Letter to the Editor

Barack bows to Boehner

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Dear Editor,

Pigs have flown! Hell is frozen solid! Barack Obama has "bowed" to Speaker John Boehner! -- or so the headlines report. How shocking to progressive sensibilities! However, is this not the same man who without hesitation bows before foreign potentates? Oh, but they are not his "subjects."

Newsflash, Barack: America is a republic, not a monarchy -- and you are not king. You do not command the Speaker of the House to give audience on a whim; but rather submit a timely request, which the Speaker rightly holds the prerogative to deny. Moreover, Executive appeals to speak before a joint session of Congress require the consent of both Houses -- and procedural rules define the process. Mr. Obama should have reviewed those formalities prior to his taxpayer-funded golfing spree on Martha's Vineyard; but that consideration would have upset his scheduled tee-off. However, in Barack Obama's world, it is perfectly proper that he run roughshod over the scheduled events of others -- for kings may do that, you know.

Formal rules apply in these matters, because, notwithstanding Mr. Obama's protests, the three branches of the Federal Government are co-sovereign but not "co-equal." Primacy is exclusive to the Legislature; for not by accident did the framers organize its powers under Article I of the Constitution -- that "intrinsically flawed" document, which Mr. Obama prefers Americans ignore. However, we have come to understand that Barack Obama disdains rules, and particularly the rule of law (See Operation Fast and Furious). For in as much as he ignores the separation of powers, with similar vigor he disregards the Fourth and Tenth Amendments, and likewise he despises property rights (See EPA, et al, regulatory abuses). In fact, so often does Barack Obama demonstrate ignorance of (or contempt for) our supreme law, that many Americans now wonder whether this "constitutional scholar" ever intended fidelity to its principles of individual liberty or restriction on government action. Thus Mr. Obama's latest tantrum, expressed over the legislative rebuke of his violation of procedure, comes without surprise.

The king demands his way, the rules be damned -- and most Americans too, if some within the royal court had their way.

"King" Barack is offended by one of his subjects? Oh, the unpardonable insult that a free American should challenge this narcissistic pest on whatever he presently demands our assent! High Treason against the King! We must all bend knee to his will, else we find ourselves imprisoned "domestic terrorists!" Recall that a less eloquent subject of his court has demanded that we rebellious patriots "go straight to Hell" -- and immediately the same resolved to "help us get there." I wonder which party truly looks to "hang us from a tree." If history is my guide, that would not be the TEA Party, but rather the party most popular with plantation owners -- not one of whom was Republican, and yet each did fancy himself "lord" over the multitude of "inferior" men.

To quote Mark Twain, "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme;" and we, the unfortunate heirs of progressive Camelot, are yet the latest in a long line of "inferiors" ordered to bow beneath the crack of the king's whip -- because you do not say "no" to the king -- just ask anyone in the mainstream media.

Bruce C. A. Desautels

Stratton, Nebraska

View 47 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Sir, I must say your diatribes don't even make for interesting reading!

    I wonder why you no longer show any listing of being affiliated with the Tea Party? Did they think you were too far off the mark even for them?

    "Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain't that a big enough majority in any town?"

    - The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

    -- Posted by DocBonesaw on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 3:28 PM
  • *

    SW Nebraska TEA Party. I did not omit listing the affiliation, and it was supplied to the Editor with this letter. Obviously you read the opinion; and, judging your response, my aim was right on target.

    Truth hurts.


    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 3:40 PM
  • Sir, I can say I did not read your ramblings as, in the past they were too long winded and "POMPOUS".

    As a Registered Republican with leanings towards the Tea Party; I find your writings to say the least,"boring!!!!" In the future you should use the K.I.S.S. principle, it served me well in the military. You lose the audience after your first paragraph, keep it short and sweet. Get to your point and then leave it as such!

    As for your affiliation I am sad that you are still with them as you represent all that is wrong with them!

    -- Posted by DocBonesaw on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 4:02 PM
  • *

    The K.I.S.S. principle is applicable to engineering; not so for politics. However, since you did not read the letter, then how do you judge its content (boring or otherwise) and whether I made my "point"? Your remarks are insincere at best. To be blunt, sir, your tone suggest that you are a supporter of Mr. Obama. How is that for keeping it simple?

    Perhaps a short attention span was sufficient for your military service, but on most subjects the details matter. Unfortunately, short attention spans and the yearning for "simplistic solutions" is how Barack Obama got elected.

    I doubt the sincerity of your claimed GOP affiliation, as you seem more the typical reactionary liberal, driven by emotion, rather than a thinking Republican compelled by right reason and principle. Therefore I respond in kind: "I am sad that you are still with them as you represent all that is wrong with them!"

