Because Speaker Of The House, John Boehner, Was Taking A Priority Position Over The President Of The United States On Scheduling For The Republican Debates, Rather Than The Presidents Speech I Urge Every American Democrat To Boycott These Debates!

I always look forward to a good lkaugh too. Unfortunately a comedy is not more important than jobs to most Americans.

I Urge Every American Democrat To Boycott These Debates!

why would you even think the GOP wants the left to watch or listen?

I am sure your "plan" would not bother them one bit...

might make them laugh though....

LOL

"let me be clear"

what is really going to happen is the right will watch football and ignore king obama...

cheers

:)

Whether you are a Democrat or Republican there is protocol (sp) to follow.

What I have heard is that when the POTUS wants to address a joint session he has to send a memo to the leader of the House advising and asking for permission. BO did not do that. The date was just announced.

Now BO looks like the good guy by changing the date. What a ______________— (fill in the blank.

Now BO looks like the good guy by changing the date.

he looks like an idiot who can not follow simple procedure.... and he had no choice

as even you pointed out...

he has to send a memo to the leader of the House advising and asking for permission. BO did not do that.

so all we see is a constitutional scholar who has no clue....

spin away...

we all know Obama is the one who screwed up... he gets no gold star for this.

Seems ok for GOP to debate and attack Obama for not doing anything about jobs while postponing his speech.It shows their ignorance to the American people.When we're done attacking him FIRST, he can then have his speech. How many Republicans will watch Obama anyways? I remember that it also seemed ok to schedule Monica Lewinsky to testify on the same day that President Clinton was to talk to the people live on tv.It also was ok for Hyde,Lott,Delay, Starr and the other "do nothing wrongs" to schedule Linda Tripp to testify on the same day as the State of the union, even though her wiretap was illegal.No co-incidence there.I say Obama, stand your ground, if the GOP doesn't show,too bad.

Is this not the same GOP that was screaming and condemning the President for waiting until after Labor Day to present his jobs bill. I seem to remember them being very anxious, yet they delay it. Just some more of the push me, pull me GOP double talk.

Who gives a @!$%# about football? We all should be worried about our Government and the crap that's been going on. On one side we have a Party that has No Back Bone and then on the Other side we have the Party of NO! We have a Govt. that cannot work together, let alone get the American People Back To Work. So go ahead watch football, Hide your head in the sand, both parties has your Best interest in mind. Sarcasm

Harriet, if you'll seek out more than one source for your news you'll find that the President did in fact send note or e-mails to both Boehner and Reid asking to schedule a joint session for Wednesday night, just as protocol suggests. Since they're dealing with three schedules it only makes sense to start with a suggested time. The White House has agreed to switch to Thursday saying that it simply is not a big enough deal to bicker over for partisan reasons. Too bad Mr Boehner did not have the common sense and common courtesy to see things that way in the first place. He much prefers to try and score political points at every possible chance, and dis-respect our elected President to accomplish that.

Tthe United States of America is a Republic not a Kingdom. President Obama is the servant of the people, not the other way around. It would be refreshing if people (particularly democrats) would try to remember that little tidbit.

I agree that Boehner lacks common sense and respect for our President. No matter how anyone may feel about President Obama, he is still our president and deserves the respect of the office. I am so tired of Boehner and his Republican cronies trying to dictate what is good for the country when they won't even listen to new ideas. I hope the voters in 2012 will remember all this and boot them out.

dirtyharriet, wrong. While watching cnn last night the press secretary had sent them word that yes, the president did indeed speak to Boehner about making this appointment. Do your research now.

I listened to Limbaugh ordering Boehner to change the speech date yesterday afternoon; Boehner had no choose but to obey.

You said what I was thinking! I wish I could vote this up a thousand times. It will be held on a so called left program and I hope the numbers are low.

They disrespected the office of the Presidency.

They disrespected the President.

They told us that jobs are not that important.

They told us that a Republican debate matters more that discussing jobs for America.

They told us that they want football to matter more than jobs for Americas.

They told us that they will hinder jobs in every way they can with one goal in mind:stop this president from having success.

No matter the party, how many times must we be slapped before we get it? The Presidency is far more than a man and when you hinder him...you hinder all citizens!!!!!!!!!

I don't see the President moving the date as a failure, but as him keeping his word. Unlike the media spin seen on ALL channels about how he "caved", I see it as a man who said he wanted to change how we do things in Washington. I see the media as expecting tradition and when they do not see that they see him as losing. I disagree. I see aman who is doing EXACTLY what he promised. He wants civility and putting his actions to prove it out there daily.

I will not watch that debate AND I would encourage all to vote straight Democrat in hopes of turning seats enough to give the house back and to have the Super Majority in the Senate. This President DESERVES a chance to have his plans FOR CITIZENS passed and not for his sake alone but for ours! It would also send a message to those extremist as well as the old timers that what they are doing does not meet with our approval.

Ha. As if I was going to watch the "debate" anyway. Right-wing circle-jerks don't interest me in the least.

Chances are I won't watch the President's speech (or football) either. I'll read about it later - maybe even read a transcript - but I have better, higher priority things to do with my life than watch live politics. Single-parenthood is a bitch that way.

Certainly doesn't meet with mine! The repub/tps HAVE to be voted out to the twilight where they belong! :-(

I wouldn't watch their debate if I was paid! They are liars, seditionists and traitors!

To all of you who are saying I'm wrong -

Was the debate scheduled before or after BO asked to speak before a joint session? Also did he give any alternative dates?

All we are hearing is that BO was turned down and given a new date. This type of scheduling usually happens behind the scenes and no one hears about it. Why is such a big deal being made about BO rescheduling?

Personally, I have little or no interest in the debate or BO speaking. I will probably watch neither.

Felicitie, Even for you that is naivete personified. Do you think that Boehner and his bunch would have ever even considered anything the President sent to them? If you think that, I have an island in Kansas I'd like to sell you!

I would not miss these clowns debating each other for anything. MB and RP will be so entertaining. The rest of them are boring so I'm in it for Bachmann and Perry screw up's.

Puck Ferry!

Ok Lynn they why stand up in front of congress? In your opinion, the president can't be effective. Is it time for him to step down?

What I like is all the righies and randian fascists here not noting that the "excuse" boner gave was that the the LAZY SHIFTLESS repubs in the house are going to be back to actually WORK until SIX THIRTY PM on wednsday AFTER FIVE WEEKS OF FULLY PAID VACATION and THAT'S "OFFICALLY" why wednsday won't work.

Yes folks while working americans are lucky to get sick days, the repubs in the house have BEEN GETTING FULL PAY, EVERY WEEK this year, for BEING ON VACATION HALF THE TIME, per the OFFICIAL POLICY AND RULES, writtne by, wait for it, THE SCUMBAG LEACHES OF THE REPUB LEADERSHIP, CANTER AND BONER. Yes, we are paying fulltime salaries with premium benefits, to part time legislators in the house courtsey of the repub leadership.

How very fiscally responsible.

Hey I love football, but I will watch the president speak. I am sure I won't miss more than the first quarter. So it is no big deal.

I wasn't going to watch it anyway. The media will bring up any highlights and that's more than enough for me.

None of them are the Republican candidate. No reason to waste my time.

I'm not going to waste any time watching the GOP debates.

Let me summarize what they will be debating...

Obama sucks... Give more tax breaks to the Rich to create Jobs... Obama Sucks... No, It’s Obamas fault for everything. We are the good guys and we know what the American people want... Obama sucks.

I boycott every republican I get a chance to. As a lifestyle. They do not deserve my attention any more than my respect. I would rather watch paint dry that be offended by the sight of 6-8 lying republican scumbags. Can't say here what I wish for them.

Felicitite:

Tthe United States of America is a Republic not a Kingdom. President Obama is the servant of the people, not the other way around. It would be refreshing if people (particularly democrats) would try to remember that little tidbit.

My question is: With nine percent (consevatively) of the population out of work and President Obama very interested in getting them back to work and I assume he's confident that his jobs plan will work to get those people back to work, why does he need a joint session? Why doesn't he just send them his amazingly wonderful no fail plan and have them hash it out? Why the face time?

ROFLMAO! You have no clue how much you just contradicted yourself, do you?

In your first anti-Obama post, you state that he is a servant of the people. I doubt he needs YOUR reminder, but, alright, fair enough.

In the second you actually complain that he's trying to WORK with Congress, and that he should just "send" them his plan and let Congress work it out.

Why do I know for a fact that if he had just "sent" Congress his plan, you would be complaining that he wasn't trying to work with Congress??

I give up, you guys are pathetic. This man can do nothing right in your eyes. He could end world hunger, cure cancer, and make every single American rich as hell and you'd find SOMETHING wrong. I feel sorry for you people, your hearts are so full of hate. Thank goodness mine isn't, for anyone.

Obama in 2012!

As one of my NV friends posted the other day: President Rick Perry. Get used to it. TEA Party in 2012!!

aqua, I'm in the 'not a chance' column over here. LOL

If President Obama send a jobs plan to the repukes, They would just file it or hide it and later say that they never received it.

To the long dramatic title of this thread: Puh-leeze !!! These debates were scheduled long before the President decided he needed some prime time damage control !!! As is, the President is the biggest loser of this latest childish skirmish. Presidential Speech vs. Republican Primary debate = toss up for viewers Presidential Speech vs. NFL season opener = a$$ whooping in ratings for the President!!

Whoever is scheduling events/TV appearances for the President needs to join the millions of Americans on the unemployment lines or at least receive a new assignment within the administration !!

My issue is that Boehner considered the debate over Congressional Business. Whatever the President was trying to do, it clearly brought that out, that GOP politics will take precedence over performing their duties as elected representatives of their districts.

Liberals urging a boycott of MSNBC?

Like MSNBC is totally liberal....lol...much less MSM

As one of my NV friends posted the other day: President Rick Perry. Get used to it. TEA Party in 2012!!

Apparently your NV friends and you know nothing of Perry's real record.

There's one thing that I do like about Perry though, he supported Al Gore!

In particular, Perry has been fielding uncomfortable questions about his support for Al Gore in the 1988 presidential race. Perry, who did not switch to the Republican Party until 1989, served as a high-profile Texas supporter of Gore’s presidential bid.

Obama sucks... Give more tax breaks to the Rich to create Jobs... Obama Sucks... No, It’s Obamas fault for everything. We are the good guys and we know what the American people want... Obama sucks.

.

Ron Paul will be calling for an end to the wars and for restoration of sound money. He does not like to talk bad about anyone however I am sure the people asking questions will be trying to get him to say something bad about Obama. The rest of the candidates will be trying to sound like Ron Paul to try and steal his base

also Ron Paul will be calling for an end to the Patriot act....

Some one who wants to discuss job Creation or a group of scary people campaigning, Who should i watch now let me think!!!!!!!

ryoushi

You realize the comments you made about GOP congressmen and taking time off also applies to the democrat members of the House. Your hatred of all things conservative is well known.

It's going to be a bitch for you after 2012 when we have the White House AND both houses of Congress.

Keep dreaming.....

It's going to be a bitch for you after 2012 when we have the White House AND both houses of Congress.

If that were to happen it would be a real tragedy for the country.

#1.25:I boycott every republican I get a chance to. As a lifestyle. They do not deserve my attention any more than my respect. I would rather watch paint dry that be offended by the sight of 6-8 lying republican scumbags. Can't say here what I wish for them.

I boycott them on everything now anyway, so I was not going to watch that sorry bunch by any means. For what anyway, I already know they lie about EVERYTHING! Old news.

the second you actually complain that he's trying to WORK with Congress, and that he should just "send" them his plan and let Congress work it out.

How are the two thoughts contradictory? IF the president thinks his jobs plan is the right one, he shouldn't be waiting even one second to have it implemented. Should he?

Now if his speech is just a political ploy, I can see why he would wait to give some relief to the millions of Americans who are out of work. Such a thing would be despicable, no?

Lisafrequency

Ron Paul will be calling for an end to the wars and for restoration of sound money. He does not like to talk bad about anyone however I am sure the people asking questions will be trying to get him to say something bad about Obama.

Will Ron Paul also be calling for the end of teaching the Theory of Evolution in schools, after all he has stated he doesn't believe in it.

The rest of the candidates will be trying to sound like Ron Paul to try and steal his base

I think you got this backward. It looks like Paul is trying to sound like the religious right in order to gather up some of that teabagger vote.

Ron Paul wants you to decide what you want your children to be taught and send them to a school that reflects your values.

Ron Paul does not think he has a right or the power to tell you what to believe. He believes in following the Constitution and protecting your liberties.

I think you got this backward. It looks like Paul is trying to sound like the religious right in order to gather up some of that teabagger vote.

You do not know much about Ron Paul if you think that

How are the two thoughts contradictory? IF the president thinks his jobs plan is the right one, he shouldn't be waiting even one second to have it implemented. Should he?

Now if his speech is just a political ploy, I can see why he would wait to give some relief to the millions of Americans who are out of work. Such a thing would be despicable, no?

This comment shows a complete lack of sophistication regarding how our political process works.

The President needs a forum to communicate with the American people in order to build popular political support for his initiatives.

Ron Paul wants you to decide what you want your children to be taught and send them to a school that reflects your values.

Ron Paul is the embodiment of the selfish, small-minded and hateful thinking libertarians. Libertarians have no national vision. To a libertarian it's all about me, me, me. The concept of an "us" never enters into the equation. Had that been operative in our history there would be no United States of America as the word "united" is meaningless to libertarians.

E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. Libertarians ignore the many and are myopically focused on the one. It's impossible to build a strong nation with that attitude.

Ron Paul is the embodiment of the selfish, small-minded and hateful thinking libertarians. Libertarians have no national vision.

Ron Paul is not a Libertarian he is a Republican. One time he ran as libertarian for President because he was asked him to. His supporters were all for his run. As congressman he has always ran as a Republican and is running as a Republican for President.

He is not selfish I find him to very compassionate. I would hope that you know enough about your needs and your freedom to be able to make choices for yourself without the government having to tell you what is best for you. Individual liberty gives you power over your own life. I know that a lot of people feel that government is in place to tell people how to live. Actually our government was put into place in the beginning to protect our indiviual freedoms it has morphed into something else though.

The President needs a forum to communicate with the American people in order to build popular political support for his initiatives.

If that were true, the president would never be off of the television. President Obama 24/7. I'm not seeing that anywhere. When did the President go on television and get support for his Libyan intitiative?

IF the president felt his jobs program was worthwhile, he would send it to Congress and get it debated and implemented as soon as possible. We wouldn't have to wait a freakin' week.

Ron Paul is not a Libertarian he is a Republican.

LOL.

IF the president felt his jobs program was worthwhile, he would send it to Congress and get it debated and implemented as soon as possible. We wouldn't have to wait a freakin' week.

