Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

OBAMA: Which rights have been destroyed?

Letter by Nicolette Purnell, Gig Harbor on July 6, 2010 at 12:47 pm with 104 Comments »
July 7, 2010 9:10 am

Re: “Expectations, sadly, have been met” (letter, 7-2).

I would like to congratulate the author on such a well-written and apparently well-researched letter. In fact, it is a miracle The News Tribune was able to publish this letter despite President Obama’s revocation of our constitutional rights.

As a young American just given the privilege of voting, I would love to hear the specifics behind the writer’s assertions. Please tell me how Barack Obama weakened America’s strength, how he corrupted our courts and how he destroyed our economy. Please tell me when he embarrassed our country on the world stage. I would love to know these things, so I will never vote for a politician who lives up to such expectations.

Tags:
Leave a comment Comments → 104
  1. Well, let’s see; “how did Obama weaken America’s strength and destroy our economy”? How about an 11 Trillion dollar deficit (and counting) that you, as a young person will spend the rest of your life paying for. How did he corrupt our courts? Remember when the Black Panthers were standing outside of a voting office with clubs in their hands intimidating people? What happened? Obama’s Justice Department dropped the charges. What happened to the concept of a fair trial and the right of ALL people to vote? “When did he embarrass our country on the world stage? How about when he insulted the Israeli Prime Minister by walking out on him during a meeting and left him sitting alone while Obama went upstairs for dinner? How about not having the usual photo op with the Prime Minister that presidents always have with visiting dignataries? How about sending a bust of Churchill back to England that they had presented to President Bush, without as much as a note of explanation as one of his first “house cleaning” chores? He has managed to slap our closest allies in the face within the first year of his election. He has warned our enemies in Afganistan that we will be pulling out our troops by mid-2011. That would be like the cops telling you that they will no longer monitor the speed of cars on a stretch of highway and you are welcome to drive as fast as you want, you’ll just have to wait until a certain date to do so. He has weakened our security by allowing a flood of illegal aliens to enter the country, then having his Attorney General file a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for trying to protect their citizens. These are but a few examples, there are many many more.

  2. Publico says:

    Nice spin frosty, but they are all lies or exaggerations or strawman arguments. Try to do better next time or maybe you don’t mind making a fool of yourself.

  3. Publico, nice try at deflection. Do you have anything of substance to offer or just the same old rhetoric and name callig?

  4. Sumner401 says:

    “Please tell me how Barack Obama weakened America’s strength, how he corrupted our courts and how he destroyed our economy. Please tell me when he embarrassed our country on the world stage.”

    He didn’t do any of those things, unless of course you listen only to certain far right America hating America bashing media outlets.

  5. socialismisgood says:

    Yeah, and those black panthers where marching with guns and….. Oh never mind, that happened in 1968. I heard that the bust of churchhill was sent back to England….What did you say….the English loaned the bust to the Bush administration after 9/11. How dare you give it back Mr. Obama!! The Next one is just to funny to even think about.. “Walking out on the Israeli Prime Minister” On a scale of one to ten, this would rate a 20 on a international embarrassment meter. Frosty, come on back when you get something really credible.Here is a Hint: Hannity or Rush are not exactly the most realiable sources.. .

  6. Yeah! right! Obama didn’t sit in that racist church for twenty years! His ol’ lady never said “for the first time in my adult life I’m proud of my country”! Yeah! Right! Obama was born in Hawahii! That’s why he’s so anxious to show everyone his birth certifcate!! The bust of Churchill wasn’t loaned to “America”, it was loaned to Bush!! Yeah! Now I get it !! It’s Bush’s fault! Walking out on a Head of Sate is no big deal!! Presidents do it all the time!! Yeah, maybe in Chicago that’s considered “good manners”, yeah, right!! Here’s a hint, Rev. Wright is not necessarily the best source since he’s been thrown under the bus by his “boy”!

  7. beerBoy says:

    How about when he insulted the Israeli Prime Minister

    GOOD! American presidents should place American interests first, second, third, fourth, and fifth.

    No more Israeli firsters as American politicians.

  8. socialismisgood says:

    It’s amazing how “the conservative right” enjoys re-writing history, In your case you might want to break out the dictionary when writing some of those big words. (Like Hawaii) Not to worry I know you lack a good education. Even you don’t believe the rhetoric, that our President was born in a foreign land. As Credible, of a conservative as Ann Coulter can be, she has debunked that myth. However, if you insist on believing, I have a great movie for you to watch, it’s called “conspiracy theory”. As for your contention that Mr. Obama has opened up the flood gates and allowed free range for folks south of the boarder, this is simply a “Lie”. In fact the previous administration was clearly aware of the practices of big businesses in the southern and midwestern states that needed cheap labor, so they ran big ads in newspapers, and various print media in Mexico, telling the poor unemployed workers, to come to our processing plant to work. How is Obama to blame for something that happened before he was in office? Re-writing history is a favorite pass time for the right.

    Hint: Onelook is a great online spelling source!

  9. Fibonacci says:

    frosty
    Careful there, you will have a stroke. That 11 trillion dollar debt that is all Obama’s fault (we all know how Bush improved on the financial situation that was left by Clinton–oh wait, he didn’t), really makes the righties happy–it takes away from the mess their guy left and that the next one will make worse. We need to take a page from Bush’s economic philosophy–TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, since we know how well that worked before–oh wait, it didn’t.

  10. LuckyCharm says:

    I still don’t see any mention of a right that Obama has taken away from anybody.

  11. Novelist3 says:

    How about the right of the States to actually protect themselves from armed, dangerous invaders?

