Not Only is President Obama Not the Messiah | It Turns Out That He is Ignorant

When the Seeder's initial post is collapsed, one knows there is nothing of value to be found.

Nothing but extreme right wing rhetoric.

Actually JackOL, it means the children have come to play.

greg -

Then have a ball!

Your so cute when you post like that. :)

Your so cute when you post like that. :)

I know. It's one of my endearing qualities. :)

Detracking.

Detracking.

Thank goodness !

I challenge anyone to cite a major capitalist success of President Obama. By the same token, one could cite Obamacare as a monument to leading the nation into Marxist ideals.

And I have YET to see anybody do this. How come? Come on lefities, surely you can think of something....

When the Seeder's initial post is collapsed, one knows there is nothing of value to be found.

No, it means the leftie collapse brigade has been by carpet bombing because there was no reason his first comment should have been collapsed.

When the Seeder's initial post is collapsed, one knows there is nothing of value to be found.

Nothing but extreme right wing rhetoric.

Yeah, but extreme right wing rhetoric isn't a COH violation.

NVers shouldn't be collapsing comments simply because they don't like them. Just sayin'.

By the same token, one could cite Obamacare as a monument to leading the nation into Marxist ideals.

can someone, anyone, please post something of fact on the vine?

this statement says it all. making millions of people sign up for health insurance is not marxism, but rather capitalism.

I challenge anyone to cite a major capitalist success of President Obama.

i just did, healthcare reform. the president, and this legislation, has added millions of people to those who pay private insurance companies for health care insurance.

this article is garbage. you should probably watch who you call ignorant.

KitKat51
Chumming the water?

Looks like nobody's taking the bait.

Wolf Wolfman

Time will tell.

At least you don't deny your trolling.

making millions of people sign up for health insurance is not marxism, but rather capitalism.

Nope definitely not Marxism /sarc/...

Pretty obvious, uh?

vol

marxism would be if the government took over health care. this did not happen. many of the people that will be added will be added as customers to private industry. the health care reform means millions of new customers for private industry, not for socialized health care provided by government-run hospitals, which completely eliminate the private market. this has not, and will not happen anytime soon. when it does, dig me up from my grave, and then tell me that you were right, if you are still living, which is most unlikely.

Good thing that Newsvine's about expressing individual opinion.

If some basis in fact were required, this seed would not qualify.

Waste of time.

800 lb. gorilla, #2.14;

marxism would be if the government took over health care. this did not happen.

Yet.

The only thing you ignor is, this is a government mandate. Telling insurance companies they have to insure every one with no regard to the ability for profits that pay for those insured who have catastrophic medical care over and above premiums paid. Profits that pay the incomes of the insurance workers, who also contribute to the incomes of retailers who have employees.

When they fail because they cannot pay out more than they take in, the government can then take over. Much easier to do a bailout take over than Nationalizing the insurance industry and healthcare together.

Just a simple, well relatively simple now, outpatient surgery to ream out an artery which cost $36,000+ would take years of premiums to pay it back to the insurers.

Let me know when you get a degree in actuarials.

Oh, Never mind, I won't be alive when that happens.

Obamacare is government controlled health care.

no, canada has government controlled health care. i have blue cross/blue shield, which is private, and for which i pay the premiums. the government is not providing my health care. therefore, it is not government-controlled health care, which means the sum total. it is regulated by the government, as is all private industry in the united states. are all types of industries government-controlled because that is what you are basically saying, if you equate regulation with controlled, or owned?

wolf

i do not wish to burst your bubble, but we do not, nor will we ever have totally free market enterprise capitalism in the united states. it is impossible. government regulates industry, and will continue to do so.

Conservapedia may tell you what you want to hear, Wolfman, but they aren't in the facts business.

Conservapedia may tell you what you want to hear, Wolfman, but they aren't in the facts business.

not even close.... (shudders)

We can have private companies like Ford.

ford is in the heavily regulated auto industry, which is regulated to have seatbelts in every vehicle, and then it is mandated that i must wear one. guess what? i do not. people can also opt out of purchasing health insurance.

I challenge anyone to cite a major capitalist success of President Obama. By the same token, one could cite Obamacare as a monument to leading the nation into Marxist ideals.

And I have YET to see anybody do this. How come? Come on lefities, surely you can think of something....

here ya go, Vol Fan:

GM....paid back bail-out with interest and thriving...

Actually GM is leading the GLOBAL auto industry.

Shall we move on to national security successes???

When the Seeder's initial post is collapsed, one knows there is nothing of value to be found.

No that just means users are abusing Newsvine COH and abusing the ! feature for no valid reason other then they don't "like" what he said. Not liking what he said is not a valid reason to flag a comment for collapse. Us grown ups call that immaturity and censorship. Hopefully Tyler or Sally will restore the comment and take note of those flagging comments for no reason. :D

Stop whining about the CoH.

If the title of this seed doesn't violate the CoH, then neither does collapsing your comments.

Not Only is President Obama Not the Messiah | It Turns Out That He is Ignorant

The following non-exhaustive list describes the kinds of illegal or harmful conduct that are prohibited on our Site. You agree not to:

upload, post or otherwise transmit any User Content that:
is not relevant to the subject matter of the article, commentary, product, service, person or entity;
is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, known to be false and presented as truth, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

Who calls the President the Messiah?

Can you prove he is ignorant?

And the picture, is that not offensive?

Get thicker skin or stop posting crap.

You have to expect this around here when you blaspheme Obama ;) They might not call him the Messiah or the Chosen One but their response for months after his win mimicked teenagers at rock concerts or a church congregation erupting in rapture. Dancing in the streets and a celebration of paradise arrived :) So, yes, blasphemy is applicable here. He is the nearest thing this country has had as a rock star media darling since Kennedy. Even after 3 years some have not come down from their euphoric high.

If the title of this seed doesn't violate the CoH, then neither does collapsing your comments.

You must be new here....

Thank you Anthony...you said it far better than I.

This is a government mandate. Telling insurance companies they have to insure every one with no regard to the ability for profits that pay for those insured who have catastrophic medical care over and above premiums paid. Profits that pay the incomes of the insurance workers, who also contribute to the incomes of retailers who have employees.

When they fail because they cannot pay out more than they take in, the government can then take over. Much easier to do a bailout take over than Nationalizing the insurance industry and healthcare together.

BINGO!!

Obama has already said what he wants and it isn't private insurance run by the free market.

BTW, the costs have since skyrocketed since Obamacrap care passed.

Here's just one -the Kaiser Family Foundation released a survey showing that health insurance premiums have skyrocketed 9% over the past year:

According to the report, premiums increased significantly faster than workers’ wages (2.1 percent) and general inflation (3.2 percent). Since 2001, family premiums have increased 113 percent, compared with 34 percent for workers’ wages and 27 percent for inflation.

However, in the year AFTER Obamacare passed the cost jumped 9 %.

"This year’s nine percent increase in premiums is especially painful for workers and employers struggling through a weak recovery," Kaiser President and CEO Drew Altman, Ph.D. said.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/092311nr.cfm

Wasn't Obamacare going to “bend the cost curve down?”

And as an aside, I suppose, if it is so great why are so many being granted waivers from the very program they touted? And ifd it is so great why did the majority of the Dems LIE, when they said they would not exempt themselves from it?

Furthermore, speaking of waivers:

Pelosi's district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama's administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's Northern California district."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/17/nearly-20-percent-of-new-obamacare-waivers-are-gourmet-restaurants-nightclubs-fancy-hotels-in-nancy-pelosi%e2%80%99s-district/#ixzz1b0jjOUYW

Oh and this from MARCH 2011:

"The number of temporary healthcare reform waivers granted by the Obama administration to organizations climbed to more than 1,000, according to new numbers disclosed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

HHS posted 126 new waivers on Friday, bringing the total to 1,040 organizations that have been granted a one-year exemption from a new coverage requirement included in the healthcare reform law enacted almost a year ago."

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/147715-number-of-healthcare-reform-law-waivers-climbs-above-1000

And there were so many, the Obama ADM said they would STOP granting them...yeah, right:

"The Obama administration granted another 106 waivers last month from part of the healthcare reform law — the first round of three-year waivers the Health and Human Services Department has approved.

The new approvals bring the total number of waivers to 1,472, according to HHS. Those figures cover waivers granted through the end of July. HHS will stop granting new waivers after September."

But it gets better:

The department announced it would cut off applications after September, but let companies that received one-year exemptions extend their waivers through 2014. The 106 waivers approved in July will last three years.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/177581-hhs-grants-106-new-healthcare-waivers

So nearly 1500 companies, self employed individuals, unions, nursing homes (I kid you not), state and local workers will get a "get out of Obamacare for free" card for THREE years...isn't that lovely?

Here is the entire list broken down into sections:

Self-Insured Employers (631)

Health Reimbursement Arrangements (491)

Multi-Employer Plans (378)

Non-Taft Hartley Union Plans (30)

Health Insurance Issuers (41)

State-Mandated Policies (5)

Association Plans (2)

http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

More here:

http://mikesright.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/obamacare-waivers-88-went-to-cover-union-members-in-final-six-months/

vol fan in chatt, tn, #2.39;

Thank you for the info. And yes, the first exemptions in the bill passed where;

• Legislators,
• Administration heads,
• Judiciary appointees and czars,
• Government union employees, and
• "Golden" union contract healthcare benefits, and
• The Presidents paid golden healthcare even out of office for life.

