Endorsements

They are lining up to endorse Obama...... what a shock


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Snooker28 wrote:They are lining up to endorse Obama...... what a shock


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here's another shock for you, the Republican newspaper I grew up reading. My parents subscribed even though they mostly voted Dem. I can't really remember the age I was that I didn't read it. I'm absolutely flabergasted to see them endorse Obama, but in reality they make a strong case for his re-election. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Four years ago, when [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
stepped into the presidency, our nation’s economy was in shambles, we
were at war in Iraq, and the way we financed health care in America was
flat out broken.


Today, the economy is on the mend, the war in Iraq is over and the historic [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is the law of the land.


Yes, the Affordable Care Act is flawed. But after years of hand
wringing and do-nothing by Washington, a president finally came along
who had the vision and the guts to force major changes in a health-care
system that should be a jewel for America but is instead a disgrace
because it is out of reach for so many.


There are some who have said they wished Obama could have made his
historic run for president at another time, that he could have claimed
his presidency in an era of peace, calm and economic certainty. That,
however, was not his destiny.


His destiny was to lead us through our current economic crisis, and
he has done this work diligently in the face of enormous obstacles. We
believe his work is not yet finished and thus we endorse Barack Obama
for another term as president of the United States. Against tremendous
odds, Obama has earned another four years in office to continue crafting
his vision for our nation.


In 2008, the banking system was collapsing, the housing market was in
upheaval and General Motors and Chrysler were heading toward
catastrophe. America continues to reel from the worst financial crisis
to face this nation since the Great Depression.
Job growth has
been nominal, the deficit looms large and only now is the housing market
beginning to come back. But, we believe we would be in a worse position
had Obama not been in the White House, where he was able to stabilize
our free fall through use of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, mortgage
relief programs, the stimulus package and the bailout of General Motors
and Chrysler.
The last two programs had very visible impacts in
Southwest Michigan with the widening of I-94 coming out of the stimulus
package and numerous automobile parts manufacturers being able to stay
afloat with the rescue of the auto companies.
While maneuvering
through the troubled financial landscape, Obama has managed several
other notable accomplishments. In foreign affairs, he has repaired
strained relations with key allies, ended the war in Iraq and has begun
to draw down troops in Afghanistan.
Following the attacks of Sept.
11, 2001, the administration of President George W. Bush kept the issue
of terrorism at the forefront of its public policy, including using it
as a pretext to launch the Iraq War. But let’s not forget that it was
under President Obama’s watch that the true culprit of 9/11, Osama bin
Laden, was finally tracked down and killed.
There are other
accomplishments we could cite, but perhaps the greatest is that
President Obama managed to get anything done at all in the face of
ongoing hostility from Republican members of Congress, whose main
legislative goal — perhaps their sole objective — has been to undercut
his every move.
Some of the best evidence of that can be found in
the debt reduction talks between President Obama and House Speaker John
Boehner. They were well on their way to reaching a compromise when the
Republican Party forced the speaker to walk away from the talks.
Have
there been failures in the Obama administration? Yes. In his first
campaign, Barack Obama promised more than he could — or did — deliver.
He has failed to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center. He has not
been able to repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes. He has not
been able to ban companies in bankruptcy from giving bonuses. He has not
supported the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Perhaps
these will make their way to the top of Obama’s agenda if he is
re-elected, although we have to believe that the economic recovery of
the country would remain his primary concern. The recovery would have to
be the main focus for Mitt Romney, should he win the election on Nov.
6.
And, that is our concern with the Republican nominee. Romney
echoes the failed economic philosophies that have brought us to this
point in history.
We simply do not believe the relentless
arguments that protecting the assets of the wealthy and cutting social
programs for everyone else provide the only hope America has for
economic recovery and growth. To ask the wealthy to help fund a
government that invests in education, health care, infrastructure and
other essential services is not socialism — it is asking all members of
our society to be socially responsible. Indeed, it is in the interest of
the wealthy to have a strong middle class.
President Barack Obama
has led with a steady hand for the past four years, opting to invest
not in big government but in active government that will use its power
to guide us toward a healthy future. We believe Obama deserves another
four years to continue that work.


This is an editorial from the Kalamazoo Gazette. For more Kalamazoo Gazette opinion pieces and letters visit [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

RLMcB wrote:

Snooker28 wrote:They are lining up to endorse Obama...... what a shock


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here's another shock for you, the Republican newspaper I grew up reading. My parents subscribed even though they mostly voted Dem. I can't really remember the age I was that I didn't read it. I'm absolutely flabergasted to see them endorse Obama, but in reality they make a strong case for his re-election. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Four years ago, when [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
stepped into the presidency, our nation’s economy was in shambles, we
were at war in Iraq, and the way we financed health care in America was
flat out broken.


Today, the economy is on the mend, the war in Iraq is over and the historic [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is the law of the land.


Yes, the Affordable Care Act is flawed. But after years of hand
wringing and do-nothing by Washington, a president finally came along
who had the vision and the guts to force major changes in a health-care
system that should be a jewel for America but is instead a disgrace
because it is out of reach for so many.


There are some who have said they wished Obama could have made his
historic run for president at another time, that he could have claimed
his presidency in an era of peace, calm and economic certainty. That,
however, was not his destiny.


His destiny was to lead us through our current economic crisis, and
he has done this work diligently in the face of enormous obstacles. We
believe his work is not yet finished and thus we endorse Barack Obama
for another term as president of the United States. Against tremendous
odds, Obama has earned another four years in office to continue crafting
his vision for our nation.


In 2008, the banking system was collapsing, the housing market was in
upheaval and General Motors and Chrysler were heading toward
catastrophe. America continues to reel from the worst financial crisis
to face this nation since the Great Depression.
Job growth has
been nominal, the deficit looms large and only now is the housing market
beginning to come back. But, we believe we would be in a worse position
had Obama not been in the White House, where he was able to stabilize
our free fall through use of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, mortgage
relief programs, the stimulus package and the bailout of General Motors
and Chrysler.
The last two programs had very visible impacts in
Southwest Michigan with the widening of I-94 coming out of the stimulus
package and numerous automobile parts manufacturers being able to stay
afloat with the rescue of the auto companies.
While maneuvering
through the troubled financial landscape, Obama has managed several
other notable accomplishments. In foreign affairs, he has repaired
strained relations with key allies, ended the war in Iraq and has begun
to draw down troops in Afghanistan.
Following the attacks of Sept.
11, 2001, the administration of President George W. Bush kept the issue
of terrorism at the forefront of its public policy, including using it
as a pretext to launch the Iraq War. But let’s not forget that it was
under President Obama’s watch that the true culprit of 9/11, Osama bin
Laden, was finally tracked down and killed.
There are other
accomplishments we could cite, but perhaps the greatest is that
President Obama managed to get anything done at all in the face of
ongoing hostility from Republican members of Congress, whose main
legislative goal — perhaps their sole objective — has been to undercut
his every move.
Some of the best evidence of that can be found in
the debt reduction talks between President Obama and House Speaker John
Boehner. They were well on their way to reaching a compromise when the
Republican Party forced the speaker to walk away from the talks.
Have
there been failures in the Obama administration? Yes. In his first
campaign, Barack Obama promised more than he could — or did — deliver.
He has failed to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center. He has not
been able to repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes. He has not
been able to ban companies in bankruptcy from giving bonuses. He has not
supported the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Perhaps
these will make their way to the top of Obama’s agenda if he is
re-elected, although we have to believe that the economic recovery of
the country would remain his primary concern. The recovery would have to
be the main focus for Mitt Romney, should he win the election on Nov.
6.
And, that is our concern with the Republican nominee. Romney
echoes the failed economic philosophies that have brought us to this
point in history.
We simply do not believe the relentless
arguments that protecting the assets of the wealthy and cutting social
programs for everyone else provide the only hope America has for
economic recovery and growth. To ask the wealthy to help fund a
government that invests in education, health care, infrastructure and
other essential services is not socialism — it is asking all members of
our society to be socially responsible. Indeed, it is in the interest of
the wealthy to have a strong middle class.
President Barack Obama
has led with a steady hand for the past four years, opting to invest
not in big government but in active government that will use its power
to guide us toward a healthy future. We believe Obama deserves another
four years to continue that work.


This is an editorial from the Kalamazoo Gazette. For more Kalamazoo Gazette opinion pieces and letters visit [url=http://www.mlive.com/opinion/kalamazoo/.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/quote[/url]]

RL...have no idea if Kalamazoo leans liberal or conservative and I trust you woludn't knowingly lead us astray so I won't argue that point. I will say that this editorial is very, very liberal in it's philosopy. This author doesn't do a thing to balance his/her thinking. Way too many liberal talking points using the exact working used by Axelrod, Carney and Obama. A couple of examples...

