Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the editor:
Glad Obama came for Reid fundraiser
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 | 2:04 a.m.
Glen J. Gillette, in his Tuesday letter to the editor in the Las Vegas Sun, commented that he did not think our president should have visited Las Vegas on the “taxpayers’ dime.” I am a taxpayer and I am so glad that President Barack Obama spent his time to come to help a fellow Democrat with his campaign.
President George W. Bush took many trips that cost us taxpayers thousands of dollars. When a president is traveling to help our nation and representing our country, the money should not matter.
At least this president is working hard and letting the country know every day what is going on — no secrets as in the previous administration.
I’m proud to live in this country and in Las Vegas and am happy that our president took time to come here, even if some of my tax money sponsored his visit.
Discussion: 59 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Tiger Woods allegedly linked to LV nightclub exec
- 6 charged in Metro officer’s death appear in NLV court
- Reports: Mayweather Jr. has agreed to fight Pacquiao
- UNLV’s poise to be tested in first road game of season
- Home prices cut in half in 12 valley ZIP codes over year
- Report: Investors buying up Las Vegas foreclosure homes
- No. 24 UNLV gutsy in 74-72 victory at Arizona
- M Resort notes improved business in recent months
- Vdara exec predicts strong sales
- CityCenter unveils Crystals retail district
Blogs
Elsewhere
UNLV in at No. 11 in SI's college hoops power rankings
Top Chef: Las Vegas
Top Chef Episode 13: A few good chefs
Gray Matter
Fight weekend in Las Vegas and Thanksgiving (1 Comment)
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Consultant who knocked off Tom Daschle would love for Lowden to knock off Reid (9 Comments)
Gibbons: Timeline shows lawmakers (especially Marcus Conklin) at fault in unemployment insurance fiasco
The Kats Report
Noteworthy: More from the Trop, Cher changes, Newton on 'CBS Sunday Morning' (2 Comments)
TUF Heavyweights
Marathon season finale (1 Comment)
Calendar »
- 4 Fri
- 5 Sat
- 6 Sun
- 7 Mon
- 8 Tue
-
Ray Price at Boulder Station
Boulder Station Hotel and Casino | 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
-
Clay Walker at The Golden Nugget
Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino
-
Gloriana at LAX
LAX Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Brooks & Dunn at the Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Bill Engvall at the Treasure Island Theatre
Treasure Island Theatre
-
Ron White performs at the Mirage
Terry Fator Theatre
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Joelene -
Um, you may want to read your letter again, Joelene. If Obama "spent his time to come to help a fellow Democrat with his campaign", then he was not "a president traveling to help our nation and representing our country".
He was practicing partisan politics as usual and serving his party's own interests on the taxpayer's dime.
And "the money should not matter"? What? Just what world do you live in. Take a look around you, ma'am. Right now the money certainly SHOULD matter.
And some people complain because I refer to Obama as the messiah. Is it any wonder???????
Out of respect for my fellow posters who get offended when I refer to Obama as the messiah (even you gmag), I shall cease immediately. I don't have a new fitting nickname picked out just yet, so be patient with me.
I kind of like Obama-Lama-Ding-Dong (it's has a nice beat and it's easy to dance to. I'll give it an 8) but that's a lot of typing. I'll keep trying.
Even the messiah will not be able to raise harry Reid from the political graveyard.
"The Dow was dead but now it livith"
Gordon 6:03
I have to agree with labdaddy , if Obama was here to help Reid with his campaign coffers ,then Reid should pay the costs of Obama's visit.While on that subject if the President wishes to take his wife out on the town he should also pay for all the extras involved(ie :the security involved in keeping him safe)not just the dinner and show . I would have to if I was to take out a woman , not security (nobody wants to kill me)but any transportation costs, etc.
"When a president is traveling to help our nation and representing our country, the money should not matter."
LOL - so that is the purpose of a Harry Reid'em and Weep multi million dollar fund raiser
I have yet to see a good bill passed by the ever inept Harry Reid - and that is good for the nation?
Still LOL
Isn't there something substantive to discuss? The take on this by the right wing is small minded and petty. But that will never stop labdaddy...
Oh, mschaffer,
It's much too early in the morning for sour grapes. Hamg on to 'em until 2010 and 2012. You'll need them.
And Obama (sorry, still no new nick name) traveling on my dime to campaign for the Dems IS substantive. At least to me. I realize the Democrats are spending money like drunken sailors right now, but it's OUR money.
When Bush messed up, the press and Democrats were all over him. Obama's turn, so left wingers should quit whining.
labdaddy,
Did Bush do any fundraising for the Republicans? Were you complaining then?
Relative to spending and GDP right after WW2 where is Federal spending?
What is Obama thinking? Putting a crook like Reid in such a high status position and hiding it behind a green energy agenda? Not impressed...
mscaffer,
That's what I said in my first post..."He was practicing partisan politics as usual and serving his party's own interests on the taxpayer's dime."
He's no better than Bush! Don't tell me we finally agree on something.
labdaddy,
Jeez you are slow. You didn't answer any of my questions. Were you complaining bout Bush's fund raising trips? If you were not, which is likely given your partisan rants, you are a hypocrite. If you claim you have complained about Bush then present verification so we know you are not lying.
What about my second question regarding spending as a percentage of GDP?
mschaffer - what I objected to in the first place was the letter writer's statement that Obama's fund raising junket was "a president traveling to help our nation and representing our country". I could fertilize a thousand acres with that much crap. Where can I buy some of those leftie rose colored goggles?
p.s. Stop the name calling. You're better than that.
the notion of "well he did it, so its ok for me to do it" is quite childish and makes it no better for you to do it. the fact that you refer to Bush's actions only puts Obama down to "his level". i thought Obama wanted to be "better than that"
Maybe I am not as cynical as you are, but I find that the Democratic party, in general, contains less in the way of sociopaths. The Democratic party policies really do more for the majority of people than the two faced rhetoric of the Republicans. So the letter writer just recognizes the less selfish and narcissistic way Democrats operate. You do not which is too bad for you.
You still have not answered my questions.
Mostly all Presidents travel and hold fundraisers for the members of their parties. Obama is no different, and I don't recall him saying anything on the campaign trail about NOT helping out his colleagues from the Senate.
So your "better than that" expectations are based on what, exactly? The rhetoric from Rush Limbaugh?
Why are these people so naieve to think the President won't be involved in politics?
Whew, somewhere we got off track here. I have no objection to Obama practicing politics as usual. Anyone who thought he was going to be different has my sympathy. What I objected to was the letter writer's statement "a president traveling to help our nation and representing our country".
That's a big bunch of hooey unless he intends on traveling and campaigning for republican candidates as well.
Just goes to show you, you don't need an intelligent thought process to write a letter.
Last time I checked the Republican senator from our state, John Ensign, was at best ignorant and standing in the way of helping people who really need help so why would President Obama be interested in helping Senator Ensign???
Because, as the letter writer states, he is "a president traveling to help our nation and representing our country".
Like I said...Obama is practicing politics as usual. I just don't know why everybody can't see the obvious.
ksand
<<Mostly all Presidents travel and hold fundraisers for the members of their parties. Obama is no different, and I don't recall him saying anything on the campaign trail about NOT helping out his colleagues from the Senate.
So your "better than that" expectations are based on what, exactly? The rhetoric from Rush Limbaugh?>>
i don't care that he came to do a fundraiser, i find that normal with any president, democrat or republican. who cares. my comment was based on prior commentors. i noticed those defending obama against the other commentors always referred to Bush, being that Bush was crap, same old politics, etc etc. obama ran on the platform to be a different kind of president, more transparent, less of the usual, more compromising between party lines, etc. sounds like those supporting Obama view him as the "better" president. but since you guys seem to retort to the "well bush (eevn though in reality, you can insert any president's name here) did it" comments, it just brings Obama down to "Bush's level" (since they tend to hate anything Bush did), rather than being "better than that".
Obama coming to Las Vegas to campaign for Senator Reid is what prersidents do....nothing new there! I saw the same thing time after time with both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush...
If memory serves me correctly, both Clinton and Bush were major fund raisers for their party. A sitting president is not only the leader of the country but the leader of his party as well....that has been true since Thomas Jefferson was president in 1800....
Reid is the majority leader in the U.S. Senate and his reelection next year is important to the Democrats and President Obama's recovery program...Obama campaigning for Reid is simply smart politics....
El Lobo -
Too bad it won't do a damn bit of good. Unless he registers to vote in Nevada.
labdaddy......
Allow me to be the first to pass on this little bit of inside information to you. You can say you heard it here first.....
Harry Reid will be reelected to a fifth term as our senior Senator from Nevada. Have you seen the list of people through out the state who have already endorsed Harry's reelection. The list is almost a complete list of who's who in Nevada....Go to the John Ralston "Flash" article that just came up on the web site....Enjoy!
"Dewey Beats Truman" Don't believe everything you read in the papers, El Lobo.
labdaddy said:
"Dewey Beats Truman" Don't believe everything you read in the papers, El Lobo.
"labdaddy....Its interesting you say that......Look what happened this last election cycle. I was told a million times that McCain would defeat Obama and the GOP would win back control of both houses of Congress. I even read it in a few of the right-wing leaning newspapers around the country.
Guess what? It didn't happen...
I'm happy to see you mention my all-time favorite election....the 1948 presidential race. Believe it or not, I have a reproduced copy of the Chicago Tribune edition coverning the '48 election of that year...
Did you take a gander at the Harry Reid endorsement list? Some of the people on the list haven't voted Democrat since right before the Great Flood.....
"Harry Reid will be reelected to a fifth term as our senior Senator from Nevada. "
You might be right.
He will have a ton of money to win plus Obama will visit the state a lot to help him.
But a recent poll said only 45% of Nevadans would vote for Reid in 2010.
Wow....45% when he is running against NOBODY.
If the election were held today then he might lose if he was just running by himself.
If the Republicans find a somebody then he will probably will have a fight for his win and spend ever bit of that $25 million treasury chest.
Hmmm. 45% of Nevadans say they will vote to reelect Harry Reid, according to jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err, Jim F. Nance, Jr.
jfNance32 thinks that's bad.
He must be absolutely terrified that only 11% of Nevadans said they will vote to reelect his hero, Jim Gibbons the liar.
In comparison, Reid's facing a cake walk.
ksand99 again excellent demostration of logic.
Hmmm...if Reid can only get 45% vs. Nobody then he loses the election.
Senator Nobody will be our next senator.
In Ksand99's world, 45% vs. nobody is outstanding.
Also, that poll that I quoted is dated.
I found a new one that is from May of this year.
Now, only 1/3 of Nevada's would vote for Reid and again that is vs. Mr. Nobody.
Probably in Ksand's world that is great news because in his world black is white and white is black.
"ksand99 again excellent demostration (sic) of logic."
jfNance32 again displaying a horrible attempt to spell words correctly.
So you're saying my logic is wrong that, in comparison, 45% of people think they will vote for you is better than 11%?
You realize this implies you think it's BETTER that only 11% will vote to reelect Gibbons than 45% or 33%. You do realize that, at minimum, three times as many Nevadans will vote to reelect Reid as Gibbons. That was my main point, that, in comparison, Reid's numbers are far better than those of your hero, Jim Gibbons.
By stating my logic is wrong, you're implying that 11% is better than 45%. Talk about poor logic!
There's a reason you're nicknamed the "Black Hole of Logic" jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err James F Nance, Jr.
That's ok, I can see you're in denial about your hero, Jim Gibbons, and his poll numbers. You supported Bob Beers and he lost to a political lightweight. You supported John McCain and loved Sarah Palin, who lost to Barack Obama.
Seems like your support is a kiss of death. Hope you won't mind that I'll take the odds against whomever you support! LOL!
And good job debunking yourself. First you say 45% will vote to reelect Reid, now it's 33%? You're even proving yourself wrong, nowadays!
