Reader comments
Readers' forum: Letters: Obama resembles tyrant
68 comments | Read story
Grimble | 12:59 a.m. July 2, 2009
Yet another conservative oppression fantasy. Do conservatives not realize that
when they use ridiculous hyperbole to express their disagreement with someone,
their words become shopworn and increasingly easy to dismiss as disingenuous?
Imagine this letter writer arriving in heaven, sitting down with Holocaust victims, people who died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, etc., and saying "Hey, is this where the OPPRESSED people hang out? Make room! What's that? Hitler? No. Pol Pot? No. OBAMA! Omigosh, let me tell you JUST HOW BAD I had it..."
What an insult letters like these are to people who actually suffered under actual tyrants.
Imagine this letter writer arriving in heaven, sitting down with Holocaust victims, people who died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, etc., and saying "Hey, is this where the OPPRESSED people hang out? Make room! What's that? Hitler? No. Pol Pot? No. OBAMA! Omigosh, let me tell you JUST HOW BAD I had it..."
What an insult letters like these are to people who actually suffered under actual tyrants.
KJB | 1:07 a.m. July 2, 2009
Just how is Obama destroying constitutional principles? Have you ever even read
the Constitution?
Say what you want about liberals criticizing Bush, but at least most of them could point to specific things that his administration did. The Obama-bashers on these boards just sound like spoiled children who are finally being told, "No."
Say what you want about liberals criticizing Bush, but at least most of them could point to specific things that his administration did. The Obama-bashers on these boards just sound like spoiled children who are finally being told, "No."
Comments continue below
GWB | 4:58 a.m. July 2, 2009
Mr. Bender, you say "As soon as he turns his agenda around and decides to
uphold constitutional principles rather than obviously trying to destroy them, I
will stop criticizing him and support his attempts."
The only thing you forget to do is to say WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES Obama is trying to destroy.
Any high school english teacher would fail you for failing to provide support for your assertion.
Perhaps you are one of those people like Glenn Beck the other night on his show who now openly talk about the need for another Osama bin Laden attack to "save this country" from Obama.
So, do you (like Glenn Beck and his guest) want another al Qaeda attack to happen so that we can get rid of Obama?
The only thing you forget to do is to say WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES Obama is trying to destroy.
Any high school english teacher would fail you for failing to provide support for your assertion.
Perhaps you are one of those people like Glenn Beck the other night on his show who now openly talk about the need for another Osama bin Laden attack to "save this country" from Obama.
So, do you (like Glenn Beck and his guest) want another al Qaeda attack to happen so that we can get rid of Obama?
Hilarious | 5:59 a.m. July 2, 2009
"The Obama-bashers on these boards just sound like spoiled children who are
finally being told, "No."
Are you now suggesting that the Bush-bashers had no "spoiled children"???? Or is it the weak and feeble mind of a left wing nut job spewing his/her ignorance and hatred towards the the conservatives???
Ahhhhh another hypocrite at hand, you guys are too predictable!!!!
Are you now suggesting that the Bush-bashers had no "spoiled children"???? Or is it the weak and feeble mind of a left wing nut job spewing his/her ignorance and hatred towards the the conservatives???
Ahhhhh another hypocrite at hand, you guys are too predictable!!!!
truth revealed | 6:20 a.m. July 2, 2009
This guy has been listening to Rush O'Hannity a bit too much.
john | 7:04 a.m. July 2, 2009
Mr. Bender,
Where was your complaints when the last administration was taking away rights?
We had wire tapping, people who said that if we did not agree with their politcal stands we are unAmerican,we had intelligence doctored for personal goals,we had friends put into positions that they were not qualified for,and the list goes on and on.
During the Nixon Administration the president took quite a few step concerning regulation.
Is it okay to you only when one party doesit that you support or are you being hypocritical when the other party does it?
The current President has to fix quite a few things that do to our choices and that of previous Presidents/Legislative branches have caused one great big mess. Sometimes as citizens we lose things in order to benefit the Nation. We as citizens have the right to vote out someone who does not follow our beliefs. We have laws which limit powers and if the majority of the people want change it will happen (electoral college/supreme court decisions exceptions).
Where was your complaints when the last administration was taking away rights?
We had wire tapping, people who said that if we did not agree with their politcal stands we are unAmerican,we had intelligence doctored for personal goals,we had friends put into positions that they were not qualified for,and the list goes on and on.
During the Nixon Administration the president took quite a few step concerning regulation.
Is it okay to you only when one party doesit that you support or are you being hypocritical when the other party does it?
The current President has to fix quite a few things that do to our choices and that of previous Presidents/Legislative branches have caused one great big mess. Sometimes as citizens we lose things in order to benefit the Nation. We as citizens have the right to vote out someone who does not follow our beliefs. We have laws which limit powers and if the majority of the people want change it will happen (electoral college/supreme court decisions exceptions).
Goldi | 7:23 a.m. July 2, 2009
My heavens are you people even watching what is going on? He rams through bills
in the middle of the night when NO ONE has had a chance to read them (yes - NO
ONE)and you think that is the way it should be? He has town hall meetings with
staged questions, can't deliver a talk without a totus to assist, has been
funded by acorn, comes from the chicago way of politics, fires people (which
legally he can't do) and gives damning excuses to destroy a person's
life, has friends like wright and ayers, lies about how many jobs he will
create, says he will not increase taxes for the middle class, (you just wait),
prices of gasoline will skyrocket as well as your electricity bill. Do you think
by then you might read something besides the daily kos?
