To the editor:
Is everyone enjoying the “change” and “new direction” Barack Obama promised three years ago? Not so much. Other than the extreme committed left, who would never vote Republican under any circumstances, and an overwhelming majority of African-Americans and other minorities, most people now see Obama as a failure to some degree. His approval rating is standing somewhere around 40 percent, depending on which poll you go by.
His radical ideology of fundamental change is not working. Far-left zealots see him as a centrist — too funny! This is no laughing matter though, as America is in deep trouble now two and a half years later. The “under the radar” conduct of this administration is worthy of taking a look at too, such as the EPA hamstringing the coal industry with a myriad of new regulations. It seems this administration would like to rule and regulate everything people and business do. Obama and those in his political circle feel to their core that government is the final solution for everything, not the people. Again, how is that working out?
Comments
Gandalf 1 year, 9 months ago
He might have had a better chance without all the right wing obstructioism. Everyone knows that the economy takes second place when it come to insuring he is only a one term president. I'm not happy with everything he's done, but there is no republican candidate who would be better,
By the way brownie's approval rating is around 42% in western Kansas after only 10 months. His change is alienating everyone.
jackbinkelman 1 year, 9 months ago
Exactly.
tuschkahouma 1 year, 9 months ago
gee...shewmaniac makes an appearance...tell me how this works...oppose everything and cooperate on nothing and then blame the person being opposed by the same morons using the same tactics that blew up the deficit that Bill Clinton had to get rid of before he handed king dimwit a surplus that was squandered through pointless wars and unfunded medicaid programs meant to confuse seniors and wreck the federal government because that's the wish of dimwits everywhere...did I miss anything?
jaywalker 1 year, 9 months ago
Punctuation
scott3460 1 year, 9 months ago
But you can't argue the content!
By the way, you're missing a period (since you seem to care about such things.)
:>)
Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago
"But you can't argue the content! "
Why does obama and the senate oppose everything coming out of the house and cooperate on nothing?
Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago
You forgot to mention how the evil white man stole all the indian's land. You are starting to slip - merril isn't going to be happy.
Phone_Man 1 year, 9 months ago
Ha ha.....Its the fault of all white people.....We were all there when the land was taken.
OonlyBonly 1 year, 9 months ago
He cooperates? The Republicans don't? Allow me to refresh your memory somewhat. The Democrats take him a debt-reduction bill - He says, "I'll veto it." The Republicans take him a debt-reduction bill - He says, "I'll veto it." Do you not see something wrong there?
cato_the_elder 1 year, 9 months ago
"Other than...an overwhelming majority of African-Americans..., most people now see Obama as a failure to some degree."
Not sure whether the African-American vote is still as solid as it once was for Obama. While our national unemployment rate remains at 9.1%, unemployment among Africans-Americans jumped from 15.9% in July to 16.7% in August:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/02/obamas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-month/
merrill 1 year, 9 months ago
The republicans "SAY NO" policy to investing in america is not something to support or be proud of that is for certain. Since 1980 republicans dropped bipartisanship and chose instead to replace any republican that voted in a bipartisan fashion. Next thing we see are damn few republicans in the republican party yet the new group still call themselves republicans.
I call this new group of RINO's frauds. This makes Brownback a fraud without a doubt. This group of frauds have never been fiscally conservative nor socially responsible( closing SRS offices is one perfect example).
STOP electing RINO’s ! My My father in law left the RINO party because he is a fiscal conservative/socially responsible republican with at least 50 years under his belt. Evermore stunning he is working with the democrat party in Pennsylvania as a fiscal conservative/socially responsible republican. The Pennsylvania Democrats are quite pleased to have this man working with them.
The letter writer is a RINO.
jackbinkelman 1 year, 9 months ago
Ha! You got that right!
merrill 1 year, 9 months ago
Illegal spying on the democrats by Richard Nixon can we say Watergate. Iran - Contra illegal and secret weapons deal using Iran as a partner under Reagan/Bush.
