Posted by Bryant (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is funny.

You know, if you are going to rant about how the Republicans are too cowardly to stand up to Rush, perhaps liberals should stand up to the likes of moveon.org and George Soros? The democrats have proven themselves so cowardly, that they did not stand up for a serviceman when he was cowardly attacked through the NY Times.

Speaking of Godfathers, how about the liberal godfather Franklin D. Roosevelt and his executive order 9066? How is it that he was never charged for any crimes when he locked up American citizens for no reason other than they had slanted eyes and had Japanese blood? Also, why is it that the liberals were so cowardly that they refused to apologize for that crime and it took Ronald Reagan to apologize for what FDR did 40+ years later?
Remember, your liberal godfather was a racist who locked up people who committed no crimes and were never charged. That is your guy. He is your liberal godfather. Now, because of the likes of FDR and the liberals, it is impossible to for anyone to get elected without out promising the electorate money from the treasury. Your party made that happened. The founders would view your party as Un-American because they all believed in the ideals of republicanism. You know small, weak government / a population independent from government. Now because of liberals, the American people are now addicted to the government like an addict is addicted to drugs.

Your party has destroyed the founder’s dreams. Congrats.

Why is it that people like you made Clinton's crime about oral sex, when it was about committing perjury? You do know that lying to a federal grand jury is a crime? Unless, of course, your a democratic president.

Why is it that when anyone criticizes your messiah, the standard response is...."Yeah, but Bush blah blah blah." When that is your only defense, you really don't have one.

Of course liberals will deny and rationalize. That is what the liberals are good at.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Both are the same. Vote 3rd, 4th, and 5th party now before it's too late. Stop worshiping at the alter of one of these two parties and you will start to see that they are way to similar. One complains about the other for something and then in a couple of years does the same thing and it's the first ones time to complain all the while spending my hard earned money like crazy on stuff I didn't want them to spend it on.

Posted by jibberish66 (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we may be past the point of no return, folks. Pointing fingers at Reagan, FDR, etc. isn't helping. The genius we elected this time around, because of the historical significance, is digging a hole at a rate faster than all of those dead presidents put together. He's throwing us, and our children in it.
Welcome to the U.S.S.A. It's not coming. It's here.

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Have you Kansans considered seceding from the union?

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People, neither and both political parties are destroying this country and pure unadulterated " GREED " is the driving force behind this countrys woes and has been the problem and driving force behind this countrys woes for numerous decades now and both or all political parties, politicians and those who buy politicians and political parties favors by means of basically, legal bribery, called lobbying by professional, paid lobbyists are the main ones to bear responsibility for this countrys current and past woes !
A good start to fixing the problem would be to absolutely ban all means of lobbying and lobbyists and to impose catastrophic penalties and fines on anyone engaging in lobbying, accepting any and all lobbying efforts and immediate expulsion from public office or public service for life !

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is anyone even talking about Republicans anyway? Aren't they pretty much gone? What there's like two left or something like that? Why waste your time writing about one guy wimpering in the corner? Democrats, are you sore winners or what? You like kicking a dead horse? Dang, give it a rest.

Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 11:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am in the camp that thinks we need a strong third party, because the common working folks are getting the shaft from both the Dems and GOP. I am a registered Republican, but I have some real issues with the party right now. I also don't agree with most of this editorial.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 5:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For those who want to know who and what political party caused the current situation in the U.S. go to the following link and read ! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31199889

Posted by Bryant (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the article Methusla.

That same article says that Obama is making it worse. I would have to agree.

Thanks again.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4u
Why a fair trial?

Posted by Joe_Strummer (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Alfalfa....agree 100%.
Republican here who is also sick of both parties, not to mention the us vs. them mentality of the members on both sides.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Does Barney Frank get investigated too????????

For those who may have remembered earlier editorials by this guy, he is certifiable looney with an IQ somewhere below 60. Nuttier than a fruitcake. Nearly all his "claims" are easily disproved to be in fact pretty much the opposite of what he dreams up in his drug-induced stupors, such as a claim on an earlier rant that Repubs all loved wars & killing because they didn't have any kids of their own in the military (stats show just the opposite, more Repubs in Congress have children in the military than Dems) - etc, etc...........

Not even going to bother with this nut. I don't get any particular thrill taking candy from babies. Sure, plenty of crooks in the GOP. Roughly as many as in the Dem party. Only slightly less now, since there are more Dems than GOP in Congress. Once they are the majority again, then there will be more GOP crooks than Dem, and so on, and so on......

Look over there, Gary! A flying Donkey!!!! (Everybody run to another editorial now while he's looking.....)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This link is from MSNBC itself so maybe liberals who disagree with it will at least read it if it was printed there.......

Ohio State University study (2009) finds that conservatives are more open-minded in reading opposing points of view than liberals:

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread...

"It appears that people with these characteristics (conservative) are more confident in their views and so they're more inclined to at least take a quick look at the counterarguments," Knobloch-Westerwick noted.

Among the political blog readers, a similar trend emerged in which "liberals read almost exclusively liberal blogs, but conservatives tend to read both," Davis said."

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Alfalfa & Joe
I too agree with your statements.
Especially the us vs them.
Then I read what yy4u prints and I remember the vs them part.
Open_eyes while we're after Barney we might as well put yy4u in there with him. I think you're discription of barney fits them both

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

excuse the misprint.
your description

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 10, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually tbluma, my description was of the person that wrote this editorial, his rants generally make about as much sense as asking what color is the number "5" but it probably fits Barney pretty well also. That's what it takes to get regularly re-elected these days in the good old USA. As for YY4U he was probably just joking as there isn't enough room in Guantanamo unless we relocate all the Dems that belong there elsewhere first - LOL Or put the whole bunch of crooks together in one house and let them fight it out amongst themselves.

Oops, I forgot, we already have that. It's called the Senate and the House of Representatives. And we've already got people who are certifiable nitwits heading both of them :)

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

George Bush ordering the waterboarding of 3 people is the same as mass extermination?

There are some real loons out there, which is not surprising, but for a newspaper to print this? Wow.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are quite a few people that blame Bush for Hurricane Katrina and they are very serious.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I watched the movie "Defiance" last night, based on a true story during the Holocaust. I was struck by how much Mr. Lukert reminded me of Hitler and the Nazis. So fanatical and certain of their righteousness, no considering any other point of view, such as what atrocities in Iraq were ENDED (Saddams) by Bush. Or those in Iraq (and there are many, just ask many soldiers serving over there) who appreciate what the US has done. I'm not trying to start another Iraq war argument over justification but any sane person (which the writer of this editorial unfortunately is not) has to realize there are valid points on both sides to be made.

I also agree with much in the article posted above by methusla, but I also see a couple of things the writer did not account for, mostly 9/11. He mentioned nowhere the huge shock that did to our (and the worlds) economy, and did not adjust projections for that.

Does anyone believe that, for instance, had Bill Clinton somehow been elected to a third term, or someone exactly like him (Hillary or Gore) - that they would have gotten thru 9/11 without the surplus turning into a deficit? Really?

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

According to Rosie O'Donnell and other moderates believe 9/11 was a hoax set up by Bush so he could start wars and get oil for his slip n' slide. The liberals believe the same thing but also believe he wanted the oil for his bicycle chain.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Has anyone compared how much of this "oil" has went into Bush's account, compared to how much global warming $$ has went into Gore's? Gore's worth over $100 million now, and according to this, Bush's worth actually dropped during his presidency......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

In another article, so has Jebs...... Cheney is close to Gore, but he started out with alot more, so Gore still is running the better scam.......... I'll give the libs the nod on this one. Bush wasn't smart enough to get in on the better scam..........

Posted by paulkersey (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes,

My favorite thing about Gore's little crusade was during the Live Earth concert, a list was put out of ten things you could do to reduce your environmental impact, and one of them was to buy your music online instead of buying CD's. What they forgot to mention was that Al Gore sits on the board of a little company called Apple, which happens to own and operate the largest online music store. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for alternative energy, if for no other reason than to flip Iran and the rest of OPEC the proverbial bird.

Another one of my favorite things about the liberal left is the way they were screaming that we shouldn't be the world police when we went into Iraq, and then six months later were screaming that we need to stop the fighting in Darfur.

One last question maybe someone can help me with. Right before the Iraq War kicked off, there were all of those celebrities who said they were going to be human shields in Iraq, because the US Air Force couldn't POSSIBLY drop a bomb on Michael Moore or Alec Baldwin. I believe a reporter asked an Air Force general what they would do if these celebrities used themselves as shields in Iraq, and I believe his answer was the Air Force would use bigger bombs. Why don't these celebrities go to Iraq and use themselves as human shields for US troops?

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have a middle finger on my left hand, and a middle finger on my right hand. I'll be voting third party.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"and one of them was to buy your music online instead of buying CD's"

What a bunch o crud! You can't even get Logjam's music online because they don't believe in the internet. Thanks but no thanks Mr.Gore. Logjam's music alone can heal the planet of what ails it.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought that was Bill & Ted's music that would bring the universe into harmony? (And no, I don't mean Clinton & Kennedy - the "Excellent Adventure" ones..... :)

Don't worry about Gore. I've agreed to not cut down enough trees that I never had any intention of cutting down anyway to give him enough carbon offset credits to run his 20X the average electricity sucking mansion & private plane without guilt of being a hypocrite.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U
Why a fair trial?

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I watched Bill and Ted's just a few weeks ago ......................... CLASSIC!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If times get hard (moreso than already) - I'll be looking to get thrown in Guantanamo Bay - from what I see they're treated pretty darn good down there. Either that or renounce my American citizenship so I can take advantage of all the freebies.

Got this on email - a funny to pass along:
=========================
Take Down the Bird Feeder:

I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it is, as I filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.
But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue. Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table... everywhere!
Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket. And others birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.
After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore.. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.
Soon, the back yard was like it used to be.... quiet, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.
Now let's see. Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, and free education and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.
Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English. Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to 'press one' to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than 'Old Glory' are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.
Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.
If you agree, pass it on; if not, continue cleaning up the poop!
=====================

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty"

If that doesn't sound like what is happening right now I don't know what does. I'm glad I can escape the worries of this world by spinnin' my Logjam 45s.

Posted by Bryant (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

'It depends what your definition of 'sex' is?''
- Bill Clinton

'That Obama - I would like to cut his NUTS off.'
- Jesse Jackson

'Those rumors are false .... I believe in the sanctity of marriage.'
- John Edwards

'I invented the Internet'
- Al Gore

'The next person that tells me I'm not religious, I'm going to shove my rosary beads up their ASS.'
- Joe Biden

' America is--is no longer, uh, what it--it, uh, could be, uh, what it was once was...uh, and I say to myself, 'uh, I don't want that future, uh, uh for my children.'
- Barack Obama

'I have campaigned in all 57 states.
- Barack Obama (Quoted 2008)

'You don't need God anymore, you have us Democrats..'
- Nancy Pelosi (Quoted 2006)

'Paying taxes is voluntary.'
- Sen. Harry Reid

'Bill is the greatest husband and father I know. No one is more faithful, true, and honest than he.'
- Hillary Clinton (Quoted 1998)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Now, do these folks (terrorist detainees) deserve miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not."
Obama, 2003

U.S. Lawmaker Says Obama Administration Ordered FBI to Read Rights to Detainees
June, 2009

"Them Jews ain't going to let him (Obama) talk to me."
Mr (I refuse to call him "Reverend") Wright, June 2009:

Or, some really funny jokes (with a twist of my own):

"Michelle Obama bought makeup from Bloomingdale's to update her "slutty flight attendant" look."

"One awkward moment for Michelle Obama at the Yankee game......during the seventh inning, her (underage) daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

David Letterman (mostly), June, 2009.

Hey, whats the matter? How come nobody's laughing at the last 2? They were funny when Letterman said them, right? Nothing has changed but the name....... is it my delivery? My comedic timing off? Darn, gotta work on that some more....... Those Darn Republicans........

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gosh, it just dawned on me..... isn't Wright's remarks like "them Jews" hate-mongering? Did that fan the flames of the nut that opened fire at the Holocaust museum & killed the guard?

I'm 100% positive we'll see a Patrick Kelley editorial any day now condemning Wright just as much as he condemned the right on the Tiller case........... yep........ or maybe he'll cover the Muslim that killed the Army recruiter, since there seems to be only about 1 network that covers it, and he needs to do so also to help "balance" things...... yep....... :)

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, somebody making fun of George W. Bush! How completely original! Finally someone gets some new material! I hadn't heard before that there were people who had bad things to say about Bush! WOW! You learn something new everyday! WOW! New! (blows raspberry and points thumbs down)

Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on June 11, 2009 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Up until a few months ago I was proud to be a Republican. Alot has changed now. I can't help but get the feeling us ordinary folks are getting played by two groups of people much more interested in their own futures than any of ours, and we let it happen. I am not old but not young either and I don't remember a time when this nation was more divided. The leadership of both parties keep the flames of discontent stirred I suspect to keep their own membership from taking a long hard look at the job they are doing(or not doing) for their constituents.

We need a party run by ordinary people, where people go to DC and Topeka to serve, and then come home, not to make a lifelong career of politics. We need true representative government, where the law makers know what it is like to worry about a mortgage, struggle to look after elderly parents, and work for a living, right now we do not have that.

Posted by create (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Why is it that when anyone criticizes your messiah, the standard response is...."Yeah, but Bush blah blah blah." When that is your only defense, you really don't have one."

And the blah, blah, blah about FDR etc. didn't accomplish the same thing? Oh Puhleeze!

Barney Bashing again, open_eyes? Poor little dog. All he did was snap at one reporter.

I'm with alfalfa. Lower term limits so that the powercats can't get a toe hold and to learn that they are in Washington to solve problems and work toward a strong economy that benefits all, not just the few.

I suggest everyone watch Frontline on PBS this coming Tuesday evening. Were there threats involving TARP monies?

Posted by create (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I meant to add this link that offers a trailer for Frontline, Tuesday, June 16, PBS.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

alfalfa:

You have hit the nail on the head, but look at who have announced so far.
Brownback leaving D.C. and going to run for Gov.
Barnett running for congress after state senate.
Winsong for congress after serving forever on Brownback's staff in D.C.
Moran running again?????????
Jim Ryan???????????????
And on and on it goes.
This disalusioned Republican is going to stay republican just to vote against the doctor in the primary, and then vote for the best person, (either party or hopefully a third party).

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry I meant Rob Wasinger running for congress after serving on Brownbacks staff.

Haven't had coffee yet.

Posted by jcook66801 (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve, I am right there with you on this....

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"ALL he did was snap at one reporter????????"

Create, you GOTTA start getting out more.......... you're obviously kidding........ right?

Posted by create (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought you knew me better than that, open_eyes. LOL

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL - You really had me worried there for a moment, create..... :)

I SO agree with everyone on term limits. Been ranting about that for a long, long time.

So now that the gov is trying to limit exec pay/compensation, how about they do the same to themselves? Tie their raises into approval ratings or something? Well, we already know Bush lost money during his tenure, (despite all the "oil" claims)....... Barney should be washing dishes or digging ditches somewhere (yes, all for just.... uh.....snapping at a reporter :). Oops, forgot. He still has good approval ratings - got re-elected easily. Well, there goes that suggestion........ I'm more for voters having to take a quickie knowledge test of the candidates & issues before being allowed to vote. Oh, and proving they are legal American citizens, also...... but I'm told that would be un-patriotic........ of course, simply saying "no" to illegals voting is not "offering a solution", so I guess that just makes me another obstinate-partisan-party-of-no......

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/0...

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd love to see a third, fourth, and possibly a fifth party but it won't happen and soon there will be only one. Congratulations socialists you have won.

"At any given moment, millions are struggling with their habit or worrying about loved ones who smoke," said Obama.
His signature would then add tobacco to other huge, nationally important areas that have come under greater "government supervision" since his presidency began. Those include banking, housing and autos. Still to come, if Congress can agree: health care. "

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's very sad that any party takes control only because the previous has messed it up hopelessly, if for no other reason. Not saying that is necessarily the case that is coming but it could happen, it pretty much happened in the last election, people didn't really know or understand what change they wanted or were getting, just change. And I agree..... once we get much further down this road there is no returning. I'm sure we'll see a push for amnesty and/or illegal voting before the next election.....especially if it looks like the Dems might lose total control...... government handouts are a highly addictive drug, pure and simple.....

Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Observation, the problem is, I am pretty sure the Republicans will not help much if they do win big. It is just a back and forth game of promises and deceit, and we are pawns.

Just my two cents, it appears to me our nation is broke, if not darned close. Yet we(our government) is acting like we aren't. There are alot of things we will no longer be able to do and still be able to service the massive national debt we have just taken on, things like police the world, give aid to every single poor nation in need, foot the biggest share of the bill for the UN, etc. The same applies at the state and local levels. For far too long spending tax money has been far too easy. Walk into the Lyon county courthouse and look around. How much money was spent to make it "purty". We could pay our taxes and go to court in a Butler building as far as that goes, but the powers that be wanted to make a statement...that is fine if you have the money in the bank, much riskier and alot less prudent if you don't.

Posted by giggles (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's sad that we parties to begin with. What is wrong with going with the person that just makes the most sense, and has the closest values? Parties have caused problems from the beginning. Now too many sheep just go with the flock, rooting for the home team.
Often this "team" has had some obvious steroid use and other methods like cheating when the ref is not looking.
Parties just split the nation when it doesn't need to be split.
We need to revamp the govt. Start over.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I like the start over idea. One (actual)conservative party and one libertarian party. This fiscally liberal crudstink will be the death of this nation, fiscal conservatism is a must.

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Barney should be washing dishes or digging ditches somewhere (yes, all for just.... uh.....snapping at a reporter :). Oops, forgot. He still has good approval ratings - got re-elected easily."

I'm not certain why you are so concerned about an elected official who is not your representative.

The constituents of Mr. Frank's congressional district apparently share his beliefs, trust his judgement and support his actions, otherwise he wouldn't have been re-elected. The same can be said for your elected official, Mr. Moran and the citizens of the Big First District.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The constituents of Mr. Frank's congressional district apparently share his beliefs"
Dang, we sure like to assume large groups of people are all the same because the tiniest bit of evidence says it might be so. "All people in red states are this way." "Everyone in urban areas are environmentalists with Blackberries that think printed news is the devil." "Everyone that could vote for Barney Frank did and agrees with him 100%." toooooooooo funny

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Umm, okay. (strange)

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I recognize Mr. Frank is not from California. What's your point?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barney Frank was the ranking Democrat in 2003 on the Financial Services Committee. Despite many warnings to the contrary that Freddie/Fannie were headed for disaster, not to mention they were in the middle of paying fines for misstating earnings by nearly $5 BILLION. Despite the President calling for more oversight to hopefully prevent a catastrophe, he stated "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis". Later after others on the same committee with him (that killed Bush's initiative) came out publicly and said "WE WERE WRONG - WE MADE A BIG MISTAKE" - he has continually claimed he was correct. And, to reward him for his incompetence, the Democratic Party made him the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee which oversees the housing and banking industries.

You would think, that we could surely find someone a little more intelligent, or honest, or able to see what was happening (after all, even Bush saw it, and so many of you seem to consider him an idiot, so what does that make Barney????) to chair a committee like that.....for instance, that tree over there...... at least it was neutral on the issue.....

That DID and DOES affect me. If he was SOLELY in charge of finances in his home state it would be different.

Hey, there's alot of ignorant and mis-informed people in this country. I can't help it if in some instances they seem to be grouped together in certain geographic locations. But then again, that's the beauty of our system - 100 idiots get to hold sway over 99 informed people. Again, I'm all for voters passing a short test before they get to cast a vote. And no passing out cheat-sheets, ACORN........

Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't spend much time reading these blogs. I check in from time to time for the sake of a good laugh. You people are so uncouth.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

""Michelle Obama bought makeup from Bloomingdale's to update her "slutty flight attendant" look."

"One awkward moment for Michelle Obama at the Yankee game......during the seventh inning, her (underage) daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

David Letterman (mostly), June, 2009.

Hey, whats the matter? How come nobody's laughing at the last 2? They were funny when Letterman said them, right? Nothing has changed but the name....... is it my delivery? My comedic timing off? Darn, gotta work on that some more....... Those Darn Republicans........"

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll field those, and I'll tell you why, it's funny. When Letterman made those comments about Palin looking like a slutty flight attendant I had good laugh, well because she kinda does! Anyone half a wit could figure out that his comments were aimed at Bristol Palin, she was the one in headlines. To be honest I think its an attempt by BOTH parties to grab some free press. I've heard worse muttered about public figures over the years, they ignore it, and it goes away, that is public life. Remember Falwell VS. Flynt?

I don't know how else to put this, the media had a field day with Bush because Will Ferrell nailed him, it was funny, same with Tina Fey and Palin. I saw them try to go after Obama many a time on SNL and it just was not funny, some people are just easier to mock then others, they had 0 problems with Clinton, those were some great skits as well. Conversely the McCain skits were not that great, to each his own.

I truly hope Palin does not get the nomination in 2012, because it will mean another landslide for the Dems, and we need competition to keep things honest(or honest as they can be), they run a decent candidate they might even get my vote!

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do you think that there is even going to be an election in 2012? Really? I think those days are gone.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At least use a nosehair clipper sundance, good grief, its so uncouth to be looking up your nostrils all the time.....

Hey, I just asked why it wasn't just as funny. I didn't complain about the originals.

Besides, anyone with half a wit could figure out there was something awfully fishy smelling about the Palin didn't know Africa was a continent story, I said so at the time. But it turned out a whole bunch of people (including many on this board) were missing at least half a wit........funny how what people want to believe shades what they do believe...

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whether its knowing what her role was as VP, or a continent, or one of the many other moronic things she does(like stating today on Matt Lauer that David Letterman should not be trusted around 14 year old girls) the fact remains, she is an idiot. I saw more of her family than all the other candidates combined in the election and events leading up to it, and she is mad now that they are up for scrutiny? Sorry, cat's out the bag.

Don't hear much about her 93% approval rating anymore do we? Maybe because its in the low 50's now and falling further, hell a democratic senator up there has as high if not higher ratings than her. My money is even if she ran for another term she stands a good chance at not getting elected. There is a reason people laugh, mock and generally question her ability, because it is funny to watch her flop around and make a fool of herself, she makes it way to easy.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not really a "party", but a group of like minded people none the less, Logjam never says any thing stupid. They are too humble to admit it but it's true. They feel that the lyrics on their second album, "what the dog gots"(as the die hard fans call it), were stupid but I say "NO WAY!". For example look at the song "Asphalt Grocery Store", "Nevermind them bumper marks, thems is some good eatin', you're not that picky, you're just a doin' too much thinkin' ". I don't care who you are those are haunting lyrics. So I think it's safe to say that you and I say some stupid things but Logjam proves that we "all" don't not always say some stupid things alot.

"He's burnin' wood again! Yeah!"
Long live Chaps!

Seriously R. Folks

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, if Palin is an idiot, then that must make Biden, what..... tree moss? He didn't exactly nail the VP role either..... again, I never said alot of it wasn't funny, but when I ask why the converse isn't true.... I always get lame answers like the above. I pretty much see the media going after certain people hard, and handling others with kid gloves and velvet pillows. SNL skit about the Hillary/Obama debate handing him a pillow pretty much nailed it. And it continues still. A united, biased media can pretty much give whatever impression of anyone they want, we've all come to discover lately. But if someone would have said a thing like that about a 14 year old daughter of mine I'd have given them an earful as well. I think that anyone who would get on national TV and make a joke like that about young girls shouldn't be trusted either. But in reality, no I don't REALLY believe he can't be, just as I have "half a wit enough" to realize that Palin doesn't really believe he can't be trusted either, but I have "half a wit enough" to realize she is just slamming back at him in a derogatory manner for his totally uncouth remarks. Chit for chat. There seem to be alot of half of a wits missing around here these days. But this thread isn't about Palin, nor was my remark meant to spark yet another totally useless debate with those who's minds are so made up beforehand that they perceive everything in the context that they desperately want to believe it was meant to be. It was about limits of good taste and how people let their bias affect that these days. So I'll just end this particular post reprinting a couple of quotes:

"People's families are off limits, and people's children are especially off limits." - Barack Obama, 2008.

"....her family......and she is mad now that they are up for scrutiny" - goodoleboy, 2009.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Speaking of approval ratings, there has been only 1 president since FDR that never had approval ratings below 50%, John F. Kennedy (56). And none since Kennedy have ever managed to keep their approval ratings from ever dropping to 37 or lower. In the same timespan, every president has had peak approval ratings at least higher than Nixon's best of 67, 4 with better peaks than Kennedy's best. Just some interesting FYI.
Not sure what I'm trying to say. I don't know if a person's perceived intelligence goes up and down with their approval rating, or whether the fickle American public really knows what they are doing or what they want half the time - LOL

Just a Stat Nerd :)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I meant to add, and Barney Frank consistently wins re-election by wide margins. Despite all of America seeing him caught repeatedly in outright lies of incompetence & denial. (Well those that aren't married to MSNBC, anyway). Go figure. Maybe its because its politically incorrect to vote against a gay person, because you'll immediately be branded as a homophobe, like all the Tea Party people were racists? Hmmmm.......

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I see it, if you don't want to put your family up for a good scrutinizing, etc., you had better not place yourself in the public limelight, because your family becomes fair game also, whether it is ethical, right or not, thats just the way it is and has been for at least the last 16 years or so and getting worse every year !
Both parties and media make no bones about trashing a candidate, potential candidate or their families, thats just the way the game is played, public life and politics is a dog eat dog arena and there are no set rules to play by !
It would seem the only rule is, WIN, no matter what it takes or who it hurts or destroys !

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not sayin' it hasn't happened but I really don't recall the media(and Fox news doesn't count, your rule not mine) going after the families of any Democrats in the last 16 years. Could someone point any out to me if you know of any? Thanks.

Who ever brought up Logjam, that was a very good point!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 13, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I saw more of her family than all the other candidates combined in the election and events leading up to it".....

I may only be using half a wit but that tells me something right there when it is just a VP candidate..... when the media decides they are gonna go after someone, they do it. I should get a job writing jokes & skits for latenight. 57 states, Wright, Ayers, numerous 180 reversals of what was stated before..... man, I've got 3 months worth of material right there. And I haven't even started on Biden. That might get me a season's worth of episodes - LOL.

But dang, the networks just won't buy it..... :( I loved the dinner where McCain & Obama each got up and poked fun at themselves. I found Obama's jokes at himself every bit as funny as McCains. Everyone there seemed to laugh just as hard..... but never heard any of them again.... apparently it was only funny that one night...... but when the Chosen One said back off my family.... the media meekly obeyed. Palin just doesn't flex her biceps with her sleeveless outfits enough to intimidate anyone I guess..... LOL

I gotta start listening to Logjam, apparently. I feel so uncultured suddenly...... :)

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on June 13, 2009 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes:
From what I've read, you are more cultured if you have never listened to Logjam (or any of the inane ramblings about them---those are brain cells we're never getting back)
I am enjoying all your political points, however, as I do live in Kansas, I may just be a spandex wearing, ignorant cow for all the Californians know.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 13, 2009 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Logjam is a one stop shop if you're a lookin' fer culture.

I'm still waiting though for all the instances of the media going after Democrats families. Anyone?

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 13, 2009 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

?

Posted by Bellbottom (anonymous) on June 13, 2009 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I couldn't remember why I quit my subscription to the Gazette. Thank you for reminding me!

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 13, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Too much new info eh?

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 14, 2009 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not sayin' it hasn't happened but I really don't recall the media going after the families of any Democrats in the last 16 years. Could someone point any out to me if you know of any? Thanks.

Seriously R. Folks

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 14, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Billy Beer was a beer first made in the United States of America in 1977, by the Falls City Brewing Company. It was promoted by Billy Carter, brother of then-President Jimmy Carter. The beer was also produced by Cold Spring Brewing, West End Brewing, and Pearl Brewing Company. The beer saw dismal sales figures while in production, but millions of cans were produced.

Billy Carter was selected as spokesman for the beer because his brother, who was president, was widely known to enjoy drinking beer. However, it was also known that Jimmy Carter's brand of choice was Pabst Blue Ribbon.

More than 16 years ago.
And not really going after someone's family like calling a little girl a slut.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 14, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.lp.org/

While not personally Libertarian, I would vote for one over the faux-conservative Republicans or the other party that doesn't have the guts to admit that they are socialists or think we're so stupid as to believe their claims of not being socialists.

"but it was McCain's poor decision making abilities which caused so much hardship for that family from Alaska. McCain should have vetted his choice better."

Just because McCain made a very very very very poor decision by picking whatsername doesn't mean that the media has to keep beating on her and her family. I'm pretty sure she's done.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 14, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 14, 2009 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 12, 2009 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not sayin' it hasn't happened but I really don't recall the media going after the families of any Democrats in the last 16 years. Could someone point any out to me if you know of any? Thanks.

Seriously R. Folks

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on June 15, 2009 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

seriouslyfolks

Who was it that quiped about Chelsea Clinton looking like the result of a "love encounter" between Bill and Janet Reno? That in my opinion was about as low as it gets and as I recall was said by our buddy Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 15, 2009 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barney Frank, Janet Pelosi, Al Franken........ I don't see where McCain's choices are any worse than half of America's...... LOL

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 15, 2009 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One in 16yrs ain't too bad when there is a constant barrage against the other side. Remember when they were calling the Bush twins drunken sluts all the time? That was even when Bush's approval ratings were pretty good I think.

Any more?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I stand by what I said, she is an idiot. 93% approval ratings in her own state to barely 50%, in less than a year. I would doubt she could get reelected in Alaska at this point, nope no screw up there, not at all. Dang it's good we sure didn't buy McCain's rhetoric on her and her approval ratings. Ahh who am I kidding the people of Alaska are just snowed by the media, its all the media's fault, none of it has to do with Palin's ability to govern her state or herself, not at all.

Comedians make jokes and see what sticks, some figures just make for better humor than others, it is not the media that dictates this, ratings do. SNL had record ratings when Tina Fey spoofed Palin, people TUNED IN for it because it was funny. As was the Clinton era SNL jokes. I saw comedians making fun of every candidate last election, damn us for not thinking each one equally funny......

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"she is an idiot. 93% approval ratings in her own state to barely 50%, in less than a year. "

So isn't making fun of her now just kinda pathetic?

"Just because McCain made a very very very very poor decision by picking whatsername doesn't mean that the media has to keep beating on her and her family. I'm pretty sure she's done."

I stand by this statement. I'm still pretty sure she's done. Why not move on to making fun of people who are relevent? Gee I wonder.

Seriously R. Folks

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As an independent she scares me because she weakens the only true opposition the democrats have.

"So isn't making fun of her now just kinda pathetic?"

This is not the first or last time a public figure gets kicked when they are down, so is it written somewhere that jokes are only funny about people that are successful? To be honest I think she played this up to the fullest in order to get some free ink. I have seen worse said and ignored by other public figures. Desperation comes to mind, I doubt she runs for a 2nd term, or that she could win one, and I doubt she could win a senate seat at this point either. 2 years out of office till the next election is murder politically.

I guess what it boils down to for me is this. During the election we knew she was huge mistake, a lot of people here defended her(some still do) yet here we are not even a year later and her constituents faith is dropping dramatically(to put it kindly). I would love to not have to see or hear her speak anymore, but apparently its still pretty funny to a lot of people out there to see her continue to reiterate why the majority of Americans laugh at her.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it shows the bias in the media. Plain and simple. People still defend whatsername and other people still try to say there's no bias in the media. I laugh at both groups.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 1:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think you also stated once, goodoleboy, that the only chance the GOP has in the next election is if they run a moderate like Paul or someone.
Yet, in the last several decades, every time they run a moderate (Dole, McCain), they lose, everytime they run someone closer to the conservative base (Reagan, Bush), they win. (Even though Bush turned out to be a liberal in disguise in quite a few ways). McCain was flailing until he picked Palin. I don't think your views on what clicks with the right jibe with reality any more than my views on what clicks with the left are accurate (honesty, doing what you said you would do while campaigning, etc). We're both quite out of touch as independents on what it takes to work on the opposite side that we lean more towards.

Posted by create (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For those who may have missed Frontline on PBS last night, the story of Bank of America being told by Bush Treasury Secretary that they had to take TARP money and also to buy Merril Lynch or else. Skullduggery? At any rate, good story and you can view it on your computer.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good find, create. Looks like once again the Obama administration wasn't as much "Change" from what we had before as everyone thought ........... I only hope you apply the term "skullduggery" to the same thing happening under Obama's admin........... right? What about all the pressure to states to accept stimulus? Chrysler non-TARP creditors being pressured? CEO's "being asked" to step down? Is that any kind of pressure? (BTW, I notice in one of the links from your link they also discuss the Comm ReInvest Act pressuring banks to make bad loans once again as the major linchpin in this whole house of cards falling.....)

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05092009/pos...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/...

And of course, "Bush Requests TARP Money - For Obama"

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-...

At least he changed his mind and told some banks that they WOULD be allowed to repay........ after initially refusing to give up the control......

I guess the difference is Bush turned out to be a socialist in disguise - while Democrat congressman Sherman openly admits admits Obama's TARP and Pay Czar is Socialism...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1rH8BMmD...

Bush & Obama - more alike than anyone would like to admit, especially at the end of Bush's term....... only real diff was..... Bush bad..... Obama good...... ;-)

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This proves once again that Obama can take something that is bad when Bush does it and make it good when he does it. I'm a believer and all, just not when the miracles come from the potus. I didn't believe that Bush caused Hurricane Katrina either. I did not vote for the Republican party in the last election by the way. I didn't vote for the democrat party either. I did vote though.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I became seriously disappointed with Bush towards the end of his term. I still don't see where he warranted alot of the idiocy and hate thrown his way, nor where everything he did was twisted to bad but when Obama does it it is good. And I can see some good things that Obama has done and is doing. Difference is, I don't fall down on my knees and worship. It's amazing how some people still refuse to level any criticism whatsoever at Obama, they are completely happy and 100% satisfied with his performance. Even when Bush was at 92% approval I could find things to gripe about :)

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I actually think it's dangerous and scary that there are so many people who appear to believe that Obama can do no wrong. I hope he doesn't buy into the hype.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Supreme Court decided that it was illegal for Florida to break its own rules, which were put into place by a largely democratic committee years before. Perhaps in the future we can have the rules modified on the spot to benefit whomever happens to want them changed but at this time it was ruled that they could not.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Obama was elected by the overwhelming majority of the voters whereas Bush lost the election and after the Governor of Florida decided his BRO won, the Supreme Court appointed him as president."

So Obama can do no wrong?

It IS scary that if anyone even appears to question anything Obama is doing people bring up Bush as if that automatically justifies everything being done now. SCARY! Bush is more done than Palin. Get some new shtick.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Never did I say that everything Bush did was wrong, he did some good things. I laugh and still laugh at all the socialist talk and government taking over business, Bush either stuck his head in the sand for too long or did not take action soon enough in his eight years, till this economic meltdown came to critical mass, at which point he HAD to act. Sure there were others involved on the right and the left but the bottom line was that Bush and the republicans were in control of the White House and Congress (until 2004) and could have prevented a great deal of this but failed. I say this because this is what the Conservatives stand for; fiscal responsibility is a pillar for them. Call me selfish but I wish we as a country could focus on ourselves for a while, we need to badly.

Then comes Obama, inheriting all of this, I will not make excuses for the guy, I do take issue to with some of his decisions but to be honest we won't even know if what Bush did during the last days of his administration worked for a year or so, so how can judge Obama yet? To date the government has only nationalized approximately 83 billion of the 39 trillion in the private sector, equating to a .20% share. .20% is socialism and too much government in the private sector? Hmmm. I am really glad to see the Banks other companies being allowed to pay back the TARP and other loans, we the tax payer are getting our money back plus interest, that is a good thing, I hope to hell they regulate the crap out of them and hammer the derivatives market so something like this never happens again.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Cheney?"
LOL

That was a good one.
I think you can get by with making fun of Chaney, blaming everything on Chaney, and excusing everything Obama does by yelling "Chaney!" for a while but it will get old after a while. Eventually all the Obama supporters are going to have to let him stand on his own and not try to distract people by yelling "Bush","Palin", "Cheney","McCain", "Putin" "Hitler", "Daddy Warbucks", " ......................................................

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at noon (Suggest removal)

I am right with you Observation! I voted Constitution party in this last election because, like myself, they are real conservatives. I usually bring up the Libertarian party because they are more socially liberal and I realize that most of the folks on here are more Liberal than I am and they might find a party they like in the Libertarians. At least they are fiscally conservative. Drew Carey said on a talkshow before this last election that he was a libertarian becuse they are conservatives that still smoke pot. That's a pretty good description of the party. lol

Posted by create (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree, goodoleboy: "Bush either stuck his head in the sand for too long or did not take action soon enough in his eight years, ..."

He just wasn't forceful enough and let too many cronies run the show. He believed them, that's the problem.

I caught the remark made by Bush senior after his sky diving even this weekend. When they asked him to comment on how the new pres is doing, he said former administrations need to keep those kind of opinions to themselves -- not his exact words, but his exact words were better. You could feel the sting of the slap in Cheney's direction.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah. It's really no ones business to have opinions that might be contrary to the current administration. Let's see where that gets us.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's well documented how many times Bush called for reform and was rebuffed, and by whom. 17 times in 2008 alone publicly before Congress acted. Perhaps nobody was listening because everyone else "had their heads in the sand?" They couldn't hear anyone else who wasn't down in the sand? How soon is soon enough? 2003?

I've seen quite a bit of criticism come from Obama about the former admin, and alot of it before Cheney got cranked up very far. So much so that I remember several articles talking about how Obama was breaking or at least stretching the usual presidential protocol/respect of keeping criticism of the former admin to at least a minumum once elected. How much did Bush criticize Clinton after taking office? Dish it out but can't take it?

I keep forgetting nowadays it's all a one-way street. Seriouslyfolks, ya gotta remember, Frank is gay and Obama is black. Therefore any criticism is intolerant and racial. Bush, however, was Hitler, therefore any criticism is about Germans, which were white, so acceptable......

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

With so much criticism floating about ................. about the pres in the last 8 years it's kinda liberating to not be allowed to be critical of the new pres. What a burden that has been lifted from our shoulders. I'm really seeing fewer and fewer reasons to have anymore elections. Man, what a wondrous time to be alive!

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah 2003, or even sooner, Clinton said the derivitaves needed attention back in 99, Bush could have done darn near anything he wanted pre 2004, he had a republican Congress and a very high approval rating. So why not? 2008 was way too late.

Clinton left office with an approval rating of 66%, kinda hard to criticize a guy that did pretty well. I Imagine if Bush and Cheney were not depised by the general public (20%ish) approval ratings more people would say better things about them. How do you dress up failure? Most historians say that the a presidents policies and success or failures cannot be measured until approx the end of his 1st term, by that mantra we can judge Bush, we cannot with Obama, some think him a deity but I don't think anyone could straighten this whole mess out in less than a few years.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who was pres when the world trade center got bombed the 1st time?

Are we really not allowed to have opinions on what Obama does until his 1st term is over? That seems a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee bit unrealistic to me.

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on June 18, 2009 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

moved to a forum:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...