By all means, pray. But make damn sure you also vote and do all the "get out the vote" work you can.

My comment is not addressed to Rick, that's for all of us, me included.

What a disgrace Obama is as president.
He shows no class or grace whatsoever.

Really, though, it's a relection of the Democrat party. They're willing to cheat to win (voter fraud) so I suppose there's no sense hoping they'd show respect for the office of President, the american people or god forbid, their political opponents.

And before one of you lame-ass lefty trolls attempts to pathetically drag out the "you're either with us or against us" W statement, he was referring to the rest of the outside world on whether they side with the terrorists or the U.S.

Obama is the POTUS, alright: The Punk of the United States.

"America may never be the same for buying into your lies"

Hopefully in the sense that the majority will never be so (as a certain racist reverend would say) "goddamn" stupid enough to elect someone like Obama ever again.

But he lies so well.

It is very difficult to accept that the first quote above is coming from the lips of a President of the United States. If the present leader of the Democratic Party wants to talk like a thug then so be it. We cannot change the dark side of this man. However, I would very much like any other Democrat campaigning this cycle to be forced to comment on this tone and that includes Bill Clinton himself. If this divisive tone came from the lips of a sitting Republican President I would be repulsed by it. We are going through an election cycle where the majority party says the people don't appreciate all they've done but, in turn, doesn't want to discuss in detail all they've done. In the past they applauded the enlightened public for electing a post-racial President (whatever that menas now) but now consider the electorate daft because voters are unhappy that those they elected have created a mood of pessimism and uncertainty not seen for over 70 years. The American public is now being forced to make a decision that will determine in a very fundamental way how our lives will be led for many years to come. We will either sit passively by and watch other countries develop vibrant economies or we will continue to insist on our continued preeminence in the world. The latter is nothing to be ashamed of. As John Dean said during the Nixon administration, there is a growing cancer within the White House. This is a very dangerous man and I feel am not exaggerating in the least.

Obama is a full-on racist...straight up.

His goal is to divide Americans in to chunks, pit each chunk against the other, and then enforce "order".

He is the biggest mistake America EVER made...I just hope and pray we can survive him.

Get everyone you know to vote...and do everything you can to spread the TRUTH about the pathetic loser we have as "President"

Obama was the most partisan most ideological member of the Illinois Senate. He was the most partisan most ideological member of the US Senate.

He really was the 'post-partisan' President when one considers the fact that he meant it that there would only be one party and one ideology that had any voice or say in how this country was run.

While I am a little concerned that taking back Congress might afford him the opportunity to appear to move to the center and get reelected in 2012 I know that to do so is completely against his nature.

IF we are able to rid ourselves of this lunatic we need to recognize that the damage he has wrought will make things worse before we can put it right. We are headed for at the very least a lost decade if not a whole lost generation.

Then again, he evidently considers "punishing your enemies" more palatable than being "punished with a baby".

When the President's words are so bad even the liberal weenies at this site won't try to defend them, he has gone too far. I have always thought Obamalala thought most Americans were enemies. Out of the mouth the heart speaks. If this isn't the last straw for all of the "independents" and "moderates" that look down their noses at everyone else, you could be beyond the point of no return.

I doubt such an expression of partisanship as this would have ever entered W's mind.

It's the class thing. dontcha know.

When I heard him say "punish your enemies" my jaw dropped. Here is a guy who cannot let the word "terrorist" escape his lips, but he can stand in front of a crowd and tell them their neighbors, fellow Americans and even other family members are their enemies.

There is absolutely no excuse for this. No excuse for a sitting president to demonize fully half or more of the American population.

It's the last straw. He has removed the last niggling doubt that he is nothing more than a condescending, partisan hack with no sense of leadership. This man is not in the least presidential. He is naive and as petulant as a child.

How - how - could people have fallen for this charlatan?

Every time I read that quote of Obama's from his 60 Minutes interview I get angry; I would like him to name just one time- just ONCE- when he got a group of people with disparate ideas in a room together and helped them find common ground. Because his arrogant and condescending "we won" comment to a group of Republicans sure as heck would not qualify as an example. Obama is a dsgrace to the office of the presidency, and November 2012 cannot come soon enough.

Oyster,

You have to recognize that to obama America's enemies are not his enemies. He wants to bring down America and remake it as a socialist state where government controls not just the economy but every aspect of the lives of its people.