The Party of "Hell No!" still refuse to even allow a vote to bring over 200 staff appointments of Obama’s!

The GOP Suck..

Felicite.

He wanted it done before congress went on vacation.Way before the budget deadline.It was very important then,as it is now.Obama told everyone that his plan would be out after Labor Day like other Presidents have done.LABOR DAY?Get it?.Fox jumped on it right away saying it's way too late.The GOP never mentioned their dog and pony show till just a few days ago.So go ahead and dream up some more garbage.What are the GOP initiatives this week.They seem to change as much as a baby's diaper. All of a sudden this week it's jobs.2 weeks ago it was the deficit. Last week it was immigration.I think I finally figured out what the GOP game is. They have no plan for anything.they just keep changing things to distract the American people,while destroying what's left of the economy with GWB's outlandish charge card late fees that the GOP ran up and never paid back before they handed the keys over.

demmie,

What's your point?

.Obama told everyone that his plan would be out after Labor Day like other Presidents have done.LABOR DAY?Get it?.

This president has presided over the worst jobs climate in years. He can't get a jobs plan out sooner than Labor Day? Why not?

All Hail King Obama! *rolls eyes*

It’s you conservative who love your small governments like Monarchies. Not Liberals.

Obama Created More Jobs In One Year Than Bush Created In EightBy Alex Seitz-Wald on Jan 7, 2011 at 5:30 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/07/137866/obama-more-jobs-bush/
Obama Created More Jobs In One Year Than Bush Created In EightBy Alex Seitz-Wald on Jan 7, 2011 at 5:30 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/07/137866/obama-more-jobs-bush/
CHART OF THE DAY: It's Official: Obama Is Creaming Bush When It Comes To Jobs
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administration-2010-
2#ixzz1V9HW9R1B

The flea party has been killing jobs.
http://tinyurl.com/3ehakpw
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/DJIA

The only way that the repubs are going to anything other than trying to make President Obama be a one term president is when the voters are aware of what President Obama wants to do and the voters then put pressure on the repubs to support The President.

That is the only way that anything is going to get done.

Felicite,

All you have to do is turn on the tv and watch the party of NO say No.Their vacation came first. Shows where the GOP's priorities are.Why don't you ask John Bonehead where he went on vacation? You know,if the GOP would have had offered a GOP jobs plan that night instead of a debate about who knows more Obama jokes,maybe it would have been ok to postpone the President. Not one of them offered to help postpone the debate for another hour.They are a sorry bunch....I guess people are too naive or stupid to see that.They get what they deserve.

IF the president felt his jobs program was worthwhile, he would send it to Congress and get it debated and implemented as soon as possible. We wouldn't have to wait a freakin' week.

If he did it that way the obstructionist Republican's wouldn't even bring it to the floor, which they probably won't do as they couldn't withstand the political heat that would come from their voting against it.

A week? Are you kidding? The Republican's have held Congress for 10 months now without bringing anything close to a jobs bill up. Nothing, nada.

Multi, And what was their campaign PROMISE in the 2010 mid-term elections? A JOBS plan and have you heard one thing about it or when we can expect it?

Ron Paul is not a Libertarian he is a Republican

Ron Paul is a member of the Republican Party but his political philosophy is absolutely libertarian. He's recognized as the leading libertarian in the U.S.

He is not selfish I find him to very compassionate. I would hope that you know enough about your needs and your freedom to be able to make choices for yourself without the government having to tell you what is best for you. Individual liberty gives you power over your own life. I know that a lot of people feel that government is in place to tell people how to live. Actually our government was put into place in the beginning to protect our indiviual freedoms it has morphed into something else though.

Sorry, libertarianism is at the most selfish, self-centered nihilistic end of the span of political philosophies.

compassionate.

How so? Please cite an example of his "compassion". The Dalai Lama is compassionate. Ron Paul is at the opposite end of the spectrum. He is a nihilist (as is his crazy to the bone son by the way).

your freedom to be able to make choices for yourself

That's a God given right, it's called "free will" and we all have it. No government can give that or take it away. But that's completely different than a government rightfully, because it's the role of government, regulating whether you can assert your rights over mine. Or an oil company's right to pollute the environment that we all share or a gas company polluting the water supply that we all need.

I know that a lot of people feel that government is in place to tell people how to live. Actually our government was put into place in the beginning to protect our indiviual freedoms it has morphed into something else though.

I don't think anyone feels that government is "in a place to tell people how to live". It's mostly the Republican's that want to that though.

As far as it's having morphed into something else, can you cite for us one example, just one, where the government is telling you how to live that steps on your right of individual freedom?

"The consolidation of our fellow-citizens in general is the great object we ought to keep in view, and that being once obtained, while we associate with us in affairs, to a certain degree, the federal sect of republicans, we must strip of all the means of influence the... monocrats in every part of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, 1801.

One of the first terms used by the Founders that you could use in polite company was monocrats, they call themselves them the Far-Right, the conservative tea party now.

Sorry, libertarianism is at the most selfish, self-centered nihilistic end of the span of political philosophies.

Some of the funniest comedy I've seen in a while, too bad you would rather make up crap than debate the facts...

That's a God given right, it's called "free will" and we all have it. No government can give that or take it away.

You are definately right that no government can GIVE it, however this government most definately can and does take it away.

But that's completely different than a government rightfully, because it's the role of government, regulating whether you can assert your rights over mine.

You know the funny thing is, the more you type, the more you sound like a libertarian... One that doesn't realize that no libertarian is actually talking about anarchy... It's like you have chugged down the waters that others have been offering you. You have just pointed out the only purpose of government and why libertarians have never, one, suggested no government regulations ever...

Here, let me try something. I am going to type out the basic libertarian view and I want you to tell me what about it you disagree with.

"Everyone has the right to live their lives as they choose as long as they do not infringe upon another's right to the same".

Ok, now, what part of that is 'selfish and nihilistic'?

What part of that do you disagree with?

Because everything you've said after your vapid denunciation of libertarianism has been a pretty strong defense of those principles...

I don't think anyone feels that government is "in a place to tell people how to live". It's mostly the Republican's that want to that though.

Might want to tell that the Democratic/Progressive leadership who has been pushing just those things as well...

As far as it's having morphed into something else, can you cite for us one example, just one, where the government is telling you how to live that steps on your right of individual freedom?

Sure!

1. Playing Online Poker
2. Buying Pot
3. Buying Unpasteurized Milk
4. Buying certain bath salts http://www.wapt.com/r/26513109/detail.html
5. Suicide
6. Gay Marriage
7. Smoking in many cities in the US
8. Airport security checks (violation of search and seizure without probable cause)
9. Patriot Act
10. Illegal Wiretapping
11. Disrupting Cell service to protesters (BART cell phone censorship)
12. Arresting people for videotaping police and other public officials
13. Being fired from the Military for publicly criticizing the president (both Bush and Obama)
14. Being jailed for thousands of days without due process
15. Not purchasing medical insurance if you don't want to
16. Prostitution
17. Keeping your home if another business wants it
18. Have Percocet on you
19. Not being tortured, renditioned or targeted for death as a US Citizen
20. Not being bullied by union organizers

That's just 20 I can think of off of the top of my head, want to give me a few days and I can probably pop a 100 down on you. And of course, we see the failures of the past and present administrations to protect civil liberties in the wake of 9/11 http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/09/01/10-years-after-911-commission-says-president-is-failing-to-protect-civil-liberties/

So, have a good day, as much as you can at least...

Anarchist Libertarians are the scourge of the earth.

Mmmm, that's such a devastating piece of intellect there, Daniel, are you just getting tired of being wrong so much that you are now just throwing out nonsensical phrases to try to get a rise out of someone?

I'll counter with 'Communist Liberals are the scourge of the earth' and we can all it even, shall we?

"When [the moral sense] is wanting, we endeavor to supply the defect by education, by appeals to reason and calculation, by presenting to the being so unhappily conformed, other motives to do good and to eschew evil, such as the love, or the hatred, or the rejection of those among whom he lives, and whose society is necessary to his happiness and even existence; demonstrations by sound calculation that honesty promotes interest in the long run; the rewards and penalties established by the laws; and ultimately the prospects of a future state of retribution for the evil as well as the good done while here. These are the correctives which are supplied by education, and which exercise the functions of the moralist, the preacher, and legislator; and they lead into a course of correct action all those whose depravity is not too profound to be eradicated." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814. ME 14:142

Not only off the topic but again, you seem to lack the grasp of what Jefferson is saying here.

So, unless you want to try to explain what you were thinking when you thought the quote you posted had any meaning, I'll take it that you are again going through some of Jefferson's works and misunderstanding them once again...

Oh, and the continued purposeful misunderstanding that you for SOME reason think that libertarians are anarchists after the multiple times I have proven this assertion to be wrong speaks volumes as well...

So, have a good day, as much as you can at least...

I've had a fine day, thanks, and I've done everything I've wanted to. And hell, it's not even over yet and I'm going to do more that I want to do.

Your "list" mixes the obvious with the mundane and most of it is ridiculous. I wish to fly safely, I smoke pot legally, I don't exploit women or blow cigarette smoke in other peoples air supply. I have no idea what the issue is with anyone wanting to drink unpasteurized milk but I'd suggest you get a cow and drink all the raw milk you want.

I thought that Libertarians believed in "states rights". As far as I know I can take a bath in any salts I want. I've traveled the world for over 40 years and have gone through thousands of security checks and have been damn glad that there are people looking for the bad guys. If you don't want to go through a security check don't fly. It's quite simple.

The BART issue is a local one and those local authorities were absolutely wrong to disrupt the cell phone service. That said the only cell phone disruption that I've ever had to deal with has to do with the inadequacy of the system.

If you don't want to buy Medical Insurance, pay the tax. If you don't want medical insurance please give up your right to enter an Emergency Room so that I don't have to pay to fix your sorry ass if some drunk slams into your car.

The Patriot Act is an abomination brought on by the Republican Party under Bush/Cheney. I can't even begin to imagine what noise would have been created if it had not been extended.

Members of the Armed Services take and oath and sign a contract giving up your right to publicly criticize the Commander in Chief. If you don't like it, don't sign up, it's voluntary. The President of The United States is their Commander in Chief. If you work for any company and publicly criticize its president it is likely that you'll be fired.

If you need Percocet, get it from your doctor. If you have no legitimate use for it why the hell would you want it anyway?

I'd reply to the rest of this silliness but I'm going out now to what I want to do.

But tell me, when was the last time you were renditioned or bullied by a union organizer?

I wish to fly safely,

We all do, but we don't get to at the expense of other's rights. The only way to fly 100% safely is to have 0 freedom/liberty, isn't it? Tell me, what are we going to do about terrorists putting bombs up their rectums, are we going to strip search everyone now? What about surgically implant bombs? Cut people open before they can get on a plane? No, we have to accept that there is risk to life and in doing so we must protect everyone's rights, including the right to not be searched without probable cause...

I smoke pot legally

Curious what country you live in because if it is the US then you don't.

I don't exploit women or blow cigarette smoke in other peoples air supply.

None of which was on my list, thanks.

I have no idea what the issue is with anyone wanting to drink unpasteurized milk but I'd suggest you get a cow and drink all the raw milk you want.

And it's none of your business what I want to do with it, but the fact remains that this country tells us we can't purchase it.

I thought that Libertarians believed in "states rights"

No, libertarians believe in individual rights and the constitution. The constitution give the powers that the federal governments have to the federal government and states that the rest belong to the states and the people... Have a gander at the 9th and 10th amendments, look at why they are there and get back to me.

As far as I know I can take a bath in any salts I want.

Wait and see what your future is like, it seems that some people have figured out how to make drugs out of bath salts. http://jacksonvilleprogress.com/local/x1078445554/Problems-apparent-with-bath-salts-even-before-ban

I've traveled the world for over 40 years and have gone through thousands of security checks and have been damn glad that there are people looking for the bad guys.

Good for you, but unfortunately you don't get to give away other people's rights or someone might decide to give away yours. This is why we don't live in a Democracy, people just like you.

If you don't want to go through a security check don't fly. It's quite simple.

Ah, the twist on the old fallacy... So you won't have a problem with police putting a camera in your house, right? I mean, it's for your own safety, if anyone breaks in they will see it and be there quickly! And seriously, if you haven't done anything wrong, why do you care, right?

The BART issue is a local one and those local authorities were absolutely wrong to disrupt the cell phone service.

Yes, but it happened didn't it? And was it illegal of them to do so? Could another police group see it as a good idea and utilize it? Seems that the jury, so to speak, is out on that one atm...

If you don't want to buy Medical Insurance, pay the tax.

Ah, there in lies the unconstitutionality of it, doesn't it?

If you don't want medical insurance please give up your right to enter an Emergency Room so that I don't have to pay to fix your sorry ass if some drunk slams into your car.

I have every right to avail myself of any service, provided I promise, and do, pay for it. Thankfully I can. Of course, if it happens in a car, I'm covered by the car insurance that I am not legally required to buy (because it can't be required of me) on MYSELF. The only automobile insurance I am legally required to purchase is the liability of my actions on others, which is a valid requirement to protect the others, but the government can't require me to protect myself (my own body sort of thing). And that is a state law because the federal government doesn't have that power, because it would be ... wait for it ... unconstitutional.

The Patriot Act is an abomination brought on by the Republican Party under Bush/Cheney. I can't even begin to imagine what noise would have been created if it had not been extended.

Yeah, it was 'all the republicans'. Nevermind the number of democrats that voted for it, hell Kerry wrote a section of it that is the most damning. Then they continued to renew it and renew it, even when they held every single part of the government in their control... At some point you have to give them SOME of the blame for it, don't you?

And, that wasn't the point anyway, was it? You asked for *1* thing...

Members of the Armed Services take and oath and sign a contract giving up your right to publicly criticize the Commander in Chief. If you don't like it, don't sign up, it's voluntary. The President of The United States is their Commander in Chief. If you work for any company and publicly criticize its president it is likely that you'll be fired.

Might want to tell the ACLU that, of course you don't agree with them either, they defend things like freedom of speech that you seem to despise apparently... I take it you didn't like Citizens United much either, did you? See my point?

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-national-security/censoring-military-personnel-un-american

Oh, and I see you glossed over the torturing thing and CIA detention centers that this administration are running, but hey, as long as you aren't a terrorist (or suspected of being one) then hey, whatever.

If you need Percocet, get it from your doctor. If you have no legitimate use for it why the hell would you want it anyway?

Tell that to the guy who THOUGHT he had a valid prescription, but when he moved from NJ to Florida, it required some validation he wasn't aware of and before that could happen he was pulled over and found to have a couple of pills on him (in a prescription bottle with his name on them). He's been sentenced to jail for 14 years.

