Lois Capps on State of the Union

Congresswoman Critique’s Obama’s Speech

Thursday, January 30, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

In his annual State of the Union speech Tuesday night, President Barack Obama touched on a variety of topics ​— ​from creating high-tech manufacturing jobs and strengthening infrastructure to prioritizing diplomacy over war and expanding mental-health benefits for veterans ​— ​but really harped on the issue of income inequality. He lambasted the fact that in the wake of the recession, the one-percenters have thrived while “too many Americans are working just to get by, let alone get ahead.” His speech was urgent, calling out Congress for its inaction and infighting, and vowing to use his executive powers to make “opportunity for all” possible. His idea of opportunity not only included jobs but also veered into points about immigration reform, climate change, raising the federal minimum wage, and closing the pay gap between men and women.

“I thought it was a very clear plan for this point in an economy that’s recovering but still needs to be encouraged,” said Congressmember Lois Capps of Obama’s speech, adding that the unemployment figures in the biggest chunk of her district—Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties—are 5,850 and 3,151, respectively. Capps, a Democrat, said that she also appreciated Obama’s mention of California and its drought and his acknowledgement that, as she put it, the immigration system as it stands now leads to “broken families.” Capps also applauded the president’s stance on doing away with the 77-cents-to-the-dollar gap in women’s and men’s wages, or as he referred to it, “the workplace policies that belong in a Mad Men episode.”

She said that he could have done a better job of acknowledging the Affordable Care Act’s “terrible rollout,” which she said was a “work in progress” but “a real mess-up” nonetheless. With the caveat that Obama couldn’t talk about everything, Capps said she wished he would have peppered his climate-change talk with some points about fracking, and that he could have mentioned the “remnants of the housing crisis,” which continues to plague California. As for the president’s pledge to use executive action, Capps said the Republicans “could easily take that as a threat,” but that she understands his frustration. “He’s getting a little impatient,” she said. “It is his second term.”


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Obama said... Talk is cheap. Executive orders? He has fewer than all presidents of this century so far. How about de-criminalizing marijuana since it's less dangerous than alcohol, according to the president. Probably doesn't want to ruffle any feathers in the drug cartels that make all those tax free millions.

spacey (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 1:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

“I thought it was a very clear plan for this point in an economy that’s recovering but still needs to be encouraged…”

Capps is either deliberately lying or simply delusional regarding the so-called economic recovery. A stock market bubble, created by distributing more than a billion dollars per year of fake money through the megabanks, does not indicate an economic recovery, and virtually no honest metric shows the economy is recovering. Look to statistics the feds can't manipulate, such as the Baltic Dry Index, or 'Cumulative Job Growth Net of Population Growth.'

John Williams of Shadowstats [ ] reports: “The recovery is an illusion” and regularly provides documentation and charts which detail highly manipulated and phony government economic statistics.

Obama is deliberately accelerating the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich, explained and thoroughly charted in this 2 January piece "The Biggest Redistribution Of Wealth From The Middle Class And Poor To The Rich Ever"... [ ].

Obama's sudden feigned discovery of economic inequality is simply more rhetoric from the war criminal / huckster. The 'Green Shadow Cabinet" gets it right in this piece, posted Tuesday morning (i.e. prior to the SOTU speech), 'Obama and Friends Discovery Inequality' [ ]:

"Now that it has become an ‘acceptable’ discussion theme, Obama and Democrat party politicians (and a few clever Republicans) have also discovered income inequality. Together they plan to raise the rhetoric on the topic in upcoming midterm and 2016 national elections…

"The growing income inequality in the U.S. goes back at least to the late 1970s, accelerating during the 1980s and early 1990s, and then again after 2000 under George W. Bush. It’s grown the worst under Barack Obama, with latest figures showing the wealthiest 1% households accruing for themselves since 2009 nearly all (more than 90%) of all the income gains during the so-called ‘recovery’."

I find proposed alternate State of the Union speeches, such as this one, which could have been delivered in six minutes (and can be read in less than three minutes) more useful than critiques of the real ones, which are always propaganda and lies, whether delivered by the blue gang [D] or the red gang [R]:

'The "Real" State Of The Union In Just 889 Words…'

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

WSJ columnist Daniel Henninger hit the nail on the head:

…Even his (Obama's) supporters see now his operating method was not unification, but political and social division…..

…He repeatedly scapegoated the "wealthiest" and the "1 percent". In 2012 when House Republicans published their deficit-reduction proposals, he dismissed them as laughable, Social Darwinism, and antithetical to our entire history.