As any new law it will be expanded to include more, as favors for re-election and large contributions.

Using a telepromter is the up to date method and replaces paper, note cards, and your palm. It really has nothing to do with IQ. Although many have a difficult time keeping up with telepromter and perfer to use note cards, someone actually talking in their ear or their palm. So you proved nothing. People will make mistakes for various reasons but it has nothing to do with IQ.

Wolf you make up the biggest mountains but even you can't climb some of them.

Presidents who used teleprompters:

Dwight D. Eisenhower
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
Barack Obama

Oh and lookie there Reagan and both Bushes imagine that.

Get'em Wolf! Definately a blithering IDIOT!

Wolf even that's a ridiculous comment but then you can't admit you attack the President not out of dislike of policy but other reasons that play in there.

Jim Davis, Veterans-For-Change Don't call viners names.

Looking at the video he looked and sounded very tired as he later said and he meant to say 47 with one more state to go because he wan't going to Alaska or Hawaii. A Misspeak. Ever heard of jet lag? I've done it and I'm sure you have too. You still haven't proven ignorance yet.

I remember watching his speech that day and he sure didn't look tired or sound tired. He is just ignorant! He don't even know anything about the U.S. constitution. This is really obvious considering how he is continuously signing bills that remove our civil rights and liberties and is still doing it to this day! It is amazing how many people in this country are on the same level of intelligence. Did they stop teaching our children about the U.S. constitution in school? Or is it not politically correct to do so these days. A lot of the liberals are a perfect example of the dumbing down of America. Of course there are quite a few far rightists that fall into the same category but on this site I notice a majority of the far left post here and it is always good for a quick laugh.

Don Overton You might try re-reading my comment, I was referring to our current POTUS as being a blithering idiot! NOT a viner!

And I do attack a POTUS who doesn't have a clue what being POTUS is and/or means!

You lead by example, and he's failed there too!

But thank you for the accusation!

Glad you recognize that Wolf

Guess you both missed my post #2.51 where I made it perfectly clear I was NOT referring to any VINER only the POTUS!

i weep for the future. the past dialogue between a few people here has shown that we are clearly doomed. great job! i now have to go build my shelter for the apocalypse. wasn't abject ignorance one of the signs?

just an fyi, if you post the 57 states thing, then you have already lost. please get a legitimate talking point, so that you may seem to have a modicum of intelligence.

an inconvenient truth.

So are Ron Paul's white supremacists connections and writings.

Jim was talking about the Pres...sheeze, don't wear you feelings on your sleeve, Don. In other news..here's some great clips - I need to update these....at least one a week nowadays:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9hZpJp7U3Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNr66HHhMjs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udParB8uo4M&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmIB4em_hIo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap2Cg_FDRy4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4gFdKuMYL8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ro-El7WaYQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z16iVri3Kzk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eta-OjVUOK4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqUmuZnmf7A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg2b31PWiUU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGMQ5DpVVTM&playnext=1&list=PL6D7ACB7EECA31C72

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAe08MWZbqM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOZdnM0ziho

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjuRI9PSXUw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTnfdYTrGfU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHAwf6fnGAc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htyyRrRzibg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4-AKcH3eC8&playnext=1&list=PL4EE7EB88606C88F2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxxxGUeZtno

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6Gx1KrvTw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeJsyoKIabY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt5dY3vVoZ0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyW9e5QdWxk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqcnjxYiG7M&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyW9e5QdWxk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzrAht2Ob1o&feature=related

But let's not leave Uncle Joe out of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hZtW_q_6Ug

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VAzOIT4Ef8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxdj-ZwKNZ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTjlAd-GXM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmRXH7RkCZQ&playnext=1&list=PL2666DD36D85D2C11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mmWZRWE-1M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0lVOJfZ3jk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiQpNWh98XU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdB4XprOLyg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq-eeWow_WU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll_goH-aivU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASDOOfEGLYs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91T7dwZ6TkY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBBwlDOMY8A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36kaNJjL0ig

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuGi2bMwODs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM1d0C9EYMs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQjQaRzKnl4

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/01/18/bidens-oops-moment-in-sf-giants-on-their-way-to-super-bowl/

A drunk Biden singing the Villages song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmRXH7RkCZQ

Vice President Joe Biden, with a big smile on his face, walked to the House floor and said, "I came to see Gabby, that's why I'm here."

When Biden was asked about what he spoke with Giffords about, he joked, "She's now a member of the cracked head club like me."

Read more here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/08/gabrielle-giffords-returns-to-congress-for-debt-ceiling-vote.html#ixzz1Tz6FAWkF

I liked how the left's learned Harvard pupil called them Navy Corpsemen. There so much material with Obama's goofs and ramblings. It gives real meaning to that song don't know much about history.

But then you don't like the ones from your hero Bush. Take a month to post all his errors and of course Reagan made so many that you could never get the bandwidth to post them all.

Such silliness is the right wing by-word

You can put all the talking points you want out there but you can't stop what has be Ordain by God. God chooses ordinary people to do extra ordinary things. Moses was an ordinary man and a black man. Obama 2012.

We will have to get those points out, or suffer the consequences of not the political party defeat that seems to be a usefull diversion for those running for office, but rather the consequeces of allowing the basic structure of our country to crumble.

We have all seen the results of past Presidents, their progress to protect us and promote economics, and their failures. But with this sitting President I have witnessed an unprecidented attempt at dismantling our country. Their are a lot of people across the globe that want their hands and power established on this soil, and Obama is aiding them to do it.

I was just listening to Obama's speech at the "National Prayer Breakfast", and what I got out of his words is, "I want Government to be the biggest "Charity" in this Country".

We are doomed if this guy stays in office.

As always, Wolf, You are one of "DA" Viner of Viners ! :D

We are doomed if this guy stays in office.

really won't matter who's in office because wall street and corporations own congress the supreme court and the fed reserve.. and I'm sure a big ole chunk of the adminsitration.... we are quickly becoming a facist state... so it really doesn't matter who is in office we are screwed...

so it really doesn't matter who is in office we are screwed...

I have a more positive view of it. Stop people from Name Recognition voting and it may solve alot of the problems in congress.

But with this sitting President I have witnessed an unprecidented attempt at dismantling our country.

Mons, Please list specific acts taken by President Obama to "dismantle" our country. I hear people on the right scream this all the time & I have to tell you I just don't see it.

Another time waster, Steve? Here just for fun:

EPA:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/07/new-epa-rules-to-devastate-coal-industry/

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=3ede3e93-813f-4449-97e6-0d6eb54fbc9e

http://gibbs.house.gov/press-release/epa-continues-job-loss-proposals

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/16/coal-ash-industry-job-losses-epa-rules_n_878113.html

http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Reports/Preliminary_Staff_Report__Regulatory_Impediments_to_Job_Creation.pdfA.pdf

http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/10/job-killing-environmentalists

Obamacrapcare:

1. Starting in 2013, the bill adds an additional 0.9% to the 2.9% Medicare tax for singles who earn more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

2. For first time, the bill also applies Medicare’s 2.9% payroll tax rate to investment income, including dividends, interest income and capital gains. Added to the 0.9% payroll surcharge, that means a 3.8-percentage point tax hike on “the rich.” Oh, and these new taxes aren’t indexed for inflation, so many middle-class families will soon be considered rich and pay the surcharge as their incomes rise past $250,000 due to tax-bracket creep. Remember how the Alternative Minimum Tax was supposed to apply only to a handful of millionaires?

Taxpayer cost over 10 years: $210 billion.

3. Also starting in 2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. That’s estimated to raise $20 billion.

4. Already underway this year is the new annual fee on “branded” drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion.

5. Another $15.2 billion will come from raising the floor on allowable medical deductions to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5% (in other words, you will get less deductions)

6. Starting in 2018, the bill imposes a whopping 40% “excise tax” on high-cost health insurance plans. Though it only applies to two years in the 2010-2019 window of ObamaCare’s original budget score, this tax would still raise $32 billion—and much more in future years.

7. And don’t forget a new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014 and estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.

1-7 source:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812104576438130028027412.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

8. Doctors would get out of business because they simple cannot make it (and Obamacare has not even been fully implemented)

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/05/smallbusiness/doctors_broke/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3&hpt=hp_c1

Additionally in no particular order:

1. 1/6/2012 unemployment rate 8.5% - 10% the whole time he has been in office

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/real-jobless-rate-114-realistic-labor-force-participation-rate

2. Obama on pace to spend 6.2 trillion dollars

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-pace-borrow-62t-one-term-more-all-presidents-washington-through-clinton-combined

but he called Bush's debt increase "unpatriotic"

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/01/13/obama-called-smaller-bush-debt-rise-unpatriotic/

3. “ U.S. economy in taxes will increase by more than 30 percent between 2012 and 2014, according to the Budget and Economic Outlook published today by the CBO.

At the same time, according to CBO, the economy will remain sluggish, partly because of higher taxes.

“In particular, between 2012 and 2014, revenues in CBO’s baseline shoot up by more than 30 percent,” said CBO, “mostly because of the recent or scheduled expirations of tax provisions, such as those that lower income tax rates and limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and the imposition of new taxes, fees, and penalties that are scheduled to go into effect.”

The U.S. economy, CBO projects, will perform “below its potential” for another six years and unemployment will remain above 7 percent for another three.

