Rancher Bundy, Jon Stewart and Sean Hannity

I had to comment on Jon Stewart's take down last night of Sean Hannity. Hannity keeps calling Stewart out by commenting on him as a "comedian", in short, a lightweight on political issues.
Hannity has been defending the Nevada Rancher who has been grazing his cattle on federal land in Nevada without paying any fees. It seems he has somehow become a "hero" of the tea party and militia people lately. All these people who say they want to go back to the fundamentals of our Constitution.
Sean said the federal government response of taking the man's cattle away was out of proportion to the man's crime, which is to not pay his grazing fees for about 20 years.

Stewart pointed out that at least one of our slightly better known founding fathers (George Washington) led federal troops against the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, establishing the precedent that if you don't pay your taxes, the feds have a constitutional right to take not only your wealth but your life if necessary.
He then pointed out that it was Ronald Reagan, a hero of the groups that have allied with Bundy, who extended the federal fees on grazing lands into perpetuity.
He also pointed out that Bundy and his wife have stated they are armed and will do physical harm to any representative of the feds that comes calling, and thet HE, Bundy, does not recognize our government as even existing.
I wonder where he thinks he gets any rights at all if not from our government's constitution, which I'm pretty sure exists since I've seen a copy of it.
And to top it off, Bundy rides around on his horse with an American flag in hand. What government does that represent if he doesn't recognize our government?

How big a tax evading hypocrite can you be to carry around an American flag and then proclaim that our government is an illegal entity?

Hannity needs to leave Stewart alone. He makes Hannity look like an even bigger fool every time Hannity calls him out on an issue.

Otter wrote:

I had to comment on Jon Stewart's take down last night of Sean Hannity. Hannity keeps calling Stewart out by commenting on him as a "comedian", in short, a lightweight on political issues.
Hannity has been defending the Nevada Rancher who has been grazing his cattle on federal land in Nevada without paying any fees. It seems he has somehow become a "hero" of the tea party and militia people lately. All these people who say they want to go back to the fundamentals of our Constitution.
Sean said the federal government response of taking the man's cattle away was out of proportion to the man's crime, which is to not pay his grazing fees for about 20 years.

Stewart pointed out that at least one of our slightly better known founding fathers (George Washington) led federal troops against the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, establishing the precedent that if you don't pay your taxes, the feds have a constitutional right to take not only your wealth but your life if necessary.
He then pointed out that it was Ronald Reagan, a hero of the groups that have allied with Bundy, who extended the federal fees on grazing lands into perpetuity.
He also pointed out that Bundy and his wife have stated they are armed and will do physical harm to any representative of the feds that comes calling, and thet HE, Bundy, does not recognize our government as even existing.
I wonder where he thinks he gets any rights at all if not from our government's constitution, which I'm pretty sure exists since I've seen a copy of it.
And to top it off, Bundy rides around on his horse with an American flag in hand. What government does that represent if he doesn't recognize our government?

How big a tax evading hypocrite can you be to carry around an American flag and then proclaim that our government is an illegal entity?

Hannity needs to leave Stewart alone. He makes Hannity look like an even bigger fool every time Hannity calls him out on an issue.

    Believe it or not but agree that Bundy should have paid what he agreed to pay. That being said...the government and stooges like Harry Reid should shut up and quit fanning the flames of this issue.  Should not be surprising that when the government acts like this that people tend to gravitate to supporting the underdog. Further it's a little difficult how some can come down on the side of law and order and yet support what is and has been going on with immigration. Seletive enforcement of laws is wrong also especially those that have taken an oath to uphold the laws....  Politicians haven't had the guts to address that issue but will go after a rancher?  Can't have it both ways.  
 
    Don't really care much about the opinions of either Hannity or Stewart they are not elected officials...but Harry Reid is an elected official (sadly) and yet look at his track record and what he's been involved in...Maybe they should look into his and his families dealings. He should be the one to shut up and he's an elected fool.

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

I had to comment on Jon Stewart's take down last night of Sean Hannity. Hannity keeps calling Stewart out by commenting on him as a "comedian", in short, a lightweight on political issues.
Hannity has been defending the Nevada Rancher who has been grazing his cattle on federal land in Nevada without paying any fees. It seems he has somehow become a "hero" of the tea party and militia people lately. All these people who say they want to go back to the fundamentals of our Constitution.
Sean said the federal government response of taking the man's cattle away was out of proportion to the man's crime, which is to not pay his grazing fees for about 20 years.

Stewart pointed out that at least one of our slightly better known founding fathers (George Washington) led federal troops against the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, establishing the precedent that if you don't pay your taxes, the feds have a constitutional right to take not only your wealth but your life if necessary.
He then pointed out that it was Ronald Reagan, a hero of the groups that have allied with Bundy, who extended the federal fees on grazing lands into perpetuity.
He also pointed out that Bundy and his wife have stated they are armed and will do physical harm to any representative of the feds that comes calling, and thet HE, Bundy, does not recognize our government as even existing.
I wonder where he thinks he gets any rights at all if not from our government's constitution, which I'm pretty sure exists since I've seen a copy of it.
And to top it off, Bundy rides around on his horse with an American flag in hand. What government does that represent if he doesn't recognize our government?

