• Welcome!
    |
    ||
    Logout|My Dashboard

It’s time for Obama to go on permanent vacation - The Galveston County Daily News : Letters To Editor

September 21, 2014

It’s time for Obama to go on permanent vacation

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

68 comments:

    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • sverige1 posted at 9:41 am on Fri, Feb 28, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 8:28 am on Fri, Feb 28, 2014:

    Well, to simply say "I won't go where I'm not wanted" is an unacceptable stance to make. Good thing that the activists back in the 60s, who pushed the issue of each person, no matter what color, being able to patronize Woolworths diner counters - good thing they didn't give up the fight.

    Too often when we're are small children, we experience being rejected in the playground because "we're not good enough". Well, I made a vow to never live that way again. I will go where I want, when I want, even if I'm the wrong color.

    Exceptions? Sure. As you and I concurred, the exeptions are female saunas, gynecologists, and children nursery playrooms. In the US of A, no proprietor should refuse service to a potential client. If they do refuse, then they've got what's coming to them as consequence(s).

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:28 am on Fri, Feb 28, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    Like I said " Common sense dictates 'Don't go where you're not welcome.' I guess some people don't have common sense." Good luck and God Bless you!

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:51 am on Fri, Feb 28, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 4:02 pm on Thu, Feb 27, 2014:

    I'll even go one more further on this. So, ponce, have you ever gone into, let's say, a barbecue place in a part of town that is overwhelmingly Hispanic or African-American? Have you ventured to patronize soul food establishments?

    I assure you, on most occasions, the establishments will openly welcome you and your business. I've almost never had problems, except this one time at this strange Yerberia place. THEY need to change, not me. Your "Don't go where you're not welcome" phrase doesn't "wash". I'm going to MAKE them welcome me, even if it ruffles their feathers. That's called evolutionization and progressivinaztion.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:40 am on Fri, Feb 28, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Well, kevjlang -
    As I mentioned, anyone CAN file a lawsuit, and it likely wouldn't win the prosecuting filer the case. However, the negative publicity to the proprietor would not be in that private enterprise's owners' best interest. There's not too many folks running stores who want the added headache of death threats, eggs in the mail chute, or hate mail. It's simply common sense to put away childish hangups, bite your tongue, and serve the public. Not everyone we come across we are going to like.

    Heck, when I was working just after H school at Walgreens, my least favorite customers seemed to be old ladies who appeared very demanding and hard of hearing. Now, if I had climbed up the ladder and said that my store won't welcome old ladies, then I'd eliminate more than 1/2 of my pharmecutical business.

    I think places like most parts of Houston and Galveston have evolved enough to realize that to refuse a client for dubious reasons eventually will have a negative effect on the business. Even more importantly, our demographics in this state are changing so much that to refuse a non-White, or to refuse a member of the LGBT community is asking for trouble.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:33 am on Fri, Feb 28, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Well, carlosrponce -
    You've illustrated another rare, extenuating circumstance. Of course, you or I aren't appropriate for a lady's sauna. Neither would you or I be good clientele being served at a children's nursery - as far as being fed, taking naps, and participating in the rounds of "Georgie Porgie". I also don't think you or I could make a case that we were rudely refused service at the gynecologist.

    But, don't you think you're throwing out unusual circumstances at worst, or, at best - extenuating circumstances? An example of what I'm talking about is: a small group of LGBT church-goers (with, let's say, 2 sets of girl-to-girl girlfriends, and 1 set of boy-to-boy boyfriends) who sit at one of our Kelly's restaurants. The shift manager has no right to throw them out because perhaps one of the females looks too "butch". And, that young man who talks in a high voice - for the manager to tell them they are perverts and have to go.....that's what the subject at hand pertains to. Those gray areas. It's obvious that the LGBT group I'm speaking of don't belong as clients in a children's nursery any more than you or I do.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 5:34 pm on Thu, Feb 27, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2900

    Just about any private enterprise reserves the right to refuse service. As long as they don't give a reason, or make the reason painfully obvious, the potential patron probably doesn't have a leg to stand on in court. That potential patron can still sue in either event, but their case would probably stand next to no chance of succeeding. If the case is deemed frivilous, I guess there's a chance that a countersuit would reimburse the defendant's legal expenses.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 4:02 pm on Thu, Feb 27, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    Common sense dictates "Don't go where you're not welcome." I guess some people don't have common sense.
    As to your bottom line sverige, If I walked into the lady's sauna with assurances that they could not prove that I "was potentially harmful to the physical well-being of the other customers " could I use that as justification for my presence?" No, I'd be thrown in jail and branded a pervert, a peeping Tom.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:58 pm on Thu, Feb 27, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Response to kevjlang posted at 12:25 pm on Thu, Feb 27, 2014:

    I actually was discriminated and "thrown out" of a place of business, and I think it was because I was an extremely atypical client to them. It was at one of those small Yerberias in the east part of Houston. I was simply the wrong color (and in the proprieters erroneous eyes - I spoke the "wrong language"). Here's the story:

    This grandmotherly woman saw me walk in, I greeted her in Spanish, and I said I was just browsing. She shook her head "no", and pointed her finger toward the door. I didnt' want to argue too with her (since she was old). So, I calmly asked her why I couldn't browse and that I was interested in perhaps looking for something to buy someone for a gift. No one else was in the store, BTW. Then, I started thinking: It could very well been that the establishment was also a "front" for something else (perhaps illegal), or she may have thought I was an officer, or perhaps a building code, or health inspector. Who knows?

    Bottom line: No establishment has the right to refuse service unless the establishment can, in a court of law, prove that the client was potentially harmful to the physical well-being of the other customers. EXAMPLE: A bar can throw out a rude, violent customer (or one who is drunk). Now, if I wanted to, I could have pressed the issue at the Yerberia. After all, anyone can file a discriminatory lawsuit, but it isn't that important to me that I purchase at that place a fragrance to bless money or a statue for good luck, or an amulet. There are others. However, I thought that maybe next time at that store I could bring along a Spanish-speaking co-shopper to see if the old woman's reaction would once again be the same. Perhaps having another customer in there that was "her kind" would not make her want to throw the Sverige "the Beast" out of there.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 1:33 pm on Thu, Feb 27, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2900

    That proposal to fund the government came with a great big IF that Ted Cruz knew wasn't even supported by his party's leadership and especially knew wouldn't fly past the Democratic leadership. Yes, Harry Reid declined to take the bait. He also knew that Obama wouldn't sign an appropriations bill that failed to fund the implementation of ACA.

    Continue to spin it as you like. However, Cruz, et al, knew full well what the parameters of acceptance were. He chose to insist on something else, and Reid refused to play.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 12:33 pm on Thu, Feb 27, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    "We Did Stop" parody - SNL

    Yes, it was the Republicans who stopped the "gubbermnt". Miley helps demonstrate. See video -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1bdoufPt0

     
  • kevjlang posted at 12:25 pm on Thu, Feb 27, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2900

    That's probably the way most people deal with it. I guess if it's known up front that the baker doesn't want to do business with me, that's fine. However, the longer the process goes on without issues, and then, lo and behold, he springs it on you that he doesn't do business with "x" types of people, then I think most reasonable people would have a right to be at least a little disturbed. After all, you've burned a lot of time and effort in working to make this deal, and then you find out he has some seemingly irrational reason for not wanting to do business.

    Personally, I have no place for secular discrimination of any kind. It just doesn't make sense to me. Others may see some rational reasons for it, but they'd be hard pressed in explaining it to me in a way that I'd not only understand but accept.

     
  • mytoby3113 posted at 11:43 am on Thu, Feb 27, 2014.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 400

    To Carlosnponce ,you can call it waht you want. The Rep. led by Cruz shut

    down the Government.Thats whats so unfortunately.. American people were

    the one who suffered. Just saying. [sad]

     
  • sverige1 posted at 10:07 am on Thu, Feb 27, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 11:35 pm on Wed, Feb 26, 2014:

    Well, carlosrponce, if we were talking about a baker who refuses to serve a non-white, non-Christian paraplegic, we could try to disseminate the "legitimate" reasons as to why this baker, who is supposed to perform a service, has the right to refuse to serve this individual? Does the baker have issues with the "lifestyle" of a paraplegic, or perhaps this paraplegic is unacceptable to the baker because the paraplegic is a non-Christian.

    When we start legitimizing and justifying discriminatory practices of bakers or restaurant owners, then we run the risk of going back to the pre-1960s when there were separate water fountains, disallowed non-Whites in five and dime cafeterias. It's a step back, so to speak.

    Now, there are exceptions. For example, many dance clubs "discriminate". That is, they won't let non VIPs in. And/or, if you're too old or are dressed badly, or downright look like you've been hit by an ugly stick, then they can refuse you. But, we're not really talking about dance clubs. Neither are we talking about modeling agencies. I doubt if any of the posters on this thread qualify to photograph for the Ryanair Beach Calendar. Most of us aren't young, voluptuous 5'9 curvy beach-clad females who would fit the photo monthly category. So, in rare instances, it is justifyable to "refuse service".

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:09 am on Thu, Feb 27, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    kevjlang asks: "What if a gay baker decided that he would no longer cater to straight weddings?" I'd simply find another baker.
    "Do you think that's a reasonable bias?" Yes. It's his or her business, he or she can serve whom he or she wants. Remember "Soup Nazi" from Seinfeld?
    "Do you think the straight community would appreciate such a bias?" As long as we straights know ahead of time we'd be glad to stay clear. ( If the product is that good, I'd get a gay friend to buy it for me.)[wink]

     
  • kevjlang posted at 5:26 am on Thu, Feb 27, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2900

    These days, there's no such thing as a bill that "simply" does anything. I don't care what laws are passed, you probably aren't going to be able to keep people from getting sued. Baking a cake is not a typical exercise of religious freedom. Not baking cakes at the time you're exercising your religious freedom seems reasonable. If you bake the cake, and the people don't like it, it becomes a typical consumer product quality case. Religion has nothing to do with it, unless you claim that baking a bad cake is an exercise of religious freedom, nor is it a gay/straight issue. If you're worried about getting sued for baking bad cakes, then you might want to consider another profession.

    Let's turn the tables around on it. What if a gay baker decided that he would no longer cater to straight weddings? Do you think that's a reasonable bias? Do you think the straight community would appreciate such a bias?

    If a couple hires you to videorecord their wedding, and you have a technical glitch, no matter who the couple is, you're going to have an issue on your hands. Your religious freedom shouldn't absolve you from having to own up to the issue and see it to resolution. You can get a lot of cover in such instances with your contract language, but that still doesn't mean that you won't have to hire a lawyer and respond to a lawsuit.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 11:35 pm on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    SB 1062 is a religious rights bill. The media circus turned it into an "anti-gay" bill. It was passed to amend and define terms in Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. It would simply allow people to exercise their Constitutional right to exercise their Freedom of Religion without being sued. Opponents felt it would be used to deny services to the LGBT community. Question, if a baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay or lesbian couple should he be forced to? Would you put your best effort into baking that cake. And if you did put your best effort to uphold your reputation as a baker, and the gay or lesbian couple or their guests didn't like it, could they sue and get the cake gratis? As a videophotographer I realize that sometimes technical glitches happen. Would the gay or lesbian couple sue me thinking I did it on purpose. "Stuff " happens.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:57 pm on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2900

    What is your opinion of Brewer's veto of SB 1062? Personally, I'm not aware of any modern Christian denominations that advocate secular discrimination against gays. I don't know enough about other religions, but I don't think that the same Christ that chastized the outcasting of lepers would advocate the outcasting of gays. He very well might preach about the evils of homosexuality, but I think he'd still advocate showing human love towards them.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 6:51 pm on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2900

    Your article says that the act contributed to it. It says very little about the act as passed in 1978, but more about as it was later amended, including amendments eagerly approved by George W. Bush. I have posted nothing that says that relaxed standards didn't contribute to the problem. I merely stated that the loans initially stimulated would have been too mature to trigger a meltdown. Most of the loans to blame were loans written in the few years immediately prior to the crisis--loans where the buyers had little to no equity acting as a cushion against going upside-down. There were very few markets that lost 20 years worth of increased home values. There were quite a few that lost more than 5 years of growth in short order.

    Of course, this all sounds like a stark parallel to what they were saying in my high school when I was growing up: Drinking Mother's Milk could lead to heroin addiction. A large percentage of heroin addicts drank Mother's Milk. A large percentage of defaulted loans were either CRA loans, or were inspired by CRA practices. Ergo, CRA led to the meltdown. However, both conclusions ignore significant behavioral activities that were far more critical to attraction of bad loans or bad drugs.

    The bottom line, still, is it took 2 parties to cook up each of those toxic loans. Without irresponsible or non-introspective buyers, the lenders would not have had the money commited. CRA was not a gun resting on the temples of people forcing them to buy homes they could only afford if they and the market stayed on prolonged rolls.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 4:34 pm on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    Unfortunately that false mantra is still being repeated. The Republican led House voted to continue funding government. It was shut down by Harry Reid who refused to let the bills go to committee.

     
  • mytoby3113 posted at 4:10 pm on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 400

    Carosrponce, some of my family member has gotten the AFC you say( Obamacare

    and they ma happy. You can not speak for everybody.

    Please remember when the The Rep. shut down the government. Just saying. [sad]

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 3:50 pm on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    Please read:
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

    Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending

     
  • kevjlang posted at 3:18 pm on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2900

    A refinance does not alter the original mortgage. It's a brand new mortgage. The prior mortgage is retired. I doubt that many of the toxic assets were mortgages that people had been paying on for 15 years or more. I would bet that there were a few where people had mature mortgages and decided to refinance their 200K mortgages with 80K balances into Refi's to cash out 800K on their now million dollar mortgage, but I'd bet that most of those kinds of trades involved changes of residence, though.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 1:57 pm on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    Barney Frank did not cause the housing crisis. This is true. But he did help appoint one of his boyfriends (Herb Moses) to a key position at Fannie Mae and he did nothing to avert the housing crisis as President Bush requested. It's like watching a house catch on fire and not notifying the fire department.
    And kevjlang, you never heard of refinancing a mortgage? "The mortgages initially stimulated by that act would have been paid off, or nearly paid off by 2007." No, not all were. They refinanced since they could not afford the notes in the first place.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 12:58 pm on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2900

    Interesting that you would single out a 30 year old act. The mortgages initially stimulated by that act would have been paid off, or nearly paid off by 2007. The crisis was not caused by mature notes, but by relatively young ones.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 11:46 am on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    "Barney Frank Didn't Cause the Housing Crisis" -

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/barney-frank-didnt-cause-the-housing-crisis/2011/11/28/gIQANqLH5N_blog.html

    Fannie Mae was the problem, as they constantly refused to have their profits taxed. Couple that with PRIVATE lenders granting "nontraditional" loans.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 11:28 am on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    Back in the 1990s we offered an excellent Math course called MOM (Math of Money). In it, students were taught how to manage their incomes, how to invest, how to keep out of hot water financially, balance checking accounts, what type of life insurance to buy, whether life insurance was a good investment, mortgage vs rent, etc. An excellent course. But then the academicians pushed to remove the course and require all high school students to take a college preparatory route: Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2 to start.MOM was removed. Eventually another course Math Models and Applications was added. Although it may contain some lifetime investment skills, it is geared towards using math on the job. Math of Money would have helped quite a few keep out of financial trouble. The financial crisis in 2008 started in 1978 with the Communities reinvestment Act signed by Jimmy Carter. People took out 30 year mortgages on homes that were really out of their reach. 1978 + 30 = 2008. President Bush saw it coming and in his state of the Union told Congress to fix it. Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank saw no problem.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 11:03 am on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2900

    Since the wealthy generally have more people on their payrolls, and perhaps keep a few more employed with their purchases, when they go down, they usually take quite a few others down with them.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 9:52 am on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    You point well-taken, kev. When poor folks falter in the economic sense, it's often slips under the radar as mere paltry pennies lost. But, in reference to the poor and struggling it seems 3 or 4-fold increase in the amount blame to them that they're the cause of our country's economic ills.

    For rich folks to go under and get in trouble, then the million $ losses are, in contrast, detrimental to the whole cycle. We need more blame on a regular basis toward the overextending wanna-be rich. Bottom line is, I don't see a BHO policies/presidency as all of the sudden (between Jan 2009 up till now) as causing our country's woes to the brink of some kind of Armageddon.

    I still say that materialism and greed is the downfall of our society, and whichever current sitting President "in power" cannot affect our thwarted value system(s).

     
  • kevjlang posted at 9:26 am on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2900

    Buying things you can't afford to pay for is an equal opportunity disease. It afflicts the rich, middle, and the poor without prejudice. However, it doesn't take as many rich people to default on huge loans as it takes for poor and middle class people to send ripples through the financial markets. Of course, back in 2007, we had a nice harmonic convergence of poor, middle class, and rich defaults.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:38 am on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Response to kevjlang posted at 12:49 am on Wed, Feb 26, 2014:

    Many of these homes that succumbed to the mortage crisis a few years ago were luxury, multi-million dollar homes. They weren't the "regular struggling to put food on the table" kind of folk, running delinquent on their payments. They were rich folks who overextended. Personal accountability, instead of blame on Washington, should be considered. We live in a culture of overindulgence: credit cards, too-big homes, et cetera, et cetera.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:31 am on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 7:09 am on Wed, Feb 26, 2014:

    [ponce said] - "Sorry, I've never seen 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"'And not "All good educators/professors attend cocktail parties, and they get smashed to oblivion".

    carlosrponce - awwwwww, you're no fun. You must see that movie...Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal, Sandy Dennis. Sandy Dennis was exceptional. She did a great job portraying the "innocent", dutiful junior professor's wife. Yet, even SHE had skeletons that were exposed in this flick. It would be great to also see it somewhere on stage.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:09 am on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    Sorry, I've never seen "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" And not "All good educators/professors attend cocktail parties, and they get smashed to oblivion". The GREAT ones don't. Ever see "The Paper Chase" either the movie or television series? Professor Kingsfield would frown on your remark.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:56 am on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Ponce!

    All good educators/professors attend cocktail parties, and they get smashed to oblivion. Didn't you see "Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf"??

     
  • kevjlang posted at 12:49 am on Wed, Feb 26, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2900

    It's interesting how both the left and the right have trouble giving presidents of the other side credit for positives during their administrations.

    Frankly, I think that we give Washington too much credit and too much blame for what happens. There's more than 300 million of us that are turning wheels on this country and this economy. Saying that what happens is due to Washington essentially dismisses the capabilities of the general populace. For example, with the financial crisis, how many people were held at gunpoint and forced to buy a home the couldn't afford with a mortgage they couldn't repay? What government program forced GM and Chrysler to design and build cars the public didn't want?

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 4:04 pm on Tue, Feb 25, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    A professor would understand educated speech as would my peers. And I do not attend cocktail parties. If sverige you do not understand these words, please look them up in your Funk & Wagnalls, not your "Urban Dictionary".
    A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:56 pm on Tue, Feb 25, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Response to mytoby3113 posted at 12:49 pm on Tue, Feb 25, 2014:

    "President Obama is now not later. Romney has bought a lots houses, but he could not buy the White House."

    LMAO. That's the funniest and most true thing I've heard today. Thanks for sharing.

     
  • mytoby3113 posted at 12:49 pm on Tue, Feb 25, 2014.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 400

    President Obama is now not later. Romney has bought a lots houses, but he could not buy the White House. [beam] [beam]

     
  • sverige1 posted at 11:57 am on Tue, Feb 25, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    ponce -
    Sometimes your choice of words are so unique, so I think Professor Higgins needs to analyze your speech origins. "misogynistic"? "pejorative"?

    You must be a scream at cocktail parties. As far as the TX governorship, there's no reason to take too much credence in the polls. They are a skeletal guide, but by no means predictors. It is interesting to know how not only Brewer is taking the high road (and almost being humanoid)...the same goes for Mr. Perry. He actually hand-slapped Nugent for his ridiculous/disrespectful Obama jab. I think these governors are working on a straw-reaching attempt to not alienate the middle voters.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 11:41 am on Tue, Feb 25, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    Don't worry about Governor Jan Brewer. She is a nice lady, not ghastly and not a bruja. Careful, you sound misogynistic with those comments. She's a good governor. If I were you I'd worry about your friend Wendy. She is 11 points behind Greg currently. Do you DemProgLibs have an October surprise waiting in the wings?

     
  • sverige1 posted at 10:50 am on Tue, Feb 25, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 7:06 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014:

    Yes...And that's a really rad urban dictionary definition. I'm sure it applies to a lot of folks, if they're healthy LOL

    Speaking of Republican governors, what's the story on that ghastly governor of AZ - Jan Bruja? About her state, AZ...she needs to realize that their demographics are changing. Not at the same rate as Texas, but she's going to have to learn to be more sympathetic to the undocumented, women, and gays/lesbians in her state. Even she's soft-pedaling the anti-ACA groups' efforts. Even Jan realizes that the poor and uninsured need some sort of health care.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 10:39 am on Tue, Feb 25, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Response to IHOG posted at 10:33 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014:

    Paranoia....when 2017 comes around, BHO will be another chapter in US presidency. Your life nor my life and our families will not notice a difference.

    Let's be lucky we're not Egypt or the Ukraine.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:06 am on Tue, Feb 25, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    Add to my above post; The government does operate AMTRAK but the freight trains are privately owned companies like the BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway.
    And sverige, as a Texas public school teacher I paid into TRS. I do not draw Social Security. The Interstates are constitutional. The Driver's License bureau is TEXAS run, not a Federal agency. And I loved the movie "The Postman." I don't want the US government to disintegrate but President BO is leading us there.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:45 am on Tue, Feb 25, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    Except for the one that went around Astroworld, I've never been on a moving train. The Pacific Railroad Acts was the short name for "An Act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri river to the Pacific ocean, and to secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes." So they were built for GOVERNMENT use. Again, this is within realm of the United States Constitution: To regulate Interstate Commerce and to Provide for the Common Defense. I have no problem as long as it is CONSTITUTIONAL.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:43 am on Tue, Feb 25, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Well, carlosrponce -
    With that line of thinking, I suppose some folks in the state of Georgia are sorry that the South didn't "try harder" to beat the North. Now, we keep getting invaded with that Yankee stuff, like snow.

    I doubt very seriously that the relatively young, upward thinking folks who voted for Obama (once the first time, and then a 2nd time) have "buyers remorse". There is no one intelligent I know who has said, "OMG, I shoulda voted for Mitty." Por favor.

    The way things are looking now, we've got a shoe in for Hillary. Good thing she waited her turn. She'll rock the White House in 2017.

    - - WENDY DAVIS for Governor - -
    - - Hillary FOR PRESIDENT 2016 HAIL HILLARY!! - -

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:20 am on Tue, Feb 25, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    From the CPRR Discussion Group: "The US government provided funding with the Pacific Railroad Acts, starting in 1862, in the form of bonds sold to the public."

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I tend to go back to perhaps the latter part of the 20th century in regards to the acknowledgment of services rendered by the government. So, carlos, if you want to split hairs, we could say that the cavemen never had governmental assistance. Yes, that would be a true statement.

    Ipso facto, my points hold quite well. For those who lament as to why the government has invaded the health care scene (and blame it on our black man President), then I want all of you to stay off the nationally-funded/maintained Interstates. Stay off the railroads. Don't go to the drivers' license office (it's government-run). So, you can't legally drive. Also, don't enter the workforce, as that's government infiltrated with social security and all.

    Some of you act like the US needs to disentigrate and be rebuilt, a la "The Postman"/Kevin Costner movie. Hail to the newly Restored Unified States (where there's no poor, no persons of color, and the gubment will leave us be)!

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:06 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    "The Railroads were Government made? "The first railroad charter in the United States was issued February 6, 1815 to the New Jersey Railroad Company on behalf of John Stevens and others. The Camden and Amboy Rail Road and Transportation Company (C&A) was chartered on February 4, 1830, on the same day as the Delaware and Raritan Canal Company." etc, etc
    All were run by PRIVATE COMPANIES through charter , not government operated until 1917 when President Woodrow Wilson nationalized the railroads due to World War I. Congress returned them to private companies in 1920. It was not until 1971 that the government regained control with AMTRAK.
    The Interstate was President Eisenhower's idea to emulate Germany's Autobahn in planning for troop transport and movement of military hardware. It is one of the two powers given to the Federal government (regulate Interstate commerce and provide for the common defense) by the United States Constitution.
    And I try to avoid the"Urban dictionary," but I understand "sverige" has an interesting definition in it. Do you wear a top hat?

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:38 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Response to rukidden posted at 11:56 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014:
    Sonny Bono, another actor-turned politician. Fred Grandy, from "The Love Boat". Soaps represent real life. Ashley Judd - a singer - wants to challenge McConnell in Kentucky. The TV and media has, since the Kennedy-Nixon debates, been a driving force in the political realm.

    Today, as we view the ridiculous republican political ads (where they were big cowboy hats and take walks in the quaint rural areas - where there's no poor people or minorities in view), we are being subliminalized, very much like soaps have done to the viewing public. When you clap your hands at the republican ads, you are in essence, being mesmerized by the media, just as the soaps gain their followings.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:32 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 3:22 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014,
    Response to Island Runner posted at 2:27 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014:

    Have you ever read definition of the Boston Tea Party in the urban dictionary?
    LOL

    Interesting how no one here yet has brought up the erroneous point about us not having to purchase a service run by the government. I have news for you - the railroads were government-made. Our current interstate system is government-made. If we refused to "use what the government" made, then let's be all proud and mighty about it, and let's drive the state-made roads. Avoid the interstates that the nanny government made. Sounds soooooooooo logical.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 3:32 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    Yes, but they held a poll recently. ABC news Washington Post poll of registered voters shows. Mitt Romney with a lead over President Obama if the election were to be -- run now. The rematch puts Romney 49% beating Obama at 45%.
    They call it "Buyer's remorse". But you're right, can't do anything about it.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 3:22 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    Now, now., Island Runner. The Problem started with Woodrow Wilson and accelerated with FDR. Yes, its true when Presidents Hoover, Nixon, Bush I and Bush II wandered away from fiscal conservative views and they added to the "mess". Read the economic policies of JFK. You will find him right in line with Ronald Reagan. And the Tea PARTY movement actually started in 1773. " Tea Bagger" is a pejorative and is not allowed in GDN forums, so watch your language. We need a President like Calvin Coolidge to get us out of the economic mess we're in. While President BO did not start it, he made it far worse.

     
  • mytoby3113 posted at 3:09 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 400

    True, he is a smart, intelligent man of color . He was elected not once, but TWICE, yes TWICE by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN people. So no amount of LYING, CRYING can undo that. [beam][beam]

     
  • Island Runner posted at 2:27 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    Island Runner Posts: 401

    If you want to trace to problems with this country start with Reagan and follow the GOP to Dubba Bubba Bush, in a nutshell you will see why it will take decades for the Dems to straighten out the mess the GOP and Tea Baggers have caused

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 2:01 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    After being an actor, Ronald Reagan was President of the Screen Actor's Guild and Governor of the State of California, legitimizing his voice in politics. It was Nancy not Ronald who consulted astrologers.
    Sean Penn like every other run of the mill Hollywood actor supports any leftist cause. Nothing special here.
    Morrisey had his 15 seconds of fame back in the 1980s. Like Penn he will support any Leftist cause. Again, nothing special here. (Until sverige mentioned him, I never heard of the guy. I asked people from the eighties about Morrisey. Their reply, "He came, he sang, he faded away." Even those who enjoyed his music said, "Who cares what he has to say about anything?"

     
  • Bigjim posted at 1:09 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 440

    Every President from JFK on has bad things they did. No mater what party is in office the other side will look for the bad things. All Presidents have people in the back ground making the calls on what they did. A lot of times it the same people year after year. Right now they are using the ACA to distract most on what is going on in the government. They used Voodoo economics when Regan was President.

    And the beat goes on.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 12:34 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Well, the Reagans (actors) consulted astrologists. Many politicians have been and/or are also in the entertainment business.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 12:21 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    You have to realize that sverige thinks actor Sean Penn (Jeff Spicoli) and Morrisey - a British singer) are legitimate sources in political discussions. Gotta love him for his chutzpah! [beam]

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 12:09 pm on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    Give credit where credit is due sverige. The Border Patrol ( and many of them are Hispanic) work long hard hours and they put their lives on the line. I fault President Bush for not pardoning agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean sooner for shooting drug runner Osvaldo Aldrete Davila in the rear. Instead Bush commuted their sentences on his last day in office.
    Talk to the agents. They will tell you that despite delayed justice under the last Presidency, the "rules of engagement" with hostile border crossers was better under Bush than now. For Obama to take credit for the deportations looks like spiking the football for someone else's touchdown. Not Presidential, totally classless.

     
  • rukidden posted at 11:56 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    rukidden Posts: 77

    So we are to take you seriously, someone whose political beliefs are based on what they learn from TV Soap operas? You can actually remember episodes of old Soaps like that? [wink]

     
  • sverige1 posted at 11:32 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 10:46 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014,
    Response to IHOG posted at 10:46 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014:

    Well, let's see. From the severe citiquers, Obama has been discredited for the lack of success in getting the unemployment rate down fast enough, yet he shouldn't be credited for the increased deporation ratio because "it wasn't because of him".

    That line of thinking reminds me of those soaps, like when committee is sitting at Erica Kane's Enchantment Cosmetics boardroom meeting, and Erica's so jealous of Brooke's success in getting the new make-up line launched that Erica squawks about how Brooke didn't make the sales quota, or how Brooke didn't maximize the advertising strategies, or how Brooke took too much vacation and because of that, Brooke didn't make it to the promotional event in the Bahamas that would have boosted sales.

    A lot of woulda coulda shoulda. Let's face it, Obama's presidency very likely will not be better nor worse than our modern-age presidencies since Clinton.

     
  • IHOG posted at 10:46 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Can anyone remember when Reagan replaced Carter.
    WOW did that ever feel good.
    As bad as Carter was the U.S. recovered, thrived and surpassed all Democrat administrations in less than three years.
    The BHO regime has been a lot like a second Carter administration.
    America after BHO will be as great as it was after Carter.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 10:46 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    "[T}his President has deported more illegals then any President in history."
    You can thank the Border Patrol agents for the deportation not this President. I know several agents who inform me that they do their job despite the fact that BO has stymied their efforts. There is a huge influx of illegals coming here under the idea that BO will grant them amnesty. Yes the number of deportations is up but the number who get through is even higher.

     
  • IHOG posted at 10:33 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    It'll feel so good when the pain stops.
    Who'd ruin our government while BHO is on extended vacation?
    Biden? No thanks!

    Drumb & Severige
    Presidents sign laws. Presidents can't revise laws. OBAMA has illegally revised ACA 29 times to help Democrat election chances.
    He has illegally used government agencies [ FBI, NSA, Treasury Dept, FCC, DOE, DOJ? ] for political advantage.
    I suspect you both call "if you like, you can keep, period" anything but a lie.
    Do you call it smart politics?
    He swore an oath to protect America from enemies both forighn and domestic.
    He is our greatest domestic danger.

     
  • Granny6 posted at 10:07 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    Granny6 Posts: 4

    Thank-You Jake :):):)

     
  • IHOG posted at 9:52 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Drumb
    Read your post then check your facts. Nearly all of your post is incorrect.
    Recess apointments when there is no recess? 29 revisions of ACA?
    Fast and furious, Solyndra, Benghazi, NSA, FBI, FCC, Fisker.
    On top of these breaches of the law he claims he "didn't know" until he read the morning paper. A good administrator would fire rogue bureaucrats doing things behind his back but he promotes them.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:45 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2264

    Island Runner says:"Might want to go back in time to the Bush administration." Sounds like a great idea! Although not a perfect President, he is far better than what we have today. America is now the laughing stock of the world - a paper tiger. No world leader takes the US seriously. What economic recovery we see is due to the leadership of the Republican Governors. And still we see the Obamabots carrying water for this failed presidency. Bet they still think Obamacare is working.

     
  • Island Runner posted at 8:25 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    Island Runner Posts: 401

    Might want to go back in time to the Bush administration. We have been able to overcome some of that disaster under the current administration, but it will be decades before America can recover from Bush.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 8:03 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3388

    Folks who deride our President simply refuse to accept an intelligent, forward-thinking, man of color with a beautiful family. It's jealousy and the fear of the unknown.

    I concur with drumb47, the points made in this letter are not fact-driven.

     
  • drumb47 posted at 6:45 am on Mon, Feb 24, 2014.

    drumb47 Posts: 251

    Jake, next time you go on a rant, support your concerns with a few facts to give your
    argument a little bit. Example: you said this President is not following the Constitution as our founding fathers had intended. What part of the Constitution is the President not upholding? You mention not protecting the boarders. Well, fact is, this President has deported more illegals then any President in history. He's also responsible for the electronics and drones that protect our boarders. You mention his playing Golf while on vacation. Fact, "President Barack Obama has taken less vacations then most Presidents in modern history."

    From where this Country was when President-elect Barack Obama took office, to where, under his leadership the Country is today is proof positive history will be kind to this man.