The President has failed us

The President has failed us

There are 409542 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.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#140121 May 14, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Chi-chi-chi-chi-chi-le ft wing nut chipmunk.
Still having problems completing sentences eh? You're beyond hope. ;)
Sunny

Longview, WA

#140122 May 14, 2013
X -Man- wrote:
<quoted text>
Still having problems completing sentences eh? You're beyond hope. ;)
"Go chew some bark off a log"

Since: Apr 11

Altamont, IL

#140123 May 14, 2013
X -Man- wrote:
<quoted text>
Still having problems completing sentences eh? You're beyond hope. ;)
Wow you're completely deluded! These traitorous scumbags are gonna be lucky to avoid prison!!!theyve LOST their protectors in the press and if you think they're just gonna keep motoring on you're out of your mind!!

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#140125 May 14, 2013
positronium wrote:
<quoted text>It was this: When the second brick is joined to the first, the structure becomes a building.
What would you call intentionally kicking those two bricks apart?
I call it murder.
A human being is a building.
Abortion is murder.
Where is the inappropriateness or the offensiveness in that reply to you? Should that be censored.
Nothing offensive about it. Probably just some low-level moderator who took it upon herself to 'clean up' the narrative.

Since: Apr 11

Altamont, IL

#140126 May 14, 2013
Agnostick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Exclusively targeting"... which may or may not have been the case.
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183840282/irs-c...
No transcript as of yet, but @ 1:29, Lerner says:
"This was a streamlined way for them to refer to the cases--they didn't have the appropriate level of sensitivity of how this might appear to others."
I can see something like this happening in the corporate/retail world.
Say a new book comes out about the Civil War. Very popular book, well-written, shares a lot of new information about the Confederacy. Amazon.com identifies a couple of historians in one of the southern states, leverages a couple of their area distribution centers to ship out the hardback copies, they hold book signings... and one day, the NAACP holds a press conference and charges Amazon with engaging in racism, race-baiting etc. because they're showing "favoritism" towards this book about the Confederacy. Fair criticism? Or does it just *look* that way to a certain group of people?
"Citizens United" came out of SCOTUS, muddied the waters of what a 501(c)(4) can and can't be... the IRS is swamped with applications. They identify a few people in one office to focus on all these applications, perhaps thinking that by focusing the attention and efforts of a handful of people, they'll make the process go faster for everyone. But it ends up looking like they're **targeting** certain groups.
Am I saying with absolute certainty, without a doubt, that it happened that way? No.
Am I acknowledging the possibility that it happened that way? Yes.
P.S. Yes, I know, it's "National People's Radio" or whatever the current Republican/Right/conservative euphemism/jingoism is for that organization.... yadda yadda yadda...
You're talking out of your a$$, friend. The difference is that Amazon isn't constrained by Federal law and the Constitution of the United States. I've seen the questionnaire....it's Nazi stuff. But of course, WE already knew what the democrat party was....it's "useful idiot" jagoffs like yourself who are surprised by all this.

“Try Reuters.”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#140129 May 14, 2013
That wasn't deflection. IT's simply the counter to extremism that calculates that all evil has occurred and is occurring under Barack Obama's watch. Just a pleasant little reminder that corruption in government is across the board.

You can predict what history will prove, and who can dispute pure unadulterated speculation? Only time.

If the following headline eventually bears fruit, to whom will you assign blame? To whom do you assign blame for the LIBOR scandal?

E.U. Investigates Shell and Others on Oil Market Pricing

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/05/14/bus...

...... On Tuesday, the European Commission said it was investigating major oil companies over suspected anti-competitive agreements related to submission of prices to Platts, the world's leading oil pricing agency and part of McGraw Hill Group.

"Officials carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of several companies active in and providing services to the crude oil, refined oil products and biofuels sectors," the Commission said. The inspections took place in two EU member states and one non-EU country, it said.

"The Commission has concerns that the companies may have colluded in reporting distorted prices to a price reporting agency to manipulate the published prices for a number of oil and biofuel products".(cont.)

..........
Your point is that you assign blame to the President for our Global competitive ranking when the Great Recession took care of our global ranking. Again, you realize the impact got underway after Obama took office? Well, it did. It continues to unfold, and owing to gridlock and intransigence, the duration of the recovery has been extended and the extent of impact has been expanded. Blame partisan politics.

Republican Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Figures you would deflect, but I believe history will prove otherwise.
----------
When the World Bank scored the U.S. on "Control of Corruption" in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 (or Obama-era) versions of their "Worldwide Governance Indicators," the U.S. performance wasn't even as good as it had been in the previous, 1996-2008, rankings. Whereas the U.S. had scored consistently at the bottom of the top 10%(and near the bottom of the developed countries) prior to Obama, the U.S. has scored at the bottom of the top 15%(and the very bottom of the developed countries) since Obama came into office in 2009.
A more detailed picture of the corruption-performance of the United States, internationally, is provided by the most recent rankings from the World Economic Forum, "The Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013." That report rates 144 countries, on a wide range of factors concerning global economic competitiveness; and the U.S. scores below all other industrialized countries (of which there are about thirty) on most of the corruption-related factors.(Furthermore, that rating has likewise declined while Obama has been in office.) Here is America's international performance on the WEF factors relating to corruption:
On "Diversion of Public Funds [due to corruption]," the U.S. ranks #34 (down from #28 in their 2009-2010 report). On "Irregular Payments and Bribes" (which is perhaps an even better measure of lack of corruption) we are #42 (not rated in 2009). On "Public Trust in Politicians," we are #54 (down from #43 in 2009). On "Judicial Independence," we are #38 (down from #26). On "Favoritism in Decisions of Government Officials" (otherwise known as governmental "cronyism"), we are #59 (down from #48). On .......(snip for room).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/is-...