“The pace of the economic recovery has been slow since the recession ended in June 2009, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects that, under current laws governing taxes and spending, the economy will continue to grow at a sluggish pace over the next two years,” said CBO. “That pace of growth partly reflects the dampening effect on economic activity from the higher tax rates and curbs on spending scheduled to occur this year and especially next year.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-taxes-will-shoot-more-30-percent-over-next-2-years

4. “For the fourth year in a row, Washington faces a $1 trillion-plus deficit and just servicing the nation’s debt will soon cost as much as paying for Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor and disabled.

Those were two grim predictions in a 147-page report from the Congressional Budget Office, which Tuesday stepped into the 2012 campaign…”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72205.html

5. While the Obama ADM touts 8.6 unemployment (as IF that is a good number to begin with), the CBO projects it is much closer to 10%

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/latest-congressional-budget-outlook-2012-2022-released

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/real-jobless-rate-114-realistic-labor-force-participation-rate

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72205.html

and new data out today says the employment situation is "better" because only 12,000 filed new applications this week to a seasonally adjusted 367,000. All the while admitting this:

More than 13 million people remain unemployed. Millions more have given up looking for work; they're no longer counted as unemployed.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/02/10298830-fewer-seek-unemployment-aid-as-job-market-improves

6. Inflation up as are the cost of goods:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/latest-congressional-budget-outlook-2012-2022-released

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Hybrid/story?id=86057&page=1#.Tyh5jlxSTjU

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/cpifoodandexpenditures/consumerpriceindex.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812104576438130028027412.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

http://portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=cb382b05-ebfa-47e6-abb2-311ca1c7ecc3

http://www.industryintel.com/zepto/?event=readStory&id=2987770296&uR=53423

Steve-574461

Mons, Please list specific acts taken by President Obama to "dismantle" our country.

vol fan in chatt,tn - beat me to it with some great examples. Thanks vol.

If you need more "acts" there are many.

#1-Act, He is dishonest!

I was just listening to Obama's speech at the "National Prayer Breakfast", and what I got out of his words is, "I want Government to be the biggest "Charity" in this Country".

I listened to the same speech and I did not get the same message you got. There's all types of Charity and Entitlements. Some people actually need a hand up and some don't. Corporations and Richthat are making billions/ millions are doing okay and getting hand outs why give them subsides and tax breaks? When talk about Charity and Entitlements let's be sure to include everyone that's getting it and don't forget bailouts. To He who much is given much is expected. You should help those who are need.

We have a Candidate running who feels that there should be no capital gains tax yet he receives $50K+ A Day. He hides his money in banks to avoid taxes overseas and expects the taxpayers to pay for his greed. We won't be doomed because of President Obama. The huge Charity we are giving to those in greed is what is hurting us and it isn't the poor or middle class.

vol fan in chatt, tn, #3.9;

I doubt you get a response from the left. They ignor facts and only know how to tear things apart. They can't promise to "FIX" something until it's broken. So they say it's broken or damage it so people will think they're saviors. When they can't refute the message they criticize the messenger to detract from the message.

These socialists/marxists remind me of the horse drawn wagons of my youth. The horses had blinders to keep them from being frightened by what was going on around them and keep them in the direction they were led by the holder of their reins.

I'm City born and lived, not some country bare foot boy too stupid to see what they are doing. WRONG! They only want to see and say how evil our Country is so they can take over with their brand of The USSR. Leave it to Obama, and the people pulling his reins, and we'll have Gulags in Montana or Alaska.

After that rant, I think I'll go to McDs for a burger and super size the fries because the government says I shouldn't and I don't need their permission, YET.

I was just listening to Obama's speech at the "National Prayer Breakfast", and what I got out of his words is, "I want Government to be the biggest "Charity" in this Country".

I listened to the same speech and I did not get the same message you got. There's all types of Charity and Entitlements. Some people actually need a hand up and some don't. Corporations and Richthat are making billions/ millions are doing okay and getting hand outs why give them subsides and tax breaks? When talk about Charity and Entitlements let's be sure to include everyone that's getting it and don't forget bailouts. To He who much is given much is expected. You should help those who are need.

We have a Candidate running who feels that there should be no capital gains tax yet he receives $50K+ A Day. He hides his money in banks overseas and expects the taxpayers to pay for his greed. We won't be doomed because of President Obama. The huge Charity we are giving to those in greed is what is hurting us and it isn't the poor or middle class.

There's all types of Charity and Entitlements.

Already in place and working, so Mr. Obama and his "We need to give" is way too late for a vote getter. THEY'RE ALREADY UP AND RUNNING.

Corporations and Richthat are making billions/ millions are doing okay and getting hand outs why give them subsides and tax breaks?

They also give millions to charity for a tax write-off. Bill Gates ever come to mind. He gives millions, and if I remeber right, I saw 1 billion at one time or another. That's just one.

And that "Candidate" also shelled out 3 million to his church. Hello ?

The Rich give out more cash to charities, even if its just for a tax write-off, than the 99% ever think of. If there really is a 99%. I'd say it's more the 28%, but that's just me. :)

anthony

vol's crazy long rant that no one will read aside. can you please post one thing that obama has done that will dismantle our country, so that we may discuss it?

some poeple keep posting about marxism, and the ussr, and stuff, but i do not see it. did the extension of the tax cuts really push us toward communism? did adding millions of people to the customer lists for private insurance somehow turn us into a communist state?

After that rant, I think I'll go to McDs for a burger and super size the fries because the government says I shouldn't and I don't need their permission, YET.

while she is the first lady, michelle obama, does not hold a government position. i have not seen any legislation saying that you may not go to mcdonald's. is there some proposed?

too stupid to see what they are doing.

based upon #3.12 alone, i would say that the jury is still out on this one. if you could post something factual, or something that makes sense, then i might consider otherwise.

A little background history on Obama!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Hussein_Obama

vol's crazy long rant that no one will read aside. can you please post one thing that obama has done that will dismantle our country,

Rant?? With facts and sources?? ...it was asked and answered. Typical of the left to totally ignore it.

They also give millions to charity for a tax write-off. Bill Gates ever come to mind. He gives millions, and if I remeber right, I saw 1 billion at one time or another. That's just one.

Bill Gates has done many good deeds and I'm sure good things will continue to come his way. He chooses to give. He's even said that he should be taxed more just as Buffet. He's not asking for a hand out. He doesn't begrudingly give when he chooses to.

And that "Candidate" also shelled out 3 million to his church. Hello ?

Wow that's a wonderful thing. Why is he expecting a tax break actually feeling as though he should not pay taxes on capital gains? He says he Loves America even sings it. But he seems to want hide/bury a great his Talents/Money overseas. He's a Christian/Mormon I believe God says don't bury your talent put it to good use and you'll be blessed. Hello.

The Rich give out more cash to charities, even if its just for a tax write-off, than the 99% ever think of. If there really is a 99%. I'd say it's more the 28%, but that's just me. :)

To he who much is given much is expected. Whether it be money are good deeds. It doesn't matter if it is 99% or 28%. As an American I have no problem helping another American in need. When Americans help each other out whether it be money, jobs, clothing, food, kind words and encouragement and doing what is right we all become better and stronger, but that's just me. :) Peace

.it was asked and answered.

of mon glas. are you mon glas? if you could put one, or two points, then we could debate them. you have put a page and a half of stuff that doesn't even necessarily meet the criteria of dismantling our country, so not only did you answer something that was not addressed to you ( i have to admit i do this, too.), but then you listed a bunch of stuff that is mostly moot. i do appreciate your efforts, though, because it is way better than mon glas' #3.16.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/07/new-epa-rules-to-devastate-coal-industry/

will these regulations dismantle our country? no.

the article throws out lofty numbers of 1.4 million jobs being lost, and cites coal industry analyses as its reference. these analyses may be a bit biased.

the second link is a report from senate republicans. this could also be biased. the very title says that it may be a bit biased.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=3ede3e93-813f-4449-97e6-0d6eb54fbc9e

EPA’S ANTI-INDUSTRIAL POLICY:
“THREATENING JOBS AND AMERICA’S
MANUFACTURING BASE”

seriously, that is the title. i find that hilarious for a senate report. it is like some of the threads on the vine here, and then people wonder why we cannot get along, or get anything done.

.....,because it is way better than Mon Glas' #3.16

I did say if anymore acts were needed, I could provide them. Let's get started with this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2093056/posts

VolFan- I've read your post, & I'm still not seeing it. Enviornmental regulations are "dismantling our country"? I remember when doing away with DDT & PCP's were going to "destroy" farming in this country, guess what it didn't happen. Next you spend a lot of effort going after The Affordable Health Care Act. I think we all get it you don't like it, but even assuming your increased tax links are all true it still isn't "dismantling" our country! Next we have unemployment, unemployment is virtually the same as it was when Obama entered office but is slowly decreasing. Still no dismantling that I can see. Finally you talk about Inflation, we can argue whether or not inflation is a problem right now, but I don't think anyone would claim that inflation is dismantling America.

It seems like just another example of far right hyperbole to me.

If 800lb gorilla wanted facts or indications he could find them. He does not want facts or proof because he will question it and any source used that is not to his liking.

Therefore, I will not fall for this older than I am trick.

Read Alinskys' "Rules for Radicals" where this method has been re-written when I was 8 y/o.

anthony

i love facts. i love the truth. like the 800lb. gorilla in the room, one cannot avoid the truth. gorilla stands for truth and reason, not obama, or boehner, reid, pelosi, or cantor. if you post facts, then good. if you post falsehoods, then i will call you out on it. it is a pretty simple system, really, and yet, so many cannot seem to get it.

there are no fema camps. if a revolution is coming, then it is not coming from the teaparty types. if at all, it will come from the occupy movement. if that is the case, then are you really on their side? are you truly worried about the rights of the occupy protesters, or are you just blowing smoke? as a conservative christian, i find it interesting that you would be so concerned about them. after all, i do not think that a conservative christian, such as yourself, will ever be labeled a terrorist, unless you are committing some sort of treasonous acts, in which case, then you are. please attempt to have a consistent platform, or are you not one of the conservative types that does not call the occupy protesters, un-american, traitors, or terrorists. i hope that you are not a hypocrite, wolf. if you are going to stand up for your fellow americans, then guess what, you need to stand up for all of them, not just the ones who think like you, or the ones who are on your side.

The National Defence Authorization Act 2012

... which he signed stating he did not agree with everything in it.

The bill passed the House and Senate with over 2/3rds vote in both (senate 86-13, house 283-136) - even if Obama veto'd it, it would've been overridden effortlessly.

which he signed stating he did not agree with everything in it.

Does doing something like that make sense to anyone ? If you don't agree with "Everything" why would you sign on the bottom line ? Sounds like the housing problem to me. "Sign here". "Oh, Okay .......duh !"

Does doing something like that make sense to anyone ? If you don't agree with "Everything" why would you sign on the bottom line ?

... as I said - because it passed with enough support to easily override any kind of veto.

But did you possibly think to read the signing statement? He answers your questions.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/31/396018/breaking-obama-signs-defense-authorization-bill/

Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

...

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

...

I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

...

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

So, you're saying that it is okay to compromise principles because there are a lot more people for something that you are against? Can you trust someone that compromises their principles, because the wind is against them? Frankly, this shows that Obama has no principles and is more power-hungry than anyone else in Washington. Look at it, he said he was against the "indefinite incarceration of American citizens", but he signed the bill anyway. The argument is that the bill had more than enough votes behind it to override a veto. So? He didn't make a definitive statement with his opposition of then signing the bill, nor did he prove that he was a man of his word. In truth, he showed that all he cared about was staying in power; because he followed what was "popular" rather than going with what he said he would do. If you disagree with a major portion of a bill, and you are President, VETO it!

Look at it, he said he was against the "indefinite incarceration of American citizens", but he signed the bill anyway.

... and then said he wouldn't be using the powers granted by that part, and work to remove or reform those provisions.

The bill didn't actually incarcerate American citizens at the moment of the signing.

The argument is that the bill had more than enough votes behind it to override a veto. So?

So - you're facing an oncoming bus. You're not a superman, you can't outright stop it. You can stand in the way, cause a minor slow to the momentum, but eventually the bus will keep going on - or you can deal with it and try to change it.

He didn't make a definitive statement with his opposition of then signing the bill

... a signing statement isn't a definitive statement with his opposition to those sections - including saying his administration will work to reform or remove the sections he disagrees with?

In truth, he showed that all he cared about was staying in power; because he followed what was "popular" rather than going with what he said he would do.

You think it was a campaign move? Really?

You think he thinks it would've changed someone's mind from voting for him to vote against him if he'd vetoed it?

If you disagree with a major portion of a bill, and you are President, VETO it!

... what determines what's the major part of the bill?

Did you miss the bit I quoted - "not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes"

I mean, jeez - why does everybody look at everything so much as black/white, yes/no, so many absolutes.

again, from the ndaa:

Subtitle D—Detainee Matters16 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED17 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN18 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU19THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author21ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate22 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military23 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the24 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per427† S 1867 ES1 sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition2 under the law of war.3 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis17position of a person under the law of war as described18 in subsection (a) may include the following:19 (1) Detention under the law of war without20 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the21 Authorization for Use of Military Force.22 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United23 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis24sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–25 84)).428† S 1867 ES1 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or2 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.3 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the4 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun5try, or any other foreign entity.6 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in7tended to limit or expand the authority of the President8 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military9 Force.10 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are14 captured or arrested in the United States.

read the text. this is the act. it is about enemy combatants. yes, they will not be given their due process. everyone was complaining that obama wanted to give these guys a trial, and now when they take away those rights by law, people are freaking out that they will be sent to fema camps. do not join al-qaida! do not join the taliban! if someone tells you they are on the lamb because they were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and they need a place to stay for a couple of days, do not harbor them. cool? cool.

Too bad Congress can't get their act together and create a Line-Item Veto Amendment to the Constitution. Signing statements mean nothing, but a veto has a lasting effect even if it is overridden. It's called principle. The "If you are facing an oncoming bus" argument is comparing apples and oranges. Oncoming bus means life and death, the NDAA's passage and signing isn't going to kill someone as the bill's affects won't be seen for some time. He could, if he had political courage, veto it and let Congress truly take the heat. Instead, he either bowed to the political majority to protect his political capital (thereby protecting his power) or he got exactly what he wanted. Either way, this signage was brought about as a means to protect his power rather than as a means to show his principles.

Signing statements mean nothing, but a veto has a lasting effect even if it is overridden. It's called principle.

This "lasting effect" is related to image. And anybody who just writes off the other image-related effect - the signing statement - I doubt will ever be happy with him and intentionally looks for things to hate.

Oncoming bus means life and death, the NDAA's passage and signing isn't going to kill someone as the bill's affects won't be seen for some time.

So... if the bill doesn't affect anybody now - and he intends to work to reform or change it... and doesn't intend to take advantage of the parts he disagrees with - what's the big problem?

he either bowed to the political majority to protect his political capital (thereby protecting his power) or he got exactly what he wanted.

How precisely does this work in light of the signing statement? Are you just writing it off as meaningless?

I really don't quite get that. Not vetoing it is supposed to say everything about his character, but you explicitly ignore anything about the signing statement. I'll repeat that I don't think he could do anything right for you - it's about the person, not about the bill.

Well, 800...you got bent out of shape becasue I answered a question meant for Mons glas? Oh, boohoo...sorry.

Fact is, this is a public forum and anybody can answer any question/comment they want.

Steve and 800, let me ask you a question. How many industries need to get dismantled before it affects our economy? Let's just look at the Housing industry...did the Housing industry cause a near collapse in 2008? Um, yes it did. Cool affects a lot of industry in this country, it keep people warm, it supplies power to coal fired nuclear plants. The title was:

/new-epa-rules-to-devastate-coal-industry/

This is but one industry - that will affect many others...soon you have a domino effect just as the housing market did. It really isn't that hard to figure out. But from that article I sourced, this absolutely shows the absurdness of the EPA regulations..."cross state pollution"?

“The EPA is ignoring the cumulative economic damage new regulations will cause,” said Steve Miller, president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). “America’s coal-fueled electric industry has been doing its part for the environment and the economy, but our industry needs adequate time to install clean coal technologies to comply with new regulations. Unfortunately, EPA doesn’t seem to care.”

Thursday the EPA announced that they have finalized additional Clean Air Act provisions, collectively known as “The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” to ostensibly “reduce air pollution and attain clean air standards,” by requiring coal companies in 27 states to slash emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide by 73 percent and 54 percent, respectively, from 2005 levels by 2014.

According to the EPA, these emissions travel across state lines and contribute to ozone and fine particle pollution.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/07/new-epa-rules-to-devastate-coal-industry/#ixzz1lHq3sL9G

Kind of sounds like the Farm Dust regulations they were trying to pass and the cow methane thingy too...sheeze.

I think you are right a time waster..."Get Smarter Here"...if only some would try <sigh>

The signing statement is just a promise not an actual act. Acts show character, not promises. I could promise you that I won't throw out an insult aimed at you; but what happens if/when I actually do throw out the insult? I just made myself a liar, destroyed part of my reputation, and shown that I have less honor than I stated previously by making the promise. Now, if I kept my word, then I have shown honor, have improved my reputation, and have shown myself to be honest.

Let's take a look at the Obama administration here, specifically the Justice Department. First, you have to admit that each Department and Bureau in the Executive Branch actually reflects upon the honesty, honor, and reputation of the President. Now, we have had several scandals in the Obama Justice Department, yet in almost all of the cases only low level people were actually disciplined. Now, that shows there is a major problem with how the Department is being run, as not a single person seems to have learned from the punishment of these low level people. That means that somewhere in the chain of command there is a culture of corruption; but not a single high level person has taken the fall for anything. In fact, Obama seems to double- and triple-down on Eric Holder every time there seems to be a scandal in the Justice Department. This tells me that Obama actively supports a culture of corruption, and yet, you expect me to accept his word that he won't use the powers given to him by Congress to call American citizens "Terrorists" and have them detained for any reason, correct? I'm sorry, but the culture of corruption is too deep in his Administration for me to trust him. If he wanted people to trust him, he should have vetoed the bill and made Congress either fix the bill or override the veto.

wolf

One more time: The National Defense Authorization Act 2012 will dismantle our country. President Obama signed it.

i have posted the link to the act twice. the act only targets enemy combatants, al-qaida, the taliban, and 9/11 attackers, and those who support, or harbor them. yes, an american, who is a member of al-qaida, may, or may not, receive due process under this law. americans, who are not terrorists, cannot be targeted by this law. it actually says so in the language of the law.

ya'll are complaining a bit too much about obama when 93 senators signed off on this as well, also the house passed the bill with 283 aye's... ... they didn't have signing statements and passed it as written...

