Comments by stockadian
Posted on February 28 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Really grow weary of people like you, Albright, and your lap dogs, Wmaarincic, and Muggy changing words, reports, misquoting others, etc. along with the name calling. But thank you for the source, by the way. No where in your source does Bob Woodward use the word "threatened" as does Muggy. He says the words that later the emails confirm….that he would regret doing this. The emails then explain what he meant. The quote from the email is "I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim." And how did Woodward's email answer that? "I also welcome your personal advice" Now show me where there is a THREAT there, or even in the source you have sent me to prove that I owe Muggy an apology.
Grow up. Your little network of attack dogs need to learn to use sources to your advantage and stop acting like middle school children.
Posted on February 28 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Albright1, If Muggy can quote for me (real quotes, and sources) where Bob Woodward stated he had been "threatened" and is now retracting his words about being threatened, by publishing the actual emails, I will issue an apology to Muggy. But it is more likely that Muggy, like others on the right, jumped on the band wagon to use any little tidbit to find criticism of the White House before all the facts were in. If that is indeed the case, Muggy owes the readers of these letters an apology.
Posted on February 28 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Muggy. It is a shame that you have so misrepresented the facts over the Bob Woodward story. No he was not threatened. If you would simply read the actually email exchanges, you would see that there was no threat and Mr. Woodward, who is a fine journalist also says there was none. Why those on the right, who will do anything at all, even create falsehoods to discredit the White House do so, is way beyond me.
Here are the actual quotes from the emails:
From Sperling to Woodward.....I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad.......I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues
From Woodward to Sperling:You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob
What does the RIGHT WING do with that? Call it a treat? Even though Mr. Woodword says he welcomes Mr. Sperling's advice? Amazing what has happened to intelligence in this country. Learn to read the facts before telling us what you think happened, Muggy.
Posted on February 26 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly states: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
It is a quirk of the English language that there is no easy word to distinguish Senators from House of Representative members, sometimes called Representatives. So the term Congressmen AND Congresswomen has taken over that position, and is sometimes used rather than Representative. That, however, does not change the Constitution of the United States, and I do hope that you are not suggesting otherwise. Those ARE the facts, FrankLowe. Please read the Constitution.
Posted on February 26 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is NOT fairly common to refer to our legislative branch as Congress and Senate, Phils 2008, because it is incorrect. It is much more common and correct to refer to our Congress as the House, or House of Representatives and the Senate. And yes, you had several punctuation errors, including missing capital letters, missing apostrophes, and missing commas. Such errors would be forgivable if the person making them was not so self assured and pompous in his opinions that he was an expert with so much to teach us about our government and how it should run, or about math, and logic, as you seem to be.
Wmarinic, If you know that there of two houses of Congress, (looks more like you used Wikipedia rather than actually "know" as you claim, as your definitions are much too clean), why did you revert back to your error, and again say Senate and Congress in your third sentence, when you apparently stopped using quotes from your hastily used reference work? You, like Phils2008 have every right to have any opinion of me, of liberals, of government, of The President that you wish. But as the late, great Senator from NY, Daniel Patrick Moynihan had once said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." Both you, Wmarinic and Phils2008 need to be reminded of that.
Posted on February 25 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wmarincic. The Senate is a part of Congress, or didn't you know that? To say that "those wars were passed by the Democrat Senate and Congress" makes no sense.
Posted on February 25 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
President Obama's parents and grandparents were not communists or socialists. He spent very little if any time in Kenya, some time in Indonesia, which is NOT in Europe, no time in Europe as a child, and spent much time in Hawaii, which is part of the United States, and has been a state since 1960. It TELLS me, wmarincic, (you do not need an apostrophe between the final L and the S in the word tells) that to debate you is a waste of time.
Posted on February 25 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't it strange that, according to writers like Albright1, FrankLowe, Wmarincic, Phil2008, Muggy, and perhaps a few other readers of these letters, cuts are NOT really cuts, using words such as "hyperbole" incorrectly doesn't matter, Liberals have no common sense, yet slightly veiled, and crude references to our president remain without comment. What does that tell you?
Posted on February 24 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Dankanich, of Rexford, your glaring lack of facts, and your true deceitfulness is unfortunate. President Obama has made many many cuts! He signed into law $1 trillion in cuts in discretionary spending for the next ten years. As a part of the 2011 debt agreement, he cut $1.028 billion in discretionary spending through the Budget Control Act. Together with another $676 billion in discretionary savings through annual appropriations bill and interest savings, this will reduce spending by over $2 trillion. Furthermore, the President has proposed and signed into law the elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs saving more than $30 billion annually. He has also put forward specific cuts in mandatory health spending. I could go on, but I do not want to bore the reader. All these cuts by our President are easily found on the internet.
Mr. Damkanich, I do not know why you purposely mislead the readers of the Gazette letters to the editor with your false claims that the president has never cut anything. Could it be that you simply do not like our president, and will grab at anything to discredit him? Or could it be that you just don't know? Using the word "hyperbole" so incorrectly gives us a clue. Also, your twice used borderline crude reference toward the president may provide another clue. I am surprised that this escaped the eyes of the Editors of our wonderful hometown paper, The Gazette.
Posted on February 17 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Murder is a legal term, meaning the illegal taking of a life. Since abortion is not illegal in this country, you cannot call it murder. Debating someone who does not use words correctly is a waste of time.