The letter writer is quite boastful about the RINO frauds. Yet he leaves a good deal of history from his letter that which placed America in this economic quagmire. It ain't pretty in fact it looks to be the RINO economic policy written in stone. When a party repeats itself what else is there left to think considering the past 3 repub presidents have participated in economic quagmire aka wreckanomics by the New World Order doctrine.
Let's take a look at this long documented history of economic destruction which cost taxpayers trillions of $$$ and a combined effort equaling 20 million lost jobs. The icing on the cake was quite liberally handing out credit cards to replace jobs that which provided citizens with large lines of credit. These large credit balances with sky high interest rates asking only for $5 per month payments put americans in big debt while the big corporate banks were raking in $$$ Trillions to their greedy profit cash boxes put America in a huge debt fiasco.
Oh What A RINO Feeling!!!
Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago
Nothing about the semen-covered blue dress?
Phone_Man 1 year, 9 months ago
You are on a roll!
jafs 1 year, 9 months ago
Ah TS.
I'd forgotten about him.
So many errors, so little time - just one I'd like to point out - there's nothing shady or incorrect about the EPA regulating businesses in order to protect the environment.
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
jafs 1 year, 9 months ago
If you continue insulting me, I will have to ask you to stop responding to my posts, and If you don't, I'll have to file a complaint with the moderators.
Or, you could just leave me alone.
jafs 1 year, 9 months ago
Please stop responding to my posts.
If you don't, I will file a complaint with the moderators.
jafs 1 year, 9 months ago
I will file a complaint with the moderators.
scott3460 1 year, 9 months ago
Says the person who is admonishing Jafs for allegedly deficient understanding of a "supply and demand curve."
Priceless.
camper 1 year, 9 months ago
Liberty, I thought it was "Supply and Command" ): Lifted that from a funny movie.
camper 1 year, 9 months ago
"Denial and Error".
rtwngr 1 year, 9 months ago
I'll respond with some facts for you "jafs". The Obama administration has at least 32 "czars". President Barack Hussein Obama has signed more regulations in 2 1/2 years than any other president in the same period. He has effectively instituted his "Dream Act", that both houses of congress rejected, through regulatory fiat. He has defied the Constitution in this respect and is legislating from the oval office. His Keynesian economic advisors have failed miserably at every turn. Obama, prior to being elected, vowed to put an end to the coal industry in this country. He is doing this by regulatory interference from his position. As far as I am concerned the EPA stands for Endless Political Activism.
rtwngr 1 year, 9 months ago
and.... if you don't like others responding to your baseless remarks on this blog, may I suggest you refrain from posting.
merrill 1 year, 9 months ago
The letter writer is quite boastful about the RINO frauds. Yet he leaves a good deal of history from his letter that which placed America in this economic quagmire. It ain't pretty in fact it looks to be the RINO economic policy written in stone. When a party repeats itself what else is there left to think considering the past 3 repub presidents have participated in economic quagmire aka wreckanomics by the New World Order doctrine.
None of which provided below demonstrates a fiscal conservative/socially responsible party.
All of which have played a significant role in the economic destruction of America. You decide.
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0705rebne.html
The Reagan/Bush Savings and under Bush/Cheney sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ Loan Heist(Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), millions of jobs.loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm
Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html
ONLY 3 financial institutions instead of several were at risk so why $700 billion in bail out money? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to Amercan citizens http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year
Tax cuts which do nothing to make an economy strong or produce jobs. Tax cuts are a tax increase to others in order to make up the loss in revenue = duped again.
In the end big debt and super duper bailouts were the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.
In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:
Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.
Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
• Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html
snap_pop_no_crackle 1 year, 9 months ago
How many times this week have you posted this same drivel, merrill?
scott3460 1 year, 9 months ago
The numbers bears an inverse and prior relation to the number of times you will whine about it.
Fossick 1 year, 9 months ago
"an inverse and prior relation"
So if Merrill posted it 7 times, does that mean that Snap responded -7 times? Or that Snap responded 7 times to the first and then removed a response on each successive Merrill posting?
