[Masthead] A Few Clouds ~ 74°F  
High: 75°F ~ Low: 51°F
Saturday, Oct. 25, 2014

A slogan change?

Posted Monday, February 1, 2010, at 3:05 PM

Do we reach a point where President Obama's "Yes We Can" slogan must change to "No We Can't."


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

How about "YES WE CAN, but it's a really bad idea"

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 3:26 PM

How about maybe we can but maybe we can't? Not sure that sounds too positive, but it sounds more truthful and realistic.

-- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 3:26 PM

No, we didn't. (thank goodness!)

-- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 4:19 PM

How about "Yes,we can DO BETTER"?

That's something anyone could aspire to achieve.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 5:01 PM

Wouldn't surprise me that they're going for one of my mom's old phrases.. "Let's don't 'n say we did."

-- Posted by craftin_mom on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 5:44 PM

I have never been an Obama Fan that is a well known fact but we do have to take under consideration we as the public never really ask what "Yes we Can " truly meant.

If it meant Yes we can strengthen the broken economy then No we haven't

If it meant Yes we can spend tax payers money faster than they do then Yes we Can

If it meant Yes we can put the unemployed Back to work then No we haven't

If it meant Yes we can give the unemployed more money and longer benefits then Yes We Can

If it meant Yes we can make our military stronger and bring our troops from a senseless War then No we haven't.

If it meant Yes we can cut our military budget and send even more troops into harms way then Yes we Can

If it meant Yes we can fix our health care system then No we haven't

If it meant Yes we can know what is in your best interest then Yes we can

If it meant Yes we can bring this nation together as one then No we haven't

If it meant Yes we can divide us like we have not been divided since before the civil war then Yes we can

I could go on but I think you catch my drift here. Yes we can means many different things one should have ask the true meaning of Yes we can before he took office, instead of chanting Yes We Can. We should have been asking Yes we can, do what?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 5:54 PM

How about 'we said we could but you people will believe any lie we tell you' so we never intended to.

-- Posted by cherokee2 on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 7:23 PM

SO tell us Bo, what is the intent of this question? The only one I can see is that of division. One that is intended to keep your right wing followers united in the message of

"NO WE WON'T"

to make sure that they do not weaken and decide to get involved and accept the Olive Branch, and thus actually offer productive in put that would help unite America find bipartisan solutions to our problems and thus help this country become the great respectable country she once was. That would be horrible for wouldn't it? To have that happen under president Obama. This is all about party , country be damned, it has to be republican party or death to America, no way will you folks ever accept anything to do with Obama -period. You folks have no intention of allowing any of actions under his watch to succeed, that is not an option. He could sign a bill written by you and you would refuse it because his name was on it.

It is sad that a man in your position who could if he had inclination, have a positive impact on the country , could actually encourage honorable behavior that would help bring the parties together, and help this country. Instead you play these childish head games and low life style manipulation to keep the country divided. For your party and those who huddle around it's feet the only thing worst than America complete demise is for her to see any improvement under a Democrat president.

Just like every president before him - your Bush included, what Obama does will not always be perfect, but just like those before him he will do the best he can with what he has to work with.

In order for us to recover this country must come together, all parties must have respect for the others and the citizens, all citizens, even those you consider beneath you. If there is something that we don't agree on we must work it out, find a solution not just shut down. It can not be all or nothing. Are you man enough, are you honorable enough to put America ahead of your hate towards Obama and the democrats? Or will you continue your mission to keep the hate you have towards them flowing? Do you love America enough to put your hate aside and put her first? I'm not saying roll over but to work "together" for her good? Drop the message of "NO WE WON'T". But rather one of " Let's figure this out together". No one party has all the answers they must work together, and your parties "NO WE WON'T" message is a knife in America's back. It is a disgrace and embarrassment at best. If you disagree with something step up and offer a better solution that is viable for consideration. Get involved instead of stone-walling.

You see it's not a matter of if Obama can or can't as long as your party is dead set on the death of anything that Obama may be able to accomplish. But then again you know that don't you and that is why your posting messages such as this. It is your knife in his back, your effort to make sure he fails, no matter what, you must see him fail. That is your mission, your goal.

