(Advertisement)

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Please Make Case For President Obama

Posted: February 14, 2012 at 3:36 a.m.

I’m seeing a lot of negative op-eds about the Republican presidential candidates from President Barack Obama supporters, but not a single one trumpeting the president’s accomplishments.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 02/14/2012

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

CASUALTIES OF WAR

To honor the men and women in our armed forces and remind our readers of their sacrifices, the Benton County Daily Record is publishing Department of Defense announcements ... Read »

Next Story »

COMMENTARY: The State Of Higher Education

Over the last few decades, higher education in Arkansas has focused on breaking down barriers and making college more accessible. Read »

Mr Lawrence is dead on about Obama. He's operating as a totalitarian dictator, outside of our constitution, and sticks his thumb in the eye of Americans every chance he gets. If this guy gets four more years, and doesn't have to worry about being reelected, look out. Hugo Chavez will be sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom, and every church will be assigned an Iranian Mullah to make sure that we are all saying our prayers to Allah. This guy is the biggest disaster to ever hit America the Beautiful. VOTE HIM OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: rushy

February 14, 2012 at 8:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

One of the things that you don't want to think about or realize is that this debt we are in was caused by previous administrations... especially the war with terriosts..a total waste of money in many many ways... IT IS ALL GREED BY THE FAT CATS..and Obama is trying to get things under control again...So wake up and smell the roses and accept who caused this whole debt.... It wasn't Obama

Posted by: Apbacker

February 14, 2012 at 8:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I've been railing against deficits under republican and democrat administrations. But to blame Bush is ludicrous. From George Washington to George Bush, we racked up 9 trillion in debt. From George Bush to Imam Obama, we are headed, with his new budget, to hit 16 plus trillion. Do the math genius. Then, one must ask one's self, what did they spend the money on? Generally speaking it's national defense, and entitlements. Under Imam Obama, we are going broke propping up his campaign contributors. The thug unions that are destroying state economies, and boondoggle "green" projects that will never see the light of day. Why do you think that the left doesn't want to pass a budget? They don't want to be confined by any spending restraints. So to say that the debt was racked up by previous administrations is partially correct, but it's been doubled down on by the bamster. And Fat Cats? Obama took 42 million from wall st. in the '08 election. He's the ultimate, elitist Fat Cat of all time. I'm afraid all the roses you've been smelling have turned your glasses a shade of rose. Wake up and smell the socialism. It's flushing your life and mine right down the toilet.

Posted by: rushy

February 14, 2012 at 12:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey Rushy -- who is it that doesn't want to tax the billionaires or the big Oil Companies who made 139 Biliion dollars profit and pay their CEO and execs millions of dollars a year to sit behind a desk....All of them need to pay their fair share and quit hiding behind the conservative loop holes

Posted by: Apbacker

February 14, 2012 at 12:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

David and Rushy, I totally agree with everything you all have said. Apbacker is a liberal who gets caught up with the left by blaming someone else for all the bad that is taking place. They have to blame someone because they can't defend Obama's regime on anything. Obama begged for his job and since he got it he has been playing the blame game ever since.

Posted by: footballfan

February 14, 2012 at 12:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>The thug unions that are destroying state economies, and boondoggle "green" projects that will never see the light of day.<
.
Please, spare us the dime-a-dozen spin stories.
.
EIGHT PER CENT OF THE AMERICAN WORKFORCE BELONGS TO A UNION.
.
You wingnuts should be congratulating yourselves on how well you destroyed unions over the years.
.
In my lifetime union representation has gone from 38% of the workforce to 8%. Note that average American's slice of the pie has grown progressively smaller.

Posted by: cdawg

February 14, 2012 at 1:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

rushy--

RE "I've been railing against deficits under republican and democrat administrations."
This makes you sound so fair-minded, then you turn right around and try to pass Bush's debt and economy as Obama's. Apparently you just like to rail.

RE "From George Washington to George Bush, we racked up 9 trillion in debt. From George Bush to Imam Obama, we are headed, with his new budget, to hit 16 plus trillion."
George W. Bush started with a good economy and still managed to create more debt than Obama has in the abominable economy he inherited. What president other than George W. Bush has ever actually killed a wartime economy?

RE "thug unions that are destroying state economies"
Oh, do go ahead and give some credit to the Teabaggers and other conservatives who have wrecked the economies in right-to-work states as well as in states with unions. If you want to talk about thugs, let's talk about governors who break contracts with their employees.

RE "Wake up and smell the socialism."
The military is socialism. The Interstate highway system is socialism. Clearly socialism is not entirely evil. Wake up and smell the reality.

RE "It's flushing your life and mine right down the toilet."
Socialism such as the land grants to the railroads, the Interstate, the military, Social Security and Medicare helped to make this country great. If you choose to live in the toilet, that's your choice. I choose to live in a great country.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 14, 2012 at 2:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

fooballfan--

RE "Apbacker is a liberal who gets caught up with the left by blaming someone else for all the bad that is taking place."
A quick reading of Apbacker's comments in these forums should disabuse you of the notion that Apbacker is a liberal. Not that you've ever let facts interfere with your opinions.

RE "They have to blame someone because they can't defend Obama's regime on anything."
Oh, gee. He's done so little:
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/m...

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 14, 2012 at 2:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Nice.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 14, 2012 at 3:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Total public debt on Dec. 31, 1999, before Bush took office, was approximately 5.6 trillion. On Dec. 31, 2008, at the end of Bush's term, the debt was 10.7 trillion. On Dec. 31, 2011, it was 15.2 trillion, an increase of 4.5 trillion during the three years of Obama's presidency. Obama promised to cut the debt in half by the end of his first term.

Posted by: EndPoliticalCorrectness

February 14, 2012 at 4:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you Alpha --- someone with common sense... I am totally amazed that the holier than though conservative cannot see where all of this began... they don't want to look past the 3 1/2 years that Obama has been in office.... nor do they want to accept the fact that the President does not vote on these measures... conservative congress, conservative dealings...

Posted by: Apbacker

February 14, 2012 at 4:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

EndPC: "Total public debt... before Bush... approximately 5.6 trillion. ...at the end of Bush's term, the debt was 10.7 trillion.">>

Not counting the $2.7 trillion he left to land on the next guy, okay.

EndPC: Dec.,... 2011, it was 15.2 trillion, an increase of 4.5 trillion...">>

Note that $10.7 trillion plus $2.7 trillion is $13.4 trillion. The difference? $1.8 trillion, and almost all of that is Bush legacy spending. Laid out nicely in this chart:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographic...

EndPC: "Obama promised to cut the debt in half by the end of his first term.">>

Of course he absolutely did not. Your claim is ludicrously false.

Do you know the difference between "deficit" and "debt?" You should learn that before you being to talk about such things. And being a republican, you really should avoid talking about either one.

The cost of Bush's mess is far greater than the number he simply racked up. See:

"The $10 trillion hangover ... Paying the price for eight years of Bush" --Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes

Excerpt:
"In the eight years since George W. Bush took office, nearly every component of the U.S. economy has deteriorated. The nation’s budget deficits, trade deficits, and debt have reached record levels. Unemployment and inflation are up, and household savings are down. Nearly 4 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared and, not coincidentally, 5 million more Americans have no health insurance..., the final price for the war in Iraq is expected to reach at least $3 trillion.

As bad as things are, though, this is just the beginning. The Bush Administration not only has depressed the economy and racked up unprecedented debt; it also has made expensive new commitments....

Using conservative assumptions, we calculate that the bill for Bush-era excess—the total new debt combined with the total new accrued obligations— amounts to $10.35 trillion. This legacy will have long-term consequences for America’s prosperity, but it also will weigh heavily and immediately on the Obama Administration, which will need to spend money fast to get the economy moving again.

When George W. Bush took office, he inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion and a bright fiscal future. The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan government agency responsible for estimating future expenditures and revenues, projected a cumulative budget surplus of about $5.6 trillion between 2002 and 2011, if the country stayed on track—which of course it did not. What happened instead was that the administration successfully pushed for not only two rounds of massive, inequitable tax cuts but also a 59 percent surge in government spending."
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/59553.html

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 14, 2012 at 11:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

alpha_cat,

In reading your source, though I am usually skeptical of blogs… and especially “tiny” links, I found that CATO was not in fact completely supporting your claim as you present it.

“So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).”

You correctly presented this.

BUT, the blog goes on:

“It should go without saying that this post is not an argument for Obama’s fiscal policy. The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor. That is where critics should be focusing their attention.”

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-b...

As far as all the name calling is concerned, I hope that we all can get past that, including the epithet, “Teabagger”. My generation knows what “Teabag” means in the language of pop culture. What and ugly term. Let’s all be Americans on the same team and continue to debate but in a more sophisticated manner.

