Letter: 'The real issues'

J.N. Miranda, Naples

'The real issues'

President Barack H. Obama and his liberal strategists have laid a political smokescreen to highlight the phony Republican war on women and the ever popular one-sex marriage issue.

But the smokescreen is not thick enough to cover the real issues that will decide the presidential election in November.

The real issues are our overwhelming debt, deficit, out-of-control spending, lagging economy, poor job creation, illegal immigration, failed foreign policy, gas prices and the ever "popular" Obamacare.

Come November the American voters will speak loud and clear as to the direction they want the country to move.

Keep in mind, Mr. President, that in the West Virginia presidential primary, a convict serving 17 years in prison got 40 percent of the Democrat vote to your 60 percent.

I think Mitt Romney just might sweep the table on Nov. 6.

© 2012 Naples Daily News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 58

whalling writes:

The writer is correct, in my opinion, that Obama uses smokescreens and sleight of hand tricks to distract us from his failed policies. The other techniques that are his hallmark are the politics of demonization and division. He regularly demonizes Congress, the Supreme Court, businessmen on his enemies list, American companies, the rich and successful and other organizations. He is The Great Divider, not a uniter. Obama fosters class warfare all the time and he has given tacit approval to the violent Occupy movement. Never before has America been so polarized. I cannot remember any president of the past that demonized and divided like Obama.
It is very unpresidential for Obama to act this way and embarrassing for America. It is easy to divide people, it requires great leadership to unite people.

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to whalling:

The writer is correct, in my opinion, that Obama uses smokescreens and sleight of hand tricks to distract us from his failed policies. The other techniques that are his hallmark are the politics of demonization and division. He regularly demonizes Congress, the Supreme Court, businessmen on his enemies list, American companies, the rich and successful and other organizations. He is The Great Divider, not a uniter. Obama fosters class warfare all the time and he has given tacit approval to the violent Occupy movement. Never before has America been so polarized. I cannot remember any president of the past that demonized and divided like Obama.
It is very unpresidential for Obama to act this way and embarrassing for America. It is easy to divide people, it requires great leadership to unite people.

Aha! A new description, (Did someone say, "Smokescreen?") DEMON!
The demon is extreme materialism.
Look it up, and you'll be enlightened.

Violence comes in many forms. The definition includes the forceful interuption of public speakers without giveng them a chance to be heard. Yes, it is violent to yell and scream at someone when they are talking.

You agree with the author, yet neither of you shows any examples of failure.

Pragmatic1 writes:

No War on Women by Republicans?

What do you call denying a woman's choice over what does and does not happen in her body?

What do you call Myth Romoney refusing to support the Lilly Ledbatter Act for Women's equality?

What you you call Myth Romoney wanting to make Planned Parenthood just "go away"?

What do you call Republicans wanting to fund Student Loans by reducing Women's Preventive Health Care Funding?

What do you call Republican efforts to reduce social programs which disproportionately help women?

To say the current Republican leadership is not anti-women is like saying Iran is not anti-Israel.

Pragmatic1 writes:

Is there a Current Republican leadership?
if so it is out there so far on the right it has disconnected from the majority of Republicans, forget about the left.
We need a good two party system and I hope by 2016 we have one again.
But the Party of NO needs to get the message NO MORE first.
I believe that will happen this year.
Face it, TheParty of NO offers NOTHING but NO to vote FOR.

That isn't enough.

Robertofnaples writes:

in response to MiguelSangria:

Aha! A new description, (Did someone say, "Smokescreen?") DEMON!
The demon is extreme materialism.
Look it up, and you'll be enlightened.

Violence comes in many forms. The definition includes the forceful interuption of public speakers without giveng them a chance to be heard. Yes, it is violent to yell and scream at someone when they are talking.

You agree with the author, yet neither of you shows any examples of failure.