    Your hostility towards the TEA Party is a blanket condemnation of the movement. According to you, I "represent ALL that is wrong with them." Thus, by your measure, the majority of their members must have much wrong with them. So what specifically would you change? (This should be revealing).

    Some people just cannot handle the truth.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 7:13 PM
  • *


    "As a Registered Republican with leanings towards the Tea Party ... As for your affiliation I am sad that you are still with them as you represent all that is wrong with them!" -- Posted by DocBonesaw on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 4:02 PM

    See any contradiction there, folks?

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 7:24 PM
  • Sir, I listen to most in Tea Party and put them on even footing with the other parties. I don't vote the party line, as most politicians in either party can't find their backside with both hands.

    You sir take things to the extreme and are drive people away. If you were less wordy and used language that wasn't con descending to the reader; it would help your cause. As you are the most vocal in this area for the Tea Party people have come to think you and your ideas represent the entire party. I am glad to say most of the Tea Party members I know are level headed, up-standing, solid people. I don't claim to know you but, from you posting you seem out of you ever-living gourd!(Had to think about how do I put this and be PC for the paper) Ask people, most will agree with me. This in turn shuts people down as far as even giving you a chance! There is nothing wrong with being passionate about a cause, just remember you are judged by your words.

    "It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"-Author Unknown

    -- Posted by DocBonesaw on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 8:13 PM
  • Sir, I have no hostility towards the Tea Party, I judge them the same as I judge Democrats and Republicans. All of them have oddballs and crazies affiliated with them. The problem with the Tea Party is theirs are the ones always in the news ranting and raving!!!!

    -- Posted by DocBonesaw on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 8:32 PM
  • *

    Actually - I thought Bruce said it pretty well. And I do occasion a tea party whenever my five year old daughter tenders the request.

    "A fool and his money are soon partied."

    -- Posted by Mickel on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 8:33 PM
  • *

    "The problem with the Tea Party is theirs are the ones always in the news ranting and raving!!!!"

    Seriously Doc? "Always" as in the last two to three years since the tea parties have sprung up?

    One problem with liberals is that they have a problem separating emotion from their use of absolutes.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 8:35 PM
  • Mickel, I was stationed overseas last year and that is all you ever saw. I knew military folks that were in the Tea Party early on and even they scratched their heads at how the fringe element got on the air so much. I guess the mainstream media just looked for them.

    Nice one on the requests from the daughter by the way, I liked it!

    Mickel, what I am getting at is Bruce's language in the editorials is very eloquent but, it loses people after about the first sentence. Maybe a simpler streamlined piece would sit better. It can still have the punch and not waste so much breath or time to get to the point!!!

    -- Posted by DocBonesaw on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 9:21 PM
  • *


    Sir, you appear of double mind. To myself, you claim I use "condescending language towards the readers." Immediately thereafter to another poster you state my prose is "eloquent." Please excuse my confusion of your motive in this "debate," albeit, I have yet to read from you any argument of substance!

    Their are topics that deserve and require thoroughness, particularly when the object is to draw a serious comparison about the behavior of one who holds high office. You will admit that their are topics that may be addressed in a succinct manner. The arena of military operations may, at divers times, follow this mode; but political debate is usually accomplished in the realm of the details. Generalities in this arena typically heralds trouble for individual liberty. Regardless of the context, individual character is of paramount in both the military and political arenas. This consideration is the focus of my letter to the editor: 'Barrack Bows to Boehner' The title is a condensed version of the chatter within media circles, and there is an irony to the their suggestion. If you would bother to read my piece, you would understand the premise.

    Perhaps if you state the exact terms with which you dispute my opinion, rather than hurling absurdities and insults, then we may have an intelligent conversation. However, presently, you give no argument for your position, but only resort to that which Herman Cain has expressed as S.I.N. :

    Shift the subject

    Ignore the facts

    Name call.

    You have admitted to not reading the letter. Yet you berate without presenting evidence. An anecdotal rebuke would be thus: how are you different from those in Congress who pass legislation, without ever reading the Bill?

    Again, I protest that your condemnation of my writing is without substance! Your chief complaint is that my opinions are too long for the average reader's attention span. That is presumptuous on your part. If such be your claim, then who is truly the condescending one amongst we two? I presume upon the intelligence of the readers, while you assume their ignorance and sloth!

    You state: "Ask people, most will agree with me." Again, you presume upon others in a way that suggest the projection of YOUR opinions upon them. If I am guilty of being "out of my gourd," then by what measure should others judge you, considering you give no facts for thoughtful consideration?

    You further state: "This in turn shuts people down as far as even giving you a chance!" I reply that it is YOU who are obstinate in this opinion. Please do not project on others.

    And again: "There is nothing wrong with being passionate about a cause, just remember you are judged by your words." Yes, true... and YOU would do well to consider the same advice.

    Your last thought: "It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

    My reply in kind: "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." -- Plato

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 10:56 PM
  • Sir, Take my advice or don't I give not a farthing!!! Once again I don't know you, I just know of you from seeing your opinion in the paper and talking with several people. I have taken too much of my time already with this. Sir obviously you have a lot of time on your hands and this is your outlet. Good luck. Goodnight, Gentlemen.

    -- Posted by DocBonesaw on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 11:41 PM
  • All that you need do to gain respect, is come across with just one substantial idea to make this a better place to live. Place all of energy that goes into making certain that we all understand that you are quite intelligent, and can't stand the status quo, into one concrete idea. Help Michele get that gas price down. Go Bruce Go. Just as Michele's husband's patients say to him, you da man Bruce.Or is that his line?

    -- Posted by hulapopper on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 6:31 AM
  • I remember when Bush said "I am the decider". Talk about an ego, i dont recall anything said about that by bruce. Or when he payed golf. Its only a problem now that a democrat is in office. Have no fear bruce, some day a republican will win and you can fade back into obscurity.

    -- Posted by president obama on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 7:18 AM
  • I can see both sides of what Doc and Bruce are saying above. bigdawg, once again, you make no point, just fall into the quote from Plato.

    Bruce, I like the way you write. I am glad that someone can form a syntactically and orthographically correct sentence around here.

    Based on what DocBonesaw said though, unfortunately you have to speak to the dumbmasses and must limit yourself to words that most can understand. I would be curious to see the size of the average lexicon over the past 5 decades and see if it has decreased in size or just shifted to slang terms like "gianormous" and "lol".

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 8:19 AM
  • *

    Not having had the vantage point of viewing news while being overseas...all I can say is that I have definitely not witnessed what you claim over in the U.S., personally.

    I've seen some news reports that try to paint the Tea Party members in a bad light....yet somehow I stay objective while viewing mainstream media..

    -- Posted by Mickel on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 12:51 PM
  • the point is that bruce is a hypocrite. I dont remember him ever speaking out when a republican was in office. You dont have to respect them man but he **** well better respect the office.

    -- Posted by president obama on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 8:38 PM
  • Seriously bigdawg, do you even know what a hypocrite is. To be a hypocrite, Bruce would have to advocate lower taxes and small government while collecting a government subsidy. Not speaking out in the past while speaking out now does not make one a hypocrite.

    In fact, the way Bruce manhandled you in the past, I'm surprised you even respond.

    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 9:53 PM
  • I know what a question mark is. Bruce yells at the top of a mountain about how horrible this president, and democrats in general are but for some reason republicans and tea party representatives get a pass. Why is that? Is that not being a hypocrite?

    -- Posted by president obama on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 7:40 AM
  • No, bigdawg, its not...see CPB's post aimed specifically at you. If, when you go back and read it, you still don't understand, read it again. If you are on an old Macintosh computer, they had a "speech" function which you could utilize if reading comprehension is not working for you. You could listen and read at the same time. If in the event you still fail to understand what makes a hypocrite, then I am sure someone on this site will provide you with written examples to illustrate.

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 7:49 AM
  • bruce pretends to have beliefs, opinions, virtuers, ideals, thoughgts feelings, qualities, or standards that he does not actually have because if he had them as he professes to have them then he would not whine and complain about 1 group of people and not another although they are doing the same thing. If he really believes what he says on here I would expect at the very least an objection to more then just democrats.

    Im not talking about speaking out in the past, I would love to hear him speak out now about someone without a (D) behind their name. So, his beliefs are in doubt as far as im concerned and that makes him what he is.

    speakez, if you still dont understand it read it again. If you are on an old macintosh computer, they had a "speech" function which you could utilize if reading comprehension is not working for you. You could listen and read at the same time. In the event you still fail to understand what makes a hypocrite, then I am sure someone on this site will provide you with written examples to illustrate.

    that makes him a hypocrite

    -- Posted by president obama on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 12:07 PM
  • I find it funny how the spelling and punctuation became correct when you copy/pasted!

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 1:21 PM
  • and now you comment on my spelling and punctuation? good job

    -- Posted by president obama on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 5:07 PM
  • bigdawg,

    It is because at this time in history, the democrat party fully represents socialistic mentality. It is raiding the wealth of those who truly drive this economy, business. Those of us who participate in this venture call it capital. There were Republicans who also succumbed to this style of thought, but thanks to the TEA Party, they are largely gone now.

    Supporting those who represent the small government approach, who also happen to mostly be Republicans, is not hypocrisy.

    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 5:33 PM
  • and at this time in history, the republican party fully represents a plutocracy. and to be honest, that is what we have now.