Oh, but yeah, you've never had to worry about pain that required percocet to ease, so you don't care about those rights.

I'd reply to the rest of this silliness but I'm going out now to what I want to do.

Awesome, just hopefully you won't run afowl of all the laws you routinely break and aren't aware of or, more likely, be mistaken for someone who is a criminal... The number of people who die from accidental shootings from police SWAT tactics or out of control tazers are more than who die from terrorists in the US every year. But hey, you got your eyes on the ball, right?

But tell me, when was the last time you were renditioned or bullied by a union organizer?

Ah, now it is all making sense. It is ok if this country violates rights, as long as they aren't your rights, you don't care...

You know, there's a little parable about people like you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Let's just hope that the people like myself and the ACLU who are looking out for you are still there to do so when you need it. When YOUR rights are violated... Hopefully you haven't given the federal government the power to violate your rights while you were saying it was ok to violate someone else's because you couldn't be bothered to care about someone else.

And to thing, someone was calling ME selfish earlier today.

OH, ran across a cartoon that might interest some, made 50 years ago and does a good job of trying to warn us about what was going to happen to the country... Only not enough of us listened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-CjrZNi49bE

#1.66 Not only off the topic but again, you seem to lack the grasp of what Jefferson is saying here.

I’m sorry but I can’t help it that your mentality seems to be so limited as to not be able to make the simple connection of that qoute to what you said previously. The rest of your statement that follows is as inane.

As I said, the quote only makes sense if you misapply what he is saying and make the wrong (as I have repeatedly proven) assumption about libertarians being anarchists.

Which is why I wanted to get what YOU were thinking when you posted, apparently you weren't thinking at all.

There's an interesting question on another forum that I participate in "Why do libertarians seem so arrogant?"

The answer is, of course, is that libertarians are inherently unable to focus on anything or anyone other than themselves.

A larger answer is that libertarianism is a political philosophy that is inherently selfish and myopically focused on the nihilistic view that the individual is all that matters. This is inherently at odds with the concept of "the greater good", a way of being that is humanistic.

Humanism is, of course, at the root of the great philosophical and spiritual teachings brought forth since the beginning of human existence with which libertarianism is completely out of accord.

The answer is, of course, is that libertarians are inherently unable to focus on anything or anyone other than themselves.

Exactly. 

Humanism is, of course, at the root of the great philosophical and spiritual teachings brought forth since the beginning of human existence with which libertarianism is completely out of accord.

Very concise.

I’ll even assert that they are borderline of full blown sociopaths’, or at best they suffer from what the Mayo Clinic calls, Antisocial personality disorder. 

#1.73

Libertarians are, by definition, sociopaths. They have absolutely no ability to consider the greater good. The Mayo description defines the American Libertarian movement precisely.

There is also scientific evidence that libertarians/conservatives are intellectually inferior to liberal humanists:

• "Using analyses of samples from the United States and the United Kingdom, Kanazawa examined the information and found more intelligent children are likely to grow up to be liberals by examining those who identified themselves as "very liberal" had a mean childhood IQ of 106.4 whereas those identifying themselves as "very conservative" have a mean IQ of 94.8." (http://digitaljournal.com/articl...)

• "More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history." (Down the rabbit hole: http://www.sciencedaily.com/rele...)

Both factors may come into play where contemplation of libertarianism is concerned. It takes more intellectual horsepower to understand, say, the need for human beings to organize for the greater good than it does to ally with a commentator on Fox braying about how “repressive” the government is.

Ah, that old BS again, love it when you pull out the study that says 'this does not mean that libertarians are sociopaths' to prove that libertarians are sociopaths. And we've had that conversation before and you know it says just that which is why you didn't link to it this time...

The reason that 'libertarians' appear to be arrogant is the same reason that progressives appear to be arrogant or conservatives appear to be arrogant, because it is part of human nature. Take an honest look at the comments on the vine, perhaps, and tell me that most everyone who posts here aren't 'arrogant'.

The notion of libertarians (the people who dedicate themselves to fighting to make sure that OTHER'S rights are protected) being only about themselves is laughable at the core based on what ridicule they have to ensure from the likes of the progressive/conservative selfishness who don't want anyone encroaching on their totalitarian rule of the government. As the last few comments can attest.

BTW, multifariousone, your attempt to label libertarians as 'conservative' is another example of your ignorance of what the libertarian view is (a view that is defined as 'classical liberalism'). If you would check your 'arrogant' hatred at the door and have an honest discussion you might find common ground... Instead you do what any good partisan progressive does, attempt to dehumanize and destroy anything that isn't the same as you. How very sad.

Rhinehold

You know, I really don't care what you think.

If you would check your 'arrogant' hatred at the door and have an honest discussion you might find common ground...

I am sure that I have no ability to find "common ground" with people who I consider irresponsible and selfish.

Set to ignore.

You know, I really don't care what you think.

Yeah, egocentric, selfish sociopaths are often like that.

I am sure that I have no ability to find "common ground" with people who I consider irresponsible and selfish.

Ah, it's good that you made that conclusion about me long ago because of all the factual data I've given you that proves otherwise seems to have been a waste... When people who only care about themselves (as multifariousone has already admitted to) start calling others 'selfish' and then lash out in a childish manner as you have done, the only person who this speaks negatively about is yourself.

Apparently you weren't prepared to discuss libertarian views with an actual libertarian, you would rather see all libertarians as 'unhuman' and 'evil' which is precisely the same attitude that has our country in the shape it is today.

Congratulations for being the source of the problem not the solution.

Set to ignore.

Yes, I recommend that course of action when you have such a hard time coming to grips that the preconceived views you have about people you have dehumanized turn out to be wrong. It is a dangerous thing to mess with the echo chamber like that.

BTW, I noticed you didn't respond to my Dalai Lama response, apparently it was too overwhelming to you, as you seem to have either missed it or ignored it. In other words, what have I missed from you ignoring me than you calling me names? LOL, not much it seems, having an actual dialog was never in the game plan with you, was it?

...this would put the address up against the opening game of the NFL season. So, I have to ask, what would you rather watch? Packers vs. Saints or a bunch of heartless, racist, narrow minded, anti-feminist, uncompromising, radical, blowhards

...my point exactly...

You know put in that prospective, I wonder which night will get the most 'viewers' overall...lol...

As to the article, I had no intention of watching CNN since they are the ones helping to sponser this Tea Party event...(*cough cough*, excuse me)....the Republican Presidential Debate...In fact I have been boycotting CNN for doing that...

RTD I agreed till your pick for the game, the Saints will march over them boys, back to the Superbowl, Who Dat!!!!

I never planned on watching it anyway. What's the point. You already no what they're gonna say. It's gonna be the same old how far can I stick my head up the Tea Party's *&^, Grover Norquist drown government drivel. And I MEAN DRIVEL. There will be absolutely NOTHING of substance to come from that stage, except maybe a little common sense from Paul or Huntsman (is he even participating?) but then they will ruin that with more ignorance about ending FEMA (cause they've got concentration camps waiting for us) (could you hear the sarcastic voice?), or Social Security is broke. The fact that someone said that they will watch football instead of listening to the president speaks volumes. What is worse, is that someone actually thought that was funny. Sad, very sad. What's the point, NO ONE on that stage is EVER going to sit in the Oval Ofiice. Period.

Was the Bush Presidency really that long ago? (Wouldn't know if by the blame Bush rhetoric still going on with the Left).

Do we really need to remind everyone of the amount of disrespect to the position by the Left during the Bush administration?