No wonder you had to abandon your screenname!
I think that the major complaint about Obama campaigning in LV, or anywhere for that matter, should be based on the fact that these are EXTRAORDINARY times and should be treated as such. He and his administration should lead example and as such little junkets such as these regardless of the reason should be verboten. It matters little that Bush did it and likely every other president before him. We weren't facing the same issues we have today and weren't in debt up to our eyeballs like we are today. THAT is what should matter. Today. Let the past remain in the past. Move forward people.
indy"thinker", that is some double standard you're flaunting.
What is it with you and the whole double standard issue? Waste is waste and I don't care what party you are. If you think I have any loyalty to the Bush Administration you would be dead wrong. So stop judging me like I am misguided in my concern that this adminstration is showing NO sign of fiscal prudence, and correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see any sign of economic recovery either. Bush, McCain or Obama...300 million Americans and this was the "best" we could do?
And, again, I would point out that times have changed and with most Americans tightening their belts, I think BHO should tighten his and then some...and maybe, just maybe, pay for his own date night. Or, did I miss something on who picked up the tab for that one?
indythinker -
No you got it right. You and I paid for BHO's date night. As did av lot of other poor saps who haven't been able to afford dinner out in a while.
I had been saying "stop campaigning dude, you got the gig!"
Perhaps I should change it to "Stop trying to impress your gal, dude. She's gonna sleep with you tonight!"
Of course it's a double standard, indy "thinker," you're holding President Obama to a standard that no other President has been held to. That's pretty much the dictionary definition of a double standard.
If you're not willing to judge him fairly, that's fine, but don't deny your double standard.
So...let me get this straight...if a person is elected on a platform of "CHANGE," and is held accountable (rightly so) for not making these changes, AND then called out for it...THAT is considered double standard??? I guess what's confusing to me is if it was unacceptable for Bush why is it acceptable for Obama. Where's the "change we can believe in?" Ksand99 you can call it what you want...I call it rationalization at best.
SgtRock said:
"If the Republicans find a somebody then he will probably will have a fight for his win and spend ever bit of that $25 million treasury chest."
That's a "big if...." Who will the GOP find to run against Harry that can actually give Harry a run for his money? I mentioned Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse earlier but I'm not sure they can get away from Disneyland for such an entended period of time...
All joking aside....Harry is a master campaigner. I admit that hearing Harry speak can be compared to watching paint dry but Harry always runs a great campaign, and from the looks of the list of people in the Silver State (many are Republicans...) who have already endorsed Harry, the 45% numbers are good considering that the actual election is approximately 18 months away....
If Harry already has $25 million in his reelection treasury chest, it appears that his opponent will have to rely upon big bucks from out of state in order to match what Harry can spend....Nothing like having outsiders decide who is going to represent us in the Silver State.....
Maybe the GOP will run a ringer in to oppose Harry...the GOP always has their favorite carpetbagger candidate, Alan Keyes, waiting in the wings....He did such a great job in Illinois against Obama when Obama ran for the Senate....
Of course, Keyes may not be available.....its about time for Keyes to announce another run for the presidency. He probably figures that the 4th attempt to win the White House will be the charm....
I must have missed Obama's speech about not helping his political allies get elected. Please, point me to a speech, talking point or website info where Obama said he would never travel or make appearances for other Democrats.
He said nothing of the sort. "Change" did NOT mean that he was going to do the complete opposite of whatever George W. Bush did. If W slept on the right side of the bed, "Change" did NOT mean that Obama would have to sleep on the left side of the bed. Really, what kind of elementary school logic is going on in your head?
"I guess what's confusing to me is if it was unacceptable for Bush why is it acceptable for Obama."
I never called Bush out on his politicking for other Republicans. That would be hypocritical, since every other modern President does the same. See, I was bright enough to understand that, why can't you?
"Times have changed" is the weakest defense of your double standard I've read yet. At least attempt to make a point next time.
Your criticism of Obama for this is convenient, and your unwillingness to criticize any other modern President clearly identifies your double standard.