    Business is driving the economy in china where they can pay some 12 year old a buck an hour to make my shoes. Or vietnam where they can pay some 10 year old 50 cents a day and no bathroom breaks to make a ball cap i like. the funny thing about you is the fact that you have bought into the "lets give the rich a tax break because they need it" mantra. Unless you are making several million a year why would you like your tax burden to increase or remain the same and let the people who can most afford a tax increase off the hook? Did you ever think that if the government gave a tax break to you perhaps you would have enough money to do a start up business and strive to get into a higher tax bracket?

    and since when are we talking about capital or socialism, i thought I was stupid for calling bruce a hyprocrite and now I get an english lesson and you do a 180 and change the subject

    Are you really that ignorant to think things will change with the person we elect as president?

    -- Posted by president obama on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 9:25 PM
  • The wealthiest members of congress are democrats. So goes your argument.

    If you shop around, you can find plenty of products with the "Made in the USA" label. As my boots wears this label. But that takes effort on your part.

    Since you are trying desperately to discuss taxes, why should a very tiny minority pay all the federal income taxes? Shouldn't the load be spread out a little more? How about if everybody pays a smaller percentage of their incomes into federal income taxes?

    I do own my own business, not for the goal of putting myself into a higher federal income tax bracket, but to support myself and family. And do it on my terms.

    Capitalism/socialism? It is the very basis on every political discussion. How can you possibly not see that? The private sector, business, thrives in a capitalistic economy. The public sector, government, that need socialism to do it's job, infrastructure, defense, justice. Right now, the public sector is stripping down the private sector, for no other reason but to enrich itself.

    The person we elect as president will not change the lives, and freedoms of Americans, but also the people we elect as our representatives will. Not understanding all this, is the mark of the ignorant.

    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 10:09 PM
  • *

    Interesting reading. Now I have a few responses:

    I shall first address a poltroon -- he who hurls insults without having the integrity to use his real name ...

    "Doc Bonesaw" -- Sir, you may not appreciate the content, style or "length" of my opinions; but, unlike yourself, I at least take responsibility for them, rather than hide behind an anonymous pen-name from which to hurl insults.

    True, you do not know me -- and, considering your attitude, I am grateful for that little mercy. Yet you obviously have "much time on your hands" to war against me -- for it was you who began this contentious battle with a barrage of insults. All the more your time must be, for you even beg others' opinion of my works! (I do apologize that I trouble you to that extent!)

    Further, sir, you possess the "time" to cross swords on this forum, and yet do so without contradicting a single sentence of that which I have written! Your strategy is amazing!

    I take note that opinions, published in the printed version of the Gazette, go long and short; yet most rebuttals properly address the topic -- not the author. However, your responses were critical of my person, and not one "farthing" of energy did you expend to refute that which I stated in the article! That speaks volumes about your motives -- and your character.

    This is an open forum -- and one upon which I rarely take the "time" to engage. However, when I do so, my remarks address the issues of the day. However, most of the responses I read here are, in my opinion, the shallow diatribe of a small clique of yapping liberal robots, their first impulse being to attack the person -- and scarcely, if ever, an honest rebuttal of the argument. Apparently, the best those within this cadre of critics are able to muster is a rebuke for any person having the "temerity" to express a bold opinion contrary to whatever politically correct BS is in fashion. So go your way, sir. I gave you opportunity to make honest criticism, but you chose rather the path of least resistance.

    Now, to the "Big Dawg" who can do no better than incessantly yap, and who, lacking any credible and coherent argument, must take his opportunities for inconsequential nips about the edges of his opponent's substance ...

    As does a pesky little dog demand attention, Dawg mimics the behavior; and for reason he has not the capacity to "take down big game."

    If you only had a clue, old boy! Being a "Yankee" from Massachusetts, I have many notches on my gun from doing battle with RINOs in the liberal infested GOP establishment there.

    Hypocrite? Hardly, Charles. Had I lived in Red Willow rather than Hitchcock County, you would know exactly that I defend principles when the establishment GOP plays its money games at those nefarious City Council meetings in McCook.

    Moreover, Dawg, Republican Senator Mike Johanns and Republican Representative Adrian Smith have each gotten their share of "butt chewing" from me on a variety of subjects. They will confirm this -- but perhaps you would rather that I publish those "long" letters, out of date as they are, and then we may all watch Doc Bonesaw's virtual head explode?

    I must also presume that you "missed" my opinion piece written against U.S. Senatorial candidate, Republican Jon Bruning? The Gazette published that piece "the Old Gray Nag" a couple of months back, but perhaps you were having cataract surgery at the time? The Editor demanded I shorten the piece to 300 words! I managed 350 (I will bet even old "Doc Bonesaw" will smile a little -- then again, I doubt the curmudgeon ever smiles.)