He is spending more than all the other presidents put together.
QUIT BLAMING BUSH
He is spending more than all the other presidents put together.
QUIT BLAMING BUSH
Just the Facts ...Continued | 7:42 a.m. July 2, 2009
And because President Obama implemented his fervent Marxist belief that the
workers should own the means of production, not the people who have every legal
and legitimate right under the Constitution of the United States to those
shares. Obama is simply waving away the statutory and lawful rights to the
property of individuals and entities. Why? Because he is putting into force to
the letter the philosophy of Karl Marx. Forget about the Constitution, Obama
wants Communism!
RedShirt | 8:05 a.m. July 2, 2009
To "Just the Facts ...Continued | 7:42 a.m." if you want to get a look
into the Obama's playbook, read "The Truth about Socialism"
available on Google books. It was written in 1913, but you can see the liberal
adgenda clearly. The book explains why socialism is so great. The one thing
that socialists forget is that they are working with people. Unless a person
has a reward for being better than somebody else, there is no incentive to
create or be better.
Just the Facts | 8:15 a.m. July 2, 2009
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all
capital from the bourgeoisie; to centralize all instruments of production in the
hands of the state."
- Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, 1848.
Although it seems completely impossible and incredible, President Obama's recent policy decisions are 100% in line with Marxist thought. Karl Marx believed that the workers should own the means of production, not the capitalists who provided the funding to build those means. That is basic Communism 101.
Without getting into arcane financial and legal minutae, let's (overly simply) discuss the basic essence of what President Obama has done in the case of Chrysler and soon to also do to General Motors: He told the legitimate creditors who have lent the automotive manufacturer billions of dollars secured on the real property and assets of the company to take a hike. They were "greedy" thus they got cut out. Not only were they prohibited to enforce their legitimate and legal rights to the tangible assets that their money purchased, but they were instructed that they would receive a mere fraction of their rights, and then only if they made it through bankruptcy court.
- Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, 1848.
Although it seems completely impossible and incredible, President Obama's recent policy decisions are 100% in line with Marxist thought. Karl Marx believed that the workers should own the means of production, not the capitalists who provided the funding to build those means. That is basic Communism 101.
Without getting into arcane financial and legal minutae, let's (overly simply) discuss the basic essence of what President Obama has done in the case of Chrysler and soon to also do to General Motors: He told the legitimate creditors who have lent the automotive manufacturer billions of dollars secured on the real property and assets of the company to take a hike. They were "greedy" thus they got cut out. Not only were they prohibited to enforce their legitimate and legal rights to the tangible assets that their money purchased, but they were instructed that they would receive a mere fraction of their rights, and then only if they made it through bankruptcy court.
John | 8:18 a.m. July 2, 2009
Goldi,
It takes more than the President to slam down legislation. It is the Congress.
You are probably listening to rich people who are getting paid alot of money to misquote,libel,name call,tell half truths or use any means to keep their agenda going so thus they keep their status quo.
The last president had staged questions. His own administration used doctored intelligence and outed an CIA agent because her husband had told them the Nigerian link for uranium was phony. Are these and the other unethical things that the administration did okay with you. Is it okay that the first time he was put into office it took a Conservative Court to do so?
Both parties have their evils. Americans need/deserve representatives that are in it for what is best for this nation and citizens.
It takes more than the President to slam down legislation. It is the Congress.
You are probably listening to rich people who are getting paid alot of money to misquote,libel,name call,tell half truths or use any means to keep their agenda going so thus they keep their status quo.
The last president had staged questions. His own administration used doctored intelligence and outed an CIA agent because her husband had told them the Nigerian link for uranium was phony. Are these and the other unethical things that the administration did okay with you. Is it okay that the first time he was put into office it took a Conservative Court to do so?
Both parties have their evils. Americans need/deserve representatives that are in it for what is best for this nation and citizens.
Just the facts..2 | 8:18 a.m. July 2, 2009
The vast majority ownership of Chrysler would not go to the people who paid for
it fair and square... no... it would now go to... the workers!
The auto union is now the owner of the majority of Chrysler shares. Why? Because Obama said so. Did they have a financial stake in the company? No, not to any great degree. They got majority ownership simply because they worked there
The auto union is now the owner of the majority of Chrysler shares. Why? Because Obama said so. Did they have a financial stake in the company? No, not to any great degree. They got majority ownership simply because they worked there
Mike Richards | 8:20 a.m. July 2, 2009
Mr. Obama ignored Amendment XIV when he transferred ownership of the auto
industry to his friends in the Union.
Mr. Obama fired GM CEO Wagner and most of the GM board - people in the private sector.
Mr. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, an inspector general, who was investigating "AmeriCorps and other government-funded national service programs." Under the law, that firing was illegal.
Mr. Obama demanded and got a $1 TRILLION emergency stimulus package to keep unemployment at 8% or less. Today unemployment is 9.5%, only 6% of that stimulus money has been spent and yet Mr. Obama refused to allow Congress time to even read the bill, much less debate the contents of that bill.
What else?
- Carbon credits based on government sponsored "scientific studies".
- Government control of health care.
What's next? At what point is Mr. Obama going to throw his hands up and declare that things are so messed up that we need to start over and that he has just the thing that we need - a new Constitution - but it has to be approved fast, no time for discussion, no time to read it?
Mr. Obama fired GM CEO Wagner and most of the GM board - people in the private sector.
Mr. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, an inspector general, who was investigating "AmeriCorps and other government-funded national service programs." Under the law, that firing was illegal.
Mr. Obama demanded and got a $1 TRILLION emergency stimulus package to keep unemployment at 8% or less. Today unemployment is 9.5%, only 6% of that stimulus money has been spent and yet Mr. Obama refused to allow Congress time to even read the bill, much less debate the contents of that bill.
What else?
- Carbon credits based on government sponsored "scientific studies".
- Government control of health care.
What's next? At what point is Mr. Obama going to throw his hands up and declare that things are so messed up that we need to start over and that he has just the thing that we need - a new Constitution - but it has to be approved fast, no time for discussion, no time to read it?
Anonymous | 8:20 a.m. July 2, 2009
Forget about the facts, conservatives want fascism.
An Enlightened Gerbil | 8:45 a.m. July 2, 2009
comparing the pres to a tyrant only destroys our democracy by equating true evil
with a temporary inconvenience of conflicting political viewpoints. This is the
president of our country, and he deserves better than many here are willing to
give him.
Obama apologists | 9:12 a.m. July 2, 2009
Yo, all you Obama apologists, please stop defending every single stupid action
Obama does and stick to the issues.
Which includes leaving Bush out of the discussion, or simply ascribing everyone's opinions to AM radio. Those have nothing to do with most points made on these boards, it's just evading the issue at hand.
Please try to stop defending Obama without thinking. Please try to defend his actions instead.
Which includes leaving Bush out of the discussion, or simply ascribing everyone's opinions to AM radio. Those have nothing to do with most points made on these boards, it's just evading the issue at hand.
Please try to stop defending Obama without thinking. Please try to defend his actions instead.
Anonymous | 9:14 a.m. July 2, 2009
Goldi, clearly you forgot the CAFTA vote, where the Repblican controlled house
opened the normal 15 minute voting period at 11:02 p.m.
When the vote was supposed to end at 11:17, it was going to be defeated 180 to 175 so Republican Denis Hastert held the vote open while President Bush made phone calls and twisted Republican arms until it finally passed by 2 votes after midnight.
Oh, and then there was the Patriot Act, that gave the Government vast new powers of search and seizure. The bill was rushed to the floor with no committe votes and only two copies of the final text were made available (of over a thousand pages) for the Democrats in Congress to read. But they could not take the copies to their office prior to the vote that evening.
So when you say "He rams through bills in the middle of the night when NO ONE has had a chance to read them (yes - NO ONE) and you think that is the way it should be?" I assume you are talking about Bush and the way Republicans operated from 2001-2007.
Please look up the term psychological projection, it fits.
When the vote was supposed to end at 11:17, it was going to be defeated 180 to 175 so Republican Denis Hastert held the vote open while President Bush made phone calls and twisted Republican arms until it finally passed by 2 votes after midnight.
Oh, and then there was the Patriot Act, that gave the Government vast new powers of search and seizure. The bill was rushed to the floor with no committe votes and only two copies of the final text were made available (of over a thousand pages) for the Democrats in Congress to read. But they could not take the copies to their office prior to the vote that evening.
So when you say "He rams through bills in the middle of the night when NO ONE has had a chance to read them (yes - NO ONE) and you think that is the way it should be?" I assume you are talking about Bush and the way Republicans operated from 2001-2007.
Please look up the term psychological projection, it fits.
wow | 9:26 a.m. July 2, 2009
Grimble and Gus et. al. have been listening to James Carville too much
It is only a matter of time until Obamas personal popularity matches the lack of popularity of his policies.
It is only a matter of time until Obamas personal popularity matches the lack of popularity of his policies.
Frustrating... | 9:29 a.m. July 2, 2009
Can you imagine the outrage that would take place if Bush had done the things
Obama has pushed? Conservatives gave up defending the Bush administration when
spending went through the roof. I thought Liberals were outraged as well, but I
guess it was all an act, because now that it is their guy, it is all good!
Letter resembles gibberish | 9:30 a.m. July 2, 2009
Once again, the DNews publishes a letter that is nothing more than whining and
name calling. No fact. No example of a single policy that is "tearing
down the Constitution."
What the earlier letter writer called for was yes, by all means write letters with INTELLIGENT criticisms of the President. "Resembles Tyrant" doesn't fit that category. Its simply childish.
What the earlier letter writer called for was yes, by all means write letters with INTELLIGENT criticisms of the President. "Resembles Tyrant" doesn't fit that category. Its simply childish.
If only..... | 9:39 a.m. July 2, 2009
our Republican administrations were as smart as the Republicans posting in this
forum.
Where were you when we needed you?
Where were you when we needed you?
GWB | 9:52 a.m. July 2, 2009
"Just the facts", tell me what is the difference between what had
happened if GM had filed Chapter 7 and what they did file?
Either way the creditors would get a fraction of what they were owed back.
The difference is that millions of people may actually have a job in the end. Those millions of unemployed people at steel companies, air bag manufactureres, tire companies, seat manufacurers, axel makers, radio makers etc... would be all filing for unemployment putting additional burden on the economy to pay unemployment, medicaid coverage for their families, welfare, food stamps to feed their families.
So, apparently, you would favor having GM file for liquidataion and the creditors getting their pennies, and the State and Federal Government being overwhelmed with welfare, unemployment, foddstamp and medicaid costs?
That seems what you are arguing for.
Either way the creditors would get a fraction of what they were owed back.
The difference is that millions of people may actually have a job in the end. Those millions of unemployed people at steel companies, air bag manufactureres, tire companies, seat manufacurers, axel makers, radio makers etc... would be all filing for unemployment putting additional burden on the economy to pay unemployment, medicaid coverage for their families, welfare, food stamps to feed their families.
So, apparently, you would favor having GM file for liquidataion and the creditors getting their pennies, and the State and Federal Government being overwhelmed with welfare, unemployment, foddstamp and medicaid costs?
That seems what you are arguing for.
Naruto | 10:44 a.m. July 2, 2009
Mr. Bender, perhaps you should spend some time in North Korea, or Iran. Then and
only then would you realize the true meaning of Tyranny. Just be glad that you
can exercise your 1st ammendment right here on the good ol' Deseret News!
You'd better watch out if Obama geta wind of your letter, he might come
after you and declare you a terrorist and perform some waterboarding, oh wait,
that was the last administration, I forgot!
To KJB | 10:55 a.m. July 2, 2009
Have you ever read the constitution? It's whole premise is based on a
system of checks and balances. Who exactly do the Czar's in Obama's
government answer to? Obama is the answer to that. There is NO checks and
balances going on there. The government is taking over companies, banks, etc.
This is exactly what the writers of the constitution didn't want. A quote
from one of the founders, I believe Jefferson, was that The best form of
government is where there is less government. (Paraphrasing) Obamanomics will
and are taking this country into insurmountable debt which is and will continue
to raise taxes on all citizens (campaign promise broken) and kill jobs. News
Flash: You don't create jobs by taxing those who make the jobs; any half
intelligent person can figure that out. Obviously that doesn't include
Obama. Obama has broken campaign promise after campaign promise. The House has
already signed and passed multiple bills that weren't even read in whole by
the members.(Transparency?) We definitely have change, and it's not for the
betterment of our county. Obama is a socialist and the USA is in trouble.
Mike Richards | 11:02 a.m. July 2, 2009
GWB,
Many people could do a lot better that I have done with my assets. Does that mean that they, or the Government should have the right to seize my assets? I don't think so. I don't think that you do either.
Mr. Obama does. He thinks that as President, that somehow floundering companies have deeded over to him their assets. Mr. Obama thinks that just because he is the number one champion of class envy, that he can fire private sector people and "gift" a company to union members which only serves to stir up even more class envy. Apparently that is part of his agenda.
Government intervention has made it impossible for many companies to compete with their foreign counterparts. Excessive wages and mandates from the government all cost money, money that has to be paid by the consumer. The Tribune (sorry) ran an article claiming that GM paid $73 an hour in wages and benefits ($146,000 a year). Toyota paid $48 an hour ($96,000 a year). I dream of consistently making even 50% of what Toyota pays its workers.
Mr. Obama is only fanning the flames of class envy.
Many people could do a lot better that I have done with my assets. Does that mean that they, or the Government should have the right to seize my assets? I don't think so. I don't think that you do either.
Mr. Obama does. He thinks that as President, that somehow floundering companies have deeded over to him their assets. Mr. Obama thinks that just because he is the number one champion of class envy, that he can fire private sector people and "gift" a company to union members which only serves to stir up even more class envy. Apparently that is part of his agenda.
Government intervention has made it impossible for many companies to compete with their foreign counterparts. Excessive wages and mandates from the government all cost money, money that has to be paid by the consumer. The Tribune (sorry) ran an article claiming that GM paid $73 an hour in wages and benefits ($146,000 a year). Toyota paid $48 an hour ($96,000 a year). I dream of consistently making even 50% of what Toyota pays its workers.
Mr. Obama is only fanning the flames of class envy.
Bender's one administration off | 11:11 a.m. July 2, 2009
"He appears to want to substitute his title of president for king or
dictator. He is beginning to resemble a tyrant." That describes the guy
President Obama repaced last January, not our current President.
to all bush bashers | 11:36 a.m. July 2, 2009
ok, bush was bad. we're beyond that. the elections proved it. we voted for
change. well, i didn't vote for him, but WE THE PEOPLE did. but answer me
this: by what logic do you say that just because bush led us into this mess,
obama can and should lead us further? that is what i am seeing all across these
posts. "you can't say obama is doing bad because bush did it
also"? come on people, wake up! as for destroying the constitution? ok, the
dems are a little too smart to let him do it personally, so the start proposing
ways to monitor free speech against the president. yes, they do that. there are
plenty of dems going around saying we should ban beck and hannity, just because
they are anti-obama. and please, google his speech on how our founding documents
are useless and that we need new ones. yes, he said that during his train ride
to mimick lincoln. obama is no lincoln. he does not come close to any of the
previous presidents we consider great.
wrz | 11:42 a.m. July 2, 2009
@John | 8:18 a.m.
"It takes more than the President to slam down legislation. It is the Congress."
Haven't you heard? The leadership (dumocrats) in congress, both houses, when discussing various legislation (such as "Cap & Tax" and gov't controlled health care) says: "This is what president Obama (the Messiah) wants." They continually defer to his plan even though they are supposed to be and independent branch of government providing checks and balances envisioned in the Constitution.
"It takes more than the President to slam down legislation. It is the Congress."
Haven't you heard? The leadership (dumocrats) in congress, both houses, when discussing various legislation (such as "Cap & Tax" and gov't controlled health care) says: "This is what president Obama (the Messiah) wants." They continually defer to his plan even though they are supposed to be and independent branch of government providing checks and balances envisioned in the Constitution.
to: bender's off | 11:42 a.m. July 2, 2009
stifeling free speech-the first step to dictatorship to crush the oposition.
taking away guns-the second step to stop an uprising which if it ever got to that would be justified.
governing evrything we do-that is exactly what dictotorship is and he is doing more and more of it everyday.
by all means, tell me what he does that does not resemble tyranny. i place the burden on your side because he has already says that the USA stinks and that all of our founding documents are useless, irrelevant and need to be rewritten.
taking away guns-the second step to stop an uprising which if it ever got to that would be justified.
governing evrything we do-that is exactly what dictotorship is and he is doing more and more of it everyday.
by all means, tell me what he does that does not resemble tyranny. i place the burden on your side because he has already says that the USA stinks and that all of our founding documents are useless, irrelevant and need to be rewritten.
GWB | 11:51 a.m. July 2, 2009
Mike R, when GM asked for and received bailout money to keep operating, they did
give a deed to the US government.
Therefore, what Obama did was not to seize the company, but rather to protect the investment that the Bush Administration made.
Oh, and the number of $73 per hour is a falsification. That includes all costs for retirement benefits that GM committed to years ago broken down to the number of hours worked by current workers.
Those obligations would have been $0 if GM had actually funded the pensions fully instead of sly accounting so that they could pay dividends to shareholders today and kick the obligation down the road to a later point so their books looked better.
So, how is today's factory worker responsible for the accounting tricks of past executives?
And by the way, would you rather pay welfare and medicaid for those unem,ployed by the shut down of GM or would you rather have the bankruptcy be able to keep people employed?
Therefore, what Obama did was not to seize the company, but rather to protect the investment that the Bush Administration made.
Oh, and the number of $73 per hour is a falsification. That includes all costs for retirement benefits that GM committed to years ago broken down to the number of hours worked by current workers.
Those obligations would have been $0 if GM had actually funded the pensions fully instead of sly accounting so that they could pay dividends to shareholders today and kick the obligation down the road to a later point so their books looked better.
So, how is today's factory worker responsible for the accounting tricks of past executives?
And by the way, would you rather pay welfare and medicaid for those unem,ployed by the shut down of GM or would you rather have the bankruptcy be able to keep people employed?
Goldi | 1:22 p.m. July 2, 2009
In Troy, New York, where a quarter of the children live below the poverty level
and the average household makes less than $30,000 a year, the 29th richest man
in the world is being given more than 300,000 taxpayer dollars to open a
restaurant.
Yep, his name is georgie soros. I'm not sure I can tell you where this comes from or my post won't get posted. Whoops just read it, so I can't.
Darn, with my last post, just remove the reference and post it - please.
Yep, his name is georgie soros. I'm not sure I can tell you where this comes from or my post won't get posted. Whoops just read it, so I can't.
Darn, with my last post, just remove the reference and post it - please.
Mike Richards | 1:36 p.m. July 2, 2009
GWB,
Your sources must have a different set of accounting books than the Salt Lake Tribune's source. The $73 per hour is not a falsification if you actually use the numbers that are used to pay the union workers. If you want to play fast and loose with what should have been set aside for future needs, then lets talk about Lyndon Johnson and the Social Security fund. Wasn't he the one who decided it was time to mingle Social Security funds with the general fund?
Does that count, or does he get a waiver just because of his political party?
You may not have had any experience with bankruptcy. I have. People owed me money. I couldn't just walk in a take whatever I wanted, I had to wait for the court to tell me what portion was mine. Mr. Obama swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and yet he has decided that courts have no place in his administration. He just walks in and takes what he wants, fires those he wants and thumbs his nose at the rest of us.
Your sources must have a different set of accounting books than the Salt Lake Tribune's source. The $73 per hour is not a falsification if you actually use the numbers that are used to pay the union workers. If you want to play fast and loose with what should have been set aside for future needs, then lets talk about Lyndon Johnson and the Social Security fund. Wasn't he the one who decided it was time to mingle Social Security funds with the general fund?
Does that count, or does he get a waiver just because of his political party?
You may not have had any experience with bankruptcy. I have. People owed me money. I couldn't just walk in a take whatever I wanted, I had to wait for the court to tell me what portion was mine. Mr. Obama swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and yet he has decided that courts have no place in his administration. He just walks in and takes what he wants, fires those he wants and thumbs his nose at the rest of us.
Which is it? | 1:42 p.m. July 2, 2009
Is Obama a Marxist or a fascist? I'm getting confused.
memorable quotes | 1:43 p.m. July 2, 2009
"The Constitution is just a [blank-blank] piece of paper!" - George
W. Bush
"A dictatorship is okay - just so long as I'm the dictator (laughing)!" - same guy
How quickly the far-right forgets these things.
LOL!
"A dictatorship is okay - just so long as I'm the dictator (laughing)!" - same guy
How quickly the far-right forgets these things.
LOL!
GWB | 1:57 p.m. July 2, 2009
Goldi, nice try trying to smear Obama using the name of George Soros. How about
posting a couple of facts...
The city of Troy, NY is offering tax breaks and grant money to bring Dinosaur Bar-B-Que to a vacant building on Troy’s waterfront. The city is prepared to offer the restaurant’s owners $460,000 in tax breaks and property tax reductions for 20 years.
How does that compare with Utah giving incentives?
Procter & Gamble Company (you know the pharmaceutical companies that give to Republicans) got $85 million to build a facility in Box Elder County and that doesn't include tax payment cuts.
Goldman Sachs, awarded $20,000,000 in incentives to put an office in SLC. Remeber that Bush's Treasury Secretary was the Goldman CEO?
So, Goldi, what are you trying to imply?
The city of Troy, NY is offering tax breaks and grant money to bring Dinosaur Bar-B-Que to a vacant building on Troy’s waterfront. The city is prepared to offer the restaurant’s owners $460,000 in tax breaks and property tax reductions for 20 years.
How does that compare with Utah giving incentives?
Procter & Gamble Company (you know the pharmaceutical companies that give to Republicans) got $85 million to build a facility in Box Elder County and that doesn't include tax payment cuts.
Goldman Sachs, awarded $20,000,000 in incentives to put an office in SLC. Remeber that Bush's Treasury Secretary was the Goldman CEO?
So, Goldi, what are you trying to imply?
GWB | 2:08 p.m. July 2, 2009
So, Mike, I take it that you would rather have had GM file bankruptcy so that
the US government lost the entire $18+ Billion that Bush gave them?
Let's jus keep to that point. Did you want Obama to take care of the US investment or did you want the US taxpayers to lose the money Bush gave them?
Which did you want?
As for me, I prefer that Obama tried to protect the government's stake in the company.
Oh, and I presume that you would not have been willing to cut your debtor a deal to make sure you got your money out during the bankruptcy if you could have.
Let's jus keep to that point. Did you want Obama to take care of the US investment or did you want the US taxpayers to lose the money Bush gave them?
Which did you want?
As for me, I prefer that Obama tried to protect the government's stake in the company.
Oh, and I presume that you would not have been willing to cut your debtor a deal to make sure you got your money out during the bankruptcy if you could have.
Jason | 2:11 p.m. July 2, 2009
"Please try to stop defending Obama without thinking. Please try to defend
his actions instead."
I agree, but it's certainly not just the Obama defenders who need to think more, as this letter so aptly proves. Of course, there are individuals on both sides of the "Obama debate" that do think, but they're unfortunately few and far between.
I agree, but it's certainly not just the Obama defenders who need to think more, as this letter so aptly proves. Of course, there are individuals on both sides of the "Obama debate" that do think, but they're unfortunately few and far between.
re: Mike Richards | 2:13 p.m. July 2, 2009
Amen anonymous 9:14
When taxpayers are "asked" to put up the money to bailout banks and car companies, you bet I want leaders to make sure the taxpayers investment doesn't end up in the pockets of a corrupt CEO.
I can't believe there are still people defending "trickle-down," or "free-market" (with no regulation). Even free marketer Alan Greenspan now recognizes the "flaw" in these ideas.
The letter writer parrots the words spoken by right-wing talk shows. They label and ascribe motives to their opponents using the most extreme language. "This country is coming to an end" predicts Hannity every night. Anybody critical of Bush was labelled "unpatriotic, un-American, supportive of terrorists etc." Now it is socialist, facist, Messiah, tyrant, dictator and on and on.
When taxpayers are "asked" to put up the money to bailout banks and car companies, you bet I want leaders to make sure the taxpayers investment doesn't end up in the pockets of a corrupt CEO.
I can't believe there are still people defending "trickle-down," or "free-market" (with no regulation). Even free marketer Alan Greenspan now recognizes the "flaw" in these ideas.
The letter writer parrots the words spoken by right-wing talk shows. They label and ascribe motives to their opponents using the most extreme language. "This country is coming to an end" predicts Hannity every night. Anybody critical of Bush was labelled "unpatriotic, un-American, supportive of terrorists etc." Now it is socialist, facist, Messiah, tyrant, dictator and on and on.
TO: to: bender's off | 2:23 p.m. July 2, 2009
"by all means, tell me what he does that does not resemble tyranny. i place
the burden on your side because he has already says that the USA stinks and that
all of our founding documents are useless, irrelevant and need to be
rewritten."
Wait... You're placing the burden on us because he "said" something that's completely irrelevant to the discussion? In other words, your paragraph could read: "I don't agree with what he said once, therefore the burden of proof is on you." Have fun pushing that one in a court of law.
And for the record, he never actually said those things. You may have interpreted some statements of his to mean that, but that says much more about you than it does about his actual intentions/meaning.
And, for the record, the sentence "by all means, tell me what he does that does not resemble tyranny" really is one of the most fantastic things I've ever read on this site. You should get a medal, or something.