    Seems like he’s pretty actively trying to take that away right now.

  12. Sumner401 says:

    Obama outlawed the National Guard?
    When?
    How?
    He is a powerful President isn’t he!

    Just think how much that will save the state!
    You should be cheering that novelist!

  13. LuckyCharm says:

    I don’t know of anything keeping any state government from stationing forces along its own borders to repel armed, dangerous invaders. But I do see a problem with empowering police to raid buildings in the middle of the night and arrest innocent persons without telling them why, and incarcerate them in facilities where prisoners sometimes die brutally at the hands of their jailers, and I am proud to see this administration standing up for those people’s civil rights.

  14. socialismisgood, thanks for the tip, I will continue to somehow manage without the help of “spell check”, you obviously understood what I wrote and all of that without the help of using a spelling aid. Try it sometime, maybe you’ll learn to walk with crutches. Right! Obama was born in Hawaii, that’s why he’s hiding his birth certificate. I don’t really watch commie movies, but did you happen to catch the one where the pinkos were accusing Bush of going AWOL from the military? You guys really need to get off the “blame-Bush” thing. Obama is president. Obama is the one who is allowing illegals to flood into the country. Obama is the one who has his puppet in the Attorney General’s office fighting against the people of Arizona. As far as the “ads” that the previous administration was running to recruit illegals, how about backing that up with some proof other than one of your commie reading lessons. If your tag “socialismisgood” represents the sum total of your persona, you are in the wrong country. Why not go to Cuba or North Korea with your chicken-livered, limp wristed , cross-dressing, spandex wearing, sissified politics?

  15. LuckyCharm, how are the law enforcement officers supposed to know if someone is armed unless they catch them? I read your link and I applaud Sheriff Arpaio for doing his job as a law enforcement officer. It’s just too bad that some others who have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States will not abide by that oath. Mesa politcians are widely known in Arizona to be sympathetic to illegals, they even admit on your link that if they pull someone over for a violation and even if that person admits to being here illegally, they still let them go. So obviously the Mesa officials are aiding and abedding law breakers. Go Joe! Keep rounding them up and shipping them out!

  16. FreeAmerica says:

    “Please tell me how Barack Obama weakened America’s strength, how he corrupted our courts and how he destroyed our economy.”

    BObama ” I will read every bill line by line”
    BObama ” Unemployment will not go over 8%”
    BObama ” No more lobbyist allowed”
    BObama ” Hiring an AG who calls Americans Cowards”
    Bobama “Beer Summit”
    BObama “Suing Arizona”
    BObama “Healthcare debacle”
    BObama “spending us to oblivion”
    BObama “Degrading the SCOTUS”
    BObama “Afstan the “good war”
    BObama “Bush created the oil spill”

    Record debt and spending using previous administration as a scapegoat for wishlist junk.

    Not to mention the deplorable attack on the second amendment.

    Promising hope and change but delivering lies and deceit.

    Don’t trust the media, research all the media for yourself and pay no attention to the likes of Sumner….think for yourself.

  17. FreeAmerica says:

    Politifact, the independent fact-checking organization, agreed with Alito. It rated the president’s statement “barely true,” calling it an exaggeration. In their majority opinion, the justices specifically stated that their decision would not overturn the longstanding prohibition in 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) against any foreign-based organization “directly or indirectly” spending money to influence the outcome of any U.S. election.

  18. FreeAmerica, Amen!! You nailed it. We all know by now never to trust a socialist of commie (one in the same). I hope that the young lady who wrote this letter is keeping track of the responses she’s getting and will become more aware of the lies and cover-ups that the Obamaites are trying to pull over on her. All I can say is that you never trust a person or a cause that is in the same bed with Hitler, Stalin Castro, Mao, “Che” and the rest of those maniacs.

  19. Sumner401 says:

    To sum it up thus far,
    No rights have been lost, no rights are being threatened and no rational, viable, valid complaints have been presented.
    Just the predictable rehash of the last 18 months whining and crying from the right.
    I guess not getting your way because you lost the election means you lose your rights to the republicans?

    Oh yeah and you can’t blame any former President unless it’s FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter or Clinton, no President expect those can be blamed for anything and the only party that can be at fault is of course the Democrats. The only time the economy has ever been bad is when the Democrats are in power and all democrats are lazy and on welfare and never pay their taxes.
    If I believe that can I be republican?

  20. NWflyfisher says:

    Executive Order 12325 issued by Pres. Reagan in 1983 required that INTERPOL operations in the U.S. be subject to U.S. laws. Pres. Obama removed those restrictions by issuing his Amendment to Executive Order 12325 in Dec. 2009. That means an international agency can now operate in the U.S. unconstrained by the U.S. Constitution with full immunity from U.S. laws and completely independent from oversight by the FBI. It made Interpol records inviolable meaning they are immune from the Freedom of Information Act and Discovery provisions in any legal proceedings. It means an international police force is no longer restricted by the 4th Amendment.

  21. FreeAmerica says:

    Sumner wrote:
    Just the predictable rehash of the last 18 months whining and crying from the right.

    Lets not forget the Democrats are majority in the house and senate and could pass anything they wanted regardless of Republican votes.
    Public opinion on the other hand has forced the Dems to curtail to a point.

  22. hansgruber says:

    “How about when he insulted the Israeli Prime Minister

    GOOD! American presidents should place American interests first, second, third, fourth, and fifth.

    No more Israeli firsters as American politicians.” -beerBoy

    Sorry beer, looks like your dream was just shattered..again-“The bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable,” Obama said near the start of remarks amid an exchange of smiles, handshakes and warm praise with the Israeli leader.”