For that reason Americans who love this country and appreciate their freedom are the enemies of this administration.

At least obama is now out in the open as declaring war on the American public and war on our freedoms.

I admit it. I have an addiction for feeding the trolls. I was hoping that Walid Galoob, Dane, or one of the other's would come and give an example of the former president being this partisan. I guess the sound of "crickets chirping" means they are still googling.

"Progress has been made"

Ha ha ha, what a humongous jac ass Barry is. In one week his pipe dreams are history.

Can Anyone remeber Bush being this partisan

Yes and then some. Although I'm not sure what answer you expect asking the far right this question.

18. Posted by warchild

I just received a Tweet from 'Comic Book Guy':

"Worst.
Response.
Ever."

So galoob and Dane send in warinfant to do battle. Name one example please? lol

What's next? Calling Republicans traitors, and claiming they want America to fail?! Things were never that partisan before!

"Mr. President... you're a liar... one of the biggest in political history... and America may never be the same for buying into your lies."

So shocking, we talk about an American president like this. So sad, so true,
I had to repeat it here. It would make a good billboard. I think I will insert this statement at the end of every email I send for the next two years.

Nice examples warmonger..

Yes and then some. Although I'm not sure what answer you expect asking the far right this question.

Warchild, the question is not what other people said, this is not a question about what Rush Limbaugh said, or Karl Rove said or Dick Cheney said or Ann Coulter or what anyone else said. The question was specifically about President Bush.

Did Bush as President ever say anything remotely like this 'We're going to punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,'?

The enemies Obama is referring to are other Americans?

I dare you to find a quote from President George W. Bush where he called other Americans enemies.

So, we've come all the way from MLK and ROSA PARKS..... to "Republicans gotta sit in the BACK OF THE BUS?"

Obama's handlers must be deserting him in DROVES... even two weeks ago, SOMEBODY in his crowd of sycophants and hangers-on and teleprompter techs would have advised him to choose another metaphor, because with this one he all-but defecates on Rosa Parks' grave!

Wait! I know... it's not Obama's fault at all! It's all the TELEPROMPTER's fault! OF COURSE Obama has nothing but PERFECT RESPECT for the cause of civil rights, human freedoms and dignity, and social justice. HE would NEVER suggest that ANY minority party should be marginalized to the 'back of the vehicle'.... it was the TELEPROMPTER that made him say this awful, evil, antisocial thing!

21. Posted by john | October 26, 2010 1:11 PM

A. A radio talk show host hoping Obama fails with his over reaching ,radical left, statist agenda doesn't come within 7 million light years in content or tone of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES talking about "punishing our enemies"

B. Neither Bush nor anyone in his administration referred to his opponents as "traitors"--EVER., despite the voices- in- their -heads leftist fantasy claims that they did.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!

Sorry, johnny -you lose
Another leftard troll FAIL

"Can Anyone remeber Bush being this partisan

Yes and then some. Although I'm not sure what answer you expect asking the far right this question."

Nice to see "YES AND THEN SOME" = Zero examples in 2 hours.

YOU LIE!!

Obama is who we knew he was.

Can Anyone remeber Bush being this partisan?

Yes and then some.

Example, please? Preferably one that took place in reality, and not just in your fevered imagination.

Can someone call "Media Matters" and see if our trolls called in sick? Warchild and John (#21) have been too pathetic. They must be the "second string."

"What's next? Calling Republicans traitors, and claiming they want America to fail?! Things were never that partisan before!"

Well, go ahead and show us where Bush ever said anything of the sort. We'll wait.

As a matter of fact I'll even sit on the edge of my seat waiting for you to show me where anyone here or any of your "enemies" like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, etc said they "wanted America to fail".

What's that? I can't hear you. These damn crickets just make too much racket.

The day Barry cares about job creation is the day he loses his!!

If someone said that dems had to sit in the back then the leftist media would have immediately called it racist and harkened back to the days of the precivil rights movement where blacks had to sit in the back of the bus.

Can anyone remember Bush being this partisan?

While my dad was giving a scientific lecture, he was limited by the Bush administration regarding what he could comment on (no other president in the our history has done this). Before giving the lecture he had to get approval on the topics he would discuss and if anyone asked a question on a different topic he was not allowed to respond. One Russian scientist pointed out that is how it was in the Soviet Union during the days of communism.

Freedom of Speech in Government Science

Climate scientist fired for talking to media

Scientists horrified by Bush's Bad Science

P.S. - I would be most interested to hear comments from conservatives irate over the recent incident at PBS as the 2 issues are very similar, although Bush's policies were far more reaching as they affected every government scientists. If PBS should have been punished by having their funding removed, what do you feel should have been done to Bush?

Can anyone remember Bush being this partisan?

Don't forget what happened to the Justice Department.

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/368385_justiceonline26.html

#34

Accusations and hearsay are a nonsensical strawman Tina. Especially when compared with Barrys own words of divisiveness.

Nice nonsensical try though.

Tina is playing the part of the fool, again.

Seems to me Bush didn't fire nearly enough hacks at the racist DOJ. You know, the one that has a 'civil rights' division that refused to prosecute an open-and-shut case of polling place intimidation by the New Black Panthers.

To point the never-eloquent Tina back no topic - tell us, dear, when did Bush ever refer to Dems explicitly as 'enemies?'

Can anyone remember Bush being this partisan?

How about this, do you remember Bush being anything he was accused of by the democrats? There could have been a scarecrow in the WH for most of his 8 years for all you heard about him, it was what he was accused of that you remember. He didn't do almost anything in that time, certainly very little that you'd want him to do. I call it the "Kennedy 43" administration, after all he asked them to write most of the legislation they blame him for.

Tina S,
The issue concerns specific words or actions made by the President of the United States. Not taken on his behalf by members of the administration or by others.

President Obama specifically used the word "enemies" to describe Americans who are opposed to illegal immigration. I'm opposed to illegal immigration. Does that make me an enemy of the state?

I'll repeat my challenge from post 24 above:

I dare you to find a quote from President George W. Bush where he called other Americans enemies.

By the way neither of your examples compare. Neither is attributed directly to President Bush.

In your first example you cite a New Zealand scientist for being fired. What does that have to do with President Bush? In another, the example concerns James Hansen who is described by many as a fraud.

Concerning your second comment all U.S. Attorneys work at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them at anytime for any reason. If that concerns you, then answer this was it okay for President Clinton to fire all of the U.S. Attorneys when he was President?

Tina,
Interesting post #34. Could you provide a little more detail. In what field of science does your dad do research? What was the intended topic of your dad's lecture? What was he not allowed to comment on? Just asking.

Tina S.,

Much better. I guess the call to Media Matters achieved the desired results. However, your second link is to an article about scientists in New Zealand. When was Mr. Bush president of New Zealand?

On the other hand, Mr. Bush's firing of 6 Federal Attorneys pales in comparison to Mr. Clinton's firing of all federal attorneys. Either way, not necessarily that "partisan." Or at least he didn't call them "enemies."

If Mr. Obama fired an Inspector General for investigating one of his political allies, would the media report it? And you think that Mr. Bush did anything close to this?

Thanks for helping out, though. I come here to read the opposing opinions in comments.

Notice the pathetic MO the trollers and lefties have now had to go to.
They're now relegated to reaching , struggling and contorting to find something W or his administration did that's as bad as their Hope'n Change' "post partisan" "new tone" lightworker.

"If that concerns you, then answer this was it okay for President Clinton to fire all of the U.S. Attorneys when he was President?"

Yes it was.

A dem presidents actions are done for our own good. A repub presidents actions are done cause they are evil and want all of the worlds oil.

Right Tina?

That Barry believes non support of his agenda is indicative of an enemy faction of Americans proves that he doesn't realize that POTUS represents all of America, and that he is a dyed-in-the-wool follower of the ultra radical Alinsky model which calls for the destruction of those who do not agree with their nefarious agenda.

What I find interesting is all those who claimed Pres. Bush wasn't their president, vs Pres. Obama who doesn't want to be mine. And all those other people, they don't want Obama to be my president either.

Is it just me, or is Obama giving his opposition of two years hence an awful lot of ammunition to use against him lately?

That opposition would presumably be Republican, but not necessarily. He keeps this up, he's going to be the first president since Millard Fillmore denied renomination by his own party

While I am pretty agitated by Obama's "punish your enemies" and "but they gotta sit in back" comments (a black man should be aware of the connotation of that kind of imagery whether he meant it that way or not) I am probably most offended by his notion that people that want our borders secured and our immigration laws enforced (tasks that the federal government are specifically supposed to be doing according to the Constitution)some how in Obama's mind "aren't the kinds of folks that represent our core American values." How dare he lay claim to what values are American and what are not! I am sick and tired of Obama and his divisive rhetoric.

I have no Sympathy for this Devil getting ready to pen another verse. Not pleased to meet him. Not going to mention his name.

When you're black, you can do and say just about anything....Just ask Att. Gen. Holder.

Don't forget that in 2008, Republican KellyAnne Conway came under vicious attack for her "racist" comment that Hillary and Obama were fighting over who gets to "sit in the back of the campaign bus." I guess it's wrong when a Republican says something like that, but it's perfectly acceptable when a Democrat does.

Tina,
I came back here this morning to see if you replied to my query regarding your dad's lecture. Thanks for replying. No, wait, sorry you can't even take some time to provide some straightforward details that would help clarify your post for me. Maybe you could give me the name of that Russian scientist your dad talked to. He could probably answer my questions as well as you can. Frankly, I think you make stuff up.

Depending on what work Tina's dad was doing, there likely WAS a lot of restrictions placed on what he could say... especially if any of that work was classified.

And that's been going on for a LONG time.

Tina - come on, I've stuck up for you in the past because I believe you're essentially honest. Don't prove me to be a gullible sap who falls for a cute screen name, okay?

The most partisan thing I ever heard Bush say was that people were entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. This was an allusion to the falsehoods and lies the Democrats were pushing regarding the war in Iraq.

Depending on what work Tina's dad was doing, there likely WAS a lot of restrictions placed on what he could say... especially if any of that work was classified.

And that's been going on for a LONG time.

Tina - come on, I've stuck up for you in the past because I believe you're essentially honest. Don't prove me to be a gullible sap who falls for a cute screen name, okay?

The policy was applied to all government scientists regardless of whether or not the work was classified. As far as I know none of the topics my dad submitted to discuss were denied. However, it still affected him. Government scientists publish most of their work in journals. The rule meant that while attending a meeting, my dad could not discuss, any journal articles he wrote if it was not directly related to the topic of the lecture, even if a question was asked after his lecture, during lunch. My dad has been a scientist for over 40 years and had never been prevented from doing this before.

Many scientists, my dad among them, believed the new rules were meant to prevent government scientists from discussing their opinion or the results of experiments that contradicted the Bush administrations positions on global warming and embryonic reasearch. Whether or not you believe that was the intended reason for the new rule change, it did have the affect of silencing government scientists who disagreed with the Bush adminstration's official position on science related matters.

A dem presidents actions are done for our own good. A repub presidents actions are done cause they are evil and want all of the worlds oil.

Right Tina?

There has never been a politician that I trusted enough to place the good of the country over their own best interests. Perhaps George Washington's decline to accept a 3rd term puts him in that category. I've never thought of any U.S. president as being evil.

I came back here this morning to see if you replied to my query regarding your dad's lecture. Thanks for replying. No, wait, sorry you can't even take some time to provide some straightforward details that would help clarify your post for me. Maybe you could give me the name of that Russian scientist your dad talked to. He could probably answer my questions as well as you can. Frankly, I think you make stuff up.

If your dad critized the company he works for in a private conservation with you, would you post details on a blog that could get him trouble?

Maybe third time's the charm

I dare anyone to find a quote from President George W. Bush comparable to President Obama calling other Americans enemies.

Thanks for clearing things up, Tina.

JLawson, I tend to write better (less antagonistic and probably less biased) comments when I'm in a good mood. I was very stressed yesterday and that accounted for my tone. Sorry.

I have not seen it reported anywhere else that the 85% expenditure for health care must be determined for each plan participant. This is such an extraordinary matter that it far eclipses any other issue I have seen with respect to Obamacare: both in undermining the whole basis for insurance (pooled risk, as you point out) and for the additional administrative costs involved. Do you have a cite for this in the law?

Hope things have cleared up for you, Tina - nothing serious, I hope?

JT Kurtz,

I think you were referring to this article. Jay Tea was incorrect in stating that there must be an "85% expenditure for health care must be determined for each plan participant". You haven't seen it reported anywhere else because it is simply wrong. This is an aggregated requirement, not a requirement per individual.