published Thursday, June 21st, 2012

The Dartboard

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Jack_Dennis said...

Bulbs123: You're late with your usual announcement.

June 21, 2012 at 12:03 a.m.

I bet a lot of people complain about how they don't get this cartoon.

Some of it will because they've never heard of the game of Darts.

Jack_Dennis: Ah, did you spend forever trying to get the first word?

Maybe you're the one who needs something better to do, since you can't seem to find a way to contribute substantive conversation to this board.

Have you had this problem all your life, or just since having your decency extracted?

June 21, 2012 at 12:13 a.m.
alprova said...

Try as hard as the Republicans are, they will never hit a "bullseye." There will be plenty of pock marks on the wall surrounding the dartboard.

All this hoopla is meant to impugne the President and the Attorney General. Desperation and concern during an election year, especially when their candidate is not winning in every one of the battleground states, sure leads minions to throw out some rather pointed, but wildly thrown darts.

It's a shame and disgrace just how far some of our nation's leaders will go to attempt to win or influence the outcome of an election.

What's worse, is the simple fact that for as much as this nation needs good leaders to do the people's work, they are only concerned with running for office for their next election, the minute they settle into their seats.

June 21, 2012 at 1:15 a.m.
fairmon said...

Alpro said...

What's worse, is the simple fact that for as much as this nation needs good leaders to do the people's work, they are only concerned with running for office for their next election, the minute they settle into their seats.

I can't argue with this statement however, neither party has an exclusive in this regard. It is hard to say if there is an attempt to distract voters from the real issues with "executive privilege" delaying a release of any meaningful documents knowing there are none or if the challenging party is just grand standing and trying to cast a shadow on the administration. We have too many lawyers in political office pretending to be economist that rather chase rabbits than address the really difficult issues facing this country.

June 21, 2012 at 3:01 a.m.
joneses said...

Hussein Obama and you liberals never cease to amaze me. Hussein Obama has invoked Executive Privilege on somethin he said he knew nothing about. This is just another lie by this fool and you blind, pathetic liberals will still give him a pass. Are you so stupid you do not realize the damage you are causing this country by letting this fool you put in the White House get away with all his lies? Are you that stupid?

June 21, 2012 at 5:18 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Is this Clay's apology for his cartoons criticizing GOP Presidents? (If so, too bad; there's plenty to criticize.)

If Romney wins, will Mr Bennett reprint this cartoon on Inauguration Day? If not, why not? Because liberal hypocrisy tries to hold Republicans to standards it itself does not even try to keep. Repent or perish. (Alas, we're not immune from this vice.) (Maybe the Free Press will reprint it if the Times side doesn't??)

Mr most transparent, meet Mr executive privilege (and not over CIA sources but over a failed program). Mr stimulus, meet Mr great recession. Mr I'll cut the deficit in half in four years, meet Mr record budget-buster with no plan to get deficits much under a trillion ever (but he doesn't like Paul Ryan's plan.) Mr I'm against individual mandates, Mr negotiate on C-span, see what's in Obamacare. Mr be nice to Muslims, meet Mr Bible burner. Mr I'll close Gitmo, meet Mr quarter-million-dollar-soccer-field-for-the-inmates. He's earned darts and asked for them. (Repent; turn to follow the Libertarian-in-chief, who was personally generous; can you give a few million to the poor?)

June 21, 2012 at 6:03 a.m.
joneses said...

Of course the guns are/were coming from the United States to Mexico as Hussein Obama made sure the guns got to Mexico. By invoking Executive Privilege after saying he knew nothing about Fast and Furious Hussein Obama admitted he knew about fast and Furious. Did you hear the Border Patrol Union has asked Holder to step down? Now the Unions are turning against this administration.

April 19, 2009.

PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago -- What's the difference between "recovered" and "traceable" when it comes to firearms seized in Mexico's bloody war against drug cartels? The White House says none. But that's a distinction with a difference, even if President Obama used the words interchangeably last week to talk about the role firearms smuggled from the U.S. play in Mexico's stepped up fight against entrenched, well-armed drug cartels. "This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border," the president said on the subject in his joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon on Thursday:

Read more:

June 21, 2012 at 6:06 a.m.
joneses said...

Now Hillary is taking a shot at Hussein Obama by admitting "this administration" is the one not willing to work with the House Of Representatives.

America's Bad Economy is Biggest Foreign Policy Threat By Dana Hughes | ABC OTUS News – 5 hrs ago

Clinton talked about how during the last three administrations, despite often heated rhetoric, when it came to issues of foreign policy and the economy ultimately the two parties would find a compromise with the President. Not so with this administration Clinton observed. "We have to get back into the political work of rolling up our sleeves and solving these problems," she said. Though a staunch Republican, Baker backed her up. "I don't disagree with that at all," the former secretary said dead-panned to an amused audience. "I hate to tell you this but based on my political and civil service experience, it ain't happening before November."

Note Hillary says "not with this administration".

June 21, 2012 at 6:30 a.m.
EaTn said...

There are just nine darts to play this game and they all belong to the SCOTUS--the rest of us are just bar-room spectators. Much like when Bush was chosen president, the next president will be dependent on their soon anticipated ruling on whether the health care law lives or dies.

June 21, 2012 at 6:41 a.m.
anniebelle said...

The repukes on this board prove the old saying "ignorance is bliss."

June 21, 2012 at 6:51 a.m.
shifarobe said...

OH, Alprova, poor, poor BO and holder. Why is everyone picking on them. Everything that happens is always no their fault. Your such a BO whore. GAG! YOU ACT LIKE BO HAS IT IN THE BAG. ONLY A FOOL WOULD BELIEVE THAT. It's FAT ASSES like you who like BIG GOVERNMENT PUSHING everyone around so you can get more and want to be taken care of like BIG BABIES that create waste.

June 21, 2012 at 7:03 a.m.
MTJohn said...

harp3339 said..."What's worse, is the simple fact that for as much as this nation needs good leaders to do the people's work, they are only concerned with running for office for their next election, the minute they settle into their seats."

True, Harp. But, don't blame the politicians - blame the electorate, We the People. As much as this nation needs good leaders, we won't vote for them.

June 21, 2012 at 7:06 a.m.
MTJohn said...

EaTn said..."Much like when Bush was chosen president, the next president will be dependent on their soon anticipated ruling on whether the health care law lives or dies."

The ruling on affordable health care might affect the election this fall. Regardless, with its ruling in Citizens United, SCOTUS gave our government, not just the presidency, to K Street.

June 21, 2012 at 7:10 a.m.
conservative said...

Especially in an election year the two parties target each other. Has the loontoonist ever targeted anyone but a Republican?


June 21, 2012 at 8:49 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Conservative - apparently you missed it. There is nothing partisan about this morning's cartoon. It's about the electorate - that's you and me (assuming you intend to vote) - not about the candidates.

June 21, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.
conservative said...


No, you obviously it.

June 21, 2012 at 9:33 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Even when it IS partisan, Bennett is a liberal cartoonist. There are many fine cartoonists on both sides. I don't hear anyone complaining about Mallard Filmore always targeting the left. It's totally Bennett's choice. That is why he always appears on the Times page, not the Free Press page. If the Free Press wants to hire a cartoonist rather than use syndicated work, they have the right.

June 21, 2012 at 9:41 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Bulbs/Clay: Are you saying that your over-stated tripe is "substantive conversation"? That's rich.

June 21, 2012 at 9:44 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Funny how it was really Funny by the leftistswecallourselveliberal pundits when the President was a Republican, Conservative(in some respects), and had the name Bush. But now, with the wecallourselveliberal president in office any jab or criticism, even when it is more accurate than what came in the last administration, is intolerable(a non-liberal approach), unconscionable and must be denounced(another non-liberal approach). So, is it okay to make jabs at the president or not? I expect to get some wecallourselvesliberal non-liberal babble if anyone even bothers to respond.

June 21, 2012 at 9:59 a.m.

Democrats spent a lot of time playing darts during former President Bush's term as well.

Still the whining goes on about 2000. Amazing. Did Al Gore win Tennessee, his home state? No recount proved that Gore won. He lost, get over it, my gosh! Based on Al Gores actions after he was defeated it's a good thing he didn't win. I find him to be very bizzare.

The fact is if this scandal were on the Republican side Democrats would be all over it, as well they should be. Obama and Holder need to clear this up. If there's nothing to hide, then why not just cough it up?

June 21, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.
mymy said...


A president’s Job Approval rating is one of the best indicators for assessing his chances of reelection. Typically, the president’s Job Approval rating on Election Day will be close to the share of the vote he receives. Currently, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) at least somewhat disapprove

Romney leads in the swing states of North Carolina and Missouri. Obama leads in Pennsylvania and Michigan. The race is a toss-up in Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Colorado.

Intensity of support or opposition can have an impact on campaigns. Currently, 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14.

June 21, 2012 at 10:11 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

mymy: So if the messiah currently has 47% approval rating, does that mean the nation is 53% racist? Makes sense.

June 21, 2012 at 10:27 a.m.
mymy said...

JD: Don't think so, but the left will say that!

June 21, 2012 at 10:40 a.m.
rogerdodger said...

Nice line Jack, it may not be true but will for sure be called 1 for saying it.

I think the dart board is used by Obama to decide which statement he made during the campaign that he won’t keep on that day or maybe just which part constitution he will trample on. Just throw a dart at it and where ever it lands just go from there. Only 138 more days to the Muslim brother hood is out of the White house and the cleaning can start.

June 21, 2012 at 11:07 a.m.
raygunz said...

I for one,would like for you right-wingers to provide some details concerning which part of the constitution Pres.Obama has trampled on. Also, please provide something besides your opinion to show any proof that the "Muslim brother hood" is in the Whitehouse.(something besides rants by Limbaugh, Hannity,and their ilk.)

June 21, 2012 at 11:32 a.m.
mymy said...

Roger: his foreign policy has sure helped the Muslim brother hood.

The security leaks also. Especially the computer virus and let's not forget the Dr. that helped get Bin Laden is now in jail because of to much info from Obama Admin. and not protecting him. He wanted the PR, but to hell with the people that made it possible.

Shame on those who cannot see the real Obama!

June 21, 2012 at 11:36 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

mymy: the phrase "There are none so blind...." was made for the intractable leftist on this board.

June 21, 2012 at 11:47 a.m.
mymy said...

It is a waste of time to post on this site except to try to get their panties in a twist. LOL!

June 21, 2012 at 12:10 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

yep, tis fun

June 21, 2012 at 12:11 p.m.

Jack_Dennis: LOL, accusing me of being Clay Bennett? That's rich.

C'mon, you can say something that isn't your petty attempts to bash others. You can do it.

But wait, wait, you'd rather just pretending you're making other people upset.

I guess that's your only way of stroking your pitiful egos.

That's sad. I feel so sorry for you.

June 21, 2012 at 12:22 p.m.
alprova said...

Yawn...are you folks ever going to be able to come up with anything new or unexpected? You're all a bunch of broken records.

Repeatedly, I have seen references to the President violating the Constitution, yet not one person has posted any proof whatosever to it.

Charges that he is responsible for everything imaginative that puts him in a negative light, is getting real old and quite boring.

Just remember folks...nothing you claim about the man will ever mean a thing outside of this forum. So feel free to spout off all the crap you dare to. Your false charges are quite meaningless, ineffectual, and a complete waste of your time.

By the way, mymy, while Romney currently holds a slight lead in Missouri and North Carolina, Obama is holding onto a slight lead in Wisconsin by 3 percent, and is leading in all the other toss-up states by at least 1.8%. But, we're still 4 and a quarter months away from the election. Lots can still happen.

June 21, 2012 at 12:23 p.m.

For example, Mitt Romney could pick a Vice President.

Of course, he's had to back track on his options about 3 or 4 times already since so many people have complained about who he's considering and who not.

Maybe he needs a dartboard.

Or he can just tell Rick Scott to quit saying how Florida's unemployment is dropping. The Economy has to be failing. Otherwise he can't win.

BTW, Romney has 39 percent favorable and 48 percent unfavorable. And a plurality of American say they're better off since Obama took office.

Maybe the Republicans need to crash the Economy some more.

June 21, 2012 at 12:30 p.m.
raygunz said...

alprova said..."Repeatedly, I have seen references to the President violating the Constitution, yet not one person has posted any proof whatosever to it."

My point exactly!

   STILL waiting,,,,,,,,,,
June 21, 2012 at 12:47 p.m.

Checks? Balances? Public opposition? Accountable elected officials?

An outrage indeed, Clay. Thanks for bringing these mean-spirited injustices against the president to our attention. To hear his critics talk, you would think this is an election year. (You certainly wouldn’t know it from HIS words and actions.) The ability to take the heat of public criticism is unreasonable to say the least. What this poor man has to face!

June 21, 2012 at 12:56 p.m.
Easy123 said...


"It is a waste of time to post on this site except to try to get their panties in a twist. LOL!"

The only panties that are ever in a twist are yours and your conservative posse. That's all you folks every do is whine about what the President does. It's called "projecting".

June 21, 2012 at 1:11 p.m.
raygunz said...

Finish this sentence, Pres. Obama has trampled on the Constitution by,,,


June 21, 2012 at 1:17 p.m.
raygunz said...


June 21, 2012 at 1:51 p.m.

raygunz: Being elected. The Constitution clearly did not intend for a minority to be eligible.

There's a lawsuit in Alaska that says he can't possibly be a citizen because of it. Or something. I confess, the legal nuances seem rather...arcane.


whats_wrong_with_the_world, as you should know, there's genuine criticism, and then there's pointless nitpicking and overwrought hysteria that only disguises itself as honest criticism.

But it's the latter, that tends to have the most emotional appeal. Unfortunately, that leads to the worst results, though it does show the purported critic for what they are. False and truly to be disregarded.

Seriously, all those birthers? Every time they get on the air, for me, it confirms why not to vote for a Republican. Especially when you consider the deafening silence of the failure to repudiate them, or even the reaction to those who dare to criticize that.

June 21, 2012 at 1:59 p.m.
mymy said...

alprova said...

By the way, mymy, while Romney currently holds a slight lead in Missouri and North Carolina, Obama is holding onto a slight lead in Wisconsin by 3 percent, and is leading in all the other toss-up states by at least 1.8%. But, we're still 4 and a quarter months away from the election. Lots can still happen.

Don't forget there is a percentage who want another candidate and a percentage of undecided. You want to tell us how they are going to vote?

June 21, 2012 at 2:03 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Funny, when you screw up everything and try to blame everyone else on the planet for your failures those darts seem to find a way of coming back at you.

The Amateur brought this on himself.

June 21, 2012 at 2:13 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Obama Admin. Constitutional violations?

How about the military action in Libya w/o Congressional approval?

The failure to defend DOMA in court?

The healthcare waivers for friends and supporters?

The Chrysler bondholders who were screwed in favor of the UAW?

Recess appointments when Congress was not actually, you know, in recess?

The deepwater drilling ban that was subsequently struck down as "arbitrary and capricious"?

The failure to enforce immigration laws?

Those are just the ones off the top of my head. I'm sure there are plenty more.

June 21, 2012 at 2:21 p.m.
raygunz said...

SCOTTYM ,which one of those "whining points" is actually in violation of the U.S.Constitution,what part? Specifics please.

June 21, 2012 at 2:37 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

ScottyM: Yeah, but you gotta remember that it's an evolving document.

June 21, 2012 at 2:41 p.m.
Leaf said...

Man, this completely non-partisan cartoon quickly devolved into another us vs them throwdown. All I get from it is that everybody blames the president (whoever he is at the time) for everything. That seems about right. Not controversial at all. Now I remember why it's been months since I read this newspaper. I feel all scummy and dumb when I read this stuff. Sayonara, folks.

June 21, 2012 at 3 p.m.
raygunz said...

Jack_Dennis ,,the sniper with no ammo!


June 21, 2012 at 3 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

raygunz, blinded by the rose colored specs. I bet he likes scones.

June 21, 2012 at 3:06 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Tu_, not only does your post demonstrate that the government can create jobs, but you haven't even factored in the emotional successes.

June 21, 2012 at 3:12 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...


Perhaps you should study up on the U.S. Constitution for yourself instead of exposing your ignorance by asking stupid questions.

June 21, 2012 at 3:26 p.m.
raygunz said...

SCOTTYM,,tick,tick,tick, doesn't help you in the least.

Finish this sentence, Pres. Obama has trampled on the Constitution by,,,


June 21, 2012 at 3:53 p.m.
raygunz said...

off-topic but,the Free Press editorial side asks"What rule of law?",and allows no comments.WTF??

June 21, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.
raygunz said...


You DO realize that's an editorial opinion right? Coming from the "Mooney Times" too? Not at all partisan are they?lol

June 21, 2012 at 4:19 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...


Since you don't seem to believe that selective non-enforcement of Federal law is unconstitutional, how about you point out where in the Constitution the Executive is empowered to decide which laws/portions of laws are not going to be enforced under his/her administration?

BTW, Article II is the portion governing the Executive. Good luck.

June 21, 2012 at 5:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...


"Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority in US v. Nixon noted: "Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings."

The Supreme Court's decision held that the President has two kinds of task to perform: ministerial and discretionary. EOs help facilitate the execution of the Executive's ministerial duties.

Article 2, Clause 1: Executive Power

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Happy reading.

June 21, 2012 at 5:10 p.m.

Raygunz, poor SCOTTYM's list isn't even entirely factual, without even looking hard, I spotted three falsehoods in it. Then again, that's because they are well-known and well-repudiated Republican fabrications. Apparently he's never even considered that the president can decide something isn't constitutional, that he's suppose to represent otherwise when he knows it to be false. But who cares about that argument, we must keep the gays from being married. You know how important that is. Can't let it happen. Even if we have to lie to the courts.

As for the blocked editorial, I'm inclined to believe it was unintentional, but they sure have been making that error a lot.

June 21, 2012 at 5:11 p.m.
raygunz said...

Most executive orders are issued under specific statutory authority from Congress and have the force and effect of law. Such executive orders usually impose sanctions, determine legal rights, limit agency discretion, and require immediate compliance. Federal courts consider such orders to be the equivalent of federal statutes. In addition, regulations that are enacted to carry out these executive orders have the status of law as long as they reasonably relate to the statutory authority. An administrative action that is carried out under a valid executive order is similar to an agency action that is carried out under a federal statute. In each case, the agency's authority to enact rules and to issue orders comes from Congress. Waiting,tick,tick,tick,

June 21, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Don't you know? It's only unconstitutional when Obama/a democrat does it! They don't complain or even mention when Reagan, G. H.W. Bush, or little Bush does it.

June 21, 2012 at 5:25 p.m.
alprova said...

Scotty, you're totally reaching and you know it.

The President has authority to send the military anywhere in the world, at anytime, for a period not to exceed 179 days, without Congressional approval.

The Constitution does not address marriage whatosoever.

Waivers for healthcare reform are not addressed.

No bondholder is assured a dime by the Constitution. However, UAW members gave concessions too.

The Constitution authorizes the President to make recess appointments, in spite of the shannigans pulled by the Republicans. Where are all the legal challenges, if he violated the Constitution? Not one has been filed to date.

The Department of Interior shut down those Gulf oil wells -- not the President, due to imminent threat of danger to other lives, based on the explosion that did occurr and that did take lives. Nothing unconstitutional whatsoever in that at all.

The President is not a law enforcement officer. He is also empowered to enact or strike down and law on the books he deems necessary or unreasonable, via executive order.

What the President did was not unconstitutional. The Constitution allows Congress to set forth immigration law. They most certainly can override his Executive Order, that is if they dare to do so.

Given that it is an election year, and given that the vote is tight in so many states, don't look for Congress to challenge the President's authority on this one.

The above aside, no one legally empowered to enforce all the immigration laws on the books has done so for years. Why is it that only Obama is guilty of neglecting to "enforce" immigration law?

June 21, 2012 at 5:30 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Tu_ : It's just opinion, even tho the southpaws like to link everything to partisan sites. Links, schminks.

June 21, 2012 at 6:09 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Wikipedia is partisan? I never knew!

Please let everyone know which websites and news networks aren't partisan or biased.

June 21, 2012 at 6:19 p.m.
fairmon said...

MTJohn said...

harp3339 said..."What's worse, is the simple fact that for as much as this nation needs good leaders to do the people's work, they are only concerned with running for office for their next election, the minute they settle into their seats."

True, Harp. But, don't blame the politicians - blame the electorate, We the People. As much as this nation needs good leaders, we won't vote for them.

ACTUALLY MTJohn, Alprova made the statement. It is a rarity but I agreed with him and I agree with your comment as well. We do elect them. Did you ever notice it seems a majority think all members should be replaced except theirs.