We are out of Iraq but is Iraq a safer place than 4 years ago? The answer is an emphatic NO. They are now becoming a puppet for Iran and the civil unrest is growing.

TARP was a Bush program implemented October and how in the world is it that Delta, United, etc are still running after organized bankruptcy but GM and Chrysler couldn't?

If the top 1% is currently paying 94% of the federal income taxes, federal income taxes make up the greatest single pot of federal revenue, and that number increased both during the Bush and Obama years, how are they not being "socially responsible"?

My point here isn't that those three prove Obama did or didn't earn four more years but simply if this author had a conservative drop of blood in his/her veins he/she would've countered the one-sided tripe he/she wrote.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here's another shock for you, the Republican newspaper I grew up reading. My parents subscribed even though they mostly voted Dem. I can't really remember the age I was that I didn't read it. I'm absolutely flabergasted to see them endorse Obama, but in reality they make a strong case for his re-election. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


RL....... Here is a six page article that appeared in "Newsweek's The Beast" It talks about the power grab our last two presidents have made. It also talks about obstructionism, but never mentions the obstructionism in the senate. The article brings into focus what I have been saying about our constitution being dismantled, Congress being declawed while the executive branch is heading toward Dictatorship. Democrats and Republicans alike need to be concerned whats happening here. I know you will appreciate this article. It's written from a liberal point of view.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Snook--Hmm.. sounds like Congress got mad because Obama pissed in their Wheaties.

Mike, is the middle east any more dangerous now than 2003[that is the right year isn't]. It really hasn't been a good place since almost forever it seem. Granted, I am not sad about blowing Saddam's crap away, but the man seems to be innocent of the alledged crime. Of course when I was a child wrongly punished my mom would comment "You probably did something else I didn't see." Delta and United don't have to worry about 6 million Japanese and Korean air liners coming here. The airlines have nowhere near the employment clout of the auto industry. Bailing out the auto industry was a no brainer. When the auto industry fails every thing fails. When the auto sales went down in the late 1970's, the housing market fell in the toilet. My group went from building 300 houses a year to 1 in two years. And every builder we knew was the same way. When a lumber truck left the yard it had a row of cars a block long following it to see its destination. If Delta went down, another airline would just buy their planes and keep on trucking. From what I can remember, almost all the airlines from my childhood no longer exit. As for the top 1%, it is human nature not to pay more. The people up there aren't the ones to blame. The blame goes to the ones who rule the numbers--our politicians. If you are a billionaire it is still your responsibility to take care of yourself. It is our politicians job to take care of all of us. I survived 4 years of Obama. I am better off now than four years ago. But that was my doing. Can I survive four years of Romney. Who knows. But then this is only for my situation. I try to never put myself in a situation where someone else can screw it up for me.

CorvetteDan wrote:Snook--Hmm.. sounds like Congress got mad because Obama pissed in their Wheaties.

Mike, is the middle east any more dangerous now than 2003[that is the right year isn't]. It really hasn't been a good place since almost forever it seem. Granted, I am not sad about blowing Saddam's crap away, but the man seems to be innocent of the alledged crime. Of course when I was a child wrongly punished my mom would comment "You probably did something else I didn't see." Delta and United don't have to worry about 6 million Japanese and Korean air liners coming here. The airlines have nowhere near the employment clout of the auto industry. Bailing out the auto industry was a no brainer. When the auto industry fails every thing fails. When the auto sales went down in the late 1970's, the housing market fell in the toilet. My group went from building 300 houses a year to 1 in two years. And every builder we knew was the same way. When a lumber truck left the yard it had a row of cars a block long following it to see its destination. If Delta went down, another airline would just buy their planes and keep on trucking. From what I can remember, almost all the airlines from my childhood no longer exit. As for the top 1%, it is human nature not to pay more. The people up there aren't the ones to blame. The blame goes to the ones who rule the numbers--our politicians. If you are a billionaire it is still your responsibility to take care of yourself. It is our politicians job to take care of all of us. I survived 4 years of Obama. I am better off now than four years ago. But that was my doing. Can I survive four years of Romney. Who knows. But then this is only for my situation. I try to never put myself in a situation where someone else can screw it up for me.

Dan, the middle east is at least as dangerous now. The Syrians are going crazy, Iran is extremely close to having a nuke, the Muslim Brotherhood is running Egypt, Iraq is cozying up to Iran, Afghanistan is more dangerous now than four years ago, etc. etc.

Bailing out the auto industry was NOT the way to go and certainly not a no brainer. You let them go through a structured bankruptcy and the result is very similar to what it is now except that the creditors get some of what is owed and it isn't handed to the unions. If Chrysler went down you don't think that Ford or GM wouldn't buy their assets? You don't think that Fiat didn't step in and buy much of Chrysler anyway?

Not sure what you are saying about the 1%. My point is that they ARE paying their fair share and being socially responsible. it is NOT the politicians job to "take care of us". That is where there is a chasm between you and I. I believe it is the federal government's job to ensure fair opportunity...not fair results. I don't want anyone "taking care of me"...I want to be left alone and let me take care of myself. I want to be here to work with my church, city and state to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. You look at someone like Romney and he believes the same...did you see how much he gave in charitable donations?

The middle east is a hard call. You really can't help people that won't help themselves As far as Iran almost having a nuke. What can they possibly think might come about if the decide to use one. That would be like me and you walking onto a Marine base with a M-14 and popping a grunt with a couple of rounds. They would blow are shit into the next county.

Look around Detroit. There are many assets from failed auto companies. The big three don't even use all of their own. A large portion of the old auto plant in use now would be tore down and replaced if they could justify the cost. Heck, they built the new Fiero about a mile from where I grew up at in Lake Orion, it was shut down and not used when the Fiero stopped. They are now using it to build one of the new Chevy brands, but that was a very hard sell. The township had to give them the moon in consessions and the union had to promise that 50% of the employees work at the lower new hire rate. A real problem is that if GM went down, Toyota would suck up the market. And don't get me going an Jap carmakers. That makes my blood boil. Take care means take care of all of us. That includes the 1%. That is what a politician does. He looks out for the needs of all of his constituants. Their needs may be different but they are all his people. And if the lower 99% do better, then the 1% will do still better. Remember? The middle class? The working class? The loss of the middle class was a huge factor in causing the Great Depression. If you give too much entitlement to the top, that effects the results at the bottom, making it difficult for them to succeed. The wealthy does not want every one else to also be wealthy. If that came about then the wealthy would no longer be wealthy. They would be the same as everyone else.You want to take care of yourself, but you sure do not want a barricade in front of you. In the building industry I have seen a lot of that on a small scale. "You better stay here. You won't make it out there".Charitable contributions? what a crock. That's like me or you dumping a quarter in the Salvation Army Xmas pot. And those contribution give him a lot more than they cost. In many different ways. With Romney, I would also say that it is the perception of the prestige that comes with the Power of the position. Remember, I do not trust that man personally. And it not about politics.

RLMcB wrote:

Snooker28 wrote:They are lining up to endorse Obama...... what a shock


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here's another shock for you, the Republican newspaper I grew up reading. My parents subscribed even though they mostly voted Dem. I can't really remember the age I was that I didn't read it. I'm absolutely flabergasted to see them endorse Obama, but in reality they make a strong case for his re-election. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Four years ago, when [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
stepped into the presidency, our nation’s economy was in shambles, we
were at war in Iraq, and the way we financed health care in America was
flat out broken.


Today, the economy is on the mend, the war in Iraq is over and the historic [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is the law of the land.


Yes, the Affordable Care Act is flawed. But after years of hand
wringing and do-nothing by Washington, a president finally came along
who had the vision and the guts to force major changes in a health-care
system that should be a jewel for America but is instead a disgrace
because it is out of reach for so many.


There are some who have said they wished Obama could have made his
historic run for president at another time, that he could have claimed
his presidency in an era of peace, calm and economic certainty. That,
however, was not his destiny.


His destiny was to lead us through our current economic crisis, and
he has done this work diligently in the face of enormous obstacles. We
believe his work is not yet finished and thus we endorse Barack Obama
for another term as president of the United States. Against tremendous
odds, Obama has earned another four years in office to continue crafting
his vision for our nation.


