Obama White House is filled with danger

Posted by realchange (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AMEN!!

Posted by 1155co47 (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Carol! I got my laugh for the day.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What a joke. I suppose you are also one of those who think he wasn't born in the US huh.

"For those reading this, I ask you to educate yourself, be properly informed and prepared to vote for honest and patriotic candidates in our upcoming elections."

I imagine that by that statement you mean vote for candidates that you deem ok. Just because people you didn't vote for are in a position of power doesn't make them crooks. Or because you disagree with them politically that doesn't make them dishonest or not patriotic.

Posted by realchange (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ooh, lefty, can't you do better than that.....You have no facts to come back with because you know that she is absolutely correct.

There is going to be a shakeup in 2010, and yes, coming from democrats, republicans and independents, there is going to be some housecleaning done.....especially those who vote for the healthcare bill and the cap and trade and amnesty. That is why you are seeing some of the democrat senators and reps having 2nd thoughts.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All this talk about how controlling what the media can air when on Sunday on the nation faux news show, the bush administration's spokeswomen said that they limited what MSNBC could get access to.

What facts do I need? What facts does she present? 99% of what she says is an opinion. Where are your facts?

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

*national is what I meant to put, not nation.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again lefty where are your facts? Everytime you post you do not have facts. Just show us the facts and you may win. The problem is the white house is full of radicals. So you play the old don't look at the left hand bit. Easy way to shut us all up is to show us the facts.

Funny I think I will just get to hear about fox news again......

Posted by HenryLea (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The far right wing fringe lives and dies by delusion. Without delusion - they are nothing.

Posted by mankind (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

or due we have a letter writer that is upset because we have a president of color?????????

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow only took 5 hours before the race card was used. Again lots of attacks but no facts. Show us how these people are not what THEY say they are. Stop trying to change the subject. Just tell us how they are not socialist, communist, radicals. Because they have said in their own words and on video that they are socialist, communist, and radicals.

That is the problem with your denials they are never about the facts or what is true. It is always about attacking the person with the facts.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How is this fact?

"Kevin Jennings, Obama’s safe school czar. This man is anything but safe. All parents with school-aged children should be very wary of Mr. Jennings."

Why do facts need to be used to counter an argument that had no facts at all the start with.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anita Dunn, White House communications adviser, works to control information the media may air; Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to Obama, who believes health care should be rationed; Rahm Emanuel (brother to Ezekiel), White House chief of staff who is strong-arming any entity who may have differing views; Eric Holder, attorney general, who allegedly uses his position to decline prosecution of the New Black Panthers who allegedly stood over a Pennsylvania polling station with baseball bats allegedly intimidating voters and also wants to bring Guantanamo Bay prisoners to the United States; Valerie Jarrett, an adviser to Obama and sometimes called “the other side of Obama’s brain” who uses her position with Chicago tactics; and Kevin Jennings, Obama’s safe school czar. This man is anything but safe. All parents with school-aged children should be very wary of Mr. Jennings. Mark Lloyd, FCC diversity czar, is working to stifle our free speech and close down the air waves.

All of these are opinions or hear say.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John Ashcroft- Who blocked Ronnie White judgeship on the federal district court. Ashcroft opposed White, who was the first black judge on the Missouri Supreme Court, saying he was "pro-criminal" and "anti-death penalty." However, records indicate that White voted for the death penalty in 41 out of 59 cases. Was it really because he was racist?

So by using the logic used by this letter that "A man is known by the company he keeps," then Bush was a racist also. Is that correct?

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

President Obama's "safe schools czar," under fire from critics who say he's unfit for his job, acknowledged Wednesday that he "should have handled [the] situation differently" years ago when he was a schoolteacher and didn't report that a 15-year-old boy told him that he was having sex with an older man.

Kevin Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was teaching high school in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when the boy, a sophomore, confessed an involvement with a man he had met in a bus station bathroom in Boston. Jennings has written that he told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/...

Yesterday, two stories were reported regarding Obama’s czars. One from the LA Times, the other, a blogger called Zombie whose blog is called ZombieTime. The LA Times reported on the panel of five constitutional experts who testified before the Senate on the legality of Obama’s “Czars”. According the Times, Obama’s “extensive use” of czars is okay legally as long as the czars “do not overstep their authority”. Zombie posted a well documented story on Obama Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jenkins and a purported speech where he allegedly stated gay pioneer Henry Hay was an “inspiration”. Zombie posted an expose on Hay, who had “deep ties” with NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), a group that promotes sex with young boys. In other words, pedophiles.

Jennings’s problem: a speech he purportedly made in 1997, praising Hay as “someone who always inspired” Jennings. Zombie noted that Jennings has a “big” problem as Hay’s involvement in NAMBLA was documented prior to the 1994 book, “Becoming Visible”, a history of gay activism, which Jennings co-wrote and edited.

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/10/...

Not that hard to find facts.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYOfNB2ig...
In a speech before high school students last June, Dunn spoke passionately about her two favorite political philosophers, “the two people I turn to most” for answers to important questions like “how to do things that have never been done before.” Who are these paragons? One was Mother Teresa. Dunn didn’t have much to say about her. Most of her enthusiasm was lavished upon her other favorite fount of political wisdom: Mao Tse-Tung.

N.B.: Anita Dunn is not just an Obama hanger-on. She is part of his inner circle, one of his top aides, along with David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel, and Robert Gibbs. What does it mean that someone in that position proffers one of the greatest monsters the world has ever seen for emulation?

Anita Dunn calls Mao a “political philosopher.” In fact, as a real philosopher, the late, great Leszek Kolakowski, understood, Mao’s real achievement was as “one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, manipulator of large masses of human beings in the twentieth century.” His violent peasant revolution mouthed Marxist slogans, but at its core was less Marxist than a particularly rebarbative form of anarchic and anti-intellectual tyranny. “The obfuscation of Western admirers of Chinese Communism,” Kolakowski observes toward the end of his magnum opus, Main Currents of Marxism, “is scarcely believable.” I wish he were still here for Anita Dunn.
http://iluvsa.blogspot.com/2009/10/maois...

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.

The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.

"Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions" The Lancet, January 31, 2009

The Reaper Curve: Ezekiel Emanuel used the above chart in a Lancet article to illustrate the ages on which health spending should be focused.
Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

Now would you like to us to keep going? I wish we could quote the New York Times but they will not report anything that makes the President look bad because he is their guy.

News papers have lost the information war and the open minds have placed them where they belong..... In the trash.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about Alberto Gonzales, did you write an article about him?

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Odd how the first story was posted from faux news.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is another story from faux....

Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is an alleged ape-like creature purportedly inhabiting forests, mainly in the Pacific Northwest region of North America. Bigfoot is usually described as a large, hairy, bipedal humanoid.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do me one favor dfl, look up articles on the people that Bush had at the same posts then can talk.

How about faux never saying anything good about him. That "channel" saying that they are fair and balanced is like saying that the owner of the channel is not considering a run for the gop nomination.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Deflect deflect deflect. Way to go lefty keep up the good work. Never once do you address the facts. Does it matter what the facts are or is all about protecting your guy? Open your mind. You always revert back to but Bush did…. What about Bush???? It gets old. You asked for facts there they are. Yet you side step the issue. You will not face the reality that radicals are in charge. I would bet you are a follower of Cloward and Piven. You want to over whelm the system. You want a total collapse so that it can be reborn in the grand socialist opps I mean the grand progressive ideas you hold so dear. If you did not accept these people and their past you would question their beliefs. You would wonder why are these people so close to the President. You would demand answers. Heck if it was not true the white house should be out front and proving it false. They should use the state run media of MSNBC or CNN or the Times to print and report the truth. Why don’t they? Because they can not challenge this based on the facts. They can only get you talking about anything else but the facts. They are using you just like a magician uses slight of hand. Wake up do your own research open your eyes and you will see these people are what they say they are. Not what I say or others but what they call themselves Radicals, Socialist, Marxist, and Progressives. Listen to their words and watch their action. Take off your political blinders and you will see that the land you and I love is no longer the United States but is now the Socialist States of America. God help our children and grand children.

Posted by toby (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem with facts is nobody believes them when politics are involved..

All the harping about being socialist or communist are just the current buzzwords. Most of the people spouting it would not know a communist or socialist if they bit them in the you know where. Next time they talk to someone at church or the store they could be considered either.

Posted by realchange (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's face the only ones that are for a socialist health plans are the far left entitlement crowds. They claim compassion, but the fact is, they just heard free health care and that is what they want. free free free Keep in mind that nothing is free. it will either cost you money, or it will cost you quality........the reason that left talk radio doesn't make it is all they do is yell and scream, they never have any facts, or the "facts" they have are so skewed, it takes a person 2 seconds to prove it wrong if they just took the time to look. The only thing you’re doing lefty is living up your title......fortunately your dream of us becoming another Argentina or Cuba is not going to fly. And you may actually have to work for a living...like the 260 million already do...........

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Socialist or communist are the new buzz words? They have been around since 1917 plus. They have not changed their meaning nor have the the people who believe in them. These people listed here have said in their own words they are socialist. They are communist. They are marxist. Why is it so hard to believe what they say about themselves? They know full well what they are. They are proud of it. They believe that America is just like them. They want big government rule. They want to tell you how to live. They feel they are better than us. Why is it so hard to believe.

We don't teach our kids about communism anymore. We don't teach socialism. We don't teach capitalism. We tell them they are all special and winners. No one needs to fail and the government's job is to give you things. It is about me and I want it now!!!!!! They have no idea what the constitution says. It does not say the government will give you (socialism) it says you have the right to try and fail. Your property is yours. If you take a risk and it pays off than great if not don't come crying to us. These 20 something have no clue. They have been rasied to believe we should think they are special. Why because mom and dad have told them this all their life, you want it great here it is. Can't afford it no big deal charge it. Why start at the bottom. My teacher (parent etc.) told me I should get the big office right out of school. I failed the test well then I should be allowed to retake it until I get a passing greade. Wait we should not have grades. We are all equal. This is why some on the left look at health care as a right to be paid for by someone else. Oh well...... we always have unemployment and soon government cars.....

Posted by MITCHRAPPGUY (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

More than just buzzwords, we are talking about changing our way of life into one dependent on anyone other than ourselves. No motivation to succeed (because you will have to share that success with those "less fortunate") and a creation of one large lower class fed upon by black marketeers and a monster politcal system existing off the production of the masses. We currently have a mass of wimpy Euphorians thinking that kind of civilization would be heaven.
Anyone ever see the original movie of the "Time Machine"? Based on HG Wells classic, it tells of a future system of two classes of people, the peaceful but helpless Eloi, who spend their days getting free food, clothing and shelter, not having to work or produce. However, at night, the Morlocks take their pick of the Eloi for that nights dinner. Oops, guess those provisions weren't free after all.

Posted by MITCHRAPPGUY (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NO DFL, I feel your frustration trying to make sense to these people. Over 200 years in the making, and they want to wipe out everything people have worked hard for, and many more gave their lives for. They truly do feel they know better.
As for buzzwords, does anyone use "people of color" any more other than those who use it as a crutch? I repeat, white is a color. weak......

Great posts! Keep up the fight.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mitchrappguy,

Thank you. I see it every day and I have hit a point where I can no longer just sit and take it. All I ask is if these people are not socialist, radicals, marxist then prove it. Let the New York Times take up the fight. Let CNN bring them on and have them explain what they mean. Our words use to mean something. When they say things like "Dunn spoke passionately about her two favorite political philosophers, “the two people I turn to most” for answers to important questions like “how to do things that have never been done before.” It must mean something.

When I say my favorite political philosopher is Thomas Jefferson. It means something. It tells you who I am. I am willing to defend it. I will shout it from the roof tops. I will not run from it or call it a poor "joke".

When the man who is helping the white house plan government run health care says. "As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change." You must listen. He has the Presidents ear.

Our own President in his own words has said he surrounds himself with Marxist and radicals. He seeks them out. My dear sainted mother told me to chose my friends carefully because they were a refelction of me and my family. The President has made the choice and it is marxist, socialist, radicals who will not be happy until our country is destroyed.

Posted by mankind (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(MITCHRAPPGUYI feel your frustration trying to make sense to these people)
WOW I guess it must be nice for you and NoDFL to sit up there on your high horses and look down on all THESE PEOPLE. Thats what's wrong with the GOP today Greed has taken the place of compassion.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And compassion has taken the place of common sense. If you are for freedom you are greedy. If you are against the President you are a racist. Why is it always name calling? Where are your facts?

Please don't confuse the GOP with real patriotism. I sit on no high horse mankind. I state the facts but it is way easier to attack the person then to bring out the facts.

The President has radicals, Marxist, and Socialist all a round him. Tell me how much compassion does Ezekiel Emanuel have? He said "In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: "Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." (JAMA, May 16, 2007)."

" Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated "

You are right those around the President are so much more compassionate. Nice try but again their words and their action don't match what you put out as the facts.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is some more of that moral high ground you claim for the President and the people who suround him.

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).

Posted by BabyGotBack (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok - now I have to jump in here.

First of all, who on this post is using "people of color" as a crutch? This may come as a complete and utter shock to some of you but non-white people can be, and are, intelligent, educated, self-supporting and even successful. They can even be President! Imagine that!

Second, the term is used to describe people who are not white. White is a color but we are talking about race, not actual colors. The term was coined to describe non-Caucasian people, period. Nothing more, nothing less. It is just an expression. You don't like it, don't use it. Problem solved.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BabyGotBack,

Does this statement bother you?

"Posted by mankind (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

or due we have a letter writer that is upset because we have a president of color?????????"

Why is it that just because someone questions our President it becomes a matter of race? Are we not allowed to question his judgement? Look at his words and his action and those he has chosen to have advise him. Why can't we question him? Why do some people jump to the race card so fast?

I don't know if I would call it a crutch but I would call it a despreate act of last resort to deflect questions. Just wonder what you think?

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now lets see if Obama's words match his action. I recall he said no more special privilages. The era of big donors getting special privlages is over. Really lets see what the truth is.

High-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times.

One top donor described in an interview with The Times being given a birthday visit to the Oval Office. Another was allowed use of a White House-complex bowling alley for his family. Bundlers closest to the president were invited to watch a movie in the red-walled theater in the basement of the presidential mansion.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009...

Yep this guy is so much better than the last. He has changed things hasn't he.

Posted by veneratio (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well of course you do bgb, since you are the only true expert on all things of race. Thanks so much for setting us straight, jeez what is with people and their easily bruised egos when it comes to the mention of color, get over yourself and quit using it as a crutch to whine about the injustice you experienced today, where o where is it written that a person has the RIGHT to NOT be offended.

And it may come as a complete and utter shock, that people already know that people of color are smart, but I guess you still feel it is circa 1960 still?

Why was it ok to slam that moron bush, but y'all go berserk when someone picks on that caeta in the whitehouse or calls him out on a policy or his cabinet? I just love the double standard here, a few years ago it was patriotic for descent, now its un-American and on the verge of being treason. WOW, just wow how things get all twisted up in just a few short months.

How can most of you who voted for that caeta sit there and agree with how he is steering Congress and the Nation in general? Are you blind to what has happened to this country since the days of that moron FDR? The slow eventual shift of values, morals and decline of capitalism, and the destruction of what was once a GREAT CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC?

Is it your wish to emulate Europe and their style of failed governance? Or that all countries should be the same and practice the same type of government?

If you cannot see the people that man has surrounded himself with, and the corrupt politicians / judges, you are truly blind, and refuse the same very notion you accuse others of by not considering additional information from an outside source, or facts that may contradict what you have been lead to believe for years, the information is out there and you are sitting in front of a computer, use it.

The most powerful thing to possess is knowledge.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here here Veneratio.....

Posted by Culture_Warrior (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lefty's, you might as well give it up. Facts are stubborn things.

Posted by Pierre (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Facts are stubborn things. Thats why its so hard for the right to acknowledge that Obama is president. And its impossible for them to say hes done one good thing since he has taken office. Same exact thing happened from the left when Bush was in office. When you blindly follow one party and take all the baggage that goes along with that party your credibility is shallow.

Posted by MITCHRAPPGUY (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BGB I expected you to jump up as soon as I wrote my post. You don't have to explain to me what "people of color" means, I see it mis-used every week, and yes, used as a crutch as if somehow that makes something alright or "oh, that person must be special"

Colors would be more invisible if people would make less of an issue of them, or use it in an attempt to explain thats why they way they are. Or a person could be like Oprah and use it opportunistically whenever it suits her. Those people are pathetic.

Venetario beat me to the response, and said it quite well. I don't believe too many people in the world look to Albert Lea for the current pulse of race relations.

Pierre, I acknowledge Obama is president. I did what I could to prevent that at the ballot box. You are right, people do blindly follow party lines regardless of the individual. I have voted both parties in the past, and rarely vote without it being a mixed ballot. However, I find this current political direction untenable, and potentially disastrous. America has lost much of its direction in the last few decades, and the population needs to become stronger within, and not increasingly soft and helpless as they are currently being encouraged to do.

Posted by Disgusted (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The President is being judged by his actions, the company he keeps, and the legislation he is backing. The color of his skin has a dampening effect on the uproar against his policies. The constant yelling of racist, racist, etc. by the liberals has been responsible for that. It is their only defense when the truth is told.

Posted by realchange (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You are so right Disgusted, that is the only comeback they have, but the fact that he is in office just shows that race has absolutely nothing to do with it. The liberals are so desperate for anything they are playing that card, but unfortunately for them it isn't working. Far left Liberals are the only ones that have an issue with race.

Posted by Truthbetold (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

20 years from now, all the facts and truths will come out about Obama and his cronies... the media (all media) is starting to catch on... it's not just Fox News reporting the truth now... it's about time. Next Tuesday, 2 Republican Governors will win election and that will set the tide for the 2010 elections... which incumbents (both Dems and Republicans) will be out! It's about time!

Posted by BabyGotBack (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow - did I strike a nerve or what???

The most respectful poster back to me was NoDFL. So to answer your question, what bothers me the most about the statement made was that the word "due" should have been "do". :)

I have no issues with those who have criticisms of the President. It's a free country.

To Mitch and Veneratio - Not all minorities use their race as a crutch. Some do, most don't. In fact, there are white people who claim discrimination based on race. Some are legitimate, some aren't. My post was addressing the "person of color" term. If you don't like the term, don't use it. Your problems are solved.

Actually, wasn't it white people who coined the term "colored" in this country? I don't think many black people are the ones who hung the "colored" signs up on the separate bathrooms or drinking fountains they had to use.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BGB,

I like the way you answered my last question. :) However I do find it wrong that when someone questions the President or his advisors they are labled racist.

I believe in the words that we must judge a man by his character not his color. If more people would stand up and say stop bringing race into this we would all be better off. It cheapens the agrgument and hurts anyone who is a true victim of racism.

Again wondering if you think that always playing the race card weakens the agruement?

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mitch,

Have you notice that they never attack the facts only the messenger. What they don't get is (at least for me) it is not about the party. They will say look at my name. My name is a stand aginst the party in charge. I am against both parties right now. Bush spent not as much as Obama but he spent a lot. he bailed out banks, he thought he could buy votes like the Dem. He couldn't. No one wants a Liberal-light. Paint the differences in Bold colors as Regan said. Say what you mean and mean what you say. I may not always agree with you or I may not vote for you but I will respect you.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Far left Liberals are the only ones that have an issue with race."

-Anything you ever write again holds zero credibility.

Posted by veneratio (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BGB, No nerve struck here, but what I was getting at was the mention of race and you make your appearance. Other than that if people want to call each other names and use racial overtones towards each other I could careless, but the minute they feel the need for special treatment because of their color or past grievances of their ancestors I have no patients for such nonsense. I judge a person solely on their actions and by their character and the company they keep, a POS is a POS no matter what his / her race is. I also hate labels as in Irish-American, or Spanish-American, it only furthers the division.

People who continue to use race when race was not even remotely a factor against another person because of their viewpoints is weak-mined and grasping at straws in order to feel superior instead of debating the facts.

Posted by BabyGotBack (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NoDFL - I like you! You actually bring up good points while being respectful.

So you answer your question. When anyone plays the race card, it is a problem because it detracts from real racism. There is no question in my mind that there are people who keep using their race as an excuse for why they can't get ahead.

I was raised that if people don't like you for your race, that is their problem and you don't let it be yours. If anything, it can make you work harder to prove "the haters" wrong.

I did see an e-mail that went around during the election about Obama that asked if you would want him as your President. You clicked on some link and there were pictures of him with his African side of the family. I had to laugh at the complete ignorance and stupidity of that one. It went on accusing him of being Muslim, etc. Whatever.

But on a serious note, what that said is that someone like me shouldn't be President because part of my family is African. You can say he shouldn't be President because of his political agenda but to say that he shouldn't because he is part African? That I take issue with!

Posted by BabyGotBack (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

veneratio - I just simply wanted to address the "people of color" expression used by Mitch. I get that white is an actual color but that term is used to describe people that are non-white. If anyone doesn't like the term, don't use it and your problem is solved.

Maybe I read into the posts but I also wanted to make it clear that not every non-white person plays the race card.

Posted by MITCHRAPPGUY (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets clarify..."I" did not bring the phrase up, so the expression was not really "used by Mitch".....would never use it.....I don't see people in terms of color. Why would anyone? So issue not solved by me not using the phrase..and thats too bad. Nowhere in my posts does it say "all minorities use race as a crutch..." My point was to get those that do use race as an excuse to try something different. Sigh.......

Posted by BabyGotBack (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When I read your post, you asked if people used the term "People of color" and asked if the only people who used it were those who used race as a crutch. So I'll answer you directly.

Yes, the term is still used by some people. No, it is not used exclusively by people who use race as a crutch.

Using race as a crutch detracts from real racism issues.

Posted by realchange (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know why or how the race thing came up. Not to like the president simply because he is black is not a good thing. But liking him just because he is black is also not a good thing. I don't think anyone has ever brought that up.
Bottom line, most of the people that are criticizing Obama are against his policies. He is being judged by his character, or lack thereof. Let's get away from the race issue; it is too full of words and no substance. He is a Marxist and not good for America.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BGB,
Be careful about saying you like me. I would hate for you to be attack. :) No really thank you for the kind words. I find we (all people) are to quick to jump to race not to help but to blame. We use it as a way to attack ideas or people. The race card has become the "I know you are but what am I" responce once reserved for the school yard.

There are real problems in the white house. The people who are around day after day and who the President talks to and listen to are radicals and Marxist.

Mitch,

It is ok I understood what you were saying. You were using the words I posted to ask the same questions. Why? Why do we lower ourself to this. Why? when you question the President you are a racist. I get it. I would never call you that and I think others feel the same way. Please keep up the good fight.

Realchange,
Thanks for sayingwhat I feel again. You are spot on.

To all,

"All Tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent" Thomas Jefferson.

Don't be afraid to ask the hard questions. Who are these people who have the Presidents ear? Why do they believe in Marxism? Why do they want to destroy America? Demand answers. Do not be side tracked by the unwillingness of those in power to answer you. Ask again and again if needed. Don't fear them. Trust your gut.

Posted by MissIndependent (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is anyone as concerned as I am on the public option now back on the table? How are we going to pay for this??? What I am also alarmed about is how we don't hear any other options for health care reform. All we hear is "public option" or "cut rates/Medicare". Why can't we focus on improving what we have through elimination of frivolous lawsuits, directing people to appropriate levels of care (you don't need the ER for a hangnail), increased medical fraud detection and increased attention on Medicaid fraud?

I admit to skipping poly sci and econ in college but how can we keep spending money we don't have? We wasted enough money in Iraq fighting the wrong country, we have bailed out failed industries (still fuming over the auto industry in particular) and just when I didn't think it could get any worse, it has!

If this health care reform makes my life worse after implementation, I will make sure to vote against every politician that supported it.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good questions MissIndependent. The public option is hated by most yet the politicians can't get away from it. They own to many favors to the people who got them elected.

Sorry to hear you skipped econ in college. It is a class I think everyone should have and we should start teaching our kids it in kindergarden economics. If we did we maybe able to turn the tide of socialism.

Posted by MITCHRAPPGUY (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent, we are back to the issue of the post, thank you missindependent.

Posted by trifid (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The floundering manic consumers attack socialism. Meanwhile they send their precious children to public(socialist) schools, drive their gas hogs on public(socialist) roads, ......and buy endless junk at MalWart manufactured in a Communist dictatorship. Total hypocrits.

Communism or socialism is okay as long as its cheap and convenient and spiced up with a pinch of imperialistic thuggery.

Posted by trifid (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 11:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Collecting "facts" from MSNBC or FOX News reminds me of the fabled chicken farmer who consults the fox on the best method of protecting his flock.

Amazing how so many be duped. Amazing. It has something to do with religion.

Posted by ErnieGann (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where are YOUR facts, trifid? How would you buttress your argument? All you have to present is opinion.

FACTS are pesky things that liberals like to ignore. Perhaps it is because facts remind liberals of REALITY--and liberalism can't survive in the real world.

"Facts are to liberals as Kryptonite is to Superman."

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Facts are to liberals as Kryptonite is to Superman."

Love that line

Posted by trifid (anonymous) on November 15, 2009 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LoL. All these "facts" are dust in the wind.

A train-load of facts is useless without a track(ethics). The conquest of religion and ethics by primal survival instincts becomes more clear as I read this forum. Investments over empathy. Me over them. Greed over compassion. Self-righteous over compromise. Hypocracy over convictions.