June 21, 2012 at 6:24 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy, you know EXACTLY which links I mean. Don't be a doofus.

June 21, 2012 at 6:29 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...


I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the Constitutionality of selective enforcement of Federal laws. Perhaps you meant to address someone else.

But, since you pulled me in, I agree that Executive Privilege has its place. Of course the problem with Pres. Obama invoking it in relation to F&F is that E.P. only applies to situations involving the President himself and/or White House staff, and since previous statements by the A.G. were that neither he nor anyone in the W.H. knew about F&F until well after it had all gone terribly wrong, I'm left wondering how E.P. applies. It seems to me to be a Nixonian mistake. The coverup is always worse than the crime in politics.

June 21, 2012 at 6:38 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Still haven't given me an answer. Don't be a dunderhead.

Please let everyone know which websites and news networks aren't partisan or biased.


I'm sure all the documentation will come out eventually. Then we will all know.

June 21, 2012 at 6:51 p.m.

Alprova, just in case anybody asks...

There was also much conducted under the auspices of NATO, which Congress had previously agreed to...oh a few decades ago.

June 21, 2012 at 6:59 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: I don't know of any.

June 21, 2012 at 7:30 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"This guy who's raised the national debt more than all the other previous presidents combined with trillion-dollar deficits every year -- the most irresponsible chief executive in terms of spending and everything else we've ever had -- and they're shocked that Obama is spending more than he's raising. I don't know, folks. We're surrounded by idiocy. Everywhere we go, we are surrounded by stupid people that are supposed to be smart".

June 21, 2012 at 8:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes with a Rush Limbaugh quote. Classic!

Maybe you and Rush are the stupid people. That would seem more likely than everyone else being stupid because Rush Limbaugh is the antithesis of "smart".

June 21, 2012 at 8:13 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "Of course if you claim this as non armed conflict assignment then he probably can send service personnel to any place he likes for any period he likes."

The challenge on the table was to name any or all actions undertaken by the President that violated the Constitution. I retract and apologize for my previous timeline statement of 179 days without Congressional approval, and stand corrected that the time allowed is 60 days, with an additional 30 days to withdraw all forces. I was working strictly from memory.

Regarding the U.S. involvement in Libya, May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya which was triggered by a UN resolution. The 60 day deadline arrived without President Obama seeking authorization from the US Congress. Obama notified Congress that no authorization was needed, since leadership of the mission was transferred to NATO. At any rate, all troops were withdrawn two weeks prior to the 90th day.

Any violation of the War Powers Resolution is NOT a violation of the U.S. Constitution. And as long as we're counting alleged violations using the War Powers Resolution, where is the condemnation of U.S. involvement in Korea, Vietnam (both prior to 1973 but without declarations of war by Congress), Somalia, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, The first two incursions in Iraq, and Haiti.

No...all those don't count for a thing. Only what President Obama ordered counts as an alleged violation of the Constitution.

"Here I will help you. I think he can at the maximum take an exception to any law … that is until the judiciary sets him straight or the Congress impeaches his azz."

Perhaps, but until that day comes that one lawsuit is filed or impeachment proceedings are voted upon, your statement is less than meaningless, and pure supposition.

"Canning plans to challenge an NLRB ruling that said his company must establish a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union.”"

That is not a legal challenge to the President's recess appointment, which Scotty alleged to be unconstitutional. It is a challenge to a NLRB ruling. Apples and watermelons.

And you think you hit the dartboard? Sheesh...

June 21, 2012 at 8:23 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Tell me if he's lying! He's smarter than Obama by far.

Maybe the global warming has fried your puny "brain".

Everything in that quote is true retard!

June 21, 2012 at 8:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Where is the evidence? Smarter than Obama? LOLOLOLOL!

The vocabulary you use only adds to my claim. Retard? How politically incorrect of you.

Arguing with you is equivalent to conversing with a child. A bunch of name calling and baseless opinion. Bask in your obtuseness.

June 21, 2012 at 8:29 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Where is the evidence of Obama's smartness? He's an idiot! And the fact that you bury your face in his ass is proof enough that you are, in fact, a retard!

June 21, 2012 at 8:32 p.m.
alprova said...

Bottom line, no matter the argument involved, the U.S. incursion in Libya was not a violation of the powers extended to the President by the U.S. Constitution, which was the assertion.

June 21, 2012 at 8:35 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"{He's just the most radical of all of them to ever come downtown pike. His more reckless. He has a bigger appetite for personal power than anybody to come down the pike. And as has now been learned by his own biographer, David Maraniss (who's read Obama's book and has found a minimum now of 39 lies in the book), he's an out-and-out fraud. He made up all of the truly meaningful epiphanies and significant life advances detailed in his book. They were all made up".

Here's more truth to chew on moron! Head-in-the-sand liberal asswipe!

June 21, 2012 at 8:37 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Once again, it's like conversing with a child. It never fails. Keep whining!

June 21, 2012 at 8:38 p.m.

Wait, how can Obama be an idiot if he's concocted a grandiose scheme to fake his citizenship in order to enact a villainous plot that rivals anything ever produced by Lex Luthor. Really, this is a LOT BIGGER than FORTY CAKES!

Republicans, they just can't be consistent.

And it's mostly false. Sorry.

Alprova, not to mention they were BEGGING Obama to act. Well, haranguing anyway. Then when he did, complete judo flip to "OMG HOW DARE HE!" and now they're yammering about Syria while still keeping up their Libya criticism.

There must not be mirrors in the the Right-wing universe. Lots of goatees though. Lots.

June 21, 2012 at 8:38 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"His promise of transparency was also a lie. He hasn't upheld his promises in the oath of office, and he hasn't come clean about his membership in a socialist political party. There really isn't anything special, in a constructive sense, about Barack Obama. Anybody notice that he asserted a separation of powers privilege yesterday, but last Friday he dismissed the very idea separation of powers when he said that he alone could determine all matters relating to immigration"?

Where's the lie in that?

June 21, 2012 at 8:51 p.m.

Gee, where isn't the lie in that?

It isn't even congruent with Obama's explicit statements at the time.

Look if you want to live in a fantasy world with Rush Limbaugh, go right ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to accommodate it.

June 21, 2012 at 8:53 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

You said he didn't fake his citizenship. I guess that makes him an idiot.

June 21, 2012 at 8:53 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Provide proof of any claim in the quote. If you make a claim, the onus is on you to prove it.

Also, it's very amusing to me that you can't say anything for yourself and you are using Rush Limbaugh quotes in an attempt to further your argument. What is Rush Limbaugh an expert on? Talking?

Speak for yourself. Do research. Provide evidence. Stop quoting Rush Limbaugh. If you live by those words, then you might start getting more respect on this board. Until then, everything you say is second hand opinion from an extreme right-wing talking head. It's meaningless.

June 21, 2012 at 8:55 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800, you sure are out on a limb today.

June 21, 2012 at 9 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Bulb's new word "congruent". HAHA!! Hey everybody! bulbs learned a new word and tries to fit it in everything she says!! HAHA!!

"the rest of us"? Like you're a leader of some sort! You're a leader of your own small minded life and NOTHING and NOBODY else!

You and the rest of the liberals here are in a shrinking minority of America bulbs! On top of that Obama's in big trouble. Just because you got your head in the sand doesn't mean it's not true!

You don't own this or any other newspaper forum. The Chattanooga area of Tennessee is a liberal part of a state that doesn't think like you! If you would get out more maybe you would see just how out of reality you really are.

June 21, 2012 at 9:12 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"Respect on this board"? You MUST realize just how arrogant you are! I have the right to post anything I want to on here! If you don't like it, don't read it! Typical liberal!

I take it then that only the liberal links you provide as "proof" are the gospel truth that can't be denied?

Tell your kids what to do! You don't own anything here.

You post Huffington post links all the time, which are just as offensive to me as my Limbaugh quotes are to you! You might wear the pants at your place, but you aren't anybody on here.

June 21, 2012 at 9:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Once again, I feel like I'm reading a post from a 2nd grader.

Still no proof presented for any claim you've made.

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people."

June 21, 2012 at 9:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

You only post B.S.

Wrong, I read the links. I've disagreed with "liberal" links and other people have disagreed with mine.

And you own nothing here either.

Huffington Post. Rush Limbaugh. There is no comparison. And if you think there is, you might need a lobotomy. The Huffington Post won the Pulitzer Prize for digital media.

Once again, if you don't provide evidence for the things you say, you will get no respect or consideration from anyone on this board.

June 21, 2012 at 9:28 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Your two-faced president once again!

By the way, I don't seek or need your "approval" for anything you arrogant self-centered little bitch!

June 21, 2012 at 9:33 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Liberals give prizes to themselves all the time! Where's your proof ? Huffington post straight down the middle huh? Keep dreaming big dreams little one.

June 21, 2012 at 9:36 p.m.
TOES02800 said...
June 21, 2012 at 9:39 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy. I try very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. But, son, you are totally FOS. With all due respect.

June 21, 2012 at 9:40 p.m.
Easy123 said...

You never fail in making yourself look like a petulant child.

Proof of what?

Who said they were straight down the middle?

Keep whining, sweetheart.

June 21, 2012 at 9:41 p.m.

alprova, I think it's actually one of those bushes that you find growing on the side of a cliff.

Loves trashing this place, then wonders why they get no respect from anybody in real life. So they crawl back here, where their fellow trolls stroke their egos.

And yet the roots are coming out, all of the time.

The GOP is on its demographic plateau. There's a reason why they have to suppress votes, their wingnut base drives them to fanaticism that will drive away any common sense in the party.

Their only hope is copying a plan from the Deep South. Which is no surprise, they did go with "Keep America American" which was used by...who?

June 21, 2012 at 9:43 p.m.
Easy123 said...


How is that again? I try very hard to believe that you might say something worth reading, but, old man, you are totally neck deep in your own rectum.

June 21, 2012 at 9:45 p.m.
raygunz said...

tu_quoque said..."raygunz Fantasizes About His Fallacies:


”You DO realize that's an editorial opinion right? Coming from the "Mooney Times" too? Not at all partisan are they?lol”

Did I present it otherwise … Dunce

Why yes,yes you did as a matter of fact,you "presented" it as some sort of information,so I wondered if you realized that it was an op-ed.

Just trying to help someone gets you called a "dunce" these days!O my!


June 21, 2012 at 9:51 p.m.