In 2008, the banking system was collapsing, the housing market was in
upheaval and General Motors and Chrysler were heading toward
catastrophe. America continues to reel from the worst financial crisis
to face this nation since the Great Depression.
Job growth has
been nominal, the deficit looms large and only now is the housing market
beginning to come back. But, we believe we would be in a worse position
had Obama not been in the White House, where he was able to stabilize
our free fall through use of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, mortgage
relief programs, the stimulus package and the bailout of General Motors
and Chrysler.
The last two programs had very visible impacts in
Southwest Michigan with the widening of I-94 coming out of the stimulus
package and numerous automobile parts manufacturers being able to stay
afloat with the rescue of the auto companies.
While maneuvering
through the troubled financial landscape, Obama has managed several
other notable accomplishments. In foreign affairs, he has repaired
strained relations with key allies, ended the war in Iraq and has begun
to draw down troops in Afghanistan.
Following the attacks of Sept.
11, 2001, the administration of President George W. Bush kept the issue
of terrorism at the forefront of its public policy, including using it
as a pretext to launch the Iraq War. But let’s not forget that it was
under President Obama’s watch that the true culprit of 9/11, Osama bin
Laden, was finally tracked down and killed.
There are other
accomplishments we could cite, but perhaps the greatest is that
President Obama managed to get anything done at all in the face of
ongoing hostility from Republican members of Congress, whose main
legislative goal — perhaps their sole objective — has been to undercut
his every move.
Some of the best evidence of that can be found in
the debt reduction talks between President Obama and House Speaker John
Boehner. They were well on their way to reaching a compromise when the
Republican Party forced the speaker to walk away from the talks.
Have
there been failures in the Obama administration? Yes. In his first
campaign, Barack Obama promised more than he could — or did — deliver.
He has failed to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center. He has not
been able to repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes. He has not
been able to ban companies in bankruptcy from giving bonuses. He has not
supported the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Perhaps
these will make their way to the top of Obama’s agenda if he is
re-elected, although we have to believe that the economic recovery of
the country would remain his primary concern. The recovery would have to
be the main focus for Mitt Romney, should he win the election on Nov.
6.
And, that is our concern with the Republican nominee. Romney
echoes the failed economic philosophies that have brought us to this
point in history.
We simply do not believe the relentless
arguments that protecting the assets of the wealthy and cutting social
programs for everyone else provide the only hope America has for
economic recovery and growth. To ask the wealthy to help fund a
government that invests in education, health care, infrastructure and
other essential services is not socialism — it is asking all members of
our society to be socially responsible. Indeed, it is in the interest of
the wealthy to have a strong middle class.
President Barack Obama
has led with a steady hand for the past four years, opting to invest
not in big government but in active government that will use its power
to guide us toward a healthy future. We believe Obama deserves another
four years to continue that work.


This is an editorial from the Kalamazoo Gazette. For more Kalamazoo Gazette opinion pieces and letters visit [url=http://www.mlive.com/opinion/kalamazoo/.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/quote[/url]]



Interesting read here's what Last week, The Kalamazoo Gazette endorsed President Barack Obama for a second term in office. The editorial generated a tremendous response from online readers. While some agreed with the editorial, the majority of commenters disagreed with the endorsement and voiced anger and frustration with Obama's policies over the last four years.

The one thing about commenters is that often you will get a greater response from the con as opposed the the pro side. Often the pro side already has what they want so they feel no need to talk about it.

Unless they are challenged then they usually come out in numbers.

That can happen

But that is from the fear of losing what they already have.

CorvetteDan wrote:The middle east is a hard call. You really can't help people that won't help themselves As far as Iran almost having a nuke. What can they possibly think might come about if the decide to use one. That would be like me and you walking onto a Marine base with a M-14 and popping a grunt with a couple of rounds. They would blow are shit into the next county.

Look around Detroit. There are many assets from failed auto companies. The big three don't even use all of their own. A large portion of the old auto plant in use now would be tore down and replaced if they could justify the cost. Heck, they built the new Fiero about a mile from where I grew up at in Lake Orion, it was shut down and not used when the Fiero stopped. They are now using it to build one of the new Chevy brands, but that was a very hard sell. The township had to give them the moon in consessions and the union had to promise that 50% of the employees work at the lower new hire rate. A real problem is that if GM went down, Toyota would suck up the market. And don't get me going an Jap carmakers. That makes my blood boil. Take care means take care of all of us. That includes the 1%. That is what a politician does. He looks out for the needs of all of his constituants. Their needs may be different but they are all his people. And if the lower 99% do better, then the 1% will do still better. Remember? The middle class? The working class? The loss of the middle class was a huge factor in causing the Great Depression. If you give too much entitlement to the top, that effects the results at the bottom, making it difficult for them to succeed. The wealthy does not want every one else to also be wealthy. If that came about then the wealthy would no longer be wealthy. They would be the same as everyone else.You want to take care of yourself, but you sure do not want a barricade in front of you. In the building industry I have seen a lot of that on a small scale. "You better stay here. You won't make it out there".Charitable contributions? what a crock. That's like me or you dumping a quarter in the Salvation Army Xmas pot. And those contribution give him a lot more than they cost. In many different ways. With Romney, I would also say that it is the perception of the prestige that comes with the Power of the position. Remember, I do not trust that man personally. And it not about politics.

Dan, I don't know what Iran would do with a bomb but I certainly don't want to find out!!!! Yet here we are...

We can speculate all we want about what would happen to assets of a closed auto company...the main point is being missed. Structured settlements do NOT end up in closing companies for firms like GM or Chrysler. They end up in restructuring debt. Heck in 2008 Romeny even wrote that he would support the feds guaranteeing loans to GM and Chrysler as they come out of bankruptcy. The only way one of those companies would've closed is if they chose to close.

This argument about the middle class doesn't set with me. I've done some research in the past and so many folks in the middle class have moved up to the upper class and the whole class definition has changed. When I was a kid we were middle class and lived in a small home in a small town in Michigan with two used cars and two handed down tvs. A single wired phone and I'd get two pair of jeans for school and would cut off the old jeans for shorts. When we traveled we'd stay one night in a HoJos and the rest with family. Our special treat was bowling and A&W. We made our own fun. We were middle class....you know what they'd call us now? Poverty. The bar has changed. I agree that the middle class needs protecting but it needs to be redefined back to what it was...

Finally, you do know that Romney gave away THIRTY PERCENT of their earnings to charity? I'm not thinking I've ever given that much to Salvation Army. I don't trust Obama and see first hand that he doesn't give his money to help...he forces others to give theirs.

When you have $300 in pocket to live on and lose $100 that is devastating. And that is not much money. When you have $300,000,000 and give up $100,000,000, does it really hurt you. No it really doesn't Don't get me wrong, that is one heck of a pile of cash, but what you still have is far beyond what is realistically needed. You see these pro athletes that have went from multi millions ot bankrupt, they wasted their money. It is their right to do so but it is also their fault for letting

Finally, you do know that Romney gave away THIRTY PERCENT of their earnings to charity? I'm not thinking I've ever given that much to Salvation Army. I don't trust Obama and see first hand that he doesn't give his money to help...he forces others to give theirs.



Mi...... The socialists ( maybe some in this forum) don't believe that the 13% that he gave to charity counts for them. They want to take that 13% and let the government redistribute it as the government see's fit. We know how poorly the government has handled the Medicare and Social Security trust funds, literally stealing from them for years. A private citizen would be put in prison for what our Federal Government has done with regularity. We have a clear choice in November, a move further toward Socialism, or a move toward Constitutionalism. Obama's first four years has moved us 7 huge steps toward Marxism (passing seven major bills). Another 4 years would open the door to the next step, full blown communism. Obama has pissed all over the constitution bypasssing separation of powers, while liberals are clapping and applauding. As Obama said in the article in 'The Beast" He does worry sometimes if he is handing the next administraion a loaded gun! He is right to worry. When you start giving one branch of government that much power, it is too easy to abuse it.

CorvetteDan wrote:When you have $300 in pocket to live on and lose $100 that is devastating. And that is not much money. When you have $300,000,000 and give up $100,000,000, does it really hurt you. No it really doesn't Don't get me wrong, that is one heck of a pile of cash, but what you still have is far beyond what is realistically needed. You see these pro athletes that have went from multi millions ot bankrupt, they wasted their money. It is their right to do so but it is also their fault for letting

But we are talking in context to being socially responsible. If someone gives $100,000,000 away, they are being socially responsible. To castigate them because you think they need to give more to support programs that shouldn't be supported except to curry political favor...that is being irresponsible.

From what I can remember the Morman church has a hard policy of all their members having to give 10% of their income to the church. If that is what they call their charitible donations, I think they might really be stretching the facts. I don't call that charity. That is supporting your organization. United way, Spina Bifida, Kidney Foundation---Those I call charities. Now when some one breaks down where the 13% went, we will start to see. And I believe that up until recently that Billy Graham was refering to the Morman religion as a cult. Hmm.. must have been some money swapping hand on that change of rhetoric.

