand them a ballot, a pencil and permit them to join in the fun of ruining this once-great country once and for all.

    Then we'll get to see how "real" all of this is. Yummy!!

  • stan taves posted at 12:18 pm on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    Stan Taves Posts: 320

    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 realize how real it really is. I think the problem you guys are having is that you believe that repeating your absurdities over and over will eventually bear fruit, become something substantive, as it were. Hey, it might have even come true if not for that empty suit you call a leader. Don't lose hope, however, maybe Hill will become your magic pill that sustains your dream for others to fulfill. And so what if, it's against our will... "shut-up", you say, "just pay the bill". But that's God's spirit you seek to kill. And on, and on, it's the same score still: God's spirit one, the leftist nil.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:03 am on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    [thumbup] To Mike

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 9:55 am on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    Great Mike
    Par for the course for Andrew

  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:23 am on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1604

    I wonder if I wasn't real when we elected Obama for a second term, seemed kind of real. Perhaps all 66 million of us that voted for Barack where having a collective hallucination. Maybe I'm Imagining the drop in republican identification, down to 25% the lowest in 25 years while the Democrat identification remains unchanged. I must admit it does kind of feel like a dream come true and I might be hearing things but isn't that Ms. Rand turning in her grave.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 2:17 am on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    The thumb up is to Eric. some time ago.
    I hate to have it misinterpreted if you know what I mean.

  • Mike Adams posted at 7:42 pm on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1561

    We've discussed this before. CSAN or CNN had a series called "The Sixties" on in early June. One whole episode was devoted to the switch of republicans to Democrats and visa versa.

    It's not hard to believe that millions of minority voters have left the republican party and are now democrats. It is hard to believe that a political party could so boldly not only disinfranchise so many potential supporters, but have gone out of their way to keep millions of potential voters from supporting their candidates. Yet the GOP has done this for decades.

    Let's see two examples:
    Had many thousands of voters dropped from voting rolls because they had the same names as people in prison (but no registered republicans)

    Sent out letters in minority neighborhoods telling them that republicans would vote on Tuesday and Democrats on Wednesday because of the expected large turn out.

    Sure they may have a few minority members (and strangely many are in visible positions within the party), and no offense to them, but why would any member of a minority who is of voting age support the GOP?

    They will point out that many African American men are in prison (In their war against crime), yet will not author or fund legislation which may give them the opportunity to be good members of society. Affirmative Action? Again, they fight that. Jobs Training? Nope.
    Former Stockton City Councilman Floyd Weaver once said "don't talk about lowering the crime rate without mentioning the need for jobs".

    No jobs = no money=no hope=crime. An odd equation, but true.

  • Mike Adams posted at 7:25 pm on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1561

    "13 unanimous Supreme Court rulings against President Obama are not a "bogus insinuation" Mr. Heuer...."

    This should read:
    "5 unanimous Supreme Court rulings against President Obama AND 8 BEGUN AGAINST THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION are not a "bogus insinuation" Mr. Heuer, IT SHOWS THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS WRONG ~62% OF THEIR CASES AND OBAMA WAS WRONG IN ONLY 38%."

    Again, another example of half truths.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 4:14 pm on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    13 unanimous Supreme Court rulings against President Obama are not a "bogus insinuation" Mr. Heuer. Ignoring these 13 rulings simply because "I just happen to like the guy" is honest but quite lame.

    How much do I get paid for responses here? I honestly can't fathom why you would ask such a ridiculous question but your answer is $0.00.[rolleyes]

  • stan taves posted at 4:09 pm on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Stan Taves Posts: 320

    ...Interesting indeed. I guess that if there is one word that sums-up liberalism then it is "fairness". In other words, the leftist world is built upon subjectivity, and as such can never become real to anyone except another leftist. The fact is that only a free-market can define fairness -- you either buy the load, or you don't, but the choice should be all yours. Sure, the leftist will say that they are fairly defining fairness, and they succeed for a lack awareness. But the people catch on, and then the leftist gone... at least for a while, now that should bring a big smile.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 3:09 pm on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    Ah the Great Wa nailed it

  • Christina Welch posted at 2:59 pm on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 460

    A pretty solid analysis, Mike. I'm not sure that minorities have fled the GOP since the mid-1960s, though, Nixon was actually a supporter of affirmative action, he dramatically increased funding for civil rights programs, he worked hard to desegregate schools in the South, he appointed more (at that time) African-Americans within his administration than anyone prior. Now Reagan, on the other hand, was not much of a supporter of minority rights. I think that might more likely be the start, although GW Bush was actually a supporter of minorities as well, even if his own party blocked his approach to immigration reform. I'm not sure if it's a matter of the Republicans pushing minorities away or just the historic alignment of minorities to the Democratic party. Either way, you are correct, if the GOP wants to hang in, they are going to have to gain more of the minority vote.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:45 pm on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    Andrew Ms Welch answered your question. I answered your question and for the record despite your bogus insinuation I just happen to like the guy (I'm liberal and not racist). Why would supreme court decisions effect my decision. Isn't that what the supreme court is for? There are a number of times I don't agree with the supreme court. I think they have made some lousy decisions but that is the government we have chosen to abide by.