Ask Tom Clancy. He had it in one of his novels. Almost as a rip-roaring a fictional tale as the current GOP yarns.

June 21, 2012 at 10:42 p.m.
raygunz said...

Posted at 11:32 am,,raygunz said...

I for one,would like for you right-wingers to provide some details concerning which part of the constitution Pres.Obama has trampled on. Also, please provide something besides your opinion to show any proof that the "Muslim brother hood" is in the Whitehouse.(something besides rants by Limbaugh, Hannity,and their ilk.)

Still waiting,tick,tick,tick,,

June 21, 2012 at 11:01 p.m.

Ask the family of Pat Tillman and Casey Sheehan.

Ask Jessica Lynch.

Heck, ask the family of Clayton Hartwig.

Maybe you think the Mexican cartels would be unarmed regardless, but...nope. They'd just have used another gun.

Raygunz, while you wait, see if you can figure how many licks to the center of a Tootsie Pop.

June 21, 2012 at 11:04 p.m.

Wah-wah, somebody's whining over no difference at all. Did you have to dig up your regurgitated defense from the archives of canned responses? The GOP is making the same appeals as the KKK and even the Know-nothing party.

Protecting America...for their kind. Because, of course, American purity is so very important. Never has that sentiment been exploited for the purpose of discrimination and persecution....except it has.

And your defense error.

MSNBC made the same mistake HBO did. Apologizing to the noise machine as if it would placate anybody.

Especially when your own mantra is to double down on the lies. For example, your fantasies from yesterday. You whined and pouted as you were proven wrong, then proclaimed victory as you were carted off in a barrel of your own swill.

Thanks again, for your continued representation of why the right-wing has become its own worst advocates.

June 21, 2012 at 11:21 p.m.
raygunz said...

happywithnewbulbs,I lost count @ 1492,then I couldn't help it,I just went ahead and chewed up the little piece of tootsie-roll. heh!

D'you think I oughta quit waiting??

June 21, 2012 at 11:53 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...


Still spinning furiously I see.

1) "The President has authority to send the military anywhere..."

tu-q shot this one down already.

2) "The Constitution does not address marriage (whatosoever)"

That has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. DOMA is law, passed by Congress and signed by WJC. It is the President's responsibility to uphold it regardless of his personal feelings or opinions.

3) "Waivers for healthcare reform are not addressed."

See #2 above, it is the law and the law is to be enforced equally for all.

4) "No bondholder...."

Established bankruptcy law was subverted for political favors.

5) "The Constitution authorizes the President to make recess appointments...."

Yes, when the Congress is in recess, and the Congressional leadership decides when they are in recess or not, not you or the Executive.

6) "The Department of Interior shut down those Gulf oil wells..."

The DOI is and Executive department with the President as the titular head. He calls the shots, unless he is so incompetent that he has no control over his own people. (Which is likely the case.)

7) "The President is not a law enforcement officer. He is also empowered to enact or strike down and law on the books he deems necessary or unreasonable, via executive order."

Federal law enforcement is an Executive function, see point #6 above. Additionally, where in the Constitution is he empowered to strike down law? Perhaps you've confused the Executive with the Judicial branches.

8) "What the President did was not unconstitutional. The Constitution allows Congress to set forth immigration law. They most certainly can override his Executive Order, that is if they dare to do so."

So, in your version of reality, the Congress passes a bill, it gets signed by the sitting President and becomes law, but then another President can come along later and by executive fiat, nullify those parts with with he disagrees and the Congress has to start over?

Are you smoking crack?

This is not a dictatorship where the President can pick and choose what parts of which laws he will uphold.

It's no wonder our country is in such sad shape with idiots like you showing up at the polls to vote.

June 21, 2012 at 11:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

You live in a fantasy world. Very, very amusing.

June 22, 2012 at 12:01 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

guns and bulbs. you 2 should get a room before there's penetration.

June 22, 2012 at 12:23 a.m.

Raygunz, maybe find something else to try.

Easy123, it's like a whole different universe where up is down, hamburgers eat people, and everybody has a goatee.

They lose an argument so badly they have to go on a victory parade. It's almost like they're driving in reverse so it looks like they're passing a bunch of cars.

Reminds me of the kids in this video

Jack_Dennis, keep showing your classy inability to engage in productive dialogue.

Oh did I type classy? I meant trashy.

You're a debit to your side.

June 22, 2012 at 12:27 a.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "After the bruhaha over Ford pardoning Nixon I would think that Romney is going to have to let Obama pay for his own crimes, in full."

Why don't you wait until such a time that President Obama is charged and convicted of a crime? Hold your breath real tight on that one.

June 22, 2012 at 12:35 a.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "Wonder if Brian Terry's mother and father think the GOP is spinning yarns ?"

Not at all, but time will certainly tell whether or not the GOP is dazzling them with B.S. or not.

June 22, 2012 at 12:38 a.m.

Don't worry, Mitt Romney's border fence will make his sacrifice worthwhile.

I wonder how many people would die constructing that fence, and operating it, and when any of those deaths would be investigated.

The other side of Notachanceinheck o'clock I suspect.

June 22, 2012 at 12:48 a.m.
Easy123 said...


The biggest problem I've noticed with the Conservatives/Republicans on here is this:

Everyday they come with arguments or gripes and everyday those arguments and gripes are refuted/debunked by posters like yourself. Yet they still come with THE SAME arguments EVERYDAY. They still believe Fox News is a reliable news source. And they still believe every news network, website, journalist, or poster that actively exposes the lies they spew is biased or "liberal", which in their case, "liberal" is a four-letter word. They don't care about truth, they just want to bash Obama, democrats, liberals, atheists, etc.

Then they just resort to name calling and psychological projection. And try to tell you how stupid you are for not believing their lies/misinformation. It never fails. It'll happen again tomorrow and the day after that.

It's a strange sort of insanity.

Tu_quoque doesn't even have a position. She/He just likes to argue semantics or meaningless points and then pat her/himself on the back all while using words like "azz", "Obozo", and "libtard". And then Jack_Dennis will chime in with a stupid little quip and then everyone else joins the party.

I'm relived that I am no longer a conservative/Republican because of the posts by that group on this site. I truly can't understand how anyone could be that vitriolic towards anyone, much less the President of the United States.

Here are some more examples of the extreme hatred/disrespect towards the President:

June 22, 2012 at 12:50 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Ah, Easy. Link to Mediamatters, huh? Another down the middle site! Bwahahahaha You simple little boy.

June 22, 2012 at 2:04 a.m.
alprova said...

Scotty wrote: "tu-q shot this one down already."

Really? When? You claimed that the President's response to the UN's Resolution and for assistance in Libya, that his decision was Unconstitutional. Now, if you want to take a stab at supporting your claim, by all means, go ahead.

The War Powers Resolution is not part of the Constitution.

"DOMA is law, passed by Congress and signed by WJC. It is the President's responsibility to uphold it regardless of his personal feelings or opinions."

Five Federal Judges have declared DOMA illegal, for violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution, or were you not aware of that fact? The President has no obligation to uphold and to defend any law ruled unconstitutional.

"See #2 above, it is the law and the law is to be enforced equally for all."

Can you or anyone else demonstrate so much as one decision to grant any temporary waiver by the HHS where the decision to grant it was at the behest of the President?

"Established bankruptcy law was subverted for political favors."

A baseless, but popular right-wing charge that has never been justified with any proof. Chrysler made the decision to sell itself to Fiat. The U.S. Supreme Court removed a stay extended to creditors of Chrysler who were holding out for a better return on their investments.

Are you accusing the Supreme Court Justices of acting in a manner that was unconstitutional?

"Yes, when the Congress is in recess, and the Congressional leadership decides when they are in recess or not, not you or the Executive."

Every court challenge attempt has failed miserably and was immediately dismissed. So apparently, not one Federal judge across this nation agrees with you.

Constitutional scholars have argued that the pro forma sessions designed by the GOP to forestall recess appointments was in and of itself a violation of Constitutional language by refusing to fulfill their obligation for "advice and consent" of all Presidential appointees.

"The DOI is and Executive department with the President as the titular head."

What in the world was unconstitutional about a temporary halt on drilling until all rigs could be inspected by the Federal Department with oversight authority for valid safety reasons ?

"Federal law enforcement is an Executive function, see point #6 above. Additionally, where in the Constitution is he empowered to strike down law? Perhaps you've confused the Executive with the Judicial branches."

He struck down enforcement of DOMA, aspects of No Child Left Behind, both without Congressional challenge within 30 days of his Executive Orders.

"It's no wonder our country is in such sad shape with idiots like you showing up at the polls to vote"

That's strictly a matter of opinion on your part and is not a matter of fact.

June 22, 2012 at 2:14 a.m.
Easy123 said...


See my post above at 12:50 AM.

Also, are you illiterate? Or do you not know how hyperlinks work? Everything in that article is referenced. MediaMatters is provided several examples of the GOP's attempt to slander Obama any way they can. I figured someone like you would love to read all the anti-Obama rants from your right-wing posse. But, like I said before, you attempt discredit anything that exposes you. I predicted an unintelligent post from you almost 2 hours ago. Thank you for proving my point AGAIN and AGAIN. BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You stupid, ignorant, preoccupied old man.

June 22, 2012 at 2:17 a.m.
alprova said...

Bulbs and Easy, clearly there are a few people who are legends in their own minds.

Keep up the good work!!

June 22, 2012 at 2:22 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy. You're too easy. Bwahahaha

June 22, 2012 at 2:28 a.m.
Easy123 said...


Like clockwork.

Your posts should say:

Jack_Dennis said... Something stupid, irrelevant or a lame attempt at a joke.

Once again, thank you for proving my point!

June 22, 2012 at 2:34 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Always glad to help, Ease. To bed with you. Kindergarten in a few hours.

June 22, 2012 at 2:37 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack_Dennis said... Something stupid, irrelevant or a lame attempt at a joke.

See post @ 2:37 AM for example of lame attempt at a joke/insult.

June 22, 2012 at 2:45 a.m.
alprova said...

Remember in 2010 how the Republicans were so adamant that they were the party willing and able to put America back to work? Yes, I'm sure that I've heard them puff up their chests and proclaim it many times.

Then why is it that the House Republicans are refusing to pass a reauthorization transportation bill after the Senate overwhelmingly passed their version in a bi-partisan vote of 74-22.

The deadline for reauthorization is June 30. If no bill is passed within the next eight days, on July 1, 2012, up to 1.9 million current workers will likely be laid off from their jobs. The Senate version for reauthorization additionally creates one million more jobs.

What's the holdup all about? The House Republicans want the controversial Keystone Pipeline to be included and approved in their version of the transportation reauthorization bill.

The State Department estimates that only 6,000 temporary jobs will be created by Keystone along with a grand total of 20 permanent jobs once it is finished.

These fine "job creating" and "economy concerned" Republicans are holding hostage nearly 3 million permanent jobs in exchange for 6,020, mostly temporary jobs.

Republicans in the House WANT to keep Americans unemployed. Why? They are not interested in seeing any chance for the improvement in employment numbers and are only interested in keeping up this farce of placing all the blame for unemployment on President Obama. They are perpetuating this crap in the hope that they can take control of the White House and both Houses of Congress in November.

Make no mistake about it: Republican elected officials are putting their partisan politics ahead of the common good of job starved Americans that they were elected to serve.

Does anyone out there truly think that if the July 1 deadline comes and goes without a vote on the bill, that you will see, hear, or read this on Fox News about the House Republicans holding American jobs hostage?

What legislation that the House passed yesterday was more important than one that included the funding of 2.9 million jobs?

The House passed the Domestic Energy Production Act, H.R. 4480. This act was specifically designed to increase oil and gas development, along with with measures blocking safeguards from smog and pollution, allowing the drilling for oil on public lands.

It was passed by a vote of 248 - 163.

The 248 Representatives voting in favor of the bill received more than four times more oil and gas contributions over their careers than those who opposed it. They received a grand total of $38.6 million in oil and gas campaign cash, or an average of $156,000 each, for their federal campaigns.

The 163 Representative who opposed the bill — 158 Democrats and 5 Republicans, received $5.8 million, or $36,000 each.

Is there anyone out there willing to defend these shameless Republicans, who claim to be concerned about the plight of working class Americans?

June 22, 2012 at 4:20 a.m.
328Kwebsite said...

I woke up this morning with a nightmare that Weston Wamp was running for Congress. I knew I was awake when I realized this horror might not be a dream.

June 22, 2012 at 5:13 a.m.
mymy said...

I woke up this morning and came directly here for my LOL from the left. Was not disappointed!

June 22, 2012 at 8:51 a.m.
mymy said...

EPA blasted for requiring oil refiners to add type of fuel that's merely hypothetical:

Federal regulations can be maddening, but none more so than a current one that demands oil refiners use millions of gallons of a substance, cellulosic ethanol, that does not exist.

"As ludicrous as that sounds, it's fact," says Charles Drevna, who represents refiners. "If it weren't so frustrating and infuriating, it would be comical."

And Tom Pyle of the Institute of Energy Research says, "the cellulosic biofuel program is the embodiment of government gone wild."

Refiners are at their wit's end because the government set out requirements to blend cellulosic ethanol back in 2005, assuming that someone would make it. Seven years later, no one has. "None, not one drop of cellulosic ethanol has been produced commercially. It's a phantom fuel," says Pyle. "It doesn't exist in the market place."

And Charles Drevna adds, "forcing us to use a product that doesn't exist, they might as well tell us to use unicorns."

And yet, they still have to pay what amounts to fines:

"Why would they ask them to blend any at all if it doesn't exist?" Pyle said. "Because they know that they can squeeze some extra dollars out of them."

Read more:

June 22, 2012 at 8:54 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

I love posting these just to piss off Easy and bulbs. They squirm like little maggots when sprayed with raid. The Huffington post a non-partisan site......What a nut case!

June 22, 2012 at 9:34 a.m.

Alprova, Easy and the rest. It's not working. Defend all you want, Obama's numbers keep dropping and he won't be viewed in a better light between now and election day.

He comes across as power hungry, dishonest and out of touch. Allowing illegal aliens to compete in the workforce against American citizens does not help those who are underemployed or unemployed. Stating that "the private sector is fine" is outrageous. Eric Holder is an obvious liar, and Obama doesn't have a problem with it.

There's no overwhelming reason to keep him in office.

Alprova, I suggest you become one of his talking heads and go on tv. I think MSNBC would be a really good fit for you.

June 22, 2012 at 9:48 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Blonde: * five stahs

June 22, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.
alprova said...

mymy, here's what Fox News left out of their story on the woes of celluloisic ethanol.

Who proposed the mandate that it be used, and when? It wasn't the EPA.

Why it was none other than former President President Bush. In his State of the Union address delivered January 31, 2006, he proposed to expand the use of cellulosic ethanol in gasoline.

A year later, in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 2007, he announced a proposed mandate for 35 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol to be blended with gasoline by 2017.

Construction began on the first-ever cellulosic ethanol plant in November, 2007, in Soperton, GA, with a $76 million grant from the U.S. Energy Department, plus $6 million supplied by the State of Georgia, and an $80 million loan guarantee by the U.S. Biorefinery Assistance Program.

The plant was shut down in January 2011 without ever having produced the first gallon of ethanol.

I guess this is all the EPA's and due to the final timeline, now President Obama's fault

June 22, 2012 at 9:58 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Al: riveting

June 22, 2012 at 10:05 a.m.
conservative said...

If someone wanted to often make long comments that few people would read this would be the place.

June 22, 2012 at 10:08 a.m.
mymy said...

Without research: if what you say is true, why doesn't HRH fix it?

June 22, 2012 at 10:24 a.m.
chatt_man said...

Wow, alpo, thanks for the timeline. I got out of that, that the plant was closed during Obama's term, and they still are enacting penalties, knowing full well the plant was closed.

I figure I'm at least as informed now as the people in mymy's first video. ROTFFLMAO.....

June 22, 2012 at 10:27 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

My life's fine idly biddy noogy.

June 22, 2012 at 10:57 a.m.
Easy123 said...

blondebutnotdumb said...and I'll translate:

It's not working. Presenting me with facts won't work. I don't like Obama and no one else should either.

I don't like Obama. I don't like foreigners. He said something I didn't like. I bought in to the Eric Holder witch hunt.

I don't like Obama and you shouldn't either.

June 22, 2012 at 11:32 a.m.
alprova said...

BBND wrote: "Alprova, Easy and the rest. It's not working. Defend all you want, Obama's numbers keep dropping and he won't be viewed in a better light between now and election day."

It's all out of our hands. What either one of us has to offer will not change a thing. However, one of my missions in life is to stamp out intentional misinformation and ignorance at every opportunity.

"He comes across as power hungry, dishonest and out of touch."

Blah, blah, blah...blah blah blah blah.

"Allowing illegal aliens to compete in the workforce against American citizens does not help those who are underemployed or unemployed."

The only response I have to that is that you might consider how you might feel if you were in a pair of their shoes. It's real easy to adopt the attitude you have and to disregard the reality of the situation.

"Stating that "the private sector is fine" is outrageous."

The man misspoke. He offered it initially as a comparison of the private sector to the public sector, meaning that the private sector was better off than the state and local gov'ts.

Stuff your righteous indignation at a man's mistake in wording.

"Eric Holder is an obvious liar, and Obama doesn't have a problem with it."

Time will tell if that is the case, now won't it?

"There's no overwhelming reason to keep him in office."

Be that as it may, at least in your mind, he still has a very realistic chance of remaining in office come next January nonetheless.

"Alprova, I suggest you become one of his talking heads and go on tv. I think MSNBC would be a really good fit for you."

No thanks. I'm doing just fine right where I am.

June 22, 2012 at 11:48 a.m.

Actually, polling shows Mitt Romney is considered out of touch.

Ouch, a thirteen point lead. Probably a bit off there. But if we're going to take polls as sacrosanct, why just Rasmussen and Gallup?

June 22, 2012 at 12:58 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Obama is a really, really bad president. He took a perfect opportunity to ride a wave out of an economic correction and ruined it. Now he is being held responsible and the likes of The Wart want to wail and whine about the amateur being held responsible for his failures.

Why do you lefties all spend so much time and energy debating the obvious?

June 22, 2012 at 1:29 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

BRP: Your racism knows no bounds.

June 22, 2012 at 1:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...


What is "obvious"?

All you have presented is your baseless opinion.

The economy is doing better. That is obvious. It still isn't great, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

Why do you right-wingers spend so much time and energy trying to spread misinformation, lis, and slander?

June 22, 2012 at 1:37 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: A couple of points. This is an opinion forum. Self-serving links "prove" nothing. The DNC, MediaMatters, MSNBC, ChicagoThugs, etc. wrote the book on spreading misinformation and slander. Get your head out of the faculty lounge and into the real world.

June 22, 2012 at 1:44 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Those sites wrote the book on refuting and debunking Conservative misinformation. You want to discredit them because they expose your side.

Please provide an example of those sites "spreading misinformation and slander".

The link isn't self-serving. You label it that because it goes against all the lies you attempt to spread.

You bathe in conservative news/misinformation. You have bought in to the lie. You have ingested the Kool-Aid.

There is no surgical procedure that could remove your head from your rectum. Your impairment is permanent and your psychosis incurable.

June 22, 2012 at 1:52 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

So Easy, are you saying that MediaMatters, MSNBC, the DNC, et al do NOT spread misinformation? Seriously? It's not my head that's in a dark and warm place, Bunky.

June 22, 2012 at 1:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Please provide an example of those sites "spreading misinformation and slander".

You can talk all you want. But I haven't seen anything from you that would substantiate your claims.

Once again, you attempt to discredit these news outlets because they expose your side.

June 22, 2012 at 1:59 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Examples??? Just tune in to chris matthews, ed schultz, maddow, etc. Are you really that dense?

June 22, 2012 at 2:04 p.m.
Easy123 said...

The pot calling the kettle black.

Sarcasm about the "libtards" being "classy". Then you say this:

BTW … Check out the bea-ach in the purple shirt. How would you like to face that every day the rest of your natural life.


June 22, 2012 at 2:37 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: I have no onus to prove anything. How many times to I have to tell you that posting partisan links DOES NOT PROVE SQUAT. Are you that thick?

June 22, 2012 at 3:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Therefore, your claims are without substantiation.

Yes, it proves A LOT. You attempt to discredit them because they expose your side.

I don't even have to ask. I know you are too stupid to understand.


"But the networks were all more aggressive when the 2,000 mark arrived in Iraq on October 25, 2005. The Big Three networks devoted 14 morning and evening news stories to the death toll from October 24 through the end of October, and another 24 anchor briefs or mentions"

14 mentions over A WEEK span. (Oct.24- "end of October")

And you are trying to compare that to the number of stories in one day (June 13)?