Wait... You're placing the burden on us because he "said" something that's completely irrelevant to the discussion? In other words, your paragraph could read: "I don't agree with what he said once, therefore the burden of proof is on you." Have fun pushing that one in a court of law.
And for the record, he never actually said those things. You may have interpreted some statements of his to mean that, but that says much more about you than it does about his actual intentions/meaning.
And, for the record, the sentence "by all means, tell me what he does that does not resemble tyranny" really is one of the most fantastic things I've ever read on this site. You should get a medal, or something.
Works | 2:31 p.m. July 2, 2009
By their works, ye shall know them.
This tyrant is a lot better than the last. Look at the difference.
George Bush is the tyrant that helped organizations that helped the rich and greedy.
Barrack Obama is the tyrant that helps organizations that help the poor and needy.
This tyrant is a lot better than the last. Look at the difference.
George Bush is the tyrant that helped organizations that helped the rich and greedy.
Barrack Obama is the tyrant that helps organizations that help the poor and needy.
Anonymous | 2:40 p.m. July 2, 2009
re: Obama apologists | 9:12 a.m. July 2, 2009
I never thought I'd hear AM Radio and issues being mentioned together.... especially in the context they were.
But, I'm NOT a Great American Dittohead so what so I know?
I never thought I'd hear AM Radio and issues being mentioned together.... especially in the context they were.
But, I'm NOT a Great American Dittohead so what so I know?
To Benders off 11:42 | 2:49 p.m. July 2, 2009
Obama isn't stifeling free speech nor has he done anything about taking
away guns, your paranoid and confused. Stop getting your "facts" from
Sean Limbaugh. Bush wanted expanded control of government, but somehow you blame
Obama. Bush raped the constitution. Cheney wanted more power for the vice pres.
Now the shoe is on the other foot and for some reason now you spout off. Learn
your history and facts before you open your mouth.
BushObama | 2:55 p.m. July 2, 2009
Bush was a tyrant on Foreign policy and homeland security, and Obama is becoming
one on his domestic/socialist agenda. If only we conservatives (I am
conservative but am alienated from the Republican Party) would have woken up to
the possiblity that someday a Democrat might be in power and use the expanded
executive powers (claimed during the Bush years) to push the Democratic
Agenda.
Bush said, in essence, "We are in a war and I'm a wartime President, thus, I have absolute power to do whatever I need to do to defend our country!"
Obama says, in essence, "We are in an economic crisis, the perils of which have never been experienced in America before, and I will personally make any decisions necessary to push my "fix" through, and also fix all the other things that are wrong with the country at the same time!"
To all conservative Bush lovers and Obama haters - and also to all liberal Obama lovers and Bush haters - here is the uncomfortable truth: Bush and Obama are essentially exactly the same. Perhaps there are different ideologies and agenda, but there exists the exact same arrogance and egotism in pushing that agenda through.
Bush said, in essence, "We are in a war and I'm a wartime President, thus, I have absolute power to do whatever I need to do to defend our country!"
Obama says, in essence, "We are in an economic crisis, the perils of which have never been experienced in America before, and I will personally make any decisions necessary to push my "fix" through, and also fix all the other things that are wrong with the country at the same time!"
To all conservative Bush lovers and Obama haters - and also to all liberal Obama lovers and Bush haters - here is the uncomfortable truth: Bush and Obama are essentially exactly the same. Perhaps there are different ideologies and agenda, but there exists the exact same arrogance and egotism in pushing that agenda through.
@ "John | 8:18 a.m. " | 3:23 p.m. July 2, 2009
John | 8:18 a.m.
You are right. Usually it does take more than just the President and Congress is involved (at least get their opinion, inform them, offer them oversight). But how many "Presidential Decrees" have you seen already in the first months of the Obama regime? (Hint... Google it... He signed 3 of them his first day in office and many since).
And how many did you see from past Presidents? Very rare from my experience.
That's why Obama comes off as a tyrant to some. Because he acts like he doesn't even need to consult with Congress before signing things.
You are right. Usually it does take more than just the President and Congress is involved (at least get their opinion, inform them, offer them oversight). But how many "Presidential Decrees" have you seen already in the first months of the Obama regime? (Hint... Google it... He signed 3 of them his first day in office and many since).
And how many did you see from past Presidents? Very rare from my experience.
That's why Obama comes off as a tyrant to some. Because he acts like he doesn't even need to consult with Congress before signing things.
Read book if you dare..liberals! | 3:27 p.m. July 2, 2009
Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto
by Mark R. Levin
This book is #1 on the New York Times Best seller list. Read the book and you will see why!!
After reading the book, the case AGAINST the great Zeus Obama is made very clear. Liberals can squawk all they want in support of their great teleprompter king but the FACTS speak volumes. READ THE BOOK liberals ...if you DARE!!!
by Mark R. Levin
This book is #1 on the New York Times Best seller list. Read the book and you will see why!!
After reading the book, the case AGAINST the great Zeus Obama is made very clear. Liberals can squawk all they want in support of their great teleprompter king but the FACTS speak volumes. READ THE BOOK liberals ...if you DARE!!!
All Knowing | 3:30 p.m. July 2, 2009
@re: Mike Richards 2:13 p.m.:
"Now it is socialist, fascist, Messiah, tyrant, dictator and on and on."
He's all that and more... including possibly an illegal alien.
Trickle-down is the work-horse of our economic system. Even Bush and Obama (may his grief increase) applyed it with their stimulus packages... Mega companies get big stimulus bucks to rebuild, repair, maintain, etc., the nation's infrastructure. These mega companies hire workers. The workers take their paychecks home to buy food, clothing, shelter, etc. Voila! the money trickles down as the economic principle says it should.
As for free-market, our illustrious law makers trod on this economic concept when they passed the Community Redevelopment Reinvestment Act (CRA). This act required financial institutions to loan money for housing to the poorest of the poor... those who had little or no chance of paying the money back. Had the market been free, banks would have winnowed out these poor investments and we wouldn't be in the financial straits we now find ourselves in.
"Now it is socialist, fascist, Messiah, tyrant, dictator and on and on."
He's all that and more... including possibly an illegal alien.
Trickle-down is the work-horse of our economic system. Even Bush and Obama (may his grief increase) applyed it with their stimulus packages... Mega companies get big stimulus bucks to rebuild, repair, maintain, etc., the nation's infrastructure. These mega companies hire workers. The workers take their paychecks home to buy food, clothing, shelter, etc. Voila! the money trickles down as the economic principle says it should.
As for free-market, our illustrious law makers trod on this economic concept when they passed the Community Redevelopment Reinvestment Act (CRA). This act required financial institutions to loan money for housing to the poorest of the poor... those who had little or no chance of paying the money back. Had the market been free, banks would have winnowed out these poor investments and we wouldn't be in the financial straits we now find ourselves in.
RE: just the "facts" | 3:53 p.m. July 2, 2009
Chrysler is not (in Marxist fashion) owned by "the workers". Chrysler
is owned by a company called Fiat.
Conspiracy theories are better when they weave in actual facts and not fantasy.
Conspiracy theories are better when they weave in actual facts and not fantasy.
LOL! | 4:06 p.m. July 2, 2009
Pock-e-stawn. I just think Obama is so smart because he says Pakistan as
Pock-e-stawn. What a guy. Peace be upon him.
LOL!
LOL!
re: All Knowing | 4:12 p.m. July 2, 2009
The CRA didn't "require" banks to make loans to the "poorest
of the poor" who had little or no chance of paying it back. The purpose of
the act was to prohibit banks from "redlining" meaning, and required
the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated
financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in
which they are chartered, consistent with SAFE and SOUND operation. The fact
is, CRA loans had a LOWER rate of default than those made by private mortgage
companies.
Right. WORKERS take their paychecks home. For the past 15 years or so those paychecks have shrunken relative to standard of living while the paychecks of the CEO's have increased sharply and dramatically equal to the point that they were in the late 1920's when we had the Great Depression.
Right. WORKERS take their paychecks home. For the past 15 years or so those paychecks have shrunken relative to standard of living while the paychecks of the CEO's have increased sharply and dramatically equal to the point that they were in the late 1920's when we had the Great Depression.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Online math adds up to a lot of fun 11:57 a.m.
- Horse used to spook, now a star 11:57 a.m.
- Jobless husbands help at home? 11:41 a.m.
- There goes mom, the pack mule 11:40 a.m.
- Graphic novel explores logical quest 11:35 a.m.
- Fort Hood suspect asked for advice 11:23 a.m.
- Execs experience being homeless 10:58 a.m.
- Pewaukee Scout hits the target 10:42 a.m.
- USU to lead geothermal-test drilling 10:34 a.m.
- Lawyer: Orlando suspect mentally ill 10:31 a.m.
- Report details Prop 8 aftermath
409 - Gay advocates trek to LDS office195
- Dirk does dirty work in Dallas190
- Letters: Care not a right184
- Lobo suspended165
- Speed has never been BYU's game136
- Jazz stumble in fourth quarter106
- RSL rallies to advance101
- Prep football: San Juan vs. S. Sevier100
- Thousands protest health bill98
Advertisement
Latest comments
Great job to the Davis team, lets take it to Hunter next week! As for the...
Very good article. How much is the interest on the loans? People need to...
To: [To: JAYEG | 11:07 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009] I'm sad for you. You didn't...
DN readers are in a lemming lock step to trash ALL OBAMA. Fair enough. ...
Were any of you at the game? Kruger took a knee after the final whistle and...
I agree.FRom the stands I watched him take a knee right after the final...
I will say nothing as to who was justified/not-justified in this incident. As...
I did not say that data is not needed. I collect data on my students'...
Everything was legitamate in Prop 8? Your being a little presumptuous seeing...
It is on FSN UTAH!
Advertisements
Just because the letter writer doesn't like Obama or he is not the candidate the letter writer wanted does not make Obama a tyrant under the normal definition. However, in this day of hyperbole, the letter writer probably considered his father was a tyrant when he would let him borrow the family car.
Of course, anyone who is not a born-again, social conservative is blind to what is real and important in the world. Somehow, these people cannot recognize a tyrant when an astute observer like the letter writer has both the knowlege and presence of mind to warn everyone of impending doom.
Thank goodness for this warning. Now we are finding tryants under every bed. We need to be more vigilent. And not only is Obama a tyrant according to the letter writer, but is he is a socialist who isn't half as smart as Sarah Palin even with his Ivy League degree.