Statistics is so hard for me...
cait48 1 year, 9 months ago
kneejerk
rtwngr 1 year, 9 months ago
Oh, you decided to cut and paste something. Gee, you've never done that before. Let me guess, all of these links are going to support your point of view? Thanks Merrill.
Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago
Do not ever associate a fascist democrat with a libertine. Nanny-State democrats worship the formation of laws to prohibit as much personal freedom as any republican (except the terrorist lincoln).
Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago
I missed the "L". Mea Culpa!
snap_pop_no_crackle 1 year, 9 months ago
In other news: "We have the quote locked in on the White House web site, veritably written in stone. "At the same time, I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover." The Electric Reliability Council of Texas will certainly be glad to hear that. You see, they’ve been getting worried lately that if certain federal regulations go into effect, they could be in some serious trouble. Somebody should drop them a line and let them know they have nothing to fear, because they still seem to think the president is about to send them up the river without a paddle...." http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/03/potus-who-opposes-regulatory-burden-about-to-create-emergency-condition-in-texas/
Corey Williams 1 year, 9 months ago
"Hot Air was launched on April 24, 2006, with Michelle Malkin as founder/CEO. Since then, the site has become one of the largest right-of-center blogs on the Internet."
Cliché: Full of hot air Explanation: 1. Talking about a subject that you think you have knowledge of when you really don't. Country: United States
scott3460 1 year, 9 months ago
No, Tom, if it went any longer it would have been mistaken for a Saturday editorial.
cait48 1 year, 9 months ago
twitch
JohnBrown 1 year, 9 months ago
So where were all you anti-BIG government types when Gov. Brownbeck put those onerous, unnecessary, non-medical refulations on Planned parenthood? Talk about big government interfering!!
Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago
We were mostly wondering why we were paying for other people's condoms in the first place.
Katara 1 year, 9 months ago
It is so you help avoid situations such as this...
btsflk 1 year, 9 months ago
Might be good to remember,
The last four presidents prior to Obama were, three GOP and one DEM.
Only one, the DEM, left office w/a budget surplus.
This "economic problem" has been in creation since the seventies, and will take time, and I might add, cooperation, to solve.
Something else, When Clinton lied, nobody died.
Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago
You should be thanking Bill Gates for the budget surplus. He made it happen. I like Clinton and think he was a fine president, but he just got lucky and was president when the personal computer changed from a bag of electronic components to a ready-to-use box of endless porn and arguments.
"Something else, When Clinton lied, nobody died. "
He did manage too kill an aspirin factory.
Fossick 1 year, 9 months ago
"Immaculate conception?"
I do not think it means what you think it means...
beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago
"loons"
Typical.
voevoda 1 year, 9 months ago
The only reason that Obama appears to be "left" is because some factions of the Republican Party have moved so far to the right. He's trying to hold a center coalition together, and he's criticized by Democratic constituencies for not fulfilling campaign promises and by Republicans for, well, everything he does and who he is.
Maybe Obama's poll numbers are low now, but given all the radical right candidate hopefuls on the Republican side, it is likely that Obama will emerge as the only sensible choice in the 2012 election.
brewmaster 1 year, 9 months ago
Tom...Tom...Tom.....There you go again confusing yourself by letting too much Fox-News control your meek, malleable mind. Put your apron back on and tidy up the house like a nice little submisive kept man. Oh, and remember to repeat those positive affirmations: I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
tbaker 1 year, 9 months ago
The latest Quinnipiac poll shows 52% of those polled disapprove of how the President is doing his job. The latest CNN poll shows 65% disapprove of how he is handling the economy. These polls have been trending lower for some time. If he really "created or saved" 2.5 million jobs - people just aren't seeing them. Unemployment stays near 10% and thats the kinder/gentler version of unemployment that is nothing close to the real number of unemployed people. What people can't follow, and it seems more are figuring this out everyday is, if the President's rationale for the 'stimulus' is that government borrowing and spending money creates economic activity, then why do we need the government to take our money and spend it? Why can't we just spend it ourselves? Private firms with strong marketing and business plans and strong growth sell stock. They expand. They add jobs. They don't need government handouts.
I sure wish the President would accept this fact and act accordingly. What he is doing has failed and will continue to.
beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago
tbaker, I disapprove of how the President is doing his job. He is too often folding on issues to the Republicans, which disappoints me greatly. However, that doesn't mean I'm ready to vote for any of the current Republicans running for office. Disapproval doesn't automatically mean ready to replace. I suspect that there are plenty of people who fall into that category.
I do think the stimulus help our nation from experiencing another great depression, even if it didn't create the number of jobs that were claimed originally.
tbaker 1 year, 9 months ago
I guess we will never know for sure if the stimulus "prevented" anything, but it darn sure didn't "create" what it was supposed to, which is no surprise becuase every time this flawed Keynesian nonsense is tried, it fails. Instead of borrowing all that money, they should have just declared an income tax holiday for about 7 months. That would have put the same ammount the government spent into the economy, put it would have let the people who earned that money do it, which I think would have worked much better than letting Washington pick winners and losers with some "stimulus". Thats not their job.
I agree - the current level of disapproval doesn't mean the President will lose re-election, Truman's come back comes to mind, but it does mean he will have a much more difficult time of it and the trend is getting worse. If history is any guide, presidential approval numbers that hover near the 30% range prior to a second-term presidential election mean the sitting president stands a good chance of facing a primary challenge from his own party, though I do not believe the Dems would ever do that to Mr. Obama no matter how low his numbers go. The uber-liberals would fracture the party if anyone tried. I believe if there isn't substantial improvement in the economy in the next 14 months, the president will not be re-elected.
beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago
When is a comment not a comment? When it is a letter to the editor, of course.
Why would the LJWorld publish a letter from someone they have banned from posting comments on their website? That just seems like a ridiculous practice.
Tom Shewmon has confessed his hatred of people who aren't conservative on these boards many, many times, so gee, really, he doesn't like President Obama? What a shock. Problem is, his brand of hatred extends beyond just those who are non-conservatives. Under a different user name he also once used a White Supremacy site to validate one of his arguments. Under his own name he claimed that America wasn't ready to elect a Black President, and once Obama was in office stated that "Whites had no power anymore." (Those are just two examples of comments that have been erased from public record, so you can only take my word on it.)
There is a reason he is banned from making comments. Unfortunately, most people reading this letter won't be familiar with the source. They will think he is just your average conservative voicing an opinion. Far from it!
You would think that banning someone more than once from making hateful comments would extend to the actual newspaper. What is a letter if not a comment for all to see?
What next? Letters from the Grey Goose?
beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago
How do I know? Because he admitted it. I'm not the only one who can recall this.
Besides, how would you remember? Haven't you only been on here since 2010? You wouldn't be a returned customer, would you? (yes, that is sarcasm)
beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago
Oh, and it is working out far better than I can imagine from what the Republicans had to offer. The Mavericky / Winky-Winky team would have been a complete disaster. Had McCain won, we would likely be at war with Iran, have large troop numbers in Libya, and we wouldn't even be close to scaling back in Iraq.
I might not be happy with Obama, but he is much better than the alternative. Yes he is!
beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago
We know this based on comments McCain has made over the past couple of years regarding troup levels and military actions he feels would be appropriate. However, it is only "likely" these things would come to be true. I obviously can't say with certainty.
Fossick 1 year, 9 months ago
"The Mavericky / Winky-Winky team would have been a complete disaster."
Certainly agree there, probably the main reason I didn't vote for the guy. The GOP must have accidentally imbibed a controlled mushroom when they nominated as their standard bearer a man who spent the last two decades running against them from the left. "Maverick," in the McCain sense, simply means "a Republican the press featured because he was willing to bash Republicans."