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 15, 2012 at 10:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FrankLloydLeft,

How can you claim "irrefutable sources" are used when the source has the motto, "Because the Truth Has Liberal Bias!" The "Truth" has no bias at all.

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 15, 2012 at 10:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

Re-

“EndPC: "Obama promised to cut the debt in half by the end of his first term." Of course he absolutely did not. Your claim is ludicrously false.”

From POLITICO:

“The president vowed in early 2009 to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. But with the latest budget, the GOP was able to officially categorize that as a broken promise.
The deficit will hit $1.3 trillion in the next fiscal year, far surpassing the $650 billion goal when Obama made his pledge.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 15, 2012 at 10:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

As has been correctly pointed out Obama promised to cut the deficit (not debt as I incorrectly typed) in half by the end of his first term.

From Treasurydirect.gov's monthly statement of public debt:
Total public debt on Dec. 31, 1999, before Bush took office, was approximately 5.6 trillion. On Dec. 31, 2008, at the end of Bush's term, the debt was 10.7 trillion. On Dec. 31, 2011, it was 15.2 trillion, an increase of 4.5 trillion during the three years of Obama's presidency.

Blame all the 4.5 trillion on Bush if you like. The total debt is still 15.2 trillion and increasing and deficit spending still has not been cut in half.

Posted by: EndPoliticalCorrectness

February 15, 2012 at 10:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

People who support the Obama corruption of government are either traitors or gullible dupes. After all the lies coming out of the administration, I am surprised that anyone with intelligence can still support him.

Posted by: kinggeorge

February 15, 2012 at 10:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "I found that CATO was not in fact completely supporting your claim as you present it."
The article does exactly what I said it does. I cited it to point out the error in blaming all of the large debt on Obama, not to show support of Obama's fiscal policy. After all, the title of the article is "Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit".

RE "As far as all the name calling is concerned, I hope that we all can get past that, including the epithet, 'Teabagger'."
The TEA Party applied the nickname "Teabagger" to themselves before anybody else did. Call me a traditionalist, but I will continue to use the term, as a way honoring everything they represent. I can't help it if the dazzling panorama of topics encompassed by their gross ignorance includes current off-color parlance.

MrD--

RE "People who support the Obama corruption of government are either traitors or gullible dupes. I am surprised that anyone with intelligence can still support him."
I take it, then, that you plan to vote for him twice.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 15, 2012 at 11:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

TANK: "In reading your source, though I am usually skeptical of blogs… and especially “tiny” links,">>

Tankersley, why are you skeptical of "tiny" links? Can you not understand what they are even though this has been explained to you many times?

tinyurl.com

They take a 300+ character link (or whatever), and make a permanent substitute link (about 20 characters) that goes to the exact same place. Every "tinyurl" link you have clicked on takes you to the original, huge, link.

TANK: 'From POLITICO:
“The president vowed in early 2009 to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.">>

a) Learn the difference between "debt" and "deficit."

b) Regarding lowering the "deficit," let's review how that went:

"Obama aims to cut deficit in half by 2013"

"Now that his $787 billion stimulus bill is law, President Obama plans to spend this week promoting a budget plan designed to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term.

The president will host a "fiscal responsibility summit" at the White House on Monday and will give a prime-time speech to Congress on Tuesday before unveiling a budget overview Thursday.

White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki confirmed that the administration pegs the current deficit at $1.3 trillion, or 9.2% of the overall economy, and projects that in four years the deficit will be down to $533 billion, or 3% of the economy as measured by the gross domestic product.

"The budget will cut the deficit that the president inherited upon assuming office at least in half by the end of his first term," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.

Obama's 2010 budget includes plans for defense cuts — including a rollback of the Iraq war — and ending the Bush administration's high-income tax cuts, the Associated Press reported Sunday."
--ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?...

Do you remember what happened to ending Bush's tax cuts for the rich? I do.

Republicans and conservatives don't give a flip about the debt or deficit and it would really be nice if they would stop pretending like they did. It confuses the children.

D.
--------------
ps to MrD. Don't forget, if Obama doesn't lose by the greatest margin in recorded history, you have pledged to give me $100.
http://tinyurl.com/76d3nea

(apologies to Tank for the "tiny" link).

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 15, 2012 at 12:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ALPHA: "The TEA Party applied the nickname "Teabagger" to themselves before anybody else did. Call me a traditionalist, but I will continue to use the term, as a way honoring everything they represent.">>

And rightly so.