Respect is a 2 way street. And the POTUS is trying to step on his potential opponents with the timing of his address. Plain and simple.

Right, I think what bothers everyone else not currently associated with the DNC is the fact that you guys will look at this as being "a mistake". Totally amazing that you have the ability to call people a dunce because someone says the obvious about the situation. Once again, if you don't agree with the President you get lumped as a racist, tea bagger, now dunce head. Keep it up, even those moderate republicans and independents are getting sick of the kids game.

Typical response.

Mac-295039

DUNCE Head! As always you tea baggers mist the point. What if Democrats show the same disrespect to wards the office of the presidency you would be all over Fixed News complainting and crying wolf.

Adding the blatant personal attack to the grammatical and spelling errors, along with the Left's stereotypical word-smithing, I'm almost inclined to vote this one up just to draw more attention to it!!

I agree. Did I say any personal attacks concerning this matter? No. But I get the title of "Dunce Head".

I find it amazing how double standards are applied here and within the general media for those who do not always agree with the administration.

Proud...voted yours up to help out.

Regards,

Mike

Dunce..

President OBama is young smart so NOW,2011. And willing to bring issues back to the people. BOEHNER=FuDDy DuDDy=old fashion, fussy, traditionalist, conformist, conservative waiting for a decades traditional letter to go to work.

Umm, you sound like you're still in high school.

GAGirl

whose mindset helped to create this mess

Exactly and well said. It is the mindset of an abuser. Along with abusing their spouse and family as an abusive mindset defines both private and public behavior, the Republicans are abusing our country.

Their debates just turn out to be a Obama bash fest.

Basically! Their plan it the dismantle government, disenfranchise all by their own, and withhold governmental services from the people

What services exactly?

ALL the services you would disagree with of course.

I'll get the funny highlights

watch a collective group of buffoons

Kind of what I get when I read your posts.

Brilliant! I can see that you came up with that one all by yourself now run along and play with your Mr Scrooge and Mr. Orange Man action figures then maybe mommy will also buy you a Palin Barbie to play with.

Palin Barbie to play with

Ohhh, a Palin Barbie. I'm starting to have nasty thoughts. Is it a blow up kind of doll?

You tell me, I don't do Barbie.

For libertarians:
Ayn Rand was a dishonest parasite leech freeloader monster living off SS and Medicare.

Repubics will have a choice now. They will not have to move to Somalia after all.
Seasteading: Billionaire Reveals Plan To Launch Floating Countries
http://nhne-pulse.org/seasteading-billionaire-reveals-plan-to-launch-floating-countries/

THE BILLIONAIRE KING OF TECHTOPIAPETER THIEL ROSE TO FAME BY LAUNCHING PAYPAL AND FUNDING A LITTLE UPSTART CALLED FACEBOOK. YOU'LL FIND HIS FINGERPRINTS ON—
AND HIS SEED MONEY IN—EVERYTHING FROM DNA MANIPULATION TO HOLLYWOOD MOVIES ALONG WITH ANY SILICON VALLEY ENTERPRISE WORTH
KNOWING ABOUT. NOW THE 43-YEAR-OLD GAY LIBERTARIAN IS EMBARKING ON HIS MOST AMBITIOUS VENTURE: A START-UP COUNTRY ON THE OPEN
OCEAN THAT WILL BE GOVERNED BY HIS AYN RAND—INSPIRED IDEOLOGY. WILL IT BE THIEL'S CROWING ACHIEVEMENT OR THE BIGGEST BUST
SINCE WATERWORLD?
Read More http://www.details.com/culture-trends/critical-eye/201109/peter-thiel-billionaire-paypal-facebook-internet-
success#ixzz1VGVo9xUl

Why Your Mayor Has Never Been a Libertarianhttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/why-your-mayor-has-never-been-a-libertarian/244166/?
google_editors_picks=true

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving Ithttp://mises.org/daily/2066
REGULATION VACATION CELEBRATION!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

As long as they renounce their American citizenship and don't expect our BIG government to rescue them if a hurricane happens to hit their floating utopia and need to evacuate. I'll wave my hankie in a joyful good bye!

They are a chance to repeat the same old talking points.

We know the TEA GOP hates Obama, doubtful any of them will have anything new to say.

And Obama's speech will contain the usual "I inherited this mess" " Congress needs to work with me" " -

He will have nothing new to say either - The usual blame game

Both of those things are true, BM, unlike the TEA GOP lies.

JonesGirl,

You mean like shovel ready jobs.

Or like closing Gitmo.

Or like creating jobs for the last 2+ years.

Or about like cutting the deficit in half.

Or about solving the boarder issue.

Or.................... Don't have time to go on and on and on.

I take it you prefer the gracious smile that Obama gives while lying to you ?

Boston, No I appreciate it when you don't bother me & reply to me. Get lost you never have a valid thing to say.

Get lost you never have a valid thing to say

Sorry to inform you Lynn. But what did you expect when making those types of statements. BTW. Boehner is not in the debate and neither is Mich McConnell. Get a clue.

Bd, The reason I said that was I have the man or woman on ignore which they know and he will always answer everything I post, when I am doing all that NV has availed to us to avoid people such as he or she.

Lynn-410457 just go to Bd-652717's page and set to ignore.

I can vote in the repub primary, but I don't need to see the debates to do that. I'm voting for whoever doesn't have a prayer of winning the general election. :-)

And then, trm, when that person wins the general election, won't you feel silly? Why not at least vote for the person who would be second best to your top choice, just in case your top choice doesn't win? Why sabotage your own country like that? Or don't you care?

I do care--that's why I don't want any of the republicans to win.

I'm not sabotaging the country, just the repubs.

Until it backfires and the republican wins. Then because of everyone who followed that faulty logic in an attempt to stack the deck, and everyone who blindly votes party line regardless of candidate, we will be stuck with someone NOBODY wants. How is that any good for our country? We're already walking on thin ice.

trm - all due respect - wasn't that EXACTLY what was done in the SC (or NC, can't remember) election when Alvin Green won? All the demcrats were ranting and raving about the republicans being "spoilers". Have the tables turned and suddenly it's OK?

This type of voting "strategy" is one of the many reasons we have a collective of douche bags running our country.

I'm a registered independent, I can vote for either party in my state. Dems won't have a primary, so I'll vote for repubs.

Have the tables turned and suddenly it's OK?

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. If the dems lowered themselves to repub tactics, maybe they'd win more elections.

BTW, I don't vote "blindly by party line". Right now, the repubs have moved to the right wing fringe, and there is no one reasonable enough to get my vote.

kjm -

I live in SC and watched Alvin Greene win the Democratic primary. It wasn't the GOP that voted him into the election, it was clueless people who voted with their heart, not their brain. When the real election came around, enough people realized what a joke the guy was, even those that initially voted for him, and decided not to send another joke to DC.

I wouldn't be surprised if he gave just about as much thought to his campaign speech, I mean Jobs speech.

Also, I believe the President realized that it wasn't just Boehnerr....

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, one of the GOP presidential candidates, made clear he would reserve his right to object to any unanimous consent request to pass a resolution allowing for the joint session. Because most House members aren't returning to town until Sept. 7 for a 6:30 p.m. vote, a "u.c." request would be the easiest way -- and the one that wouldn't require a roll call vote -- to provide for the speech.

http://www.politico.com/huddle/0911/huddle867.html

Im thinking Obama wants as few people as possible to hear what he's going to say.

When did the tea bags in the house become people?

Personally, I don't trust the pundits to relay information without their own spin, which is troublemaking in itself. I can see why Obama would want to give the speech as soon after Labor Day as possible since it involves investment and the labor part of our economy and it's contribution to the economy. I can also see that they would not necessarily be aware of the proximity of the debate since he was addressing the joint congress and it has not reserved the same space for the event. I wonder why the speech could not take place and the debate on a slight time delay. I don't understand though why the security should be an issue tho. Can't they do that before congress reconvenes? Don't they do a sweep before congressional meetings? Poor organization and inability to think outside the box? DUH!!

He did notify the repubs during his bus trip he said that he would tell us his plan when congress returned in Sept.

Boehner has been consistently rude to the President. It's Boehner who thinks that he is a "king." You must be too young to remember when the branches of government were run by dignified people who had manners, cooperated with each other, and would not do anything to disgrace the country. Boehner is not "quality". He must have been raised by alcoholics in the back room of a pool hall and never taught anything. His parents did a terrible job. Boehner is no gentleman. He's not even a man.

DBE, To get respect, you have to give it first. You and your ilk have done nothing but dis-respect this President from day one, before any of you even knew his issues or politicies. So that proves to me that it is his race that you object to, because you all started this before he was even inaugurated. Very telling, so take your respect and stick it where the sun don't shine, we don't need it or expect it at all!

And DOWN goes the race card.

Despite everything Obama touching turning to crud, despite failing in everything he's tried, and despite the GOP trying their best to prevent Obama from destroying the Country, you still want to call the disenchantment with Obama a racial issue.

It shows how little you know.

I echo that Pattie... disgusting.

If the re-pubs had a clue they would have come up with a plan of their own. Oh I'm sorry they did, do nothing that helps the country, make Obama a one term President, that is the only plan they have.

This kind of gutter-class childish trick

Yep, you had me confused for a minute. I knew you were an Obama supporter and then I read where you are talking about Obama pulling some gutter-class childish trick.

My bad.

Mark, I hadn't read through the whole thread when I commented at 5.5. I think Mr Boehner missed a real opportunity ti improve his image with the electorate by not suggesting a slight time juggling to accommodate both the President and the debate. But then he doesn't seem to be recognized for a great intellect. When obstruction is the only track in your mind many good ideas are left on the siding.

boomer, are you just figuring out we don't like O'bama and want to defeat him? In fact, "we hope he fails".

Dittos Rush !

What the very repulsive Rush Limbaugh and the morons who follow him fail to understand is that if the President fails we all fail.

Get this straight: Barack Obama is the President of The United States. He's our president, the president of all of us.

For some, HATE transcends what is good for the country. It is also apparent that GREED transcends what is good for the country, as evidenced by the Bush Cheney years. All brought to you by the same people who really do not care about anything past the end of their nose and who will not compromise or take any responsibility for causing the problems in the first place. Today, GREED and HATE is the core of the Republican party. Really too bad for the country.

Not true.

The implication of the O'bama agenda increases the decline of America. Just look at the past 3 years. O'bama wins America loses. On to 2012......America will decide.

Absolutely true. The decline of our country began 30 years ago with Reagonomics and was pushed to the limit by the Bush/Cheny criminal administration - two massively expensive and unpaid for wars, incredibly irresponsible tax cuts and the complete gutting of our regulatory agencies, in particular, the SEC.

The implication of the O'bama agenda increases the decline of America.

Your words fly in the face of the facts. Do you have one authoritative source that backs up that statement? Good lord, you can't even spell the man's name right.

Get a grip.

They are talking about the decline of America and I am sure that they voted for bush twice. bush wasted 3 trillion dollars in Iraq and caused the DEATH of 250K people, and TORTURED people.

bush destroyed the US economy.

Alex,

Obama has wasted 3 trillion dollars on failed 'stimulus' packages, caused the deaths of thousands of people and tortured people.

Obama has further destroyed the US economy.

How was Obama any better?

Seriously curious...

(and no, I never voted for Bush or Obama so before you try the predictable 'you liked Bush' defense you can just stop now)

And again..... DOWN goes the race card. Instead of linking to my previous comment I'll just repeat it...

Despite everything Obama touching turning to crud, despite failing in everything he's tried, and despite the GOP trying their best to prevent Obama from destroying the Country, you still want to call the disenchantment with Obama a racial issue.

It shows how little you know.

Despite everything Obama touching turning to crud, despite failing in everything he's tried, and despite the GOP trying their best to prevent Obama from destroying the Country, you still want to call the disenchantment with Obama a racial issue.

So can you actually cite examples of what your referring to so that we can debates some issues or do you only have epitaphs to throw around?

Out of control spending, high unemployment, economy in the toilet, credit rating dropped, still in the wars, Gitmo still open, what has he done right?

Obama saved America from going off the cliff Bush and you monocrats held their course on... Thats what.

And the Party of HELL NO blocked ever turn and still are try to take us off the cliff.

The Biggest mistake of Obama made was not prosecuting the GOP administration for its war crimes against Humanity.

Daniel, Most of the GOP/Teabaggers would never admit that there were war crimes committed. They need to ask then, why doesn't Bush or Cheney leave the country for fear of arrest and being held for war crimes? They will not research or educate themselves, then give us hell for telling them the truth. Amazing!

The American people should pitch in and give Bush, Cheney and Rove free vacations to Switzerland.

Or maybe Nuremberg?

The disrespect for the Presidency is just one of the signs that the country has lost itself. Going along with sucking up to the wealthy interests, to the detriment of the working class, is another. It appears that the dumbing down of our country is turning many into complete idiots. They would rather look for answers in fake news and gossip or fanatical religion that feeds their hatred for others. Boehner is not a stupid man, he knows who his constituents are and who pays for his campaigns. Boehner is what is known as a politician first and a decent human being who wants what is the very best for his country somewhere way down the line on his list of priorities.

Jennifer you are right... I believe the haves and the have nots began when people began to see themselves as too good to be around certain types of people. Thus they moved to gated communities and joined country clubs and other things that contained people who looked just like them, acted like them and believed just like them. Then they began to send their children to private schools to avoid the children from "the other side of the tracks." What did that accomplish? Children who believe they are entitled and who look down their noses at their fellow human beings. This also rendered children who are not self motivated because they know Mama and Daddy will continue to help and give to them because they would be embarrassed if their kids didn't do as good in life as they thought they should One of the best things that happened in my life was that my Father was a factory worker and my Mother did not work outside the home. We weren't rich nor dirt poor. We lived in a lower/middle class neighborhood and saw first hand the difference and what those with the means and education could do and that made me want to do better. My Father set the expectation with all 10 of us as he told us "I expect you all to do better than me and your Mother." He didn't say I want you to, but rather I expect you to. So if we do not quit with this phoniness of class warfare and thinking that some are better than others this country will remain in trouble. Afterall we were all created in the image of God, regardless of our color, gender, ethnicity. We all are of the human race.

The Biggest mistake of Obama made was not prosecuting the GOP administration for its war crimes against Humanity.

He sort of had to do this or he would end up in the same court for the same war crimes...

Seriously, not a war crime to kill innocent brown people from unmanned drones in countries we are not at war with? I could have sworn that was a no-no and had Bush been doing it, you would be calling for him to be impeached. But now...? Nothing but crickets.

Pakistan drone strategy originated with Bush, official says
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-04/world/pakistan.drone.attacks_1_drone-strikes-counterterrorism-official-qaeda?_s=PM:WORLD

And?