At least Obama being elected has reduced the number of Democrat parties in the country from 2 to 1. The GOP loves big spending when they get to do it, and they are opposed to "big government" when the other guys get to do it. They are the party of smaller big government, but they are still a party of big government. I much prefer when they spend their efforts stopping Democrats to when they spend their efforts exceeding them.
tuschkahouma 1 year, 9 months ago
The funny is watching the hawks like McCain try and criticize Lybia policy when the rebels have taken 95% of the country and they have frozen Khadafi assets to work with and the Europeans are interested in helping if not for the same reasons they've always been interested aka colonial exploitation of oil resources. The main reason many emerging potential democracies fail is that the historic meddlers can't leave well enough alone and maintain a healthy balance of distance and assistance without being heavy handed. Obama is going out of his way to not be heavy handed while the dumblicans are so used to being the bull in the china shop that they know no other way and are clueless so they complain pointlessly on the sidelines where their actions got them.
Fossick 1 year, 9 months ago
The main reason emerging potential democracies fail is that they lack an educated and moderate middle class. You can't have a democracy when 99% of the people are illiterate dirt farmers or day laborers in the oil fields of the 1% that has the guns. Democracy demands a relatively high level of civic understanding and engagement, and an overwhelming majority of people with a vested interest in seeing the system succeed.
It doesn't matter whether would-be Woodrow Wilsons keep their distance in Rwanda or Saudi or Outer Mongolia. It doesn't matter if or how they engage. If all that the hootsies and the tootsies have to vote about is whether the former will take out their historic grievances on the latter or vice versa, democracy in that place can best be defined and that short, violent period between dictatorships.
mr_right_wing 1 year, 9 months ago
I think Mr. Obama has really disappointed a good number on the far left. Because of that I've really kind of 'mellowed' on the guy, don't bash him at every opportunity like I used to. He did do one thing Bush never could (and that does earn him points in my book) he got Bin Lauden. He also finally got away from blaming everything on George; I respect accountability.
I just can't keep 'bashing' a guy who has let the far left down, as strange as that may seem coming from me.....of course he's never, ever, ever getting my vote (I haven't lost my mind completely!!)
Ralph Reed 1 year, 9 months ago
@bea, re: your 1402. I agree, but unfortunately the LJW cannot ban TS's LTEs just because he's been banned from posting online in the forum. (Though I have no doubt he's reincarnated, just like HWSNBN.) It could be in fact that this letter, which mirrors TS's online comments almost verbatim, may have been the only letter available to print. I've noticed some days that Ann Gardner has very little with which to work. People forget that the written word is sometimes more powerful that electrons bouncing through the ether.
Bea, just consider the source and let it go at that. TS seldom has any of import to say and is seldom cogent in how he says it. I only hope the people reading this LTE have a modicum of sense and will take it for the vitriol it is.
@TS. Nice end run around having been banned.
beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago
Why can't LJW ban letters from banned posters? There is absolutely no reason why they must run Tom's letters. If they have come to the conclusion that he is incapable of being civil enough to converse on these boards, as they apparently have, then why run anything he writes? Sorry, but I'm just not buying the argument. As I said, since I've read his comments I understand the source. The general reader of the newspaper will not have that luxury. It all just seems to go against common sense (as well as common decency) for the LJW to run his letter. Banned is banned ... or at least it should be.
Ralph Reed 1 year, 9 months ago
@BAA and bea I don't care why TS was banned, it makes no difference really. Bottom line is that he egregiously violated the LJW Forum TOS one too many times and was banned.
His writing an LTE is another matter. The Editorial Page and this forum are two different entities. Ann Gardner has a good head on her shoulders and knows what she's doing, otherwise she wouldn't have printed TS's LTE. My comment above, for which I've already been taken to task by people on both sides, "I agree, but unfortunately the LJW cannot ban TS's LTEs just because he's been banned from posting online in the forum;" should be an indicator of where I stand.
If the LJW were a private forum which one had to join and be vetted before being allowed to post, then I can see banning someone. However, it is not and is a public newspaper. Someone can't be banned from having an LTE published just because the were bounced from a public forum.
I dislike what Tom posts(ed) here as most of you know. However, the LTE is a different matter. It's the same as being on a soap box in Hyde Park. If you don't like what was said, you move on. If you disagree, say so and debate. Those with little to say have a small audience and sometimes are simply talking to the air.
Tom's letter is like the last sentence. I agree it would be nice to have the banning linked, but that would be wrong in many ways.
beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago
I've never said he doesn't have the right to say what he wants to say. I'm saying LJW is required to print it given the fact that they chose to ban him from their website. People have the write to write pornographic tales, but that doesn't mean the paper will print them. There is a difference. Sorry you can't see it.
beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago
... LJW "isn't" required ...
beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago
Oh, and given the letter's author, did anyone else find the headline at least a little bit ironic?
begin60 1 year, 9 months ago
Obama has disappointed self-respecting progressives. When he assassinated bin Laden with no respect for due process or rule of law I totally lost confidence. Also, he has harshly prosecuted several whistle-blowers, from Bradley Manning to Tom Drake, merely for standing up for truth and principle. His administration seems merely an extension of Bush's, still working hand-in-glove with big business. He may yet represent the lesser of two evils, but Dinos and Rhinos (Dems and Repugs in name only) are pretty much one and the same.
tbaker 1 year, 9 months ago
Assassinated Bin Laden? Mis-treated Bradley Manning? It's no secret I'm not a big fan of the President's policies but I gotta say you are way, way off the mark here.
Bin Laden was an enemy combatant if there ever was one and he got exactly what he wished for every American - a violent death. Don't quote me - read his writings. If due process was what he deserved, then how come he didn't turn himself in?
Bradley Manning broke the law. He knew he was breaking it, and did it anyway. Just Google the guy and read his text messages. Releasing classified information is not standing up for truth and principal. It is committing a felony which he signed numerous non-disclosure agreements and swore an oath never to do. This makes him a liar, not a principled man. If he had a shred of honor and conviction, he should have just got out of the Army and protested all the live long day. As it is, he should feel very lucky the prosecutor isn't seeking the death penalty in his court marshal. He is a coward and a traitor who will spend the rest of his natural life at the US Disciplinary Barracks, which may not be all that long. Soldiers, even court-marshaled ones in prison, despise cowards and traitors.
begin60 1 year, 9 months ago
Obama supports state-sponsored murder when it will earn him political points from customers like tbaker. Plus, he wants crimes of the state swept under the rug and criminalizes those who disagree; moreover, look what he just did with the smog regulations!
none2 1 year, 9 months ago
Sorry but you are wrong. If the Bin Laden event was state-sponsored murder, then all wars are the same and any head of state who has ever engaged in military action is guilty of the same.
As for Bradly, he is a traitor. Every state has secrets. You may not like it, but that is the way the world operates.
Why do you not have as much disgust for the criminal actions of non-state entities such as Al Qaeda? Do you consider them freedom fighters?
Ralph Reed 1 year, 9 months ago
Let's, see bin Laden was not a head of state, so the mission was a military mission against an enemy commander. Had he surrendered, he would have been captured. Instead, he chose to fight and was killed. Hence, it was not an assassination. I'm just glad he didn't become a martyr any more than he did.
Bradley Manning is another matter. His actions put at hazard the lives of and caused the deaths of us and foreign military and civilians. He knew what he was doing and deserves the punishment he'll hopefully receive.
Liberal 1 year, 9 months ago
It seems that you have forgotten that the repubs did not gain any kind of leverage until Nov. 2010. And even now they only control 1/3. Obama had free reign for two years giving him plenty of time to pass a budget ram healthcare down our throats and anything else he wanted to do.
The repubs saying no to healthcare was them listening to their constituents who thought that Obamacare was a huge mistake.
The Repubs have not stopped the dems from doing anything up to this point. If they wanted to pass something they had enough votes on their own.
Own up to your own debacle. This is now your economy, your ideas and none of it has worked. Can you say Major Fail?
