The President has failed us

There are 328366 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.

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#187353 Sep 25, 2013
just a sista wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would anyone ask Putin anything? Siding with a communist ex-KGB head doesn't make you look like the libertarian you try to portray, but it does make you look like someone who looks up to a communist leader and values what they say.
Clinton spoke out today and indicated he believes we can "trust" Putin whom his experience has led him to believe is a man of his word. That would imply that his character remains unchanged over the intervening years. I suppose that means we continue to pursue that dialogue but have a "Plan B" option in the event we do obtain evidence that not all chemical weapons have been turned over. The bottom line is that we would be taking action in seeing that WMD are removed from the formula and doing everything possible not to reengage in renewed conflict in the Middle East.

Personally, I just recently learned that my sister and I are 71% Scandinavian (Viking), so I'm ready to see us take action so as to discourage anybody anywhere at anytime from using chemical weapons on civilians -(children and non-combatants). I know. That's not a popular stance, but I am in agreement with Christiane Amanpour and former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/made...

Madeleine Albright Backs Syria Strike, Says World Leaders Need To Show Some 'Courage'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/made...
The Real Quirky

Denver, CO

#187354 Sep 25, 2013
---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO! And here you are again. You're obsessed, Spot.
I support a "thing that is Mexican or Muslim"????
Really? Tell me more, you ignorant little worm. What we all know is that you're nothing but a stupid, chit-stirring little punk with no principles and no integrity.
Get over your obsession with me. It's creeping me out, stalker.

I will be sure and tell you to STFU O stinky one. You only know how to lie.

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Santa Clara, CA

#187355 Sep 25, 2013
Sir Ghost Rider wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it is the max amount one can receive.. Those who will require it in the long run may be receiving the amount you do as they take a portion of it and apply it to medicaid which lowers the amount...
Oh, and way back in the early days of topix, Rose said she was receiving 1800.00 in SSDI because she is as blind as a bat... Of which she suffered a lot scrutiny from many, including NTR who told her if she could sit her azz on topix all day long, day in and day out, she could get a desk job typing...
"Oh, and way back in the early days of topix, Rose said she was receiving 1800.00 in SSDI because she is as blind as a bat..."

My gawd, you never cease with the lies do you? I never, ever stated any such thing. I have never stated how much I receive in SSDI, and it's none of your f*cking business anyway.

But my eye condition does not cause me to be "blind as a bat." Just another one of your many lies, you disgusting psychopath.

Get your nose out of my business, you freak and quit lying about what I've posted.
Sir William Ferrell

Denver, CO

#187358 Sep 25, 2013
From a Democrat controlled Senate, I would expect nothing less!

Senate website gets 2nd Amendment wrong, critics say

Does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to own guns?

The Supreme Court has ruled that it does. But you might be confused if you visit the official Senate web page on the Constitution, which says only: "Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated."

That particular wording was posted on the Senate website in 2009, based on archived web pages at The Internet Archive. However, that's one year after the Supreme Court ruled: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense."

Given the court ruling, critics say the Senate site's administrators are just wrong.

"After five-and-a-half years of litigation, the Supreme Court unequivocally resolved the long-standing debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment," Bob Levy, one of the lawyers who won the 2008 Supreme Court case, told FoxNews.com .

"No one on either side of the gun debate -- with the possible exception of those persons who devised the U.S. Senate's official website explaining the Constitution -- doubts that the Supreme Court has affirmed the individual rights view of the Second Amendment," he added.

The issue follows on the heels of a similar Second Amendment controversy, in which a Texas history textbook was found to claim that the Second Amendment means "the people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."

But while the textbook was published before the Supreme Court clarified the issue in 2008 -- and the authors say they will revise the book -- the Senate definition was put up after the ruling.

The Senate website content is determined by the "Secretary of the Senate", a post headed by former Tom Daschle staffer Nancy Erickson. FoxNews.com reached her Deputy Chief of Staff, Mark Tratos, by phone on Tuesday and asked if the secretary stood by the wording. Tratos said he would check, but did not get back with an answer as of Wednesday afternoon.

Pro-gun control group Mayors Against Illegal Guns declined to comment on the issue.

Meanwhile, gun rights advocates panned the site's language.

"Considering that this year the party in control of the United States Senate tried to ban many semi-automatic firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, it does not surprise me that their website takes that position," Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said.

"Congress has shown time and time again that they ignore the two Supreme Court decisions that make it very clear that the Second Amendment is in fact an individual right."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/se...
Sir William Ferrell

Denver, CO

#187360 Sep 25, 2013
just a sista wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike you, I don't need to stand in line, I am employed. The only frustration I have is seeing how many really stupid people waste their days online, instead of living life to it's fullest. Now, Courtney, what you think you know, you don't, and what you do know, isn't worth the fortune cookie insert it's written on. Go soak your head, it is obviously very thirsty for knowledge.
In your case, I'll just go ahead and call a spade a spade.

And I mean that quite literally.

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#187361 Sep 25, 2013
Sir Ghost Rider wrote:
<quoted text>
How soon they forget..
It's no different than dangling a carrot in front of the jackazz's nose...
Dadd*mn it, goat. I cannot believe how seriously brain damaged you are.

The first sentence out of Obama's mouth on the YouTube "Adam" posted shoots his lie right out of the water. Can you please hire a translator to sit beside you and help you figure stuff out as we go? Thanks. With you, it's like trying to communicate with a basset hound after raising border collies - extraordinarily frustrating.

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Santa Clara, CA

#187364 Sep 25, 2013
Sir Ghost Rider wrote:
<quoted text>
NTR and just a sista are one in the same...
LMFAO! You're a pathological liar, I'm convinced.

When you can't take on two or three strong, intelligent and independent women, you lie about them and accuse them of being ONE woman.

Makes it easier to handle the rejection from one that it does from three or more, doesn't it loser? You are such a weak and pitiful excuse for a man, GR, Smokey, JT, Mr. Ethics, The Weather Man, Phantom Rider, and all your other countless aliases.

NTR and Justa Sista are two distinct and different posters, and you know it, psycho.
Sir William Ferrell

Denver, CO

#187365 Sep 25, 2013
Courtney Caverhall wrote:
<quoted text>
Xman posted a photo of himself on Topix a few years ago when he was American 12.
He looked like George Lopez with a "gayish" smile. He wants to be a Clint Eastwood type but I only see Deputy Barney Fife.
But this is Topix and anything is possible.
He's not white enough to play any sort of white role, except in the off chance of being a desert "Commanchero" no role addon on the movie The Outlaw Josey Wales!

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Santa Clara, CA

#187366 Sep 25, 2013
The Real Quirky wrote:
<quoted text>
I will be sure and tell you to STFU O stinky one. You only know how to lie.
LMAO! It's so much fun watching you foam at the mouth, Spot.

Now run into Ferrell's lap after you kiss GR's butt.

“For God & Country”

Level 1

Since: Aug 13

The Promised Land Illinois

#187367 Sep 25, 2013
Here you go A Far Left Agenda And I do mean Far Left
http://populationamendment.org/
How would you like to be told that you can only have one child. Or if you have a child without a permit you can face jail time forcible abortions
Letís not forget another Far Left Agenda is the Greening of America.
This is to move all people in to the cities and let most of the country revert back to forest. Now this one I do believe the President supports

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Santa Clara, CA

#187370 Sep 25, 2013
The Real Quirky wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep it up and the gloves will come off !
Hahahhaah! Ohhhhh, I'm so scared.

Whatya gonna do, Spot? Release the Kraken on Ferrell's command?

Fetch Spot, fetch.

Don't threaten me, you neutered poodle.
Patrick

Kansas City, MO

#187371 Sep 25, 2013
Sir Ghost Rider wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO.....
scratch scratch.....
Mom did that alot when she got the crabs after the rally. Then I got them .bummer

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Santa Clara, CA

#187372 Sep 25, 2013
Courtney Caverhall wrote:
<quoted text>
And who are YOU to judge anybody?
LMAO! Says the two-faced hypocrite and liar who judges people everyday.

That was a good one, Tally.
Brenda beeson

United States

#187373 Sep 25, 2013
---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO! It's so much fun watching you foam at the mouth, Spot.
Now run into Ferrell's lap after you kiss GR's butt.
You are a VERY mean person. Get some help old lady.

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Santa Clara, CA

#187374 Sep 25, 2013
Sir William Ferrell wrote:
<quoted text>
And you might pull a marijuana cigarette on your own son!
Or you might even lie about "Bobby" your MIA Viet Nam brother!
LMAO! Give it up, Ferrell.

Your lies and insults are just making you look like the desperate fool you are.

All your accusations and lies mean nothing, you lunatic.

“Socks, socks, everywhere socks”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#187375 Sep 25, 2013
Sir Ghost Rider wrote:
<quoted text>
Sir Ghost Rider wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you think the responsible should take care of the irresponsible is pathetic.. Get over it.. We don't owe you a damn thing but our contempt, of which you have in abundance....
----------
Your post makes no sense whatsoever....
Then you will have to go back to read what was written by Chauncey, before ghost interpreted it in his own way.

Here is what he said "The fact that you don't think your fellow citizens should have access to health insurance speaks volumes about the Republicant mind."

Not surprising at all that you can't make sense from a perfectly sensible post. It speaks volumes about you.

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Santa Clara, CA

#187376 Sep 25, 2013
Courtney Caverhall wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is Rose right?
Because YOU say so?
Do you condone Rose's crass and vulgar behaviour with other posters?
LMAO! Does anyone condone all your lies and stalking people on Topix, troll?

How about all that "crass and vulgar behavior" from your good friends Quirky, Ferrell and GR? You love that stuff. Your kind of gutter trash though.
The Real Quirky

Denver, CO

#187377 Sep 25, 2013
Courtney Caverhall wrote:
<quoted text>
Xman posted a photo of himself on Topix a few years ago when he was American 12.
He looked like George Lopez with a "gayish" smile. He wants to be a Clint Eastwood type but I only see Deputy Barney Fife.
But this is Topix and anything is possible.
I still have that photo. lolol

“Socks, socks, everywhere socks”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#187378 Sep 25, 2013
Sir Ghost Rider wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what, lush... People are sick and tired of you and people like you who always use the poor who are in need of assistance and our compassion for a hand up to advocate for the lazy good for nothings who do absolutely nothing to improve their situation...
And since obama has been in office, more people have hopped onto that lazy train leading to nowhere except the welfare line to get what they can provide for themselves if they weren't such lazy good for nothings living off of other people's money....
And you are angry because you hopped on way before Obama was elected? Never ever has President Obama advocated or endorsed people unwilling to work, to live off of those who are working. You must be getting your information from the RMFNO. Rupert Murdoch faux news organization. Why oh why would you listen to such un-American Australians? He's out to make a profit and destroy America and you are helping him.

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#187379 Sep 25, 2013
Sir William Ferrell wrote:
Hey you young people who voted for Obama in large numbers: I hope you enjoy this new $150-$300 tax per month given to you by your god Obama and his Democrat acolytes.
I bet you're wishing that you could have your vote back...and that you actually paid attention and was more informed before you slavishly pulled the lever for the Messiah...right?
Now go out and find a job (that doesn't exist) so you can pay for it.
Another fugginidiot interjects. THIS $300 "tax per month" is what is required to PURCHASE an INSURANCE POLICY That affords you health care. You are purchasing a PRODUCT, nutcase. You can see a doctor, have diagnostic tests run, go to an ER, get a prescription, etc. Do you follow, moron? It provides you a service at NO COST or at greatly reduced cost to taxpayers. Even if you stubbornly resist or refuse to comply, the penalty for non-compliance means that the care we provide you will STILL come at less cost to taxpayers.

Millions more Americans will have healthcare coverage, and nobody can be turned away for pre-existing conditions.

If you don't have a job, you will be eligible for MEDICAID unless your Republican/Tea Party led state is just plain stupid, and in which case, I urge you to relocate to a more reasonable state or vote the b*stards out of office. That seems to be the best solution:

September 15th, 2013

Obamacare to help, but not poorest in states that rejected Medicaid expansion: Tennessee, Georgia

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/sep/1...

400,000: Number of Tennesseans who lack insurance who might qualify for an extended Medicaid program if it's offered in Tennessee. The state is still negotiating for a waiver to implement a Medicaid expansion with co-pays.

650,000: Number of uninsured Georgians who might qualify for expanded Medicaid program if offered. Georgia has decided against participating in the Medicaid expansion.

$11,490: Poverty income for a single person. Federal subsidies for health exchanges don't begin until persons make above the poverty rate but will extend to incomes up to four times the poverty level.

At 62 years old, Mattie Billings says her arthritis and bronchitis prevent her from finding another job and her age makes it too expensive to buy health insurance.

The former hospital service worker, who lost her job in January and her unemployment benefits this summer, thought she would get some help from the health care reform plan known as Obamacare.

But to her surprise and frustration, Billings learned during a seminar on the Affordable Care Act that many of those living below the poverty level in Tennessee and Georgia won't get any extra help next year even though many higher-income people will.

"It just doesn't make sense and seems like a cruel joke to the poorest people," she said. "Medicaid should be expanded to help people who are really poor, who need it the most. I know the Lord always opens doors for you, but I don't know what I'm going to do at this point."

Those like Billings who don't have dependent children and make less than the poverty income level ($11,490 for a single person) won't qualify for any assistance in states that opt not to expand their Medicaid programs. The same people earning $11,491 or more a year will qualify for help through one of the new health exchanges and can get subsidies to cut his or her monthly premiums to as little as $19 a month.

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 Tea Party affiliate FreedomWorks refocuses, cha... 7 min Synque 18
News Scott Walker Approved Pro-Immigration Reform Lo... 20 min wild child 7
News Three immigration bills to watch at the Nevada ... 30 min Local 8
News What Should Citizenship Mean? 38 min Memo From Turner 46
News GOP bill blocks pregnant immigrants from enteri... 3 hr sandy1 21
News Revenge Voting? Hell Yea (Nov '12) 5 hr Truth is might 9,368
Rose's Pub (Mar '10) 8 hr Quirky 138,192
More from around the web