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#140131 May 14, 2013
Let me understand this, jay. The IRS has apologized for their actions and outlined their culpability, but the prez needs to investigate for possible wrongdoing?

And Holder didn't mention his wiretap activities? Yeah, okay. I believe that just like I believed Nixon didn't know what Liddy was up to.

Political corruption is different than politics, Jay.
Freedom

Rochester, NY

#140133 May 14, 2013
Stop trying to infringe on the 2nd Amendment. You lost, if you try again you will lose again. Enforce the laws already on the books before trying some new crap that will not prevent any of the crime that "inspired" the new restrictions.
jackson

Lexington, KY

#140134 May 14, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>You can allude to something all you like and make accusations about the President. Nevertheless, unless he is tied directly into one of your inferences and contentions, you have nothing but a whole bunch of fermented grapes. Make WHINE all you like.
It is amazing to me how you think. Unless he is tied directly??? Are you serious??? HE IS THE PRESIDENT. THIS IS HIS ADMINISTRATION. THE BUCK STOPS THERE.
You know full well you would blame Bush if this were happening under his administration. You are so hypocritical. It's ok for Obama, but not ok for a republican.
These are no longer just accusations, these are supported facts. I am not alluding to anything other than the truth which you refuse to see.
You really don't think for yourself, do you?
I'm done dealing with people who are so blind to the truths right in front of them. The bad thing is, you think you're right, you think your idol of a president can do absolutely no wrong. You won't admit to one single thing he's done to take down our country. That's blind allegiance and very scary to those of us who see the truth. You'll probably vote for Hillary, too, also very scary.
jackson

Lexington, KY

#140136 May 14, 2013
Aprilvue wrote:
Let me understand this, jay. The IRS has apologized for their actions and outlined their culpability, but the prez needs to investigate for possible wrongdoing?
And Holder didn't mention his wiretap activities? Yeah, okay. I believe that just like I believed Nixon didn't know what Liddy was up to.
Political corruption is different than politics, Jay.
Well said, thank you.
Bonnie

Boise, ID

#140140 May 14, 2013
Thank God for White House leaks.
Bonnie

Boise, ID

#140142 May 14, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Chi-chi-chi-chi-chi-le ft wing nut chipmunk.
Hey Sunny.
higgans

Avon, IN

#140144 May 14, 2013
jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is amazing to me how you think. Unless he is tied directly??? Are you serious??? HE IS THE PRESIDENT. THIS IS HIS ADMINISTRATION. THE BUCK STOPS THERE.
You know full well you would blame Bush if this were happening under his administration. You are so hypocritical. It's ok for Obama, but not ok for a republican.
These are no longer just accusations, these are supported facts. I am not alluding to anything other than the truth which you refuse to see.
You really don't think for yourself, do you?
I'm done dealing with people who are so blind to the truths right in front of them. The bad thing is, you think you're right, you think your idol of a president can do absolutely no wrong. You won't admit to one single thing he's done to take down our country. That's blind allegiance and very scary to those of us who see the truth. You'll probably vote for Hillary, too, also very scary.
ex-act-TACTLY!

when will everybody and anybody QUIT excusing TODAY's bad acts with PAST bad acts?

we can NOT change the PAST.... can we?

we CAN take action TODAY... and MAYBE set an example to prevent FUTURE bad actions.

at some point in time, we need to quit piling the sand bags and start draining the swamp

side note: funny, ain't it, we replaced a reformed drunk with a 'reformed' stoner, in the Oval Office?LOL

my, my, how Americans' standards have fallen.... MUST be Progress?:)
Sunny

Longview, WA

#140146 May 14, 2013
Bonnie wrote:
<quoted text> Hey Sunny.
Hi Bonnie.
Been doing any fishing.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#140148 May 14, 2013
Who in the hell is in charge on Pennsylvania Ave? The POTUS doesn't have a clue about whats going on? You'd think after F&F, the prez might have asked Holder to keep him in the loop, especially when it involves wiretapping a news organization. Congress has been complaining about the IRS for two years. Shouldnt the prez have asked SOMEBODY to get to the bottom of it? Maybe Biden. He's done so well with other tasks.

As for Benghazi, I retain the photo of Obama in the situation room as OBL was taken down, but when his ambassador was under siege he couldn't be bothered to hang around and be with his guys in their final hours? Then he lies about what happened to the victims' families, and the nation, then lied to cover the lie? It is beyond reprehensible.

Bottom line. Who's in charge? Valerie? Jay? Michelle? Bo? It certainly doesn't seem to be BHO.
Bonnie

Boise, ID

#140149 May 14, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Bonnie.
Been doing any fishing.
Nah.. I have been tying a lot of flies though. I don't really fish much until the river gets lower. Late August and September. I went water sking and sun burned the heck out of myself. How about you?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#140150 May 14, 2013
Agnostick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Exclusively targeting"... which may or may not have been the case.
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183840282/irs-c...
No transcript as of yet, but @ 1:29, Lerner says:
"This was a streamlined way for them to refer to the cases--they didn't have the appropriate level of sensitivity of how this might appear to others."
I can see something like this happening in the corporate/retail world.
Say a new book comes out about the Civil War. Very popular book, well-written, shares a lot of new information about the Confederacy. Amazon.com identifies a couple of historians in one of the southern states, leverages a couple of their area distribution centers to ship out the hardback copies, they hold book signings... and one day, the NAACP holds a press conference and charges Amazon with engaging in racism, race-baiting etc. because they're showing "favoritism" towards this book about the Confederacy. Fair criticism? Or does it just *look* that way to a certain group of people?
"Citizens United" came out of SCOTUS, muddied the waters of what a 501(c)(4) can and can't be... the IRS is swamped with applications. They identify a few people in one office to focus on all these applications, perhaps thinking that by focusing the attention and efforts of a handful of people, they'll make the process go faster for everyone. But it ends up looking like they're **targeting** certain groups.
Am I saying with absolute certainty, without a doubt, that it happened that way? No.
Am I acknowledging the possibility that it happened that way? Yes.
P.S. Yes, I know, it's "National People's Radio" or whatever the current Republican/Right/conservative euphemism/jingoism is for that organization.... yadda yadda yadda...
"Exclusively targeting... which may or may not have been the case."

The IRS clearly indicated they were "exclusively targeting" Tea Party and other conservative phrases.

Since: Jun 10

San Francisco, CA

#140151 May 14, 2013
Just An Honest Man wrote:
<quoted text>Have you met rose? She is a little smarter than you.
Don't use me to fight your battles. You're on your own with this one. You're outmatched though. Good luck.

Perhaps you shouldn't make accusations you can't back up, Ralff.

“Try Reuters.”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#140152 May 14, 2013
jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is amazing to me how you think. Unless he is tied directly??? Are you serious??? HE IS THE PRESIDENT. THIS IS HIS ADMINISTRATION. THE BUCK STOPS THERE.
You know full well you would blame Bush if this were happening under his administration. You are so hypocritical. It's ok for Obama, but not ok for a republican.
These are no longer just accusations, these are supported facts. I am not alluding to anything other than the truth which you refuse to see.
You really don't think for yourself, do you?
I'm done dealing with people who are so blind to the truths right in front of them. The bad thing is, you think you're right, you think your idol of a president can do absolutely no wrong. You won't admit to one single thing he's done to take down our country. That's blind allegiance and very scary to those of us who see the truth. You'll probably vote for Hillary, too, also very scary.
How can you expect me to admit to something I don't accept as valid? I reject your arguments. Now, that said, there are issues where I disagree with the President. It's just that you seem never to touch on those. Perhaps that's because those are issues where I believe the President has "caved" unnecessarily to the Republican side of the formula in an effort to find common ground. I suppose it would be difficult for you to find fault on those. I'm certainly not blind, but then again, I'm fairly confident I'm not indoctrinated into believing a bunch of privileged know-it-alls and self-absorbed elites are likely (by majority of same) to make any sacrifices they can find a way NOT to make. I view our Congress as a reflection of that privileged group to whom I object. I still believe that we must operate by majority rule with minority protections, not conversely.

The bottom line is that the President has expressed himself on the issues you raise. You seem to want knee jerk reactions, but what you REALLY want is to embarrass or disgrace your President - even with no factual basis. That's not what most patriotic Americans want. They support our President unless or until FACTS come to light that change their opinions. You're part of a group of malcontents who LOST an election and can't let it go.

“Try Reuters.”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#140154 May 14, 2013
Just An Honest Man wrote:
<quoted text>
No. It was a perfect example of a deflection. But but but Bush was worser!
Wrong. Our global competitive ranking decline cannot be assigned to Barack Obama. That belongs to George Bush - no deflection involved. Get busy reading and understanding what a Great Recession entails and just how long is a road to recovery IF we do ever fully recover. Just don't forget WHO put us there. It wasn't Barack Obama.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News As anger over election of Donald Trump erupts, ... 1 min welfare check losers 4,857
News Being conservative is not being racist 1 min Barros chingon 53
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... (May '16) 1 min Dumass_Rick 18,173
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 min TRUMPTRUMPTRUMP 234,416
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min SobieskiSavedEurope 1,482,782
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 2 min U R A Know Nothing 3,756
Why are so many US women anti-Trump? 2 min Lawrence Wolf 35
News Trump visits CIA, continues fight with media 2 min Dee Dee Dee 46
News Actors, mayors rally at inauguration eve Trump ... 1 hr Mothra 67
More from around the web