    Now when will you answer my question? How much do you get paid to get me to respond to these ridiculous statements? And who do you turn this in to?

  • Eric Barrow posted at 12:40 pm on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1604

    Interesting logic when someone pays their fair share it is unfair no wonder the right is all twisted up in knots, they are used to uneven playing fields and when that is corrected they are shocked that someone would take away the advantage they held for so long. That is the fundamental changing of America they hate so much. How in the world are the going to hold on to their control if the have to play fair.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:31 pm on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    You are not a silly immigrant Jien, you are 100% correct. I suppose I should have more accurately stated that SCOTUSblog is a website that comprehensively covers U.S. Supreme Court decisions. However, does my error change the fact that the unanimous rulings and opinions of all 13 cases I provided are readily available for anyone to read on the SCOTUSblog website? No.

  • Walter Chang posted at 12:30 pm on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1184

    Hey Stan, what's in your safe??


  • Walter Chang posted at 12:26 pm on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1184

    "Check your 401k and stop complaining"

    Michael, many bought into the FAUXNEWS hype a couple of years back and planned for the collapse of the government...

    So they bought gold.

    Some used their credit cards to purchase gold. Others sold stock or bonds, at a loss, to finance their purchases. Some of the more fortunate got a "free mini safe" to store their gold in.

    Gold values are DOWN more than 35% from the 2011 peak.

    Their portfolios are in the toilet. Literally.


  • Mike Adams posted at 11:20 am on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1561

    There won't be a new party. The tea baggers have more or less left the GOP because moderates don't support their draconian views on everything. The Green party absolutely no way. They gave us Bush.

    They are going to become less and less important until a new nucleus emerges and can draw back in all the oddballs and fringe, but without minority participation, they can't win national elections. And there is no reason why any minority should register and vote republican. That's not the left/liberal in me saying this, it's history. Since the mid-60's minorities have fled the GOP. The GOP's continual support of a wide range of anti-minority legislation will be difficult to overcome.

    And that's not me saying this. Don't blame me or argue with me (not you Christina). Just look at the numbers. Don't blame the Democrats unless you think they are so damned good and if you think that, you should vote Democrat. The demise of the GOP has been the behavior of the GOP the last 50 years. Really, there is no other way to put it. Blame and malign Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, is that really going to get votes? Complain about extended unemployment payments. is that going to get votes? Complain about minority preference in universities and colleges. Is that going to get you votes?

    Well I'm not here to help the GOP ever win another election so I'll stop writing ideas down for them. They'll have to get the information on winning elections where they always get it: The Reader's Digest.

  • Mike Adams posted at 11:06 am on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1561

    Well only the republicans seem to think he's an idiot or a liar. And again: where are the winnable republican candidates? Palin? Please nominate her....the depth of her ignorance has only been scratched. Ted Cruz? Even Hispanics won't vote for him. Rand Paul? Too small of a fan base, same with Paul Ryan.

    This is not the fault of the left. The republicans have no viable candidates that can get enough votes in enough states to be elected. That's it in a sentence.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:44 am on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    Mr Taves (and Mr Dawes)
    If you read what has already been posted you would realize that Mr Barrow has already answered your "Mr. Viall called upon Obama supporters to answer a few simple questions."

    Mr Barrow , being one of the first posters here, pointed out "I was going to answer Richard's questions but when I tried I realized that only the first three are questions, the rest are the same old anti-Obama slander we have been hearing ad nauseam and they don't really deserve an answer. The Benghazi incident appears to be resolved. The photo op questions is a cheap shot especially since if anyone has been using the unfortunate children as pawns it has been the anti- Obama crowd." And to the first three questionsMr Barrow answered quite succinctly "yes, yes and no."

    So when you say Obama is a liar, an idiot and a bad person you are simply adding to "the same old anti-Obama slander we have been hearing". To move people to your side of the argument you have to present what the conservatives stand for, and convince more people that's the "right" way to go. Tough job for you I know. In other words a few specifics might go along ways in helping your cause. Try to avoid being mean to people no matter how much you think Rush Limbaugh, is doing a great job for the like minded.