What would it take for you to actually work towards unity with the administration? To honestly reach out and make a positive effort to accomplish good and not division?

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 10:51 PM

Dianatn, If it meant Yes we can spend tax payers money to clean up their mess Yes we Can

If it meant YES WE CAN rely and trust the republicans to step up and do the honorable thing and become a part of the solution with suggestions and input to help revive this country than NO THEY WON"T.

If it meant Yes WE CAN work as a country united and together hat can work out our differences with class and respect for each other NO THEY WON"T

If YES WE CAN meant the parties would share the Olive Leaf and work together for the best of America, respecting their differences and finding common ground that they could all be proud to have been apart of NO THEY WON't

If YES WE CAN find opposition and hate at every turn from the republicans well YES WE CAN, that is the one thing they have offered.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 3:17 AM

Wonderwhy . . . it takes two to dance and the Democrats have been just as uncompromising as the Republicans and Obama has not been immune either. Obama basically says that he will only agree to bipartisanship as long as it agrees with his own agenda. How is that being bipartisan? I do have to admit though that after the Massachusetts election of a Republican senator has shown Obama softening his stance somewhat and realizing that his approach has been flawed.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 6:22 AM

The operative word in YES,WE CAN is WE.

WE might do nothing (except,perhaps,complain and make dire predictions).

WE might put more effort into division than conquest.

WE might hold *any*one responsible for our plight but ourselves.

Or...

WE might think hard about what changes need to occur and the optimum way to implement them.

WE might delegate the best people possible to apply their talents but never let go of our own responsibilities.

WE might start with ourselves and our own backyard.

WE might believe in our success because no triumph ever occurred for people who wrote themselves off before they started.

WE might be the change we want to see in the world.

We can say NO WE WON'T to hate and self-indulgence.

We can say NO WE WON'T to giving up.

We can say NO WE WON'T to failure.

If we want to see *any* administration work out, we have to decide that NO WE WON'T be identified as victims or exploiters.

YES WE CAN tighten our belts,roll up our sleeves,hit the books,go the extra mile,and ask what WE can do for our country.

WE,the people,in order to form a more perfect union,need to stop the fear,the animosity,the laziness and the greed and focus on the simple,corny things like teamwork,self-respect,pride in our accomplishments,compassion,bravery,ingenuity and hope.

To use another cliche',if WE are not part of the solution,then WE are part of the problem.

We might remember what another president asked of us in his inaugural address in 1961.

His most remembered statement was crafted from various quotes he had kept since his youth-things like this line from Guy Emerson's _The New Frontier:A Study of the American Liberal Spirit_ :

"Men and women are born to put more into their country than they take out of it."

Read the speech he made that January 20 and try to forget his party,his personal flaws or how his Camelot fell to assasination.

Think on the words.

"We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom--symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning--signifying renewal, as well as change.

For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now.

For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life.

And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution.

Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures.

Divided, there is little we can do--for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny.

We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view.

But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge--to convert our good words into good deeds--in a new alliance for progress--to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty.

But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers.

Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors.

Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course.

Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty.

The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are--but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, 'rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation'--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind?

Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.

I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it.

I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation.

The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you.

With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own. "

Before we do too much critiquing of Mr. Obama's speech and his proposals,let us finish fulfilling the goals of the New Frontier begun almost a half century ago.

Can we make the aspirations declared in pretty speeches more than just soundbites?

Can the individual,the community and the governing bodies unite to not only change and prevent catastrophe but to be creative,regenerative and supportive of our common good?

YES WE CAN.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 7:47 AM

Remember when Obama promised that middle class families will see their taxes cut -- and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase?

Well, it seems he can change his mind. YES HE CAN!

"NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free."