When your only complaint is, "You" didn't fix what "we" broke fast enough; seems to sound very foolish, indeed!!! Now as to smoke screens; who is pushing "social issues", as a problem? Hmmmm! That goes back to who is generating the smoke. Of course "Gay" marriage will surely destroy America? Again foolishness to the tenth degree. Please explain to me; how two loving committed person's love, can cause you a problem? Is it that it's called marriage? Is it that Gay's can't procreate? How about this; Heterosexuals stop producing Children; as Gay couples can't produce Children in the traditional way. So, in fact it's heterosexual reproduction that is the root cause of Homosexuality! Or unless you are married in a Church; you have a civil union? Civil rights, are called civil unions period!!! Do you suppose equality in race, and gender would have happened if put to a popular vote? Do you suppose segregation, would have ended as well? Now comes the question of recognizing Gay Marriage; does not "Equal Justice" for all ring a bell here? Well it just may be another test of American's views of what the forefathers intended.
Who can really say that over 200 years of what many hold dear is wrong on matters of love. How could it matter to someone, that the overall failed institution of marriage; include Gay people?

pmz writes:

"The real issues are our overwhelming debt, deficit, out-of-control spending"

Necessitated by the Bush wars that Obama is ending, the Bush Great Recession that Obama has ended, and the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts rewarding income from wealth over income from work that Obama will end.

"lagging economy, poor job creation"

Necessitated by the give away by neo-republican bussiness people who sent millions of American careers overseas in exchange for outlandish bonuses.

"illegal immigration"

Brought about by neo-republican business people looking for cheap labor to come here to exchange for outlandish bonuses.

"failed foreign policy"

This one is pure imagination. The only evidence supports foreign policy that has led to the restoration of American stature around the world that Bush lost us. We were the global laughing stock under his administration.

"gas prices"

Apparently the neo-republicans want Obama to repeal the law of supply and demand against the wishes of big oil who are riding it to record profits.

"and the ever "popular" Obamacare"

The only progress made by any President in eliminating the drag on our global competitiveness from our 2X the cost, mediocre performance health care for half of us antiquated health care system.

Clearly neo-republicanism has led us here and the only complaint that can be made of Obama is that he hasn't ended the ill effects of Bush fast enough. Probably as fast as possible isn't fast enough but certainly faster than electing Bush's twin.

We simply can't afford neo-republicanism.

pmz writes:

J.N. Miranda, Naples comes here as often as allowed and tells us what Rush told him. Apparently hoping that independent patriots will become Dittoheads.

Every time, he gets a thorough education here on the facts that the Great Meathead neglected to mention.

Why does he continue to demonstrate his ignore-ance?

What does dittohead-ism promise him that education doesn't?

More for me, less for you?

Or merely a pat on the head from the cult leader?

DinNaples writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

No War on Women by Republicans?

What do you call denying a woman's choice over what does and does not happen in her body?

What do you call Myth Romoney refusing to support the Lilly Ledbatter Act for Women's equality?

What you you call Myth Romoney wanting to make Planned Parenthood just "go away"?

What do you call Republicans wanting to fund Student Loans by reducing Women's Preventive Health Care Funding?

What do you call Republican efforts to reduce social programs which disproportionately help women?

To say the current Republican leadership is not anti-women is like saying Iran is not anti-Israel.

Why don't you tell us what Republicans have actually done to harm women.

You tell us what you say they "want" to do without any proof of harm.

Yet, when you hear what Democrats have done to destroy our economy you disavow any knowledge of the same.

DinNaples writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

Is there a Current Republican leadership?
if so it is out there so far on the right it has disconnected from the majority of Republicans, forget about the left.
We need a good two party system and I hope by 2016 we have one again.
But the Party of NO needs to get the message NO MORE first.
I believe that will happen this year.
Face it, TheParty of NO offers NOTHING but NO to vote FOR.

That isn't enough.

There certainly is a Republican leadership. You simply choose to ignore it. What you are looking for is two Democrat parties. Ain't gonna happen.

TiredoftheBS writes:

Pragmatic1 writes: What do you call denying a woman's choice over what does and does not happen in her body?

Demand the government to stay out of the womb but demand money from the government for birth control!

Hypocritical!

ALL Obama's points are carefully studied controversial subjects to garner votes. He doesn't care or support them it's just to maximize votes.