    See when you take the swagger from the conservative media entertainment complex into the real world you find a big number of people don't respond well to it. It works well for Rush because you are there but there are a lot of people who don't listen, on a regular basis, for a reason. So it's easy to slam something but it's sure hard to say what you are actually for instead. Who knows, you just might find yourself able to get more people to see your way.

  • stan taves posted at 10:18 am on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Stan Taves Posts: 320

    The right doesn't get it? What's to get? that the left is chasing a dream that will never be realized; because they don't understand that once you make someone pay their "fair" share, it ceases to be fair. Don't you see what the left is really all about? It's about their dreams and your wallet -- and who cares if it all becomes every ones nightmare? They don't think these things through, hell no... they just borrow and spend. I hate to alarm you lefties, but when you think you can spend it before the ink is dry, then you're finished -- you can smell the ink already, can't you?

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 9:21 am on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669


  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:19 am on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Despite 13 unanimous Supreme Court rulings against him you continue to support President Obama... Why?

  • Jien Kaur posted at 9:11 am on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Jien Kaur Posts: 372

    The Mr Liebich said: Of course it's just my opinion but I find the Supreme Court's own website to be slightly more reliable.

    Perhaps I am just an silly immigrant but the scotus blog website is not the Supreme Court own website. Here is notes about scotus blog from wikipedia:


  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:25 am on Mon, Jul 28, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1604

    The right wingers on this site just don't get it, the left likes what Obama has done, from fixing the economy to health care to a second term. It is what he said he would do and that is why we elected him did we expect universal health care? Yes but we are pretty happy with getting this far we will work on universal care down the road. Did he accomplish all we wanted? No but he has dealt with an obstructionist congress and continues to try and push his/our agenda further. Would we have liked to see Gitmo closed, immigration reform? Yes but while he has not gotten immigration reform accomplished he certainly has not alienated the Latino community and most importantly he (unlike Clinton or Bush the second) will be leaving office without destroying the opportunity for the next party candidate to step in and continue taking this country down a more left leaning ideological pathway and for that we are pleased. Do you understand? We are not interested in short term gain we hope to send this country on a course that slick willy started but being unable to keep his trousers up derailed us. We seem to be back on track with Obama and if he can keep his nose clean for the next couple of years we may see another decade of liberal ideology and no more craziness like we saw with 8 years of Bush.

  • Christina Welch posted at 9:33 pm on Sun, Jul 27, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 460

    "the government should be like any woman who can balance a checkbook" Ed, Is that an endorsement for women (save Hillary for you, I know) in politics? Maybe if there were more women in Congress, we wouldn't be facing the staggering debt we are? I know I do a damn good job managing my family's budget. We know how to live within our means.

  • Michael Hartung posted at 8:01 pm on Sun, Jul 27, 2014.

    mhartung Posts: 25

    Hey Richard you like others in town are just bitter white people that hate having a black man in office. Check your 401k and stop complaining

  • stan taves posted at 5:18 pm on Sun, Jul 27, 2014.

    Stan Taves Posts: 320

    ...Beyond delusional! Mr. Viall called upon Obama supporters to answer a few simple questions. And what does he get for his trouble? Dithering delusions, that's what. Has congress become more inept over time? Sure, whatever, but you people have got stop pretending that there isn't a crazed donkey in the room. You think that republicans have problems -- and they do -- but to sit there and pretend that Barack Obama hasn't driven the dems into the dumper is to ignor what should have become painfully obvious years ago. But no! here you are ignoring reasonable questions while you blather on about nothing. Wonderful...

  • Christina Welch posted at 10:30 pm on Sat, Jul 26, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 460

    Very interesting theory, Mike. And plausible to an extent, I think. So, who/what do you see as the new major party to replace the Republicans? I doubt the Tea Party. Libertarians or Greens maybe? Or some new party or an Independent who can capture the support maybe? Wouldn't it be cool (at least in an historic sense) to witness a change in our two party system after over 150 years!

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:42 pm on Sat, Jul 26, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Thanks Mike but I have already read Cristina's link.

    I encourage you to visit http://www.scotusblog.com/resources/ and read the facts of the 13 cases as well as the Justice's opinions of the 13 cases. Of course it's just my opinion but I find the Supreme Court's own website to be slightly more reliable.[lol]

  • Mike Adams posted at 8:32 pm on Sat, Jul 26, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1561

    What? No retort or rebuttal?

    Another case of being just a little outside of the truth again.