D.
--------------
"...as Jay Nordlinger at National Review admits, the term "teabagger" wasintroduced to the political lexicon by Tea Party movement leaders:

The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.

For the record, The National Review is as right-wing and teabagger as it gets. And Neil Cavuto is, well, Neil Cavuto."

More: http://sidschwab.blogspot.com/2010/05...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 15, 2012 at 1:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The article written by Jay Nordlinger referenced above was entitled 'Rise of an Epithet'. The following quote from the same article is the point Nordlinger was making:

"In any event, it may well be too late to purge “teabagger” from our discourse, certainly from discourse controlled by liberals. But I’m for giving it a try: for running “teabagger” out of town, even at this late date. It is really a lowdown term. “Tea partier” is a neutral term. “Tea-party patriots” is a positive term, used by some of the protesters themselves. “Teabagger” — not so positive, and not so neutral.

It could well be that liberals at large are recognizing this too. In a discussion at Slate, the online magazine, Sam Tanenhaus wrote, “Even today the right insists it is driven by ideas, even if the leading thinkers are now Limbaugh and Beck, and the shock troops are tea-baggers and anti-tax demonstrators.” As he told me, he subsequently learned that “teabagger” had this vulgar meaning, and was used as a pejorative. So he changed his text to “tea-partiers”: “tea-partiers and anti-tax demonstrators.” Much better, don’t you think?"

Posted by: EndPoliticalCorrectness

February 15, 2012 at 3:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

EndPoliticalCorrectness--

If Teabaggers will quit lying about how high taxes are, stop promoting "good old days" that never existed, and stop obstructing the legislative process with their infantile my-way-or-nothing tactics, then I will stop referring to them as Teabaggers. Until then, no epithet seems too "lowdown" in light of the damage they're doing. Further, "tea-partier" smacks of a silly innocuousness that is entirely inappropriate: the TEA Party, being too angry, abysmally ignorant, and well-funded, is dangerous.

Also note that I capitalize the word when I use it to refer to the TEA Party, in order to distinguish it from people who practice no-missionary, non-reproductive sex in certain ways.

End Political Wrongness, for a change.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 15, 2012 at 4:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I see Tank made it to the first click on the PCTC site before being overwhelmed by the slogan.

It's just a slogan Tank. PCTC is clearly a liberal site, but I was unable to find any lies in there. If you find something there you'd like to refute, this is the place to do it.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

February 15, 2012 at 11:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Reason cannot be used with the tea bagging Obama Haters who would rather ignore history and believe a lie or half truth than consider the of the Bush Administration. It was worse than the Johnson administration that entangled us in the Vietnam fiasco with deficit spending and the loss of more than 50,000 lives.. Bush's administration was worse. It took us to Iraq with tax cuts for the rich and huge deficit spending on the backs of a volunteer military. If the draft had been in place, the streets would have been full of protesters long before the Occupy movement hit the streets/. Anyone with any awareness of history knew in advance that Iraq was a no-win situation. Say what you want but it was the deficit spending under Bush that got us in this mess that President Obama inherited.

Posted by: Afranius

February 16, 2012 at 6 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: "Republicans and conservatives don't give a flip about the debt or deficit and it would really be nice if they would stop pretending like they did. It confuses the children."

I have voted Republican many time and consider myself to be a fiscal conservative. I am quite concerned about the deficit. Period. I also am concerned about taxes for everyone. There is plenty of spending that could be cut, yet everyone wants to focus on the "big" programs. Little programs add up. Sam Walton built an empire on tiny margins....LOTS of tiny margins. The same can be true in reverse.

I'll give an example. Why is it that Obama or any president treks across the US to make speeches (aka campaign stops)? How many of us have ever seen a president speak personally? Probably only a handful. That said, almost all of us hear from our president's via the media. Why not keep the president in Washington, rather than spend considerable tax dollars to fly him to a Ohio manufacturing plant to make a speach. Aren't we all going to see it on TV anyway? Where is the return on that investment?

That's just one small example. There are tons and tons of wasteful projects out there. They are small, but they add up. Many bodies of water were formed one tiny raindrop at a time.

Posted by: superdave10

February 16, 2012 at 8:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT, I did not pledge to give you anything. I said Obama would lose the election. And as to voting for Obama, nobody in his right mind who has the country's interest at heart could possibly vote for the most corrupt administration in our history. People who put party politics ahead of national interests are no better than traitors and are on a par with the person who would burn his neighbor's house down. And, AC, if you were my neighbor I would be sure and keep a fire extinguisher in my house....to protect me from you.

Posted by: kinggeorge

February 16, 2012 at 2:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

SuperD: "Why is it that... president[s] treks across the US to make speeches (aka campaign stops)?... Why not keep the president in Washington,...">>

I am reminded of another example, when Bush understood his election to a second term to be a mandate for reform/overhaul/destruction of social security. I read that we was making 100 trips in the Airforce One 747 jumbo jet to promote his plan to fiddle with the 3rd rail. I remember thinking what a profound waste that was. After all, he could have just called me and I could have explained to him, in simple terms he could understand, that it was a near certainty his efforts would amount to nothing more than a perfectly executed public belly flop, which indeed it turned out to be.

The power of office of the presidency is vastly over estimated by the populace and a great deal of the position is that of a symbol, figurehead or prop. Maybe it's some kind of leftover monarchy fetish. Americans really do look to their president as some sort of king. I don't know why but it's not really useful, accurate or mature.

While there are gaping black holes of waste and payola (military, foolish wars, future medicare costs, pharma and farm subsidies, corporate subsidies etc.), I don't think that nickle and dimeing a president's ability to move around and promote their agenda is at all significant. It's the equivalent of an afternoon of spending in Afghanistan. And the people, fed a steady stream of mindless cable news yapping about the whether the president's zipper is down, want to see the show they have paid for.

D.
------------
George W. Bush, explaining his plan to "save" Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005:

"Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 16, 2012 at 2:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

.

When MrD and fayfreethinker settle their presidential election wager will cameras be allowed to record the event? Perhaps in front of The Morning News office in Springdale.
.
Only a fool bets on wishes.

.

Posted by: cdawg

February 17, 2012 at 1:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

To all you Bush bashers: Get Over It. Your memories are all so very short. President Bush foresaw the housing bubble burst, and attempted regulation of Fannie/Freddie, but the Democratic Congress roared against it. In his first 6 months in office, he REFUNDED EVERY American taxpayer $300 ($600 for married couples), and he fought for privatization of retirement funds. The Democratic Congress railed against that as well. The Democrats and their leader LBJ were fully behind the 1969 law that puts Social Security funds into the "unified budget". That 'unified budget' has led to nothing but the disintegration and looming bankruptcy of what was supposed to be a sure-fire retirement trust. Think about it: If you keep YOUR savings in the same account from which your household bills are budgeted and paid, how on earth do you keep it separated? Not so easy, is it?

Had the Democratic appointees to the Supreme Court not ruled that murder of babies is a fine thing, this may not have been the problem it is today considering 55 million babies (ie. eventual taxpayers) have been legally murdered.

President Bush was presented with challenges that we cannot even imagine. How would YOU have handled 9/11? What would YOUR reaction have been knowing that had those passengers not overtaken the terrorists on Flight 93, the White House, your wife, and countless others would have gone the way of the WTC victims? How would YOU have reacted when Sadaam Hussein laughed at the handiwork of bin Laden? Oh, and let's NOT forget that many years ago, Oliver North begged Congress to take bin Laden seriously, stating he was the most dangerous man on earth. Good ol boy Al Gore laughed out loud at him and made fun of him. Yes, I have the video of that Congressional hearing.

Obama is a puppet, a Socialist, Communist puppet, bought and paid for by people who make their billions by starting unrest and wars in other nations. Do your homework before popping off and blaming a good man who did his very best to protect this nation.

HERE'S the crux of Obama's "legacy": He's still spending us into oblivion, while we're paying more in INTERESTon the debt in the first FOUR MONTHS of the year THAN the sum of the TOTAL deficit in 2007 (which for you Bush bashers, is at the height of the Iraq war that you all despise so much.)

Posted by: glorygrace

February 17, 2012 at 8:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

And the weaseling begins....

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 17, 2012 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GloryGrace, you say that Bush bashers dislike the Iraq War.
Does that mean that you like/liked it?
Why?

Posted by: Coralie

February 19, 2012 at 4:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And the weaseling continues....

RE "I equate him to a man named Adolph."
This Adolph?
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/ima...
Or this one?
http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&h...
Or this one?
http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&h...
This one?
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/ima...
How about this one?
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&cl...
This one?
http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_...

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 20, 2012 at 3:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

f someone does not know who the Adolph referred to is then that person is too stupid to understand it.
The bet is off. Make something out of that!

Posted by: kinggeorge

February 21, 2012 at 12:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

fayfreethinker--

RE "'Avoid, as you would the plague, a clergyman who is also a man of business.'
--St. Jerome (345-420), Letter to Nepotian"

Never buy a used car from a preacher.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 22, 2012 at 12:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

DREAM ON! The poll that counts is the one that tallies votes. When it is all over the people will have a new president on Jan. 1. Polls are all over the place. If you are correct in your assessment, Obama would have a 66% approval rating. Please don't tell me you believe that.

Posted by: kinggeorge

February 22, 2012 at 10:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Your post said that Obama was favored 2 to 1. If that is not a 66% percentage....are you saying it is not? A 66% vote is a landslide in anyone's book. You are a fine one to speak of "a reality based person." The Obama based news networks say that his approval rating is on 40% or so. Maybe they are not based in reality and you can tell them that. You don't get the fact that most people are disgusted with Obama because he has done nothing but attempted to dictate instead of govern. He makes promises with no intention of keeping them and fits the definition of a pathological liar. You don't know or won't admit that there are less jobs by the millions than when he took office. He promised to let us drill for oil offshore and when he said it I said he wouldn't and I was right. He will say anything at any time except the truth and he would say that if he thought it would help him. His character is less stable than jello. He is all mouth with no intellectual substance behind it. So he went to Harvard, big deal. He was a token and stilll is.

Posted by: kinggeorge

February 24, 2012 at 5:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I am a product of my era ..... I trust no one.

I'm not sure the Republican bankers didn't cause the financial crisis in 2008 to cause turmoil for the Democrats.

The reason I'm not actually sure (or as Cheney would say, a slam dunk) is because it happened at the end of Bush's term, not at the beginning of Obama's, but maybe that would have been too obvious.

Posted by: Mikeej

February 24, 2012 at 10:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wait a minute. If government never created a job, according to the Republican Mantra, how are they decreasing government jobs?

My bubba brain is all discombobulated now.

Posted by: Mikeej

February 25, 2012 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Just like the people you are talking about, (washington) your issue is more important than the point that needs to be addressed. No wonder nothing gets done.

Posted by: goodneighbor

February 26, 2012 at 1:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mr. D. says Obama is "a person who never had a job except organizing unions."
First, a community organizer is not the same thing as a union organizer.
Second, I notice that people like Mr. D. never mention the fact that Obama was a college teacher. Don't they regard that as a job?
Third, he was an Illinois State Representative and then a U.S. Senator.

Posted by: Coralie

February 27, 2012 at 5:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

All--

Please note that after years of allowing me to use alpha_cat as my screen name, the software at NWAonline/ArkansasOnline has required me to change my screen name, apparently due to a lately-acquired unwillingness to deal with symbols in screen names.

In order to minimize any confusion, and to forestall any disruption in your appreciation of my timely and informative posts, I have selected a screen name that is both as close as possible to, and as easily-read as, my former screen name, and I am announcing the change.

To summarize: alpha_cat is now AlphaCat.

Thank you.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 28, 2012 at 12:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MrD: "...my statement [is] that Obama would be beaten worse than any other president. I stand by that.">>

It's too early to have much relevance, but it is interesting to see the current situation:

"The polling on Romney over the past week has been dreadful... In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Obama leads Romney by six points (50-44) among all voters, seven points among independents (46-39) and eighteen points among women (55-37). Last year Romney led Obama among working-class white voters by 14 points (52-38); now that lead is down to five....

According to Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, Obama leads Romney by twenty-five points (65-30) among unmarried women—a crucial segment of the Democratic base that dropped off in 2010. And he leads Romney by a staggering fifty-six points among Latino voters (70-14), a twenty-point improvement for Obama over John McCain in 2008. If these numbers hold, Obama will defeat Romney in every Western swing state...."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/166650/...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 7, 2012 at 9:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MrD--

RE "As to the bet, the statement was that Obama would be beaten worse than any other president. I stand by that."

So is the bet back on?

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 8, 2012 at 12:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT, printing peoples names in conjunction with slanderous and libelous remarks for thousands to see in a newspaper should make you nervous. Everyone by the same name of the one you named could bring a class action for libel and slander. You will need a lawyer to advise you as how you may lie your way out of that. Watch for the process server!

Posted by: kinggeorge

March 17, 2012 at 11:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm closing this thread. Please refer to and follow our comments policy and avoid personal attacks in future threads. Violation of the policy could result in being banned from commenting.
http://www.nwaonline.com/termsofuse/#...
-Caleb Fort, online editor

Posted by: cfort

March 19, 2012 at 12:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )