The President has failed us

The President has failed us

There are 395605 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.

Pok Guy

Plymouth, MN

#94964 Jan 23, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>You impress me about 95% of the time with your very sharp posts. But, I'm going to point out to you that only about 3% of those who are present illegally are engaged in agriculture related jobs. That's an awful lot of folks who are NOT picking lettuce. And, a look at the stats of who cleans hotel rooms (go to CIS for the research) shows a higher percentage of legal workers than illegal workers still working in that category. That said, their incomes from that work have probably fallen with the entry of more illegal workers.
So who then benefits? Those that do the hiring. It's to their advantage to hire the cheapest form of labor that still have the requisite skill set. So who then is the problem? The illegals who take the job for a paycheck they can't get in their own country or those that do the hiring because they can easily exploit the workers' illegality in the form of low wages (and concomitant increased profit)? If the latter, it's not going to stop because it's all about money.

Since: Feb 09

Lexington, KY

#94965 Jan 23, 2013
Or was that "UNemployed" ?

Level 8

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#94966 Jan 23, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>They do desensitize. They play games and participate with virtual violent assaults, finish off their opponents and then restart and play again. Nothing is real. Nothing is permanent. Everything is a do-over. You may very well have touched on an important component on the psyche that develops.
I'm pretty sure it's fairly accepted by most professionals on this issue as a variable in the equation if not yet fully recognized a contributing factor.

Since: Feb 09

Lexington, KY

#94969 Jan 23, 2013
Pok Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
As all gun nuts clearly understand, it doesn't take much courage to pull a trigger.
Congrats, depending on your definition of "gun nut", you may have won the "Stoopidest Post of the Week" award.

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#94972 Jan 23, 2013
Pok Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
So who then benefits? Those that do the hiring. It's to their advantage to hire the cheapest form of labor that still have the requisite skill set. So who then is the problem? The illegals who take the job for a paycheck they can't get in their own country or those that do the hiring because they can easily exploit the workers' illegality in the form of low wages (and concomitant increased profit)? If the latter, it's not going to stop because it's all about money.
I don't disagree with you at all about this. Business interests are the enemy - always have been. People don't come here and overstay a visa or breech a border unless there's money in it for them to do so. Government assisting business interests is the biggest problem. Frankly, it's not even skill set that's the issue. Employers seeking ever bigger profits will hire anybody who can push hod or swing a hammer and then point to what they want done. This doesn't mean they've hired somebody with comparable skills to the Americans and legal immigrants they dumped. It just means they make a greater profit. Some eighteen year old guy sure as h*ll does not know as much or have the experience of a 40 year old carpenter who only practiced that trade all of his adult life.

Phillip Romero, a well respected economist under Pete Wilson's Administration studied the impact on California, but also had some historical facts that we should also keep in the backs of our minds as we deal with immigration. To summarize, he points out that unfettered and ongoing ILLEGAL immigration into a country (pick your country) over time always results in a failed state. So, while we're certainly a long way from illegal immigration putting us in that position, our policies today are essential in ensuring that we stop that from taking place a decade from now. That said, Romero is a proponent of even more legal immigration.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

Trump 2016 and beyond

#94975 Jan 23, 2013
X -Man- wrote:
<quoted text>
The one common denominator in the majority of these shootings are violent video games. It's too obvious to ignore.
Agree. They desensitizes young minds.

Level 2

Since: Nov 09

United States

#94978 Jan 23, 2013
_White American_ wrote:
<quoted text>I was speaking the truth oaky about dead beat dads. They get away without paying child support and like I also said it's very hard to get them in prison for lack of child support.
Incarcerating a non-custodial parent because of their inability to pay their child support is debtors prison. However, people do end up going to jail over this issue when they hide their earnings.

If we were to toss people in jail for not paying their bills... the USA would come to a complete halt.

Since: Feb 09

Lexington, KY

#94979 Jan 23, 2013
Democrat proposal: storage depot for weapons: http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/...
Pok Guy

Plymouth, MN

#94981 Jan 23, 2013
justagi wrote:
<quoted text>Check the GAO website, sport. Depending on the link you pick, between 67-74% of illegals are employed. The rest live on the proceeds of the ones they live with, some contrived gummint support, crime or a combination. All they're doing is biding their time until anchor babies are an irrefutable fact.
It's axiomatic: there'd be no supply if there was no demand.

I understand that some come over for reasons other than employment, but the vast majority do not. They come to work. And they 1. either take what's available because no one wants the job (picking lettuce) or 2. they take what employers offer them because the illegals are a source of cheap labor (dry wall, painters, etc.)

The remedies are then 1. increase wages to make it more attractive for US citizens and 2. increase enforcement of the law prohibiting hiring this source of cheap labor. This eliminates the demand and by necessity, also eliminates the supply. Those illegals would depart voluntarily.

What's left? The illegals who remain who are here for something other than employment.

67-74% of illegals are employed? I'd say that's a pretty darn resourceful and industrious bunch. Could we do as well if we were in another country illegally? Anchor babies are not inevitable. But when they do arrive, then they are just like you: a US citizen.
Lock N Load

Riverside, CA

#94983 Jan 23, 2013
Illegal aliens to find Montana unwelcome

WASHINGTON – A year ago Montanans decided they would withhold state services from illegal aliens, and now their lawmakers are preparing to take the next step to make sure state residents are in the United States legally.

The legislature is reviewing a bill that would penalize any city that chooses to establish a “sanctuary” policy.

The move comes just as the debate in Washington over amnesty for illegal aliens commences, putting Montana at the head of the line in addressing the issue.

State Rep. Krayton Kerns, R-Laurel, a supporter of Montana House Bill 50, said the plan “prohibits cities and municipalities in Montana from setting up a sanctuary city status and sets up a mechanism whereby state funds will be withhold if they set up a sanctuary city status.”

HB 50 states,“A local governing body may not enact, adopt, implement, or enforce a sanctuary policy and may not refer a sanctuary policy to the electors of the governing body’s jurisdictional area.”

It further holds that any state agency handing out state funding may require cities to certify that they are in compliance with the policy “as a condition of funding.”

“We like to be favorable place for legal aliens, legal residents and all citizens …[however] we are trying to be an unfavorable place to illegal aliens,” Kerns said.

The bill is currently in the Montana House Judiciary Committee and will be voted on Friday.

Asked by WND if he thinks it will pass, Kerns said,“I think it will.”

Kerns, a veterinarian, hosts his own blog and is the author of the book “Ramblings of a Conservative Cow Doctor.”

According to the Great Falls Tribune, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. David Howard, R-Park City, said HB 50 “creates a defense in wonderful Montana where they won’t come here.”

He clarified the sole purpose of the bill “is to protect Montanans.”

Kerns noted it’s not the first time the bill has been introduced.

“The last one the former governor [Brian Schweitzer] vetoed.”

Schweitzer, a Democrat, was succeeded by Steve Bullock, another Democrat.

Just last year, Montanans voted 79.5 percent in favor of LR 121, which denied state services to illegal aliens.

According to the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, illegal aliens cost Montanans about $32 million, the lowest state total in the nation.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/illegal-aliens-to-...
Pok Guy

Plymouth, MN

#94984 Jan 23, 2013
Oaky wrote:
If extra taxes are propose on guns or ammo then a proportionate amount should also be placed on these videos, games and movies shown at theaters and all of the taxes collected should go directly to help people that need it get into mental healthcare system. That is if this really is all about stopping mass murders.
The entertainment industry has Obama in their pocket.
The liberals in fact expanded health care through Federal Parity by requiring coverage of mental health services to the same extent as medical services. Guess which political party fought against it and screamed that this was Socialism and would lead to the downfall of American business and set the stage for the Apocalypse?

And guess which party members, ironically, need the most mental health care?

And you can't get any deeper in the entertainment industry's pocket than when you elect an actor as a president and another as a governor.
Pok Guy

Plymouth, MN

#94987 Jan 23, 2013
expo 97 wrote:
<quoted text>
The most people (including 19 children 6 or younger) killed in the our country were during the Oklahoma City bombing. No gun was used. It was a fertilizer & fuel oil bomb. Bill Ayers, who tried to bomb the US Capitol, used a smaller bomb. Obama started his political career in Bill Ayers home, knowing full well Ayers was a terrorist bomber. I find that worrying. Do you?
I don't even know anybody who has robbed a liquor store. If they did, I sure wouldn't be itching to associate myself with them. As to the worst damage actually done by US made civilian "assault weapons", that would be the 200-300 Mexicans killed by Fast & Furious weapons. Oddly enough, that program is now being kept a secret by guess who? President Obama!
How interesting. Worst US killing: a crazy bomber, just like Bill Ayers, Obama's pal. Worst killing by civilian assault weapons: that'd be Bill's other pal, AJ Holder and his Fast & Furious murders.
How does Obama keep getting associated with bombers, mass shootings and other sorts of mayhem. How many people do you know who tried to bomb the US Capitol building or sent thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels?
George Bush and Georgie Bush, Jr., were friends with Saddam. They had a mutual interests, oil. So using your same logic, does that mean that the Bush's were evil and anti-American for associating with Saddam? Or other Middle Eastern despot? Or does your logic apply only to Democrats and not to Republicans?

Vorenus

“Tutte le strade portano a Roma”

Level 8

Since: Nov 09

Mount Vesuvius

#94988 Jan 23, 2013
Truman wrote:
<quoted text>Boy you didnt bother with a cup when they were passing out the Fox Koolade did you?
You just bent over and had them ram the nozzle and said 'Fill 'er up!'
Where would your self image be if you couldnt define yourself as the 'Put Upon White Man surrounded by Parasites...'?
I do like reading posts like yours though ...because its reassuring to know that Repubs wont be changing a note when it comes to insulting most of the Fastest Growing Voter demographics and wont be winning another National Election in our lifetimes.
Liberty and Freedom?
You havent got a clue.
For most people it sure as hell isnt the Corporate Plutocracy for White and Wealthy only that YOU have been spoon fed.
Youd be a loyal little LickSpittle in that society though wouldnt you?
LMAO!
One of the best posts ever!

Since: Feb 09

Lexington, KY

#94989 Jan 23, 2013
Pok Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's axiomatic: there'd be no supply if there was no demand.
I understand that some come over for reasons other than employment, but the vast majority do not. They come to work. And they 1. either take what's available because no one wants the job (picking lettuce) or 2. they take what employers offer them because the illegals are a source of cheap labor (dry wall, painters, etc.)
The remedies are then 1. increase wages to make it more attractive for US citizens and 2. increase enforcement of the law prohibiting hiring this source of cheap labor. This eliminates the demand and by necessity, also eliminates the supply. Those illegals would depart voluntarily.
What's left? The illegals who remain who are here for something other than employment.
67-74% of illegals are employed? I'd say that's a pretty darn resourceful and industrious bunch. Could we do as well if we were in another country illegally? Anchor babies are not inevitable. But when they do arrive, then they are just like you: a US citizen.
You have a lot of opinions there, sport. IMO, the vast majority come here to have anchor babies. Witnes southern CA, where (last count 68 HOSPITLAS closed due SOLEY to supplying free medical care to illegals. Couple that with the 9.5$ billion the state spends to support illegals (1.5$ bill in L.A. county alone) and you can see where the #s are. Last time I checked, illegals cost this country around 300+$ bil a year (not just ONE year). All these #s come from the GAO website.

Level 2

Since: Nov 09

United States

#94990 Jan 23, 2013
Pok Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
So who then benefits? Those that do the hiring. It's to their advantage to hire the cheapest form of labor that still have the requisite skill set. So who then is the problem? The illegals who take the job for a paycheck they can't get in their own country or those that do the hiring because they can easily exploit the workers' illegality in the form of low wages (and concomitant increased profit)? If the latter, it's not going to stop because it's all about money.
One can argue that it's predatory capitalism running amuck. The author of the below article sums it up rather well......

Predatory Capitalism: When Corporations Go Unregulated

Unregulated profit-seeking corporations cannot be trusted to protect the Public, because their main objective is to make profits, not to be a do-gooder for the Public. Whenever profit-making conflicts with the Public interest, profit-making wins! Thus they become Predators on the Public, not Protectors of the Public.

This is not a radical idea, but an obvious fact, if you think about it. Profit-seeking corporations exist to make a profit, and the more profit, the better. Anything which increases profits is good for them; and anything which decreases profits is bad. So they try to do whatever is necessary to make profits. This is the essence of Laissez-faire Capitalism: that profit-seeking corporations should be left alone to do whatever they choose to do in order to make profits.

Employees get paid to help the company make a profit, not to be a do-gooder for the general Public. Just suppose a local manager decided to give away $1,000,000 of the company's money to build a playground for the neighborhood children. "The kids need the playground!," he says. Unless this playgound were part of some co-ordinated Public Relations effort, intended ultimately to produce greater profit, the employee would probably be fired, and replaced by someone with a better profit-making attitude.

Suppose an auto manufacturer had some kind of a safety problem, perhaps gas tanks that sometimes exploded on impact. And suppose it would cost a hundred million dollars to fix the problem, but it would only cost ten million to let the problem continue, and pay off the victims who sued and won. What do you suppose the company would do? It would let the problem continue, of course! Deny that a problem exists, claim it was the user's fault, and pay off damages only when forced to do so. These kinds of decisions happen all the time. Why do you suppose the corporations are so eager to get "Tort Reform?" To limit their payoffs for damages, of course! So their profits aren't hurt so much! "To hell with the Public," they think. "They should be more careful!"

And if the Management of a profit-seeking corporation ever did choose the Public interest over a higher profit (unless it were forced to do so by some kind of government regulation), then that corporation would be violating its financial duty to its stockholders. And the stockholders would be entitled to replace the do-gooder Management with a profit-oriented Management.

UNREGULATED PROFIT-SEEKING CORPORATIONS HARM THE PUBLIC THESE FIVE WAYS

1. NOT PAY TAXES -In order to maximize profits, they always seek to avoid or minimize their taxes.

2. ELIMINATE COMPETION -In order to maximize profits, they always seek to eliminate or control their competition.

3. CUT WAGES AND SALARIES - In order to maximize profits, they always seek to reduce their labor costs.

4. DISREGARD THE ENVIRONMENT - In order to maximize profits, they always seek to avoid all environmental restraints.

5. SELL DANGEROUS, HARMFUL PRODUCTS - In order to maximize profits, they are tempted to sell dangerous or harmful products.

read more @ http://www.loveallpeople.org/predatorycapital...

Level 2

Since: Nov 09

United States

#94991 Jan 23, 2013
Lock N Load wrote:
Illegal aliens to find Montana unwelcome
WASHINGTON – A year ago Montanans decided they would withhold state services from illegal aliens, and now their lawmakers are preparing to take the next step to make sure state residents are in the United States legally.
The legislature is reviewing a bill that would penalize any city that chooses to establish a “sanctuary” policy.
The move comes just as the debate in Washington over amnesty for illegal aliens commences, putting Montana at the head of the line in addressing the issue.
State Rep. Krayton Kerns, R-Laurel, a supporter of Montana House Bill 50, said the plan “prohibits cities and municipalities in Montana from setting up a sanctuary city status and sets up a mechanism whereby state funds will be withhold if they set up a sanctuary city status.”
HB 50 states,“A local governing body may not enact, adopt, implement, or enforce a sanctuary policy and may not refer a sanctuary policy to the electors of the governing body’s jurisdictional area.”
It further holds that any state agency handing out state funding may require cities to certify that they are in compliance with the policy “as a condition of funding.”
“We like to be favorable place for legal aliens, legal residents and all citizens …[however] we are trying to be an unfavorable place to illegal aliens,” Kerns said.
The bill is currently in the Montana House Judiciary Committee and will be voted on Friday.
Asked by WND if he thinks it will pass, Kerns said,“I think it will.”
Kerns, a veterinarian, hosts his own blog and is the author of the book “Ramblings of a Conservative Cow Doctor.”
According to the Great Falls Tribune, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. David Howard, R-Park City, said HB 50 “creates a defense in wonderful Montana where they won’t come here.”
He clarified the sole purpose of the bill “is to protect Montanans.”
Kerns noted it’s not the first time the bill has been introduced.
“The last one the former governor [Brian Schweitzer] vetoed.”
Schweitzer, a Democrat, was succeeded by Steve Bullock, another Democrat.
Just last year, Montanans voted 79.5 percent in favor of LR 121, which denied state services to illegal aliens.
According to the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, illegal aliens cost Montanans about $32 million, the lowest state total in the nation.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/illegal-aliens-to-...
Montana's population is ranked 44th in the U.S. with a total population of 1,005,141 (2012).

Simply put... Montana sucks so bad that not even Americans want to live there so why would the illegals want to live there also?

Level 2

Since: Nov 09

United States

#94993 Jan 23, 2013
Oaky wrote:
<quoted text>
Not paying child support is "contempt of court" and that is what they go to jail for but I agree, it is equal to debtors prison (but it is legal because the judge wants to do it).
And the "If we were to through everyone in jail that..." argument really is worn out on everything it is used on.
If you have the ability to pay child support and you willfully hide your earnings then yes you'll be charged with some form of "child support evasion".... but if you're unemployed or end up on welfare, you can easily goto the court and file for a $0 child support order or in some cases demand that the custodial parent pay you for your visitation.
Tone Loak

Brighton, CO

#94994 Jan 23, 2013
Jaxxon wrote:
<quoted text>
I've wondered the same thing lately reading about some of the shootings.
Are these people born with something just basically wrong with them, or does something happen in the course of their lives that damages them to the point that they can do these things?
Not to be Me ,Buthe same question has been raised of people o are Gay?
Tone Loak

Brighton, CO

#94995 Jan 23, 2013
Correction

Not to be Mean ,But the same question has been raised of people who are Gay?

Level 2

Since: Nov 09

United States

#94997 Jan 23, 2013
expo 97 wrote:
<quoted text>
The most people (including 19 children 6 or younger) killed in the our country were during the Oklahoma City bombing. No gun was used. It was a fertilizer & fuel oil bomb. Bill Ayers, who tried to bomb the US Capitol, used a smaller bomb. Obama started his political career in Bill Ayers home, knowing full well Ayers was a terrorist bomber. I find that worrying. Do you?
I don't even know anybody who has robbed a liquor store. If they did, I sure wouldn't be itching to associate myself with them. As to the worst damage actually done by US made civilian "assault weapons", that would be the 200-300 Mexicans killed by Fast & Furious weapons. Oddly enough, that program is now being kept a secret by guess who? President Obama!
How interesting. Worst US killing: a crazy bomber, just like Bill Ayers, Obama's pal. Worst killing by civilian assault weapons: that'd be Bill's other pal, AJ Holder and his Fast & Furious murders.
How does Obama keep getting associated with bombers, mass shootings and other sorts of mayhem. How many people do you know who tried to bomb the US Capitol building or sent thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels?
Did Obama know Bill Ayers was a terrorist? So Obama possessed the ability to foresee the future and know that Ayers was going to attempt a horrendous crime down the road?

Sorry but that sounds so insane. It sounds like you've been watching that movie Minority Report starring Tom Cruse.

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 Hillary Clinton speaks in Orlando on her plan f... 34 min Hans 12
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 37 min Go Blue Forever 10,315
News Reagan, Bush 41, and the way we were...on immig... (Sep '15) 1 hr Tyson Chicken Farm 5
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 2 hr positronium 11,263
News Mitt Romney ripped Donald Trump's 'hurtful' com... (Oct '15) 2 hr Go Blue Forever 36
Rose's Pub (Mar '10) 8 hr Just Slim 142,648
News Central American Illegal Immigrants Continue to... 9 hr Hank Rutherford Hill 1
More from around the web