His stance on gay marriage is the perfect example. Against it when running the first time because it would split the evangelical and black vote. Supports it now to get the gay vote and even the black leadership who openly spoke against gay marriage before is saying "doesn't matter anymore, vote for Obama".

Again, hypocritical!

pmz writes:

Notice in all posts the total lack of any support for Bush mini me Romney. Nobody wants him for President. Unfortunately he's the best that neo-Republican's can offer.

Neo-Republican's only argument is that Obama hasn't led to recovery from Bush fast enough, but all they offer is a return to Bush.

Wierd.

pmz writes:

in response to DinNaples:

There certainly is a Republican leadership. You simply choose to ignore it. What you are looking for is two Democrat parties. Ain't gonna happen.

There used to be two centrist parties who worked together from different perspectives.

Then people like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh invented the neo-republican party and took it hard right to extremism.

Now we have one functional party and one roadblock.

In Nov a course correction will start the recovery of the Republican Party.

We all wish them a speedy recovery.

GoFr writes:

"The real issues are our overwhelming debt, deficit, out-of-control spending, lagging economy, poor job creation, illegal immigration, failed foreign policy, gas prices and the ever "popular" Obamacare."

This best describes Bush and company, except for Obamacare for which we can thank Romney...but nice try.

pmz writes:

in response to pmz:

There used to be two centrist parties who worked together from different perspectives.

Then people like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh invented the neo-republican party and took it hard right to extremism.

Now we have one functional party and one roadblock.

In Nov a course correction will start the recovery of the Republican Party.

We all wish them a speedy recovery.

I forgot to also credit the late Lee Atwater and Joe McCarthy, the inventors of American extremism.

pmz writes:

in response to ccwoody58:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_M...

"Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate."

"The term McCarthyism, coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist activities. Today the term is used more generally in reference to demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character and/or patriotism of political opponents.[2]"

PAREIDOLIA (Inactive) writes:

"laid a political smokescreen"
Maybe so MIRANDA; but the Republicans, Fox News, and Limbaugh were s----- enough to take the bait and run with it.

The "REAL ISSUES" Miranda?
These REAL issues didn't just arise. They have been developing over the last 15 years.

-And what was the GOP and that jerk Limbaugh concerned with over the last 15 years?

Ans. Anti abortion, stem cell research, Planned Parenthood, god, prayer, family values, creationism, Whitewater, Monica's semen stained dress, and planting the 10 commandments in the public square.

You got exactly what was coming to you MIRANDA; YOU and the GOP.

whalling writes:

Edward Klein is a former editor for the New York Times magazine, a fairly prestigious position. He just released excerpts of his biography of Obama with the book to follow. He covers Jeremiah Wright, remember him, Obama's pastor for 20 years in a Chicago church. Wright spewed hatred for America and white people on a regular basis from the pulpit. Of course, Obama said he never paid much attention, but continued to attend church services for 20 years. When Wright became a campaign negative, Obama dropped out of the church. Klein now reports that one of Obama's closest friends offered Wright $150,000 to stop preaching and be quiet until after the election in 2008. In addition, Obama told Wright he wanted a secret meeting with him. Wright suggested Obama meet him in his home where he had been "countless times" and they met again. Wright laid low until after the election. Wonder what was said at that meeting and what happened to the $150,000 offer? The book with the full story should be available soon.

straighttalkinnaples writes:

Obama has aggressively sought to "fundamentally transform" America -- one of the few promises he has kept from the days of 2008.

Five trillion dollars of borrowing, ObamaCare passed over the objections of the majority of Americans through legislative legerdemain and special deals made with resistant politicians, failed stimulus, green programs failing left and right as taxpayers are left holding the bag, a recovery that is the most anemic on record, an America that has been sundered by the man who promises to unite us, America weaker abroad and at home -- yes, America has been fundamentally transformed.

Mission Accomplished!

pmz writes:

It's incredible how imaginative neo-republicans have become in their desperation to steer all conversation away from their failed practices, policies and candidates.

I would think that, if there are any bright people left in the party, they would be asking themselves why it's so necessary to obscure rather than enlighten. Why the only path left for the neo-republicans is blindly following the Antea Obama Mob.

Why the only explanation for the results of their governance is to lie.