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 9:11 AM

jax's can you honestly say, that the republicans have in good faith made real attempts to work in a bi partisan manner? That they have actually come tot he table willing to work together and help come up with anything that is acceptable to both parties? Just as under Bush, the party on the hill does have the slant in the mix, that is what the party that gets elected has as it perk for the elections. That is how it has always been. I do think though in the past the parties have at least attempted to work together unlike the status quo now. If we are to see any progress we must see the republican party give up their status of the party of "NO WE WON"T _ PERIOD". They need to get in the sand box with the other kids and play nice. They are standing out side, arms crosses,pouts on their faces, crying they won't play with us, yet they refuse to accept the invitation to join in and be a part of the activity. They want to be the bully's on the block, saying it's all their way or they will stomp their feet and refuse to play.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 10:12 AM

Jaxspike,

"In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth."

Are you part of the same group of Republicans that is against government handing out entitlements into perpetuity? If "entitlements" and "economy driven breaks" are never repealed, how does that help the economy to stabilize?

I understand that, with what was presented, to be saying that the President is hopeful that by the end of 2010 the economy will have recovered enough that extra breaks won't be needed.

Before 2009, unemployment was taxed; why should a help to the economy be prolonged without end?

What are some of the benefits coming out of the new budget? Will the net taxes be higher, or is he providing a way for Americans to overall keep more money in their pockets - those that manage to find and retain jobs, that is.

It is not a tax hike to stop extra breaks; what reason was given for wanting to stop them? Does it mean it WILL be stopped?

COBRA insurance coverage is being supplemented by the Federal government during this crisis. It was originally only available for 9 months after a layoff; it was extended in January to cover for up to 15 months. COBRA is for people who lost their jobs, but desire their medical coverage. An unemployed person can't really afford $600/mo for the individual, to be covered by insurance; $220 STILL hurts, but is marginally more affordable.

There can't be new benefits without taking back old benefits, or the budget won't balance (which it only will on paper, anyways).

Honestly, though; the Republicans in this community; how many of you voted against Obama primarily because he's a Democrat? What I remember hearing most in this town, on the streets, prior to the election, "No way in HELL I'll vote for a BLACK man - even IF he were Republican!"

Get over yourselves.

Awesome points by wonderwhy and quantumcat; enjoyed them immensely. :)

Tim Baker's comment was actually funny, and not too far off from being a good idea, too. ;) To be perfectly fair, the President does try to incorporate a lot of bad ideas to get the Republicans to sign off on the bills, as they're unwilling to try it his way and see IF it works. If they're right, and it doesn't, then it's a guaranteed win in 2012 - stonewalling won't have THAT kind of effect...

It'll just polarize the elections again, and have people crying, "You never gave Obama a chance!"

The electoral college isn't comprised of idiots; if they didn't think he could do the job, they wouldn't have voted for him. Our votes are only our inclination of where we want THEM to vote; they were not obligated to accept our recommendations, and if they though Obama wasn't up to the task, they legally could have voted in McCain anyways. I think it's safe to say that Palin helped to ensure that wouldn't happen, though... :p

Where IS that poster that said the Times-Gazette is a LIBERAL newspaper, anyways...?

-- Posted by Analytical Mindset on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 11:17 AM

I agree with you Wonderwhy, your comments make the most sense of all.

-- Posted by wonderer on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 12:27 PM

Analytical Mindset, you were commenting on 2012 election, the Supreme Court has just allowed for our ability to actually vote in our next President to fall to the highest contributor. They seem to have covered one more of the base that they need to to ensure them a win should the voters not back whom they want elected. Sadly they can now put the money where our votes were. What else will happen between now and then for them to perfect the manipulation of the elections? I have no answers but a lot of questions as to where we are going and to what lengths they will go to manipulate the out come.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 1:12 PM

I did not vote for Obama or McCain because they were both poor choices and so I decided to vote for an independent candidate to voice my frustration of those choices. In past years I have voted for Kerry, Gore, and Clinton for president while also voting for people Republicans like Jim Tracy not because of party affiliation but because I thought they were the best person for the job. I have the intelligence to see past a party label and judge the candidate on what they stand for.

Analytical Mindset . . . I love the fact you basically insinuate that everyone who did not vote for Obama did not vote for him because of race. Sure, there are some who probably did not vote for him due to the color of his skin but then I heard some people say they voted for him just because he was black. Either way, I do not like being lumped into a box and labeled racist just because you have a limited mental capacity to understand that some people voted on the real issues and that they may not share the same opinion as you. So get over yourself . . .

Wonderwhy . . . the Democrats are the new Republicans. For so many years they complained about how Republicans held close door meetings and bully legislation through when they had the majority and now we see the Democrats do the exact same thing. That is why I steered away from the Democratic Party last year because they had become a party of hypocrisy and was just as far left as the republican were to the right.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 1:28 PM

I am glad that the Republicans haven't caved in to calls of "bipartisanship".

The Dems have only proposed more of their unconstitutional, class warfare programs that are in direct opposition to everything this country was founded upon.

A compromise plan to bridge the gap between good and bad is never a wise move for those on the good side.

-- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 2:00 PM

Basically, I just want normal again: whichever party that can provide that, I will happily be affiliated with. Of course I am not sure if I even remember what normal is any more

:>(

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 2:36 PM

quietmike, your attitude is very creepy. The idea that it is wrong for the parties to work together to better serve ALL of America, that you actually think it is just fine to blow off any one not Republican and to leave anyone not "YOUR" party un represented. That you say your against class warfare, yet are willing to silence anyone not willing to blindly do as the republicans say. That you would actually consider it ok to have our government throw near half of the citizens to the way side because they do not believe the way you party says to. That is a dictatorship mind set and not America was founded on.

In order for this country to function the way she was designed to she must have checks and balances, that is why we have more than one party. To be so vain as to try and shut out any efforts of the parties to come together and work for the intrest of ALL citizens in this country show nothing but bias and a blind arrogance that is unwelcome and not what our country was founded on.

Do explain how it is you feel that the republicans have the right to throw more than half of the citizens of this country to the curb (Dem's and any who do not call themselves REPUBLICAN). If they are unable to repression all the people they are unworthy to represent even one. If they are unwilling to work with those out side their click they should be removed for those willing to work for AMerica

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 3:37 PM

Obama could say "No I can't because the dog ate my plans"

-- Posted by Grits on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 7:39 PM

Can Obama give a really good speech?

Yes he can!

-- Posted by espoontoon on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 7:59 PM

"Yes we can" evolved into "No I can't" which has led the the supporters of "Yes We Can" to begin saying "Oops, What the hell did we do?" lol

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 8:09 PM

Can Obama give a really good speech?

Yes he can!

-- Posted by espoontoon on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 7:59 PM

I watched the State of The Union and would agree that Obama can give a good speech. But, as I have said before to another "i can hear you talking but are you really saying anything...I don't think so". You can stand up and sound intelligent and make people want to believe you. But, that does not make you right or mean that your proposals will fly. Whether anyone likes it or not, until those with the means to produce do so no jobs will be created. Now I have a question. Why would any person borrow money, open a business, hire employees and be willing to risk it all for 40%? The numbers will just not work and until they do no one is hiring or opening new businesses and we all better get use to plowing fields and raising our own food . Wonder how long it will take for the government to claim 60% of the food?........outonthefarm

-- Posted by outonthefarm on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 8:40 PM

If they are unable to repression all the people they are unworthy to represent even one.

-- Posted by wonderwhy

That little typo is a very telling Freudian slip on your part.

The checks an balances you speak of are exactly what are at work here. Obama's actions have shown he gives very little regard to the constitution and the rules that it lays out. As a check, the republicans, along with some sensible democrats, have used some parliamentary moves to halt his unconstitutional plans.

The number or percentage of people who support an idea is irrelevant if that idea is contrary to our laws. The constitution is the bedrock from which those laws are based upon.

-- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 11:42 PM

".......work for the intrest of ALL citizens....."

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 3:37 PM

Really! Is that what you call, being half way through the State of the Union Speech and attacking the Republicans? Just how do you see that is building a bridge across the isle? It does just the opposite.

You say "....that In order for this country to function the way she was designed to she must have checks and balances, that is why we have more than one party. To be so vain as to try and shut out any efforts of the parties to come together and work for the intrest of ALL citizens in this country show nothing but bias and a blind arrogance..." .

Isn't that the best way to describe what Obama did in the speech and what the Democratic party has done from the day it gain a majority? The issue is not which party is in "power" but what they do when they have it. I have typically voted Democrat in local elections but i was so glad to see Brown elected. If you wish you can discount anyone who would oppose your views. What you can not do is rebut is the fact that the populous is not buying into the hype. I will say there should be a middle ground for both parties. The problem is the Democrats think they now have a license to steal. I will ask you this "just because one has the ability to do something does not mean they should".

The idea of coexistence and unity in purpose is great. But it will take getting off the spending wagon and getting on the job creation and cost and tax cutting wagon. Had Obama open the first year in office concentrating on jobs rather than some utopian idea socialized medical insurance a lot of the issues would be mute. That is the way it looks from...outonthefarm

-- Posted by outonthefarm on Wed, Feb 3, 2010, at 12:16 AM

How about "Yes it did!"

Did the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase" help fuel winds of change? Yes it did! According to none other than former President Bill Clinton:

"That Nebraska thing is really hurting us," former President Bill Clinton told House Democrats a few days before the Jan. 19 Massachusetts special election.

Did the deal look like backroom politics? Yes it did!

"It's an ugly process and it looks like there are a bunch of backroom deals," Obama told ABC News.

Both excerpts from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap...

Now, I am not so naive as to think this sort of thing is limited to one party. It has been going on for years. These pork deals need to come to an end. Now, that is where I am naive...thinking that will ever happen.

However, this is exactly the sort of thing Mr. Obama campaigned against. Yet, he let it take place to further HIS agenda. Only after the political fallout in Massachusetts did he acknowledge it was a "mistake' to let it go forward.

Did he break another campaign promise? Yes he did!

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Wed, Feb 3, 2010, at 3:50 AM

How about "we could have already if Bush had not been in office and left this mess"

-- Posted by chs61 on Wed, Feb 3, 2010, at 11:31 AM

chs61 . . . maybe the same could have been said for Clinton. Both Bush and Clinton made bad decisions that have come back t haunt us but its time to live in the present and not keep blaming people who haven't been in office for more than a year (or several in Clinton's case). That rhetoric is old and stale by now and do nothing to solve the problem.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Feb 3, 2010, at 11:45 AM

jaxspike,

Wow, you are the only one that harped on me calling up the FACT that many people in this STATE stated, openly, they would not vote for a black man. There were only THREE counties in Tennessee that voted for Obama.

You said:

"Analytical Mindset . . . I love the fact you basically insinuate that everyone who did not vote for Obama did not vote for him because of race. Sure, there are some who probably did not vote for him due to the color of his skin but then I heard some people say they voted for him just because he was black. Either way, I do not like being lumped into a box and labeled racist just because you have a limited mental capacity to understand that some people voted on the real issues and that they may not share the same opinion as you. So get over yourself . . ."

I said:

Honestly, though; the Republicans in this community; how many of you voted against Obama primarily because he's a Democrat? What I remember hearing most in this town, on the streets, prior to the election, "No way in HELL I'll vote for a BLACK man - even IF he were Republican!"

You said:

"I have the intelligence to see past a party label and judge the candidate on what they stand for."

I say:

But apparently not the intelligence to read a paragraph for comprehension.

I never insinuated that all people voting against Obama did so because of his skin color.

I addressed Republicans (you state that you vote on the issues, not the party, so this would remove you from the "insinuation"); I asked a question to the Republicans addressed (how many of you voted against Obama primarily because he was a Democrat?), regarding party affiliations influencing voting practices; and I stated what I personally had heard ("I won't vote for a black man", though they used the "N-word" instead...) in the community.

I don't claim to know everybody in the community. I basically stated that the people that I personally know in this community all said they wouldn't vote for a black man - and that's true. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM said that. The ones that I personally know. Republican or Democrat. "It's a Southern thing, you wouldn't understand" - that kind of attitude.

But thank you for the "limited mental capacity" ad hominem attack. It's ad hominem in that it is seeking to discredit my statement as lacking any intellectual merit, while you dictated what I "basically insinuated". And you did this by ignoring what I actually DID say; words that were specifically chosen to avoid ambiguous application.

I didn't say, "All of you that didn't vote for Obama did so because you're a bunch of racist, uneducated hicks, who didn't want a black man in office." Had I said something so ignorant, I'd be inclined to agree with your assessment. I also didn't insinuate that. I stated clearly what I meant to say.

I identified my audience.

I asked a question.

I stated what I had personally heard.

What I wanted to hear was an answer to the question, from that audience, that would address the limited input I had heard in the few people I know already in this community.

And I know that as Bedford County did not vote for Obama, if people here did vote for him only because he was black, they didn't represent the majority of the voting people.

If people don't share my opinion, then they voted on party lines; or race; and not issues.

I've already stated that I identify myself as a conservative-liberal, and not as a Republican or Democrat.

I apologize, jaxspike, that the words formed from my "limited mental capacity" were not clear enough for your "intelligence to see past a party label and judge" my words "on what they stand for."

Nobody else appeared to have been confused by what I stated.

Or was this just a clever mechanism employed to distract from the fact that you sidestepped the other challenges to your position; the ones asking you to further defend your assessments of the current state of the union, and your claim that Obama is trying to undermine American taxpayers?

-- Posted by Analytical Mindset on Wed, Feb 3, 2010, at 7:52 PM

This sure is a community of blind, cult like republicans. The posts I read on here, and other blogs for this area, show very little if any concern for your average AMERICAN. I have seen nothing that would show any desire for a UNITED AMERICA. Only the desire of Republican Rule. I see no compassion, no concern for anything that would not benefit the party. There is blatant, hate towards our leadership, without any hint of desire for unity.

Is this how a successful country should be run? Should the party not in office make it a mission statement to ensure any and all failure they can ensure of the current one? OR Should the welfare of the country be put above all and the parties work together to find answers and solutions that will make the country stronger? Once they walk through the doors in Washington, should they not put party lines aside and the people of America first? No one party can have all the answers, it should be a combination of all to find the best possible solutions.

I am amazed by the one poster who was proud of the Republicans refusal to work with the President to try and find solutions that would be agreeable to both parties. To be so narrow minded as that, to put our country and her welfare at risk, to put political agenda above that of the welfare America. That is not a mindset to be proud of, but rather one to pity. For a party that calls itself Christians, they sure have cold empty hearts when it comes to the common man, and a great respect and revere for vessels of greed. God has said what ever you have done to least of us you have done unto him. I for the most part see a party that claims to follow the words of Jesus but shows the heart and compassion of the devil. I have read many interesting biblical discussions, that show a wonderful dedication to learning the word of GOD, but see very little honorable actions that reflect what HIS word says. There is a lot of picking and choosing of Gods word and a lot of will full omission.

I guess when one visits a rabid red community this is all to be expected though. I do not suggest you become heathens, but you come close to the appearance of wanting a Republican Dictatorship.

-- Posted by KaiteJones on Wed, Feb 3, 2010, at 9:55 PM

Analytical Mindset:

I believe that John Kerry, in 2004, had a higher percentage of the vote in Tennessee than did Barack Obama. There were counties that Kerry carried in Tennessee in 2004 that Obama did not in 2008. This scenario was common throughout the Mid South, or the area of the country that runs from West Virginal, down through Kentucky and Tennessee and then west through Arkansas and then into North Texas and Oklahoma.

Here is link to the map; it was printed in the NY Times.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/result...

I agree with your reason for this phenomenon.

-- Posted by Grit on Wed, Feb 3, 2010, at 10:04 PM

"I basically stated that the people that I personally know in this community all said they wouldn't vote for a black man - and that's true. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM said that. The ones that I personally know. Republican or Democrat."

- Posted by Analytical Mindset on Wed, Feb 3, 2010, at 7:52 PM

Minor point, you did not state this in your original post. Most people reading your original post would think that you heard this in random conversations that you overheard as you passed by.

However, I am glad to see that you are now being all inclusive by adding Democrats. Oops, wait a minute, you did not include independents.

The probable reason nobody else responded is that this issue has already been hashed and rehashed in previous blogs.

So, did you conduct your own personal poll? How many people do you know?

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 1:01 AM

Midnight Rider,

Well, I thought it was clear in the original post; I made it more clear in that one as there was obviously some confusion as to what I meant. I didn't state "Independents" as I don't know anybody locally that has said that's their party of preference.

I'm not talking about water-cooler chit chat, or people out shopping; these were just people that I personally know, or that were at their homes on various occasions. And actually, if you were to ask them today, they'd say the same thing. :p

I only know two people in this area that I know to be Democrats; the rest are Republicans; or sure the heck vote as if they were.

As I'm not huge on discussing politics, I pretty much ignore party affiliations when making decisions concerning friendships. I'm more interested in what kind of human being a person is.

Unfortunately, this sometimes involves being tolerant of racists; more so because their family members are vapid wastes of flesh... than that they themselves are... ;p

I don't follow all the blogs; saw it being addressed in this one though, round about.

I never implied that I conducted a poll; hence referring to what I heard on the street, from people I know. That's why I was asking people why they didn't vote for him, if they did not. :p

Locally I know about 60 people, but they are basically from three families; and I only associate regularly with maybe 10 of those people. (Even less, when I can help it.)

Thank you for noting that I could have been more clear, though; I'm usually better at qualifying my statements than in that post.

I appreciate your tone, too; more conducive to holding an actual discussion. :)

-- Posted by Analytical Mindset on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 7:04 AM

Great post Analytical Mindset . . . you are so right about everything.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 11:09 AM

jaxspike,

Thank you for your honesty and humility. I mean that sincerely, as I know you did as well.

;p

-- Posted by Analytical Mindset on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 2:30 PM

I love the Spanish proverb that states "a wise man changes his mind, a fool never".

Sometimes a wise person must learn to end an argument that will have no resolution.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 2:59 PM

My reason for posting this blog, as a couple of you have suggested, wasn't to divide anything.

I'll explain my reason and, as always, it will be brief, to the point and won't require a docorate degree to understand it.

Why must the American people keep getting all of the pie-in-the-sky explanations filled with 29-cent words while the wrong people are being asked to buy the ingredients for those pies?

Shouldn't the fat cats who received huge bonuses beyond what most of us will ever make in a lifetime - from our tax-dollars to bail out their companies because of their bad, greedy and dinhonest business practices - buy those ingredients?

I'm not talking about Democrats or Republicans, only politcians and bureaucrats in general who have piled too much of the load on hard-working Americans. They need those burdens eased, not more piled on their shoulders.

These people should and must be heard if our elected officials won't do what is right.

-- Posted by bomelson on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 3:00 PM

KaiteJones,

Please examine us (and our posts) a bit more thoroughly.

Like one part of the body that is damaged or diseased,one small,atypical segment of a community can distract from the healthy and functional and make the whole seem sick.

There are some positive elements that may not be as obvious as those that need to be jettisoned but they do exist.

There are people with insight,courage and compassion here who not only prevent and ameliorate a lot of problems but who are active in making things truly great.

They aren't confined to any certain groups,either.

The irritants can obscure our vision of anything good but the better part does exist.

Look for them and celebrate them when you find them.

Alas,too often,we cherry-pick just to ignore the sweet,tangy and wholesome and bemoan the presence of the part that is hard and toxic.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 3:40 PM

"I love the Spanish proverb that states "a wise man changes his mind, a fool never".

Sometimes a wise person must learn to end an argument that will have no resolution."

As opposed to changing his mind...?

-- Posted by Analytical Mindset on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, at 11:23 PM

"I'll explain my reason and, as always, it will be brief, to the point and won't require a docorate degree to understand it.

Why must the American people keep getting all of the pie-in-the-sky explanations filled with 29-cent words while the wrong people are being asked to buy the ingredients for those pies?"

Um, actually; that wasn't as clear to understand as I would have expected, from its introduction...

If I understand what you did mean by it, though, it's kinda clever. I just had to reference the origin of the phrase to get it: you seem to be asking why we're getting all these fanciful promises of how great it's going to be because of everything we 'can' do as a country, meanwhile the poor and middle-America are being expected to fork over the funds for these promises that seem unlikely to ever be realized.

I had thought, reflecting on this topic the other day, that "Yes We Can" was about as politically-correct as one can get, without actually committing to anything (and I'm pro-Obama, to be clear). "Can" and "Will" are different things entirely. "Can" speaks to our potential; "Will" speaks to our commitment.

He's being a politician, and making promises to garner public support - and keep the money rolling in; but falling short of deadlines and commitments. At least, as I understand it. I don't generally follow politics.

I would like to see the benefit of the Recovery Act more actualized, though. All of these industries are getting in money for projects, but rather than hire anyone, they're maximizing profits for the executives / upper management, while the getting's good, and then trying to reassure us that while they didn't need to hire anybody, they also didn't need to fire anybody.

So we'll be grateful they didn't add to the unemployment figures, and look the other way.

There is a set minimum at which a particular type of business can cut its staff and still function competitively. If most companies are already streamlined to this minimum functionality, they're just blowing smoke when they say they were at risk to lay off more people. They simply don't want to hire anybody else on, so if the economy don't rebound, they at least have fiscal solvency in the projections for the year.

Even though the economy can't rebound if the money is flowing through a restrictor-valve...

=====================

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/28270...

Pie in the sky

Meaning

A promise of heaven, while continuing to suffer in this life.

Origin

pie in the skyThis is an American phrase and was coined by Joe Hill in 1911. Hill was a Swedish-born itinerant labourer who migrated to the USA in 1902. He was a leading light of the radical labour organisation The Industrial Workers of the World - known as the Wobblies, writing many radical songs for them. The phrase appeared first in Hill's The Preacher and the Slave, which parodied the Salvation Army hymn In the Sweet Bye and Bye. The song, which criticized the Army's theology and philosophy, specifically their concentration on the salvation of souls rather than the feeding of the hungry, was popular when first recorded and remained so for some years.

The phrase wasn't taken up until the Second World War, when it began to be used figuratively to refer to any prospect of future happiness which was unlikely ever to be realized. For example, this report from the California newspaper The Fresno Bee, November 1939:

"The business world is fearful that Roosevelt's obsession with war problems will mean a continued neglect of questions which still restrict trade and profits. They are highly skeptical of Washington's promise that they will 'eat pie in the sky' solely from war orders, which they decry publicly.

=====================

-- Posted by Analytical Mindset on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, at 11:42 PM

YES WE CAN,but who wants to?

-- Posted by LarLMoore on Mon, Feb 8, 2010, at 5:26 PM

And Palin's slogan would be?? "I have it in the palm of my hand"

-- Posted by Freedomof Speech on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 6:38 AM

And Palin's slogan would be?? "I have it in the palm of my hand"

-- Posted by Freedomof Speech on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 6:38 AM

I like that over the current administrations "I have my palm in your pocket". Stay out of our pockets...outonthefarm

-- Posted by outonthefarm on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 9:58 AM

How about " See ya" or "here today gone tomorrow"

"The joke is over time to go home"

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 10:05 PM

It seems to me "Yes we can" is a good slogan. Like "we the people".

It is the WE that is the issue. "We the people" can solve all of the healthcare and economy problems. "We the government" created the problems and are unlikely to fix it.

Do you know someone in need? HELP THEM!! Do you know someone who is rich? SOLICITE THEIR HELP!

The government can inact certain laws that would encourage or discourage such activities that is about it. Greed is universal and is not limited to the rich.

If WE are a Christian nation. WE have to be Christian first (as free individuals not forced) and a nation second. The "Yes we can, government" cannot accomplish that.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Sun, Feb 14, 2010, at 8:34 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Bo Melson is a retired sports and police beat editor of the Times-Gazette.
Hot topics
Your Dreams
(4 ~ 2:15 PM, Oct 24)

Hope I'm Wrong, But-
(4 ~ 2:39 PM, Oct 20)

Third Rate?
(3 ~ 4:29 PM, Oct 7)

Shelbyville Mills School
(774 ~ 9:58 AM, Sep 29)

More Annoying Television Ads
(10 ~ 10:29 PM, Sep 22)