    Hey, remember when we shot down that Iranian passenger plane?
    They said it was in their airspace? We said it wasn't and to prove that, we put up a map with an island erased that the plane was flying over when we shot it down.

    I'm not saying it was a bad thing to shoot the plane down, it's just the conservative way of being loose with the truth.

  • Mike Adams posted at 8:29 pm on Sat, Jul 26, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1561

    Maybe if the republican party can find anyone, anyone at all, that can gather enough support from the electorate to become president, they should. The last two were duds. This is not the left's fault. Put the blame on the conservatives, the tea party nuts, and the GOP.

    If you re=read your post, you can pick out two reasons the GOP is disintegrating.

  • William Dawes posted at 5:25 pm on Sat, Jul 26, 2014.

    William Dawes Posts: 116

    The majority of the voters wanted a celebrity and they got one, Mr. Obama. He was a great act for them. Never had a real job before he got elected into the Senate. Then when he was a senator, he really didn't do the job either ("Present!). Now we have these major problems and you all expect he will have solutions for them, All I can say is DON"T HOLD YOUR BREATH! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Achmed the dead terrorist has more logic.

  • Mike Adams posted at 4:40 pm on Sat, Jul 26, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1561

    Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who defended Boehner’s lawsuit, said the Supreme Court’s ruling was emblematic of Obama’s term. Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority."

    Has Obama really had such a tough time with the high court? We decided to review the record.

    Goodlatte isn’t the only person to make this argument. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, made a similar claim in a press release last week and it was also the subject of a column in the National Review, a conservative news website.

    A spokeswoman for Goodlatte gave us a list of the 13 cases he referenced. We reviewed the evidence his office offered enlisted the help of a few experts to help us parse through the legalese.

    Goodlatte’s assertion doesn’t seem to hold water. Susan Bloch, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, said the NLRB case is very different than the rest of the cases on the list, in that the court actually was ruling on a separations of power issue and a presidential overreach.

    "That’s a fair case of the president’s use of executive authority getting rejected," she said.

    But the rest of the claim? "It’s a total overstatement," Bloch said.


    For starters, in eight of the cases, the alleged overreach occurred under President George W. Bush, as did the court cases that challenged the administration (United States vs. Jones, Sackett vs. EPA, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School vs. EEOC, Gabelli vs. SEC, Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States, PPL Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Horne vs. USDA, and Bond vs. United States). Bush’s Justice Department handled the initial court proceedings in most instances.

    Obama’s Justice Department in many of the cases handled the appellate process and ultimately defended the actions to the Supreme Court. But that’s commonplace, experts we spoke with said.

    Goodlatte spokeswoman Jessica Collins contended that doesn't make the chairman's statement untrue. "Regardless of who started the policies that were overturned by the courts unanimously during the Obama administration, President Obama decided to continue those policies which were struck down," she said.

    But that isn't really what Goodlatte claimed. He said Obama "exceeded his presidential authority," not that Obama defended executive overreach.

    Additionally, in many of the cases, executive overreach wasn’t really even at issue. For example, in United States vs. Jones, the court was ruling on whether the FBI had the power to use a GPS to track a suspect and gather evidence.

    Technically, the FBI is a federal department under the Justice Department, a department in the executive branch. But the court was not reeling in an administration that was abusing power. Rather, "it gave us some guidance about how new technology and the Fourth Amendment should interact," Bloch said. "It has nothing to do with presidential authority."

    Another case on the list, Arizona vs. United States, surprised our experts. Why? Because many saw it as a partial victory for Obama.

    This is the case surrounding Arizona’s tough immigration laws that many civil rights groups said amounted to racial profiling. In 2012, the Supreme Court released a complicated 5-3 ruling, in which the court actually sided with the Obama administration on three of four counts. On the fourth provision, which allowed Arizona authorities to check the immigration status of anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant, the court basically said it’s too soon to tell, and unanimously decided to send the issue down to the lower courts to monitor for further challenges.

    "The Supreme Court struck down three of the four because they interfered with federal immigration enforcement, which was defended by the Obama administration to advocate for the laws passed by Congress," Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University.

    Another case on the list was last week’s ruling in United States vs. Wurie, which was decided along with Riley vs. California. The court ruled that police could not search your cell phone without a warrant if you were arrested.

    Wermiel said it was "absurd" to include the Wurie case on the list. It also originated prior to Obama taking office and was the result of a Boston police effort. Like the Jones case, it dealt with technology issues, not executive overreach.

    Another case on the Goodlatte’s list and decided last week, McCullen vs. Coakley, dealt with state laws, particular whether a Massachusetts law that put no-protest zones around abortion clinics was constitutional. While the Obama administration filed a brief supporting the Massachusetts law, the issue decided had little to do with executive authority.

    The last case included, Sekhar vs. United States, did originate under the Obama administration. It’s complicated, but basically the FBI sought extortion charges against a Massachusetts venture capitalist, who was accused of trying to force a legal adviser to the New York state comptroller to persuade the comptroller to invest in his company. The Supreme Court said the FBI couldn’t arrest him under federal extortion laws.

    In all, how does Goodlatte’s assertion hold up? Not well, our experts said.

    "This is a concocted statistic," said Tom Goldstein, publisher of the Supreme Court blog SCOTUSblog.com. "It's just saying that the government lost cases unanimously. The government participates in roughly 60 cases a term. Every administration loses cases unanimously."

    "It's true that the Obama Administration's views have been rejected repeatedly in the Supreme Court. But this way of putting it overreaches considerably."

  • Mike Adams posted at 11:19 am on Sat, Jul 26, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1561

    Why does the right always blame the left when a democrat gets elected? They should look at themselves in the mirror. If you look back at the republican conventions in 2008 and 2012, democrats weren't nominating Mitt Romney and John McCain (who would have been perfect in 2000!). And democrats weren't nominating two of the weakest VP nominees in history, especially in 2008 when all the attention was focused on Palin and how totally unprepared she was to hold any office above governor.

    The republicans need to adjust their expectations in the future. Declining republican registration numbers and even fewer votes cast for republican candidates in the general elections are just the initial signs of a political group on the cusp of becoming irrelevant. The only reason they still exist is that the few remaining conservative voters don't have any viable alternative.

    When they put up their "big tent", maybe they shouldn't have someone at the entrance screening who gets in. Maybe they shouldn't alienate large groups of potential supporters by blaming them for all the ills they supposedly are the cause of. Maybe they should weed out the neanderthals and their dated opinions and beliefs. Maybe they shouldn't scare children or threaten the elderly.

    Well there's lots of things they could do, but they don't and as a result the republican party is evaporating before our eyes. Treasure this time republicans, sometime in the future, your children and grand children will be asking "what were republicans?". "Were they like the bull moose party or the whigs?" "Where did they all go?"
    "Mom?" "Dad?"

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:15 am on Sat, Jul 26, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    A list of the 13 unanimous Supreme Court rulings can be found here.

  • stan taves posted at 7:06 am on Sat, Jul 26, 2014.

    Stan Taves Posts: 320

    Yikes, what is going on around here. Electing that man is most horrible thing that this nation has ever done. And confronting him, at every turn, is the most important thing that congress will ever do. I realize that you lefties are dug-in deep, but it's time to climb back out of that hole; and quickly, because, from the smell of it, you must be knee deep in septic by now. The president gets pointed at for being an idiot, or worse yet, a liar. And Congress gets pointed at for trying to stop a man hell-bent on a "transformation" that he will not explain -- at least, not without being an idiot or a liar. I would be more accepting of his folly if he hadn't crashed and burned so many times, but the fact is that Barack Obama is a bad President, and, in all likelihood, a bad person as well.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 9:52 pm on Fri, Jul 25, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    Mr Rainwater
    Meeting a payroll? I missed that in the requirements to become president, thirty five years and born American. You’re not one of those who believe the president is not born American. I have yet to meet anyone that actually believes such nonsense. That aside President Obama has quite a crew at his disposal to get the job done. And I assure you there are many who have held jobs AND met payrolls. You really seriously have that as a complaint?

    Are you aware there are not a lot of liberals who see President Obama as an extreme liberal let alone inflicting liberal ideas on America? Only an extreme conservative would view Obama as an extreme liberal. Extreme liberals haven't always seen their liberal goals being met.

    As G Bush said he expects to be judged by history as to the worth of his presidency. I believe B Obama will have the same judges of history evaluating his presidency as well. My bet is that President Obama will be viewed on the winning side over President Bush. However both will reign supreme over the judgment passed on their congresses (especially when they get to the dysfunctional Tea Party era membership).

    BTW Hillary will do just fine.

  • Christina Welch posted at 9:40 pm on Fri, Jul 25, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 460

    Back and forth, back and forth, each side blaming each other for the dysfunctional government we have before us today. Focusing on the blame, on partisan politics, instead of trying to find solutions. The Republicans in the House pull their obstructionist tactics, while the Senate Democrats obstruct the Republicans with their own ‘nuclear option’. They criticize each other, pandering to the media and public opinion, which is par for the course in Washington DC, but nothing continues to get done. So, the president steps in. Congress in many ways has no one to blame but themselves, and even if I do sympathize with their arguments about our Constitution’s separation of powers and checks and balances being challenged by such rigorous executive action, what else is to be done?