800 lb. gorilla You are trying to convince a brick wall of something he can't hear because of a deaf ear.

and it's up to investigators to find out who they are.

... it's rather hard to take most anything you say seriously when you openly announce your intention not to support what you say.

But let's look at section 1021(e)

AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

So, let's look at the three groups exempt.

United States Citizens.

Lawful resident aliens of the United States.

Anyone else captured or arrested in the United States (non-citizen aliens, legal [things like a travel or business visa] or illegal)

The ACLU comes down on the side of opposition to the National Defense Autorization Act 2012.

The ACLU is against military detention of *anybody* in the U.S.

Moses was an ordinary man and a black man.

And you know that how?

Time will tell.

Wow you're reaching far back into the conversation to avoid my post.

i am tired of chasing unicorns. post something of relevance, or something that is true. take your pick.

have a good one, wolf. be good. take care of yourself. watch out, or they will put you in one of the camps. don't let them get you. keep fighting the good fight.

the problem with the NDAA is that it can be construed to apply to anyone they want it to...I remember Janet Nappy, right after Obama came in office, put out a memo that targets veterans and right wing groups as possible home grown terrorists:

The intelligence assessment released to law enforcement on April 7 claims news of recession, the election of an African American president, rumors of new gun restrictions and the inability of veterans to reintegrate create fertile ground for radicalizing and recruiting right-wing extremists

Of particular interest among radicals is possible recruitment of returning troops with "combat skills and experience" so as to boost their "violent capabilities," the report said.

It added that new restrictions on gun ownership and the difficulty of veterans to reintegrate into their communities "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/19/napolitano-veterans-targets-right-wing-extremist-recruiters/#ixzz1lW8uiR6C

They can take anybody and claim that they are working in cahoots with Al Quida, whether they are or not, and apply this law to them, and there is no recourse - no due process, no nothing! I don't often agree with the ACLU, but in this instance I do.

With your expertize I would believe you except your interpretation is subject to errors quite often.

And yes I read your post through and find your interpretation lacking.

well opinions are like bellybuttons, everybody has one...and again, even the ACLU is screaming foul over this...that ought to tell you something.

Tells me the ACLU is wrong also just the right.

I don't worry about it wolfie, I just consider the source...

BTW, this just in from Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-usa-fbi-extremists-idUSTRE81600V20120207

connect the dots people....

Anti-government extremists opposed to taxes and regulations pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers in the United States, the FBI warned on Monday.

These extremists, sometimes known as "sovereign citizens," believe they can live outside any type of government authority, FBI agents said at a news conference.

The extremists may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard.

Legal convictions of such extremists, mostly for white-collar crimes such as fraud, have increased from 10 in 2009 to 18 each in 2010 and 2011, FBI agents said.

"We are being inundated right now with requests for training from state and local law enforcement on sovereign-related matters," said Casey Carty, an FBI supervisory special agent.

FBI agents said they do not have a tally of people who consider themselves "sovereign citizens."

Sovereign members often express particular outrage at tax collection, putting Internal Revenue Service employees at risk.

Notice the change in the term? Not US citizen...they are antigovernment "sovereign citizens"...interesting, eh?

Just consider the source everyone it's ok

nice piece...wolfie. 4.1 is a beaut of a comeback...PERECT.

Wolf, #4.1;

Great retort!!!!

The one media, Fox, that isn't in the left wing camp, is the only thing the leftwingnuts can use as a slur. If you don't "have belief" in a government run country, instead of by the people, you are advocating a religion run like Iran.

The real 99% of these United States do not want either. But then, truth is nebulous to socialists and Maxists.

Its the nuts on the right who are trying to turn us into a religious theocracy! Santorum & his ilk would run this country by biblical law if given half a chance!

religious theocracy!

really??? You need one of those tin foil hats somebody else was peddling on here. But you have an extreme case, so he might give you a free one or a reduced rate, at least.

A wolf likes the smell of blood just like a Fox!!!

VolFan- You don't listen to Santorum talking about outlawing birth control because it conflicts with his religious beliefs? On any given day you can find a story about some nut on the christian right who wants to outlaw, arrest or kill someone who they beleive are doing something against gods law.

the ndaa is bad law...as well the patriot act..

You want to see a theocracy go to Iran or most of those ME countries...this ain't one nor is it going to be. Curious about your source though.

Dick Durban, democrat, voted against the ndaa... Something is starting to take shape here. Lots of the identifier language is al queda, terrorist...those are middle east issues right now. What if the congress was baiting...expecting Obama to veto. Most signed it so that Obama would realize that if he veto'd it, they could say you aren't interested in addressing the home grown risk, and they had the #s to override the veto. If he did sign it, there goes his credibility. And I am sure it wasn't lost on him that the major community of people that may be harboring terrorists, are part of his base . So we have the lack of principles by his signing it. Stay with me here. I'm thinking, what if Durban didn't sign because he saw what was going on (or was suspect of the reasons such a bill would get on the table.) Perhaps the congress had no intention of overriding a veto. So Obama is cornered, has a choice: betray the major community, or give up on his principles. He didn't call congresses bluff. I just find it curious that a democrat didn't sign off on it and many did. I think this post has to be read very slowly to see what I'm saying because I know it sounds confusing.

Wolf - Your post is where I took note of it...that is what got me thinking about those connections. Thank you. Keep getting me thinking.

Here is my thinking on the whole signing of the NDAA situation: 1) Obama threatened to veto it if it had the language allowing indefinite detention of American citizens. 2) The NDAA passes with the language allowing the indefinite detention of American citizens still included. 3) Obama "changes" his mind and signs it anyways with a signing statement that he would not use the indefinite detention of American citizens provisions.

What I believe occurred here was Obama being opportunistic and outplaying the Republicans, who foolishly put the language in there. He has now been given EVERY power that Chancellor Adolf Hitler was given right before he declared himself Fuehrer and made the military give him a personal loyalty oath. This was Obama's great powerplay and the Republicans have given him the ability to overturn the Constitution at will by declaring his opponents and their supporters "terrorists". Don't be surprised if Obama declares the 2012 General Elections null and void and starts throwing people into jail.

Don't be surprised if Obama declares the 2012 General Elections null and void and starts throwing people into jail.

he is going to win. i am sure that he will be happy with the results. who the hell could beat him? romney might have a chance, if the republican party does not go all cannibal on him.

tom - I voted you up. But I think he would find himself in true trouble if he tried that. We have his signed statement that he will not use it. It would now be either treasonous and or impeachable if he did. I still think he is more concerned that the community most affected, who would harbor terrorists, is why he would not want to implement that, and why he disavowed it on the signing. To give them a message they are safe under him. Which is course not true. I have noticed he says something and shortly thereafter does the opposite. He's thrown lots of people under buses.

Ignorance seems to be a prerequisite for being a liberal and democrat.

He is just laying the groundwork to declare himself dictator for life or in German: "Fuehrer". I fully expect him to declare the elections "null and void" in November. The sad part is that this is the only President that I have had this feeling about.

Obama is using this stance for political gain. I think he figures he will gain support from the government dependent voters by grandstanding publicly about how those mean old Constitutional folks must be done away with. They are in his way to insure government freebees to those supporters. That's his ploy-

(Sad part is that it probably is effective!)

And that my friend is when the country will finally wake up. I can't believe the US Military will support an unconstitutional power grab. Would he elicit military support from Russia, China, Iran, etc? Would liberals in the US side with them? Could it be WW III in the making, but contained within the US. I must be dreaming, I need to awaken, this must be a nightmare!

Isn't it ironic that the Civil War was due to natural rights being deprived from Slaves by their Aristocratic Owners? The potential war of 2013 would be due to natural rights being deprived from constitutionalists by their elected Aristocratic Owners! My nightmare continues -

WeBDoomed - observant of you. I am suspect of anyone out of Harvaaard. They have reputation but not substance. I remember when the sugar industry paid them to do/skew studies to prove that white processed sugar was good for you, healthy. Now they have large $ donors from Saudi Arabia, who get to call the ciriculum shots. I smell sugar.

> constitution was flawed

Better we have Sharia law…or the Pope king…or more lobbyists from Tel Aviv.

And now people have the gonads to complain, should have thought about that over 3 years ago.

I am willing to bet most of those complaining did not vote for Obama.

That is what czars are for, to cover up the incompetence, corruption, arrogence by Obama. I should say comrade Obama,

Let's not forget George, did you accuse him of being a communist also?

As for Obama having an unprecedented number of czars, the Bush administration had even more appointed or nominated positions whose holders were called "czars" by the media.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/

Of course the Bush czars did not seem to be the problem that the Obama czars have been made out to be. I wonder why that is? Bush had more and the process for appointment was identical.

Bush is not the current problem.

Merely pointing out the hypocrisy in comment #6 - I figured you would not do it.

Shhh... Can't bring up the disaster that got us here. (shrub)

Bush is not the current problem.

A wonderful demonstation of where the real ignorance lays.

The damage Bush has done will be with us for decades.

Bush is not the current problem.

A wonderful demonstation of where the real ignorance lays.

The damage Bush has done will be with us for decades.

actually the damage done the last several decades (3 - 4) is wholly responsible for the issues of today... and for the forseeable future..

And the damage Obama has compounded is...called what?

Bush had nothing to do with "spreading the wealth around"

seriously?? wow.. that's totally and completely delusional... who do you thinks signed off on the bank bailouts... I guess in a sense you are correct he gave it to the 1%... no spreading

Obama!!!

It seems to me that the right thinks the constitution is flawed. There the one who want to change it! Talk to me when the right wing controled house of reprehensibles votes themselves a pay raise for doing absolutely nothing.

Bush had nothing to do with "spreading the wealth around" or kind words about Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Current tax rates are at an almost historical low - why even Mr. Romney paid less than 15% on over 20 mil in income. That's some redistribution there Wolf. And the Occupy Wall Street protesters are Americans expressing their right to free speech and assembly, something spelled out in , oh what is it... yeah that's it, the US Constitution.

So we have hisorically low tax rates and freedom of speech, so why are conservatives so wound up?

Those are whole new arguments and the vast majority of covservatives in congress voted for the NDAA, did you write an article about them? Getting back on track.

My question was in response to your comments at #6.9. Instead of addressing those issues you bring up NDAA. But it is OK - I have come to expect that type of deflection. That in itself is ashame because it detracts from credible debate.

Good night to you Wolf and God Bless.

wolf

from your link"

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section

is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided

the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported

al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged

in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or

has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy

forces.

the two listed criteria are the only people who are covered. were you involved in 9/11? are you a member of the taliban? if not, then you have nothing to worry about. it is called reading comprehension, and it helps if you utilize it.

why even Mr. Romney paid less than 15% on over 20 mil in income. That's some redistribution there Wolf.

I absolutely love it when the libs bring this up.....remember kerry and the ketsup queen, well they paid less than 13 % on their billions and he also conveniently FORGOT to pay taxes on his yacht..yet no yelling about that from the libs, never heard a peep from them..

How does Romney's effective tax rate compare to the recent presidential nominees from the major parties?

In 2004, John Kerry and his wife released portions of their separate tax returns that showed the couple paid an effective federal tax rate of about 13 percent on $5.5 million in income from the year before. (At first, Kerry only released his own tax return. He later released the first two pages of the tax return of his millionaire wife, Teresa Heinz.) Some conservatives, like Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth, used Kerry's effective tax rate to criticize him for his opposition to a flat tax that would raise his taxes.

George and Laura Bush paid about 28 percent of their income in taxes in 2003, though their yearly income was a tenth of the Kerrys' that same year.

news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt...john-kerry-002350310.html -

I absolutely love it when the libs bring this up.....remember kerry and the ketsup queen, well they paid less than 13 % on their billions and he also conveniently FORGOT to pay taxes on his yacht..yet no yelling about that from the libs, never heard a peep from them..

I have to ask... are you seriously criticizing "Newsvine libs" for the reaction of unnamed "libs" in your experience from 2004? Especially when Newsvine wasn't opened until 2006, and you didn't join until 2008?

when we traveled through time, then john kerry...

oh wait, time travel has not been invented yet.

didn’t hear the media [msm=liberal] bringing up the fact that kerry only paid 13%--never heard a word about it but they sure report the fact that romney is paying 15% don’t they ?..and that is what I meant, but you still to this day won’t hear the media mention how many rich democrats only pay 13%, but they don’t hesitate to jump on romney’s tax return...

katlin

i would say that this issue is much more in the forefront for this election cycle. kerry was relevant eight years ago. the economy was better, and people were not complaining about that as much, in general.

kerry was relevant eight years ago. the economy was better, and people were not complaining about that as much, in general.

yah--right, liberals were not nor will they ever complain about kerry doing the same or worse than romney....kerry is still in politics and still a senator, right.? so yes he is relevant..

Yea, and he was one that took plenty of the people's money and took junkets and such...not that he needed anymore - his wife has plenty...but Lurch, docking his boat somewhere else to avoid paying taxes, was the height of hypocrisy.

moot points are not relevant. the whole sub-thread is not relevant. it is moot. you made an irrelevant post about a moot sub-thread, upon which i was sucked into commenting. the vine is dying.

you made an irrelevant post about a moot sub-thread

yeah, but it was fun....

dang, do they all melt when alittle water is thrown on them ?

wolf

the vine is dying.

Derogatory evaluation of Newsvine is a bad idea.

fact. i know. the vine is listening. be afraid. be very afraid.

you guys are all good. you know i am a stickler for language, and debate. it is certainly nothing personal.

collectively, or individually, have a good one!

FLA PAT - and why do we have historically low tax rates? the Republicans. Dems just keep raising taxes because they can't control their spending habits.

Of who ?????

You can be specific If you'd like. :)

Indeed.

Details man, details. Got any ?

Another juvenile and worthless "I HATE OBAMA" thread.

Yeah, kinda like the "I hate Palin, Rush, Fox News, Newt, Mitt, Ron, GOP, Bachmann" threads we see on the Vine every day from unhinged Liberals...

Well, we do love a good train wreck......

And one must admit, as train wrecks go, they don't get any better than Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and the blatherheads on Fox. You just can't buy better entertainment.

well he did say he was going to stop the rising oceans, is that close enough ?

disappointed ? nah but not surprised that he hasn't done that either....only libs bought into that one..

he made an error

yah, one of many-if you want a laugh try this;

http://www.hannity.com/article/barack-s-presidential-protocol-bloopers/14316

President Obama is at odds with the Catholic church! “Sedition”: Obama Says Catholic Church Encouraging Military Rebellion Against Him, Orders Chaplains.

Our 1st amendment rights just flew out the door.

You all might think this just covers Catholics, but this salvo by Obama is the most blatant attack on the Constitution yet

And all of you "free thinkers" better watch your back, because Washington is slowly but surely taking over the control of this country by all the new laws and regulations.

cc

your link shows no evidence that obama has ever said anything about the catholic church. perhaps you have something that does show this, yes?

gorilla, if you would have read the link, it goes to this article which explains it fully...it is the Obama ADM that is doing this:

The Catholic Church is fighting mad about an HHS (Obama's ADM headed by Sebilius) ruling that would have them buy insurance for things they consider sinful–contraception, sterilization and abortion.

All the bishops in the country sent out a letter to be read in their parishes promising that the Church "cannot-and will not-comply with this unjust law."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-military-is-now-telling-catholic-chaplains-can-and-cant-say-about-obama-administration-2012-2#ixzz1lWXoGu5Q

The misleading item here is that it isn't "all" Catholic Chaplains - but only Chaplains who are also employed by the military.

And, this order violates their FREEDOM OF RELIGION. How can they be expected to carry out their duties as Chaplains if they government can tell them how to deal with Church doctrine? They can be forced to tell their superior officers what is told to them in Confession, now.

And, this order violates their FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

So the UCMJ doesn't apply if you 'religiously believe' otherwise?

How can they be expected to carry out their duties as Chaplains if they government can tell them how to deal with Church doctrine?

The government isn't telling them how to deal with Church doctrine - the government was being critical of an official message sent in their capacity as a member of the military.

“Sedition”: Obama Says Catholic Church Encouraging Military Rebellion Against Him, Orders Chaplains

Except Obama never said that. It was made up but the right wing lunatics who love to make things up. But you go ahead and repeat the lies.

i read the article in the link. i see no quotes from the president. can someone show me where it is?

i do not even see anything from the administration. all i see is the response.

article: some people say some other people people say that the president eats living babies.

oh the horror! he must be impeached! stop baby eating, before its too late!

that happens to be the title of the article...kind of like this one:

http://illuminate.newsvine.com/_news/2010/10/21/5327444-tea-party-racism-the-ugly-truth-about-the-white-party

so the title says, "obama says...", but then does not actually have anything obama says, or even his administration said, in it. okay? it may not be the best source.

President Obama ordered the generals to forbid the Chaplains (the title of a Catholic Priest in the Army) not to read the letter the Church wrote to the clergy and the laity. FYI Obama can order the military anytime he wishes. He is after all, the Commander in Chief!

You don't need another source. The horse's mouth will do!

President Obama ordered

Kind of like the Pope ordered you to make things up, huh

Don Overton...you are off topic, and I take offense at your demeaning remarks about Pope Benedict XVI, and/or any other Pope.

The Pope is the head shepherd of the Church, and he does not order anybody to do anything for your information. His work for the Lord is to remind the world that we are to love one and other, and to remember the Lord while carrying out our daily vocation.

I have just reviewed your posts on this thread, and you know what? Your contribution has been absolutely ZERO! Everything out of your mouth has been a negation of something. In fact you seem to have a complete bent toward contradicting everything someone writes because of your one-sided bias.

You seem to be a classic liberal and a proponent of the standard group-think behavior sweeping in its scope and relentless in its argument. You fit the Ann Coulter definition of a liberal, who activates, mobs, depends on mobs, coddles mobs, publicizes and celebrates negative behavior. "To understand mobs, is to understand liberals." an Ann Coulter quote.

charlie courtois

i do not know that your words are coming from the horse's mouth. you may wish to check the other end. the burden of proof is on you. if you say that the president has said something, then you must provide the quote, and the source, not the other way around. if you are unwilling to do this, then you have already lost.

you can quote ann coulter on liberals all day long, but then you are the one who is off topic. that is a great job in showing hypocrisy. that was your intent, right?

No Charlie I wasn't. Yet you didn't respond to the comment other than try and wiggle out of your uninformed comment.

Don try to understand...most humans don't like to respond to your non-sensible political barbs. Add something to the conversation or suffer the indignation of being shunned.

Obama's words are all over the news and the Internet. Newt quoted them verbatim. The United Catholic Bishops quoted his words, and so have half of the US press corps. Pelosi, a supposed Catholic, says:

Pelosi Vows to Stand With Obama Against Catholic Church; Says Decision Forcing Catholics to Act Against Faith Was ‘Very Courageous’

"White House Misrepresents Its Own Contraceptive Mandate"

The Obama administration, to justify its widely-criticized mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage in private health plans, has posted a set of false and misleading claims on the White House blog (“Health Reform, Preventive Services, and Religious Institutions,” February 1). This new USCCB fact sheet quotes and responds to each claim in turn.

Since this thread, Obama has begun to change his tune, and has started to opine that he may not go as far as he initially thought he would...so the target is moving.

I didn't avoid a thing. It's all over the news, by the hour.

The Army Chaplins scenario

This was the piece who some claim I was lying about. The story has changed several times cince then. Meanwhile the Chaplains were allowed to tell the Catholic troops the truth.

Don, try to understand...most humans don't like to respond to your non-sensible political barbs. Add something to the conversation or suffer the indignation of being shunned.

Ding, ding, ding...we have a winner!!! Well said, Charlie.

Charlie I'll add something to the conversation when you add something that is fantasy.

unicorn!

Charlie I'll add something to the conversation when you add something that is fantasy.

So, Don, you admit that everything that Charlie has said is absolute fact and that you have nothing to contribute. Good to know.

tom

Like I hear from the right wing faction all the time, but instead of misspoke, I mistyped. You know that.

That's not all you missed! Do you get out much? Or do you get all of your news and information right here on Newsvine. You really should open your eyes and let a little reality in once in awhile, you might be amazed.

I was thinking pretty much the same about you. However Fox and hannity have blinded you.

That's what they've been doing all along Creeping Jesus, as far as becoming unhinged and attacking the Obamas for the most trivial of matters. I expect it to get much, much worse, as if it could! It's pretty frightening the outright hatred and bigotry against the Obamas.

I don't know why they don't admit it - they can't stand those uppity Obamas!

They've already sunk to the deepest lows as far as their vile and despicable behavior. I truly fear what's next from the unhinged teabaggers and republithuglicons.

#10 & 10.1;

As President Obama's certain reelection gets closer,...

Far from certain, unless your crystal ball is broken and giving you a false positive.

... as far as becoming unhinged and attacking the Obamas for the most trivial of matters.

The objections by some may seem trival taken individually by you and others but try adding them up to see the direction the puppet Obama and those pulling his strings want this Country to become.

Now he's pulling out the Christian card for more votes only because he needs them and is hopeing many will have forgotten Rev.Wright and His 20+ year relationship and frequent dinner guest.

Answer one question, if you can; Would you talk to or invite to your home a racist if you didn't agree with what they stood for? Over 20 yrs?

The ranting over a Mormon running is stupid, and as someone mentioned JFK, he was vilified as a Catholic because every one said the pope was going to rule the White House . That didn't happen and it didn't stop JFK from philandering.

If a President had to pass a security clearance to take office Obama would have failed. This is not trivial.

Obama was raised muslim and only changed to an American church as instructed by his mentors. His Mother and Sister are still Muslim and the Kenya muslims now celebrate his date of taking office as a holiday and the muslim school in Indonesia where he studied the koran have erected a statue of him. He talks about his Christian values now but doesn't mention it was in a black racist church for 20yrs., so racism must be his values to stay that long. This is not trivial.

He spent his time in Chicago organizing ethnic protests and taught at the Alinsky Institute for several years the "Rules for Radicals" written by Saul Alinsky. This is not trivial.

attacking the Obamas for the most trivial of matters.

increased taxation, the bankruptcy of our country, the increasing deficit, more regulations that want to control us, unemployment, and the anarchy the fleabaggers advocate are trivial to libs ? wow..

guess what I eat, what my kid weighs, and what lightbulb I use or what the palins do is a big freakin deal to libs then.....LOL...talk about unhinged, maybe they need group therapy at camp al-quida..

increased taxation

??? certainly, you are not speaking of income tax. maybe you mean the cigarette tax, which is a luxury tax.

the bankruptcy of our country

???

we have had a national debt for a long time. it has grown some. this was not all done by obama.

can someone here please make sense? anyone? buehler? buehler?

increased taxation

??? certainly, you are not speaking of income tax. maybe you mean the cigarette tax, which is a luxury tax.

um, you don't remember this:

$200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

• For first time, the bill also applies Medicare’s 2.9% payroll tax rate to investment income, including dividends, interest income and capital gains. Added to the 0.9% payroll surcharge, that means a 3.8-percentage point tax hike on “the rich.” Oh, and these new taxes aren’t indexed for inflation, so many middle-class families will soon be considered rich and pay the surcharge as their incomes rise past $250,000 due to tax-bracket creep. Remember how the Alternative Minimum Tax was supposed to apply only to a handful of millionaires?

Taxpayer cost over 10 years: $210 billion.

• Also starting in 2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. That’s estimated to raise $20 billion.

• Already underway this year is the new annual fee on “branded” drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion.

• Another $15.2 billion will come from raising the floor on allowable medical deductions to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

• Starting in 2018, the bill imposes a whopping 40% “excise tax” on high-cost health insurance plans. Though it only applies to two years in the 2010-2019 window of ObamaCare’s original budget score, this tax would still raise $32 billion—and much more in future years.

• And don’t forget a new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014 and estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812104576438130028027412.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

1. 1. A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco

2. Obamacare Individual and Employer Mandate

3. Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans

4. Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax (currently)

5. Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income

6. Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (currently)

7. Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax”

8. Obamacare "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI

9. Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services(currently)

10. Obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D

11. Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (currently)

12. Obamacare Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (currently)

13. Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (currently)

14. Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers

15. Obamacare $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives

16. Obamacare Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (currently)

17. Obamacare “Black liquor” tax hike (currently)

18. Obamacare Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (currently)

Read more: http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-obama-tax-hikes-a6433#ixzz1lWSCLX8d

and here:

http://taxes.about.com/b/2012/01/03/2012-a-preview-of-the-new-tax-year.htm

and you said additionally:

we have had a national debt for a long time. it has grown some.

Some? SOME?? 5+ trillion dollars is "some"?

http://www.federalbudget.com/

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

here's a comparison of Bush's last three years to Obama's first three:

Obama Deficits
Bush Deficits

FY 2012: $1,101 billion (projected)

FY 2011: $1,299 billion

FY 2010: $1,293 billion

FY 2009: $1,413 billion

FY 2008: $459 billion

FY 2007: $161 billion

and Bush was no fiscal conservative either...but compared to Obama????

vol

so i post that income tax have not gone up for those couples making under $250,000 a year ($200,000 individuals), and you post a response, which shows this to be true, and then you list a plethora of things that do not have to do with income tax. yes, other taxes besides income tax have gone up. while obama may have allowed his campaign rhetoric to get a little exaggerated, if you actually believed that not a single tax, including things like cigarette tax would not go up, then the ignorant one is probably not the president. good luck with that.

fiscal year 2009, was the highest deficit. you have this correct. good job. you see? the debt is not completely on obama. you guys are really starting to come around.

and you fail to see that the 2009 spending was all on Obama and the Dems...wow...nice

what difference does it make whether it is income tax or not? That is NOT what Obama said. Here is exactly what he said on multiple occasions:

President Barack Obama — State of the Union Speech – Tuesday February 24,2010:

In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

and here he is again making the same claims stumping around the country:

"not ANY of your taxes"...not a single dime....LOL what part of" ANY of your taxes" does that fall under, there 800 lb?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56c1fSdTAWI&feature=related

and you fail to see that the 2009 spending was all on Obama and the Dems...wow...nice

the fiscal year budget was for $1.4 trillion. bush was the president when it was signed. how can it all be on the democrats? again, if the metric you use is that it is on the congress, then it is not on obama. if the metric you use is the president, then it is the president. you cannot pick and choose when to blame the president, and when to blame the congress because it suits your biased agenda.

not ANY of your taxes"...not a single dime....LOL what part of" ANY of your taxes" does that fall under, there 800 lb?

it means he is spewing garbage, or the context is income tax. since, only a very ignorant person would believe that he means all taxes, then i know that you know he meant income tax because you are not ignorant. if you believed that no taxes would ever go up, ever again, when obama said that, then there is no help for you, unfortunately.

yah I heard that too vol--it means obama lied--again !!

it means he is spewing garbage,

katlin

i consider most campaign rhetoric to be garbage. i knew what he meant, or meant to say, when he said it. it is about context. certainly, even a dunce knows that some taxes are going to go up, or that he cannot control every single tax. i do not even see it as he is trying to fool anyone. it is a very general statement within the framework of campaign rhetoric. those are almost always false.

not one dime, he said it more than once for emphasis, so if he didn’t mean it , he is a liar plain and simple..

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan

i contend that the context was federal income tax. these have not gone up a thin cent, so then he would not be a liar. if the context was everything, including the kitchen sink, which he did not say, then i believe that you would be right. if he had said, that families earning an income of less than $250,000 per year, would not see their state taxes, or local taxes, or luxury taxes raised, then you would be right, and he would be a liar. i never heard him say that. if you believe that what he said meant that, then i suggest that it is you with the problem, and not the president. he never said that your local taxes, and state taxes, and luxury taxes would not go up. he never said that. even when it is just the one line taken out of context, then someone would have to be a fool to believe that. are you a fool? or are you taking him out of context? take your pick.

What I find really interesting is a guy with the name Creeping Jesus who is an Obama supporter. Kind of an oxymoron. Especially considering Obama is a Muslim. Not only did he admit it, he recited the Muslim oath in front of the whole country perfectly. Reciting that oath superseded the oath he made to this country upon his inauguration. And yet there are people that still trust the traitor in chief! Amazing!

I find it interesting that a guy that uses logic and truth in his name produces fairy tales and science fiction comments. But then no one takes him seriously.

Especially considering Obama is a Muslim.

and right here is where the wheels fell off of the bus. next.

How do you "REALLY FEEL" izzybar.

Holy Crap !!!!!

For over 3 years these fascists have flung everything their hateful, mean spirited ungly minds have been able to conjur up against President Barack Obama, only to fall failied flat on their faces in their own feces.

Not only falling into their own feces, but smearing it on the walls and in their hair. Disgusting.

Wow, no "hate" there in Izzy is there. LOL

Not only falling into their own feces, but smearing it on the walls and in their hair.

Disgusting.

Yes, it is...even for you.

Izzy must be hiding in Venezuela !

Izzy must be hiding in Venezuela !

Unlike right wing cowards I don't need lies or internet anonymity to express myself. Would you like to have my cell # or home address?

So your real name is Izzybar ? Funny, LMAO!!!

My real name is "Greg", so whose hiding again ?

Would you like to have my cell # or home address?

You offered. What the Hell, go for it. :D

wow, izzy, some COH violations there...Aahh, there, there...did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

No Izzybar, It didn't help.

You said specifically, cell phone number and actual home address, not something going through "Contact this Author" thingy.

Guess what Izzybar did. LOL!

Subject: will this work for you?
Name: izzybar

What's your "REAL NAME" izzybar ?

Message:
Forward your email and I'll forward my home address

No Izzybar, It didn't help.

Too bad. "Contact this Author" thingy is all you're gonna get!

You said specifically, cell phone number and actual home address, not something going through "Contact this Author" thingy.

No that's not what I wrote!!! Here is what I specifically wrote in #12.8 read it again, and I said nothing about posting personal info online in a public thread.

Unlike right wing cowards I don't need lies or internet anonymity to express myself. Would you like to have my cell # or home address! #12.8 - Thu Feb 2, 2012 12:58 PM

Guess what greg has no reading comprehension lol!

Dodododo...dodododo !!

Your specific comment Izzybar: Comment #12.8:

Unlike right wing cowards I don't need lies or internet anonymity to express myself. Would you like to have my cell # or home address?

You asked if we would like your Cell# and Home address, and I said "YES' comment #12.9:

You offered. What the Hell, go for it. :D

Then you emailed me (Hiding), a trade "proposition".

Subject: will this work for you?
Name: izzybar

Message:
Forward your email and I'll forward my home address

Apparently your willing, just not in public I guess. But you sure do brag you will in public.

As "Peanut" told Jeff ........ DO IT !!!!!! Doooooo iiiiiiiit ! babaaaaak!

As "Peanut" told Jeff ........ DO IT !!!!!! Doooooo iiiiiiiit ! babaaaaak!

and now we all see the problem. jeff dunham is not making anyone smarter. that is for sure. he is making himself richer, though.

Isn't that what we all work for ? Based on Jeff's documentary, he worked his butt off. :)

Someone to emulate for sure. I guess, based on his story, he really should be making us smarter, huh. Went through Lows, Highs, Really Lows, now really High again. See what "WORK" can do for ya.

Besides 800lb., I heard you laughing when you thought about that "Peanut" skit. :D

You asked if we would like your Cell# and Home address, and I said "YES' comment #12.9:

First, it was between me and you only. Second I offered # OR address and third. no means of info exchange was laid out.

greg

jeff dunham is really rich, and he can be funny, but he is a ventriloquist. i used to do stand up comedy. in the industry, he is seen as a bit of a hack. he is super-great at throwing his voice, and i can totally give him props for that, but a lot of his material is, well, for lack of a better word, hack. i also feel that he uses the dead terrorist character to be a bit bigoted, or racist, which he can get away with because he really isn't saying it, but akmed (sp.), is saying it. to me, i find this wrong, and i still think that is his best character. is this post schizophrenic enough for you?

in the industry, he is seen as a bit of a hack.

That's exactly what everybody they interviewed said that was in the comedy business, "eeeeew, a ventriloquist ! He proved us wrong! "

He's laughing all the way to the bank.

bigoted, or racist,

And Gays, and Old People, etc.... Funny as Hell and I don't see what you said. I guess I just don't take things personally like some.

Schizoid for sure 800lb. :D

Geez, got caught up with you 800lb. I forgot about the kiddo izzybar.

IZZYBAR ..... Your wrong. :/

the rules kind of blow. people can posts lies, and falsehoods all day long, which is neither productive, nor respectful, and at least, violates the spirit of code rule #1, but people cannot call names, or post derogatory things, no matter if they are true, or not.

i like the truth better than lies. i guess that is just my personal opinion, and although i do not like that aspect of the rules, i try to abide by them.

above all else respect others. this is rule #1.

these blatantly, biased seeds of misinformation show a lack of respect for everyone here.

gorilla, I agree that NV's allowing seeds/articles that are nothing but divisive vitriol, nasty rumor and innuendo is an insult to everyone here. But, this has been going on for a long time (look at the vicious, vile crap Driftwood used to seed - with never even a handslap).

Sadly, it appears that seeding/writing vitriolic, nasty garbage and total childish fabrication is not against the rules.

If we find something that is really bad, I think it would behoove us to not give it the time of day.

If we find something that is really bad, I think it would behoove us to not give it the time of day.

And yet ............... The comments from the peanut gallery go on and on and on. ((((shakes head))))

Posting is addicting, Ain't it.

800Gorilla,

If this had been one of those many,many hateful seeds by a Lefty/liberal and if I had commented against the seeder , and btw, I do not get angry or curse, my comment would have been "collapsed" or "deleted" because I have noticed this since I have been a NV member, for a FACT that it always happens.

for a FACT that it always happens.

using the english, language, logic, and reason, your statement cannot possibly be true.

please try again.

there are several from the left, who are clearly biased, but are fairly decent moderators, as there are some from the right. unfortunately, i feel we are severely lacking for good moderators, in general. there are so many real issues, which we could be discussing, and attempting to help find a solution. mostly, we are just spitting on one another. oh well. my wife watches all those bravo reality shows. i say this is more real.

disclaimer to all moderators:

your job is difficult, and cumbersome. while gorilla feels his debate skills are decent, he does not feel that he is yet up to the task to be any kind of decent moderator. i am not trying to be hypocritical. some are good, and some may not be, but i would be near the bottom of the pile, i am sure. i am too thin-skinned, which is weird, right? gorilla, and all.

conservative 10 - those were EXCELLENT links.

leonthecat,

No one could possibly take this drivel seriously.

I have NOT heard anything of substance to refute any item in this op-ed. All you lefty can do is criticize the messenger with reguritated rhetoric, from others on the left, as some kind of proof how intelligent you want to be.

Wolf Wolfman is more informed and intelligent than most of those critical of conservative reasoning. YES, reasoning! Not repeating what someone else said or told him to say. A member of the real 99% not the puppets claiming to represent it.

ps., I don't see Pres. Obama redistributing HIS wealth.

geez, why do they always have to play the race card? Who cares anymore? He could be pink, purple, or polkadoted...he's still an abysmal failure.

It is quite clear who the ignorant one here is.

When 3/4 of the country say we are headed in the wrong direction, and he's the bus driver - it's on him and he even said so HIMSELF...please educate YOURSELF before passing judgment on someone else.

Over 75% say we are headed in the WRONG direction. No matter how he tries to spin it, he himself stated the following:

a. "the buck stops with me"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmRgaKfWMPA&feature=player_embedded

b. "If I can't fix the economy in three years, I am a one term proposition"

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/obama-2009-if-economy-isnt-fixed-3-years-there-will-be-1-term-proposition

"If I can't fix the economy in three years, I am a one term proposition"

From his lips...

So fixing the economy would be a full recovery to the point prior to Dubya? Eight years of nosedive and three years to regain all the altitude. The economy has started the climb back, only the ostrich can't see, oh yeah and rush.

forget BUSH. Did BO say that OR NOT!!!???

And what's the great news on the economy??What, that we only have 367,000 people filing first time UI benes down 12,000 from last week???

Sheeze, pop the champagne bottle!

Here Read this:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12316

or this:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/31/federal-budget-deficit-to-dip-to-11t-cbo-says/

Sorry I don't have time to find the exact report.

forget BUSH. Did BO say that OR NOT!!!???

Well, no - your link cites it differently.

then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.

Whoops - I actually mis-copy,pasted.

If I don't have this done in three years, then there's gonna be a one-term proposition.

is rather different from

If I can't fix the economy in three years, I am a one term proposition