• Welcome!
    |
    ||
    Logout|My Dashboard

Obama offers no hope of the future - The Galveston County Daily News : Letters To Editor

August 22, 2014

Obama offers no hope of the future

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.

59 comments:

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

  • Bigjim posted at 8:14 pm on Fri, Feb 7, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 407

    Just like you I can fill in blanks, Does not make it true.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:31 pm on Fri, Feb 7, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    I take it back, Bigjim, Proglibs DO have a sense of humor based on your above post, or at least you do. Ha Ha Ha!

     
  • Bigjim posted at 6:59 pm on Fri, Feb 7, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 407

    One
    Big
    Awesome
    Man for
    America!

     
  • kevjlang posted at 6:44 pm on Fri, Feb 7, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    Hmmm. Whoever the Democrats nominate in 2016 will be demonized by the Republicans. I believe you and I would term that as politics. Of course, in the good old days, they only demonized each other over a short campaign season and then kissed, made up, and went to work solving problems. Now, they just jump into the next two year long political cycle.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 5:26 pm on Fri, Feb 7, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3198

    Response to kevjlang posted at 4:09 pm on Fri, Feb 7, 2014:

    You brought up a good example of the merits of weighing each candidate's issues. To some voters, they may happen to have one issue that decides their vote.

    I am of the voting camp who looks at a candidate's overall belief system. She has other beliefs other than gun toting that I align with. Wendy's revelation that she is OK with law-abiding folks packing pistols is reasonable. Although I personally think that some people are gun-happy, and I continue to question their "need" to always have a gun on them, anyone who isn't a proven psychological time-bomb (and doesn't have relatives in the house who are certifiable psych cases)....then, their gun possession is allowable.

    Issues that are more important to me than her stance on guns? They include: her willingness to filibuster against education cuts, her support for local/Texas contractors for TX Dept. of Transportation repairs, and her support for veterans (voted for Entrepeneur programs that allow former service members to obtain trucking/plumbing/HVAC and electrician licenses through tuition exemptions, etc).

    _ _ WENDY DAVIS _ _ GOVERNOR _ _ FOR YOU, ME, ________________________________FOR TEXAS_____________________

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 5:20 pm on Fri, Feb 7, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    No matter who the Republicans nominate in 2016 for President, the ProgLibs will demonize. Chris Christie is not the Conservative's choice. He is the media's choice as was Mitt Romney and John McCain. Hillary Clinton already has a running mate even if she doesn't want him - Ben Ghazi. So Wendy is now a Pistol Packing Mama. Who knew?

     
  • kevjlang posted at 4:09 pm on Fri, Feb 7, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    There are as many ways of measuring intelligence as there are people that think about conducting such studies. I'm not going to put much credence in what those studies say. Intelligence is one of many traits that politicians and voters need in order to build an effective government.

    sverige1, did you see the news over the past few days that Wendy Davis is pro-pistol-packing? Does that change your perception on whether she can offer hope for the future of Texas?

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:49 pm on Fri, Feb 7, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3198

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 12:52 pm on Fri, Feb 7, 2014:

    Well, the vast preponderance of studies say that liberals are smarter than conservatives:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

    Now, a good question that relates to the article at hand: Which republican candidate can "offer hope for the future"? I think Christie is out of the running....er, he never could "run" to begin with. LOL [lol] [lol][tongue_smile]

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 12:52 pm on Fri, Feb 7, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    You can find a dozen we sites saying ProgLibs have a better sense of humor and then I can find a dozen websites that say Conservatives have a better sense of humor. A Standoff. But you got it wrong, sverige, ProgLibs don't tell better jokes, they are the joke - just look at who is sitting in the White House -
    One
    Big
    Awful
    Mistake
    America!

     
  • sverige1 posted at 12:36 pm on Fri, Feb 7, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3198

    Carlosrponce said:

    "And let's say you are not familiar with Mike or his sense of humor. The laughter gives it away..." Seems like Liberal Progressives don't have a keen sense of humor or are just clueless (the laughter was the clue)."

    On the contrary, many studies have proven that the more liberal the person is, the likely better sense of humor he/she has. Straight-laced conservatives don't have the life experiences that portend to varied humor. And, it is a well-documented fact that liberals place more value on being funnier. Article -

    http://www.yourmorals.org/blog/2011/04/liberals-place-more-value-on-being-funny-than-conservatives-and-libertarians/

     
  • kevjlang posted at 8:34 pm on Thu, Feb 6, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    Over the next 9 months, billions of dollars will be spent on campaigns. If the Republicans or Democrats want to get the truth out, they will have the opportunity to blast it out over the airwaves. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, et all, will have a hard time convoluting messages of truth if any are out there. Fact is, no politician will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 8:27 pm on Thu, Feb 6, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    They were still Republicans, they were on the Finance Committee, and they did work on drafting the ACA. That is enough to disclaim assertions that Republicans were shut out of Obamacare.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 5:25 pm on Thu, Feb 6, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3198

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 3:45 pm on Thu, Feb 6, 2014:

    Then you, Carlos, be a change agent for your party and help turn the republicans around so they can be electable. It can be done. Agreed...a 2 party system is best with both involved.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 4:01 pm on Thu, Feb 6, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    To the rest of the Senate at the time the three Senators mentioned were Persona Non Grata.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 3:45 pm on Thu, Feb 6, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    If the media would do its best to walk the unbiased path then the true Republican message would get out. In Obamacare we have seen the results of one party rule.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 2:06 pm on Thu, Feb 6, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3198

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 7:46 am on Thu, Feb 6, 2014:

    From what articles I have come across, the Republicans indeed have had input in the ACA-making process. One of the things they helped create were incentives for the insured. This amounts to having members take surveys, rate their health process, and receive compensation for their committment - and the practicing of their newly formed habits.

    But, let's say that the Republicans were indeed "shut out" of the proceedings. Wouldn't that not bode well on the republicans' lack of ability to exert their persuasive powers? In a real team, players who do not exhibit leadership skills are ejected from the team. Truth is, the public has been steadily rejecting the ineffectiveness of the GOP. That's why it's a party in disarray. As I've mentioned before, our country is better off with a strong 2-party system. The republicans have a lot of work to do to restore faith in the public. They need to move on and not look back at their failed past.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:28 am on Thu, Feb 6, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    Carlos, you are the one rewriting history. There was almost a deal with, albeit limited, bipartisan support. The Republicans on the committee were just about to deliver the votes needed for the legislation to pass the house. At that time, there were too many Democrats that wanted a single-payer system that were committed to not support the bill. At that point, the Republicans discovered that not only were they not going to be able to deliver the handful of votes they thought they had, but they also found that it would be politically unpopular for them to continue supporting the bill. It was at that point that the Democrats went their own way, tweaked the legislation so that they could get passage with only Democratic votes, and shut Republicans out. The bill was about 95% or so ready when the the Republicans abandoned the proceedings, and they were then locked out while the Democrats adjusted that last 5% in order to get the few Democratic fence-sitters on board.

    Being excluded from the last 5% is not the same as being excluded entirely. You showing partisan blindness if you think that's a reasonable leap of logic.

    If Republicans had nothing to do with it, just exactly who were those "Democrats" in the Senate Finance Committee during the summer of 2009 that looked remarkably like Mike Enzi, Charles Grassley, and Olympia Snowe?

     
  • Bigjim posted at 8:59 am on Thu, Feb 6, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 407

    carlosrponce
    It’s very important
    that we are all are heard. They cost of only one side being in charge is to great. Thank you for your side
    Jim

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:28 am on Thu, Feb 6, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    I'm just a voice crying in the wilderness.
    How about a doctor? Dr. Benjamin Carson seems to have a good head on his shoulders and a good heart.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:46 am on Thu, Feb 6, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    Kevjlang, don't rewrite history! The Republicans did not turn their backs on the proceedings. Their input was unwanted, they were NOT invited. The Democratic Congress ramrodded that bill telling Conservatives your input is not welcome. The Republican Party then turned to the airways to warn the people this bill was not good for America. Don't forget Nancy's mantra "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It". The Dems had a Super majority and with Nancy at the lead you see what we got.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:13 am on Thu, Feb 6, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3198

    Response to kevjlang posted at 10:26 pm on Wed, Feb 5, 2014:

    Well, of course your wisdom does not compare to the depth of Carlos' [beam]
    He has the toehold on all things of God and country. LOL

    I've always heard in the business world that a good employee will not only bring to light a given problem, but will also come up with a possible solution. Our politicians have tremendously failed in that aspect. What strikes me as disturbing is that most of the politicians have some trade of their own already existing. If that existing career is mainly "lawyer", then we're all in trouble. No wonder lawyers have a bad "rep". They are on the receiving end of ridicule in day-to-day life (see their ridiculous personal injury commercials on TV).

    Aside from most of their "lawyering" lives, I still find it hard to believe that most of these folks who are our leaders/representatives are in mainstream society "making deals", circulating in commerce, making millions, etcetera. I propose that term limits be given to existing Senators, Representatives. When they are phased out, let's elect in their place non-lawyers (proven, successful businesspersons) - the kind of folks we see on "Shark Tank" or CEOs/leaders/managers on "Undercover Boss". I think a lot more would be done in the future.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:26 pm on Wed, Feb 5, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    It's extremely easy to point fingers and say that someone else is at the root of a problem. It's tough to say we are the problem. It's extremely difficult to acknowlege that I have a problem. However, when we get down to it, whether it's the government deficit, crime in our communities, or the racial divide, these are all OUR problems. Collectively, WE got ourselves into this mess. In one way or another I played a role in it. If we accept Carlos's stance that it's the DEMOCRATS fault, then WE must help the DEMOCRATS become part of the SOLUTION. WE will not solve the problem without their help. We wouldn't be in this situation if WE had worked with them to make sure it DIDN'T happen.

    If we buy the Republican line that they had nothing to do with Obamacare, WE must respond that by turning their backs on the proceedings, they had plenty do do with it. Action is not the only way to be a part of something. Those who refuse to act are just as responsible as those that act inappropriately.

    Like the saying goes, when you point a finger at someone, you have 3 fingers pointing back at you. If something is broken, it's up to all of us to fix it. The Root Cause Analyses, finger pointing, and all of that can wait until corrective action is complete.

    I'm sick and tired of the climate that it's not advantageous to be a part of success when the alternative is to let someone else fail. It was made remarkably clear 5 years ago when the Republicans declared that their goal was for Obama to be a 1 term president. They saw NO upside to potentially 8 years of success. Their focus was on ensuring 4 years of failure (which they now hope will be 8 years of failure). Mentally, I can't get my mind around making FAILURE a goal. I don't even like having FAILURE be an outcome. I sure as heck am not going to strive for failure.

    Then again, I'm probably not as wise as Carlos.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 2:06 pm on Wed, Feb 5, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3198

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 12:31 pm on Wed, Feb 5, 2014:

    I concur with kevin. Regardless of what political "beliefs" one has (and whether one has formal education to back up the beliefs), anyone from any belief system can be prejudicial in mind and spoken word.

    I'm sure we can name a few high-profile "liberal" pundits and politicians who are quick to assume that for every situation, race has something to do with a group of people being "wronged". Speaking of "All in the Family", there were a few times where Archie "called on" Mike the Meathead of Mike's own predispositions. It mainly involved male chauvanism, but not always. That was part of the comic relief - to point out that a "liberal" can be just as narrow-minded as a conservative. But, it's usually the other way around. [wink]

     
  • kevjlang posted at 1:28 pm on Wed, Feb 5, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    I'm sure your friend knew a lot of people. I doubt he knew everyone that spoke and acted like Archie Bunker. I'd bet that if his sample size were larger, he'd have found plenty of representatives from the right, too.

    Bigotry and other prejudices are not the sole domain of any political party. The conservatives are no more free of prejudice as the liberals or moderates. Claiming that any of the problems in this country are the primary domain of one party is just another example of denial.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 12:31 pm on Wed, Feb 5, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    Re-read my response to your original "All in the Family" post. People with Archie Bunker's ideology were DEMOCRATS who lived in that time and area and thought and spoke that way.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 12:12 pm on Wed, Feb 5, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3198

    Well, carlosr -
    If I had been in "the family way" back then, I would have had the intelligence factor to know that "All in the Family" was a satirical piece of entertainment that delineated and illustrated the hypocrisies of the extreme conservatives.

    My cousin, in her refusal to expose her children to the up-and-coming examples of entertainment in "Americana", shortchanged her children and stunted their growth. She prevented many possible teaching moments. The children grew up broken and unable to navigate through the modern world. Often, we would try to "call on" our cousin's transgressions, but it was to no avail. I doubt if any governmental entity would have been able to get through to her either. All I know is that Bea Arthur "rocks". Long live Bea.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 11:52 am on Wed, Feb 5, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    sverige- If you believe in "live and let Live", you will let your family watch those programs and not bother your Cousin Lee about what she allows her children to see. Funny you should mention David Koresh. David Koresh was born Vernon Wayne Howell in Houston, Texas in 1959 to a 15-year old single mother. He never knew his father. I usually don't use generalities because there are exceptions to every rule but children brought up in a traditional family, one in which he or she is the genetic offspring, of a married couple called parents, generally do better than their counterparts from non-traditional families. Again, there are exceptions to every generality.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 11:17 am on Wed, Feb 5, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3198

    I believe in "live and let live". You're only here once, so get all you can."

    There's nothing wrong with family programming that portray gays and lesbians. It's more broad base entertainment. The traditional family life has been portrayed over and over from the days of "Father Knows Best".

    Now, more at the subject thread at hand, I doubt if any of our 1700's-type wigged politicians forsaw the debate surrounding "non-traditional" families and "alternative lifestyles". I think what they had more in mind was the more common dialogue of individuals' right to bear arms and the desirability of having states being protected from the federal government's bullying. Problem is that even thse more common dialogues have mushroomed much past original debates. For example - did David Koresh and his extremist followers have the "right" to bear all those arms, with guarantee of a non-intrusive government?

    Is it OK that a rural township sector of Connecticut was evidently blinded by the caldron that was brewing when little Adam Lanza became the monster he became? Would a state or federal takeover of his mommy's weapons have been construed as an Obama-originated plan to do what Nazi Germany ended up doing? That's where the so-called dialogue deteriorates. But, there truly are folks who believe that since January of 2009, our nation has been under a siege of federal intrusiveness. I simply don't believe this is true. We need more evidence of this.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 6:27 pm on Tue, Feb 4, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    So, in non-traditional families, conservatives are afraid that there are no parents filling that role, and, feeling that the role fo content filter is of utmost importance, the government needs to step in and fill that role?

    There definitely are groups with conservative backing that want the government to help keep such programming off the air, or at least classify programming featuring "non-traditional" families off of "family TV" channels. I can't think of any other good reason why they'd want to do that if they truly believe that filtering the programming was the parent's responsibility.

    Both sides of the fence have their inconsistencies with regards to the role of government. This is just one of many examples of it. Whether it affects the general belief of each side is subject to debate. It just illustrates that the general belief is probably not universal. Both sides certainly have areas where they'd like to see the government more involved and areas where they'd like to see the government less involved. That's the gist of my point. You may be more consistent than most in your beliefs, but that doesn't mean that you aren't allied with others that are less consistent than you.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 5:38 pm on Tue, Feb 4, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    In traditional families, parents set the standards on what their children see and hear. No Nanny state needed here.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 5:20 pm on Tue, Feb 4, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    Parents that want the government to step in and block programming that THEY (the parents) should be blocking. They want the government to make it so they don't have to filter their children's content. Sounds like conservatives wanting to use a "Nanny State" to their advantage.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 5:16 pm on Tue, Feb 4, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    Conservative groups did not just want to isolate them, but felt that their speech had no redeeming value and wanted them shut up.

    During Lenny Bruce's time, there were few, if any, kids that were getting access to his comedy. The family unit was strong enough to provide all the content filters the kids needed. His many arrests for "obscenity" were for cussing in adult night clubs. A lot of the most controversial material put out by Cheech and Chong and George Carlin was also put out when parental filtering was generally providing enough filtering for the kiddos, too. These were cases where the parents were bothered that their ears might be exposed to the content, not their kids.

    Social Conservatives were very strong supporters of Tipper Gore's PMRC. The goal of PMRC was not a voluntary designation by the record companies. The voluntary designation, however, is the best they could get when the social conservatives couldn't get federal legislation drafted that would codify the standards around such labeling, and make the labeling mandatory.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 4:38 pm on Tue, Feb 4, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    You classify them as "Conservative". I classify them as "PARENTS". Parents should be the ultimate authority in what their children watch, unless you want the government to usurp that authority too.
    By the way, a friend of mine lived in the New York area at the time of production of "All in the Family". " All in the Family" was supposed to represent the Queens neighborhood of Corona although the house shown is actually on Cooper Avenue, Glendale, NY. My friend, Alfred Lauf was amused because people who acted and spoke like Archie Bunker and lived in those neighborhoods were Democrats.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 4:15 pm on Tue, Feb 4, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3198

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 4:04 pm on Tue, Feb 4, 2014:

    Let me recall some conservatives I remember who "guarded the freedom of speech" found in the Constitution. Let's see, first was my Cousin Lee who wouldn't let her children watch "All in the Family" because the sitcom came too close to home in illustrating Lee's prejudicial natures. As they say, "the truth hurts".

    Fast forward almost 40 years to today: The "Million Dollar Moms" don't want a sitcom on at the Disney Channel because it depicts two lesbians in their "alternative lifestyle". They're soooo scared that their children's delicate sensiblities will be compromised and "confused". So, now how's that conservative guardianship of the 2nd amendment goin' for ya?

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

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    Conservatives recognize that Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Cheech and Chong have a protected "Freedom of Speech" found in the Constitution. What we want is the media to exercise prudence so that only adults can access some of their off-color jokes and language. Funny they have a freedom of speech but the ProgLibs will not extend that right to Phil Robertson.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 2:46 pm on Tue, Feb 4, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    Conservatives wanted Lenny Bruce banned. They also wanted George Carlin banned. And Cheech and Chong. They've also lobbied to get gansta rappers banned.

    Evidently, conservatives aren't the model of "sense of humor" either. A lot of people think that Mike Huckabee is a joke, not just the things he says, but his existence. Would you say that they have a sense of humor? There are plenty of people that feel Obama is a joke, too. Does that mean that Obama and Huckabee have a lot in common?

    Politicians should all know that just about everything they say will be pounced on. Huckabee has been in a few rodeos. He knows that what he says is subject to twisting. He should be wise enough to not feed the machine. He's done his own share of word and idea twisting over the years.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 11:06 am on Tue, Feb 4, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3198

    The ProgLibs who say that some are "clinging to their guns" is a true statement. Just look at all of the conspiracy theorists who have, in the recent past, committed henous crimes. David Koresh comes first and foremost.

    Then, there was a gentleman (licensed pilot) a couple of years ago who ran his airplane through an IRS building in Austin. Whether it's guns or some other lethal weapon, we have a problem of glorifying violence in our U.S. society. Politicians need not add to the problem with off-color jokes. I don't think that's asking too much that the public be given by them a good example (being that most politicians are of "good standing" through their educative law degrees, business status, etc.). God knows the politicians aren't too good at....er....governing.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:50 am on Tue, Feb 4, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    What about a ProgLib lamenting that some are “clinging to their guns and religion?” Would you have a problem with that? Both are protected under the United States Constitution.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 8:41 am on Tue, Feb 4, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3198

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 8:17 am on Tue, Feb 4, 2014:

    In the world we live in today (campus, mall, military base shootings), it is not responsible, but rather dangerous, to joke about another's bodily harm. If Hillary herself (or some other ProgLib said something to the effect of harm, then I would also not condone it.

    Off-color jokes have a way of following public figures. Quite awhile ago, ex-Houston mayor Louie Welch, not knowing cameras were still rolling, made an inappropriate "shoot the queers" joke. That clouded his entire political and social existence until his death.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:17 am on Tue, Feb 4, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    It's like I said before, the Leftist ProgLibs have no sense of humor.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:23 am on Tue, Feb 4, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3198

    You can tell the true character of a person by the company he/she keeps and the kinds of jokes he/she tells. In a public venue where the safety and well-being of consitutents are involved, there is no room for "blowing up Russia" jokes nor "forcing gunpoint to listen", nor insinuating that women who seek birth control "can't control their libido".

    Any misinterpretation of such jokes is understandable. There's a time and place for humor. Most political meetings, civic city hall meetings are not the time nor the place. So, Reagan + his protegee Huckabee = Humor FAILS

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 6:42 pm on Mon, Feb 3, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    I knew it was a joke the moment he said it. And let's say you are not familiar with Mike or his sense of humor. The laughter gives it away. When Barack Obama said "I'm not the strapping young Muslim Socialist that I used to be", even his detractors knew he was just joking. Seems like Liberal Progressives don't have a keen sense of humor or are just clueless (the laughter was the clue). I like Mike.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 6:26 pm on Mon, Feb 3, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    His fans believe it to be a joke, his detractors believe it to be his true feelings. All very well may be wrong to varying degrees.

    One thing that most public speakers must understand is that they should never assume that people will assume the correct context for any remark, and that if you must explain the context, it might be wise to withhold the remark. It's kind of like the rule of comedy--if you have to explain the joke, it's probably not funny.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 5:17 pm on Mon, Feb 3, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    Mike's statement was just a joke.

     
  • Bigjim posted at 5:11 pm on Mon, Feb 3, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 407

    You could claim Freudian slip or it
    could be how they really think.

    This is one of the things people do. They look at a small sample of a person body of work. This is what happens with most of our President’s. A group will only look at the bad things they do and not at the good thing that they also do.
    This can be said for most Presidents starting with JFK. Things like TV, internet, cell phones have helped increase the speed of this happening.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 4:26 pm on Mon, Feb 3, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    Sorry about that, make that Bigjim instead of sverige I am responding to.
    Bigjim Can't you hear the laughter in the background? Mike is being facetious in that statement. Man, get With it!!! I guess you took it literally when Ronald Reagan did a microphone check and said "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes." on August 11, 1984. It's called Humor.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 4:21 pm on Mon, Feb 3, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    sverige, Can't you hear the laughter in the background? Mike is being facetious in that statement. Man, get With it!!! I guess you took it literally when Ronald Reagan did a microphone check and said "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes." on August 11, 1984. It's called Humor.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 3:25 pm on Mon, Feb 3, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    Both parties, because of their lack of true desire and will to come to an agreement that would be even remotely unpalatable to themselves, caused the government shutdown. There is plenty of blame to go around. However, none of that blame-casting does one iota towards solving the problem.

    Huckabee did in fact lead in with "...if the Democrats..." However, the takeaway is that the Republicans, whom he claims to represent, feel that government should not help cover the costs of female contraception, regardless of whether the women can afford it.

    I think it would be an interesting survey to determine how many Republican women versus Democratic women that have birth control coverage in their medical plans refuse to accept the coverage when it comes time to fill their prescriptions. I'll bet that there's little difference in the percentages that accept the coverage. I'm not going to venture a guess as to whether Republican women are more or less likely to ask for or fill such prescriptions.

    I think it would serve Huckabee well to understand the various reasons that women use birth control pills, and how many of them take the pills with the primary reason not being to keep from getting pregnant.

    If a working woman with an employer policy has the option of getting birth control through her insurance provider, why shouldn't a poor woman on welfare not have the same option? Is it fair and reasonable to expect poor women to have to endure uncomfortable periods just because someone thinks it's immoral to allow them to prevent pregnancy by any other means than saying no and keeping their knees together unless they want to kick in their own money?

     
  • Bigjim posted at 1:51 pm on Mon, Feb 3, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 407


    You can see this on u-tube
    "Mike Huckabee believes that all Americans should "be forced at gunpoint no less" to listen to David Barton".
    "So let me get this straight. Christian minister, Mike Huckabee, wants to force his fellow Americans, under threat of death, to listen to David Barton? Do I have that about right?".
    This is from The Immoral Minority web sight. This was from a speech he made. You can find things like this about most public people.


     
  • carlosrponce posted at 12:09 pm on Mon, Feb 3, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    There you go again, sverige, misquoting Reverend Huckabee. He was describing the DEMOCRATIC Party's portrayal of women. Funny how you left off that part. That's what you get for reading only Leftist sources. Try reading the ENTIRE speech. Here’s the full quote: “And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let’s take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than Democrats have made them out to be.”
    And stop the Democratic Party LIE. Ted Cruz did not and COULD NOT shut down government. Senator Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader shut down the government.
    I feel sorry for you sverige, swallowing the Democratic talking points Hook, Line and Sinker. I'll pray for you.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 12:07 pm on Mon, Feb 3, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    Can we declare a truce on the intentional butchering of people's names? I guess at one time it might have been done for comic effect, but I'm not sure there's any value to it anymore.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 11:47 am on Mon, Feb 3, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3198

    Response carlosrponce posted at 8:07 am on Sat, Feb 1, 2014:

    Yes, carlosjponce -

    Huckthebee and Rafael Cruz are demonized because they figuratively represent the Demon. Huckabee is intolerant of the diversity our nation is becoming and very insulting of women by his comments that "birth control is only for those women who cannot control their libido". Those are dangerous and inappropriate for a politician to espouse. Also, ridiculously said at an interview Huckthebee claimed "most” single moms would rather be married and have a nice ‘Leave It To Beaver’ Home.” That's not an intelligent thing for a politician to say in the goal to help his constituents.

    As for Rafael Cruz, he was discredited last year for his catapulting the "shut down" simply because it was an ill-considered tactic that even most of his republican counterparts knew would not accomplish anything, but rather fracture the republican party even more. Now, that's not really "demonizing" him, yet illustrating that he is an ineffective, divisive, impetuous junior senator. Even his colleague Rick Sanitorium said the ill-fated shutdown efforts "did more harm than good".

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:15 pm on Sun, Feb 2, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    Yeah, Clinton gave us a balanced budget, but, like Reagan, he still left us with more debt than we had when he took office. A pretty familiar refrain. However, neither presidency is remembered for the national debt it left behind, but because the we felt the country was in better economic shape than when they came in.

    It's questionable whether even a total capitulation by Obama would yield an agreement of substance with the current congress. We've seen at least a couple of times that when Obama did move in their direction, they moved the line of agreement further to the right. At this point, no one in the Republican party, especially those running this year, wants to hit the primary trail on the heels of an agreement with Obama.

    In any event, Reagan and Clinton won the presidency because people believed they could deliver. However, their success was not due to how good their words made people feel, but because the actions they took led or coincided with good things happening.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 9:00 pm on Sun, Feb 2, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    Reagan didn't promise "hope", he promised results. Clinton knew when to cooperate with Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress following the 1994 mid-term elections. Clinton fought against a balanced budget, now he takes credit for it. For an inspirational leader look to John F. Kennedy who was a fiscal conservative. BO should study JFK's speeches on economics.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 2:29 pm on Sun, Feb 2, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2783

    The success of the 80's was due to far more important items than the "hope" we got from Reagan. The 90's were far more than Clinton's charisma. The current economic sluggishness is due to a lot more than whether people have faith in "Hope and Change". Being inspired by our leaders isn't all it takes to make a vibrant economy.

    If you have no hope for the future, I don't care who's president, you have no hope. Hope comes from within, not from some chair in DC.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 1:51 pm on Sun, Feb 2, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    There is a clear path- follow the United States Constitution. Republicans also believe in the "Rule of Law". The Leftist describe the Republican party as fractured. The Democrats are just as fractured but they are described as "having a wide tent" to cover differing viewpoints. Depends on your perspective. The Path seems awfully clear to me.

     
  • Bigjim posted at 1:04 pm on Sun, Feb 2, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 407

    Republican Presidential Candidate (fill in the blank) if things do not change will not get elected in 2017 because the Republicans are a party that has no clear path. They have different parts going down a lot of paths that led to a fractured party. Unless Republicans get a direction instead of we do not care what it is, we do not like it if a Democrats likes it. A Democrat will be President in 2017, unless they fix what needs to be changed.

     
  • IHOG posted at 12:16 pm on Sun, Feb 2, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Carlosponce.

    Don't forget BHO gets away with lying because our constitution protects lying as much as truth. The progressive mantra is it isn't lying until it's proven in a court of law.
    BHO should be impeached for lying but that would make Biden President.
    I'd as soon keep the lier as have Biden as president.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:07 am on Sat, Feb 1, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1960

    So sad that those who do offer hope, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, etc. have been demonized by the leftist media. The Dem-Lib-Progs already have their talking points for 2016: "Republican Presidential Candidate (FILL IN THE BLANK) is a anti-minority, anti-woman, homophobe extremist". It doesn't matter who is selected, the mantra is already in place. I don't think President BO lied on purpose but he surrounded himself with a lot of academicians out of touch with real Americans. They told BO what he wanted to hear and BO bought it. The biggest joke on his staff is Eric Holder who never should have been nominated for Attorney General in the first place. BO lost any credibility by keeping him. BO promised"HOPE and CHANGE". Well he got the CHANGE part right but it was not change for the better.