Why doesn't Tim Graham compare it to the number of stories from June 13-June 20?

Bias/misinformation from the site committed to "exposing and combating liberal media bias". How ironic.

June 22, 2012 at 3:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...


You are always such classy a creature… aren’t you ???

I'm sure you know a thing or two about slurping repeatedly.

June 22, 2012 at 3:36 p.m.
alprova said...

Mr. Dennis, it doesn't take very much to respond to the challenge on the table. Either you can offer an instance of Media Matters spreading misinformation, or you can't.

You challenged his source as being easy to descredit.

Now get busy offering at least one verifiable instance. Media Matters, while perceived by some to be one-sided, has proven itself to be rather critical of both sides from time to time.

It's just a simple fact that right-wingers are far more guilty of spreading ignorance and misinformation, purposely most of the time.

June 22, 2012 at 3:40 p.m.

Ah right-wingers, they just don't accept anything that challenges the things they believe.

Truthicality, it is the way of things.

This is why we've always been at war with EastAsia.

Of course when we reject their obvious lies and deceptions, it's because we're not open-minded.

To be that open-minded, my brain would have to fall out.

BTW, recall the defense they offered for the fellow at the National Review or Juan Williams?

They don't...

Also, why did Arizona cancel its review of private prison cost-effectiveness?

June 22, 2012 at 3:41 p.m.
mymy said...

When you think the left cannot get more stupid, they do!

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting 48% of the vote, while President Obama earns 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and another three percent (3%) are undecided.

The president picks up support from just 35% of white voters overall. That’s eight points below the 43% of the white vote he won in 2008. Among white Democrats, 17% currently plan to vote for Romney.

Just 33% now believe the president is doing a good or excellent job when it comes to the economy. That’s down from 41% at the beginning of May.

June 22, 2012 at 3:59 p.m.
mymy said...

LOL: easy: been there done that

June 22, 2012 at 4:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Why do you believe Rasmussen over Pew then? They both tied for 1st in your link.

Rasmussen: Romney +5

Pew: Obama +4

Seems like you only read what you want to see.

June 22, 2012 at 4:52 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

It just occurred to me. This cartoon would be much more fun if it was a picture of Clay Bennett on the dartboard. Maybe he could offer a life size version of that so we can all put it on our very own dart board, or go buy a dart board just for such a great purpose.

June 22, 2012 at 4:54 p.m.
mymy said...

Look whose talking. Easy say "Seems like you only read what you want to see."

June 22, 2012 at 4:58 p.m.
mymy said...

Obama pick for NLRB was top lawyer for union tainted by mob ties, history of corruption

“The rap sheet for members of the International Union of Operating Engineers reads like something out of "Goodfellas."

“Embezzlement. Wire fraud. Bribery. That's just scratching the surface of crimes committed by the IUOE ranks. And it is from this union that President Obama earlier this year picked one of his latest appointees to the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency tasked with resolving labor disputes between unions and management. That recess appointee, Richard Griffin, was former general counsel for the 400,000-member union of heavy equipment operators -- a union tainted over the years by mob connections and a history of corruption. “

“Because he was recess appointed, Richard Griffin, Jr., underwent no congressional scrutiny before he was sworn in on Jan. 9 of this year.”

“At the time of his recess appointment, Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, told the Wall Street Journal he was, "extremely disappointed" in Obama's decision to "avoid the constitutionally mandated Senate confirmation process." He said that two of three nominees for the NLRB, including Griffin, were submitted to the Senate on Dec. 15, just before the Senate was to adjourn, allowing only a day to review the nominees.”

“Griffin has been an advocate for enhanced NLRB power for decades.”

“In 1988 testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Employer/Employee relations, Griffin, who was then serving on the Board of Trustees of IUOE's Central Pension Fund, argued for more power for the NLRB to fine companies without a court order to enforce its rulings. He also argued against legislation that would have forced the NLRB and the Department of Labor to pay the legal costs for small businesses who won in court against unions.”

“Griffin's tenure on the NLRB will be longer than most recess appointees. The president delayed his appointment by one day until the start of a new congressional session -- effectively doubling to two years his stay. Recess appointments last until the end of the Senate's next session -- meaning Griffin will sit on the NLRB until December 2013.”

Read more:

June 22, 2012 at 5:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

I see the facts that you like to omit.

June 22, 2012 at 5:01 p.m.

Facts that contradict their story can't be true.

Contradiction is a sign of wrongness.

They can't be wrong, Jeebus would never let that happen.

June 22, 2012 at 5:08 p.m.
mymy said...

Excuse me: I could have left the link to story off. He is still bad news! Like everyone that Obama surrounds himself with, you dummy!

I want the trash out of the WH!

June 22, 2012 at 5:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

How is he trash again?

June 22, 2012 at 5:36 p.m.

Daring to disrespect Saint Reagan the Pontifericous.

You know that cannot be allowed!

Especially since free speech? So gauche. That's why the Simpsons and Futurama were boycotted, they dared to make fun of the Presidency.

Of course, that the photos may be staged...nah. Especially since Rightwingers never degrade any Democrats...ever.

BTW, has Scott Brown identified the Kings and Queens he's met with?

June 22, 2012 at 5:41 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: Hope you're never on a jury. You standard of proof is a hoot.

June 22, 2012 at 6:05 p.m.
Easy123 said...


You attempt to discredit it because it exposes your side. I've yet to see you refute any article I've posted.

June 22, 2012 at 6:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Less than 5% tax increases? Wow. Such a "Taxmageddon".

Keep reaching.

June 22, 2012 at 6:18 p.m.
mymy said...

You sure show your stupidity with every post.

June 22, 2012 at 6:24 p.m.

Mitt Romney will win, and win by a surprisingly comfortable margin. The cats out of the bag, the thrill is gone, the bloom is off the rose. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. You get the picture. He's become ridiculous. He 's now asking folks to give up wedding gifts and anniversary gives in exchange for contributing to his campaign.

June 22, 2012 at 6:26 p.m.

What contributions to an actual discussion the noise brigade makes!


PS, imagine that Congress gives the President the authority to set policy on deportations. What a concept!

And it's a part of the law!

Who knew!

Mitt Romney now lists his occupation

Well, he certainly does like to create a lot of fiction. What's funny is the number of people who swallow his stories and lies when they're not even consistent.

June 22, 2012 at 6:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...


You have been ridiculous from the start. You get the picture. I'm glad we have a prediction from you Ms. Cleo.

What are you even talking about?


I assume you are talking to me. I should say the same for you except "stupidity" would be too kind. Asinine, moronic, preoccupied, psychotic. All those adjectives would do the trick I think.

Name calling after a refutation is common among your kind. And I happen to enjoy reciprocating.

June 22, 2012 at 6:33 p.m.

Hey, Happy, many, many, many Americans who have paid taxes, obeyed the law, contributed to this society, and invested in their background, who are unemployed or underemployed, are very, very, very unhappy that illegal aliens have now been allowed to compete with them openly for jobs in a very bad economy. They don't need more competition.

Citizenship used to mean a great deal, but under Obama it's worth about as much as the empty words he reads from his teleprompter. Good grief!

I think liberalism is a disease. Everything that goes against common sense and logic, and that's a blow to freedom, liberals seem to be for. Very odd, and very scary.

"yes we can", "hope and change" My gosh, don't you feel silly now? Swept up like a bunch of goofy schoolgirls swooning over some boy band at a concert.

How embarrassing.

June 22, 2012 at 6:45 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Keep reaching.


I can read so you don't need to repeat anything. Like mymy, you fail to see facts. You see that and say " Ooohhh, that's a big number!". Try to stop thinking like a 6 year old and research the things you say.

June 22, 2012 at 6:46 p.m.
Easy123 said...


How do you know? Did you poll them? They aren't illegal aliens. But you'll never grasp that. Competition is good for the job market. But you probably don't know that either. You aren't entitled to anything in this country. If one of these kids gets a job over you, it's YOUR fault!

Your second paragraph is baseless opinion. Geez!

I think conservatism is a mental disorder. Everything goes against common sense and logic. Then you go on with another baseless opinion. Scary, I know. You folks are terrifying.

I feel great. I'm sure you don't. Because you have soaked your brain in Fox News and all that misinformation.

You're right. You're embarrassing.

June 22, 2012 at 6:51 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Now Obama has invited the gays to the white house to flip off the portrait of Reagan. The gays are not going to earn any brown-eye points for that one.

I wonder how PMSNBC would act if the tea party folks flipped off a portrait of Obama.

June 22, 2012 at 6:52 p.m.
Easy123 said...


"declare it as just some more of your low grade B.S"

I'll think of this whenever I read one of your posts. Your posts epitomize the lowest bull excrement.

June 22, 2012 at 6:55 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

How does one decide when these illegal aliens even CAME here with their parents? Do they just take their word for it?

June 22, 2012 at 6:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...


I don't think Obama invited them there to flip off a portrait of Reagan. Just a guess though. And I highly doubt "the gays" give a rat's behind what you think.

Probably a lot more rational than you. And that stuff happens all the time. People, like you, slander Obama daily. I bet steam blew from your ears when you saw them desecrating a portrait of your Republican Messiah.

June 22, 2012 at 6:59 p.m.

Well, they got burned taking the word for it when somebody claimed NOT to be an American citizen in order to get deported,'d think they'd have some investigation in place.

June 22, 2012 at 7 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Obama's asking people who are getting married to forgo gifts and donate to his campaign instead.

Good lord! can he get any lower?

June 22, 2012 at 7:01 p.m.

Easy, you're ignorant. Moronic. Stupid. You belong to the party of handouts and entitlement.

I just read that latinos had their forks and knives taken away during an Obama event. They were told to hurry up and eat so they can cough up their silverware.

Guess you can't trust those latinos, huh, Easy?

I wonder if they trust them with sporks too?

You see, Easy, Democrats and liberals are the racists, the race baiters and the ones who see color first. Blacks must stay in their role, latinos in theirs, and so on.

The absolute arrogance and ignorance of Obama to think that all Mexican Americans are perfectly happy with illegal aliens from Mexico just because they share their ancestry. Guess they all vote and think the same because they're of Mexican ancestry, huh?

June 22, 2012 at 7:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Please explain how that's "low".

June 22, 2012 at 7:03 p.m.
rick1 said...

Obama really is a classless POS. Obama is asking people who are getting married to forgo gifts, and to ask their guests to donate to his campaign instead.

June 22, 2012 at 7:04 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

It's not just me, your forgetting the majority of Americans are NOT liberals like you.

June 22, 2012 at 7:04 p.m.
Easy123 said...


((((Name calling)))). You belong to the party of stupidity and bad ideas.

Knives were removed for security reasons. Only you are implying mistrust.

You see, you and your Republican posse are the racists. You mentioned race before anyone. This is called projection: "Blacks must stay in their role, latinos in theirs, and so on."

You're the xenophobic one here.

Obama has never implied or said anything referring to your last statement. Only you are implying this. All these ideas come from your mind, not reality. But that is your MO, psychological projection, misinformation and lies.

June 22, 2012 at 7:09 p.m.
Easy123 said...


You're a classless POS. I bet you can't give a cogent answer as to how that is classless.


Is that why Obama is in office?

June 22, 2012 at 7:11 p.m.

rick1: Yes, he should do just like Mitt Romney and seek-out millionaires and billionaires to donate to his campaign by giving them special access!

That's the way it's done in Republican America! If you don't have enough money, your participation isn't wanted!

But the people with money? Let's give them a weekend retreat!

With Golf!

blondebutnotdumb, way to lie. They weren't asked to give up THEIR silverware, as it was obviously the caterers' and they were informed that the Secret Service was going to have to secure the site. I dunno why, maybe because their job is the president's security, and maybe they had gotten some letters that week.

But we know Republicans don't want to kill Obama, not at all.

Except Ted Nugent and that old man in Paul Broun's meeting. Only those two guys. No others!

June 22, 2012 at 7:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...


You're right!

"The poll conducted for Students for Life of America ( and provided to Secrets put Obama’s lead over Romney at 53 percent to 25 percent."

June 22, 2012 at 7:13 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...


I seems as though Pres. Obama agreed with the normal interpretation of Presidential powers(as opposed to your Banana Republic interpretation) before he decided to ignore the Constitution and usurp the powers of Congress and the Courts in order to pander the latino vote.

"With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed -- and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President." BHO

I wonder if he wrote that speech, or if his speechwriter is just more familiar with the U.S. Constitution than you or the President.

June 22, 2012 at 7:14 p.m.
rick1 said...

Easy said "Please explain how that's "low"."

If you need an explanation as to why it is low for Obama to be asking people who are gettting married to forgo their gifts and make donations to him, then you really do have the brain development of a 2 year old.

June 22, 2012 at 7:15 p.m.
raygunz said...

As for waiting for some details concerning which part of the constitution Pres.Obama has trampled on,STILL waiting


June 22, 2012 at 7:18 p.m.

Would Obama be ok with removing silverware at that fancy, shmancy dinner-fundraiser at Sarah Jessica Parker's mansion? Would that be done there? Of course not. Because they're rich, mostly white and from Hollywood.

No, happy, we don't. But Democrats wrote books and made movies about killing Bush.

Why would anyone want to kill Obama? He's doing a good job of digging his own politcal grave. Nobody damages Obama like Obama does to himself.

June 22, 2012 at 7:18 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: You've used the phrase "projection" several times. Are you a psych major? That would explain a lot.

June 22, 2012 at 7:19 p.m.
rick1 said...

blubs, you are as classless as Obama if you see nothing wrong with his request.But then you seem to love Dictators so I should not be surprised.

June 22, 2012 at 7:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...


So I was right, you can't give a cogent answer about how it is low. Thank you for confirming that.


Baseless assumption.

Once again, better than your mental faculties. It's funny that you still bring that up when you were wrong the whole time or arguing semantics. But I know you like to pat yourself on the back. I'm sure you need it to boost your ego a little.

June 22, 2012 at 7:20 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Most liberals are students for life. " That's a big drop from the 66% he enjoyed in 2008". It's the trend that matters. Remember?

June 22, 2012 at 7:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Once again, you're the only one bringing race into the picture.


I know what words mean! Yayyyy! "Stupid attempt at slander from Jack_Dennis".


What's wrong with it? But then again, you seem to not know the definition of words like "dictator", so I'm not surprised that you haven't come up with an answer.

June 22, 2012 at 7:23 p.m.
Easy123 said...


No, it's not. Romney had 25%. That 13% drop didn't go to Romney. It likely went to Ron Paul.

June 22, 2012 at 7:24 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Easy a psych major? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Easy never majored in ANYTHING that we can tell!

Sits on her fat ass posting liberal hogwash from dusk til dawn. probably porking down crispy cremes by the dozen.

Little miss holier-than-thou don't impress me much! Mommy thinks her special, let mommy keep thinking that!

June 22, 2012 at 7:29 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

It doesn't matter who got it, the fact remains that Obama lost it. It's the trend that matters. Remember?

June 22, 2012 at 7:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Your misguided view of reality is amusing.

I have a degree. Do you?

I'm working towards a law degree. Do you have an advanced degree?

I'm not a female. Or fat.

I should ask your mother what she thinks of you next time I'm over to see her.

Your mind must be a totally FUBAR. You make up these little stories. How cute.

June 22, 2012 at 7:32 p.m.
Easy123 said...


No. The trend doesn't matter. I don't know why you believe this but it's a false assumption. Trends change drastically from month to month.

June 22, 2012 at 7:34 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Remember when the trend was all that mattered with PMSNBC over the slow drop in the unemployment numbers a while back? That's all we heard from you liberals is how "it's the trend that matters".

How convenient that the trend towards Obama losing support doesn't matter now. Trends only seem to matter when they're convenient talking points for the left. How sweet.

June 22, 2012 at 7:41 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

By the way, I have an engineering degree in metallurgy. So sue me.

June 22, 2012 at 7:44 p.m.
mymy said...

Keep throwing the darts at the left: their response is priceless!

June 22, 2012 at 7:49 p.m.

rick1: The only thing I see wrong with it is...the same thing I feel is wrong with campaign financing in this country. I'd love to reform the whole system.

But I'm more concerned with millionaires and billionaires buying access than I am with low-level financing. Especially when in Romney's case he's already giving them special access to strategy meetings.

blondebutnotdumb, how do you know it wasn't done? Were you there to see it? How do you know they didn't screen everybody who came in to that mansion?

The Secret Service does this sort of thing all the time, it never merits a mention. Why is that?

Oh wait, because this time YOU can try to exploit it.

Keep throwing those darts, you might hit the broadside of the barn.

Less than fifty posts to go, then Clay Bennett wins a prize!

TOES02800: Check Romney's favorable ratings?

Ouch, worse than George W. Bush?

Guess it's a good thing he has so much experience running Negative ads.

June 22, 2012 at 7:52 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Trends have never mattered to me. Things change overnight. Anyone that stakes their beliefs in a "trend" is likely to come out empty handed.

By the way, I wasn't trying to belittle your degree or anything of the sort. Everyone has different passions/hobbies. Not enough people have a college education.


You're lack of response is telling.

June 22, 2012 at 7:54 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Obama was the largest recipient of wall street dollars during his first campaign. Obama hobnobs with the millionaires and billionaires out in Hollywood all the time! Soros is Obama's biggest fan!

June 22, 2012 at 7:59 p.m.

"you're the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes"

That was Obama speaking to hollywood celebs, entertainers at Sarah Jessica Parker's mansion.

Some how I don't think silverware was confiscated there before he spoke to them.

Nobody fawns over celebrities and actors like the Obama's.

June 22, 2012 at 7:59 p.m.
Easy123 said...

And he still passed Wall Street reform!

Romney hobnobs with the millionaires and billionaires. I don't think he knows anyone that isn't a millionaire.

June 22, 2012 at 8 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

University of California $1,648,685 Goldman Sachs $1,013,091 Harvard University $878,164 Microsoft Corp $852,167 Google Inc $814,540 JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799 Citigroup Inc $736,771 Time Warner $624,618 Sidley Austin LLP $600,298 Stanford University $595,716 National Amusements Inc $563,798 WilmerHale LLP $550,668 Columbia University $547,852 Skadden, Arps et al $543,539 UBS AG $532,674 IBM Corp $532,372 General Electric $529,855 US Government $513,308 Morgan Stanley $512,232 Latham & Watkins $503,295

Here's the short list of Obama campaign contributors. There's a lot more where that came from.

June 22, 2012 at 8:01 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Wall street reform. What a joke. He did that with a wink and a nod.

June 22, 2012 at 8:05 p.m.

Strange, you left off the details.

Or the list of Romney to compare.

Goldman Sachs $593,080 JPMorgan Chase & Co $467,089 Bank of America $425,100 Morgan Stanley $399,850 Credit Suisse Group $390,360 Citigroup Inc $312,800 Kirkland & Ellis $264,302 Wells Fargo $237,550 Barclays $234,650 PricewaterhouseCoopers $227,250 Deloitte LLP $222,250 HIG Capital $216,995 UBS AG $207,750 Blackstone Group $198,800 Bain Capital $156,500 Elliott Management $146,275 Marriott International $137,827 General Electric $135,450 Bain & Co $130,550 EMC Corp $129,450

And that's not counting the outside SuperPacs that don't coordinate...or do they?

June 22, 2012 at 8:07 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Looks like Obama's a corporate bitch himself! Goldman sachs, Morgan Stanley, Latham Watkins. Huh..Maybe all that anti-corporation talk was just BS.

I wonder what OWS thinks of their savior taking money from the enemy.

June 22, 2012 at 8:09 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Here is the full quote:

"And what we're going to have to do is to present very clearly to the American people that choice. Because ultimately you guys and the American people, you're the tie-breaker. You're the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes in."

You have bought in to the lie, lady. That bit of misinformation has already been debunked. Obama wasn't referring to the "rich". He was referring to everyone. But you are too bathed in ignorance to know the truth.

June 22, 2012 at 8:13 p.m.

Look that ignorance is what keeps them warm at night, you can't go challenging it with the facts.

June 22, 2012 at 8:15 p.m.
Easy123 said...
June 22, 2012 at 8:15 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

HAHA!! So what?? Romney never spent his life saying the corporations are "evil" either!! What's the big surprise here with that stupid post? Romney never decried the "big, bad corporations"! I would like to see more corporate donations from even more corporations!

Romney's business minded so I would expect corporate donations for him. what's the big surprise here? He just don't lie about it like Obama did and still does!

June 22, 2012 at 8:15 p.m.
mymy said...

