Obama Warns If He Loses, Americans Will Be "On Their Own"

Vote in a Republican and we'll have a lot more pollution for company, though.

Otherwise he's right.

He's wrong! Our debt problem will bring us down. Everything he does just makes matters worse. He has a nice smile...........

"Everything he does just makes matters worse."

Proclamations are not equal to facts. And the fact that the economy was in deep sh*t when he took office is a significant factor. Another one is the status of the European finanacial situation. After a series of major floods hit the northeast in the wake of hurricane Irene, republicans were attempting to "negotiate" deficit reduction, using disaster relief as a bargaining chip. Yet you didn't see anyone accusing FEMA of "making matters worse." It is a comparable situation. Obama has been trying for 3 years to clean up the mess of the previous administration - mostly against republican obstruction.

A final note: republicans haven't been able to obstruct Obama's foreign policy, and his competence has been very clear in that arena.

In the immortal words of Louis Armstrong, "If you don't know, don't mess with it."

A final note: republicans haven't been able to obstruct Obama's foreign policy, and his competence has been very clear in that arena.

Yes, we are appalled with President of U.S. and his foreign affairs. He thinks he is God of world and can do anything he chooses. Well let us Italians inform you, we are in disagreement with your President and we are not the problem to your countries financial woes. It is your Presidents fault that Europe is in such disarray. Please do not blame us for what U.S. government has done.
Italy is in good position in our economy unlike U.S., and your Obama is causing worse problems for world economy Steve B.
You only hear what your medias and politicians tell you. In Italy we hear truth about President Obama. He is dictator not good President.
Italy hopes President of U.S. not get second terms.

"...this means that the GOP, or anyone who disagrees with the president and his agenda, for that matter, must be in favor of sickness, dirty air, and a poor education."

The GOP never will say it that clearly. They use code, e.g., "job killing regulations", where regulations are EPA rules to prevent mercury, nitrous oxide, and particulate matter, and the like. Or the will use phrases, like "death panels" to ensure that medical insurance is simply a matter for the illusory "free market" to bounce 50 million Americans from access to medical treatment. At best, the GOP might not be FOR "sickness, dirty air, and a poor education," but you won't see them doing any of the heavy lifting to make sure those conditions don't occur.

"Turning Ronald Reagan's famous question around, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" and for Obama to say in effect "You'll be worse off if I lose" seems to be a pathetic strategy...."

Reagan would not have been nominated in today's GOP. He would have been too "liberal". I agree that it is always a mistake to "play not to lose," but considering the republican "field", even this dumb strategy ain't gonna hurt him that much.

In referring to college tuition, health care coverage, and pollution, the President was--QUITE APPROPRIATELY--defining the import of his political policies, as the country approaches the reelection campaign.

To criticize the President for feeling strongly about the strengths of his own policy--as this Post does--is to read too much into the comments of a politican, whom the Poster either doesn't like or doesn't agree with.

Why don't you also join forces and agree with Senator McCain's criticism of the President's bus?

Wait! I have even a better idea!:

Why don't you criticize the kinds of ties the President wears or what brand of bottled he drinks?

Now, wouldn't that be profound? Such petty invective would not be that far from what you're doing now....

I was with you, respecting your opinon, until the McCain line in your comment. Then you blew your case.

"Such petty invective...."

The GOP revealed its smallness, when key members could not bring themselves to acknowledge how competent his foreign policy has been - most recently, re: the Libya situation. The fact that the republican "field" is so pathetic simply reflects how small the party itself has become.

Libya was a success? Do you know who is in "charge" of Libya now, what his position was prior to this point and what type of government he wants to run?

You know that very well , hey Brett. I'm sure of it you are as one who would do good but can't find how to perform it; but hey talking a good talk is better than nothing isn't Brett; sincerely edwah zj

"Do you know who is in "charge" of Libya now...?"

I know who the right-wing is trying to pitch, who is in charge of Libya now.

I just keep thinking, what an ego.

More like Narcissist

Gig....

Please let me know when I fail, again, at making the transition from political commentary to political satire....in the same comment....

Perhaps if the satire were more closely associated with the point at hand, it would have "transitioned" smoothly.

Looks like you failed to see the sarcasm, that is now--as we speak-- closely associated with the satire

Not knowing how to perform is a pit and proof one doesn't know his own point

I think it's a stunning strategy, and it will work. What could be better to say? He built his original platform on hope. Who is that hope? He is that hope. For people who really are frightened, (and with good reason) to emphasize that their leader, who will ensure the nanny government they need and on which they rely in this economic turmoil will be forever gone if he is not reelected, is what any effective dictator would seek to accomplish with those words. i don't think he could have said anything more compelling.

Yes, it's working so well.

I think folks would do well to stop thinking Mr. Obama is some sort of Robin Hood . . he's not, he supported and continues the very same "bailouts" of the "too big to fail" corporations, and gigantic giveaways to the financier/investment sharpies that made gazillions off the "toxic assets" that have left us in financial ruins, as his predecessor. He just talks like he's their foe, and gullible people go for the blab. It's a good cop/bad cop charade, not some sort of fight between "your" champion, and the evil rich.

From the article Sue linked;

"A key aspect of TALF is that the Fed doles out the money through what are known as non-recourse loans. Essentially, this means that if you don't pay the Fed back, it's no big deal. The mechanism works like this: Hedge Fund Goon borrows, say, $100 million from the Fed to buy crappy loans, which are then transferred to the Fed as collateral. If Hedge Fund Goon decides not to repay that $100 million, the Fed simply keeps its pile of crappy securities and calls everything even.

This is the deal of a lifetime. Think about it: You borrow millions, buy a bunch of crap securities and stash them on the Fed's books. If the securities lose money, you leave them on the Fed's lap and the public eats the loss. But if they make money, you take them back, cash them in and repay the funds you borrowed from the Fed."


You are on your own, in the sense that the hyper-wealthy crooks and shady dealers in the financial realms have a great champion if you reelect Mr. Obama . . or any of the "establishment" candidates from either Party, I tell you. The whole "screw the people" clan is just wearing two colors of suits, they're not really bitter enemies duking it out. They figured this red/blue game out decades ago, and bought up the mass media so they could keep the illusion going while they sucked us dry . .


It's not the rich against the poor, it's the sociopath high end criminals against everyone else.

was it ever meant to be that we were not on our own?
up to us to investigate and make decisions, to work for a living, to take risks for potential rewards or not take them and accept no huge returns, to keep our own kids healthy, and teach them to be good citizens, to provide insurance, and a home, and other protections for ourselves and our kids, and about 100 other things?
since when did it become a funtion of the government to become the provider for ourselves, and our kids, and we were to have no responsibility?
do we need the government to tell us to not let our kids throw jarts or knives at each other?
grow up people.

Look, del, put in very simple terms, it's not a matter of good and evil parties here. You had this misappropriation of funds going on in the Obama administration, but you also have a candidate, namely Herman Cain, who doesn't want the Fed audited. If you don't ask yourself why and you just listen to what they tell you they're going to do for you, you're always going to be just pointing the finger of blame. That doesn't solve your problems.

There's actually only one candidate who does want the Fed audited. After it's audited and they report what is really going on, then he'll work to get rid of it.

sue,
i said nothing of good and evil parties - i was merely pointing out, that we all should be 'on our own' - our own individual responsibility, our own efforts, and our own rewards.
so obamas threat is one with no teeth.
as to the fed - have you heard or read what cain actually said.
an audit will do nothing except prove they have the money they claim to have. as another person here said - it will prove they can add and subtract.
cain said specifically, what the frb needs is to have their policies revised so that their only authority is to hold reserve funds, clear funds between banks, and set the fed rate, that banks borrow from (which is an aid in trying to control inflation).
he said they should have no power other than those original powers.
that is what is needed, and audit will simply pay a bunch of accountants to do what another bunchg of accountants have already done and certified; that they have what they say they have.
it will not report what they are doing, or why.
if you do away with the frb, we are then forced to have checks clear between banks, by mailing them from one bank to another, and having it take 30 days to have a deposit available on an out of town check - the way it was when i was young.

Del, Did you read the article to which I linked above? You really need to read it, all of it.

There is plenty an independent audit can reveal, but Cain is correct that under the current law, there is no way that can be done. Ron Paul is working to make the law state that the Fed cannot have the authority not to answer questions it doesn't wish to answer as it is now. Cain doesn't want to bother with such legislation so he tells you that it won't make a difference, and he is correct that it won't make a difference until the law is changed, but he leaves that part out because he has no interest in changing the law to make the Fed accountable.


Check clearing should be the least of your worries when the paper the check is written on isn't worth much less than the dollar amount you wrote it for.

If you want to understand what is behind all this, explains in very easy to understand terms how the Federal Reserve was founded and why it is unconstitutional and how it will wipe out the middle class. You're seeing the effects now. Do you like what you're seeing?

I'll try this again. The link where I wrote the name, Ron Paul before the word, "explains" in the above comment did not take.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8&feature=related

Here is the URL. The hyperlink is rejected.

Sue makes a good point. There is a reason why Cain doesnt want the federal reserve independently audited. He was chairman of the board in Kansas for a number of years I believe so if one of your priorties is to make sure the fed is audited I would highly question why he is so firmly against just that.

I remember when I was a pre teen and my older sister wanted permission to spend the night at a friends house. My mother always called to make sure it was ok with the parents. One time my sister was adament about Mom not calling turns out my sister wasnt going to the friends house they were both planning on going to an overnight boy/girl party.

Usually there is something behind fierce opposition.

Yes, you're correct, Lori, and most of his supporters seem to understand his involvement with the Federal Reserve so I can't understand why they're so naively accepting his excuses for lack of interest in the transparency of the Central Banking System. It doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it sounds like (if you'll excuse the comparison, Lori) the very same kind of reasoning based on wishing away facts that Progressives do on a regular basis. :)

he is not against it, he said he would not push it, as it is a waste of time and money.
every audit is done by an independant accounting firm.
as to ubderstanding the fed, how and why it was founded, and the fact that in recent decades it has taken on unconstitutional policies, i dont need a youtube to tell me what i already know.
and as cain said, he would make regulatory changes to restore the original pupose and scope of the fed - which is not unconstitutional, and our country would be in a total uproar, without those 2 functions.
if a baby needs a bath, you give it one - you dont throw it out.
and the frb certainly needs a major 'cleansing'.
your thought that he is against transparency in the frb, is untrue. but again, an audit will not give that transparency - an investigation and a re-writing of the policies will - and cain is for that.

"...he is not against it, he said he would not push it, as it is a waste of time and money."

Right, it is a waste of time and money as it is now, and he is not going to push a law that will not make it a waste of time and money. If you accept that, then you accept something I do not understand that you can accept.


"I dont need a youtube to tell me what i already know.
and as cain said, he would make regulatory changes to restore the original pupose and scope of the fed - which is not unconstitutional..."

If you think the Fed is Constitutional, and that you already know everything about it, (which I cannot say that I do because it is so complex) then what you say you already know and are determined to think is correct is not something Ron Paul can educate you about because you are not open to even considering what he has to say. That's unfortunate, but I've never communicated with you before and I thought I would at least try.

Yes, you're correct, Lori, and most of his supporters seem to understand his involvement with the Federal Reserve so I can't understand why they're so naively accepting his excuses for lack of interest in the transparency of the Central Banking System. It doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it sounds like (if you'll excuse the comparison, Lori) the very same kind of reasoning based on wishing away facts that Progressives do on a regular basis. :)

I agree on all counts Sue. Auditing the fed was all the rage this spring..but now that Cain is the top dog so to speak then it has become a non issue so either there is some avoidance going on or the fed was completely audited and found to be right as rain. I dont personally recall hearing about an audit but I have been very busy so maybe I missed it.

And yes I think this happens from both sides. I dont like everything Obama has done but I like him better than Cain or Romney or Perry.

Well, actually an audit has been conducted and recently. The hearing for the results was just this month but the audit was conducted under the rules of the Dodd-Frank Act which does not allow for complete transparency.

But the important issue here is that the Fed is everything anyone who is for smaller government is against. If you want to reduce the size of government, you cannot diminish the importance of the Fed in that endeavor to reduce centralized government or you're kidding yourself because it can't happen otherwise. If the very thing that controls everything, namely money, and those that are responsible for it, are not a part of the plan to reduce big government, there is no plan to reduce it, though they may lead you to believe it can be done.

No, I don't think there is anyone but Ron Paul who is not a player. I don't agree with everything about his platform either but he makes a whole lot more sense than all four of those you named combined.

Sue yes I saw that and dont they require a audit every year using the same rules and regulations and then proceed to blow sunshine up our butts with the results.

do you have a clue what an audit is?
it is not an approval of policy, it is not a policy review.
an audit is checking the numbers to verify that they have what they say, and spent what they say where they say they spent it.
an audit is purely an accounting function - can they add and subtract.
a policy review, is did they stick to the policies they have?
what you want, what cain wants and what i want is, a regulatory change in their policies.
why can you not get that?
you are asking someone to count how many beans are in the jar (an audit)-when the point is, how did the beans get there, and should they be there.
lori,
the frb has a complete audit every year, by an independant accounting firm that certifies its accuracy.
i do not question if it is accurate.
i want to know why it is what it is, how are they spending the money should they be spending the money. an audit does none of that!
a fiscal policy re-write is whatis needed - and cain is in support of that.
you want an audit? fine - it will prove that every number they claim is accurate - same as all the other audits prove - now what?

No Del we have no idea we are idiots..thank gawd you are here otherwise I am sure Sue and I would get lost on the way to the bathroom and end up with our heads stuck up our asses.

I worked in a bank. They audit every year in every bank in the country. That refer to it as an audit.

del, the GAO recently completed an audit and it took a year or so. You have to look it up yourself because I don't have time to do that now and also fight with making links appear here. Can you handle that assignment for yourself, please?

Well, they do audits, Lori, and I don't know how often. In the hearing, Ron Paul asked the GAO spokeswoman if the kind of audit they did could be conducted on an annual basis and she basically said it would be too cumbersome. As I said, even their audit is not one that allows for a lot of the questions that need to be answered. They did make recommendations for improvements and they got answers that the Fed would follow up, but they have no results that they have as yet either.

Until they have a new law, like the one that Ron Paul actually got passed (and then I think it got amended to this one, but I'm not sure exactly what happened to it) there won't be the very strngent questions asked that the Fed would be obligated to answer like what really happened to that bail out money, for just one instance.

yes, and oit proves they follow the rules they have IF it is a regulatory review (audit). it makes zero interpretations of whether the rules they follow are good or not. simply a score as too how well they follow them.
and a normal audit, is only checking their math, and that they spent the money the way they said they did.
again what good does that do in terms of frb?
i never said you are idiots - i said you have no clue about what an audit would produce.
you have this impression that it will say whether the rules are good or bad - and that is extremely either un, (or mis) informed.
i agree that we need a complete revision of their rules!!!!!!!!!!
why can you not get that?
my only stance, is the same as cain, that an audit does not do that, and it is needed.
you are being distracted.
so if they do an audit, and come back and say - yes, the math is right, the money is where they said it is, and they followed the rules they have.
what has been accomplished?
nothing.
policy revision -not audit.

Del, an audit of the Federal Reserve includes an audit of their policies and procedures. An audit is an evaluation and it doesn't necessarily just include number verification. Sometimes people need an audit of their grey matter function.

yes, the gao (general accounting office) did an audit - an accounting audit. as i said before, all it tells is thaqt the money is oin the amount, and where, frb says it is.
a regulatory audit, would determine if they follow the ploicies they are given.
i guarantee they do.
the problem is the policies they have are bad.
no audit of any kind, no matter how often it is done, will say whether the policies are right or not - only will say do they follow them.
that is why the fed needs a complete overhaul, and have their powers restricted.
that is what cain wants, and i agree.
actually i think that is what paul wants as well, in spite of how he phrases it.
but keep asking for an audit, and you will get one - which will do nothing.

Del,

"a regulatory audit, would determine if they follow the ploicies they are given.
i guarantee they do."

You guarantee? Worthless . .


"that is why the fed needs a complete overhaul, and have their powers restricted.
that is what cain wants, and i agree."

Hope and change, eh? ; )


Terminate this slight of hand scam, I say. Don't believe some cheap talk about an overhaul that hasn't even been described.

John, you may appreciate this commentary by a guy named Wayne based on Ron Paul's apt allegation that the Fed is unconstitutional. Whether or not hyperlinks are going to work today is another issue. I'll just include it here (here) in case it doesn't take and also supply the URL below.

http://immortalityroad.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/ron-paul-says-that-federal-reserve-bank-is-unconstitutional/

(This) is also a very interesting history of Ron Paul's HR 1207, and it certainly does make the point that anyone who would dare to say that Ron Paul and Herman Cain have the same objective on the Fed issue and just phrase it differently, hasn't a clue what they're talking about.

http://www.ronpaul.com/congress/legislation/111th-congress-200910/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/

You see what happened there? The hyperlink I included in "This" was not accepted and that's the reason I also put the word, "This" in parenthesis, so the sentence would still make sense if it didn't. I also forgot to include the corresponding URL so it is included right below that comment and right above this.

Remember when he was Kenyan born, Madrassa raised Muslim who cuddled terrorists?
Haven't hear that one in awhile.

The Republicans are the ones promoting fear with their "Jobs Killing" this n that.
Listened to Fake News channel. All they are is a bunch of whiney pathetic liars who never tire of Obama bashing WHATEVER road he takes, ie he's getting us involved in Libya, the US did NOT do enough in Libya.

As long as the right keeps talking stupidity, The Daily Show's writers will be on easy street reporting on right wing stupidity for laughs.

and remember when he said he would have all discussions on laws on c-span, and when he said every new bill would be on the internet long enough for everyone to read, and when he said he would help the middle and lower class, and when he said he would not raise any taxes even one penny on anyone making less than 250k, and when he said he would keep umemployment below 8%, and when he said he would close gitmo within a year, and when he said he would bring all our soldiers home?
boy those were the days eh?
as long as he keeps lying and you keep believing it gthe daily show, leno and letterman will still have a lot of stupidity for laughs, unless of course the fcc gets with hsa doesnt allow them to make those jokes.
whoo boy - aint it great/

this must be a fashionable fight - all the best hatemongers, that generalise all republicans, conservatives, and anti-socialists into 0ne big group of stupid, uninformed racists have all shown up!
how very accepting of them - as usual.

I am getting quite the giggle, reading their posts, thinking about what Obama has to run on.

Del so what is the difference between your generalizing that all the people here are hate mongers and the people commenting that doing the generalizing.

Is one type of generalizing Ok and another not Ok? Do you call out a conservative when they label all Democrats or people that support Obama as socialist or communists? Or do you feel that attitude is justified since it is applied to the commie pinko socialists.

the only difference is i did not say everyone here - i said i see them (the ones that are)- factually, i see many here that are spewing hatred, and have repeatedly done so in the past.
that is not a generalizaion, it is a fact of observation.
now if i were to say (which i would not) they are all dumb, crack addicts, or that they havent bathed in a year, that would be untrue, unfair, and a generalization that is inappropriate.
and yes i do in fact call out conservatives, or anyone else that says "all" obama supporters are socialist of communist.
noww if there indeed is a specific person that is a 'commie pinko' then that label would certainly be appropriate, particulalry if is is self-stated.

and if you didnt catch it - i was using a modified quote from braveheart - to make a point, but to do it with some levity (if you get the reference).

the only difference is i did not say everyone here - i said i see them (the ones that are)- factually, i see many here that are spewing hatred,

I see so if you argree with what a person is saying than they are not hate mongering but if you dont agree than generalizing is fine because disagreement is always hatemongering..gotcha.

Now how do you tell if someone is a commie pinko and who gets to label them that in order for your generalizing to be OK..are you the labeler?

lori,
i did not make a generalization.
i was soeaking in reference to a few people thaqt are actually here commenting, and the behavior that is blatantly obvious.
it makes no matter whether i agree with them, or you agree with them in their distaste for a group - specific people made sweeping ill-founded condemnations of an entire group.
i am only pointing out, without naming names, and without specifying a group that there are those displaying that behavior on this post.
where did i make a generalization?
where was i not clear that i was referring to specific people that were on this post?
do not ut words in my mouth, and do not twist what i said.
agai, where was i not referring to specific people, which is by very definition not a generalization.

Well gosh, that's a real dog bites man kind of story. The core of the campaign of every one of the GOP presidential hopefuls is "you're on your own, unless you're a large corporate donor."

There's the catchier version which is similar but not quite the same as "Shoot them all and save six for pall bearers." :)

Our President or any US President only can have the position for only 8 years. Americans have always been on their own to solve their daily life problems, no matter who the President is. We will always be on our own as long as our political leaders think we can not live without them. Lately, what have our political leaders done for the American people? Please, remind me!

They have pushed us closer to bankruptcy through their policies, while we watch other currencies fail for over spending. We have been enslaved through their policies that encourage dependence and discourage self-reliance. They offer us security in exchange for our freedom. As for the presidents threat, I say good! Keep your Security and your Marxist ways. Both yesterday and today he has made speeches where he has openly stated that he will make changes without the help of congress to get done what he feels is necessary. All hale King Obama.

(waving hand in air furiously) i know i know i know call on me call on me!
the last 50 years or so, they took away or infringed on as many rights as they could, they made every attempt to insert themselves in every aspect of our life, and did the best they could to destroy what made us great - all in the name of 'helping' or 'protecting' us!!!

Yup. Things like the Patriot Act and FISA courts, to name a couple of more recent things.

Bailouts in 2008 and the tax overhaul that benefited the top 1% and the war in iraq and iran have certainly done all those things to our economy.

Ya, Lori and Nippy, you two can blame Bush all you want but just know that all that poor policy that Bush had, Obama has failed to undo much, if any of it. Even if it was a campaign promise. Obama has also spent more in 2.5 years than Bush spent in 8. Oh, ya, and Bush deserves some of your criticism, thus Obama is no saint. Jimmy Carter very is thankful that he is no longer the worst president.

After all his "schemes" his corruption and underhanded bill passing he ought to be ashamed to make such an obscene statement. If he stays in office we will certainly be on our own...trying to survive starvation and homelessness.

Dependency, that's what he wants.

Yup. He seems to want people to be able to depend on society to be compassionate rather than embrace the idiotic rationalization for selfishness that's going around.

Sure, Nip. those were 40, 000 compassion bombs he had dropped on Libya, so the compassionate Al CIAda "rebels" could gain control, and be compassionate to the Libyan people ; )

ThIs IS the ultimate truth for countless Americans:

"... or Obama to say in effect "You'll be worse off if I lose" seems to be a pathetic strategy, and, well, almost desperate. Not to mention that some may actually prefer to be "on their own" as opposed to the current state of the nation."

PUT US "ON OUR OWN" ANY DAY INSTEAD OF THIS NITWIT'S DUMB DECISIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY. Amen to that!

Only you and those YOU know think that way R.F.

Only you and them.

Del, Fran is generalizing please lecture her.

Lori, the name is "Fren" and I outgrew "lectures" about the same time I learned to live "on my own." I could elaborate but clearly this isn't a subject you'd understand ... .

My bad.

Del, FREN is generalizing please lecture her.

Lori again, (~sigh~), I outgrew "lectures" about the same time I learned to live "on my own." I could elaborate but clearly this isn't a subject you'd understand ... .

Fren this really isnt directed toward you but to Del. You are just my pawn **insert evil laugh***

BTW Lori, the next time you want to 'Not' direct a comment to someone, try 'Not' using their name when you're "Not' directing it to them. ROFL. Your foolishness supercedes its' prior self. Snicker. Snicker.

Fren I didnt say I wasnt directing my comment to you. You are the catalyst in the situation. I know I used some big words but you can copy, paste and look them up sweetie.

Lori, your social ignorance proved my point.

Fren I didnt see a point just your usual nastiness try harder peaches.

BTW there really is no such thing as social ignorance..there is being socially inept and a list of others. There is just plain ignorance such as you display but social ignorance doesnt really make sense. Which pretty much proves my point about you.

You could look up pluralistc ignorance I believe your picture is next to the definition.

Lori, oooo, you need ALL of those comments just to try to make fun of someone else? ROFL!

In your radical Left world you rely on another's catch phrases to define your self. Not so with independent thinking Americans. "Social ignorance" is just what it says, Lori, your comments are 'socially ignorant'. It's that simple.

Trying to divert attentions from the social ignorance with repetitive personal insults doesn't cut it for the Left anymore, Lori. Play your childish games -- continue to prove what an immature woman you are. No skin off my nose.

If you can't compose an intelligent thought, I am done. In other words: I am done.

lori,
not sure who whizzed in y9our wheaties today, but it wasnt me.
""PUT US "ON OUR OWN" ANY DAY INSTEAD OF THIS NITWIT'S DUMB DECISIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY. Amen to that!"
other than that, she quoted someone else.where is the generalization?
check your funk and wagnals ........ she referred to a specific (in her words) nitwit).
one person,.
not a general group.
i am starting to get down to my last nerve, and you may well be on it.
you say fren is ignorant, yet you do not know the difference between critisizing a specific individual and a generalization of a group?
hello - pot - did ya meet kettle?
try looking up those terms yourself.

Del, "hello - pot - did ya meet kettle?"


I fear no amount of intelligent reason can get through to this one. Appreciate your affirmations.

Fren you are clueless as usual.

Del look again ask her who is "them".

IMKidno, if the Soros-funded Left doesn't put it into talking points, Lori can't recognize the words.

IMKidno, the "clueness" slur is only about 20-years old by now, rofl!

I feel he made a stupid statement, but he got 9 million dollars for it - in my opinion, he's just trying to get re-elected.

Marilyn I think yours is about the best comment here. This is really no different than the Bush 04 rhetoric about not changing presidents during the middle of a war.

Sure, Kid, and that's why our inalienable rights were alienated from us . . and the borders essentially left wide open . . "cause we were at war with "an enemy", not "ON THE US" ; )

I don't believe it was an accident that the virtual dictator position known as the "Unitary Executive", and the virtual police state established by the "Patriot Act", the "peemptive war" doctrine, and the "bailout" (crony capitalism) model, were established for Mr. Obama to step right into (with the approval of the "neocons" and mass media) in a case of not realizing what could happen . . but was in fact just a part of a good cop/bad cop routine, that employs both Parties, and the "liberal/conservative" labels quite effectively, to advance the very same objectives.

Personally it feels like I am on my own already.

Pharaoh Obama, let our people go!