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/06/2010-07-06_president_obama_israeli_prime_minister_benjamin_netanyahu_all_smiles_during_mide.html#ixzz0t0hvzQeT

  23. Dear socialismisgood…a word of caution. Don’t critique another’s spelling when your own comments are riddled with spelling and grammar errors, several of which jumped off the page from one of your comments on another thread.

    It makes you look petty, but then perhaps you ARe being petty.

    To Nicolette: Several valid points have been made here as to why some people are disappointed with President Obama. I hope you can find them amidst all the mud-slinging and that you are at least willing to acknowledge that what he said in his campaign does not seem to jive with what he has done and is doing.

    Personally, I think he should be the poster boy for The Peter Principle; he is simply out of his league on the world scene. But that’s an opinion. Feel free to dismiss it if it messes with your mind.

  24. hansgruber says:

    Sum401 sez-
    Public opinion on the other hand has forced the Dems to curtail to a point.

    Wow! Sumner401 finally gets it, Can you feel that change a coming?

  25. FreeAmerica says:

    hans… Sorry to burst a bubble and wish it were true but that comment came from me…. i’ll try harder to seperate my comments next time…

    You should know better than think Sumner would make that comment..LOL

  26. cmiklich says:

    Mz Purnell: You were not GIVEN the “privilege” of voting.

    It is a RIGHT!

    When the left assumes everything is a “privilege” granted by some omnipotent government, then they will fight for nothing. Indeed, the left quit fighting for freedom a long time ago.

  27. Great points Sozo, cmiklch,FreeAmerica, Hansgruber,and nwflyfisher. You all successfully repelled the left’s feeble attempts to place all of the blame on Bush. Their man wanted the job, he applied for it, was chosen by an uninformed ignorant electorate and now needs to get busy and do something positive. The clock is ticking and our deficit keeps getting larger and larger and the census jobs are expiring, so what has Obama accomplished with the solid demokrat majority?

  28. This should be a great example why you DO NOT put COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS in office…as sozo said, they are out of their league. I have nothing else to say, but obama is far from the “hope and change” that he ran his platform on! I also find it funny how Obama talks about Lincoln all the time….and says he looks up to him. Well news flash Lincoln was the FIRST republican voted into the presidency. To bad he doesn’t have the same views as Lincoln.

  29. LuckyCharm says:

    frosty sez: “LuckyCharm, how are the law enforcement officers supposed to know if someone is armed unless they catch them?”

    There is a BIG difference between defending one’s borders (meaning keeping unlawful persons from entering) and raiding a public building in the middle of the night to arrest the entire cleaning crew, some of whom were legitimately hired and simply doing their jobs. If the same thing had happened to you, I believe you would be outraged. Indeed, if Obama ordered similar raids nationwide, and your workplace had been turned in on a “tip,” I’ll wager you’d be highly indignant at being roughed up and hauled down to the station until you could produce a birth certificate. Then you’d start calling Obama a brownshirt and all that other stuff….

    But let’s not stop with illegal immigration. Let’s say we institute a policy of raiding workplaces to search for ANY violations — unregistered firearms, illicit drugs, underaged workers, you name it. Somebody observes what they believe is a drug deal going down, and next week, the police descend on your shop in full riot gear, with dogs, rough up and cuff all the employees, and take them down to the station for a cavity search. And let’s say we made this the law of the land, not only PERMITTING law enforcement to behave this way, but REQUIRING it. Would you not begin to believe that our freedoms were being eroded, or would you say it was all worth it in the name of “security”?

  30. Greenrvr1 says:

    Equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment violated by special consideration for unions in the health bill, by special consideration for auto workers over creditors in General Motors bankruptcy and by the attempted over ride of the Yucca Flats waste designation to benefit Harry Reid. See editorial in same edition your letter appears in.

  31. LuckyCharm says:

    And actually, frosty, what it says in the article is, “People pulled over for minor traffic violations, for example, would not be arrested even if they admit they’re here illegally. Instead, their information would be turned over to federal officials.”

    That is the proper chain of command. In the military, we are taught to cover our own “lane,” not the next guy’s. Because if we’re busy covering that guy’s lane, who’s covering ours?

    They complain that the feds aren’t acting decisively enough. And I agree. We need a federal law making it a federal crime to knowingly hire illegals, with federal penalties including time in a federal penitentiary. I’ll bet you could get Dems to back that one in a heartbeat. Want to bet that Repubs would filibuster it?

  32. LuckyCharm says:

    Green, could you please elaborate on these “special considerations” you mention, and how they violate the 14th Amendment? I have finally quit receiving the print edition (YAY!!! It took long enough!), so I can’t match the editorial to the letter in print.

  33. LuckyCharm, I don’t know where in the military it is taught to only “cover your own lane”. Fighting wars is a combined effort. Should the Air Force refuse to provide fire suppression for the infantry because it’s not their area of operations? Should the Navy refuse to transport NATO troops in a transport vessel? Should the Marines refuse to send troops into a battle to support army troops? As far as the raid on the public building by police because of a tip they received about illegals working there, what would you have the sheriff do? I don’t know about you but I don’t want illegal immigrants anywhere near any of our public buildings afer normal work hours. It is possible that as part of their duties they have access to offices that have sensitive information lying around. Again Sheriff Arpaio did the job that the citizens there elected him to do. Don’t throw in any strawman arguments about raiding businesses to look for assorted violations. They must first have a warrant to conduct such a raid based on substantial proof of a possible crime.

  34. Sumner401 says:

    “Lets not forget the Democrats are majority in the house and senate and could pass anything they wanted regardless of Republican votes.”

    Which isn’t true of course but lets not let the truth enter into this, it puts the right at a huge disadvantage.

  35. Sumner401 says:

    “You all successfully repelled the left’s feeble attempts to place all of the blame on Bush.”

    Denial, it’s not a river in Egypt.

  36. Sumner401 says:

    Still no rights being lost.
    Still no freedom being lost.
    Only the same old tired whines and cry’s from the tired old right.

  37. LuckyCharm says:

    frosty, perhaps you’re unaware of the traditional Army admonishment to “Stay in your lane!” but it’s there.

    What would I have the sheriff do? Turn them over to ICE, just like the Mesa police do. Sheriff Arpaio has been grievously abusing his 287(g) powers. Like a NYT editorial puts it:

    “Americans who might applaud any crackdown on illegal immigrants, particularly in a recession, should know that scattershot raids and rampaging sheriffs are not the answer. The idea that enforcement alone will eliminate the underground economy is a great delusion. It runs up against the impossible arithmetic of mass expulsion — no conceivable regime of raids will wrench 12 million illegal immigrants from their jobs and homes.

    The country is not a safer or better place because one more business and two dozen more families are torn apart outside Seattle or because Sheriff Arpaio has much of Maricopa County terrified. The system under which illegal immigrants labor, without hope of assimilation, is not any less broken.”

    The SYSTEM is broken. Employers love, seek out, and help illegals to get around it. If you were trying to deal with a prostitution ring, would you start by attacking the young women who are cajoled, bribed, and blackmailed into the “business,” or would you go after the pimp who’s running it? You can eliminate as many young streetwalkers as you want, because there are always more where they came from. To really deal with the problem, you’ve got to attack the source.

  38. The Republican party isn’t anything like that of Lincoln’s era, qwert. If Lincoln was a politician today, he wouldn’t fit today’s Republican mold. Not by a long shot.

  39. beerBoy says:

    Law enforcement in AZ are against the new law.

  40. LuckyCharm says:

    Pop quiz time, boys & girls! What document contains all of the following?

    * broadened coverage in unemployment insurance
    * better health protection for all
    * continue vigorously to support the United Nations
    * “progressive programs” to expand workers’ rights
    * immigration policy that ensured that the country would remain a “haven for oppressed peoples”
    * success in extending unemployment insurance
    * raising the minimum wage
    * robust intervention to preserve the environment

    Hmm? Is it the Constitution of France, or maybe Mao’s Little Red Book? Nah, couldn’t be that — maybe Obama’s campaign platform? Take a wild, WILD guess…

  41. MC Obama: the poster boy of policy gaffes and the best the libs have to offer.

  42. Parkland says:

    letter writer: “As a young American just given the privilege of voting, I would love to hear the specifics behind the writer’s assertions.”

    Yes, he’s obviously young. As far as your challenge goes, the most obvious is Obamacare. I didn’t read through the plethora of comments, and this may already have been brought up, but please show me where The Constitution allows the federal government to require citizens to purchase a good or service. Yes, you’re young, and you’ve been brought up in a different world than I was. Get ahold of a US Constitution. Read it, and carry it with you. And every time the feds pass some other monstrosity, open it up, and turn to the part where it says they can do that. Have fun.

  43. FreeAmerica says:

    LuckyCharm says:
    To really deal with the problem, you’ve got to attack the source.

    Wouldn’t the border enforcement be the source?

  44. Sumner401 says:

    “The Constitution allows the federal government to require citizens to purchase a good or service.”

    Show me where it restricts it.
    Lots of things are not found in the Constitution, yours is a weak argument but the media feeds you what it can.

  45. Sumner401 says:

    “Wouldn’t the border enforcement be the source?”

    How is border enforcement enticing people to cross the border to find work and a better life?

    Bottom line on immigration, it’s a wedge issue being used by the GOP to stir up the sheep and get a few more votes and nothing more than that.
    Nothing will ever be done about it, ever by either side. The republicans did nothing for the entire time they controlled the Govt. so what makes any of you think they do something now?
    Neither party will do anything about because they know they can’t.
    The cost of ‘securing the border’ would be huge, I’ve heard 100 billion or more.
    The whining about ‘draining our tax dollars’ is a myth, a huge myth but a good one since there really is no way to prove or disprove it.
    Another reason not to do anything about it, we are doing it right now. It’s a great election weapon, the wedge issue that keeps on giving, just like abortion.
    But the biggest reason, money in the form of cheap labor.
    No one will EVER do anything to end that…..EVER.

  46. beerBoy says:

    FA – wouldn’t the source be the American corporations that advertise in Mexico that there are jobs available in America?

    But…..the focus upon undocumented workers diverts us from seeing the real reason that there are less and less jobs in America – the financial sector creates wealth from debt in a completely virtual “capitalist” system. There are no jobs being created because the 21st century version of capitalism (launched by Thatcher and Reagan with many “improvements” in the past 30 years) is based entirely in synthetic debt products that do not connect to the real world of raw resources, labor and manufacturing.

  47. LuckyCharm says:

    Yes, the source is the employers that entice them. If I were to place an ad on Craigslist offering to show you, for free, how to shoplift from Albertson’s without getting caught, many people would likely respond, especially once the word got out that my system worked. Now let’s say Albertson’s catches wind of this and starts a crackdown. They station security personnel on every aisle and conduct random searches of bags, pockets, etc., looking for stashed goods. Not only would many legitimate shoppers choose to go to Safeway instead, not wishing to endure this kind of shopping experience, but shoplifters who were desperate enough would still attempt to foil the system, which would only justify more guards, more invasive searches, etc. Indeed, who would be motivated to concoct such a scheme if not the security company, looking to expand its contract? But if Albertson’s refuses to go after the ad placer, they are either stupid or complicit.

    Bottom line is, when you’ve got a problem that has defied all attempts to solve it, you’re probably going at it from the wrong angle.

  48. LuckyCharm says:

    Oh, and since nobody has gotten the quiz answer yet, I’ll give it to you here — those principles are found in the 1956 Republican party platform.

    Go figure. To today’s electorate, it would be mistaken for the Progressive Party.

  49. JungleBoy says:

    One thing is apparent, in quickly looking at the previous entries, Frosty has the most substantive arguments. Here’s my analysis: the test papers have been turned in, and the results will come back in November.

  50. Sumner401 says:

    “Frosty has the most substantive arguments.”

    LOL!!!!
    ROTFLAO!!!

  51. FreeAmerica says:

    A weak argument …
    Employers enticing undocumented workers to cross the border illegally.
    Can’t stop them…Do work no one else will do..Helps economy..Good for labor market..

    How does
    Sanctuary cities, welfare, free healthcare, free education entice?
    All provided by the Government.

    The source is the border first, the grass is always greener on the other side.

  52. JungleBoy says:

    Sumner, rather than use abbreviations that only a few can understand, try formulating an idea that begs an argument. Course, that’s one of the tactics of Democrats – confuse everybody with nonsense, then present a solution to the nonsense.

  53. Sumner401 says:

    I can’t help it if you can’t understand jungle, I really can’t.

    But thank you noticing that the Democrat offer solutions, when will the the republicans do that?
    Or is lying and screaming and crying the only tactic you all have?

  54. Greenrvr1 says:

    Lucky Charm: the July 6, 2010 editorial you ask about is “NRC judges made the right call on Yucca Mountain” , also discussed in June 6, 2010 editiorial, “Harry Reid, Hanford and the triumph of science”. Special considerations were putting the UAW ahead of secured creditors in the Chrysler and General Motors bankruptcy cases. The UAW ended up with 17.5 ownership of the new GM and the secured creditors got less than 10
    %. Usually under settled precedents secured creditors come first in line to be paid in bankruptcy.

  55. Thats encouraging. Young Nicolette asks and honest, inquiring question and the best you “adults” can manage is pounding each other over your left and right heads with obnoxious drivel.

    My advice to Ms Purnell is to research the facts, study your heart, and make your OWN decision. After following and commenting here for several years, I tend to think half the people who post on these silly boards would be challenged to pour water out of a boot with the directions printed on the sole!

  56. FreeAmerica says:

    Sumner401 says:
    But thank you noticing that the Democrat offer solutions, when will the the republicans do that?
    Or is lying and screaming and crying the only tactic you all have?

    FA:
    Solutions??
    As in something in line with public opinion or just the liberal solution?
    How about we sue Arizona with China money? Is that a solution?

  57. FreeAmerica says:

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration heads to court on Thursday aiming to reinstate a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling imposed after the devastating BP Plc Gulf of Mexico oil spill, but blocked by a federal judge.

    Is this solutions?

  58. Greenrvr1 says:

    Lucky Charm. The July 6, 2020 editorial you requested is “NCR judges made the right call on Yucca Mountain” and similar information is found in June 6, 2020 Tribune editorial “Harry Reid, Hanford and the triumph of science.” The special considerations given to the UAW over the secured creditors were in both the Chrysler and General Motors bankruptcies. The union ended up with 17.5 % of the new GM and secured creditors were forced to take less that 10%. This reverses the usual order to be paid and denied the creditors the equal protection of the laws.

  59. beerBoy says:

    Is this solutions?

    Not a solution but at least it follows the first rule of getting out of a hole…..stop digging.

  60. LuckyCharm says:

    Green, the GM/Chrysler bankruptcies weren’t of the usual kind, because in their case, the government gave them money, which doesn’t usually happen in a bankruptcy. The objective was to ensure that laborers who had worked a lifetime for their retirement benefits would get to see them, not that speculators who paid pennies on the dollar would see a handsome return. Another objective was to forestall the inevitable loss of thousands more jobs in an economy that can ill afford it. This was a form of government stimulus, if you will, and not a rewriting of the bankruptcy laws.

    Righties are always saying that the unemployed should just get a job, in an economy where that is like playing musical chairs with five times as many players as chairs. There are currently five applicants for every job opening in this country, so the majority are of course going to be left out. How can righties keep complaining about measures designed to preserve jobs, and then turn right around and start demanding that people GET jobs? Where is their solution for this? What was the right-wing solution to the automakers’ crisis?

  61. Freedom from his voice and face come to mind. I see and hear his more than my own every day. Yech.

  62. larsman says:

    Nicolette, Good questions. Have any of your teachers gone through and explained the Declaration of Independence or what debate positions are common to human nature regardless of the times, geography or technology? Keep asking and keep away from vague, broad-brush non-specific generalities and you will do just fine…

  63. L.C, “tradtional army admonisment to stay in your own lane”? I’m not sure what tradition you’re talking about. I was in the army from 1956-1975 and never heard such an “admonishment. Could be because I spent the majority of my time in combat units and not some staff job where perhaps a little “professional jealousy” would slip in to the performance of duties. I realize that all soldiers have an MOS, but at the same time, all soldiers are supposed to be qualified as basic infantry, hence “basic combat training”.
    As for your quote from the NYT article, I don’t really consider anything printed by a bunch of liberals as something I could put a dime’s worth of trust in. Good try though.