That somehow makes it right to you that Bush started it and Obama has stepped up the pace, not just in Afghanistan (which would have been bad enough) but also in Yemen and Somalia, who congress have given no authorization to attack?

On 3 November 2002 a CIA-controlled Predator unmanned aerial vehicle appeared over a car speeding along an isolated highway 100 miles east of Sanaa, the capital of Yemen. The Predator launched a laser-guided hellfire missile which struck the target and exploded, leaving only charred remains

http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/ptb/wvw/wvw5/Plaw%20paper.pdf

Again, Alex, how does your story relate in any way to Obama's bombing of people with unmanned drones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/drones-direct-hit-upon-ru_b_929203.html

The Obama Administration continues to use unmanned drones as a tool of war - a tool that according The New York Times, the Administration claims has killed 600 militants in Pakistan and no civilians since May 2010. But the math doesn't add up. Nor does the policy.

Think of the use of drone air strikes as summary executions, extra-judicial killings justified by faceless bureaucrats using who-knows-what "intelligence," with no oversight whatsoever and you get the idea that we have slipped into spooky new world where joystick gods manipulating robots deal death from the skies and then go home and hug their children. Everything America was once said to stand for: the rule of law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is in danger of becoming collateral damage as our fearful leaders continue to kill suspects and innocent alike, mindlessly unaware that the hellfire we are sowing will surely be reaped by Americans in the future. The proliferation of drone technology and its inevitable extension to civilian law enforcement is a leap into the arms of Big Brother.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism recently estimated that at least 2,292 people have been killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004. The Bureau determined that of that number, over 350 are civilians. A July 2009 Brookings Institution report stated ten civilians die for every one suspected militant from U.S. drone strikes. Yet another study by the New American Foundation concluded that out of 114 drone attacks in Pakistan, at least 32% of those killed by the strikes were civilians.

President Obama has greatly expanded the use of drones over the past several years, authorizing more drone strikes during his first fifteen months in office than President Bush did during the entirety of his eight years in office. In addition to the use of drones in Pakistan, the Administration has authorized strikes in Yemen and Somalia. The increasing reliance on drones and the lack of recourse for the families of innocent civilians that are killed by such strikes demonstrate the impunity with which the U.S. uses this technology.

Are you ready to call Obama a war criminal yet? You didn't seem too hesitant to do so for Bush...

Someone here was saying that President Obama was the only one using those drones.

I am against most of those crimes. The rethugs want to brand President Obama """weak on national security""" """weak on defense""", they have done it to other democrats before.

I am glad that President Obama has not been letting the rethugs put that brand on him.

Someone here was saying that President Obama was the only one using those drones.

No one here said that president Obama was the only one using drones. It was in your head.

I am against most of those crimes.

So are you saying that you think Obama is a war criminal?

I am glad that President Obama has not been letting the rethugs put that brand on him.

I am certain all the dead brown people and their families share your relief that Obama has been killing them to 'look tough' to Republicans.

Obama actually committed an act of war, and conspiracy to committ murder, by sending the Seals into a friendly sovereign country after bin Laden, and killing innocent people in the process.

bush did the same thing at a much bigger scale.

Alex, are you ready to call the current president a war criminal yet?

I've already proven that Obama is using the drones much much more than Bush did, not that it is relevant. IF one is a war criminal, the other is, don't you think? Or is it ok for Obama to kill brown people with unmanned drones?

No, the President needs to show a little class (I know, it'll be hard) and not try to politically interfere with a debate that has been scheduled for months just so he can get up there and campaign again (you know, since that whole bus thing didn't work out so great).

They have flipped flopped dates for this debate several times. The GOP can not even agree as to when they will disagree.

Produ2Bconservative - How about GOP show some class and respect for the president and change the date of their debate ? The president of the united states has more jam packed agenda than anybody else in this country. Expecting him to move his engagements around to accommodate the GOP debate, of all things, is proof that the conservatives have lost touch with reality and are living in their own lala-land

The president of the united states has more jam packed agenda than anybody else in this country.

Thus his recent two week vacation. Please don't make me laugh.

So is it your contention that the president of US of A should work non stop like a slave for 4 years ? What are you talking about ?

Felicitie, You might want to compare his & Bush's vacation time at this point in both of their Presidency's. Bush had taken much more than Obama. You whole comment is silly, in that when they are on vacation, they are still POTUS. Before I retired, when I went on vacation, I was on vacation. Nobody could call me, nor contact me and I was a RN Case Mgr., someone else took my caseload and did the work while I was gone. A president cannot and does not do that as evidenced by his constant doing some type of work while in Martha's Vineyard.

Yonder in GOPland ..it has been silly season since 2009 ....

Righties have truly lost all their collective marbles ...

"Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." --Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.

Thus his recent two week vacation. Please don't make me laugh.

It was 10 days and cut short. Does he not have the right to spend a few days in the summer with his wife and young kids? I think he does. I think that a few days vacation is not only something that we're all entitled to, it's necessary for us to relax and recharge our batteries. That's been my experience.

His few days vacation pales in comparison to the Republican leadership's 5 weeks.....

Obama knows the rules, he tried to get tricky and it blew up in his face.

Obama knows the rules, he tried to get tricky and it blew up in his face.

I think he really didn't believe that for the first time in our history a Speaker of The House would disrespect the Office of The President of The United States the way Boehner did.

But then, President Obama may have underestimated the power of Rush Limbaugh to boss the Republican Party and its leaders around.

He still knew the rules, he just thought they didnt apply to him, and it came back to bite him, just like most of his policies.

May I also point out that the REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES did not schedule the debates - Fox did. So really, Obama was poking both the Republicans AND Fox news.

kjm,

May I also point out that the REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES did not schedule the debates - Fox did. So really, Obama was poking both the Republicans AND Fox news.

Really? Fox news being poked at? What a bogus shameful claim. You really are not entitled to make up your own facts, although it seems that misstatements are a frequent trademark around here. Hate to blow a hole in your " may I also point out" but Fox News is NOT the sponsor of the debate. Although they do control the republican party.

He refused to give his speech until after the debate so that it wouldn't be open for discussion. More back door Chigao style politics.

Come on, let's get real. Is that self-made or just that dang right-wing hearsay rhetoric thing that has no basis in fact land?

ir...,

teresa - yep, I typed the wrong network. That being said, does any of you REALLY think that network Television can just change dates and times, etc at the drop of a hat for something like this?

So, because I made a mistake about which NETWORK is airing the debates, I'm guilty of right-wing rhetoric. Riiiiiiiigggggghhhhhttttt!

He refused to give his speech until after the debate so that it wouldn't be open for discussion. More back door Chigao style politics.

Really not to sure that those involved with the debate could discuss it, they are not the sharpest tools in the shed. I am not so sure that without their trainers to tell them what to say that they would even understand the President's speech

ir...,

He refused to give his speech until after the debate so that it wouldn't be open for discussion. More back door Chigao style politics.

Ya think? That is another statement that is made for rhetoric sake and not meant to be factual. The Congress does not return for business until Wednesday; clearly jobs are not a priority for Boehner and crew. If the President spoke on Wednesday like he requested; that my friend would not have been after the comic relief show offered by the republiteapartyfoxtarian(sp) candidates.

It's comedy???!?!?!?!??? Why does it make me want to throw things at the TV????

More like horror.

Somehow I doubt anyone carrying the speech would split the screen between the President and a lousy debate. FOX might, but no one else would.

The vast majority of Americans don't give a crap about politics.