The President has failed us

The President has failed us

There are 336562 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.

“Peace”

Level 8

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#122672 Apr 1, 2013
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
What IF OBL is not dead?
What if seals and special ops are being killed to protect someone who gain political power from this?
What if he is dead and special ops are being killed in retaliation for OBL being killed?
What if??????
bottlecap

Tampa, FL

#122673 Apr 1, 2013
Leadville Lou wrote:
<quoted text>
Proof you and all liberals are liars:
The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
The thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the "subprime" housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.
The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists who supported the Carter administration ....

... The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group." This can cost banks great sums of money, and the "community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.
Bush did play a role, also, but you are right, it was overwhelmingly a liberal dem fiasco. And why do idiotic Republicans keep repeating the mantra that Obama inherited a bad economy when he was an Active Participant in the economic collapse, even before Bush was even Governor of Texas.

"Barack Obama, lead Attorney for ACORN, successfully sued Citibank in 1994 under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) forcing banks to initiate more sub-prime loans nationwide, helping fuel the Sub Prime Loan Disaster."

Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank - Lead Attorney Barack Obama

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill.) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois

Level 6

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#122674 Apr 1, 2013
---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:
<quoted text>
My, how you do go on and on and on with so much anger.
And you completely missed the point of my comment.
I simply said you don't have to be a thief or a murderer to express an opinion on those matters.
I don't think you are the judge of what is "normal" and what is "abnormal."
I couldn't wade through the rest of your blather--too much of a waste of time and energy. You never make any sense and simply try to inflict your narrow-minded views onto others in my opinion. Lose the anger and you may get a more positive response in the future.
"My, how you do go on and on and on with so much anger."

Looking through the posts from this weekend it seems there have been a few angry people that have felt the need to go on and on about this particular issue.

I'll probably have more to say once I get caught up, but so far all I see is fear, frustration and ignorance.

“RELAX”

Level 8

Since: Dec 12

EVERYTHING WILL BE ALRIGHT

#122675 Apr 1, 2013
Freespirit8 wrote:
<quoted text>
Facts? Please. Your post is opinion, and an uninformed one at that. You seem to equating gay marriage with same sex copulation. Do you really not understand that it is so much more than that? What does your marriage mean to you? Is it merely a contract, and agreement to further the species?
We are in no way in danger of extinction; rather, we have overpopulated; and even if it were a problem, preventing gay marriage is not going to cause gay men to take female wives and make babies. Population is therefore unaffected.
The rest of your "facts seem to deal with sex being abnormal unless used for procreation. One would then assume that you have never used sex in your marriage for pleasure and only for having children.
You're entitled to your opinions, however offensive, and to make rules to self-govern, but you can't label them facts and force those beliefs on others.
And surely you must understand the difference between sex with consenting adults and sex with animals and children, both who cannot give consent? I can hardly conceive of the notion that legalizing gay marriage is going to cause the masses to raid the farms and carriages for thrills.
Allow me to give you a more urgent and relevant problem: school-age girls being peer-pressured and culturally conditioned to have sex, leading to an epidemic of unwanted pregnancies, causing more abortions and unwanted children - which YOU get to fund.
There is a difference between the anatomy of a male and the anatomy of a female. That is a fact.

It takes both a male and a female to mate. Marriage is the license to mate. Since two people of the same sex cannot mate, there is no reason to issue a marriage license.

I'm not against gay people. One can pretend to be the boy and the other can pretend to be the girl and they can play house all they want but that doesn't mean that I have to pretend that they are not just two men acting stupid by wasting their money flying to a state that allows gay marriage, paying for lodging and meals and licensing and a wedding planner and the facilities and all the other incidental items just to get a piece of paper that is worthless in the state that they live in.

Sure, Vermont would want to issue marriage licenses to gays because they know that there is a lot of money to be made selling marriage packages to people that come from other states to drop their cash and leave Vermont to take their problems back to states that have said no to gay marriage.

It's a bunch of trouble making BS. That's my impression of gay people. Trouble making SOB's who need to be told that two boys do not make a husband and wife and even if society silences opposition to gay marriage, most people will simply refuse to recognize same sex marriages on a personal level.