After four years of divide-and-conquer …… he has produced a nation in a state of disunion …..

….'The pollsters wrote last week that Mr Obama is on course to have the politically polarized approval ratings of any president. Segments of the US population see themselves not just in disagreement with the Obama administration, but as the targets of its policies" ….

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you voted against Obummer because he's Black, you're a racist. If you voted for Obummer because he's Black... you're a racist too. Well done America, you picked your poison, swallow it well.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@foofighter: "…Even his (Obama's) supporters see now his operating method was not unification, but political and social division….."

Man, there's no limit to your BS.

So I guess Obama is responsible for the Republicans blocking more nominees than any Congress in history, filibustering more than any Congress in history, and passing the fewest bills than any Congress in history.

Before Obama was even inaugurated, the Republican establishment (Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan & Kevin McCarthy) got other big-wigs in the Republican party together and promised to block the President at every turn. Quoting former Ohio Senator George Voinovich, "If [Obama] was for it, we had to be against it'.

So you know what? This Republican Congressional majority are the laziest, most obstructionist, most anti-intellectual party in the history of the Congress. Personally, I'm glad Obama is *finally* giving them the middle finger they have so consistently earned.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@EatTheRich: what is your definition of rich? Just curious.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Foofighter you're a uniter just like W. Bush., everyone against him.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Saying that the problem is simply "rich people" is a really superficial disingenuous view to hold. The problem isn't "rich people" because you have to realize that there are many ways to get rich.

1. You can work hard and create goods and services for others. This helps ensure that there are enough goods and services for everybody, it actually benefits everyone whether poor or wealthy. This needs to be encouraged with low taxes and regulations so the economy can thrive and people in poverty can be lifted out.

2. You can lobby government to help your firm retain monopoly pricing on goods and services that you provide. This helps ensure high profit margins for your company but it is bad for consumers because they are limiting the competition which causes high prices and lower quality goods and services.

The banking industry is the best example of #2. They lobbied government back in the early 1900s to create the Federal Reserve which allows banks to counterfeit money to loan out at interest. They then effectively loan money to anybody including our government at interest. It is a scam that skims vast sums of wealth out of the economy and is the reason why you see figures like 85 people owning more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EatTheRich wrote, regarding foofigher's comment at January 30, 2014 at 9:23 a.m. :
"So I guess Obama…"

My experience has been that "So…" often is used to introduce a straw man fallacy [ ].

Considering foofighter's third paragraph, particularly "…when House Republicans published their deficit-reduction proposals…" I suspect most readers recognize Obama's economic policy as the primary subject of that comment.

For those who are still bamboozled by the establishment media, 90% of which in the USA is now controlled by six transnational corporations, to accept the validity of left / right, liberal / conservative, blue gang [D] / red gang [R] distinctions, which serve no purpose except to divide the 99.9% to the benefit of the .1%, the views expressed by Henninger in foofighter's final two paragraphs are also widely shared by "the left."

Back to the subject of income inequality:

Also from the 'Green Shadow Cabinet' article I linked above...

'Obama and Friends Discover Inequality'

..."But income inequality in the U.S. is no accident. It has conscious, deliberate origins, to be found in the policy initiatives of corporate America since the late 1970s, and the willingness of the politicians corporate America elects in Congress, Presidents, and at State levels—Democrat and Republican alike—to implement those policy initiatives...

"Corporate America and their politicians, and the policies they’ve initiated and implemented, are responsible for the accelerating capital incomes of the rich (1%), very rich (0.1%), and mega-rich (0.01%). And much of that has to do with the enabling of financial asset speculation and financial securities inflation that has been the defining characteristic of the U.S. (and global) economy since at least the 1980s.

"Reagan unlocked that door. Clinton opened it. And George W. kicked it in. And Obama has done nothing to repair the entry."

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"We need to steer clear of this poverty of ambition, where people want to drive fancy cars and wear nice clothes and live in nice apartments but don't want to work hard to accomplish these things. Everyone should try to realize their full potential." President Obama

Now we're "just getting by"
You mention nothing about the unaffordable living wage here in Santa Barbara!
Here's what I posted on R&R yesterday regarding the President's policies,
I think it say a lot more than this state of the union/GOP critique!

(We have the yeas and the nays constantly over the immigration problem because those who are the elected social planners of this experiment we call the United States simply find it more profitable not to do anything. Over and over again. Take President Obama. Twenty years from now the hailed constitutional big shot author will be responsible for killing more poor Muslims than the Brits, Turks, and the Israelis combined. He once claimed the torture/spy machine had ruined our reputation. Today it's used in a devil may care way on every single part of the globe. Yet rest assured they're "out there". The ones who balk at the notion of Imperialism coming from a suspected Kenyan extremist!)

touristunfriendly (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's not an economic class warfare; it's a philosophical warfare with some people holding a lot more cards.

A rich person might hold the same viewpoints as a poor person like Foo; or conversely the same viewpoints as Eat the Rich.

Bank account has nothing to do with it. Moral character, intelligence and ethics do.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)


I think that monopolies are aberrant and should be resisted. So, lets make a group of crony sociopaths our leaders and then grant them monopolies over security, dispute resolution, interpretation of the law, economic planning, production of currency, law enforcement, food safety, mail, transportation, communication, utilities, gambling, rehabilitation, retirement and war. This will keep us safe from all of those monopolies that the evil free market creates." (or not..)

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

U.S. President Abraham Lincoln:
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins, 21 November 1864)

"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . . It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

"I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war... "

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John Stewart nailed it once again last night. Some comments treat a president's position as if it were king, but it's not.

spacey (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@JohnLocke: "what is your definition of rich?"

Webster's suffices.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How many have seen this documentary, and understood what the years prior to 2008 wrought?

The recovery since Obama became President has been lukewarm at best BECAUSE he has been thwarted at every turn. The US Congress is the body that approves how money has to be spent, not the President. All he can do is sign bills approved by Congress and try to persuade as many congressmen and congresswomen to support what he champions. The obstruction during his years has broken records.

As ETR mentioned - the very night of Obama's first inauguration, his opponents met to plot to ensure that Obama's first term would be a failure and that he would not be re-elected. Democracy be damned. Voices of the electorate be damned. Just the wishes of a small number of people who wished the country to be governed as THEY wanted and not as the electorate wished. They knew better and Bush's base (the elite) would continue to rule the roost even with an opposition President and congress.

Shades of Mugabe, Assad, Gadaffi, and every small group of power-mongers in any country who want to grab all of the money for themselves, and enslave the rest as cheap labor. It is part of the nature of psychopaths who seem to instill fear in others to claw their way to the top - greed, power, control.

When I read the highly misinformed bashing of the so-called poor and lazy, I cannot understand why there is none for the heroin-addicted, prostitute-addicted and money-addicted disgraces who threatened the world economy, and are still ripping the country off with their disgraceful, undemocratic, money-grabbing ways.

For those who have not seen "Inside Job" at the link, the entire documentary is filled with facts that everyone should know.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's all about leadership Tabatha. Bill Clinton had the ability to cut deals with a resistant congress. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't have the leaderships skills that Clinton did. Too bad for the country.

Botany (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is no "unaffordable living wage" in Santa Barbara. If you don't have the skill set to live in Santa Barbara, you have to take your skill set to where you can. Can't fit a square peg into a round hole. Stop trying and move where life can be happier and more affordable for you and leave Santa Barbara to those who can afford to live here.

The market rules, once you get past the 20% of this town's housing that has already been dedicated to the permanent poor. Get on the subsidize housing waiting list because that is a very generous gift to those who do want to live here, but on their own cannot.

A little more gratitude about these multiple subsidized housing opportunities (20% of all city housing units few pete's sake !!!) in this town; and less attitude refusing to admit they even exist will go down a heck of a lot better.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama refuses to accept the Republican majority elected to the House of Representatives were elected for one reason only - to put brakes on Obama because Obama had become out of control.

They are not obstructing Obama; they were elected to repudiate Obama. For an alleged constitutional lawyer, Obama is very dumb.

He needs to review the chapters about separation of powers, and the limited administrative duties afforded the branch of government he chose to serve- the Executive Branch.

If Obama wanted to set policies for this nation, he should have stayed in the Legislature and actually do his homework in the policy setting body in our system of government.

We have no "kings" in the US. Which makes one wonder what the heck was he teaching when he was getting paid by Univ of Chicago law school to teach "constitutional law".

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@foofighter: "They are not obstructing Obama; they were elected to repudiate Obama."

I gotta' hand it to you, the fact that you have the nerve to call ANYONE dumb after typing these two sentences back to back... that's just 'mazing.

Oh, and do you know what the word 'repudiate' means? Because I don't think you do...

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Weren't they elected to serve the country, not partisan interests?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha: we don't want your big-government, nanny-state, crony-capitalism version of America. We want rugged individualism, incentives for self-reliance, powerful and effective education that lifts poor children up.

We don't want to tear down the rich just to make people more equal.
We want to LIFT UP the poor using the most proven, effective method ever invented: reasonably regulated capitalism with strong private property rights and strong protections of our liberty.

We would rather have 98 make it and thrive and prosper really well than 100 all living in the dirt, equal together under the soft-tyranny of the cult of personality.

Obama is a complete disaster for you, for me and for this country. Thank *God* he's being thwarted at every turn.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"If you voted against Obummer because he's Black, you're a racist. If you voted for Obummer because he's Black... you're a racist too. Well done America, you picked your poison, swallow it well."

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 9:50 a.m.

I voted against Obama for the same reason I voted against Romney--as well as Capps: None of them respect the freedoms we are supposedly afforded by the Constitution.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have noticed a pattern among some posters, here. Instead of answering the content of a post with relevant commentary, talking points are trotted out, no matter how much they are at a complete tangent to the points raised.

Foo get off your fantasy horse, you are barking up the wrong tree. If you only knew what you don't know, you would feel like an idiot. I always chuckle at your ignorant preaching.

Whether one has big government, small government or anywhere in-between, fraud and criminal financial behavior are unacceptable - especially if the innocent are hurt. Did anyone watch the documentary before responding.

The leadership styles of Clinton and Obama have nothing to do it. The Republicans will try to bring down any Democrat - with Clinton, they pursued scandals, real or imagined. With Obama, it has become obstruction. Also, the Democrats had larger control of Congress in Clinton's first term than in Obama's first term. Most of Clinton's second term was wasted on impeachment hearings and him signing that egregious anti-Glass-Steagall(sp?) bill which set the stage for the 2008 implosion. I doubt whether Obama would have signed that bill.

And in the last election, the House received a million more Democrat votes than Republican, but because of gerrymandering, the Republicans have control - and that control will be very hard to change. The control of the House does not represent the political will of the country. Most of the country per recent polls regard themselves as Democrats than Republican. I would love to see a system where more direct-from-the-people democratic input were possible - avoiding the huge number of lobbyists and the money wasted on them that could be better spent on infrastructure and jobs.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When the head of the Executive Branch of government loses touch and exercises powers not found in the constitution, voting for legislators who will block the Executive Branch over-reach is good for the country. This is not an act of partisanship; it is an act of national survival.

The only recourse is impeachment which was not an option with the prior Democratic Party majority. It was the previous Democratic Congressional majority that refused to exercise their constitutional duty to stop the Executive Branch over-reach. Voters sensed this was not good for the country and voted accordingly.

That is how it works …for the good of the country.

American constitution checks and balance governance is amazingly resilient, yet today faces a bigger threat the Founders never contemplated nor wrote protective limits in the original document to protect the constitution against: the unelected fourth branch of government - the massive government administrative bodies that answer to know one.

Surely you must have received your recent Democratic Party fundraising letter claiming Obama would be impeached if they don't raise enough money and insure they keep their essential ability to block an impeachment.

They know Obama put himself at risk and they know the operation of laws in this country supports impeachment of the Executive Branch leader when he/she refuses to honor the oath for that office.

Read any of your favorite opposition websites to see the articles of impeachment that have already been drafted. Could not happen to a more deserving fraud to hold this office in contempt of the oath he took to uphold the laws of the United States of America; not flaunt them. The Democrats got fat and lazy. They lose.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha says: …"I would love to see a system where more direct-from-the-people democratic input were possible - avoiding the huge number of lobbyists and the money wasted on them that could be better spent on infrastructure and jobs."

You are on to something. The biggest lobbyist in California is the CTA - California Teachers Assn (union). Let's start eliminating them. SEIU spent the most money to elect Obama. Let's eliminate all government employee union money in campaigns first and foremost.

Obama was the third highest recipient of the financial industry campaign money - an unknown junior senator from Illinois with no legislative track record, and enigmatic background, who had recently maxed out his own credit cards and who could not even figure out the financing on his own home - yet the nations financial industry handed that much money over to him.

This is something we can work on together. Thank you for the offer. Let' start by keeping the CTA out of all future elections from local school boards to the governor.

However, you do need to get past your expectation only the government by spending other people's money can "create jobs". Can you trace back to where you first got this agenda and have you ever tested it out through history or experience? Or is it just a canned "social justice" issue passed down from a red diaper mom.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree Tababatha and it's truly pathetic. It's like the crazy guy yelling on the corner trying to drown everyone else out.

The trashy insults, racist innuendo, full-on falsehoods, people have been blocked for less.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@foofighter: "Read any of your favorite opposition websites to see the articles of impeachment that have already been drafted."

A Facebook rant by some State Senator in Arkansas is not 'drafting articles of impeachment'. I think Sen. Rapert is just trying to find ways to meet Megyn Kelly. Or are to referring to Sen. Stockman, the classless prat who walked out of the State of the Union? Yeah, let's see how far the crazy train goes with these two drips leading the way.

But it's great to see you so threatened, foofighter. That man with '..and [sic] enigmatic background...' (that's right wing code for 'minority', by the way) must really have you running scared.

@Ken_Volok: "The trashy insults, racist innuendo, full-on falsehoods, people have been blocked for less."

Exactly. I can handle the occasional nut like realitycheck88 or Priceless. But foofighter seems hell bent on posting and posting like a petulant child, descending nearly every thread into a parade of factless lunacy.

But hey, if they're going to let him post, I'm going to keep making fun of him and his moronic ideas. It's only fair, really.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 4:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha, love it watching you oblige foo-boy to do his clumsy cut-and-paste job, even to dragging out his "red diaper mom" cliches...let's keep him busy since he has nothing else to do! And you're far too kind, ETR, labeling him "moronic" -- how 'bout, irrelevant but easy to ridicule.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hesitate to dip toe into this cesspool, but let me say, keep speaking truth to bullsh*t. Foo, Locke, et al. are pathetic and their nonsense needs to be countered with facts.

GregMohr (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone is easy to ridicule. The rest test is responding with substance.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Awww Yes, PhD. ETR is at it again.

Still awake from your Obama Kool-Aid drinking marathon huh?

Love the statement, "Exactly. I can handle the occasional nut like realitycheck88 or Priceless."

Funny how the same posters on here on every article have such great knowledge of everything that goes on. I guess you have to expect that from individuals who obviously don't have a job because they have sooo much time to type away and ridicule everyone they disagree with.

Something that you libo's never seem to answer is Calif. is run by dumbocrats has been for decades. The "right-wingers" hold NO majorities in ANY legislative branch here on the left coast. But somehow, you "nut jobs" (ETR's words not mine) seem to continually blame the GOP! Can you "nut jobs" explain that to me? Calif. is drowning in debt, unions own the state, businesses are fleeing, roads are a mess, buildings are crumbling, the same deadbeat politicians like Hannah-Beth "The Skunk" Jackson, Das "Beauty-Boy" Williams and Lois "I have no idea what I'm doing" Capps continually win seats. You "nut jobs" have nobody to blame but yourselves.

Keep it up ETR I hear the Comedy Channel is looking for a new left-wing Obama "nut-job" Cheerleader.

Now excuse me while I go scratch…….

Priceless (anonymous profile)
February 1, 2014 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)


The "enigmatic background" of Barack Obama is a stand-alone statement that means exactly what it said.

It means no past academic records, international travel documents missing, sources of funding and influence that allowed his Ivy League education, his drug friends during college, no written legal opinions while stinting on Harvard Law Review, stringing a series of lies together using Bill Ayers as his ghost-writer and passing it off as his auto-biography, voting present too many times on controversial issues as an elected official, shadowy relationships with even more shadowy Chicago political thugs, having an even more shadowy on-going relationship with mega-funder George Soros, and no record of substance during his brief stint as junior senator before voters handed the keys to the White House.

The best we got from Obama himself is his admission he was a skinny kid, with big ears and a funny name -- except it was not even his real name for much of his life. Voters were simply happy he was not George W. Bush.

Oh yes, he also healed a fainting lady with a toss of a water bottle, one among many more to come in 2008, at his early campaign rally in Santa Barbara.

ETR: the better course is to stick to your own words and not stuff them into other people's mouths. Let's hear your ideas; not your ideas that you make up about others that have no substance. Causes too many diversions in the flow of conversation to have to back up and undo what you deliberately set in dysfunction.

Of course, we know this is simply a tool of argument and you can post whatever you want. But the greater values comes from sharing your own thoughts out of your own mouth under your own ownership, instead of writing fatuous cartoon bubbles for others that require endless retractions and another string of self-congratulations, high fives from partners in crime and additional rounds of personal insults.

Time wasters, ETR. But if your intent is to distract, divert, divide, dismiss and denigrate, we have your number.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 1, 2014 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

... we have your number." Cowardly "foofighter," how about identifying yourself before making thinly-veiled threats like this?

GregMohr (anonymous profile)
February 3, 2014 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mohr, don't play your weakest hand. How about joining the debate with substance instead?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 3, 2014 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: