Published: Friday, Feb. 15 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Holy cow!!! What is this? The 5th editorial on this exact same subject? And they
all offer the exact same point of view. Dnews, we get it. You're a
conservative paper. But this got old like... 4 years ago. Believe it or not,
Obama won. So whatever he has to say, isn't getting old or else we the
voters would have voted that other guy into office. And believe it or not he
cannot run for president anymore. So here's a tip, LAY OFF on the hateful
vitriol. Either offer a different view on his address or move on. I'd
prefer the latter. It was only an address.So here's my tip,
focus on your own GOP tent. What are you folks doing to solve our problems? Last
I checked the GOP was less popular than the democrats. Yet, the only response
I've seen is to bash Obama. That won't get you far, especially since
he can't even run in 2016. Fix your own party and the votes will come. Bash
the other and do nothing else? Well... We just saw how well that worked...It didn't
Obama always plays fast and loose with the facts. For example he claims some 6
million new jobs have been created since he took office. According to fact
check, that number is less than half of what he claims. Tells you all you need
to know about believing anything Barrack Obama says. The reason he gets away
with it is the news media has a slobbering love affair with his liberal agenda
and any means to his ends are acceptable. Honesty does not apply to Obama!
It was an optimistic speech containing some things that needed to be there but
would not have been had the election gone the other way.
Second to what The Real Maverick said. How much longer is the DN going to keep
pouting about Romney losing?
Don't posture by telling me that it is Republicans who are extreme if they
object to the President's speech. Frankly, I don't even know what he
said; I didn't bother listening and wouldn't believe anything I did
hear. I think most reasonable people have stopped listening to the words and
simply read the actions. This man has been so fundamentally dishonest and
deceptive, throughout his term in office, that any message he verbally states or
seems to project is highly suspect. He either doesn't have the fortitute
to follow through, intentionally decieves to burnish his own image, or exists in
a condition of such moral turbidity that he himself doesn't know how he
will act even as he is attepting to articulate his position. I treat him the
same as I would any personal associate, he has been so consistently unreliable
that he can only be regarded with suspicion in all situations. He has lost ALL
While the business interests and their minions set about their tasks of
defeating President Obama, it is the hope of the American people that he will
find the ways to bypass and thwart the nay-Sayers and their ulterior motives.
How can a President, who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, demand
that Congress enact "gun controls" when Congress has no authority to
pass a law that controls our right to keep and bear arms?How can a
President, who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, demand that any
part of government exceed its authority? Doesn't he know the limits
imposed on Government by the Constitution? Doesn't he know that the people
have severely limited his authority? Doesn't he know that doing anything
outside the scope of his duties is illegal?For someone who
(supposedly) is regarded as being above average in intelligence, he's
acting as if he's ignorant of his authority and ignorant of the oath that
he took. We don't need a President who is either ignorant of the limits of
his job or who pretends to be ignorant.We need a leader who
understands that Government is not the solution for our problems, but the cause
of many of those problems. Automatic cutbacks in spending was Obama's
suggestion. Let it happen. Let him get what he demanded.
@Mike RichardsLike so many others, you seem to think that the right
to keep and bear arms is absolute. None of the freedoms enshrined in the Bill
of Rights is absolute. You remember the "shall not be infringed" part
of the 2nd amendment, but you forget the "well-regulated" part. How can
something be well-regulated without regulations? Even Justice Scalia, in his
majority opinion in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case said: "nothing
in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government
buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale
Talk about fatigue how about some new material from the far right just once? Who
exactly do they think they are convincing after six us years of the same old
same old talking points?
@Skeptical Like so many others, you seem to think that there is no
control of guns that is outside the scope of the constitution. If some
regulation is ok, then where do we stop? The issue here is not that anyone
actually believes there should be no gun control. The issue is that many of us
believe we have already crossed the line of acceptable gun control.So, we
can disagree with where the line should be, but if we give a little more our
second amendment freedom away, what will the next generation give away? And the
one after that? There must be a point where we say "enough".
Once a Socialist always a Socialist. Nothing new. Move on.
@ The Skeptical Chymist,The Supreme Court has answered that
question. They specifically stated that there is NO connection between being a
member of a militia and the right to keep and bear arms. Those of you who
continually try to link militia to the right to keep and bear arms are fighting
against a ruling of the Supreme Court. In other words, your argument has no
merit. It is settled law.Obama knows that he has no right to
regulate the arms that citizens keep and bear. That right is specifically
reserved to the people, not to government and certainly not to Obama. His
intention to regulate arms is illegal in every sense of the word.
@mountainman.... again..... claims on the numbers of jobs - and twisting the
numbers.... here is the full story."Private sector jobs have
grown by 6.1 million since February 2010. But since he became president, the
gain is a more modest 1.9 million.And when losses in public sector
employment are added to the mix, his overall jobs record is a gain of 1.2
million."So here is the reason why you only hear complaints
about this from the blogs, and not from the mainstream media. This is exactly
what conservatives wanted. They wanted to reduce the number of federally paid
for jobs, and to grow the private sector jobs. 6.1 million private sector jobs
have replaced the millions government funded jobs. Do you want
fewer government jobs? You want smaller government, don't you?Do you want public sector job growth? So when you get what
conservatives prescribed, you still complain. We can double the job growth
rate, real easy. Its to restore all those government funded jobs cut.But to say you want to slash government spending - fed actually ran a surplus
for January - then complain we lost jobs there... not sure what you want.
On the "guns" issue even members of Obama's own party aren't
toeing the line. Guns are one issue that Harry Reid, in particular, may cause
to abandon the Presidents' position on. Nevadans fully support 2nd
amendment rights.When the American people see the costs of adding 20
million new poor people in the form of illegal immigrants to Americas' free
social support structure, they may not like that either.
I'm relieved that the president is for good and against bad. Now he'll
ask Van Jones, Bill Ayers and his other close friends to come up with
definitions and programs.
His opponents wish he was suffering fatigue. Evidence indicates otherwise. That
he has a lot of energy.
As usual, the usual Obama bashers present the usual nonsense from their usual
hate radio mongers saying their usual things.
@brs27"...Frankly, I don't even know what he said; I
didn't bother listening and wouldn't believe anything I did
hear...".I appreciate your candor.Thank you.I did listen to and watch the actions of your nominee.With
some minor changes, allow me to express my opinion about your failed nominee
using your standard of performance...I think most reasonable people
have stopped listening to the words and simply read the actions. This man has
been so fundamentally dishonest and deceptive, throughout his Republican
campaign that any message he verbally states or seems to project is highly
suspect. He either doesn't have the fortitute to follow through,
intentionally decieves to burnish his own image, or exists in a condition of
such moral turbidity that he himself doesn't know how he will act even as
he is attepting to articulate his position. I treat him the same as I would any
personal associate, he has been so consistently unreliable that he can only be
regarded with suspicion in all situations. He has lost ALL credibility.60,000,000+ voting American agreed with this assessment of your nominee
following your standard of performance.
I think it is pretty obvious to everyone this thread was heading no where from
the start but it defiantly jumped the shark with hemlocks comment.
Mike Richards – “Those of you who continually try to link militia to
the right to keep and bear arms are fighting against a ruling of the Supreme
Court. In other words, your argument has no merit. It is settled law.”For now Mike… Just because Scalia and his buddies
decided to uncouple the two fragments that make up the full gun related sentence
in the 2nd amendment, doesn’t mean they were right (just Right). In fact
no SC decision had ever (in our entire history) made this judgment until the 5-4
decision in Heller. So in terms of merit, I’ll take the side
of 200+ years of historical precedence over that of the partisan ideology of the
right-wing five any day.But you are correct, it is the law of the
land and as citizens we have respect our laws. I assume you feel the same way
about laws you don’t care for, yes?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments