I'm of the opinion that the people with their irrational "Bush Hate Syndrome" who put all their faith in their near religious devotion to the man they thought would make them whole again, with love in their hearts, and return them to the Camelot of an America that they fantasize about, namely Obama; will never admit that they put their hopes and dreams and pride on the line for, at best, an "enlightened despot".

They can't and won't admit that they put their love on the line for this man who would turn out to be this huge a fraud. A man who has his own agenda that had nothing to do with expectations of the "useful idiots" who believed their saviour to be the exception to the rule of power hungry leaders who step on the supporting intelligentsia once their claim to power is attained.

There will be a need for many therapists and psychiatrists to sort out the crushed psyches of these woe-begotten souls when this is all sorted out.

I've said it about a dozen times before and there are people here who prove a point when it comes to refusing to listen.

Read closely what I write. It's the double-standard that I can't stand. I do not agree with many of Obama's policies and proposals. But to knock them when a previous administration did the SAME thing is poor debating. It basically shows someone as a hypocrit - that when THEIR guy does something, it's ok, but if the OTHER guy does it, it's not.

I especially like to draw comparisons to Reagan. When someone complains that Obama doesn't do press conference when he does than at a clip 4 times what Reagan did, that says something. Now, if someone says "Gee, I didn't know that", then fine. But what do I get? Certainly not that.

When someone complains that Obama didn't produce an instant economic turnaround, I like to point out that Reagan spent 1984 selling his principle of 'stay the course' and the economic problems HE inherited were far less than what Obama came into. I believed in giving Reagan the chance back then and I know you can't turn around a near-depression in a year. Nor do I agree that Obama is doing the best job of fighting it. (He's yet to convince me of how he'll get the deficit down)

I held my nose and voted for Obama. I *enthusiastically* voted for Reagan in 1980.

We'er all listening to you. Comparing Obama to Reagan????? I think I won't listen to you anymore.

All you have to do is read the words of the great Ronald Reagan as compared to the words of Barack Hussein Obama and you can't help but come to the conclusion that their ideals and beliefs and faith in American greatness are at polar opposites.

One can't argue that there aren't a lot of differences betwetween the two. My point has always been that the circumstances have many similarities and how willing some people are to endorse the same traits (when 'their guy' is in charge) that they condemn when 'the other guy' has won the election.

Your comparisons have too many holes to debate intelligently. Even, the far left has lost faith in his Oneness. One man was a uniter and the other is clearly a divider.

So back to the original questions raised by the Pigford case.

Who is receiving this $1.2 billion looted from the public treasury?

Given the available fact pattern, why isn't someone looking into massive fraud and corruption connected with these obviously ill-gotten gains?

It appears Obama and Congress had a central role in spreading the wealth through apparently fraudulent claims given the limited, available facts of the case. Who is investigating how the taxpayer dollars were doled out and who the beneficiaries were?

Where are the investigative reporters who vigorously dug into George Bush's National Guard record and invaded Alaska in droves to find something..... anything negative about Sarah Palin and/or her family?

It would appear Obama and his ilk own the so called mainstream media with rare exception.

I would not describe the press as "lazy." Unmotivated yes. Like Cabo said, they had plenty of gusto researching Bush's military service and Palin's background.

US Rep. John Conyers, a self proclaimed Progressive Democrat, has been involved in this case since the beginning. He openly states the entire purpose of the lawsuit isn't just about black farmers being treated unfairly. It is about reparation for black Americans. Redistribution of wealth. Of course if the "media" writes fairly about this case or the issue of redistribution of wealth or reparations, they are racists.



http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm?F...c-df3de5ec97f8

Conyers was on the 2005 committee that looked at the Notice Provision in the Pigford vs. Glickman consent decree.


http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...ju97230_0f.htm

The press is more concerned with the current headline and almost nothing beyond that.