    Since the 20th century, we’ve seen a growth of presidential power for a number of reasons. President Obama is yet another in a chain of powerful men who came to dominate Congress over time, he is not unique in this. Most historians or political scientists would say the Framers of the Constitution would not have approved of this, as they truly saw Congress as the main branch in our new republic. But, times have dramatically changed and the executive branch (like America herself) has evolved beyond what Madison and company would have envisioned. There's an innate power struggle between the two branches; Congress tended to dominate throughout the 19th century, and recent history has witnessed the president come out on top. I think it will stay that way, even if I don’t necessarily agree. Congress is too busy with their partisan rhetoric and fighting that they can never unify and find a way to reassert their power. They’re all beholden to special interests and preoccupied with getting re-elected that they ignore the best interests of the American people and nothing gets done. And so it continues…The dysfunction of Congress justifies to the president that he should act since they are not. Don’t put the blame on Obama, like him or not, he’s doing what any other Chief Executive would and has since the evolution of the Imperial Presidency.

    Nonetheless, hang in there, Mr Rainwater and Mr Viall. Remember the president has term limits. That’s something that hasn’t evolved or changed since 1951. Thank you 22nd amendment. Too bad Congress doesn’t have them. I think we could use a new amendment…

  • Eric Barrow posted at 12:53 pm on Fri, Jul 25, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1604

    Great info Ms. Welch but you are wasting your time if it doesn't come in disjointed, grainy video with foreboding background music and a sinister narration Andrew wont except it.

  • Ed Walters posted at 12:49 pm on Fri, Jul 25, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 637

    Heuer: When all else fails, blame President Bush, ahhh but that was almost 8 years ago, do you believe Barry is doing a good job. Looking for contributions for the Demos`s in Ca. when a world away that part of the earth is destroying itself. Oh and BTW. Concerning sleep, after reading your fable, both dogs had nightmares, had to read some of Ronald Reagan`s one liners to calm them down. Remember, at the stroke of a pen Barry could have brought all troops home, true President Bush started it by eliminating Saddam Husen for using WMD, because they were not found does not mean they were not there. Perhaps buried in the desert or shipped to Syria under the cover of night. Prove me wrong. The inspectors looked only were they were allowed, perhaps when getting to close, they were asked to leave.

    Welch: You state and I agree that the national debt will become unsustainable, well that time has arrived, the government

    should be like any woman who can balance a check book. Hope there is enough left in the SSI account to get me through, I don`t want to become a sign holder, especially next to Heuer.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:43 pm on Fri, Jul 25, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Earlier today I submitted a post with the 13 unanimous Supreme Court rulings.

    I also provided a link to the Supreme Court website for each ruling.

    Simon Birch [censored]

    Perhaps Simon will find my post more acceptable if I don't include the 13 links.[rolleyes]

    1.United States v. Jones
    2.Sackett v. EPA
    3.Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC
    4.Gabelli v. SEC
    5.Arkansas Fish & Games v. United States
    6.PPK Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
    7.Horne v. USDA
    8.Sekhar v. United States
    9.Burrage v. United States
    10.Bond v. United States
    11.United States v. Wurie/Riley v. California
    12.NLRB v. Noel Canning
    13.Arizona vs. United States

  • stan taves posted at 12:17 pm on Fri, Jul 25, 2014.

    Stan Taves Posts: 320

    Good letter Richard, There are two kinds of Obama supporter: The frighteningly naïve, and those who believe that deception employed for the advancement the "greater good" needs no explanation. It's hard to know which these two kinds of supporter is more frightening; but take heart in the reality that, in spite of their many efforts, their fearless leader is crumbling before their very eyes. It would be funny if not for the wreckage that is strewn virtually everywhere because we let a "community organizer" run the most powerful nation on earth. What in the hell was the left thinking, anyway? Oh yeah, it went like this: "We're sorry, but Hill has too much baggage, but take a look at this "hot-shot" from Chicago. ...Don't know who he is, or what he's done -- he's perfect." To think that the dems would prop-up a man who knew little, and had accomplished less, just so they could have the Whitehouse once again. I guess if we have learned anything, then we should be able to avoid this kind-of insanity -- at least for a while.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 9:54 am on Fri, Jul 25, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    Eh Eh Wrong again Ed. Bush is your real culprit along with the mad hatter Tea Party.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 9:52 am on Fri, Jul 25, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    Please thank Ms Welch for answering your question in her 10:52 pm post below. I'm sure you won't appreciate her effort.

    Good job Ms Welch

  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:17 am on Fri, Jul 25, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1604

    I'm pretty sure that Leader of the Free World, Commander In Chief and Two Term President of these United States looks just fine on a resume, live with it.

  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:12 am on Fri, Jul 25, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1604

    You must not have missed Walters post a few days ago and not have seen any news lately and calling Hillary Mr. Clinton's wife is probably not going to hurt her. Just because slick Willy leaves a bad taste in your mouth doesn't mean his approval ratings have changed. Currently they are at all time highs, much higher than any other living former President and equal to the Pope's whom I believe is also a pretty popular guy. Anyway read up on Benghazi, Walter provided us with a article, listed below and don't worry it's from Fox so I assume you will find it to be a reliable source.

  • Christina Welch posted at 10:52 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 460

    13 Unanimous Supreme Court rulings against Obama since 2012? Not so much...



  • Christina Welch posted at 10:37 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 460

    Ed, I also believe the national debt to be a major concern that seems to be ignored too easily, but I blame members from both parties and over the course of multiple administrations. But, actually, what good does blame do anyway? What we need is a solution, and as Thomas noted some gains have been being made. Unfortunately, much more needs to be done or the situation will get much worse.

    The CBO has recently reported that without some major changes in our revenue and/or spending, our national debt is gong to become unsustainable within a couple decades. We're facing increased entitlement spending with all the baby boomers, and health care costs are going up, and the health insurance subsidies will increase spending, so without any increases in revenue, we're toast. Add to that, once the Fed starts raising the discount rate, then the interest we pay on the debt will increase as well. Double toast. The CBO suggests that lawmakers must reduce spending below and increase revenues above their projected levels if we are to deal with this inevitability.

    The writer of the article suggests closing tax-loopholes and eliminating wasteful spending. Then she has a quote that really resonated with me: "An increase in federal deficits over the next 20 years is not a given. There are solutions. All it takes is the political will to implement them."

    For my daughter's sake, I hope they do. But, as long as all the politicians care about is getting re-elected and lining their own pockets to one extent or another, I doubt anyone wants to make those hard and unpopular choices.

    Here's the link to the article if you want to read it directly: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2014/07/24/what-you-need-know-about-cbos-recent-long-term-budget-outlook/

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:15 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Did I ask if Obama supporters were aware of the 13 unanimous Supreme Court rulings? No, I didn't.

    I asked, "Why do you ignore the 13 unanimous Supreme Court rulings that have been issued against President Obama since January 2012?"

    Let's try again...[rolleyes]

    Despite the 13 unanimous Supreme Court rulings against President Obama you continue to support him. Why?

  • Ed Walters posted at 8:55 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 637

    Heuer: I will make sure they will never know what Barry has done to the country, they haven`t bitten anyone------ yet.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 6:58 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    Oh Ed
    Who said mans best friend can't get smarter than their master? They'll also sleep sounder with the good news.

  • Will Rainwater posted at 6:49 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    Will Rainwater Posts: 45

    Obama is a "community organizer", which means he has NEVER had a real job or met a payroll. He has given up actually negotiating with Congress, and thinks only HIS extreme left-wing liberal ideas are valid, and must be imposed on the American people by any means necessary. He is THE worst excuse for a president in American history, is EXTREMELY dangerous to those of us that actually believe in the Constitution and I cannot WAIT for Hillary to have to defend his record!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 6:47 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    I answered it.

  • Ed Walters posted at 6:12 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 637

    Liebich: Your right, sorry about that, but $16 trillion was last months count. Difficult to keep up. The debt clock looks like a car going 10,000 MPH

    Heuer: Your post makes for a great bed time story, for my two Labs . [beam]

  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 5:22 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2370

    Benghazi "resolved?" Hardly. In fact, if the first female president wannabe actually decides to run in 2016, I suspect it will be then that the matter will actually be opened for discussion and hopefully resolution. Just that matter alone will require Mrs. Clinton to sweat just a little. One thing is certain, it isn't going to be easy for her considering she's evaded the questions surrounding that little issue far too long.

    Just because Barack Hussein Obama skated into the White House with the media guiding his way, doesn't mean that Mr. Clinton's wife is going to enjoy the same treatment. In fact, as they (the media) begin to understand just how they were bamboozled by Mr. Obama, I suspect the heat will be turned up from day one for Hillary.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 2:49 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Sorry, I don't have a follow up question Mr. Heuer. I already asked my question.

    Are you going to answer it?

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:50 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    The debt is actually $17.6 trillion and counting Mr. Walters.