    Dawg, I should show you my collection of political cartoons, created while Republican George H. Bush was president ... I did not care for his policies "one farthing" (Sorry about that Doc, but I could not resist.)

    Concerning Massachusetts -- a state where the GOP and the DNC are two sides of the same coin -- there was hardly a principle not compromised beyond recognition; for each "party" took its liberties to rape the subject as often as possible. If on this forum you find little challenge, then perhaps political brinksmanship in the Bay State is more to your persuasion? I would surrender a week's pay to watch you attempt to navigate that arena, Dawg! They would have you "house trained" in no time.

    Now, sit, Dawg -- My "political life" has for many years existed beneath the marquee of "undeclared" -- and only recently did I join the Republican Party. However, baptism into the political waters began with my support of Jimmy Carter! Of course, I was a lad of 16 years at the time. I repented of my sin, and voted for Reagan -- both times. You see, Dawg, even at 18, I understood that political carelessness is unbecoming for an adult; because votes have consequences -- and particularly for a man's income, property. and life.

    However, while Carter was inept, he was not a flaming Marxist -- as is Barrack H. Obama. You see, Charles, that is the "big **** elephant in the room" that you, and far too many of your persuasion, are too ideologically obstinate to admit. The man has the temperament of a dictator -- And THAT is the point of my article -- a point which, in my judgment, you and Bonesaw purposely ignore. Neither of you have any arguments to refute the facts, so you both resort to the tactics of S.I.N.:

    Shift the subject

    Ignore the facts, and

    Name call

    It matters not a wit, Dawg, what Obama's party affiliation may be -- I could not care less. However, it does matter that he seeks to "fundamentally transform America" into a banana republic dictatorship! It does matter that he works to cripple our economy. It does matter that he purposes to destroy those who are productive for the benefit of those who are slothful. It does matter that he plots to pit us against each other. It does matter that he chooses to condemn our posterity to a life of serfdom and submission to government.

    I do not play partisan favorites, Dawg. I am conservative first. Political parties mean squat to me ... That is the driving force behind the TEA Party movement -- We fight to restore this Republic, not to permanently ensconce a party. In fact, I support term limits. My principles are not for sale to any person or party; but I do understand that projection is the common trait of those who hold no principles worth defending.

    One final comment ... I have only lived in Nebraska since July of 2005. I am just getting my "political bearings" here. Stay tuned -- 'cause you have not seen anything yet!

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 2:32 AM
  • *

    To Speak-e-z:

    My lexicon, is, unfortunately for me, a gift of the "old school that struggles to survive in the "modern" era of instant everything.

    When phonics and Latin were both required labors of the student When knowledge of classic literature was something envied. When coming to class without a dictionary and thesaurus in your book bag was considered a "mortal sin." When the art of penmanship was a skill that each student aspired to perfect -- and mainly so to impress the ladies.

    I cannot be that which I am not. I have always written -- it is one of my few passions in life, alongside playing guitar, painting, and drawing.

    I understood Doc's point of brevity, particularly in consideration of today's readers. That was never the problem.

    I am not ignorant of the fact that there now exist a wide chasm in skills -- which may be a culture-wide phenomenon the result of a purposeful "dumbing down" within our education institutions, or a geographical peculiarity. To the issue being geographical, a friend has stated as much, and recommended that I write "as though conversing with idiots." However, I find it difficult to sell people that short on ability and attention span.

    True as the account may be, in this case the argument is made superficial because; for, whatever good he could have contributed, Doc chose to bury the essential beneath a mound of unnecessary and unwarranted personal attacks, wholly undeserved. In so doing, he brought into question his sincerity, and more revealed contradictions in his motive for raising the issue.

    After so many years writing, if there is one thing to which I excel, it is the ability to "read between the lines" -- and Doc had much more to say there than whatever salient point he thought worthy to convey.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 3:16 AM
  • bigdawg, once again, I assume you'll respond by saying that you started yawning after reading the first few sentences. One way or another, it appears that you were unequivocally proven wrong in your assertions. Yes, in this instance I am going to make fun of your spelling and grammar because you tried to use what I said against me, and it stood out against what you'd typed on your own. I will say this for you: you seem like you have legitimate ideas in your head, and I can respect that. The problem, is that you have no real reason for having them there and no way to be taken seriously with your lack of ability to communicate them.

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 8:03 AM
  • *

    bigdawg - could you name for me 3 Tea Party representatives who have been integral in forming policy on either: A)The economy B)Job growth C)Foreign Policy D)A spending bill of any kind.


    (or could you give me just ONE name?)