How big a tax evading hypocrite can you be to carry around an American flag and then proclaim that our government is an illegal entity?

Hannity needs to leave Stewart alone. He makes Hannity look like an even bigger fool every time Hannity calls him out on an issue.

    Believe it or not but agree that Bundy should have paid what he agreed to pay. That being said...the government and stooges like Harry Reid should shut up and quit fanning the flames of this issue.  Should not be surprising that when the government acts like this that people tend to gravitate to supporting the underdog. Further it's a little difficult how some can come down on the side of law and order and yet support what is and has been going on with immigration. Seletive enforcement of laws is wrong also especially those that have taken an oath to uphold the laws....  Politicians haven't had the guts to address that issue but will go after a rancher?  Can't have it both ways.  
 
    Don't really care much about the opinions of either Hannity or Stewart they are not elected officials...but Harry Reid is an elected official (sadly) and yet look at his track record and what he's been involved in...Maybe they should look into his and his families dealings. He should be the one to shut up and he's an elected fool.

I can't even imagine what apologists like you would do if you were not given the opportunity in a paragraph to blame someone else because someone who is a registered Republican, anti-government celebrity of the day suddenly got found out to be a raging racist as well.

I don't think you're capable of staying on a subject where a Republican is so obviously wrong without naming some Democrat who, in your opinion, did the same thing. Harry Reid is a politician. As far as I know he's paid his taxes, unlike Mr Bundy. As far as I know, he does recognize the United States government as our valid government in this country. And as far as I know, he hasn't made the statement that African Americans were better off in slavery where they had a family life than nowadays when they just live off the government dole, abort their babies and put their young men into prisons.

When old Harry does some stuff like that, I'll think he's a real dirtbag. Right now I just hate the fact that he's such a weak leader of the Democratic party.
And his views on immigration aren't that different from Jeb Bush's.
See there, I can change the name to suit my arguments as well as you can.

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

   

When old Harry does some stuff like that, I'll think he's a real dirtbag. Right now I just hate the fact that he's such a weak leader of the Democratic party.

"WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid apologized on Saturday for saying the race of Barack Obama – whom he described as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one" – would help rather than hurt his eventual presidential bid."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/09/harry-reid-negro-comment-_n_417406.html

Reid has a long background of unethical business practices in real estate, skirting campaign finance regulations, and associating with "less than savory" business characters. He has blatantly used his office to further the business interests of his kids and friends. He has used his office to thwart investigations into ACORN - while collecting campaign from their associates. If this were the roaring twenties Reid would be hustling moonshine.

The Jolly Rancher is just stupid. The government is also stupid for turning what should have been a minor legal affair into a maelstrom. Place a lien on all of his assets and collect any money he makes from a point of sale of cattle or other property. Perhaps while they are doing all this "enforcing the law" stuff the government could also enforce ALL the laws that are being ignored right now for political reasons.

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

   

When old Harry does some stuff like that, I'll think he's a real dirtbag. Right now I just hate the fact that he's such a weak leader of the Democratic party.

"WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid apologized on Saturday for saying the race of Barack Obama – whom he described as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one" – would help rather than hurt his eventual presidential bid."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/09/harry-reid-negro-comment-_n_417406.html

Reid has a long background of unethical business practices in real estate, skirting campaign finance regulations, and associating with "less than savory" business characters. He has blatantly used his office to further the business interests of his kids and friends. He has used his office to thwart investigations into ACORN - while collecting campaign from their associates. If this were the roaring twenties Reid would be hustling moonshine.

The Jolly Rancher is just stupid. The government is also stupid for turning what should have been a minor legal affair into a maelstrom. Place a lien on all of his assets and collect any money he makes from a point of sale of cattle or other property. Perhaps while they are doing all this "enforcing the law" stuff the government could also enforce ALL the laws that are being ignored right now for political reasons.

 


I would not disagree with you that they should enforce all the laws, but I would disagree that the statement Reid made about Obama was anywhere close to saying that "Negroes would be better off if they were still slaves."  I don't think there's a lot to compare there. Reid was speaking of Obama's chances at becoming POTUS in a political forum and he was right. Obama is a light skinned African American who speaks well. He does not use ebonics, but if he wanted to, he could. I could too if I wanted to. Obama's race did bring out a lot of African Americans who hadn't voted before, and his public speaking skills, which are phenominal, also lured a lot of us white folks to vote for him as well. He was a good package to run for the White House. That's nothing but stating political reality. He succeeded, twice in fact. You honestly don't think the Republican party would have even considered the pizza owner a serious candidate if he weren't black, do you? Politicians engage in politics and behind the closed doors, they talk politics.
I have to agree with Reid that a dark skinned African American who spoke ebonics would have no chance at all to be president, but Obama did have a chance, honestly. That's because of the climate of racism that does exist to a degree in this country, and which denying is just not being realistic. It's not overwhelming, and the majority don't think that way, but there are a lot of Rancher Bundy's out there that do.  I honestly don't think Reid needed to apologize, but he chose to do so.
Black people often describe each other as either light skinned or dark skinned. I don't think even they consider that discussion to be racist. Our culture jumps on a lot of things that aren't racist because it's a fun game to play, but nobody in their right mind could defend what Bundy said yesterday.
As for agreeing with you that laws should be enforced, I do. I think the first ones they should enforce are against all the companies and wealthy CEO's out there who HIRE illegal aliens. If they didn't do it, Illegal aliens wouldn't come here and expect to work, would they?

BTW, the government didn't turn Bundy into a news sensation, the news media did. Also, Bundy wanted his publicity or he wouldn't have allowed all the anti-government idiots with guns to join him in his big crusade to not pay taxes. He knew they'd bring attention and then he could state what he had learned about "Negroes."
The government simply wanted the man's cows and for him to pay his taxes.

Otter wrote:

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

   

When old Harry does some stuff like that, I'll think he's a real dirtbag. Right now I just hate the fact that he's such a weak leader of the Democratic party.

"WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid apologized on Saturday for saying the race of Barack Obama – whom he described as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one" – would help rather than hurt his eventual presidential bid."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/09/harry-reid-negro-comment-_n_417406.html

Reid has a long background of unethical business practices in real estate, skirting campaign finance regulations, and associating with "less than savory" business characters. He has blatantly used his office to further the business interests of his kids and friends. He has used his office to thwart investigations into ACORN - while collecting campaign from their associates. If this were the roaring twenties Reid would be hustling moonshine.

The Jolly Rancher is just stupid. The government is also stupid for turning what should have been a minor legal affair into a maelstrom. Place a lien on all of his assets and collect any money he makes from a point of sale of cattle or other property. Perhaps while they are doing all this "enforcing the law" stuff the government could also enforce ALL the laws that are being ignored right now for political reasons.

 


I would not disagree with you that they should enforce all the laws, but I would disagree that the statement Reid made about Obama was anywhere close to saying that "Negroes would be better off if they were still slaves."  I don't think there's a lot to compare there. Reid was speaking of Obama's chances at becoming POTUS in a political forum and he was right. Obama is a light skinned African American who speaks well. He does not use ebonics, but if he wanted to, he could. I could too if I wanted to.
I have to agree with Reid that a dark skinned African American who spoke ebonics would have no chance at all to be president, but Obama did have a chance, honestly. That's because of the climate of racism that does exist to a degree in this country, and which denying is just not being realistic. It's not overwhelming, and the majority don't think that way, but there are a lot of Rancher Bundy's out there that do.  I honestly don't think Reid needed to apologize, but he chose to do so.
Black people often describe each other as either light skinned or dark skinned. I don't think even they consider that discussion to be racist. Our culture jumps on a lot of things that aren't racist because it's a fun game to play, but nobody in their right mind could defend what Bundy said yesterday.
As for agreeing with you that laws should be enforced, I do. I think the first ones they should enforce are against all the companies and wealthy CEO's out there who HIRE illegal aliens. If they didn't do it, Illegal aliens wouldn't come here and expect to work, would they?

BTW, the government didn't turn Bundy into a news sensation, the news media did. Also, Bundy wanted his publicity or he wouldn't have allowed all the anti-government idiots with guns to join him in his big crusade to not pay taxes. He knew they'd bring attention and then he could state what he had learned about "Negroes."
The government simply wanted the man's cows and for him to pay his taxes.

Well the guvmint went about it the wrong way - liens and locking down his assets would have been easier than showing up with an army of BLM agents. He should have had his property seized and if he resisted should have simply been arrested.

Of course racism exists in this country, certainly not to the degree of even 50 years ago but it's still here and always will be. It exists within every race not just whites, although any little misstep by whites is dramatized to the extreme. Bundy certainly doesn't represent the majority of people and his little band of militia wanna be's are laughable in their misguided extremism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/cliven-bundy-racist-mlk_n_5212526.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592


This is new today. The news media needs to shut this story down right now before this old codger gets himself killed.
They're letting him say too much- and he obviously isn't able to say black without adding the word Boy onto it either.

I don't see good things happening to this man at any time in the future if the news media keeps showing his face and where he lives. And it's not because he's a white man going after black people, I'd assume the same bad things might happen to him if he were black and out there talking about white people in the same way.

He is enraging a huge group of citizens and the news media is fanning the flames.
They definitely need to shut down this whole story.

Otter wrote:

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

   

When old Harry does some stuff like that, I'll think he's a real dirtbag. Right now I just hate the fact that he's such a weak leader of the Democratic party.

"WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid apologized on Saturday for saying the race of Barack Obama – whom he described as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one" – would help rather than hurt his eventual presidential bid."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/09/harry-reid-negro-comment-_n_417406.html

Reid has a long background of unethical business practices in real estate, skirting campaign finance regulations, and associating with "less than savory" business characters. He has blatantly used his office to further the business interests of his kids and friends. He has used his office to thwart investigations into ACORN - while collecting campaign from their associates. If this were the roaring twenties Reid would be hustling moonshine.

The Jolly Rancher is just stupid. The government is also stupid for turning what should have been a minor legal affair into a maelstrom. Place a lien on all of his assets and collect any money he makes from a point of sale of cattle or other property. Perhaps while they are doing all this "enforcing the law" stuff the government could also enforce ALL the laws that are being ignored right now for political reasons.

 


I would not disagree with you that they should enforce all the laws, but I would disagree that the statement Reid made about Obama was anywhere close to saying that "Negroes would be better off if they were still slaves."  I don't think there's a lot to compare there. Reid was speaking of Obama's chances at becoming POTUS in a political forum and he was right. Obama is a light skinned African American who speaks well. He does not use ebonics, but if he wanted to, he could. I could too if I wanted to. Obama's race did bring out a lot of African Americans who hadn't voted before, and his public speaking skills, which are phenominal, also lured a lot of us white folks to vote for him as well. He was a good package to run for the White House. That's nothing but stating political reality. He succeeded, twice in fact. You honestly don't think the Republican party would have even considered the pizza owner a serious candidate if he weren't black, do you? Politicians engage in politics and behind the closed doors, they talk politics.
I have to agree with Reid that a dark skinned African American who spoke ebonics would have no chance at all to be president, but Obama did have a chance, honestly. That's because of the climate of racism that does exist to a degree in this country, and which denying is just not being realistic. It's not overwhelming, and the majority don't think that way, but there are a lot of Rancher Bundy's out there that do.  I honestly don't think Reid needed to apologize, but he chose to do so.
Black people often describe each other as either light skinned or dark skinned. I don't think even they consider that discussion to be racist. Our culture jumps on a lot of things that aren't racist because it's a fun game to play, but nobody in their right mind could defend what Bundy said yesterday.
As for agreeing with you that laws should be enforced, I do. I think the first ones they should enforce are against all the companies and wealthy CEO's out there who HIRE illegal aliens. If they didn't do it, Illegal aliens wouldn't come here and expect to work, would they?

BTW, the government didn't turn Bundy into a news sensation, the news media did. Also, Bundy wanted his publicity or he wouldn't have allowed all the anti-government idiots with guns to join him in his big crusade to not pay taxes. He knew they'd bring attention and then he could state what he had learned about "Negroes."
The government simply wanted the man's cows and for him to pay his taxes.

What's so difficult about enforcing all the laws and quit being selective?...Sen Reid entered the fray and has made an ass out of himself..he's an elected official and helps make/pass laws that he and others refuse to enforce. There is no defense for his actions. Said it before..don't care about either Hannity or Stewart they are not elected officials and entitled to their opinions. There's a button on most remotes...use it and not watch him if you don't like him.

Did you even read my post?...No apologizing I said Bundy was wrong and that he should pay for an agreement that he entered into with the government. I did not defend Bundy simply said that he's against a larger issue of land grabbing by the government but has gone about it in an illegal way by not paying. The government mishandled this from the beginning and should have used other means to get their money owed. Throughout history questionable characters have gained sympathy when it appears that the government is going after them and this is certainly the case.

Lastly...as I told someone in a conversation that if Bundy was a gay, illegal immigrant then there would be no problem whatsoever and he may be able to register for some free healthcare too!...

Bundy is not gay as far as we know and I can't for the life of me figure out how being gay even entered into this discussion. If he was gay, there probably wouldn't be an issue because all those macho militiamen wouldn't have shown up to back him up.  The government would have simply taken his cattle and hauled the old dude away to jail if he tried to resist.
The problem is the armed militia who showed up to bear arms against our legal governmental officials.

Now the government is backing down and letting them have their way so as not to cause anything like Waco to happen. This is nothing like Waco. This is a lawbreaking old man who has been feeding his cattle off land that belongs to the government . I'm glad you agree that he should have paid his fees, but the issue doesn't have a single thing to do with gays or illegal immigrants. Nothing at all, except an effort to change the subject.

The government over-reacted at Waco and a lot of people died who didn't have to. There's no excuse, IMO, for our government not to go in and enforce the law with Mr Bundy, and if some militiamen want to commit suicide in the process, then they should have known better in the first place. They brought their guns to the fight and intended to kill American policemen and federal agents with them. Every one of those guys needs to be behind bars tonight. They are criminals and need to be arrested. They are not patriots. They are enemies of our elected government.

It looks weak  for Washington to let them get away with this kind of activity, and all it does is encourage other nutcases with guns out there.

Otter wrote:

Bundy is not gay as far as we know and I can't for the life of me figure out how being gay even entered into this discussion. If he was gay, there probably wouldn't be an issue because all those macho militiamen wouldn't have shown up to back him up.  The government would have simply taken his cattle and hauled the old dude away to jail if he tried to resist.
The problem is the armed militia who showed up to bear arms against our legal governmental officials.

Now the government is backing down and letting them have their way so as not to cause anything like Waco to happen. This is nothing like Waco. This is a lawbreaking old man who has been feeding his cattle off land that belongs to the government . I'm glad you agree that he should have paid his fees, but the issue doesn't have a single thing to do with gays or illegal immigrants. Nothing at all, except an effort to change the subject.

The government over-reacted at Waco and a lot of people died who didn't have to. There's no excuse, IMO, for our government not to go in and enforce the law with Mr Bundy, and if some militiamen want to commit suicide in the process, then they should have known better in the first place. They brought their guns to the fight and intended to kill American policemen and federal agents with them. Every one of those guys needs to be behind bars tonight. They are criminals and need to be arrested. They are not patriots. They are enemies of our elected government.

It looks weak  for Washington to let them get away with this kind of activity, and all it does is encourage other nutcases with guns out there.

      WOW!...you've got to be joking...right?.. The post really wasn't that difficult to understand....He's not an illegal either but my point was in either case he'd be protected if he were...This administration would never make a move on him then.

       Don't think anyone that has posted here has defended the militia individuals at all.  They like all other groups no matter what should be held to the laws.  This administration has put themselves into this mess with their selective enforcement of the laws.  The AG has made the DOJ look weak and like in other instances if you're going to enforce laws you can't go hafl way and retreat.

Well at least we agree that the DOJ should enforce the law, which means moving in on Mr Bundy's property and seizing his assets.

My suggestion would be a 30 minute warning to the militiamen in the area to clear out, then move in and shoot anyone who shoots back. They have no right to be there threatening our rightful law enforcement officers.

This isn't a peaceful sit-down demonstration they are putting on. If our police forces can tear gas members of a peaceful sit-in, they should be able to move against people who are well armed and actually threatening the peaceful execution of our laws. Letting them get away with this stuff doesn't make anyone happy except for the nutsy militiamen around our country.

Otter wrote:

Well at least we agree that the DOJ should enforce the law, which means moving in on Mr Bundy's property and seizing his assets.

My suggestion would be a 30 minute warning to the militiamen in the area to clear out, then move in and shoot anyone who shoots back.  They have no right to be there threatening our rightful law enforcement officers.

This isn't a peaceful sit-down demonstration they are putting on. If our police forces can tear gas members of  a peaceful sit-in, they should be able to move against people who are well armed and actually threatening the peaceful execution  of our laws. Letting them get away with this stuff doesn't make anyone happy except for the nutsy militiamen around our country.

Who's in charge at the DOJ?...The same guy that's told federal agencies not to enforce immigration laws or illegals arrested?...This is one case where Mr Holder's inconsistency seems to have once again created a huge problem especially with his credibility and ability to be the top law enforcement officer of the land.

Mr Holder halted any investigation into the Black Panthers a few years ago about the voter intimidation problems. Last I knew this group is no friend of the American Government either. Again had he investigated or enforced the laws on the books perhaps his credibility and professionalism would be called into question again.

Now, who's in charge of Mr Holder? Who appointed Mr Holder? Who continues to support and defend Mr Holder? Again this is a mess that the cowh and his administration has created and messed up. Now we've got home grown groups that don't respect the laws of the land. This really isn't so difficult to establish...there's a record for these types of matters both foreign and domestically. When federal agencies are misused it breeds distrust among citizens. Now Mr Bundy is being recognized as some sort of a victim/cult hero and this administration is directly to blame.

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

Well at least we agree that the DOJ should enforce the law, which means moving in on Mr Bundy's property and seizing his assets.

My suggestion would be a 30 minute warning to the militiamen in the area to clear out, then move in and shoot anyone who shoots back.  They have no right to be there threatening our rightful law enforcement officers.

This isn't a peaceful sit-down demonstration they are putting on. If our police forces can tear gas members of  a peaceful sit-in, they should be able to move against people who are well armed and actually threatening the peaceful execution  of our laws. Letting them get away with this stuff doesn't make anyone happy except for the nutsy militiamen around our country.

     Who's in charge at the DOJ?...The same guy that's told federal agencies not to enforce immigration laws or illegals arrested?...This is one case where Mr Holder's inconsistency seems to have once again created a huge problem especially with his credibility and ability to be the top law enforcement officer of the land.

      Mr Holder halted any investigation into the Black Panthers a few years ago about the voter intimidation problems.  Last I knew this group is no friend of the American Government either.  Again had he investigated or enforced the laws on the books perhaps his credibility and professionalism would be called into question again.

       Now, who's in charge of Mr Holder?  Who appointed Mr Holder?  Who continues to support and defend Mr Holder?  Again this is a mess that the cowh and his administration has created and messed up.  Now we've got home grown groups that don't respect the laws of the land.  This really isn't so difficult to establish...there's a record for these types of matters both foreign and domestically. When federal agencies are misused it breeds distrust among citizens.  Now Mr Bundy is being recognized as some sort of a victim/cult hero and this administration is directly to blame.

Man you are hard to convince that us democrats don't agree with the POTUS sometimes. I guess that's because the other side seems obligated  to have to condone whatever is done by their party as just and right. Of course it's the President's fault.
He's a weak leader on many issues.
He's done everything wrong on this one so far.

That doesn't mean he isn't still better than the choices the other side offers.

A perfect leader does not exist in either party.

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

Well at least we agree that the DOJ should enforce the law, which means moving in on Mr Bundy's property and seizing his assets.

My suggestion would be a 30 minute warning to the militiamen in the area to clear out, then move in and shoot anyone who shoots back.  They have no right to be there threatening our rightful law enforcement officers.

This isn't a peaceful sit-down demonstration they are putting on. If our police forces can tear gas members of  a peaceful sit-in, they should be able to move against people who are well armed and actually threatening the peaceful execution  of our laws. Letting them get away with this stuff doesn't make anyone happy except for the nutsy militiamen around our country.

     Who's in charge at the DOJ?...The same guy that's told federal agencies not to enforce immigration laws or illegals arrested?...This is one case where Mr Holder's inconsistency seems to have once again created a huge problem especially with his credibility and ability to be the top law enforcement officer of the land.

      Mr Holder halted any investigation into the Black Panthers a few years ago about the voter intimidation problems.  Last I knew this group is no friend of the American Government either.  Again had he investigated or enforced the laws on the books perhaps his credibility and professionalism would be called into question again.

       Now, who's in charge of Mr Holder?  Who appointed Mr Holder?  Who continues to support and defend Mr Holder?  Again this is a mess that the cowh and his administration has created and messed up.  Now we've got home grown groups that don't respect the laws of the land.  This really isn't so difficult to establish...there's a record for these types of matters both foreign and domestically. When federal agencies are misused it breeds distrust among citizens.  Now Mr Bundy is being recognized as some sort of a victim/cult hero and this administration is directly to blame.

Man you are hard to convince that us democrats don't agree with the POTUS sometimes. I guess that's because the other side seems obligated  to have to condone whatever is done by their party as just and right. Of course it's the President's fault.
He's a weak leader on many issues.
He's done everything wrong on this one so far.

That doesn't mean he isn't still better than the choices the other side offers.

A perfect leader does not exist in either party.

Agree and didn't say 'all' democrats. This isn't a party/political issue....AG Holder is the top law enforcement officer for all Americans...or supposed to be. He certainly can't have a selective enforcement policy without it coming from higher than him. There certainly has to be a LOT better choices than Holder...he's got a record of inconsistency over enforcing the laws that he took and oath to support...He should have been removed a long time ago....

Don't feel that there is anyone looking for perfection...but consistency...honesty...and fulfilling your sworn obligation should not be that much to expect...It's sad that politicians worry more about keeping their power and lining their pockets over doing what they were elected to do...

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

Well at least we agree that the DOJ should enforce the law, which means moving in on Mr Bundy's property and seizing his assets.

My suggestion would be a 30 minute warning to the militiamen in the area to clear out, then move in and shoot anyone who shoots back.  They have no right to be there threatening our rightful law enforcement officers.

This isn't a peaceful sit-down demonstration they are putting on. If our police forces can tear gas members of  a peaceful sit-in, they should be able to move against people who are well armed and actually threatening the peaceful execution  of our laws. Letting them get away with this stuff doesn't make anyone happy except for the nutsy militiamen around our country.

     Who's in charge at the DOJ?...The same guy that's told federal agencies not to enforce immigration laws or illegals arrested?...This is one case where Mr Holder's inconsistency seems to have once again created a huge problem especially with his credibility and ability to be the top law enforcement officer of the land.

      Mr Holder halted any investigation into the Black Panthers a few years ago about the voter intimidation problems.  Last I knew this group is no friend of the American Government either.  Again had he investigated or enforced the laws on the books perhaps his credibility and professionalism would be called into question again.

       Now, who's in charge of Mr Holder?  Who appointed Mr Holder?  Who continues to support and defend Mr Holder?  Again this is a mess that the cowh and his administration has created and messed up.  Now we've got home grown groups that don't respect the laws of the land.  This really isn't so difficult to establish...there's a record for these types of matters both foreign and domestically. When federal agencies are misused it breeds distrust among citizens.  Now Mr Bundy is being recognized as some sort of a victim/cult hero and this administration is directly to blame.

Man you are hard to convince that us democrats don't agree with the POTUS sometimes. I guess that's because the other side seems obligated  to have to condone whatever is done by their party as just and right. Of course it's the President's fault.
He's a weak leader on many issues.
He's done everything wrong on this one so far.

That doesn't mean he isn't still better than the choices the other side offers.

A perfect leader does not exist in either party.

     Agree and didn't say 'all' democrats.  This isn't a party/political issue....AG Holder is the top law enforcement officer for all Americans...or supposed to be.  He certainly can't have a selective enforcement policy without it coming from higher than him.  There certainly has to be a LOT better choices than Holder...he's got a record of inconsistency over enforcing the laws that he took and oath to support...He should have been removed a long time ago....

     Don't feel that there is anyone looking for perfection...but consistency...honesty...and fulfilling your sworn obligation should not be that much to expect...It's sad that politicians worry more about keeping their power and lining their pockets over doing what they were elected to do...

I didn't like holder as a nominee either, he had too much baggage behind him IMO. Obama has made a lot of selections I've disagreed with, including keeping some of Bush's appointees in high positions. He's not going to go down as a great president where foreign affairs are concerned, and his legacy will depend on how Obamacare works out in the future.
If it is a success, and there is a possibility it might just become so, history will judge him on that alone.

The Republicans have assured that by calling it Obamacare instead of the ACA. So if it is a successful program like Medicare, Americans will be repeating Obama's name for a long time in the future.

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

Wy.

     e.

.

   ...

I didn't like holder as a nominee either, he had too much baggage behind him IMO. Obama has made a lot of selections I've disagreed with, including keeping some of Bush's appointees in high positions. He's not going to go down as a great president where foreign affairs are concerned, and his legacy will depend on how Obamacare works out in the future.
If it is a success, and there is a possibility it might just become so, history will judge him on that alone.

The Republicans have assured that by calling it Obamacare instead of the ACA.  So if it is a successful program like Medicare, Americans will be repeating Obama's name for a long time in the future.

It's funny because even BHO has called it "Obamacare" occasionally. So if BHO wants to ride off into the sunset with his entire legacy a divisive health care act, well OK then. His disastrous foreign policy failures will be forgotten of course, along with his many missteps in economic and domestic policy. Maybe his Presidential Library will look like this:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

Well at least we agree that the DOJ should enforce the law, which means moving in on Mr Bundy's property and seizing his assets.

My suggestion would be a 30 minute warning to the militiamen in the area to clear out, then move in and shoot anyone who shoots back.  They have no right to be there threatening our rightful law enforcement officers.

This isn't a peaceful sit-down demonstration they are putting on. If our police forces can tear gas members of  a peaceful sit-in, they should be able to move against people who are well armed and actually threatening the peaceful execution  of our laws. Letting them get away with this stuff doesn't make anyone happy except for the nutsy militiamen around our country.

     Who's in charge at the DOJ?...The same guy that's told federal agencies not to enforce immigration laws or illegals arrested?...This is one case where Mr Holder's inconsistency seems to have once again created a huge problem especially with his credibility and ability to be the top law enforcement officer of the land.

      Mr Holder halted any investigation into the Black Panthers a few years ago about the voter intimidation problems.  Last I knew this group is no friend of the American Government either.  Again had he investigated or enforced the laws on the books perhaps his credibility and professionalism would be called into question again.

       Now, who's in charge of Mr Holder?  Who appointed Mr Holder?  Who continues to support and defend Mr Holder?  Again this is a mess that the cowh and his administration has created and messed up.  Now we've got home grown groups that don't respect the laws of the land.  This really isn't so difficult to establish...there's a record for these types of matters both foreign and domestically. When federal agencies are misused it breeds distrust among citizens.  Now Mr Bundy is being recognized as some sort of a victim/cult hero and this administration is directly to blame.

Man you are hard to convince that us democrats don't agree with the POTUS sometimes. I guess that's because the other side seems obligated  to have to condone whatever is done by their party as just and right. Of course it's the President's fault.
He's a weak leader on many issues.
He's done everything wrong on this one so far.

That doesn't mean he isn't still better than the choices the other side offers.

A perfect leader does not exist in either party.

     Agree and didn't say 'all' democrats.  This isn't a party/political issue....AG Holder is the top law enforcement officer for all Americans...or supposed to be.  He certainly can't have a selective enforcement policy without it coming from higher than him.  There certainly has to be a LOT better choices than Holder...he's got a record of inconsistency over enforcing the laws that he took and oath to support...He should have been removed a long time ago....

     Don't feel that there is anyone looking for perfection...but consistency...honesty...and fulfilling your sworn obligation should not be that much to expect...It's sad that politicians worry more about keeping their power and lining their pockets over doing what they were elected to do...

I didn't like holder as a nominee either, he had too much baggage behind him IMO. Obama has made a lot of selections I've disagreed with, including keeping some of Bush's appointees in high positions. He's not going to go down as a great president where foreign affairs are concerned, and his legacy will depend on how Obamacare works out in the future.
If it is a success, and there is a possibility it might just become so, history will judge him on that alone.

The Republicans have assured that by calling it Obamacare instead of the ACA.  So if it is a successful program like Medicare, Americans will be repeating Obama's name for a long time in the future.

     Again......WOW! What a world you must live in!  Republicans are responsible not one democrat or the cowh has ever called it anything other than ACA.  The media always called it ACA and nothing else?...For having that much power you'd think the republicans could have stopped [name]cowh healthcare  err.......ACA.....What a joke.

The cancer has taken a foothold. Those with preexisting conditions or those who couldn't afford medical insurance, but now have subsidized policies, are the "foot inside the door". I suspect that the ACA will be modified, but the new enrollees will retain their (subsidized) policies.

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

Wy.

     e.

.

   ...

I didn't like holder as a nominee either, he had too much baggage behind him IMO. Obama has made a lot of selections I've disagreed with, including keeping some of Bush's appointees in high positions. He's not going to go down as a great president where foreign affairs are concerned, and his legacy will depend on how Obamacare works out in the future.
If it is a success, and there is a possibility it might just become so, history will judge him on that alone.

The Republicans have assured that by calling it Obamacare instead of the ACA.  So if it is a successful program like Medicare, Americans will be repeating Obama's name for a long time in the future.

It's funny because even BHO has called it "Obamacare" occasionally. So if BHO wants to ride off into the sunset with his entire legacy a divisive health care act, well OK then. His disastrous foreign policy failures will be forgotten of course, along with his many missteps in economic and domestic policy. Maybe his Presidential Library will look like this:

Hold on the cowh said about the critics of his foreign policy being weak....'I'm going for doubles and singles and not home runs'...whatever that may mean...

Eric wrote:

The cancer has taken a foothold.  Those with preexisting conditions or those who couldn't afford medical insurance, but now have subsidized policies, are the "foot inside the door".  I suspect that the ACA will be modified, but the new enrollees will retain their (subsidized) policies.

I agree with all that except the word Cancer.

Obama will be president for another 2 1/2 years, by that time there will be many more enrollees in the system. It might be possible to modify it in some way, but the ACA is here to stay.
Or Obamacare, whatever anyone wants to call it. If the POTUS calls it Obamacare, I guess it's acceptable for all of us to. He seems proud enough of it to claim it,

I used to think it was a lousy idea, but now that I know not one but several people who have gotten it, I'm starting to think it will work after all and will be a positive step.
I'd rather it be single payer but Obama got what he could get.

People are starting to warm up to it.

Otter wrote:

Eric wrote:

The cancer has taken a foothold.  Those with preexisting conditions or those who couldn't afford medical insurance, but now have subsidized policies, are the "foot inside the door".  I suspect that the ACA will be modified, but the new enrollees will retain their (subsidized) policies.

People are starting to warm up to it.

According to the latest polls most Americans still don't like the program. The ones that love it are getting it at a heavily or completely subsidized rate - of course they think it's better than sliced bread. I saw today that about a third of new enrollees have yet to pay their premium. The new and improved web site cost (after the original cost) is approaching $121M, this is just another example of government overreach without considering all the potential impacts.

Expanded Medicare is the real solution but it ain't going to happen, the taxpayers are going to be dragging this elephant around for decades.

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

Eric wrote:

The cancer has taken a foothold.  Those with preexisting conditions or those who couldn't afford medical insurance, but now have subsidized policies, are the "foot inside the door".  I suspect that the ACA will be modified, but the new enrollees will retain their (subsidized) policies.

People are starting to warm up to it.

According to the latest polls most Americans still don't like the program. The ones that love it are getting it at a heavily or completely subsidized rate - of course they think it's better than sliced bread. I saw today that about a third of new enrollees have yet to pay their premium. The new and improved web site cost (after the original cost) is approaching $121M, this is just another example of government overreach without considering all the potential impacts.

Expanded Medicare is the real solution but it ain't going to happen, the taxpayers are going to be dragging this elephant around for decades.

Correct about expanding medicare (a system already in place)....and they will never admit to this being horrible law or their handling as a mistake...What's $121Million more to this administration?....Remember..."This will not cost one thin dime"...well he was kind of correct it's costing a LOT of thin dimes....

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

Eric wrote:

The cancer has taken a foothold.  Those with preexisting conditions or those who couldn't afford medical insurance, but now have subsidized policies, are the "foot inside the door".  I suspect that the ACA will be modified, but the new enrollees will retain their (subsidized) policies.

People are starting to warm up to it.

According to the latest polls most Americans still don't like the program. The ones that love it are getting it at a heavily or completely subsidized rate - of course they think it's better than sliced bread. I saw today that about a third of new enrollees have yet to pay their premium. The new and improved web site cost (after the original cost) is approaching $121M, this is just another example of government overreach without considering all the potential impacts.

Expanded Medicare is the real solution but it ain't going to happen, the taxpayers are going to be dragging this elephant around for decades.

Expanded Medicare would be the real solution, for people who are 55 or over. That was John McCain's idea and it was a good one. Unfortunately, nobody in either his party of the Democratic party seemed like they wanted it.
I think the Republicans thought it would be too good an idea and Obama would get credit for it so they refused to consider it. The Democrats only wanted whatever Obama brought up himself, so a good idea died in about two days.

As for people not paying their premiums, at least one person I know just paid their first premium because they waited until the last day to enroll and didn't get a bill until a week or so ago. If they just got their bills they will probably be paying sometime soon. We'll have to wait and see how that goes.