  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:43 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669


  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:43 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    Ah trolling again Andrew.
    Who says anybody is not aware?
    OK I will count to 10 and expect your usual follow up questions that begin "Well did you know...?

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:40 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    You see Ed there was this global collapse of the economy and, well needless to say it was very terrible and you really had to have been there.

    To be simplistic like the Tea Baggers, if you lose your job you have to make due even if you have bills and you still need to eat. Heck you didn't want to get sick that would really bust the budget. I know the Tea Baggers believe if you don't have money you just need to do everyone a favor and die because there certainly weren't any jobs to find.

    Well the economy is just like that and when we lost our revenues we ran up some debt and yes we had some before that as well. But steady as you go Obama has over seen increasing revenues come in and that will slowly reduce that debt load. of course if we could have Tea Baggers quit obstructing legislation we might get this done a whole lot faster.

    So don't despair your tax dollars and my tax dollars are at work.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:14 pm on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1669

    Mr Viall writes "Early on, even the casual observer began to notice a marked difference between the candidate Obama and the elected President Obama."

    Did you happen to notice THERE WAS A COMPLETE COLLAPSE OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY DURING THE ELECTION? Wars, economic collapse, etc do tend to change your whole priority list of things to do...EVEN TO THE CASUAL OBSERVER.

    Do you remember the 2010 election when republicans, especially the terrorist Tea Party group, got elected and took over the House making it totally dysfunctional garnering the LOWEST approval ratings of ALL TIME? Yeah the Tea Party that continues to make politics out of tragedy like the border kids. Yeah the tea Party group that keeps blocking immigration reform (you know the borders).

    But most importantly did you see him get reelected in 2012? Bitter pill for you to swallow, I know, and you just can't seem to get over it.

    Then you ask "Is he living up to his pre-election promises?"
    He has been doing his darnedest on his ore-election promises despite opposition and economic collapse however I am mostly satisfied with his post-election(s) performance. Can you imagine where we would be today if "start a war anywhere" McCain or "binders full of girls" Romney had won? I mean honestly with all the things we've been faced with. Its one thing to be anti-Obama but as much as you insincerely polish the image of campaigning Obama (to make the post election Obama look more dramatic) you have to understand people not only voted for Obama they also voted against McCain and Romney.

  • Ed Walters posted at 11:52 am on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 637

    It would seem that both posters left out the most important item of all. I have given up on everything else, however the one and the most important seems to have slid by. Of course I am speaking of the outstanding debt counted in the trillions that are not mentioned, ( $16 trillion and counting ). In the past a billion dollars seemed to be the utmost in debt, now its no more than high class lunch money. This is not a cheap shot, it is simple reality, and is one reason that the popularity of the President has fallen, along with campaign trips to raise money from his favorite state, after all, this is were the rich, famous along with the money is. Especially when the war in Gaza and Israel wage on., ahhhh lets play another round and have a beer, just one though. [sad]

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:13 am on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    I have a question for Obama supporters.

    Why do you ignore the 13 unanimous Supreme Court rulings that have been issued against President Obama since January 2012?

  • Eric Barrow posted at 10:03 am on Thu, Jul 24, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1604

    I was going to answer Richard's questions but when I tried I realized that only the first three are questions, the rest are the same old anti-Obama slander we have been hearing ad nauseam and they don't really deserve an answer. The Benghazi incident appears to be resolved. The photo op questions is a cheap shot especially since if anyone has been using the unfortunate children as pawns it has been the anti- Obama crowd.
    Also Richard don't you think it's about time to let it go, I understand that the right wanted more than anything to destroy this man and his Presidency but the battle is quickly coming to and end and those hoping to delegitimize the first black American President have failed.
    For the record the answer to the first three are yes, yes and no.


Recent Comments

Posted 11 hours ago by Ed Walters.

article: Letter: Ron Portal’s letters repeat the…

Kaur, with your slant on my posts [thumbdown]


Posted 12 hours ago by M. Doyle.

article: Letter: No one’s faith should be scorned

Nope, it was: "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." He never implied killing anyone. Either way, what's your poi…


Posted 14 hours ago by Ed Walters.

article: Letter: Suggestions for committee appoi…

Fiske: Another new guy, you state JoAnne hates Bob, BS I know JoAnne and she is the most fair minded person on the counsel, and has been f…


Posted 14 hours ago by Shane Marcus.

article: ‘Taken 3’ takes a wrong turn with no ch…

This is an opinion, nothing more


Posted 14 hours ago by Ed Walters.

article: Letter: No one’s faith should be scorned

Ben Franklin also said, The best way to keep a secret between 3 people is to dispose of the first two.



Popular Stories



Your News

News for the community, by the community.

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