    -- Posted by Mickel on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 10:53 AM
  • *

    "Are you really that ignorant to think things will change with the person we elect as president?"

    Wasn't that the mantra of the Obama campaign? Hope and change? Were YOU ignorant enough to vote for the most incompetent candidate?

    Funny how Obama stole a slogan from Bob the Builder, a preschool cartoon..."Yes, We Can!!"

    -- Posted by Mickel on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 10:55 AM
  • Following the footsteps of William Jennings Bryan "Orator of the Platte" we now seem to have the "Windbag of the Republican" in our midst. Our new found savior professes the following:

    - Smarter and more literate than all of us;

    - Willing to exercise this intellegence to the point of reader boredum or surrender;

    - An omnipotent vision that others seemingly do not have the ability to comprehend;

    - The profound statement that he is just starting to speak his peace.

    Hopefully, someone can expose the shortcomings of this self proclaimed prophet as Clarence Darrow did to William Jennings Bryan during the Scopes trial.

    -- Posted by BuffRoam on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 11:03 AM
  • BuffRoam, was your spelling of "boredum" and "intellegence" purposeful? Moreover, was your usage of "peace" purposeful since it is a homonym?

    I would think that your statement won't hold much water as you are putting words in someone's mouth.

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 2:49 PM
  • *


    Well, Buffy, dear, I never declared myself smarter than any here -- even you. In point of fact, and quite the contrary of your assertion, I defended the intelligence of the reader from the individual who first suggested that broad ignorance is the norm in these parts. However, as far as literacy? I shall let the posted replies stand as evidence without any need for further comment.

    Savior? Hardly. Nothing I could write would ever approach such heights -- and I seriously do doubt, Buff, that anyone could "save" you from the consequences of your spiteful tongue.

    Now, Buff, if you are "bored," or otherwise feel the urge to "surrender" to my "vast intellect" ... Well, then by all means, my dear, please ignore my rants. I promise you I shall not be offended -- and a few readers here would likely appreciate your absence.

    So, dear -- do tell ... exactly, where did I offer my "omnipotent vision" of anything? (I believe, you mistake omnipotent - all powerful, for omniscient - all knowing, since you are speaking of vision; but I shall use your word.) I have never made any claim beyond what I admit to being my own "opinion." Buffy, you are free to accept, reject, rebut, or ignore any opinion I offer ... but please know I hardly care which course you choose.

    However, I am not one to suffer fools, nor take insult quietly. It is you -- and your cadre of elitist, cocktail party sycophants -- who make such audacious claims of an "omnipotent vision" for the rest of us. There goes that "projection" thing again!

    Funny too, that your ilk consistently demonstrate a terrible difficulty in directly addressing the salient points of an argument; and yet have no problem whatsoever in expressing a capacity for ad hominem attacks. I believe this fault must be a genetic flaw ... Please excuse me for a moment ... I must channel Charles Darwin and Clarence Darrow for their profound answer. Wow! That is funny! CD x CD ... That is CD squared! Imagine that! But I digress ...

    The only thing "profound," my dear Buffy, is that you cite Clarence Darrow in a way that suggests he is the role model you hope for others to imitate. I reply: Take a good look around at the society we have become. The decline of Western civilization in the wake of the Scopes Trial speaks volumes of the "omnipotent vision" of your "prophet" -- Clarence Darrow.

    I pray the tragic philosophy advanced by this great agnostic champion of humanism (or rather that should be "simian-ism" -- as in "the law of the jungle," which seems counter-intuitive to the ideals I suspect you follow) is not that which you would champion as your "supreme vision" for humanity. This man, Darrow, whose "lifelong contention that psychological, physical, and environmental influences -- not a conscious choice between right and wrong -- control human behavior" is not someone to be proud of. Unless you are a follower of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche! Is this the "brave new world" you would have us aspire to, Buffy? If so, then I submit that the readers should more fear your agenda than anything I may ever opine.

    Please, Buff, do not share that vast intellect of yours any further. For while I am neither "omnipotent" nor "omniscient," yet I do see fairly well the future to which you would have us all condemned -- and it is a damned ugly one, sister.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 4:03 PM
  • I am unsure what the Obama's golfing trip during his vacation has to do with anything. Are they worried he is taking to many days off although it is far less than his predecessor?

    As far as the rest, I've not read anywhere of these implied "demands" made by Obama to speak on the 7th, but rather a request made which was denied by Boehner due to other televised events such as the Republican debate and the NFL season opener. Thus, Obama agreed to speak on the 8th.

    Problem solved.

    If the Tea Party and its members are this worried about golfing excursions and speech dates, it would appear we have bigger problems on our hands than Obama.

    -- Posted by bberry on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 4:48 PM
  • This meant to read;

    Thus, Obama agreed to speak on the 8th prior to the game.

    -- Posted by bberry on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 9:40 PM
  • *

    "Far less than his predecessor?" Er, uh -- no.

    Golfing with Obama:

    October 27, 2009

    Obama swings it to play even more golf than Bush (and all in less than a year in office)


    April 19, 2010

    President Barack Obama has played golf 32 times since he took office, eight more than his predecessor George W. Bush - who was mocked by the Left for his fondness for the game - did in his entire presidency.


    April 20, 2010

    President Obama plays more than Bush


    April 24, 2010

    Barack Obama Golf Trips ALREADY Outnumber Bush's


    Speech vs Debate:

    The point was not about Obama playing golf, per se, but the timing of his vacation (August 17 - 27) in proximity to his August 31st "request" to be invited to speak before a joint session of Congress.

    This speech was sufficiently "urgent" to "request" a joint session before Congress. Yet Mr. Obama had the time to vacation on Martha's Vineyard, without giving consideration to the basic decorum that the office requires -- and which, had he processed the "request" correctly, would have made this episode a non-issue.

    He could have begun the process prior to taking his vacation, and QUIETLY worked out the details with Speaker Boehner, so to resolve any "kinks" in the scheduling. Instead, Mr. Obama chose to make a public spectacle of the affair. It was purely political on his part. A desperate stunt, made by a desperate man, who knows he is plunging in popularity.

    Was Mr. Obama so self-absorbed that he forgot about a Republican presidential debate that was to be hosted at the Reagan Library, and moderated by a major television network (NBC) and the online news website, Politico? I suppose his aids all had amnesia too.

    No. We are discussing Barack Obama -- Mr. "micromanage every detail." He did not forget the date and time of this long-scheduled GOP debate -- and the "conflict" was not "coincidental." This was a calculated political hit job, intended to upstage the Republicans ... and it backfired badly on Mr. Obama.

    He came out with a press announcement, without so much as a phone call to Congress. Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters there were many scheduling "considerations," and then suggested the president has no interest in detracting from the debate viewership. Carney said the administration would "welcome" a decision by debate hosts to "adjust the timing of their debate so that it didn't conflict."

    Got that? Mr. Obama presumed that the "hosts" of the debate (NBC and Politico) would decide for the Republican candidates what the "revised" timing would be for their debate! Now if that is not hubris, then I do not know what is!

    He presumed upon the Congress in a way that attempted to upstage the Republican presidential debate with a purported major address.

    Republicans asked that the speech be postponed until the 8th. Late on Wednesday, Obama grudgingly agreed to change the day -- running it up against the Thursday night NFL opening game!

    And what was this oh-so-urgent speech? Another federal crap sandwich: PASS MY JOBS BILL, NOW! Well, surprise! Their is no "bill" -- and their is no money! I guess they will need to raise the debt ceiling again.

    A real class act, that Barack.

    As I stated previous, Barack Obama's attitude smacks of a narcissistic pest, who always demands -- even when they call such action a "request" -- his way or the highway ... President "Pass my bill now!" Yes, the stock market really loved Obama's "jobs" speech ... SPIN, CRASH and BURN! ... AGAIN

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Sat, Sep 10, 2011, at 2:18 AM
  • I was referring to days off/vacation, not a comparison of golf. But thanks for making my point.

    You can find the information about Bush here:


    I find myself less inclined to worry about Obama's 7 day family vacation when Congress didn't reconvene until September 7th after a month break anyways.

    The request was made and boiled down to a he said she said spat between White House and Boehner aides. I imagine you can pick who you want to believe.




    Aside from this, Obama wanted to deliver his speech as he promised since he told them he would have his plan mapped out by Labor Day which left 7th, 8th, or 9th after they returned.

    The 7th conflicted with some judiciary measures at 6:30 according to Boehner, although he really never cited the Republican debate as a conflict.

    The 8th was also in conflict with the NFL season opener.

    The 9th was a Friday reserved for "document dumping" which is rarely used, generally only in emergencies.

    In the end, it was nothing more than a mere quibble in which Obama conceded and spoke on the 8th.

    However, I am curious which part bothers you the most. Is it how they planned it, when they planned it, or both?

    -- Posted by bberry on Sat, Sep 10, 2011, at 7:27 AM
  • *

    Interesting link bberry ( the first one in your latest post to be specific ) While perusing the information, I found this to be worthy of note:

    *Number Of Visits To Camp David: 149, totaling all or part of 487 days.

    *Number Of Foreign Leader Visits To Camp David: 19, including 3 by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and 2 by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan of Abu Dhabi, UAE.

    *Number Of Visits To His Texas Ranch: 77, totaling all or part of 490 days.

    *Number Of Foreign Leader Visits To His Texas Ranch: 20, including 2 by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (Crown Prince at the time) and 2 by President Vicente Fox of Mexico.

    So if President Bush had 19 separate dignitaries accompany him to Camp David; obviously that would be considered as working. Also having had some 20 dignitaries to his Texas ranch, that would also classify as work. Unless you don't consider taking your work home with you real work.

    Hence that leaves 130 partial or full visits to Camp David (which is really far away from Washington, I think they just use the chopper?) that could be considered "personal". Now consider how many of those visits would have been weekends or leaving on a Friday and coming back for Monday morning?

    Same could be said about the Texas ranch visits. With 77 visits, 57 of those that could actually be considered "personal" visits, out of an eight year span; that's less than 8 visits a year for every year he was president, to his very own home! Ooooo - very convicting.

    How many of those visits that were not with Official Heads of State may have been with captains of industry? How many visits were actually business vs. personal?

    Did Laura Bush need to take a separate jet everywhere she went, also?

    -- Posted by Mickel on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 12:47 PM
  • Franky Mickel, I find either Presidents time off trivial. However, despite however you figure or guess how much Bush spent working or not, it leaves him an average of 122 days away a year but yet one is willing to fault Obama for 7? Although, I think the yearly total for this year was 22 days? I've been wrong before though.

    I guess one could speculate about it but to me it seems like a waste of time.

    Have a good one.

    -- Posted by bberry on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 8:29 PM
  • he has people visit him on vacation.

    -- Posted by president obama on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 7:17 AM
  • *

    A waste of time? Is that what you call your previous post, your response to me and the research to come up with four corroborating links?

    Here's a link:


    According to the link, as of August 23, the President has busied himself with 79 rounds of golf; 23 this year. You're complaining about the activities of a President over an eight year span, whilst the Big BO has squandered trillions of dollars, millions of Americans jobs and countless resources in less than three full years. Oh, and he definitely has no shortage of time on the links.

    I'm willing to concede that there are points of criticism that can be made toward any President. I'm also saying it's prudent to be equitable.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 7:40 PM
  • yeah, but who was he golfing with. business is often done on the links. If you are going to use people who visited bush on vacation to make it sound like he was working we should do the same for obama. Our former president squandered trillions

    -- Posted by president obama on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 10:17 PM
  • Mickel, are you really this worried about how much Obama has golfed?

    And my posts, much like the letter to the editor, are probably a waste of time.

    -- Posted by bberry on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 11:20 AM
  • *

    bberry - you were the one who posted the link concerning the breakdown of President Bush's activities during his 2 terms of office. I was merely making an observation about the time spent at Camp David and his personal ranch not being purely free time.

    Surely Obama has had some working vacations as well - I'm trying to point out some elements of hypocrisy on his behalf - telling private citizens to tighten the belt while he and his wife take ample lavish vacations and take separate jets to boot.

    It seems you and bigdawg are willing to give the current White House resident a pass, while still pointing backwards trying to lay blame for current problems.

    Pathetic and cowardly. Hope that's not too strong for you; but if you cannot see the freshly brewed problems in front of us, then there is no more point in having a discussion.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Sat, Sep 17, 2011, at 1:56 PM
  • Mickel, the only assertion I've made was that President Obama has taken far less time off than President Bush. This was followed by the link that was given with his numbers. If I were being impartial as you claim, I would have simply posted link giving the total amount of days away without ever giving the rest of the information so people such as yourself would not claim some sort of bias. But you did anyways, and yet you were able to derive an opinion from the same article provided. You see Mickel, this was simply a comparison to establish hipocrisy.

    You then provided a link giving the total of 79 rounds played of golf, yet one could turn around and say Bush attended 98 sporting events along with the 24 rounds of golf in his 8 year tenure. (which was also included in the link I provided, yet you failed to provide this number along with the 79 rounds link) Is this really important? Not in my opinion.

    As far as the first lady taking a seperate jet, both Michelle and Laura took advantage of using a jet for themselves, yet to fit your argument we will just point out Michelle's ok?

    So I guess Mickel, that if you find the link of Bushs numbers as president to be pathetic, inequitable, or cowardly, one could suggest that you should reevaluate your position on such things.

    -- Posted by bberry on Sun, Sep 18, 2011, at 1:38 PM
  • Here Mickel, would be an example of a corroborating link.


    Or maybe this:


    Or this:


    However Mickel, I understand your points in which some I agree with. For example the cost of the jet:


    And here Michelle goes taking the spare jet. I don't disagree with you there but I think we are aiming to make the same point. There are far more important issues to be worried about.

    -- Posted by bberry on Sun, Sep 18, 2011, at 2:13 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: