Comments


  • rollinstone.

    You forgot about the Mink Coat Mob beating up UN Ambassbor Adali Steveson in Dallas in 1963, a few months before JFK was killed.

    April 9, 2010 at 5:25 p.m.

  • You don't get the way of old people.LOL

    March 29, 2010 at 5:08 p.m.

  • What,with canes and 50 caliber machine guns strapped on their walkers...

    March 29, 2010 at 5:05 p.m.

  • Oh, BTW, there still are a few mobsters and members of the unions from the Kennedy days that might try to start something… (LOL)

    March 29, 2010 at 5 p.m.

  • Victore
    Oh, I bet we have some anti-government types cheering them on..:-)

    I used to work with a fellow that was a member of the Republic of Texas Militia...He was proud of the fact that the FBI contacted him about the Oklahoma bombing.... What he couldn't grasp;he was was in their database.

    March 29, 2010 at 4:51 p.m.

  • Now Mike, that was plum rude! (LOL) I heard they were all Democrats trying to make room for SEIU members. There maybe merit to that cause…

    March 29, 2010 at 4:44 p.m.

  • Victore

    I said the violence that's been stirred up reminded me of the days of the militia but you said "Mike,
    I don’t see the correlation of “Waco” or “OKC bombing”, but it might have merit.

    Today, Nine members of a Michigan-based Christian militia group have been indicted on sedition and weapons charges in connection with an alleged plot to murder law enforcement officers in hopes of setting off an anti-government uprising.

    Did we lose any local posters in the raid?
    Christians no less.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/... when

    Same excuses for starting a militia, not that those wackos need an excuse.

    Pilot
    Three birds with one stone...:-)

    March 29, 2010 at 4:31 p.m.

  • Pilot.

    I'm beginning to like you.

    March 29, 2010 at 4:18 p.m.

  • Holier than thou always comes back to bite you.

    March 29, 2010 at 4:10 p.m.

  • Yeah, fifty states, many headed for default, ...hmmmm..., I wonder why?

    March 29, 2010 at 3:56 p.m.

  • Not all liberals are liars some are actually pragmatic.... What is not well-known on the right, is that this is a conservative (not in a political sense) health-care bill. Liberals were not happy; neither were conservatives; hence the 46% approval.

    In this state liberalism is a dirty word; not so in New York, Illinois, California, the east and west coast.... We do have 50 states.

    March 29, 2010 at 3:33 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 29, 2010 at 3:27 p.m.

  • Mike, I don't have a Nobel prize, but you never know just ask Obama. But getting back to K-Thug, I mean Krudman. I agree with his assessment of the healthcare bill. He is such a liberal economists I was surprised he said what he did - aren't you?

    March 29, 2010 at 3:15 p.m.

  • Paul is right,this bill to just the foundation for future fixes. It is described as throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what will stick. We were forced into this by years of neglect.

    Sunday's Houston Chronicle and this week's Time magazine had some excellent articles on the pros and cons,dates they will take effect,pilot programs,cost estimates,and answers for the skeptics.... I doubt the naysayers will ever read them because it's much easier to say their freedom was taken away from them, it's a welfare program, it will never work, it's government take over but the other night I heard Ronald Reagan commercial saying the same thing about Medicare.

    March 29, 2010 at 3:06 p.m.

  • Paul Krugman, won a Nobel Prize in economics and was voted 6th in Prospects 2005 global poll of the world's top 100 intellectuals…And your claim to fame is?

    March 29, 2010 at 2:50 p.m.

  • I hope this isn't off topic, but I heard Paul Krudman say on ABC Sunday, the single greatest factor affecting healthcare is third party payers of healthcare.

    I almost fell out of my chair. He went on to say that the current "reform" did not correct this problem - WTH!

    March 29, 2010 at 2:43 p.m.

  • It is interesting that the conservative think ,Heritage Foundation once supported a "mandate" and so did George H. W. Bush.

    Nixon -- hoping to stave off the single-payer ethos of many congressional Democrats -- explored the idea in the 1970s, though Republicans now dismiss those discussions as the byproduct of a moderate president searching for a domestic policy victory.

    Less than two decades later, in what remains an unexplored chapter of health care history, a surprising supporter of the individual mandate was George H.W. Bush. According to contemporaneous reporting, Bush used "the tax system to 'encourage and empower' individuals to buy health insurance and would enact insurance market reforms that make it possible for everyone -- even if they have pre-existing health problems -- to get insurance." In short: individuals would be mandated to buy catastrophic health insurance. The cost of that coverage would be tied to income, meaning that the poorer you were, the less expensive your policy would be.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03...

    Beginning to make sense..When Democrats propose "mandates" ;it is unconstitutional...I believe Wyden-Bennett(about 7 GOP co-sponsors)health plan had a MANDATE.

    These health plans were not created in a vacuum;believe it or not the WH has constitutional lawyers.

    March 29, 2010 at 2:35 p.m.

  • OK, OK, Mike - no mas, man, no mas. But I do find it a concern what a thin thread it is that is holding up our freedom.

    March 29, 2010 at 2:32 p.m.

  • Ex,

    The 5th amendment is about due-process, you have to put in a frame work that will not affect that process. When this healthcare was singed into law, it’s considered the law of the land.

    Let’s say you have a health issue where the abstract was subject to the new law, and you feel xyz was violated of that law. Now you have elected to sue the government. The Judge dismisses the case then says you can’t sue because, law of the land.

    Some folks believe you can’t sue the government. That not so, in 1983 there was a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court because of the 5th amendment. Six unknown narcotics agent conducted a search warrant at the wrong address; the couple understood what had happen and wanted the damages that were done to their home repaired by the government. Well they were advised that cannot sue the government, they continued to pursue the issue, the lower courts ruled against the home owners. So any way it went to the top, the court ruled that they were entitled to due process and their 4th amendments rights were violated due to unreasonable search and seizer.

    So it will be interesting how the suits turn out.

    March 29, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.

  • Pilot
    Boy, was I way off base...No,I am sorry but your point was well taken anyway...You killed two birds with one stone and you didn't even know it.:-)

    Dang;you're good.

    March 29, 2010 at 2:15 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 29, 2010 at 2:12 p.m.

  • As I said the other day,SIMILAR IN NATURE..Not trying to be evasive...Think what you want...5-4 in that period might go the other way today..Then again I said earlier that this court might rule in their favor...THE MAIN POINT IS WHAT THE FED THINKS BROAD POWERS MEANS.....I have said three times I don't like "mandates"

    March 29, 2010 at 2:09 p.m.

  • In Lopez vs the United States, the Supreme Court rejected the government's argument:

    "In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale."

    A little detail you forgot to mention, Mike!

    March 29, 2010 at 2:05 p.m.

  • Pilot
    In my response to JR74, I meant that I had some responses to make (housecleaning) no comments were deleted in this particular blog.

    I think every poster makes (his/hers) reputation and they don't really change (good/bad) but I think others have been deleted by the Victoria Advocate for being disruptive and not abiding by the rules. I do not have tolerance for them; I know I write a provoking political blog; especially in this area, but there two or three bloggers I really don't want to mix it up with. Judgment calls are just that; who’s to say if they are right or wrong?

    I did make a statement one time that I would not allow ------------ post to my blog because their only the mission was to disrupt. They did not care if their comments were deleted or if they got kicked off the forum because it was their badge of honor. They usually came back in three months and tried again under different screen name.

    I have tried all sorts of things;( ignoring works best) but as a human being; I make mistakes, have good days and bad days, so for the most part I delete posters not necessarily their words, five to six posters in four years.

    You take pride that you have only deleted four comments in 5 years, I take pride that my comments have only been deleted three times in four years by the newspaper. Once was when a blogger decided to delete his blog, the other two times, I took the bait and my comments were properly deleted.

    I thank you for your input and advice and I will take it into consideration and not be so quick to delete in the future.

    Have a good one

    March 29, 2010 at 1:40 p.m.

  • Victore
    I guess we can agree that the word “constitutional” is whatever the Supreme Court rules it to be.

    Cinton v NY was about the line-item veto. It was ruled unconstitutional.

    You might be right but the vast powers of the commerce clause came into play in Lopez v US.
    Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was a 12th grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On March 10, 1992 he carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver, along with five cartridges,[1] into the school. Eventually he was charged with violation of the federal[3] Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (the "Act"), 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)[4]
    Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that §922(q) of the Act was "unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools.

    The Government's principal argument was that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition in one of two ways: first, because violent crime causes damage and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy; and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe.

