The President has failed us

The President has failed us

There are 336906 comments on the Times News story from Jun 9, 2012, titled The President has failed us. In it, Times News reports that:

This week, I decided to list the reasons I would not vote for Barack Obama in the next election.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Times News.

Dont Panic

North York, Canada

#70066 Dec 8, 2012
Ralff wrote:
<quoted text>
"Try a little professional courtesy and ethics the next time."
This coming from a name changing troll in a grey box.
Practice what you preach.
You don't like grey box trolls now do you Ralff? It's not the same as getting a registered account suspended now is it? It doesn't fulfill the needs of your pathological psychotic affliction like getting a registered user suspended.
Keep on jerking it Ralff. The Grey boxes are here to stay buddy.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#70067 Dec 8, 2012
EAGLE EYE1 wrote:
<quoted text>
PTSD is not limited to the military mail.. But its not something to brag about or try to use in the way it is being posted..
Eagle
You are correct Eagle.
Sad to see...

Lots of "civilians" suffer from this malady ...
It's NOT a pretty sight :(

Another form is "Legal ABUSE"
***
Karin Huffer, a marriage and family counselor in Las Vegas has identified a new disorder for a nation already reeling from chronic fatigue syndrome, Internet addiction disorder and other new-age afflictions.

It's called “legal abuse syndrome”, and it can strike crime victims, litigants, attorneys and anyone who has dealt with the Family Court System. According to Dr. Huffer,“legal abuse syndrome (LAS) is a form of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It is a psychic injury, not a mental illness. It is a personal injury that develops in individuals assaulted by ethical violations, legal abuses, betrayals, and fraud. Abuse of power and authority and a profound lack of accountability in our courts have become rampant.”

Using the Family Court System to abuse an ex only promotes more conflict. If you are of the belief that going back to court or engaging in behavior that defies a divorce court order you are engaging in legal abuse. A therapist can teach you skills needed to resolve conflict in a healthier manner, skills that will save you not only emotional stress but all the money you give a divorce attorney every time you are angry with your ex.

http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/abusiverel...

LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME, Kerin Huffer M.S., her website is www.legalabusesyndrome.com or www.legalabusesyndrome.org

A new cause of action that is a new bases for lawsuits is being accepted by the courts allowing cases to proceed on claims of "organic brain injury" caused by traumatic stress. An article appeared on this on November 11, 2002 in the National Law Journal. Click here to see full article.

Harassment related emotional distress is being recognized in the work field upon which lawyers are now suing. To read the article by by Joni Johnston, Psy.D. Click here There is no reason why the same facts and reasoning should not apply to the harassment inflicted on victims in a lawsuit.

http://www.judicialaccountability.org/legalab...
Quirky The Eye

Denver, CO

#70068 Dec 8, 2012
antb wrote:
Oh, yes...looks like the majority of Americans are tired of the GOP. Hopefully they'll run somebody like Ted Nugent against her. Lolol....
"Majority of Americans Want Hillary Clinton to Run in 2016"
Hillary Clinton's popularity is booming, and the majority of Americans said they would like to see the secretary of state and former first lady make her own run for the White House in 2016.
According to an ABC/Washington Post poll, 57 percent of Americans, including 23 percent of Republicans, would support Clinton if she were to run for president in the next election.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100282676
MSNBC COMPARES OBAMA CARE TO HILLARY CARE & THE DIFFERENCE REMAINS

“United We Stand”

Level 7

Since: Dec 11

Divided We Fall

#70069 Dec 8, 2012
antb wrote:
Oh, yes...looks like the majority of Americans are tired of the GOP. Hopefully they'll run somebody like Ted Nugent against her. Lolol....
"Majority of Americans Want Hillary Clinton to Run in 2016"
Hillary Clinton's popularity is booming, and the majority of Americans said they would like to see the secretary of state and former first lady make her own run for the White House in 2016.
According to an ABC/Washington Post poll, 57 percent of Americans, including 23 percent of Republicans, would support Clinton if she were to run for president in the next election.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100282676
Ted Nugent rocks!

“United We Stand”

Level 7

Since: Dec 11

Divided We Fall

#70070 Dec 8, 2012
Dont Panic wrote:
<quoted text>
Please don't get started with me Ralff. You already know what's gonna happen. I'll play with you for a while and you will play back so I will play some more causing you to play a little more and as we progress into our game, you will pwnd, over and over until you get all butt-hurt and run off to the moderators to tattle tail like the little weasel everyone knows you to be.
Come out of you grey box and into your green box coward. Lmao@cowardU!
Ga Girl 56

Roswell, GA

#70071 Dec 8, 2012
Quirky The Eye wrote:
<quoted text>
MSNBC COMPARES OBAMA CARE TO HILLARY CARE & THE DIFFERENCE REMAINS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =VvxKrIgm1gkXX
Do you have one of those quirky eyes like Marty Feldman in Young Franenstein. That was just the funniest movie. I still love it. I wish they would show it on TCM. That's my favorite movie station that Dish carries since I like old movies so much.
Dont Panic

North York, Canada

#70072 Dec 8, 2012
justagi wrote:
<quoted text>So sorry your comprehension is so limited. Also, I'm an E-7 and faclitating the course. The Constitution has nothing to do with it and I never refered to it. Again, sorry about your comprehension but all ya gotta do is google the subject if you want corroboration. Don't be one of those that needs proof of obvious truths regardless of whether you can relate to the topic. It's true even if you cannot- otherwise Obama's platform and audience would have been full of mandatory supporters...didn't think of that one?
Have you taken the TARP training yet SFC? E-7? Instructor? Access to information and or people with access? Bragging on a public forum that is read worldwide?

Yeah dude. You are a target and you choose to expose that target to anyone in the world who cares to read? I bet you have already befriended anonymous posters and have already exchanged private messages with them without really knowing them.

Have you reported that contact to the base TARP officer?(Formerly known as the SAEDA)

You could be in more trouble than you even know Sergeant.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#70073 Dec 8, 2012
Tinka wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought we were just chit chatting I think you must have misunderstood something...
Leave me be? You can try not to converse with me, I'll just post in an empty box if I so feel like replying to you and then you can decide if you like to answer...
Would that make it easier?
Then QUIT "disputing"
WHAT "I" say!

THAT is NOT the "kind" of debating "I" do ...:)

If "you" have FACTS to "back iT UP"
THAT is "different" ... ;~)

WHEN "I" dispute
I put the FACTS with iT!:)

When you do THAT ...
I get VERY "defensive" ...
but... "I" wonder WHY ...
(not really-being jocular-facetious)

MeThinks people KNOW why!!!!!

Thank you.

“United We Stand”

Level 7

Since: Dec 11

Divided We Fall

#70074 Dec 8, 2012
Dont Panic wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you taken the TARP training yet SFC? E-7? Instructor? Access to information and or people with access? Bragging on a public forum that is read worldwide?
Yeah dude. You are a target and you choose to expose that target to anyone in the world who cares to read? I bet you have already befriended anonymous posters and have already exchanged private messages with them without really knowing them.
Have you reported that contact to the base TARP officer?(Formerly known as the SAEDA)
You could be in more trouble than you even know Sergeant.
"I bet you have already befriended anonymous posters and have already exchanged private messages with them without really knowing them."

Why would you think that? Was your green box one of them?
American Lady

Danville, KY

#70076 Dec 8, 2012
A GREAT Comment from there ...

This artificial construct called the fiscal cliff is not the precipice on which we are perched (remember Congress created it when they could not decide how to divide up the bounty of our tax dollars and the unlimited press of the US Treasury). Rather we are on the edge of determining whether the experiment of American democracy can succeed. When the common man must wake each morning worrying what the Federal Government will do to change his life forever, we are no longer free but simple wards of the state. When the federal government works to break our ties to family and community we are not free but simple wards of the state. When business places more emphasis on lobbying than on product and service innovation we no longer have capitalism but a corrupt economy driven by the state. In short we have totalitarianism. That anyone believes elections have provided a mandate for federal government action is a farce. Elections are about electing people, most of which were chosen as the lesser of only bad options. In earlier times when we did silly things and our country deviated off track, there was a common morality—the Bible and God—to which we could appeal and the themes there would eventually resonate. Those days are no longer. And while we need to find a new morale authority on which we can collectively appeal, it must not stop us from making some changes to our predicament. The course of our country still only changes because its citizens say “Enough!” Against such totalitarianism we have only one tool, ourselves. In many respects we have forgotten it in this country but we have been able to see its success around the world against corrupt, dictatorial regimes. We must stand up individually and shout “Enough” and march collectively to change the course of American history. In to the streets, in to the fields, in to the interstate highways, we must march. Peaceful but persistent, energized and enduring. The patriots and martyrs in this battle will be those individuals that forgo the streams of government money to make a stand on principle placing progeny above their own needs and wants. Having found their way to be successful “legally” in this corrupt system they instead will cut the cord with their only safety net being family, friends and community. They may be individuals, they may be companies heretofore bloated on cronyism. Let the statues be erected to them! Let them be our inspiration! The fight will be hard and it will be long but there are 3 immediate tangible goals: 1. Congress must pass immediately and the President must sign into law a measure that leads to government spending at no more than 18% of GDP by 2018. 18% by 2018! And all future budgets should be stable below this level until clear plans are put in place to shrink the federal government even more. No one will starve at this level. It is at the level of what government spending was in 2000. And it is more than enough for the federal government at this point. 2. Congress must pass immediately and the President must sign into law a measure making Congress—the US Senate and US House—a part-time legislature whose members live in their home districts with limited staff and that convenes 3 times throughout the year for not more than 2 weeks. Let the lobbyists come to mainstreet and bolster the local economies rather than simply the economy of Washington, DC. Most of the work done by this body has been harmful to the country not helpful. With too much money, too much staff and too much lobbying we get incomprehensible legislation like Dodd-Frank that pulls the wool over the eyes of the American people and lets “too big too fail” political patrons continue their thievery. 3. Congress must pass immediately and the President must sign into law a measure that requires every federal agency to list on the home page of their web site the following information:

“Extremely me”

Level 6

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#70077 Dec 8, 2012
justagi wrote:
<quoted text>So sorry your comprehension is so limited. Also, I'm an E-7 and faclitating the course. The Constitution has nothing to do with it and I never refered to it. Again, sorry about your comprehension but all ya gotta do is google the subject if you want corroboration. Don't be one of those that needs proof of obvious truths regardless of whether you can relate to the topic. It's true even if you cannot- otherwise Obama's platform and audience would have been full of mandatory supporters...didn't think of that one?
Hey justagi.

I'm coming into this conversation late, but could you be a little more specific about exactly which regulations you are referring to?

It's my understanding that active duty military personnel don't need any permission at all to participate in the political process as long as it is clear that such activity is not presented as representative of (or endorsed by) the armed forces.

I know they have the right to write letters to the editor, express their opinions in public, engage in and attend political debates and clubs.

Not really taking sides here, but I would like to know what specific regulations you're talking about.
Ga Girl 56

Roswell, GA

#70079 Dec 8, 2012
American Lady wrote:
A GREAT Comment from there ...
This artificial construct called the fiscal cliff is not the precipice on which we are perched (remember Congress created it when they could not decide how to divide up the bounty of our tax dollars and the unlimited press of the US Treasury). Rather we are on the edge of determining whether the experiment of American democracy can succeed. When the common man must wake each morning worrying what the Federal Government will do to change his life forever, we are no longer free but simple wards of the state. When the federal government works to break our ties to family and community we are not free but simple wards of the state. When business places more emphasis on lobbying than on product and service innovation we no longer have capitalism but a corrupt economy driven by the state. In short we have totalitarianism. That anyone believes elections have provided a mandate for federal government action is a farce. Elections are about electing people, most of which were chosen as the lesser of only bad options. In earlier times when we did silly things and our country deviated off track, there was a common morality—the Bible and God—to which we could appeal and the themes there would eventually resonate. Those days are no longer. And while we need to find a new morale authority on which we can collectively appeal, it must not stop us from making some changes to our predicament. The course of our country still only changes because its citizens say “Enough!” Against such totalitarianism we have only one tool, ourselves. In many respects we have forgotten it in this country but we have been able to see its success around the world against corrupt, dictatorial regimes. We must stand up individually and shout “Enough” and march collectively to change the course of American history. In to the streets, in to the fields, in to the interstate highways, we must march. Peaceful but persistent, energized and enduring. The patriots and martyrs in this battle will be those individuals that forgo the streams of government money to make a stand on principle placing progeny above their own needs and wants. Having found their way to be successful “legally” in this corrupt system they instead will cut the cord with their only safety net being family, friends and community. They may be individuals, they may be companies heretofore bloated on cronyism. Let the statues be erected to them! Let them be our inspiration! The fight will be hard and it will be long but there are 3 immediate tangible goals: 1. Congress must pass immediately and the President must sign into law a measure that leads to government spending at no more than 18% of GDP by 2018. 18% by 2018! And all future budgets should be stable below this level until clear plans are put in place to shrink the federal government even more. No one will starve at this level. It is at the level of what government spending was in 2000. And it is more than enough for the federal government at this point. 2. Congress must pass immediately and the President must sign into law a measure making Congress—the US Senate and US House—a part-time legislature whose members live in their home districts with limited staff and that convenes 3 times throughout the year for not more than 2 weeks. Let the lobbyists come to mainstreet and bolster the local economies rather than simply the economy of Washington, DC. Most of the work done by this body has been harmful to the country not helpful. With too much money, too much staff and too much lobbying we get incomprehensible legislation like Dodd-Frank that pulls the wool over the eyes of the American people and lets “too big too fail” political patrons continue their thievery. 3.
This sounds like all the stuff I'm been hearing on the news rolled into one be bag of wind.
Dont Panic

North York, Canada

#70080 Dec 8, 2012
Ralff wrote:
<quoted text>
Come out of you grey box and into your green box coward. Lmao@cowardU!
Why?

It's like I said before Ralff. The Internet is real. Real people live behind those handles and screen names. Real machines allow it to exist. It's real enough to change government policy, real enough to feed the world's hungry, and even, for some of us, real enough to earn us a paycheck.

You know which one I am. That's good enough for me. Relax! Don't Panic!!!
Dont Panic

North York, Canada

#70081 Dec 8, 2012
Ralff wrote:
<quoted text>
"I bet you have already befriended anonymous posters and have already exchanged private messages with them without really knowing them."
Why would you think that? Was your green box one of them?
The comment that you replied to was way over your beady little head. Don't try to understand it Ralff. You couldn't.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#70082 Dec 8, 2012
Ga Girl 56 wrote:
<quoted text>This sounds like all the stuff I'm been hearing on the news rolled into one be bag of wind.
"you" have been drinking the "alcohol from the White House"
haven't "you" ???:)

Since: Feb 09

Madisonville, KY

#70083 Dec 8, 2012
JackMcIntosh wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey justagi.
I'm coming into this conversation late, but could you be a little more specific about exactly which regulations you are referring to?
It's my understanding that active duty military personnel don't need any permission at all to participate in the political process as long as it is clear that such activity is not presented as representative of (or endorsed by) the armed forces.
I know they have the right to write letters to the editor, express their opinions in public, engage in and attend political debates and clubs.
Not really taking sides here, but I would like to know what specific regulations you're talking about.
Gimme a minute- I'll research AR 670-1, it's almost easier to dissect than the UCMJ. As far as the SAEDA reference goes, it's been superceded by TARP and I'm e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y cautious about my postings.

“United We Stand”

Level 7

Since: Dec 11

Divided We Fall

#70084 Dec 8, 2012
Fat chance but just in case I am putting Christmas on my credit card then at least I won't have to pay for it if it doesn't happen.....

Mayan apocalypse: panic spreads as December 21 nears
Fears that the end of the world is nigh have spread across the world with only days until the end of the Mayan calendar, with doomsday-mongers predicting a cataclysmic end to the history of Earth.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nor...

Since: Feb 09

Madisonville, KY

#70085 Dec 8, 2012
Cannot - Participate in partisan political fundraising activities, rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement. Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator.

Cannot - Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.

Cannot -Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. However, letters to the editor are allowed.

Cannot - Serve in any official capacity with or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.

Cannot - Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

Cannot - Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

Cannot - Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political club or group or distribute partisan political literature.

Cannot - Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee or candidate during a campaign, on an election day, or after an election day during the process of closing out a campaign.

Cannot - Solicit or otherwise engage in fundraising activities in Federal offices or facilities, including military reservations, for any political cause or candidate.

Cannot - March or ride in a partisan political parade.

Cannot - Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on a private vehicle.

Cannot - Display a partisan political sign, poster, banner, or similar device visible to the public at one’s residence on a military installation, even if that residence is part of a privatized housing development.

Cannot - Participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls if the effort is organized by or associated with a partisan political party, cause, or candidate.

Cannot - Sell tickets for or otherwise actively promote partisan political dinners and similar fundraising events.

Cannot - Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces, except as a member of a joint Armed Forces color guard at the opening ceremonies of the national conventions of the Republican, Democratic, or other political parties recognized by the Federal Elections Committee or as otherwise authorized by the Secretary concerned.

Cannot - Make a campaign contribution to, or receive or solicit (on one’s own behalf) a campaign contribution from, any other member of the Armed Forces on active duty.

Cannot - Any activity that may be reasonably viewed as directly or indirectly associating the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security (in the case of the Coast Guard) or any component of these Departments with a partisan political activity or is otherwise contrary to the spirit and intention of this Directive shall be avoided
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a...
Dont Panic

North York, Canada

#70086 Dec 8, 2012
JackMcIntosh wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey justagi.
I'm coming into this conversation late, but could you be a little more specific about exactly which regulations you are referring to?
It's my understanding that active duty military personnel don't need any permission at all to participate in the political process as long as it is clear that such activity is not presented as representative of (or endorsed by) the armed forces.
I know they have the right to write letters to the editor, express their opinions in public, engage in and attend political debates and clubs.
Not really taking sides here, but I would like to know what specific regulations you're talking about.
He is referring to the Hatch Act and how it applies to service men and women in uniform.

It's just that he didn't know how to say it because he is "that guy". You know the type. The one in the class who disrupts the entire class with a question that turns into a "personal experience" story causing the seminar to take a lot longer than it should have. Also the one who somehow gets a totally different interpretation of the subject than everyone else in the class did.

Anyway, EVERYTHING is in violation of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. And EVERYTHING is a courts marshal offense. Article 134 of the UCMJ is a "catch all" article and that would be the article used IF the military were to go after something so petty as a Hatch Act violation.

My recommendation to anyone brought before a company grade officer for non-judicial punishment under an alleged Hatch Act violation is to: a. Remain Silent b. Demand a courts martial and c. Demand the Post JAG office provide you with a Defense Attorney

They will toss it out and then you will need to request an immediate reassignment to prevent retribution from the idiots running that company because if they were stupid enough to charge you with a Hatch Act violation, they are stupid enough to violate your rights under the No Fear Act too.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#70087 Dec 8, 2012
Tinka wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought we were just chit chatting I think you must have misunderstood something...
Leave me be? You can try not to converse with me, I'll just post in an empty box if I so feel like replying to you and then you can decide if you like to answer...
Would that make it easier?
Tinka wrote:
<quoted text>
The Topix Editor Troop(s)is who
=======
AL said:
for WHAT "purpose" ???:)

American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
for WHAT "purpose" ???:)

Tinka said:
Maybe you need to read the other post again...
[NO, I don't NEED to read it AGAIN - "I" know WHAT it SAID]

Disneyland just drove through town, cold kept frozen dairy product on a stick...

Now that is some Luxury...
==========

THIS "condescension" is what "irked" me !!!
[BUT "only" long enuf to post to you :)]
Tho "you" probably "don't KNOW"
what it defines !!!

Here ya go ...
condescension - The Free Dictionary
www.thefreedictionary.com/condescensioncon ·de·scen·sion (k n d -s n sh n). n. 1. The act of condescending or an instance of it. 2. Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/condescensio...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Immigration Reform Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News GOP hopefuls take on illegal immigration in deb... 47 min wild child 2
News Palin Slams Coverage of 'Non-Traditional' Trump... 49 min wild child 43
News Audits of businesses for illegal immigrants rising (Dec '12) 1 hr illegal illegals ... 21
News Are illegal immigrants bringing 'tremendous' di... 2 hr Prep-for-Dep 111
Rose's Pub (Mar '10) 3 hr J ValJean 138,688
News Bush rolls out six-point plan to address border... 4 hr Juan 4
News Ann Coulter: GOP Candidates "A Bunch of P*ssies... 9 hr Billy Ringo 312
More from around the web