User Profile: KJGreen


Member Since: July 03, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [8] August 27, 2015 at 7:41pm

    Oh Bobby … You expected Obama to conduct himself in a manner that isn’t political or pushing his narrative, when he does this at virtually every venue he visits to push one or more of his pet divisive issues such as his stirring-the-pot race-baiting commentary?

    You expected Obama to demonstrate decorum on the same day that reports surfaced about the White House pushing for a filibuster of the Iran nuclear deal when he and his minions in Congress helped develop the terms and conditions of how Congress would be involved in voting on the deal? (Don’t get me started on the R wimps who ceded the treaty authority on this matter in the first place).

    I assume you sent the letter to make a “statement”. However, if you sent the letter thinking you would get results, then you are too naive to be president.

    As the saying goes, don’t wrestle with a pig. You and the pig both get dirty and the pig likes it.

  • August 26, 2015 at 11:23pm

    DId you know that during the Reagan administration we helped lay the groundwork for the fall of the Soviet Union while during Obama’s administration, it is being rebuilt, at least in part, by Putin?

    … I know, I was kinda shocked too …

    PS. Where will you be to spout comparable statistics for the carnage Iran spreads as a result of the nuclear agreement? Or will the results of this agreement be the fault of Obama’s successor because they will occur during the next president’s (or two) administration?

  • [5] August 26, 2015 at 7:28pm

    ‘What we know is that the number of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism,” the president added.’

    And he’s doing nothing to fix either.

    Responses (2) +
  • [5] August 26, 2015 at 5:33pm

    Dana Perino’s twin?

  • [6] August 26, 2015 at 4:51pm

    Anyone else growing weary of the “check into rehab” (whether it is sex, alcohol, or whatever) phenomenon after these type of people get caught?

    Someone like Duggar would have a lot more credibility had he used the public airing of his transgressions as a youth as a catalyst to fully cleanse himself at that time. Instead, he, like so many others before him, waited for another public disclosure before following the usual script of “I have a problem. I’m going to rehab. Please accept me for who I really am after rehab.”

    Responses (1) +
  • [27] August 20, 2015 at 6:05pm

    Wow. The number of jaw-dropping comments in her narrative was astounding.

    ‘“I did talk to Shaun. I can tell you that Shaun King is biracial,” she said. “There’s no reason to doubt that he’s biracial.”’
    – No reason to doubt? Like the fact that if he were not, it would go contrary to his narrative? Or that it would further dilute whatever credibility he might have with regard to the purported racist mob beating of him? (Wonder when Joy will state she has no reason to doubt that Hillary didn’t have any secure documents on her server because Hillary said so. Nevermind, she’s already on that path: Maybe Hillary Clinton’s Email Was “Safer And More Secure” On A Private Server)

    ‘She also blasted the media organizations that have reported on King as having a “political slash racial agenda.”’
    – But not Sharpton, Obama, Jackson, King himself, and Black Lives Matter?

    ‘“They are stoking racial resentment for their audience, it’s what they do,” she said.’
    – But not Sharpton, Obama, Jackson, King himself, and Black Lives Matter?

    Another leftist tool (both Reid and King).

    Responses (1) +
  • August 19, 2015 at 3:03pm

    If it’s “nothing more than a routine technical arrangement” then why the hesitation in disclosing it?

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] August 14, 2015 at 2:19pm

    Another example of government practicing “do as I say, not as I do.”

    Let’s just employ the same rules/expectations that were placed on BP in the Deepwater oil leak. Why should the EPA take any less liability for their negligence than they expected of BP based on what was deemed BP’s negligence?

  • [7] August 14, 2015 at 11:55am

    Hmm. I thought this was the most transparent administration in US history.

    What happened to the “presumption in favor of disclosure” from your January 21, 2009 presidential memorandum, Barry? Was that just window dressing like so many more of your other actions? Or did I miss the quiet revocation of that memo? (contrary to the trumpeting of the positive action taken).

    I wish that we had a press corps that was motivated to dig deep on issues like this as opposed to what many refer to as “drive-by” news.

    Responses (1) +
  • August 13, 2015 at 2:29pm

    Unfortunately the response to crony capitalism should not be crony unionism. There is an unholy alliance between the pols and businesses and the pols and unions, and it is the little guy that gets squeezed.

    Show me a business that is not treating their employees fairly and I’ll show you a union that is not earning their collected dues.

    It is time to end all cronyism and get politicians back to looking to do what’s best for the country, not what they need to do to solidify their hold on office.

  • [9] August 13, 2015 at 1:53am

    “Labor Secretary Thomas Perez said union membership could mean an extra $200 per week for the average worker.”

    Is that before or after the union dues that go to fund the salaries of the union bosses, payoff the democratic pols, and/or fund the lobbying of progressive causes?

  • [2] August 12, 2015 at 12:45pm

    As noted by Kerry (“already bubbling”), the threat to the US dollar as the reserve currency is already underway. It seems to me that our current economic policies/situation have far more impact on the status of this than the approval/rejection of this deal.
    In addition, how many more “dire consequences” will this administration trot out before they’ve exhausted their supply? Maybe they never read the story about the boy who cried wolf?
    They’ve already asserted a rejection of the deal will result in war. Now they talk about economic impact. They seem to be looking for something that will “click” in order to shore up the support for this deal. Maybe they should suggest that if the deal is not approved, they will pull funding for Planned Parenthood. That would get their supporters exercised.

  • August 11, 2015 at 3:04pm

    I’m through with believing ANY politician who talks about how they will behave when elected. Past performance IS an indication of future performance. Obama the “uniter” is anything but that; McCain the campaign conservative is anything but that, etc.

    Sounds like someone trying to re-invent themselves to counter the high negative polling she is seeing. Sorry, Hill, your track record is the only thing I’m judging you on. Unfortunately, there are probably numerous low information voters who will buy this kinder and gentler, role model, poppycock.

  • [17] August 10, 2015 at 12:02pm

    Let’s superimpose Prof. Goff’s commentary (“However, Goff, an associate professor of psychology at UCLA who is also a visiting scholar at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, said there isn’t enough context provided to be able to seriously draw conclusions from the arrest records.”) on Ferguson:

    “However, Obama said there isn’t enough context to be able to seriously draw conclusions simply from the fact that Michael Brown was shot by the police officer.”

    Whoops. My mistake. I mixed up Obama’s needing more context before commenting on Planned Parenthood, Kate Steinle, etc. with his rush to comment without facts on situations that meet his ideology.

    Responses (1) +
  • [23] August 10, 2015 at 11:53am

    Spot on!

    In his remarks before the big “but”, Goff noted he was surprised at the data. But since that isn’t in line with the story line being peddled, he had to qualify his surprise. Actually, I’m a bit surprised that he didn’t leave his comment to simply saying there wasn’t enough context.

  • [8] August 9, 2015 at 10:44am

    And this is a surprise, why? The current administration has no limits in terms of its demonization of various groups that go contrary to its position on issues.

    They are quick to toss pejoratives or slurs to support their arguments, yet even quicker to admonish others who do the same.

    They are quick to comment without evidence on events that support their narrative (Cambridge Mass, Ferguson, etc.) yet slow (if at all) to comment on those things that don’t support their agenda (e.g., Planned Parenthood, Kate Steinle, etc.).

    Glad to see people starting to see through this.

    Looking forward to getting a president who will act presidential …

  • [4] August 7, 2015 at 10:59am

    You forgot to use the party line … there is not a smidgeon of an issue here.

  • [1] August 6, 2015 at 6:52pm

    Interesting you should make your comment since the liberal definition of equality is exactly that. Case in point: Obamacare ruining healthcare for many (keep your doctor, save $2500?) in the interest of broadening coverage (and still large numbers uninsured). Case in point: Obama asserting that even if raising capital gains tax rates would bring in less revenue they should still be raised for “fairness”.

    “What happened to improving life for the next generation?” is a good question. How do you feel about the young people (e.g., high schoolers) who used to be able to work minimum wage jobs to get experience and or some income, but are no longer employable at that age due to disinterest of employers wanting to hire inexperienced immature employees at that rate? Is this improving life for the next generation?

    Asking a similarly phrased question as yours, What happened to the motivation of those working entry level jobs who feel entitled to simply get paid more as opposed to striving to get out of minimum wage levels? (including those in Seattle who have received the minimum wage, but are now requesting fewer hours to keep their income under subsidy threshholds)

  • August 5, 2015 at 7:10pm

    His hair must be growing both into and out of his head.

  • [9] August 5, 2015 at 2:26pm

    How dare he invoke Reagan and Kennedy in comparison?

    Kennedy – Cuban missile crisis – demands removal of Soviet arsenal.
    Reagan – walks away from negotiations with Gorbachev when he’s not willing to accede to their terms.
    Obama – so afraid of not getting a deal (and telegraphs this fact to the Iranians) that we get little in return for the billions they will soon distribute to their client terrorist organizations.

    Hey Obama: I’ve seen Kennedy and Reagan in action. You are not even close.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love