Exactly what are you looking for here ksand99? The fact is TIMES have changed. For all of us. Is that really a concept too hard to grasp?
No one ever implied that BHO was expected to be 180 degrees opposite of Bush least of all me. However, I would point out though that during his campaign he sort of said he would. Did he specifically say he would not campaign for the Dem's...probably got me there. But, buddy, you have missed the point here. The point is, and "let me be perfectly clear"...if there is no money and we are as a country in debt up the wazoo, you don't get to take trips. PERIOD. We lead by example!!! Isn't that what we teach our children?
"The fact is TIMES have changed. For all of us. Is that really a concept too hard to grasp?"
Yes, times are so DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT then they were in late 2008, when George W. Bush was travelling on fundraising trips. Or his doomed "legacy tour." You were completely silent about that. Sorry, must have missed your savage criticism of him!
What a sorry excuse for your double standard.
"However, I would point out though that during his campaign he sort of said he would. "
Well, that's not the impression that anyone who was actually listening to him would have taken away, but I can't speak for those who listened to what rodeo clown Glenn Beck or loofah-and-falafel-fan Bill O'Reilly TOLD them Obama was saying. Your holding him accountable to a standard he never claimed he would meet. Again, just mere rationalization of your double standard, but whatever helps you sleep at night!
I wonder if we can get Meghan McCain to move to Nevada and be eligble to run against Reid? That would put her in great position for the VP slot in 2020. Problem is, she's only 24, I think. I guess that makes her okay for a House seat, but not the Senate in 2010.
El Lobo is either new to Nevada or has lackluster political knowledge/skills. First of all Harry Reid is not known as a very good campaigner. He has either lost elections or won by very narrow margins against some pretty weak candidates. That's not to say he will run a weak campaign this go around. He will have gobs of money which he can use to try and reshape his image. If anyone decent runs against him he will have an uphill battle. The polls we have seen seem to be pretty consistent with what I hear on the street. There is a strong sense that he is out of touch with Nevada and isn't an agent for change.
Regarding the list of Republicans who are supporting Reid -- it really wasn't very impressive. I counted around 15 heavy hitters on what was a fairly short list. It was hardly a Who's Who list as El Lobo suggests.
It all comes down to the economy and whether a decent candidate runs who has no real skeltons in her or his closet. I will say Reid is good at finding skeltons and exploiting them -- does that make him a "Great Campaigner" -- I would argue not. Is he a worthy adversary -- sure, no doubt.
By bag said:
"El Lobo is either new to Nevada or has lackluster political knowledge/skills. First of all Harry Reid is not known as a very good campaigner. He has either lost elections or won by very narrow margins against some pretty weak candidates."
Sorry "bag"...I've lived in the Silver State for over 30 years. I was around when Harry was the Lt. Governor and later when he was on the State Gaming Board. Harry is running for his 5th term as a senator. Doesn't sound like a guy who can't run a strong campaign....during most of those years Nevada was a"red state" and yet Harry kept winning reelection...
In 2004, Harry received over 60% of the votes cast and again this was in a "red state" that voted for George W. Bush....Again, doesn't sound like a guy who can't campaign...
Maybe it's you who has "lackluster political knowledge..." Not me.....
I got a kick out of you statement that "Harry Reid is not known as a very good campaigner. He has either lost elections or won by very narrow margins against some pretty weak candidates."
You then go on to say "Is he (Harry) a worthy adversary -- sure, no doubt.."
You sound like a Republican running for public office....John McCain comes quickly to mind. You say one thing and then with out missing a beat, say almost the opposite...
Of course, the proof will be in the pudding...I'm sure the GOP will throw many millions into the Senate race but right now they're some $25 million behind.....nothing like having outsiders determine who's going to represent Nevada in the U.S. Senate.....Right?
I again ask....who will the GOP pick as Harry's opponent? The present governor of Nevada...maybe Bob Beers or the present LT. Governor of Nevada....forgive me but I can't immediately come up with his name.....I'm sure he's a political heavy-weight.....
El Lobo - Maybe I'm off base, but I think you'll find that as many people will be voting against Harry Reid as will be voting for his opponent.
If we had not endured 8 years of Bush's failed policies, Barack Hussein Obana would be Barack who???
Careful there Labdaddy...you'll be diggin' a hole to China with me. This guy's moniker is off a letter... it should read El Loco!!!
"Careful there Labdaddy...you'll be diggin' a hole to China with me. This guy's moniker is off a letter... it should read El Loco!!!"
...says the indy"thinking" woman who said that all women are "highly challenged in the objective decision-making department."
Probably shouldn't be throwing stones, Indy.
indythinker.......you should talk a little louder. I can barely hear you from that hole you're in....Everything you say has an echo to it....
labdaddy......I said it before. The proof will be in the pudding. The way things are going, it appears the GOP is going to be forced to draw straws to see who is required to run against Harry....
Maybe Alan Keyes will move to Nevada and come to the rescue of the Republicans. That worked real well when he moved from Maryland to Illinois and ran against Obama....
I'm glad to see you admit that George W. Bush failed as president. Of course, his entire party also failed. That's one reason the Democrats now control not only the White House but both houses of Congress.. Thank you George.....you're a "heck" of a guy!
If the economy gets better and Obama is able to start solving the problems that face us in the Middle East, it will be next to impossible to find a Republican on Capitol Hill.....at least a politican who will admit that he or she is a Republican. I guess the GOP can always go back and start calling themselves Whigs again...
El LOCO...can you hear me now? You should be a little more respectful of other opinions. Since nothing has changed for the better since "you know who" took office a little humility might be order. And, of course when the economy rights itself from this horrible cycle as it inevitably will...he can take all the credit, well, that is if he can pry himself from all his apologizing to the whole world about us horrible Americans. And, wait for it...that includes you!
As for your constant stream of anticonservative comments...those conservative values are what made this country great whether you agree or not. And for the umpteenth time a dissenting opinion is just that. You make every comment a personal war. So I'm guessing either you are seriously bored or just another angry liberal picking a fight because you can't get your point across any other way.
And, now...I'm just going to take my little Suzy homemaker self right back off to kitchen since I'm done digging for the day.
Indythinker.....I'm glad to hear that you have stopped digging for today. I say that because I doubt you are getting union wages.......probably would refuse to accept union wages and benefits if they were offered to you... Right? Those darn old unions...
Actually I'm just having a little fun. As far as having respect for people with different opinions than my own, I gladly welcome such things. That's the fun of the whole thing...
Don't think for a minute, however, that it has been only conservative values that has made this country great. Far from it....
The problem I have with most conservatives (not all but most...) is they think progress is standing still. I like what FDR said about conservatives....he said:
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward."
Also, I don't "make every comment a personal war." Actually, far from it... I just happen to think that far too many conservatives have a fixed mind set that keeps them from moving forward and accepting change.
Life is about change.....life moves on and if you refuse to move along as you go, then sooner or later you're going to get left behind....
That's what has happened with far too many conservatives......they've been left behind...
As an independent with a "conservative" bent... I run...don't walk (literally). I grew up with the Lockheed unions and have no use for unions as result. Having our only family car trashed more than once because my dad was management had to cross picket lines definitely left a bitter taste in my mouth for the whole union/liberal agenda very early on. You ridiculed me about my post on Sotomayor. But, I asked my husband about that and his comment was similar to mine and we never agree about politics! If you don't recognize there's difference between the sexes and take issue with the fact that she's not even in office yet and has made a decision of sorts to be more empathetic...I think there's something wrong there. She does my sex no favors when she "chooses" to be influenced by her limited (in my opinion) life experience. And, if it makes me a "cognitive dissonant" by merely trying to point out a male v. female perspective...then so be it. Frankly, I have no "guilt" about my thoughts on Sotomayor contrary to mshaffer's ridiculous assumption. I obviously didn't get my point across as well as I could have. I still believe women bring much to the table, but the current bunch of women in politics; i.e. Pelosi, Feinstein, Clinton, etc...don't do much to raise my opinion of female Democrat's. But I'm working on it and trying to keep an open mind. As far as Alito and the rest of 'em... I would have said the same thing had I been more involved in politics at the time. Frankly, I was too busy raising my family. But, I am trying to make up for lost time here. LOL.
I have pointed out many times in prior posts, I have no use for the Bush Administration nor the Obama administration. I think politics are not for the faint at heart and it's pretty much every politican for himself and screw Joe Public. I have no problem with any opinion until it gets ugly...which I think it did today and very personal. Either way I listen and read all the different opinions with the hope of gaining a better perspective. And certainly the LV Sun bloggers have a lot of interesting things to say.
And, El Lobo...for the record I own my own successful business and work my tail off... raising a family and keeping life sane in this crazy world. No union. No benefits. No handouts. No paid vacay. Just plain old fashioned work ethic. And...I'm back in college again. So, as you can see, I have no intention of being left behind anytime soon.
Have a good night.
Whoooaaa...dudes; are some of these posts real???
Indythinker said:
"And, El Lobo...for the record I own my own successful business and work my tail off... raising a family and keeping life sane in this crazy world. No union. No benefits. No handouts. No paid vacay. Just plain old fashioned work ethic. And...I'm back in college again. So, as you can see, I have no intention of being left behind anytime soon."
First of all....I don't think the discussion on this board necessarily got ugly or very personal today....A little give and take but far from what I have seen previously.....If one gets their feelings hurt easily then they should probably refrain from participating....just my opinion.
You appear to be more conservative than you claim to be.....You may be more a Libertarian than you realize...I find many people who are actually Libertarians deny that they are....they say they're nothing more than an "independent with a conservative bent..." Sound familiar?
I'm not surprised on your views concerning unions. What most people don't know about unions and the impact that unions have had on the building of the middle class in this country is huge....I grew up in coal mining country and I saw first hand how important unions were in protecting workers jobs and making sure they received a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. John L. Lewis is one of my all time heroes....
With out labor unions and leaders such as John L. Lewis, the middle class as we know it today wouldn't exist. Of course, today's middle class is under seize. The future of our democratic-republic depends upon the continued existence of our middle class. No middle class....no democracy!
El Lobo - And I thought I was done on this subject, but...
6 posts up you scared the crap out of me. It sounds like you're joyous over your predicted demise of a two party system
And Obama supporters aren't fans of Socialism?????????????????
I'm not against the demise of the two party system. Far from it... I just happen to believe that the present day GOP is lost in the political wilderness.....
They have NO real leadership and have become the party of "NO." They have no real concise plan for the country other than to say "no" to what ever the Democrats suggest. They remind me of the Republican Party at the time of the Great Depression.
I'm not joyous over what may be coming...the demise of the two party system. I just happen to believe that the present GOP needs to rework itself as a party or it faces its political death.
I'm not a believer in socialism but I happen to look at the role of government a great deal differently that you may look upon the role of government...I don't believe Obama supporters are fans of socialism...far from it!
The Obama visit was a big success and Harry Reid will be elected again, the local crackpot talk shows have ginned-up alot of anti-Harry people, but they are few in number..
.I wish the Sun would restrict comments of one comment per article or opinion piece...take your back and forth to twitter or some blog...
since talk radio restricts liberal shows and callers, you ditto-heads are lucky the Sun is so open-minded and progressive that they let you vent your views on their website.
mred - well thanks for wanting to tread all over our first ammendment rights...and what the Sun is doing is often referred to as Freedom of the Press. If you don't want to read the pasts, grap your tippy cup of Kool-Aid and watch Teletubbies.
mred - Well great! now you've dumbed down my typing skills!
labdaddy:
May I.
mred:
Could it be that you have been put on the spot, your views have no realistic rebuttal, and now you want limits to protect your inabilities. It makes for a clean cut, so you can just hit-and-run don't you think.
By the way, you've already used you single post, so move on, no vagrants allowed!