  64. LuckyCharm says:

    frosty, I don’t even know where to begin. For one thing, you’re writing about an army that’s long gone — I wasn’t even born when you first enlisted. Second, combat units could never function without staff elements. Third, I wasn’t in a staff element as you envision it — our team went outside the wire every day looking for bad guys or information on them. Fourth, all of us WERE trained in basic tasks, and I don’t even know how that bears upon the argument at hand.

    Finally, I would say that if you refuse to even read material that might contradict your chosen position, even if only to refute it intelligently, that this type of willful ignorance lies at the root of everything that’s wrong with our country. Knowledge is power.

  65. Sumner401 says:

    “Is this solutions?”

    Yes it’s a solution, preventing another deep water horizon shouldn’t be done?
    We should just let that happen again? Just to make you republicans happy and the money flowing to big oil?

  66. Sumner401 says:

    To recap,
    No rights have been lost.
    No freedoms have been lost.

    Lots of whining and crying and finger pointing from the moonbats on the right.
    More misinformation from the right.
    Lots of ‘untruths’ and generalizations from the right.
    Tons of the standard ‘it’s the liberals fault!’ and fear mongering from the right.
    That about sums it up.

  67. JungleBoy, if you mean by “substantive” repeating lies, misinformation and obfuscation, frosty takes the cake. Its too bad many in the electorate cannot be bothered to do anything but repeat Fox News commentators who quickly move on to other topics when the debunkers show what hogwash their misinformation is. However, the misinformation lives on in the minds of the uninformed. And I am always impressed by that tactic, yet saddened for what it has done to our country.

  68. L.C, you’re right. The army I knew is long gone, regrettably. The army I knew let field commanders make decisions involving tactical operations, not the President. The army I knew didn’t let the news media infiltrate it’s ranks with subversive reporters. The army I knew could fight major wars on several fronts and come out victorious in four years or less, (not ten years, and counting, to beat a rag-tag militia). As for reading material that might contradict my chosen postion, all I can say is experience provides a more sound basis for my position than anything some liberal says who wasn’t even born when we had real political will to win a war. But, you can keep on trying to convince me that you have all of the answers if you wish.

  69. tuddo, so I’m repeating lies from Fox? But everything that the left repeats from MSNBC and CNN is the truth? LOL.

  70. bBoy … you and others who use name-calling as part of your repetoire have been duly reprimanded by Kim on another thread, or hadn’t you noticed.

  71. DCR…please. If young Nicolette’s letter were dripping with any more sarcasm, it would have to be wrung out.

    Sounds to me that she’s like so many good young people these days who’ve gone through the Politically Correct laundromat and simply cannot imagine how anyone with as heart as big as the president’s could possibly be wrong as to how he goes about “changing America.”

  72. Sozo, I agree. I also detected a bit of artificial concern in her letter. If she is anything like the majority of youngsters graduating from high school, she’s been pretty much indoctrinated into the progressive agenda. Only time can help these poor misguided kids. When they end up spending the rest of their lives working to try to pay for Obama’s reckless spending, then maybe they will say “you know, I guess those conservatives were right after all. I’ve raised some teensagers and I know that they know everything and we “just don’t understand, it’s a different generation”. My kids are all parents now and keep telling me, “I wish I would have listened to you”. Time heals all wounds they say.

  73. L.C, One more thing. I wonder if that Navy Corpsman who helped raise the flag on Iwo Jima felt that it was “outside of his lane” to help raise that flag? Or should he have simply called the EEO office and filed a formal complaint?

  74. Sumner401 says:

    Fox news lies,

    “indoctrinated into the progressive agenda
    “spending the rest of their lives working to try to pay for Obama’s reckless spending”
    (How long will they have to work to pay for the failure bush’s reckless spending?)
    “field commanders make decisions involving tactical operations, not the President”.

    And that is just a quick scan of this page alone.

    .

  75. She specifically cited “sock monkeys” as one of the slurs she wanted stopped. Was it not bBoy who called folks sock monkeys recently?

  76. LuckyCharm says:

    frosty, we were talking about entities fulfilling their proper roles, and somehow you got fixated on this “lanes” concept in the military, which I cited only as an example. The problem is, when states get into usurping roles traditionally held by the federal gov’t., chaos is bound to result. What if a state decided that the feds weren’t being aggressive enough in Afghanistan and formed an independent alliance with Israel to nuke the place? Can you envision the complete foreign policy upheaval that would result?

    The federal government has diplomatic relations with both of our geographical neighbors, and there are environmental, social, and commercial interests to consider in any discussion of border security. While the federal government is trying to work to tactfully address any outstanding issues, we have a border state promising to start incarcerating even legal citizens if they don’t happen to be carrying papers (heck, I went to renew my passport yesterday and forgot my birth certificate — if I lived in AZ and had been cited for illegal parking, my a$$ could have been in jail!).

    The main disagreement seems to be where to target the emphasis. Do we want to spend all our time and resources chasing after the little guys, or would we rather crack down on those who lure, abet, and cultivate them?

  77. sozo – to bring up another thread is hardly taking the higher ground. As Kim admonished to all of us – let’s stay on topic.

    btw….the post I made was criticizing all of the wasted time and space spent on speculating about alternative screen-names. I did not know that the term I used was considered “name-calling” or in any way considered offensive.

  78. sozo – A definition of the “name calling” I used from the Urban Dictionary:


    A duplicate account one uses on a message board, either simultaneously (to avoid getting primary account closed) or after having been booted off.

    I see that there are other definitions that I was unaware of….. I will not be using the term in the future.

  79. Late last night it dawned on me that I wrote “sock monkeys” rather than sock puppets. Sorry about that; I was thinking about those sock monkeys that look like Chuck Norris. I personally wondered why sock puppet was considered a slur. I’m old and not up on many of the current doggerel.

    I recognize that I’m as guilty as anyone of drifting away from topic as the posts come pouring in. I will try to remember the rules.

  80. Geeze, I just went to the Urban Dictionary and found out there’s also a vulgar definition for sock monkey. Is there no end to the crassness that has erupted over the last several years? Seems one is constantly in danger of innocently using an expression that now means something vulgar.

  81. LuckyCharm Please try to avoid using so many strawman arguments. ” What if” a state decided that the federal government was not being aggressive enough in Afganistan?” I don’t think you need to lose a lot of sleep over that unlikely event, What’s so hard for you to understand why Arizona is doing what it’s doing? The feds have obviously shown an unwillingness to solve the problem. Obama say’s “the border is too big to secure”. I don’t remember hearing JFK saying, “there’s no use in going to the moon, it’s just too far away”. Or the Wright brothers saying “ah, hell what’s the point, men are never going to fly”. You say that Arizona has “promised to start incarcerating even legal citizens if they don’t carry the proper papers”? I guess I missed that on MSNBC and CNN. No one will ever convince me that the illegal immigration problem is “too big” to fix. I say it’s easy. Just put a division of infantry on the border, jail all employers of illegals, cut off all assistance to them and you won’t be able to stop them from leaving.

  82. LuckyCharm, thanks for admitting “the lanes’ discussion was just a “concept”. Whose? I don’t know, but what I do know is that it is not clearly defined or ordained in any military regulation. When you make a general comment such as “entities fulfilling their proper roles”, you need to be a little more specific, especially when we are talking about a state having a “right and an obligation” to protect it’s borders and it’s citizens. This is very serious business, vague generalizations and ad hominem, unverifiable statements just muddy the waters. Liberals want to make it sound impossible to follow the laws on immigration, it’s not rocket science.

  83. LuckyCharm says:

    frosty, my whole point all along has been that without the incentives to come or stay here, we wouldn’t NEED a fence or troops stationed along the border. They’d leave all on their own and never want to come back. Wouldn’t that be a whole lot easier, cheaper, and less destructive to wildlife habitats in the region?

    The feds could do this, although you’d never get harsh employer penalties past the Republicans in Congress. States could do it all on their own, too — instead of a “papers, please” law, Brewer could have simply levied a fine of $100K or 50% of a company’s annual revenue, whichever is greater, and imposed a minimum one year in jail for any employer found to have hired illegals. This could extend to the corporate officers, hiring managers, and anyone else in a position of responsibility for company policies and recruitment.

    Just think! Rather than a law that taxes existing resources and COSTS the state money, not to mention sours its reputation and puts it at risk for violating citizens’ Constitutional rights, they could have had a law that MAKES money for the state and ensures that illegals can’t find work, thereby removing any incentive for them to remain. We’d have seen a wave of foreclosures (it’s already happening, but it’d be worse) due to tenants moving out of rentals, a rapid increase in the number of available jobs, and a steep hike in the prices of meat, produce, construction services, etc. due to businesses having to hire legal residents at fair wages. But it would have put the coyotes out of business, decreasing crime and violence along the border, and rid the state of most of its illegals in no time. Where are all the righties clamoring for this kind of solution?

  84. LuckyCharm, I could live with those options. I believe that emplorers should be fined and jailed. I disagree that we wouldn’t need a fence however. What’s to prevent people from coming here and having “anchor babies” ? You know as well as I do that there are some parts of this country that will always welcome illegals, sanctuary cities such as San Francisco will still be reason enough for people to come here. Unless and until ALL politicians speak with one voice to oppose illegal immigration, there’s no other alternative but to protect the border and take any action necessary to kicked them out.

  85. Sumner401 says:

    Still looking for those rights and freedoms that have been “lost” by the evil President Obama.

    Anyone have a list of them yet?

  86. LuckyCharm says:

    frosty, first of all, why would anybody come over and have an “anchor baby” if they couldn’t support themselves?

    Second, a fence isn’t going to keep people from coming over legally as students or tourists and having “anchor babies” anyway.

    A fence is a big useless project righties like to throw out there in the name of acting tough, knowing it really wouldn’t get to the core of the problem. All these people who complain that somebody might get a free doctor visit don’t seem to have any problem with the idea of a multi-billion-dollar fence that would have to be manned 24×7, would destroy fragile ecosystems, and still wouldn’t keep illegals out of the country.

  87. Novelist3 says:

    Big and useless, you say?

    That’s not what your liberal, leftwing news outlet NPR has said. And I quote:
    “Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol’s San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.”
    “Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work,” Henry says. “It is highly effective.”

    “Rancher Carol Kimsey, who lives in a valley near the Pacific Ocean on the U.S.-side of the fence, says the border barrier has improved the quality of life in the area. ”

    “It is now harder to cross the border into the United States, and also more expensive. Border crossers say they pay human smugglers, or coyotes, much more than they did a decade ago. ”

    In other words, Lucky, the fences work perfectly. The illegals get in by bypassing the fence- which proves its effectiveness. Fence off the entire border and your problem is solved.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323928

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323928

  88. liberal, leftwing news outlet NPR

    ROTFLMAO

    NPR once had a somewhat liberal slant but, since their funding got put into peril they have overcorrected and become “fair and balanced” in too many ways.

    If you had quoted Radio Pacifica then I would agree about the liberal label.

  89. LuckyCharm says:

    Well, here’s a radical idea — since ICE already found in April this year that over half of AZ businesses employ illegals, why not just request that list and throw the business owners in federal prison, then revoke their business license? I guarantee that if you put over half the business owners in the slammer and pull their license, nobody else is gonna be in any hurry to hire those workers, and they will HAVE to leave. But if you go after the workers and don’t penalize the businesses, there are plenty more already lined up to take their place. And if it takes bribing a border guard and/or ICE agent, teaching them how to falsify documents, etc., that’s a small price to pay for cheap labor. By attacking the symptom (illegal immigrants) rather than the cause (demand for a cheap, acquiescent labor force), you shell out a lot of money to law enforcement, but don’t really make a dent in the problem.

  90. Novelist3 says:

    But if you go after both the cause (illegals) and the symptom, you totally eliminate the problem.

  91. Apparently, going off topic is a way of avoiding the yet unanswered question; “Which Rights Have Been Destroyed?

    Good question, young lady. You stumped the panel.

  92. Novelist – I’m sorry if my perspective on the decline of quality of NPR since the attack on the National Endowment for the Humanities is somehow beneath your expectations for my output.

    But….as long as we are on the subject of stupid, partisan-based comments – your initial comment about the “liberal, leftie” news outlet is sooooooo stereotypical of righters without a cause.

  93. Sumner401 says:

    “But if you go after both the cause (illegals) and the symptom, you totally eliminate the problem.”

    Thats what you said about the drug trade, how many billions of tax dollars have you spent on that, what is the results, how successful are you?
    You also said that about terrorism, 3 trillion and counting, how is that working?

    Trickle down, tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, when will you people stop trying what you know doesn’t work?
    Your rhetoric isn’t going to fly this time.

  94. Greenrvr1 says:

    Lucky Charm if your July 8, comment re the GM/Chrysler bankruptcies is meant to say that equal protection of the laws is determined by the social characteristics of the contenders, laborers preferred over speculators, please be advised that some of the creditors were state agencies managing teachers pension funds. Perhaps then since both creditors and the UAW were interested in pensions the determinant social characteristic was the milllions the union had given, and could give in the future, to the Obama election war chest. Do you suppose?

  95. LuckyCharm says:

    Green, I intended no such meaning regarding “social characteristics.” Plain and simple, those auto workers deserved to have their retirement contracts honored, and if the gov’t was going to prop up the industry, that had to be part of it. On the other hand, if some unrelated union chooses to gamble its members’ future on the stock market, that’s their mistake. Any union that would support such irresponsibility deserves to have its officers voted out and replaced.

    Here’s the critical difference: on the one hand you have workers who have given the better portion of their lives to a company that promised them a pension. On the other hand you have unions who choose to gamble their members’ money. The “social characteristics” (or potential campaign contributions) do not and should not figure into anything. It’s a matter of principle — in one case, we’re talking about honoring a legal contract; in the other, we’re talking about speculation, and no contract can guarantee that a particular stock won’t crash. Neither should the federal gov’t be a party to making such guarantees.

  96. I don’t see why auto worker’s contracts should be considered anymore important than any other business. If you produce a lousy product, you shouldn’t be compensated for it. Buyers of automobiles determine the marketplace, not the blood sucking unions who for the most part are the ones to blame for the downward spiral of this economy. If they wouldn’t demand such high wages and benefits, most of the industry that is now off-shore would still be here providing jobs for Americans. As their wages rise, two things happen, (1). the price of the goods go up and (2). the company moves to a more sensible work pool. Unions have out lived their usefulness, now all that they can do is to artificially bloat the price of goods and march in parades demanding more ignorant workers for their cause.

  97. LuckyCharm says:

    frosty, the autoworkers had a guaranteed pension that in all fairness was honored. Stock market speculators neither have, nor deserve, guarantees. The gov’t cannot keep underwriting risking investments.

  98. LuckyCharm says:

    Oops, make that “risky investments.”

  99. Greenrvr1 says:

    Lucky Charm. The state agency, not a union not speculators, had invested in secured loans to GM or Chrysler expecting that their investment of the teachers equally hard earned money would be treated according to accepted law, not having their rights put behind the claims of the UAW and the union bosses. The state agency could not use those funds to support the Obama campaign as the UAW did.

  100. LuckyCharm “guaranteed pension”? I don’t know about you, but I’ve been around long enough to know that absolutely nothing is “guaranteed” except death and taxes.

  101. LuckyCharm says:

    Green, those were unsecured bonds, purchased for pennies on the dollar after already being downgraded to junk bond status, because people were hoping the company would bounce back and they’d be able to make a bundle. You win some, you lose some, as they say. If you invest people’s pensions in junk bonds, you deserve their wrath, but not a gov’t bailout.

  102. Greenrvr1 says:

    Lucky Charm: You are wrong. In the GM case one creditor was a state agency charged with investing the retirement funds of teachers. In Chrysler it was the state of Indiana pension fund for police officers. They were among those who were injured by the favorable treatment of the UAW. For an expert’s explanation of how bankruptcy was changed by the political power of UAW and the Obama administration see the following.
    Political Bankruptcies: How Chrysler and GM Have Changed the Rules of the Game
    http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/political-bankruptcies-how-chrysler-and-gm-have-changed... gmwww.thefreemanonline.org/featured/political-bankruptcies-how-chrysler-and-have-changed…

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0