Their is no defense for what the dems have done up to this point and it is clear they paid the price in 2010.
I am so sick of hearing about Clinton's surplus ever hear of the tech boom? I bet you have, that was the reason for the surplus, welfare reform did not hurt either, which Clinton was forced to do. The Tech bust did not happen on his watch but did happen just shortly after he left leaving us in a small recession that Bush pulled us out of.
The Bush admin made huge mistakes as well spending way to much money and that spending makes me just as sick, however, GWB did have a terrorist attack to deal with there was bipartisan support to go to war, even to the point of Obama continuing it still.
chootspa 1 year, 9 months ago
I really doubt Obama has the "support" of the far left, because he isn't far left. He's to the right of Reagan on most of his stances. If there were a moderate Republican running against him, I might be tempted to vote for them, but my choice right now seems to be between a conservative and a bat@#$@# crazy extremist.
LadyJ 1 year, 9 months ago
Just in case your question was serious, which it may not be, books normally $10 are half price which is $5. Then you would take 20% off of the $5 price which is $1making the book $4. Whereas 70% off of a $10 book would make the book $3. That way they get an extra dollar while giving the illusion of 70% off. At least that is how it works at Kohl's.
vertigo 1 year, 9 months ago
That would be 20% of the original discounted price at 50%. In other words it's 60% off the original price.
So a book originally priced at $20 sell normally at $10 (50%), An additional 20% off that price would be another $2 off so final price is $8.
$8 equates to a 60% saving from $20.
jonas_opines 1 year, 9 months ago
Whoa, Right Thinker doesn't like the President, or the left, or anybody else that his news sources don't tell him to like. Who knew?
windjammer 1 year, 9 months ago
Tom Shewmon is a racist and should be banned from the LJW.
Ralph Reed 1 year, 9 months ago
Never thought I'd see the day when I'd defend TS.
Did you ever stop to think that much of what he wrote was intended to stir the pot and do little more? That's exactly what he did with his LTE, he stirred the pot and stood back to watch.
windjammer 1 year, 9 months ago
I do agree with you Mr. Reed on his stirring of the pot but he should not be allowed to spew his racist rants on the LJW readers. I would hope that you would never defend TS or anyone of his kind. To stir the pot with racist comments should not be allowed.
snap_pop_no_crackle 1 year, 9 months ago
What's Maureen Dowd saying? "...Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed. The days of spinning illusions in a Greek temple in a football stadium are done. The One is dancing on the edge of one term. The White House team is flailing — reacting, regrouping, retrenching. It’s repugnant. After pushing and shoving and caving to get on TV, the president’s advisers immediately began warning that the long-yearned-for jobs speech wasn’t going to be that awe-inspiring...." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/dowd-one-and-done.html?_r=2 Maybe she's a racist too?
beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago
There you go snap, with that false assumption that anyone who criticizes the President is doing so because they are racist. Wrong. People don't call critics racist. People get called racist for saying and writing racist things. See my earlier post for specific examples.
snap_pop_no_crackle 1 year, 9 months ago
"People don't call critics racist." Yes, they do. See the entire internet since Jan 20 2009 for specific examples.
beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago
No, they don't.
I've seen the entire internet. People who make racist comments are called on their racism, not just people voicing criticism of Obama. If I'm wrong, then please show me the many examples of people calling Maureen O'Dowd a racist for her criticism of Obama. They should, according to you, be very easy for you to find.
It is when people criticize Obama using words like "thug," or comparing him to a monkey, scream "Hussein," say he isn't a citizen, etc... -- things they wouldn't say about him if he weren't black -- that gets people called racist.
But then, you already knew that, didn't you?
kansanbygrace 1 year, 9 months ago
Gotta disagree here, AML. Doug Casey is a carpetbagger who grabs for himself in times of turmoil. He also does not understand democracy in action. Notice that the glowing praise for himself comes principally from his own site, not curiously named "Doug Casey".
Commenting has been disabled for this item.