I regard all this socialism, communisn, Marxism talk a lot of nonsense. If you don't like the guy, just be a man and say "I don't like the guy" That is all it takes. That would be a fair, honest statement and should be respected. It's like this. I can not stand John Elway or Eli Manning. I will never say they can't play ball or don't do good things. I just don't want them around. That's being honest with out a bunch of lame excuses.

RL, how true it is. When almost any white person sees black, that deep sublimal message in their mind is going nigger and they may be fighting their way around it. A person may deny it, not believe it, not want it to be there or avoid it, but it is always there to some extent. And almost always what pops out of their mouth is " I do have a black friend.". If Obama was white this race would be totally different. Might go the same or different. Difference is a lot of votes would change back and forth.

Snook, this is a hard topic to work with. I was thinking of saying one thing, but when I read your last sentence a 2nd time, I got a new thought. I assume your nephews are mixed white and black. Now here is the point, and Obama also has this problem. How come if you are of a mixed race, black and white, you are always called black? You are never called white. If my assumption about your nephews are correct, you just did it yourself. Think about it. I think 400 years of the American black situation has engraved that into us. I didn't see that when I was in Europe once we got off the base. Hmm...at least mixed Indians got their own name--half breed.

Snook, this is a hard topic to work with. I was thinking of saying one thing, but when I read your last sentence a 2nd time, I got a new thought. I assume your nephews are mixed white and black. Now here is the point, and Obama also has this problem. How come if you are of a mixed race, black and white, you are always called black? You are never called white. If my assumption about your nephews are correct, you just did it yourself. Think about it. I think 400 years of the American black situation has engraved that into us. I didn't see that when I was in Europe once we got off the base. Hmm...at least mixed Indians got their own name--half breed..

Dan you just don't give up do you? Your first mistake is assuming! I knew one of you would jump at the chance to label me a racist again. I wasn't going to respond to any more of your posts but I can't let this one go. So now I am a racist because I called my nephews black? I'm not sure Nephew is even the correct relationship, but they are family. My brother's daughter (Caucasian) is married to an African American husband, they were unable to have children, so they adopted two sets of brothers (4 boys total) who are also African American. To me they are as much a part of the family as any of my biological relatives, to my niece and her husband, they are a blessing. Dan....You, RL and Sharon's race baiting and name calling is demeaning, condiscending and insulting to say the least. If there are any racial issues here in this forum, it originates with you three, not me. You three are the only ones slinging around the "N" word and the label "racist". Now you you sling the "Halfbreed" label ? Unbelievable!

CorvetteDan wrote:From what I can remember the Morman church has a hard policy of all their members having to give 10% of their income to the church. If that is what they call their charitible donations, I think they might really be stretching the facts. I don't call that charity. That is supporting your organization. United way, Spina Bifida, Kidney Foundation---Those I call charities. Now when some one breaks down where the 13% went, we will start to see. And I believe that up until recently that Billy Graham was refering to the Morman religion as a cult. Hmm.. must have been some money swapping hand on that change of rhetoric.

I regard all this socialism, communisn, Marxism talk a lot of nonsense. If you don't like the guy, just be a man and say "I don't like the guy" That is all it takes. That would be a fair, honest statement and should be respected. It's like this. I can not stand John Elway or Eli Manning. I will never say they can't play ball or don't do good things. I just don't want them around. That's being honest with out a bunch of lame excuses.

First off, this is not 13% according to the NYPost article by Podhoretz on 9/21/12 it is nearly THIRTY percent. 3 0. 10% to the church and I will tell you this, I am not a Mormon but I know that many, many, many churches use much for their money for giving to the poor. Two comments on that one...as a deacon of my local church and member of the finance team I know how much our church gives to support/mercy groups in the area such as Love INC. (mercy), Abundant Life (inner city mission), Food Bank, local charities for the poor, ABRO (Belerussian support), a homeless charity of which the name escapes me and Tuesday's Table (food kitchen). That is definitely charity. Meanwhile...the guy you support???

Second, Dan...here it goes again.."I don't like the guy" is why I won't vote for him? I liked Bill Clinton but wouldn't vote for him. I didn't like HW but voted for him. This has NOTHING to do with like or not like. This has to do with a general ideology that the federal government SHOULD take care of us and CAN take care of us better than we can take care of ourselves. I won't vote for anyone who agrees with that statement regardless of race, sex, religious background or if he/she is a great guy/gal. This isn't rocket science Dan and you really don't have to make it out for more than it is.