It must be similar to those who supported Sadam Hussein in Iraq. The truth just couldn't be told.

Pragmatic1 writes:

in response to DinNaples:

Why don't you tell us what Republicans have actually done to harm women.

You tell us what you say they "want" to do without any proof of harm.

Yet, when you hear what Democrats have done to destroy our economy you disavow any knowledge of the same.

Well, by your logic, the 20th hijacker on 9/11 should be set free. After all, he really didn't do anything, he just tried.
Lets throw out the Attempted Robbery and Murder laws.
Lets not criticize the Right until AFTER they take away a woman's rights.
According to you, they are not wrong just because they are trying.
It is amazing how some people will believe ANYTHING they want to.

By the way, I have a splinter from "The Cross".
Send me $10 and I will send you a piece of it.
Guaranteed to heal anything that is ailing you.

Wake up already!

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_M...

"Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate."

"The term McCarthyism, coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist activities. Today the term is used more generally in reference to demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character and/or patriotism of political opponents.[2]"

Another wikipedia citation. So what?

You should familiarize yourself with the Venona Project and many books (not just online sources of questionable value) on the subject of Soviet espionage in the US since WWII and up to the fall of the USSR in 1990. Even Wikipedia has some info on Venona for the slow learners.

pmz writes:

in response to ruf462:

Another wikipedia citation. So what?

You should familiarize yourself with the Venona Project and many books (not just online sources of questionable value) on the subject of Soviet espionage in the US since WWII and up to the fall of the USSR in 1990. Even Wikipedia has some info on Venona for the slow learners.

Do you consider yourself more expert on McCarthyism than the author of the Wikipedia article?

Why?

Did you read the Wikipedia article that I referenced?

What errors did you find?

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

Do you consider yourself more expert on McCarthyism than the author of the Wikipedia article?

Why?

Did you read the Wikipedia article that I referenced?

What errors did you find?

Not that you will read the following cites, or comprehend them, but here they are:

http://beyond-school.org/2010/01/03/w...

“Wikipedia: “Wikipedia is not a reliable source” “

http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampu...

“Even Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they SHOULDN’T USE IT FOR class projects or SERIOUS RESEARCH.” [emphasis added]

http://naomi-rockler-gladen.suite101....

“Students should avoid citing Wikipedia in papers because it lacks credibility. “

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/edu...

“…. a growing debate within journalism, the law and academia over what respect, if any, to give Wikipedia articles, written by hundreds of volunteers and subject to mistakes and sometimes deliberate falsehoods. Wikipedia itself has restricted the editing of some subjects, mostly because of repeated vandalism or disputes over what should be said.”

I could go on. But why bother? You should feel free to impugn your own credibility every time you rely on Wiki sources to prove a point.

Pragmatic1 writes:

in response to TiredoftheBS:

Pragmatic1 writes: What do you call denying a woman's choice over what does and does not happen in her body?

Demand the government to stay out of the womb but demand money from the government for birth control!

Hypocritical!

ALL Obama's points are carefully studied controversial subjects to garner votes. He doesn't care or support them it's just to maximize votes.

His stance on gay marriage is the perfect example. Against it when running the first time because it would split the evangelical and black vote. Supports it now to get the gay vote and even the black leadership who openly spoke against gay marriage before is saying "doesn't matter anymore, vote for Obama".

Again, hypocritical!

If President Obama is hypocritical because he changed his mind about same sex marriage and decided that gay people are people also and deserve the same rights as all others, then how do you define Myth Romoney who has changed his mind on absolutely everything?

Or at least Myth appears to do so depending on which crowd he is speaking to.

pmz writes:

in response to ruf462:

Not that you will read the following cites, or comprehend them, but here they are:

http://beyond-school.org/2010/01/03/w...

“Wikipedia: “Wikipedia is not a reliable source” “

http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampu...

“Even Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they SHOULDN’T USE IT FOR class projects or SERIOUS RESEARCH.” [emphasis added]

http://naomi-rockler-gladen.suite101....

“Students should avoid citing Wikipedia in papers because it lacks credibility. “

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/edu...

