YOUR COMMENTS

President Obama claims to be a Constitutional scholar, an exert on the document. The President and Congress took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the power to the president or Congress to appropriate money to buy GM or any other private company. Thus, the first 100 days of Obama documents a clear violation of the Constitution on many levels. Where is the outrage of the people and the press? Nowhere!
- Dave Delorey, Francestown

"Not because other nations have leaders who find it in their best interests to undermine our interests"

Did you even proof read you own writing before publishing? While I can agree with a few of the generalities in this "editorial", I find this particular quote humorous. The author seems to want us believing that there are states who's sole purpose and interests are to simply to be a thorn in our side. This is just as ridiculous as the well absorbed propaganda that "they hate us for our freedoms !" mantra that's gone around the past decade. Please get it straight that the U.S. has a long history of direct and indirect intervention and manipulation of many foreign governments since WWII. In fact, in cases such as Saddam(and there are many), we created the problem before having to "fix" it.
Our own outrage would know no bounds if we were to discover our nation's policies and leaders were changed from the outside-in regardless of whether the action was overt in the case of war or covert in the case of the CIA.
- Herb, Concord

Welcome to the Enchanted Kingdom of Obama. Congress, controlled by Democrats since 2006, has been appropriating taxpayer's money all along. The "Bush deficits" are congress deficits too. Presidents can't appropriate funds.
- Mae, Plaistow

So the now we throw the Patriot Act out and claim that the Government can search our homes without a warrant. I have read the Patriot Act and it does not say anything like this at all. I am sorry, it is a fact. Warrants are still issued by a judge and necessary for all searches.

Bush is responsible for the gas increase and Obama is the savior of America that got it reduced??? I think you give these men too much credit. As much as Bush is not responsible for the increased gas price, Obama is not responsible for its plunge. Demand is truly the factor here. Your friend was right. It is certainly not based upon your driving habits, but possible the buying habits of all Americans. Maybe you have read that the US GDP of the country has retracted significantly.... This would mean less commerce and therefore fewer shipments of goods. A reduction in shipping would create a void in demand. And this would be only one factor of many to drive demand down.

Bush doesn't take care of Vets..... I must have missed that report on MSNBC! How do you quantify that one? It is ridicules and unfounded.

If you think Obama is spending on YOU for a change, it is what he is after. At some point taxes will have to go up to pay for this increase in spending or he has to drastically cut spending in other areas. It cannot continue. His spending is the highest in 50 years as a percentage of the GNP. I have more bad news. A lot of the new spending is on interest payments for this large deficit. It isn't even going toward real Americans. We are paying the Chinese interest because of the money we have borrowed from them to support this spending. The more we borrow the more interest we have to pay........

I don't care if you are a liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat, until the deficit is under control and spending is pulled back to solve this problem, all of our futures are in jeopardy.
- Bob Hill, Concord NH

Bob, your reasoning is that because we went to war in Iraq rather than looking for Bin Laden and the Taliban, that we weren't attacked. That is highly specious reasoning. That's like saying "Well, I had pizza for dinner last night, and my house wasn't robbed today, so therefore, eating pizza keeps my house from being robbed."

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Were there problems there, sure, but we basically attacked them saying they were involved and that they had WMD's, when, in fact, neither were true. The problem I, and a lot of Americans have, is that usually the US doesn't start wars, but it clearly started this one. I am all for going after those resposible for 9/11, but invading Iraq didn't work towards that goal.

And Thomas Thorpe, who comments on EVERY article on this website, if we are spending more in Afghanistan, great, at least there is logic behind trying to find those responsible for 9/11. And its not like Obama could just pull everyone out of Iraq on Jan. 21, that would be somewhat irresponsible.
- Greg, Manchester

"Never mind that there were no WMD."

That's right. He didn't have a decade to hide them in a vast desert. He always provided full cooperation with any and all UN weapons inspectors. He never broke any UN resolutions, ever. He never lobbed SCUDS at Isreal.He never chemically attacked and killed an entire town of his own people. The man called Chemical Ali was not real, in fact he was invented by Darth Cheney for the sole purpose of gaining no bid contracts for Haliburton and cheap crude for his “Big Oil” buddies. The saber rattling was only so that his own people would think he was powerful, it should have never been misconstrued as truth, and we should have given him every chance to do something bad, and then reacted to it. That is exactly what the great Jimmy Carter would have done, and we should have used him as an inspiration for all going forward post 9/11 foreign policy decisions.
If you haven’t already, I suggest you see the Oliver Stone film W. That movie is 100 percent true, every bit of dialog behind closed doors was provided to him so that he could write a factual screenplay. GW even told Oliver all of his dreams as well, for accuracy.

How do we know that he was or was not up to no good without a “smoking gun”? Who cares? The fact is that what ever his intentions may or may not have been, he wasn’t given the chance to do either. Error on the side of caution? Works for me. Haven’t heard much from Osama either since we started dropping Daisy Cutters. We might not have heard from him ever, if Slick Willie wasn’t too busy with the “smoking cigar” and perjuring himself.

The housing crisis was not at all the fault of people that borrowed money they physically could not ever pay back, never mind Barney Frank and Dodd. Weren’t the people that got the first bail out the same one’s who donated to Oprah-Bama’s campaign to the tune of hundrens of thousands of dollars (along with the pre-paid credit cards from unsavory nations)?

It would be nice if we could get the rest of the world to love us with patchouli scented drum circles, but unfortunately, that will never happen because whatever our foreign policy is, it will tick someone off somewhere for some reason. Some people will just hate us because we are a nation full of overweight spoiled brats that have no idea what hard times are. Losing a job, car, or house pales in comparison to what the majority of the rest of the world endures on a daily basis. Some will just hate us no matter what we do, and that is a fact.
- Zizzy, Manchester

To Bob Hill, Its funny the thing you wrote are the exact things I said about Bush when he was president. Verbatim. Big brother in our bedroom, phones, libraries, (patriot act)-which says the government can search your house without a warrant and without you even being home, not taking care of our vets when they come home wounded except I called that administration fascists. So these things are already here from the last administration but you repubs never even noticed that. Funny huh. I was talking to a person yesterday that I always thought seemed intelligent and I asked him why all of a sudden since the elections the price of gas has gone down to what it was when Bush first became president and stayed there and I got the funniest answer. He said it was because the demand went down. I've got a bridge to sell him:) I still drive the same amount, the traffic on the main street where I work is still the same. Thats the lamest thing I've ever heard especially since China and India are putting more cars on their streets everyday. How people don't see that the price of gas was a huge tax on the American people and all the other bullcrap that they pulled.
But all of a sudden they think Obama is spending a lot. Yeah he is but on us for a change. Not sending billions of dollars in cash in boxes over to Iraq to be lost who knows where. That money has still never been accounted for or how about the trillion dollars bailout he gave to the banks last November (Bush I mean). Didn't hear a peep from you guys. I admit our country is going to be in a hole for quite a while but in order for Pres. Obama to get us out of the hole Bush put us in he's going to have to spend some and at least its on the little ole american people who have been shafted for eight years.
- Cecil, Manchester

Dan in Auburn-

It is easy for many now to say that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. We didn't find WMD. It is easy to say that we should have stayed in Afganistan.

My point to to Greg was that at the time, the infomation and the potential for Iraq to grow to become a bigger al qaeda threat was real. To dismiss this fact and say that Iraq would never be a threat is foolish.

We could easily have stayed in Afganistan as you have suggested and now be dealing with a much stronger Iraqi force that harbors Al Qaeda groups. For all we know, Bin Laden under your scenario left Afganistan and taken up residence in Iraq and now we would be talking about invading Iraq instead of Afganistan.

The bottom line is that two are not linked and you cannot claim that by not invading Iraq the world is not a safer place. We are safer and that is the point.

Greg believes the Irag war was a waste for the US to fight and further believes that most Americans also agree with his assessment of the war and outcome.

I disagree. Iraq was a threat and would continue to be a threat until Saddam Hussien was removed. We could do in 2003 or in your scenario, at a time in the future. I believe it still would have happened at some point in time.
- Bob Hill, Concord NH

Is this guy kidding me? Obama didn't "anticipate the financial crisis"? Then just what the h#ll was he anticipating during the campaign? He signedd off on Bush's TARP plan and voted in favor of it. If he didn't "anticipate" an economic crisis then he is dumber then we thought.
- Mark Harris, Lee, NH

For once the UL editorial got something right. Mr. Obama is not a moderate--and a good thing that is because no moderate could fix the awful mess Bush left behind. These are difficult times that call for bold leadership. "Moderation" is the refuge of the cowardly.
- LJC, Manchester

Jeff, we lost innovation a long time ago when we outsourced all our jobs to China, India and Mexico and whoever else will sell us cheap products. We are not an industrialized nation anymore, we are a consumer nation and I for one am glad that our government is finally going to start spending some money on our country instead of just giving it to other countries like the last administration. The whole infrastructure of our country (roads, bridges, health care etc) have been neglected way to long, with no accounting of what the banks and lending companies were doing and look where that got us over the last years. Finally a president who can speak a whole sentence and has a brain.
- Joanne, Manchester

to Bob Hill,

You ask how we know that the invasion of Iraq did not make our country safer.

Never mind that there were no WMD. More importantly, the invasion took our eyes off the ball.

The real risk, Al Queada and Osama Bin Laden, who actually perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, resided in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. By invading Iraq, our resources in Afghanistan were squandered. Now, to no great surprise, Bin Laden is still free and the Taliban is on the rise in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Who was/is more of a risk to the US, a terrorist organization that has attacked the US several times (WTC-1, USS Cole, US embassy, (/11) or the saber-rattling leader of an immasculated country (Hussein)?

Who posed a greater threat to the US, a country run by the most regressive and right-wing organization since the Nazis who openly harbored anti-US terrorists(Taliban), or the contained and under-powered military of the Iraqi regime?

Please don't insult Greg's intelligence when you clearly don't understand the error in the invasion of Iraq.
- Dan, Auburn

What I never seem to see in some of these comments is where the many like me that are Independent or anything but the mainstream two parties are left out of the picture. The sad thing is there are a growing number of us. 59 million voters cannot all be "right wing extremists" or "right wing zealouts".
I laugh most at how those same ones that still continue to bash Bush at every turn can seem to find no fault with their annointed one. Obama is trying to have the government control everything. Most who voted for him want that because they want a handout. The sad thing is there is so much proof of how inept the government is at running programs and to think they can do a better job now is ridiculous. Socialized medicine you say? Ask those in Canada that have to wait months sometimes longer to even see a doctor, ask the British elderly who have their procedures put on hold or not performed at all so that younger more "needy" patients can have them.
Maybe some are fooled by the "planned questions" and the polished "teleprompter" speeches but I and many are not.
If you want a few examples where he has stretched the truth lets start off with him originally saying he would not try to prosecute any of the former administration. Now he has put it in "the justice departments hands."
Lets talk about he was going to change Washington and then he puts a tax cheat in office and attempts to put many others in. Lets talk about how he cares what "ALL" Americans feel yet has nothing but negative comments about those who had the "tea parties."
Lets talk of him bowing to a foriegn king and refusal to even speak about the pirate situation. Lets talk about how he had hand picked soldiers meet him in Bagdad so that he could look good when in fact many in the military have no respect for him.
So sorry all you left wing nuts all of us who think this guy is a fraud are not right wing anything. We are those with an ability to see things for what they are and not what the main stream media wants us to think.
- Bill B., Pelham

PS to Bill of Derry: I hate to spoil your left-versus-right view of the world, but you cannot name one thing Bush did to cater to the radical right wing that caused America to select Obama out of backlash. Massive new federal involvement in local schools, the prescription drug entitlement, the foreign "nation-building" he blasted Clinton for, amnesty for foreign invaders--The right wing got nothing. Perhaps the ban against NEW fetal stem-cell lines if you are taking federal funds. Bush was not an extremist--nor even easy to hate. Only the Democrats' caricature of him was.

Susie, don't forget the other line often heard from the woman who has just married a hard-drinking gambler: "I feel I can change him." The Audacity of Hope.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative; that is not a fiscal skin-flint or one who claims being a fiscal conservative yet loves gorging at the trough of his/her favorite budget item. With that said, I absolutely adore the alleged fiscal conservatives on here who decry President Obama's budget. Those are the same people who never once said a word about President Bush's budgets when he did not include his foreign excursions in them; President Obama has. And how about these numbers from President Bush's years in office: he put forth budgets that totalled 20.37 Trillion dollars which did not include his Iraq and Afghanistan fiascoes. He took President Clinton's highest budget and almost doubled it before he left office. Where were you people in the past? How is anyone supposed to take you seriously or to think you to be anything other than a bunch of crazy ideologues when you only harp about the 'opposition' and yet remain silent when your own leaders perform in the exact same manner? Not only were you silent during the previous administration's spend-fest, you actually lauded every move that President Bush made. How is this the patriotism that you bandy about so recklessly? Further, the economy did not require urgent attempts at repair to prevent a complete economic collapse. Maybe President Obama's policies will fail and maybe they won't but it will not be because you helped support your Commander in Chief. Good Americans indeed.
- Tom, Dover-Foxcroft, Me.

Interesting how this writer feels that the past polices were so great and have worked so well that nothing needs to be changed. Unfortunately for millions out of work the past polices have finally caught up. You talk of Obama trying to take control of companies and Health care. How well have the companies done on their own - with out this huge bail out a lot of the biggest companies would have run themselves into bankruptcy. Without insurance no one can afford to go to a hospital with the rates they charge. Has this writer noticed the people out of work are not the ones making the decisions. I do agree we are giving these corporations too much $$$ but they need to reeled back in. They have proven all to well how they will act with less restrictions. Where would this country be in 2 years if all of these corporations were allowed to fail - 20% unemployment. There is your trickle down effect - each company that closes pulls down the smaller company supplying them and so on and so on for further job loss. I want the government to help but get all the money back over 10 years and NO bonuses for any company that got a dime. Now Citibank (I believe it was them) wants to give out bail out money for bonuses because the workers aren't happy. Let them blame the same CEO that said how great they were when they were willing to do anything for short term profits. Obama needs to stop NAFTA too - we just keep sending more jobs out of the US.
- Jim, Loudon

Perhaps Joe missed the news conference last night where Obama stated unequivocally that he had no desire to run car companies or banks, that he would have preferred not to get involved, and that he is only playing the hand he was dealt?

Does Joe actually believe that Obama got a prime time slot on national TV specifically to go on the air and LIE to the American people?

Of course he does. This is just more divisive, counterproductive output from the ever-spewing GOP BS machine.

Which is one reason why Obama did not have to 'toss the Republicans and their concerns aside'; the GOP did that all on their lonesome. By violating their core principles of fiscal discipline and small, non-invasive government, and focusing to absolute abstraction on far-right priorities like abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration, the Republicans have marginalized themselves. The editorial staff at the UL, along with most of their GOP cohorts, continue to dig a hole big enough to bury an elephant by offering nothing but negativity, bogus solutions, and a wholesale distortion of Obama's policies. Good luck with that. It's working so far.
- Dave, Sandwich

While everyone was focused on "torture", this is what Congress was up to - passing a $3.5 trillion budget with a $1.2 trillion deficit. An epic increase in the size and role of government, done in an unconstitutional fashion, and rushed through without debate, feedback, thought, or questions. But at least it was done by Obama's 100th day in office. That's what is really important.

Welcome to the United Socialist States of America.
- Tom, Campton

I'm sorry, did I miss the memo?
At one point did anyone every claim Obama was a moderate?
He has done precisely what he said he would do and this is what people voted for.
The problem is that neither party believes in consensus building or bipartisanship or compromise.
Whatever party is in power, they will ramrod through their agenda... usually the most extreme version, to appease the "voter base". That is, those extremists in the party that donate huge money.
The Republicans did it eight years ago and the Democrats are doing it now.
This is why America keeps flip-flopping politically. We reject the extreme agenda and give the other side a shot, then we reject that extreme agenda and go back to the other side.
The truth is 25 percent of the country is extreme right, 25 percent is extreme left and the other 50 percent of us are moderate and want there to be compromise.
But what we will keep getting, either on the national, state or local level, is political bullying by the party in charge because they are under some misguided notion that they have received a mandate. A slim majority of either party is no mandate.
- Bill, Derry

According to the most recent Rasmussen Poll, some 77% of Americans want less government and lower taxes. And they're especially agitated by the endless bailouts. Yet, Obama's approval rating is up around 68%. Go figure.

So where does this leave today's hip, new liberal? Besides confused? Well, they look something like the newlywed bride who rushed into a marriage and is now beginning to see the glaring flaws in her mate, but adamantly refuses to admit her mistake. "Give him time," she pleads (what else can she say?), as she clings to false hope.
- Susie Nickerson, Horseshoe Bay, TX (NH native)

It is amazing to me to see comments like those from Greg. Considering and hoping for the most part that Americans are intelligent, you would think that with the infomation that is coming out, that they would be able to see the truth within the Obama Administration.

However, even in light of real evidence of socialistic behavior by this President, those that support him so blindly still look back at Bush's Presidency and claim everything is right now because Bush is not our President.

How do you know that our invasion of Iraq did nto make this nation safer? We have not had an attack on US Soil since 9/11, but in spite of this, it is not because of the polices of the previous President, but pure luck according to these blind Obama followers.

When questioned to why they support President Obama, the number one answer is...."he is not Bush". When pushed further, I am told that "You just don't like him" and I am brushed off because they cannot discuss policy and provide evidence of fact based results of this administration.

We are now a society that is at odds with the simple truth of "control". The Democrats are here to control everyday life. They want to limit freedoms and tell Americans how to live thier lives. They are also going so far as to interject their beliefs in Business. Obama meets with GM, next thing you know, the CEO resigns.

The question is, do you want to think for yourself or do you want the Government to tell you how to live your life? Easy answer for me. I choose freedom and life. Thanks but no thanks President Obama. You can keep your "change and hope".
- Bob Hill, Concord NH

I am not sure if it is the "most" left-wing agenda of any President in American history. (It is a tendency for people to say it the the "most" something without carefully getting perspective first.) But President Obama is certainly weakening our standing among foreign nations and is creating socialist aspects in our economy. And he is only getting started.
- Nicholl, Manchester

In short, all the things we observed about Obama during the campaign--his subversive and racist associates, the vagueness and evasion of his words, his disdain for Americans and "their" traditions, his foreign, Muslim upbringing--all the things the left told us didn't mean anything, meant something. They were lying about that just as much as when they told us our concerns were mean-spiritedness, and that we were too racist to elect him.

Jeff from Goffstown: The hallmark of Europe isn't home invasions; it's home invasions regardless of whether the owner is inside. European citizens are guaranteed to be disarmed. We pile the kids into the van for a trip to the doctor; they queue up for a train to the Health Ministry. One big difference: the power of unions to ruin YOUR DAY until they get what they want.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

Gee, thanks Greg. I wasn't aware that Obama had stopped funding the war in Iraq and I missed the news release where he must have recanted his decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan by spending billions more there while increasing troop presence by 17,000. Here's a tip, Greg. Sometimes it is better to read the news in the paper you want to post, before you post. It will cause you less embarassment in the long run!
- Thomas Thorpe, Portsmouth, NH

This falls under the "be careful what you wish for" category. Europe is a great place to visit but with unemployment routinely in the double digits, and thats in good years, and crime rates ( burgerly and home invasion primarily) significantly higher than the US I am not thrilled about becoming "just like them". Innovation is not one of europes strong points, and we are rapidly losing that feature of the American economy as we become more european, I see europe as a company that "plays not to lose" while America, at least up to now, as been a "play to win" kind of place. President Obama and his henchmen Pelosi, Emnaual et al have demonstrated yet again the Clinton era definition of "bi-partisanship" ie: do what the dems demand or be demonized. Yes, the democrats won the last two elections but I do not see a big demand for the programs they are pushing. I do see over reaching and a failure to listen to prinicpled opposition. I see attempts to demonize and distort. Both political parties believe they are acting in the best interest of America. Unfortuantely the democrats continue to move in a direction that has already failed but, they say, by throwing more money at it we can make it work. The so-called "failed policies" that the left referrs to worked, but clearly need tweaking. Throwing out those principles to make room for the inept government to run things is short sighted. There is a saying among firearm rights supporters that applies, Gun control is not about guns, but control. Anyone who bothers to read between the lines of the Obama administrtion has to come to the same conclusion: it is about control. And broad control is something government is not capable of.
- jeff, Goffstown

At least the current administration is spending money to help people who live in this country, rather than to fight a war fought under the dubious claim that Iraq and their "WMDs" were a threat to national security.

Clearly the people of this country have spoken, and right wing zealots such as yourself are in the minority. Why should the administration pander to the minority?
- Greg, Manchester