Welcome To Obamas America

San Bernardino, CA

#122676 Apr 1, 2013
Epic! Dana Loesch Schools Piers Morgan and Van Jones on Gun Rights in America

Published on Mar 28, 2013

This was soooo much fun to watch.
Conservative Dana Loesch, with help from Grover Norquist, completely obliterated Piers Morgan and Van Jones on gun rights in America. It was almost embarrassing for the guys. At one point Piers was speechless. Too funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
mr obama

Denver, CO

#122677 Apr 1, 2013
don't you think Obama is the best ever? i just love him.

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

San Jose, CA

#122678 Apr 1, 2013
Bill O'Reilly backs gay marriage: lay down your guns, culture warriors, the enemy has surrendered

By Tom Chivers US politics Last updated: March 27th, 2013

As the befits my obsession with this stuff, I've been watching the legal battle in the US over gay marriage relatively closely. Yesterday there was an interesting development: Bill O'Reilly, doyen of the Right, came out publicly in favour of gay marriage, saying that opponents merely "thump the Bible".

As ever, it's a bit more subtle than that: he thinks it should be up to states whether they enact it or not, and he says he "doesn't feel all that strongly about it", but that the "compelling" arguments are on the pro-same-sex marriage side. Also, it's not clear whether he was ever against gay marriage as such: in an interview with a gay magazine in 2002, he at first said he opposed gay marriage, but later in the interview shifted to saying he "couldn't care less" and that if the law were to change, "You want to get married? Knock yourself out. Go to Vegas.

Have a good time. If you can get [the law] changed, I'm not going to jump up and down and say I think it's wrong, because I don't."

That said, he has also claimed that if gay marriage goes through, he'll be able to marry a turtle, or something. He's a complicated man.

Anyway, here's what he said yesterday:

The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. That's where the compelling argument is.'We're Americans; we just want to be treated like everybody else'. That is a compelling argument. And to deny that you've got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump the Bible…
I support civil unions, I always have. The gay marriage thing, I don't feel that strongly about one way or the other. I think the states should do it. I want all Americans to be happy.

What I think is interesting here is not O'Reilly's personal views, but the fact that he decided to say it on prime-time Fox News. After the recent statement by Karl Rove, who said that there could be a Republican presidential candidate in 2016 who supports marriage, and Marco Rubio (one of the possible 2016 candidates) saying that he thinks it should be up to the states, it feels as though the balance of opinion on the US Right is shifting. Or, at least, as though parts of the Republican Party and the rest of the Right have realised that the balance of opinion in the country has shifted, so some of them have moved to realign themselves.

And public opinion has shifted: as Nate Silver showed the other day, the number of people opposing same-sex marriage fell behind the number supporting it, for the first time, in 2010. Now there is a slim outright majority: 51 per cent of American support gay marriage, compared to 42.5 per cent who oppose.

About half of the shift is people changing their minds: the other half is "generational turnover", ie older people, who have a greater tendency to be against gay marriage, are dying....(cont.)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiverss...

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

San Jose, CA

#122679 Apr 1, 2013
Jaxxon wrote:
<quoted text>
"My, how you do go on and on and on with so much anger."
Looking through the posts from this weekend it seems there have been a few angry people that have felt the need to go on and on about this particular issue.
I'll probably have more to say once I get caught up, but so far all I see is fear, frustration and ignorance.
Welcome back, Jax. Hope you had a Happy Easter.

The hysteria over gay marriage has reached new heights of ignorance, homophobia, and extremism. They're in their death throes, and that's when fear gets more intense.

The irrationality of many of these people is beyond my level of patience to try and reason with them. Ignorance is stubborn, fearful and hateful.

Level 6

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#122680 Apr 1, 2013
_White American_ wrote:
<quoted text>So here you are saying that ALL the Women that couldn't have a baby and went to using in vitro fertilization, that it was sick and unnatural for them to do that. All those Chistian women that went for that must be so ashamed that they sinned against God.
Think a bit about what you say before you say it. That type of procedure has allowed couples that otherwise wouldn't have been able to have children to have them.
What he/she is doing is making the argument that these children should not exist.

Essentially a philosophical abortion.

As if the life of one child had less value, is somehow less deserving, than the life of another.

I saw a post from earlier this weekend that referred to these children as having been "purchased". Suggesting that the entire family unit should be viewed as somehow morally inferior.

I have to admit that I find this way of thinking objectionable to say the least.

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

San Jose, CA

#122681 Apr 1, 2013
The Universal Notebook: The enemy within

Edgar Allen Beem

Monday, March 4, 2013

Remember back in 2009, when the Department of Homeland Security report "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" warned that right-wing extremists posed a greater threat to America than Islamic militants?

And remember how swiftly the Republican Party condemned and suppressed that report?

Well, four years later we have enough of those radicals in Congress to pose a serious threat to the continuing democratic government of these United States.

With sequestration, when extreme and unnecessary cuts in government services and funding are set to take place due to the failure of Congress to act, it now seems clear that in agreeing to a sequester back in 2011, President Obama made the serious strategic miscalculation that he was dealing with people of good will.

Now he and we can see that hardcore tea party Republicans do not care what damage they do to democracy – as long as they don‘t have to compromise their thoroughly un-American principles.

Speaker of the House John Boehner is well known as a hapless tool, but it is tea party darling Eric Cantor who deserves much of the blame for the childish brinksmanship that now passes for public service in the U.S. House of Representatives.

As Doug Thompson, founder of Capitol Hill Blue, one of the Internet’s oldest news websites, wrote back in 2011 when the tea party faction took America to the brink of insolvency over raising the debt ceiling,“Cantor and those of his ilk represent a cancer that is spreading throughout Congress, the American political system and the nation at large – a notion that compromise is bad, cooperation is unthinkable and coalitions are evil.”

On the contrary, governing is the art of compromise, cooperation is the American way and coalitions are fundamental to democracy. America has become an increasingly progressive country just as the party of angry, old white men has become increasingly reactionary. While pretending to be loyal Americans, the ultraconservatives in Congress (and bunkers everywhere) are actually anything but loyal Americans.

In a new study of right-wing extremism titled "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right," published by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center, Dr. Arie Perliger, director of the center, points out the “antidemocratic dispositions among various far-right groups."

“On the conceptual level,” Perliger writes,“there are irreconcilable tensions between core nationalist elements, internal homogenization and nativism of far right groups, on the one hand, and the liberal-democratic value system, on the other hand. Such tensions tend to push far-right groups to adopt an ‘anti-system’ stance and revisionist views of the democratic system.”

And that, folks, is what we are really up against in this country – extremists with their own version of reality. That’s how we get a bogus “tea party” in revolt not against taxation without representation, but against a democratically elected government.

That’s how we get conservatives who believe that majority rule is a form of tyranny.

That’s how we get senators and representative voting against Hurricane Sandy relief aid.

That’s how we get pseudo-patriots believing that the Second Amendment guarantees them enough firepower to overthrow the very government that guarantees that right.

That’s how we get members of Congress who don’t give a damn who gets hurt by sequestration cuts, as long as they don’t have to compromise with President Obama.

And that’s how right-wing radicals have become the enemy within.

http://www.theforecaster.net/news/print/2013/...

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

San Jose, CA

#122682 Apr 1, 2013
March 24, 2013

GOP, trying to reform

This week, the Republican National Committee launched a campaign to convince Americans that the GOP consists of more than WORMs (white old rich men). The party may spend $10 million for ads designed to woo women, blacks, gays, Hispanics and other minorities who generally vote Democratic.

Can the GOP make itself seem tolerant and open to all? Maybe -- but Tea Party hardliners immediately renounced the new strategy, implying that narrowness still prevails.

Once upon a time, the Republican Party had numerous reasonable, cooperative leaders who would compromise while they pushed for frugality in government. The era of Dwight Eisenhower, Everett Dirksen, Nelson Rockefeller and Robert Taft abounded with GOP moderates.

But the upsurge of fundamentalist and far-right GOP factions drove the party to extremes.

Now, the Tea Party threatens to defeat any Republican who accepts gay marriage, or supports protections against gun massacres, or favors more taxes on billionaires, or considers reducing the military, or backs women's right to choose, or offers illegal Hispanics a route to citizenship, or voices concern about climate change, etc.

As a result, the GOP has acquired a tone of intolerance that alienates young voters -- which abetted the party's defeat in the November election. A New York Times Magazine report says:

"The GOP has lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. The party brand -- which is to say, its message and its messengers -- has become practically abhorrent to emerging demographic groups like Latinos and African-Americans, not to mention an entire generation of young voters."

The article described a "focus group" in which participants were asked their spontaneous reaction to the word "Republican." Answers included "corporate greed... middle-aged white men... rich ... conservative ... hypocritical ... narrow-minded... rigid... racist... hateful" and other unappetizing terms.

The report outlined how GOP committees are seeking ways to appeal to mainstream voters and average families. Meanwhile, conservative columnist Kathleen Parker says the party should be recaptured by old-line moderates who have been branded RINOs (Republicans in name only) by the tea party.

"RINOs need to take back the Republican Party," she wrote. She said far-right extremists display a "hysteria-driven obsession" to purge the GOP of moderates -- but this has "become a suicide mission" because the purge "poisons their party's ability to win national elections."

America's demographics keep shifting in ways that benefit progressive Democratic Party values. The nation constantly grows more urban, educated, secular and ethnically diverse. Traditional whites soon will be less than half the population. These trends expand the Democratic base and erode the GOP base.

A generation ago, the Republican mantra of "God, guns and gays" drew wide support, especially in rural regions like West Virginia. But America is changing. For example, the 2012 GOP platform demanded a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage -- but most of America is rushing to embrace equal wedlock.

In the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan revealed another spending plan -- his familiar stew of giveaways to billionaires, plus cuts to people-helping programs from student aid to Medicare to food stamps to high-speed rail. New York Times columnist Andrew Rosenthal said it shows that the GOP remains"180 degrees opposed to what most Americans want on just about any issue you care to name."....(cont.)

http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/2...

Level 6

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#122683 Apr 1, 2013
-Dont Panic- wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference between the anatomy of a male and the anatomy of a female. That is a fact.
It takes both a male and a female to mate. Marriage is the license to mate. Since two people of the same sex cannot mate, there is no reason to issue a marriage license.
I'm not against gay people. One can pretend to be the boy and the other can pretend to be the girl and they can play house all they want but that doesn't mean that I have to pretend that they are not just two men acting stupid by wasting their money flying to a state that allows gay marriage, paying for lodging and meals and licensing and a wedding planner and the facilities and all the other incidental items just to get a piece of paper that is worthless in the state that they live in.
Sure, Vermont would want to issue marriage licenses to gays because they know that there is a lot of money to be made selling marriage packages to people that come from other states to drop their cash and leave Vermont to take their problems back to states that have said no to gay marriage.
It's a bunch of trouble making BS. That's my impression of gay people. Trouble making SOB's who need to be told that two boys do not make a husband and wife and even if society silences opposition to gay marriage, most people will simply refuse to recognize same sex marriages on a personal level.
"I'm not against gay people...That's my impression of gay people. Trouble making SOB's..."

I'm assuming that you're smart enough to see the contradictions in your own statements, but you seem to be so caught in your own rhetoric that I thought I would point it out just in case.
Welcome To Obamas America

San Bernardino, CA

#122684 Apr 1, 2013
Are your indoor tomato plants probable cause for an armed raid?
posted at 3:21 pm on April 1, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

One of the reasons I’m not keen on the drug war, particularly when its aim is to rustle up small-time marijuana growers and users, is that a lot of people are unnecessarily endangered in raids like this one. Not only does it sound like the Hartes were molested for no reason, imagine the fear and margin for error involved in an armed raid of a home with two young children in it. It’s not as if police SWAT teams have a particularly good record of restraint once they’re armed to the teeth and busting into a home. The stakes have been raised, the officers amped to expect a dangerous situation, and the results are too often tragic for homeowners, children, and dogs.(This paragraph, of course, cannot fail to include the fact that I respect law enforcement officers and the many risks they face to protect us, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t examine practices that make horrible mistakes more likely.)

The Hartes say they were targeted because they bought small amounts of indoor gardening supplies for tomatoes and squash. A raid on their home turned up nothing but veggies:

Read more: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/01/are-you...
American Lady

Danville, KY

#122685 Apr 1, 2013
When the ILK shows UP ...
the LIGHTbulbs go DIM!

;0)

Level 6

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#122686 Apr 1, 2013
---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:
<quoted text>
Welcome back, Jax. Hope you had a Happy Easter.
The hysteria over gay marriage has reached new heights of ignorance, homophobia, and extremism. They're in their death throes, and that's when fear gets more intense.
The irrationality of many of these people is beyond my level of patience to try and reason with them. Ignorance is stubborn, fearful and hateful.
We had a great couple of days Rose. I hope you did too.

I'm not so much surprised by the hysteria. I've been dealing with it most of my adult life.

Change is always frightening to the weak of mind and spirit.

leadville lou

Denver, CO

#122687 Apr 1, 2013
bottlecap wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush did play a role, also, but you are right, it was overwhelmingly a liberal dem fiasco. And why do idiotic Republicans keep repeating the mantra that Obama inherited a bad economy when he was an Active Participant in the economic collapse, even before Bush was even Governor of Texas.
"Barack Obama, lead Attorney for ACORN, successfully sued Citibank in 1994 under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) forcing banks to initiate more sub-prime loans nationwide, helping fuel the Sub Prime Loan Disaster."
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank - Lead Attorney Barack Obama
Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill.) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
It's not hard to find evidence that Bush warned of the abuses going on in the mortgage market, but was essentially shouted down by the likes of Bawney Frank.
Bush was accused essentially of hating the poor and minorities, with LSM complicity, and backed off of it.
Once again the LSM betrays America for political ideology.
leadville lou

Denver, CO

#122688 Apr 1, 2013
bottlecap wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush did play a role, also, but you are right, it was overwhelmingly a liberal dem fiasco. And why do idiotic Republicans keep repeating the mantra that Obama inherited a bad economy when he was an Active Participant in the economic collapse, even before Bush was even Governor of Texas.
"Barack Obama, lead Attorney for ACORN, successfully sued Citibank in 1994 under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) forcing banks to initiate more sub-prime loans nationwide, helping fuel the Sub Prime Loan Disaster."
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank - Lead Attorney Barack Obama
Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill.) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
More light shed on Obama's near criminality and ongoing attempts to financially support Wall Street and to hell with any jobs for the unemployed, libs are sooooo stupid.

David Stockman: "We've Been Lied To, Robbed, And Misled" | Zero ...
www.zerohedge.com/.../david-stockman-weve-bee... ...
1 day ago – David Stockman, former director of the OMB under President ... play button below to listen to Chris' interview with David Stockman (56m:33s):...

Bernanke loans the mega banks money at 0% interest and then coerces them to buy treasury bonds paying interest, between B
ernanke and Obama we're headed for financial failure, yet idiotic white libs continue to support the black poseur.

Level 6

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#122689 Apr 1, 2013
Well, while the Heterosexual Association of Talabangelical Extremists (we'll just call them H.A.T.E. for short) attempts to regroup, I have a few things to take care of before dark.

Back in a few.

;)
leadville lou

Denver, CO

#122690 Apr 1, 2013
Obama continues to show his true colors, he hates the military:

Fort Hood Survivor Outraged Over DOD's Purple Heart Decision:'It's ...
nation.foxnews.com/purple-hearts/.../fort-hoo... ...
7 hours ago – On Friday, the Department of Defense revealed that no Purple Hearts would be given to victims – living or deceased – of the Fort Hood ...

Would serve him right if the military deposed him.

“RELAX”

Level 8

Since: Dec 12

EVERYTHING WILL BE ALRIGHT

#122691 Apr 1, 2013
Jaxxon wrote:
<quoted text>
"I'm not against gay people...That's my impression of gay people. Trouble making SOB's..."
I'm assuming that you're smart enough to see the contradictions in your own statements, but you seem to be so caught in your own rhetoric that I thought I would point it out just in case.
I'm a trouble making SOB. I'm not against me. So what's your point Jack?

Maybe I just bought a run down old hotel and would like to piss off a bunch of gay people across the US then release my name and address so that same sex couples will come here from across the world and pay my hotel for room and board while they protest me.

Think it will work?

You never know

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 Jindal: Bush 'got it wrong' on immigration 10 min Eleanor 17
News Why has child molestation committed by illegal ... (Aug '09) 14 min EFT 313
News Are illegal immigrants bringing 'tremendous' di... 37 min ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 90
News Ann Coulter: GOP Candidates "A Bunch of P*ssies... 1 hr goonsquad 308
News House to vote on 'sanctuary cities' bill 1 hr kuda 216
News Disgruntled GOP voters provide the Trump bump 1 hr Le Jimbo 86
News Rising murders of citizens by illegal aliens bl... 2 hr Urineidiot 2
More from around the web