Blonde: I think Clinton has done more than fawn over celebrities and actors! LOL wink, wink

June 22, 2012 at 8:17 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Wall street "reform" never meant anything to Obama. It's just a talking point he uses to fire up the OWS crowd while still taking money from them. Moot point.

June 22, 2012 at 8:18 p.m.

Bzzt! Error! Error!

The website clearly points out that the donations are for individuals associated with those organizations as direct corporate donations to political campaigns are still illegal...and Obama doesn't say that corporations are evil in the way you declare. The nuance is rather different.

He just doesn't insist they're the unmitigated good who must be supported regardless of the cost to America's real citizens.

But don't worry, here's how Romney's funding stacks up:

Small Individual Contributions $15,660,063 (13%) Large Individual Contributions $105,541,069 (87%)

But hey, if you want to talk exploiting people with falsehoods, let's try the Republicans on the deficit, on military security, on foreign relations, on Medicare, on...well, the list goes on and on.

June 22, 2012 at 8:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...

How did Obama lie?

So it's bad when Wall Street donates to Obama but it's ok when they donate to Romney.
You want more corporate donations but Obama is Wall Street's "bitch".

Since Romney was a business man, corporate donations are fine. So you are implying that because Obama wasn't a business man, the donations shouldn't be expected or somehow wrong?

June 22, 2012 at 8:19 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Because Obama is out there every chance he gets bashing Wall street and STILL grabs the cash from their hands! He's trying to have it both ways! Bash the "evil" 1%ers, but at the same time grab those campaign checks. That's shameful to say the least.

Romney, on the other hand, never made no bones about Wall street. So, it's no big deal when he accepts campaign funds from them.

June 22, 2012 at 8:28 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness".

Seems Obama likes Wall street so much that he packed his administration with a bunch of 1%ers. Where's OWS now?

June 22, 2012 at 8:39 p.m.

Ah, so Romney by not admitting that Wall Street has worked to the disadvantage of the rest of the country, gets to pal around with them and we can't criticize him, since that's attacking America, as they are truly what's best about the country.

But Obama, Obama you attack even though you're complaining that he's using the same people you claim are the ones you just got done supporting!

What logical consistency!

Maybe next you'll be complaining that Obama's healthcare reform plan is identical to the one Romney already declared was a model for the whole nation...until Obama implemented it, and then it became wrong!

Or you'll attack Obama's fundraisers, while silent on Mitt Romney's weekend retreat.

Yay consistency!

Consistent attacks on Obama, but always missing the bullseye.

Yep, still missing! You're worried so much about the mote in other's eyes that you ignore the log in your own.

As usual.

BTW, what do you think about Ann Romney's horse?

June 22, 2012 at 8:52 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Another campaign "bullet" towards Romney over his ties to Wall street holds no legitimacy whatsoever.

Keep digging Obama!!

June 22, 2012 at 8:56 p.m.

You're scared, aren't you, that you have so many people in Wall Street who just don't realize that they must support the SAVIOR Willard "Mitt" Romney as he protects America from the scourge of Obama who hasn't actually destroyed them as you claimed he would, but has somehow managed to help them recover from a massive downslide.

Man, if Obama's plan is to Destroy Wall Street, he MUST be incompetent.

Or he's playing some very very deep game.

And 19 more posts till Clay Bennett wins the prize! You can do it!

Just post a few more wild shots across the bow!

June 22, 2012 at 9:01 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

If Wall street worked to the disadvantage of the rest of the country, then why the hell would Obama take their money? THAT'S the question! You said it yourself, "Romney never admitted" that Wall street is bad for the country. So why shouldn't he "pal" around with them?

I'm saying Obama is a hypocrite for bashing Wall street on one hand, and then taking money from them and packing his administration full of former Wall street CEO'S.

Romney needs not be ashamed to hang out with people he never had a problem with in the first place.

June 22, 2012 at 9:04 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Totally flabberghasted by the sheer stupidity of you people. The sad truth is, one day Obama will be gone, but you'll be stupid the rest of your life.

June 22, 2012 at 9:09 p.m.

Because despite your claims otherwise, Obama doesn't believe that Wall Street is the epicenter of evil, or the source of all that is wrong in the country, and that while they can make some mistakes, they can be a net benefit.

In the same way the military can. Yes, believe it or not, fears of a military take-over ARE a concern. Does this mean somebody who supports the Posse Comitatus Act hates the military? Not at all. Just means they realize that it's possible to have good and bad in it.

Is there good in Wall Street? Sure. Obama says it all the time. Is there bad? Yes, there is bad too. Some of it does need to be fixed.

But Romney can't afford to admit that. He has to praise them to the skies, because if he admitted that any criticism was valid, his base would turn on him. They are committed to opposing everything Obama does.

It's part of the cult.

And I'm not at all flabbergasted by your commitment to opposing Obama. You can't even see that maybe the problem is with your faulty criticisms being unpersuasive. It must be the OTHER side, who just won't bow to your far greater wisdom and perspicacity.

This is a common phenomena, especially among the conspiracy-minded.

June 22, 2012 at 9:10 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Everything Obama does NEEDS to be criticized (opposed). Look at how bad things are. And don't give us the tired and worn out "it's all Bush's fault" baloney. three and a half years in and things are horrible out there. Obama hasn't given forth one policy to help prosperity grow in this country. Why in the hell would anybody vote for Obama?

Prosperity doesn't occur in socialist countries, why would this one be any different?

June 22, 2012 at 9:47 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

As you can plainly see, you're not persuading anyone either. You people are bashing Romney and he isn't even president. He didn't spend $6 trillion of taxpayer money. He didn't spend $11 billion on "green jobs" that produced less than 1,000 sustainable jobs.

Romney did none of that! Your Obama did.

June 22, 2012 at 9:54 p.m.

When you criticize everything, or I should say, when all you have to offer is a negative opinion, then whatever valid points you might have will be drowned out by the swarm of petty criticisms. This is especially true when you don't actually provide evidence for your conclusions. See your blind and all encompassing "Look at how bad things are" which you take as a truism that you don't bother to support. That is actually persuasive that you are wrong.

Same with your wild-declarations against Socialism. You've been indoctrinated to believe that Socialism (and even worse Communism!) is evil so much you think that's all you have to do. But actually, prosperity is happening just fine in Germany, Sweden, Norway and others. And they all have lots more socialism than this country. Why even Germany is massively switching away from fossil power! And actually, most people in America think things are relatively fine.

"A plurality of Americans now say they are better off than they were when President Barack Obama was inaugurated, providing a surprising lift to Obama’s re- election campaign despite troublesome economic news."

Guess not everybody is drinking your Kool-Aid. But keep giving us your own tired and worn-out bologna. Things aren't horrible, they could be better, but wait, wait, who demanded a smaller stimulus? Who demanded more tax cuts for the wealthy? Who wants to tax the poor? Who insisted on austerity and lax regulations? Who wants to end Medicare? Who opposed the Dream Act? Who is delaying the Transportation Bill? Who has fired thousands of public workers in schools and police stations? Oh, that would be Republicans.

Note my more specific grievances. Not exhaustively detailed, but I just don't care to waste that much time with you. But why in the hell would anybody vote for Republicans when they want to end Medicare, when they want to fire more government workers, when they want to break Unions and ship jobs overseas?

As for criticizing Romney...well, gee, he's running for President. I know he insists on not being criticized, we're not supposed to talk about anything he did while running Bain Capital or as governor of Massachusetts...but he can't etch-a-sketch it away, or declare that any criticism of him is Anti-American with impunity.

But hey, if you want to see Obama's plans, go right ahead. He has a website.

PS, that Green Energy spending was signed by George W. Bush and created by the Republican sponsor of the Energy Act of 2007 I believe.

Think of that what you for Solar Energy, it's up 500 Megawatts in a quarter.

June 22, 2012 at 9:58 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Bulbs: No one wants to read War & Peace here, pal. Brevity, Clay.

June 22, 2012 at 10:13 p.m.
acerigger said...

TOES02800 said...

"By the way, I have an engineering degree in metallurgy. So sue me."

That's funny,,a couple of months ago you were you were bragging about giving up a job as a union ironworker in Pittsburg to come down here to work second shift in a car factory.???

June 22, 2012 at 10:16 p.m.

TOES02800: Wow, you sourced from "" ? LOL.

At least do a LITTLE better than that. The people on here who say "Anybody can edit a wiki" will get on to you for that! You know they won't ignore that, just because you're saying something they will dogmatically accept as the truth.

Here, try this page:

Jack_Dennis: Still working on finding some way to contribute effectively to the discussion?

You're so in love with your own words that you don't even consider the character of them.

In the home stretch though, under ten posts to go!

June 22, 2012 at 10:21 p.m.
tderng said...

I have a few questions for the liberal on this website, 1)Regardless of the legality,do you think it was the right thing to "leak" information about the Afghanistan who helped confirm Osama Bin Laden's identity? 2)Was it the right thing to do to "leak" information about an ongoing cyber-attack on Iran,involving another ally no less? 3)Was it the right thing to do to "leak" information about the Presidential kill list? A simple yes or no will suffice.

June 22, 2012 at 11:04 p.m.

I don't agree with your characterizations of them as leaks. Therefore, I decline to answer your loaded questions.

Sorry, but you can't just make accusations and presume they're accepted as true. Your attempt to limit the answers shows your intent clearly, you're not interested in an honest dialogue, but playing rhetorical games.

So why don't you answer my question:

Do you think that national security issues should be dishonestly misrepresented into order to exploit the opportunity for political gain?

See how easy it is to play that game?

Strangely the only way to win is not to play.

June 22, 2012 at 11:18 p.m.
acerigger said...

happywithnewbulbs said... "Do you think that national security issues should be dishonestly misrepresented into order to exploit the opportunity for political gain?"

Now we're getting close to "what's wrong with our government?"

June 23, 2012 at 1:09 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

assrigger. Mills close. mills no longer need metallurgists. TOES finds work in the Iron workers union. Obama takes office. No more jobs for iron workers. TOES leaves and finds work for a little lesser amount. Now, go fuc# yourself!

June 23, 2012 at 9:43 a.m.

acerigger: More exactly, what's wrong with the politicians who are claiming they want to run the government

TOES02800: Maybe it's your personal conduct that's the problem. Really, do you think you behave any better with real people than you do here?

Cuz you're wrong. It's not the economy that's the's you.

Nobody wants you around.

June 24, 2012 at 9:40 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.