Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

June 27, 2012 - Morning Headlines

- The massive wildfires currently raging in Colorado have crossed over a containment line and are no heading closer to Colorado Springs (CNN):

- With a nearly $26 million budget deficit, the city of Stockton, California could become the largest US city to declare bankruptcy (Fox News):

- The 15-member panel at the University of Virginia has unanimously voted to reinstate ousted president Teresa Sullivan after an outcry of public and student support (MSNBC):

- UN observers in Syria claim violence in the civil war-torn country is worse than before the cease fire (ABC News):

*** Be sure to vote in the weekly LME Obama Immigration poll on the left side of this blog ***

Also, check out the new rating system below. You can now rate each post from 1-5 on how much you agree/like it, or how well you think it is written.


  1. Stockton - Typical democrat shithole city in a shithole democrat state that has been run into the ground. No surprise here. Move along people

  2. Romney in 2007: Protect executive privilege

    1. Loyal Watcher - good morning.

      Thank you for posting that link. It is news that everyone should read. But I'm not sure why you (or CNN) would have posted it. What is the discussion that surrounds it?

    2. I do have to admit, I love the effort CNN puts behind it's "journalism." It seems to stop at nothing to paint Romney in a bad light. It's sad especially since it is supposed to be reporting news.

      It posted:

      "Republicans accused the President of hypocrisy for invoking executive privilege in the "Fast and Furious" case, pointing to comments candidate Obama made to CNN in 2007.

      "There's been a tendency, on the part of this administration, to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there's something a little shaky that's taking place," then Senator Obama told CNN's Larry King."

      - Obama said that. Fact.
      - Romney backed executive privilege then and still does. Fact.

      Other facts:

      Executive privilege and only be used when the executive is involved, lending that individual of the office to the subpoena for which he is being summoned. In 2007, Bush was directly involved in the Karl Rove subpoena, for example, since the exchange(s) between Karl Rove and Bush involved the executive (Bush). Executive privilege does not protect those not involved. Obama, for example, cannot use it to protect some governor from being subpoenaed unless Obama was involved in whatever the subpoena is going after.

      THIS is what republicans are contesting. They're not claiming Obama is hiding behind this move, they are saying that he is using the move without authority. He has claimed to not be involved and he claims he didn't have an intricate knowledge of Fast and Furious. If that's the case, executive privilege does not apply since the executive is not involved. If he is, involved, the executive privilege stands, but then it appears he lied about being involved.

      Of course, CNN doesn't tell you all this. They just want to headline the nice little scenario of "Mitt stands behind executive privilege" while trying to make him look like a hypocrite.

    3. Don't forget the same holds true for Holder. He is in the cabinet. Executive privilege can cover him IF HE IS INVOLVED. The problem is, as you have said, Holder has said he wasn't. It's such a buggaboo for Obama/Holder. Use EP to cover the docs and ensure they don't get out, but admit you're lying and you were involved, or don't cover them, show everyone you're not involved and not hiding, but release potentially damaging documents.

    4. "Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal."

    5. Hi LME

      I think you nailed the 'executive privilege' conundrum -

      'He (Obama) has claimed to not be involved and he claims he didn't have an intricate knowledge of Fast and Furious. If that's the case, executive privilege does not apply since the executive is not involved. If he is, involved, the executive privilege stands, but then it appears he lied about being involved.'

      ... it appears he lied ...

      IMO Obama knew about Fast and Furious from the very beginning, Obama instigated it in his push for stronger gun control legislation 'under the radar' (his words), it blew up in their faces with the death of Brian Terry - and Holder's been doing his best to cover the whole thing up.

      Obama can make a phone call to 'soothe the ruffled feathers' of a GROWN woman pushing for taxpayer paid (free) contraceptives and abortions, but can't be bothered to offer his condolences to the family of a Border Patrol agent killed in the line of duty? means of a gun sent to Mexico - by HIS administration?

      'Mitt stands behind executive privilege' is just more smoke and mirrors from Obama's CNN.

      Presidents come and go along with their administrations. Brian Terry is dead - forever. If we don't get to the bottom of this mess - and punish ALL those responsible - he will have died in vain.

    6. Loyal

      What case were you trying to make by posting that second CNN link. The quote you gave about "irony" doesn't even make sense. Can you offer your thoughts on it to show you actually have a base-level comprehension of how it is "ironic?"


    1. I just want to see if I understand this. You're a Ron Paul fan, right? Ron Paul fans (justifiably) promote freedom and liberty. And that's great. But you rail against campaign finance. You see a problem with it, but you back a solution that ultimately removes freedom and liberty? How do you rectify this? How can you possibly be about freedom when you want to eliminate the right to spend your own money as you see fit? How do you promote freedom when you want the government to have MORE power in regulating the lives and wallets of people? Can you explain this for me, please? Additionally, what kind of solution do YOU propose (a full, top to bottom system, got ideas)? How would campaign finance work? Maybe you should write about it.

    2. Good afternoon LME. I'll tell you something else I find odd about these "freedom lovers", they are all for anonymity in voting and illegal aliens running around the country but when it comes to political spending they say to hell with anonymity. We want to know everything about you but only if we don't like your politics.

      The majority of young Ron Paul supporters ONLY agree with him on legalizing drugs. They don't care about anything else he says.

    3. Campaign finance regulation to me is more an issue of preventing corruption, special interests, and/or 'buying' influence or candidates than anything else. I don't think anyone would argue that those don't exist and/or are non-issues?

  4. Corporations rob and steal and no one is arrested -

    People rob and steal and they go to jail.......

    1. Nice chant/talking point with the "corporations rob and steal and no one is arrested, people rob and steal and they go to jail."
      But, in case you can't read, they paid $453 MILLION in fines. Meaning they WERE PUNISHED. Did you miss this? Or are you completely muted out by your own chants that you fail to realize the truth that's out there. They did something wrong, and they were punished. What is your point?
      You should seriously stop with this anti-corporation bull. Until you know something about a corporation, you shouldn't talk about it.

  5. Yesterday Karl Rove came up here on the site. I came across this story last night. Just thought it was odd this story popped up the first time I recall Karl Rove being mentioned here on the Elephant in the Room.

    Anti-Karl Rove Protesters Don't Know Who He Is

    Read more:

    There is a link to a video in the story. The video is hilarious. They interview some of the protestors. One says Rove is running for president (others appear to think Rove is running for POTUS), one describes him as "a guy".

    It's just a shining example of liberals getting people worked up into a frenzy and they don't even know what they are protesting. Or they are being paid to be there. Either way it goes it takes away from the credibility of the protest and the "outrage". Kind of like the Occupiers.

  6. Clerk loses job over stand

    A young man came in to buy two packs of cigarettes with his EBT card. I am so proud I can help the poor and disadvantaged buy their cigarettes, beer, and lottery tickets .

    "Charles E. Wilkins, the general manager of the C.N. Brown Co. that runs the stores, said the EBT cards in the cash phase could be used for any items, including alcohol, tobacco and gambling. Wilkins said the company gave Whiton the option of staying but she said she would not accept the cards anymore."

    The best part of the story is the clerk asked the guy, "do you think myself, that lady and that gentlemen should pay for your cigarettes?" and he responded "Yes". I wonder if he had a brand new $205 pair of Air Jordan's like the guy I saw.

    Notice how the person with a job that actually contributes to society loses their job over the offended moocher. This is BS.