    As I stated five days ago, “mandate” is an economically activity that could be upheld under the commerce clause because it gets consumers to internalize their costs rather than spread it across the country .It requires Americans to engage in a commercial exchange. …And he could have cited such cases as Raich, Lopez & the United States versus Morrison because they are similar in nature.

    You are right; we shall see…It is interesting.

    March 29, 2010 at 1:06 p.m.

  • This is what the "commerce clause" says:

    "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

    That's it. The original discussions about this clause were all about international trade and hardly any about intrastate commerce.

    It has been used over the years to give the federal government unlimited power - way beyond the enumerated powers it is suppose to have.

    Damn near everything could be construed as effecting intrastate commerce. The Supreme Court must limit the interpretation of this clause otherwise we might as well shred the Constitution.

    March 29, 2010 at 12:24 p.m.

  • Mike,
    You say it’s not a 10th amendment issue, I totally disagree with you. Actually 5th, 9th and 10th will come into play. If you will look up civil rights cases that has gone before the Supreme Court you will find that where (injury & punishment) was the main argument that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. On this particular issue there is no precedence that has been set, the only one I can re-call that is even close is Clinton v. New York City back 93, I think… But I guess we will see how it plays out?

    Have a good day

    March 29, 2010 at 12:15 p.m.

  • And I should care because?
    The post was for Victore.

    March 29, 2010 at 12:11 p.m.

  • Ex,

    "he works there" is stretching it. He's there and I'll leave it at that. lol And it's real funny that since they have "decided" what's best for us, the day after the vote all the Texas dems had their email accounts shut down so nobody could email.

    March 29, 2010 at 12:08 p.m.

  • #1 it was intended for JR74 and it was regarding Mr. Hinojosa's actions against the TEA...I did mention I would try & find out.

    Baseless posting amounts to..nevermind ,I am going to lunch;save some pie ,John.

    March 29, 2010 at 12:08 p.m.

  • I've looked searched for Hinojosa, although I didn't try google, and I couldn't find it, and I can' t remember where I read it at on the internet. I guess my age is catching up to me! lol
    I agree with the plans no pre-existing conditions but not the fact that they can force anybody into it. I know some people that refuse to buy it because they don't want it and can afford to pay. And all though some people will benifit from it, not many will. It's basically a redistribution of wealth, exactly what Nanci Pelosi was trying to do in the first place. When you think about a Gov run health care, I stick by my argument of medicare and medicade....they did a GREAT job of running that....into the ground.

    March 29, 2010 at 12:05 p.m.

  • It doesn't have to be Democrat/GOP, a partisan view can be liberal/conservative;Tea Party /Libertarian or right wing/left wing..You have a bias.

    My avatar speaks for itself;I frequently admit my bias and I don't run away from it;despite that some think it is bad....

    March 29, 2010 at 12:04 p.m.

  • Mike,
    I’m not always happy with the Republican Party, I’ve said this many times before in my posts, I have also stated that I was a Democrat up until Clinton run for his second term. That moron made a believer out of me. I, wouldn’t exactly call this kettle black.

    March 29, 2010 at 11:56 a.m.

  • Victore
    If you skip down ;you will see I used Fox as a source because they are all AP stories and the sames words will be used in several newspapers;word for word.

    The info is correct but if you want I can send the exact same story (same words)from another newspaper.

    March 29, 2010 at 11:54 a.m.

  • JR74

    Sorry to put you on hold but I had a little blog housecleaning to do.

    Except for a couple of phone calls, I think the Democrats are happy and they are not being accused of causing much mischief. Unless you heard things I have not; that's possible.

    Crammed down the throats is not what I or several others call it; we say it's about time.:-)

    You probably know a lot than I do about state politics… I am not familiar with the action of Ruben Hinojosa but sounds interesting and I probably will Google it ;after lunch.

    Nice hearing from you.

    March 29, 2010 at 11:50 a.m.

  • Mike,
    I wish you wouldn’t use MSNBC as source of information; their creditability has little or no merit at all. Those folks are the true haters… They eat their own.

    March 29, 2010 at 11:48 a.m.

  • Now Victore don't make me send a mirror to put next to monitor...That's a pot calling the kettle black.:-)

    March 29, 2010 at 11:48 a.m.

  • I skipped reading the comments, because I have something important to say… “we should all have some pie”!

    March 29, 2010 at 11:46 a.m.

  • Mike,
    You’re so funny sometimes; you will blame the Republicans for everything and deify any fault of the Democrats. You’re one partisan ole boy…

    March 29, 2010 at 11:41 a.m.

  • Ex
    That's called leveling the playing field...You mock GOP & Dem partisanship.... I put yours out there to be mocked as well.

    March 29, 2010 at 11:40 a.m.

  • Victore

    In the essence of time before lunch This was on March 23 but one or two more have been filed since then but read the quote by Reagan’s Solicitor General I provided in a post. A one or two have refused to file and the one in Penn. Was filed against the wishes of the governor.

    “The ink is still drying on the health care overhaul bill signed into law Tuesday by President Barack Obama, but attorneys general from at least 14 states have filed lawsuits to challenge the legislation.

    Thirteen state attorneys general — 12 Republicans and one Democrat — signed onto one lawsuit against the U.S. departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Labor. The top state lawyers in Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah,

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36001783/...

    Not a 10th amendment issue…

    BTW I gave full credit to the source I got some of the information I posted..I have frequently done that.

    March 29, 2010 at 11:37 a.m.

  • Mike,
    This was at the end of your bolg, I wasn’t trying to be rude here. How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America," written by Ronald Brownstein

    March 29, 2010 at 11:24 a.m.

  • Regaurdless ;you did not make an argument for your side...A lot of empty words...I am against the mandate and I already made the pro & con argument with waywardwind.

    "I no longer waste my time formalizing my disagreements with you. Whenever I destroy your logic, and advance an argument that you cannot refute, you simply delete it. ..That's a cop out for not knowing the latest on what is being about the "mandate" issue.

    I never worry about the Ron Paulites because they never win national elections..If the district was not Gerrymandered,Ron Paul would not win this one.IMO

    Everyone has an agenda ;some don't admit it.

    BTW History & info is the natural enemy of untested pipe dreams or theories.

    March 29, 2010 at 11:24 a.m.

  • Mike,
    What makes you think these law suits are frivolous? 10th amendment under article 6 there certainly room for argument just because of the legal term (injury) and or punishment, which could be conceivable that the government (congress) is over reaching its authority and then making the law unconstitutional. Stop making this challenge a Republican issue, when a vast numbers of these states the Lt, Generals are Democrats.

    March 29, 2010 at 11:20 a.m.

  • I am not surprised Mike, that Chris Matthews latched onto the "Mink Coat Riot" as a new talking point. I have to chuckle about the lengths that jackass will go to for "news."

    The "Mink Coat Riot" was of course quite bloody, actually more saliva and really no blood. It occurred on 4-Nov-1960 when LBJ was scheduled to give a speech at the Adolphus Hotel, which was supposedly across the street from Jack Ruby's strip club - the irony?

    Anyway, Johnson could have easily avoided the "mob" of men and women in mink coats and gone through a back way, but he chose to proceed with no security escort right through the center of the lobby. He took thirty minutes to walk across the lobby, Sam Rayburn said he could have gone through the lobby in five minutes. But with cameras rolling he walked slow as molasses.

    Unfortunately the stupid "rioters" spat on Ladybird and that was that - you don't spit on a lady in Texas. Johnson and Kennedy went on to win Texas by 48,000 votes out of two million. Fast forward to today there still is no real proof that anyone got spat on and if they did who did it. This story has consumed the liberal media as a way to divert the anger and frustration that people have over how our great nation is being made into a country like Venezuela.

    March 29, 2010 at 11:16 a.m.

  • Victore said

    “I don’t know if all the information in this blog is by your hand or others.”

    I don't know what that means but if it’s factual; that's all that counts, unless you think I'm incapable of writing a blog all by myself.

    On your first point; here is a small excerpt but if you want I can produce actual polls.

    Excerpt..” Clinton’s would-be successor, Vice President Al Gore, was embarrassed to campaign alongside Clinton, especially in the Bible Belt, and ended up losing states where Clinton was still popular.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/boo...

    Tip O’Neill, Reagan dealt with a lot of legislation but the reference was just a metaphor for the way things were done on a bipartisan nature in the old days.

    Sarah Palin: Seventy-one percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday morning believe the former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee is not qualified to be president, with 29 percent saying she does have the credentials to serve in the White House. Republicans appear split, with 52 percent saying she's qualified and 47 percent disagreeing with that view.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...

    Senator Dole was a moderate conservative not an ideologue; which right wing conservatives confuse for not being conservative enough.

    City, State, and the federal government were responsible for the Katrina fiasco.

    The republican committee eventually gave the Bush administration an “F” for their Katrina response…although not in this article…George W. Bush started dropping to the low 30s after people combined Katrina,Iraq,Harriet Meirs, and Mary Mary Schiavo….Look it up.

    “On the Senate side, committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in opening remarks that "within the federal government, DHS — which houses FEMA — bears the ultimate responsibility for a quick and effective response to disaster" yet the response was "time and again, late, uncertain and ineffective" and was "plagued by indecision and delay."

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1...

    Anger come from losing two straight elections because Health care was on the Dem agenda;Hillary had essentially the same plan…A lot of it is sour grapes, some are upset over bailouts,unemployment,Wall Street but the left wing radical charge is baseless..

    March 29, 2010 at 11:13 a.m.

  • How you been Mike?

    The hate is not just a one sided thing these days Mike. It's coming from both sides now. It comes from having something that most people don't want rammed down our throat. Come November it's time to clean house, and just the Dems....everybody needs to go.

    And now I have a question for you. I've been looking but I have yet to find it again but Congressman Ruben Hinojosa (D-Tex) is going after TEA trying to shut it down because the removed the term "Democratic" to Democracy (SP?) in the school books. I mean really? Is he serious?

    And I see Justin is back with a new name! lmao

    March 29, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.

  • EX
    In your usual condescending manner, meant to marginalize, those that might disagree with you; it is obvious you did not make an argument for the mandate.

    It was not necessary to read the lawsuits because they are similar in nature besides I watched as two of the lawyers explained their reasons for filling the suit and two governors (one pro one con) made their case. Several constitutional lawyers weighed in…There are various ways to familiarize you with a subject such as ears, ears, and from professionals in the field.

    I often seek references on subjects I'm interested in because I am not a know it all, as some think they actually are.

    “However, no less a (genuine) conservative constitutional scholar than Charles Fried -- President Reagan's solicitor general -- has declared as "preposterous" these new Republican efforts to mount a legal attack on national health reform legislation enacted by the Democrat-controlled Congress. Mr. Fried has declared that he is "left speechless by the absurdity" of these arguments -- which he refers to as mere "political theater." Mr. Fried points out that when he was Mr. Reagan's solicitor general, he "defended tons of laws" which imposed similar or stronger mandates than the health care bill -- citing the IRS laws, draft laws, environmental restrictions and the like. These mandates, imposed by Congress on both the states and their citizens, almost without exception have been upheld by the courts in response to similar constitutional challenges.”

    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010...

    In most cases I share my references.

    March 29, 2010 at 10:15 a.m.

  • Ex, I don't have a clue what you just wrote.

    March 29, 2010 at 9:46 a.m.

  • Mike,
    I don’t know if all the information in this blog is by your hand or others.

    As for as Clinton and popularity that was from the Democratic side of the isle.

    Regan and Tip O’Neill were mostly over the Immigration reform, which by the time it was implemented O’Neill had stepped down as speaker of the house. Which I might add the 1986 Immigration Reform & Control Act was a “bust” along with the logistical nightmare it became.

    Sarah Palin, as for as her credentials, which I’m not a fan of, she was a setting Governor and the state of Alaska is on the front line of defense since that old Bear is just a few minutes away. Good ole boy Biden just can’t keep his mouth shut, (IMO) he is totally disgusting.

    Former Sen. Dole was not a conservative Republican, although he was noted for reaching across the isle for bipartisanism ship.

    Katrina, the state of Louisiana, the home of welfare from all spectrums of the state, there is no industry other than the costal region. New Orleans, legacy of corruption. You have a Mayor that is crooked as they come, the Police Chief, which resigned during the recover operation of Katrina just because he couldn’t keep his hand off a new automobile. The governor that couldn’t find her way out of wet paper bag. G. Bush received unwarranted criticism over Katrina, because the Governor was not capable of executing any type of evacuation plan. (IMO) the Mayor and Governor should have been arrested prosecuted and thrown in jail for not providing the resources to secure the evacuation of the people of New Orleans. They are response able for a lot of deaths in New Orleans.

    Anger, the President has split this country right the middle because of his radical agenda, which comes from the far left.

    March 29, 2010 at 9:15 a.m.

  • No,I know that the word "mandate" can easily be changed to tax and it would amount to the same thing...Fee,mandate,tax all amount to paying for the program...I believe 12 of the 14 atty. generals who are bringing up the frivolous law suits are republicans..They all know the SCOTUS has given congress broad powers under the commerce clause in the past but it's OK to burden the states with expensive lawsuits to promote their political agenda.Law suits(of this nature) are usually backed up with case law....Will the SCOTUS that ruled that corporations are to be treated as individuals rule in favor of the states?..Maybe, but then congress can rename the mandate an excise tax...The president and George Stepanopoulos argued over this issue way before the signing of the bill.

    Democrats were reminding the opposition that it wasn't unconstitutional when their party proposed it....Nixon was just an afterthought.

    March 29, 2010 at 8:50 a.m.

  • This letter is from Alton Tupa from Edna;do you know him?The letter writer signed his name;so I believe he was not aware all of his misstatements.

    March 29, 2010 at 8:16 a.m.

  • Mike,
    Actually I didn’t mean to delete that comment, I was doing a little house cleaning on comments and got carried away. I think Alton threw you a lure to see what type of comments would come out… He does do his home work.

    March 29, 2010 at 7:43 a.m.

  • Maryann
    Really??? The Lavaca County Democrats are conservatives. Exresident, there’s your answer.

    March 29, 2010 at 4:38 a.m.

  • BJ, (aka Writein)

    You forgot one reason why the LCRP is experiencing a revival- conservatives are coming out to express their dissatisfaction with the current federal administration. Period.

    I can tell you that's why 80% of the Precinct 13 delegates were there. It had nothing to do with Leck for us.

    Mike, hope you had a blessed Palm Sunday with your family.

    March 28, 2010 at 9:43 p.m.

  • Exresident.

    I guess you're going have to figure that one for yourself.

    March 28, 2010 at 5:28 p.m.

  • Mike.

    It should be in the Texas History Books, but it isn't. The only way I find it out when I was studying a Crinimal Justice class in college.

    March 28, 2010 at 5:19 p.m.

  • I'm sorry I called it the Pink Coat...My question; is this the group the secret service were alerted to ;when JFK made his last trip to Dallas?

    That should be in the Texas history books because I plead ignorance;I've never heard of them until you mentioned it and I think Chris Matthews brought it up last week when he was discussing all the potential violence.

    March 28, 2010 at 5:09 p.m.

  • Mike.

    The Mink Coat Mob is not a secret organization. It was started by Republican Congressman Bruce Alger in the late 1950’s in Dallas, Texas. Conservatives refuse to talk about this. How come? Almost everything said in the “JFK Treason” poster is mighty similar being said against President Obama. How come they refuse to admit that?

    Here is link to that JFK Treason flyer . ( http://impiousdigest.com/jfk_treason.jpg )

    Read the book "1960: The campigan that floged three Presidencies".

    March 28, 2010 at 5:03 p.m.

  • Legion357

    My opinions are just that; no better than yours and I have never claimed mine to be a true certain.

    I do want facts but that's just to prove an outlandish claim. You are well read and I don't remember ever asking you to verify a statement. We had a disagreement over the funding of the Iraq War but the life of me I can’t remember who won that one. If I can’t remember; you probably did.:-)

    From the outset I said that the $787 billion stimulus package was to prime the pump but one third of it was tax cuts just to entice the Republicans. It didn't work and we got three Republicans. That money should have been put in infrastructure and the outcome might have been better. That's water under the bridge…. You can go back and look I said if it does not work the Democrats should and will pay in November of 2010. Again fiscal policies are not a true certain.

    We have spent over $6 billion to train the Afghanistan police force but they can’t begin to do their job right because 15% have been tested positive for drugs than 90% of them are illiterate. Our troops are doing a terrific job in Afghanistan killing some top Al Qaeda & Taliban operatives and some in Pakistan (legal or not?) with the use of aerial drones.BTW I don't hear the complaints about the deficit and debt when it comes to military spending..By the right. Remember this is another two-year commitment; America did not like the escalation at first but now they're OK with because the casualties have not been high (although rising)… Will the Commander- in- Chief be able to convince a majority of Americans that this is a necessary war. His leadership will be tested.

    WE have to get the treaty signed because it will help with the negotiations with Iran.

    We will not know what steps were successful in averting a depression until the Fed lets us know every step, every expenditure, and commitment they made with Wall Street, Asia and Europe. That's not likely to happen but dribs will leak out; then we will see how much the bailouts impact had and along with the taking over of GMC and Chrysler. That's going to take time.

    Have a good one

    March 28, 2010 at 4:47 p.m.

  • Well Mike, I know how you are always about the facts, that's why I pointed out the months in office.

    On your 6 points, you seem to have doubts about 3 of them.

    On the renewal of the START treaty, I don't "think" there will be a problem.

    The Russians would not renew it because of the proposed missile shield in eastern Europe. President Obama nixed that, but hasn't backed away from it completely...

    Gates said the treaty does not set constraints on US plans to develop and improve missile defense systems.

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meanwhile made it clear that Moscow could back out if the United States went too far with its plans to counter missile attacks by setting up defenses in eastern Europe.

    Moscow has strongly opposed US missile defense plans and has long insisted on an explicit recognition of the link between offensive and defensive systems in any new strategic arms pact.

    Ellen Tauscher, the undersecretary of state for arms control, told a White House news conference that the treaty imposes "no constraints" on U.S. missile defense programs. Tauscher, who was sent to Geneva late in the negotiations to help clinch the deal, said both sides acknowledged that Obama and Medvedev agree there is a connection between strategic offensive and defense weapons - "and that is where the discussion ended."

    Any treaty reference to missile defense could not be verified because the White House did not release the text.

    On Republicans views of the treaty...

    Early reaction on Capitol Hill revealed no clear-cut Republican opposition to the treaty. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., whose foreign policy views are widely respected in both political parties, said he looks forward to Foreign Relations Committee hearings, "so that we can work quickly to achieve ratification of the new treaty."

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton predicted a "vast majority" in the Senate would vote to ratify.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/...

    It appears the Obama team managed to clear the Russian hurdles to the treaty, by in fact, keeping the same stance that the Bush team did. I guess the Russians just like Obama better.

    March 28, 2010 at 4:07 p.m.

  • Victore

    You deleted your post but for what I remember; you wrote something along the lines of giving you a history lesson. Something else about “we and us” not needing a lesson in history and my words having nothing to do what is happening today….Correct me if I am wrong. but I wrote " This is just a response to the letter writer from Edna that asked the question "Why much anger”; then went onto tell everyone how it was the Democrats and Bill Clinton's fault.”

    90 to 95% of the blog was devoted to refuting Alton’s words….. I thought that's what a rebuttal is supposed to do… It was not a personal history lesson for you.

    In closing I did state my opinion about what was causing the anger can hate,today….You have a different opinion; that’s OK by me.

    Have a good one

    March 28, 2010 at 3:45 p.m.

  • Writein

    I forgot to mention the radical liberals back in the 60s who spat on our soldiers and had antiwar rallies every week end and all the protests at the college campuses.

    I can't remember the commentator’s name, who said back in the 60s; Dallas was home to a secret fringe group that hated President Kennedy…. Was it the “Pink coat mob” you mentioned in the past…. I read a couple of Kennedy assassination books (a long time ago) but they just glazed over the subject; can you recommend a book or two about the subject.

    March 28, 2010 at 3:26 p.m.

  • Legion357 said

    “Oh, and it is 14 months not 13, Mike you said the same thing months ago, "It’s only been (take your pick) 6, 7, 8, or 9 months ago", isn't that "talking point" getting old by now?
    14 or even 13 months, is over 25% of Obama’s first term. You just have to be counting on re-election."

    On your first post, elections matter; you lost.

    The definition of talking point: a persuasive point to support an argument i.e.” once they see what's in the bill they will like it……Nancy Pelosi…. "It is a government takeover of our health system.” …. talking points of the GOP's and Nancy Pelosi.
    I was not trying to persuade anybody; it was just my viewpoint, I don't micromanage.

    I wrote "President Obama has only been in office 13 months, so until his policies, legislation and other factors come to full course; it's really too early to tell.” ..That’s my honest opinion’some made their opinion 19 months ago or longer.
    Since I don't brag, gloat, or make excuses...I could have said” I give Barack Obama an A-" and state my reasons, "but Clinton and Bush had eight years. It took 18 months for Reagan to get unemployment down."

    1. A 51% approval (Gallup) is outstanding in today's climate and circumstances.
    2. I still don't know how much impact his administration had in averting a depression.
    3. He was very instrumental in getting a comprehensive health care reform bill passed in his first term.(as promised)
    4. I was against the 50,000 additional troops to escalate the war in Afghanistan but it seems to be going well...I give that credit to the generals & troops.
    5. The full impact of the $787 billion stimulus is a two year plan; at 18 months; we should be able to see the results.
    6. Iran & the Israeli- Palestinian peace talks are not going well but we will see if he can persuade the GOP's to ratify the new nuclear treaty with Russia.

    It may be getting old but that is just your personal opinion.

    Have a nice day.

    March 28, 2010 at 3:15 p.m.

  • Hello maryann, I hope you have a great Palm Sunday.
    As usual your post was to the point, civil and informative.

    What will be interesting, is the side the Independents will vote with

    March 28, 2010 at 2:43 p.m.

  • Maryann.

    There are only two or rather three reasons why Lavaca County ‘s GOP is now alive. One reason is County Judge Leck and the Lavaca County budget. Third reason, the Lavaca County Democrats are the good ole boys network Third well reason ……well that obvious.

    You preach about hate and anger, but weren’t you the one harshly criticizing a school teacher over her letter to the editor a few months ago.

    You forgot there is a third but smaller group who distrust Republicans, the tea parties, and conservativsm.

    March 28, 2010 at 4:57 a.m.

  • Mike, long time no see. Hope you're doing fine.

    I think there's hate coming from both the left and the right wing fringes, and the heat is getting closer to the center..... I wouldn't call it all hate, but there is a lot of anger.

    I went to the Lavaca County Republican convention a week ago today, and it was packed. This is an historically Democratic-voting county. Some guy who was more revved up than most asked for how many of us this was our first LCRC, and about 70% of the people there raised their hand, including yo.

    So, if this is repeated nationwide, which I think it's safe to believe that this is a great occurrence elsewhere in our nation, people are often channeling that anger into a productive way to CHANGE the status quo.

    'Twill make an interesting November!

    March 27, 2010 at 8:42 p.m.

  • Oh, and it is 14 months not 13, Mike you said the same thing months ago, "Its only been (take your pick) 6,7,8,or 9 months ago", isn't that "talking point" getting old by now?

    14, or even 13 months, is over 25% of Obamas first term. You just have to be counting on re-election.

    March 27, 2010 at 7:04 p.m.

  • Before you say that GW appointed 170 with the same method, let me say, I don't have a argument with the process.... just the appointees.

    March 27, 2010 at 6:21 p.m.

  • What you have described is the BS that goes on in Washington. People in the heartland are mad about the reckless and uncontrollable spending that federal and state governments are doing. We were concerned, then mad, and now totally enraged - we are not going to take this lying down, we are ready to fight.

    And then to have that trash in Congress cram another huge burden down our throats while wearing a s#@t eating grin is too much, it is too much.

    This goes way beyond the stupid partisan infighting you described - most could give a damn about it. What is happening now is threatening our future, our way of life, our very existence.

    March 27, 2010 at 6:18 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 27, 2010 at 6:16 p.m.

  • WASHINGTON — Fed up with waiting, President Barack Obama announced Saturday he would bypass a vacationing Senate and name 15 people to key administration jobs, wielding for the first time the blunt political tool known as the recess appointment.

    The 15 appointees to boards and agencies include the contentious choice of union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.

    Becker is a top lawyer at the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO.

    Labor unions were especially keen on getting Becker installed on the board that is responsible for certifying union elections and addressing unfair labor practices. Under a Democratic majority, the labor board could decide cases or make new rules that would make it easier for unions to organize workers. The board could allow speeded-up union elections that give employers less time to counter organizing drives.

    Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Obama s foe in the 2008 presidential election. "This is clear payback by the administration to organized labor."

    Looks like change to me, not,the same old back scratching political tactics. Why in the world would a Labor union lawyer be appointed to the Labor Relations Board?

    Is not a federal agency suppose to non biased to either employers or employees? A union lawyer looks real non biased to me.

    And you explain the anger, in your view.

    March 27, 2010 at 5:42 p.m.