“…. a growing debate within journalism, the law and academia over what respect, if any, to give Wikipedia articles, written by hundreds of volunteers and subject to mistakes and sometimes deliberate falsehoods. Wikipedia itself has restricted the editing of some subjects, mostly because of repeated vandalism or disputes over what should be said.”

I could go on. But why bother? You should feel free to impugn your own credibility every time you rely on Wiki sources to prove a point.

Why are you avoiding my questions?

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

Why are you avoiding my questions?

I answered them en mass. "Wikipedia is not a reliable source."

ruf462 writes:

in response to ruf462:

I answered them en mass. "Wikipedia is not a reliable source."

..with an "e".

pmz writes:

in response to ruf462:

I answered them en mass. "Wikipedia is not a reliable source."

Way more reliable than you are.

As expected, your defense of Rush begins by, guess what?, repeating what Rush tells you. Talk about an unreliable source.

If you know something specific in any of my Wikipedia references is wrong, tell us what it is.

If you are saying that you don't know what's wrong, but something might be, I'll say that is the most in-credible whine that I can think of.

TiredoftheBS writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

If President Obama is hypocritical because he changed his mind about same sex marriage and decided that gay people are people also and deserve the same rights as all others, then how do you define Myth Romoney who has changed his mind on absolutely everything?

Or at least Myth appears to do so depending on which crowd he is speaking to.

He hasn't changed his mind, he is buying votes as he has done throughout his political career!

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

Way more reliable than you are.

As expected, your defense of Rush begins by, guess what?, repeating what Rush tells you. Talk about an unreliable source.

If you know something specific in any of my Wikipedia references is wrong, tell us what it is.

If you are saying that you don't know what's wrong, but something might be, I'll say that is the most in-credible whine that I can think of.

I am surprised that you didn't quote Wikipedia to "prove" that my posts were taken from Rush's opinions. Perhaps if you rush to publish a commentary in Wikipedia, proofread using an English language dictionary published by someone other than a Chinese lexicographer, provide yourself with a number of your own references, and write a prologue using words that even you can understand, you could then cite your Wikipedia opinion as authority.

I will give you a few days. Good luck.

pmz writes:

in response to ruf462:

I am surprised that you didn't quote Wikipedia to "prove" that my posts were taken from Rush's opinions. Perhaps if you rush to publish a commentary in Wikipedia, proofread using an English language dictionary published by someone other than a Chinese lexicographer, provide yourself with a number of your own references, and write a prologue using words that even you can understand, you could then cite your Wikipedia opinion as authority.

I will give you a few days. Good luck.

The world is completely aware that Rush is the original source of the Wikipedia and AGW neo-republican myths.

The Wikipedia myth was fabricated because it was just too ready a source to dispel so much of what he's been selling. Anybody who regularly checked his story everyday against Wikipedia would be cult resistant, and therefore reject his brand. The source of his billion dollar empire.

It was merely good business on his part to get rid of his biggest threat, the truth.

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

The world is completely aware that Rush is the original source of the Wikipedia and AGW neo-republican myths.

The Wikipedia myth was fabricated because it was just too ready a source to dispel so much of what he's been selling. Anybody who regularly checked his story everyday against Wikipedia would be cult resistant, and therefore reject his brand. The source of his billion dollar empire.

It was merely good business on his part to get rid of his biggest threat, the truth.

Fascinating.

I googled your post and this came up with reference to the President's reelection campaign:

"When The Truth Hurts Delete It… Wikipedia Scrubs “Forward” Entry Clean".

Coincidence, I'm sure.

You could sloganize your DNC sanctioned creed as "All Reelection Rhetoric Points to Rush".

pmz writes:

in response to ruf462:

Fascinating.

I googled your post and this came up with reference to the President's reelection campaign:

"When The Truth Hurts Delete It… Wikipedia Scrubs “Forward” Entry Clean".

Coincidence, I'm sure.

You could sloganize your DNC sanctioned creed as "All Reelection Rhetoric Points to Rush".

What is the "truth" behind Obama's re-election slogan?

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

What is the "truth" behind Obama's re-election slogan?

Google the quote. Read it. Embrace it. [Weeping/gnashing of teeth is/are up to you.]

pmz writes:

Great presentation of President Obama's promise of "forward" and how it differs from the Antea Obama Mob's promise of "backward".

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/...

pmz writes:

in response to ruf462:

Google the quote. Read it. Embrace it. [Weeping/gnashing of teeth is/are up to you.]

Why do you have to work so hard to avoid answering simple questions? What are you hiding?

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

The checklist of party-approved talking points to be mindlessly regurgitated ad nauseum that 'pmz' uses as a reference guide for his posts must be a smoldering heap by now.

The DNC Chairman is going to owe 'pmz' a case of gold stars by the time this thread is done, for the extremely thorough job that he has done repeating the dogma to which he is so helplessly and so completely addicted.

It would be very entertaining if it weren't so pathetic.

Pragmatic1 writes:

in response to TiredoftheBS:

He hasn't changed his mind, he is buying votes as he has done throughout his political career!

I guess that's why the polls said supporting Same Sex Marriage would hurt him.

He picked up many open minded people but he lost many closed minded.

The beauty of his support is that he DIDN'T gain politically by doing it. He already has the Liberal vote.

He allowed his moral decision to further alienate him from Conservative voters.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

I guess that's why the polls said supporting Same Sex Marriage would hurt him.

He picked up many open minded people but he lost many closed minded.

The beauty of his support is that he DIDN'T gain politically by doing it. He already has the Liberal vote.

He allowed his moral decision to further alienate him from Conservative voters.

Obama's announcement last week was hardly a "moral decision". His announcement last week was as pure a politically motivated "decision" as you will ever see.

Why?

Because it's an election year and he needs to drum up potential votes wherever he can find them, because he's going to need all he can get come November.

If this weren't an election year, and if he weren't in an election race that is still too close to call at this point, he would still be dithering on the topic and waiting for his opinion to "evolve" more in an effort to put off taking a stand either for or against the issue as long as possible, if at all.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with what he actually believes. If that were really the case, he would have made this stand a long time ago.

It has everything to do with how desperate he is to get re-elected.

Ironbutterfly writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

The checklist of party-approved talking points to be mindlessly regurgitated ad nauseum that 'pmz' uses as a reference guide for his posts must be a smoldering heap by now.

The DNC Chairman is going to owe 'pmz' a case of gold stars by the time this thread is done, for the extremely thorough job that he has done repeating the dogma to which he is so helplessly and so completely addicted.

It would be very entertaining if it weren't so pathetic.

Pathetic Mindless Zombie fits him to a T. Everything he writes morphs into a silly jumble of propaganda and nothing more. Progressives are so desperate for attention because they're on their way out and deep down they know it. Every post they write sounds like a swan song, sreaming Rush, Rush, neo-cons, I can't wait until they return to the black holes they were in before Obama let them out.

Robertofnaples writes:

in response to pmz:

Great presentation of President Obama's promise of "forward" and how it differs from the Antea Obama Mob's promise of "backward".

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/...

A famous quote from the Korean War comes to mind here. When a Soldier ask his General; Sir are we retreating? The General replied, "No, we are simply attacking in a different direction". This seems to be what is rubbing the G.O.P. the wrong way. They (the G.O.P.) want to follow the failed policies of the past; to a brighter future. While the rule regarding insanity is; trying the same thing again and again; expecting different results. Truth be told; We have to attack in a different direction, or the outcome is clearly in sight; FAILURE!!!

pmz writes:

in response to Robertofnaples:

A famous quote from the Korean War comes to mind here. When a Soldier ask his General; Sir are we retreating? The General replied, "No, we are simply attacking in a different direction". This seems to be what is rubbing the G.O.P. the wrong way. They (the G.O.P.) want to follow the failed policies of the past; to a brighter future. While the rule regarding insanity is; trying the same thing again and again; expecting different results. Truth be told; We have to attack in a different direction, or the outcome is clearly in sight; FAILURE!!!

100% of the electorate agree that the neo-republicans have nothing to offer.

Half of the electorate are trying to cover that up, and half are trying to uncover it.

pmz writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

Obama's announcement last week was hardly a "moral decision". His announcement last week was as pure a politically motivated "decision" as you will ever see.

Why?

Because it's an election year and he needs to drum up potential votes wherever he can find them, because he's going to need all he can get come November.

If this weren't an election year, and if he weren't in an election race that is still too close to call at this point, he would still be dithering on the topic and waiting for his opinion to "evolve" more in an effort to put off taking a stand either for or against the issue as long as possible, if at all.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with what he actually believes. If that were really the case, he would have made this stand a long time ago.

It has everything to do with how desperate he is to get re-elected.

I didn't realize that you and Obama were so close.

Did he reveal any other of his personal thought to you during your conversations?

pmz writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

The checklist of party-approved talking points to be mindlessly regurgitated ad nauseum that 'pmz' uses as a reference guide for his posts must be a smoldering heap by now.

The DNC Chairman is going to owe 'pmz' a case of gold stars by the time this thread is done, for the extremely thorough job that he has done repeating the dogma to which he is so helplessly and so completely addicted.

It would be very entertaining if it weren't so pathetic.

Oh look, Mr rubber stamp is back with the same ol', same ol'.

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

Why do you have to work so hard to avoid answering simple questions? What are you hiding?

Google “When The Truth Hurts Delete It… Wikipedia Scrubs “Forward” Entry Clean” and you will get the following.

“But, now it’s gone…
A quick search on Wikipedia revealed that “Forward” was, also, the name used for several Socialist publications. However, once Obama launched his new Communist-themed campaign, the Wikipedia post that had been on the site for a year and a half just mysteriously disappeared.”

The foregoing is just another coincidental cluster of coincidences, I’m sure. Coincidentally, with this Admin we have become quite accustomed to coincidences.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to pmz:

Oh look, Mr rubber stamp is back with the same ol', same ol'.

You were obviously looking in the mirror when you wrote that.

You haven't posted an original thought in years.

Watching you hypocritically try to attribute behavior to others that you epitomize yourself as regularly as you do is very entertaining.

You're irrelevent, but you're always good for a laugh.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to pmz:

I didn't realize that you and Obama were so close.

Did he reveal any other of his personal thought to you during your conversations?

I am curious to know if I am closer to Obama than you are to Rush Limbaugh?

The authority with which you speak about him and his message and his intentions for this country can only be gained through an intimate relationship such as the one that you and Rush obviously share.

Does he reveal anything else to you during your private conversations that you care to share with the rest of us?

Perhaps explaining your own intimacy with Rush will help you understand what you wish were true about any alleged relationship with Obama that you think I have.

MiguelSangria writes:

Ah! The2012RevolutionHasBegun.

.....

.....

.....

.....

"It's everyone elses fault!"
"I'm calling you names because I have no original thought, because...
Everyone lied to me!"
"Get rid of all the politicians!"
"Don't look at what I wrote, quick(!), look over at this guy's post!"
"Whatever you say about Republicans, Democrats did it, too!"

ZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZzzzzZZZZZZzzzzZZZZZzzzz

You can thank The2012RevolutionHasBegun for the nap incentives...

(Just a quick thought. Wonder what he's going to change his name to this time? The last one was so descriptive and obvious (snicker), and this one will be out of date...)

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to pmz:

Oh look, Mr rubber stamp is back with the same ol', same ol'.

Man, you've gone past the edge.

Can the nurse even make sense of you anymore, or does she just clean off the keyboard and pass you to the next shift?

RichMKing writes:

in response to trader9:

Man, you've gone past the edge.

Can the nurse even make sense of you anymore, or does she just clean off the keyboard and pass you to the next shift?

pmz IS the rubber stamp man.Blame Bush,blame the rich.He didn't get the severance package from Kodak that he thought he deserved so he hates his life and everything in it.Same basic nonsense posts day after day.He doesn't drive a Prius and live in a tiny condo because he wants to save the planet.It's all his meager retirement will allow him to own.The man is so full of hate for anyone that is marginaly successful it borders on insanity.In his sick mind anyone with a smile on their face is Satan himself.He has no one to blame for his miserable existence but himself.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features