" A "bout time "WE" all took it seriously! !
"To sin by silence, when we should protest makes cowards out of men."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help get the word out! Thanks.
Chilling News from Ohio:
Just thought I would share with you a little bit of what we heard at last night's Republican dinner here in Crawford County, Ohio. John Kasich (running for Gov. of Ohio) was the keynote speaker. Also present were many politicians, most notably, Bob Latta, our U.S. Congressman. Mike and I walked up to Bob and thanked him for his conservative voting record and voiced our concern about what is going on in Washington. He made some funny botox remarks about Pelosi and then agreed with us that we have every reason to be concerned.
As there were others waiting to talk to him, our time was brief. Although what took place later that evening should make chills run up and down everyone's spine to hear. He asked to speak a few words at the end of the night and went up on stage. He proceeded to tell the crowd how bad things really are in Washington. He said if he could tell us even half of what the agenda is and what this administration plans to do to our country we couldn't sleep at night. He said he only gets 4 to 4-1/2 hours of sleep a night and worries constantly about what they want to do to this country.
He said that Pelosi, Reid and Obama have to be stopped. He said, "You know, you always hear this is the most important election blah blah blah, but I am telling you people...whatever you have to do to wake people up you need to do! We have got to vote them out in 2010 or with the things they have planned for this country we won't even be a country by 2020! Ten years."
You could see the look of almost desperation on his face.
He talked about the huge debt. He talked about how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gets their "figures". He sits on the finance committee and listens to the ramblings of Geithner and Bernanke. He said, "If you think that the Chinese won't hold this over us with all our debt you have another thought coming. Our children will have nothing."
"I don't care if you have to go out door to door, tell at least 10 people who will then tell 10 people. We have to do this. This is the single most important election ever in the history of this country. The change that Obama promised us is NOT the change people thought he meant."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WELL, I'VE JUST SENT THIS OUT TO EVERYONE ON MY DISTRIBUTION LIST! WILL YOU DO THE SAME? WE CAN GET RID OF MOST OF THE BAD GUYS IN CONGRESS THIS NOVEMBER, INCLUDING "FANCY NANCY". LET'S DO IT RIGHT THIS TIME.
Australian Prime Minister says NO - Second Time he has done this!
He's done it again..
He sure isn't backing down on his hard line stance and one has to appreciate his belief in the rights of his native countrymen.
A breath of fresh air to see someone lead.
I wish some leaders would step up in Canada & USA .
This man should be appointed King of the World.. Truer words have never been spoken.
It took a lot of courage for this man to speak what he had to say for the world to hear. The retribution could be phenomenal, but at least he was willing to take a stand on his and Australia 's beliefs.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - Australia ( "Hits the nail square on the head!")
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks..
Separately, Rudd angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.. Quote:
'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.. Take It Or Leave It.
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. '
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'
'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'
'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.
Thinking of going there to live myself. Visited a couple times & really love it!
Kathryn Lopez Rock the Vote, Rock the Boat: By Kathryn Lopez | October 25th, 2010 | Well, here we are again, America.
If you're loving politics right about now, I suspect it's because you've come to view it as a sport, or as a necessity from which you have become somewhat emotionally detached. Right now is the time in a campaign season when even those of us who used to watch election returns when we were kids — late into the night, long past our bedtimes, well before we knew what exit polls were — are ready for it to be over, even while making every day left count. I. Can't. Wait. For. It. To. Be. Over. That's the temptation, the frustration and the anxiety.
It's the time in the election cycle where you want to cry, scream or move to a planet without polls. It's the time when it seems nearly impossible to have a reasonable conversation about politics: emotions are so high, propaganda is so sharp and positions are so entrenched. So many people have a stake in a win — whether for ideological or financial reasons, to save face or to otherwise look or feel good the morning after — or the afternoon of the recount.
Think, for instance, of Christine O'Donnell, the Republican nominee for Senate in Delaware. She won fairly in a primary, and since then she has been the subject of ceaseless ridicule courtesy of by pundits, journalists and talk-show hosts. Criticizing policy ideas is one thing — raising questions about her record and qualifications is only due diligence. But the attacks go way beyond pale. How dare she argue on national television for sexual responsibility? Or how dare she say that the First Amendment does not include the establishment of a wall between church and state? (Never mind the fact that it actually doesn't.)
And then there is Ohio, where Rep. Steve Driehaus' re-election campaign is faltering. In an attempt to save his seat, he's making an outrageous legal bid to stop the Susan B. Anthony List from running some billboard ads against him. The SBA List, a pro-life political action committee that exists to elect anti-abortion candidates, has been campaigning in earnest against Democrats who have represented themselves as pro-life but voted for the healthcare bill anyway.
The ads merely point out that Driehaus, by voting for the bill, essentially supported taxpayer-funded abortion; a hard look at the facts of the legislation will support this view. There is not, contrary to conventional belief, a universal prohibition on federal-taxpayer-funded abortion. (Which is why House Republicans have pledged to pass one.) The SBA List's point is a legitimate one — but, as in the case of NPR and Juan Williams, some people would rather shut down a controversial view than allow a civil discussion.
It's sometimes hard to tell the truth from the lies, especially when partisans are in constant attack mode. And yet, it's worth the effort, even in these emotional, trying, tiring days. Perhaps this year more than ever, because we see on the campaign trail some genuinely competing worldviews, offering voters a real choice. There are Americans who haven't participated in politics for years now contributing in myriad ways, because they see the values they treasure slipping away. They see their country and their culture devolving, from responsibility to dependency.
And these people know that, as much of a struggle as it is — being ridiculed and shouted down and taken to elections commissions and even, sometimes, forced into court — it is worth it.
In an essay on "Democracy and Authority," Jacques Maritain described his fondness for pluralism in democratic life. The 20th-century philosopher wrote: "A just pluralism seems to furnish the most normal remedy for the difficulties inherent in all democracies. We know, indeed, that evil and foolishness are more frequent among men than intelligence and virtue." He went on: "Experience shows that in politics ... persons of education and refinement are no less often mistaken than the ignorant ... In these matters, if the central virtue of the leaders is political prudence — which is rare and difficult to acquire — what matters most in the rest are right instincts."
Right instincts are resonating on the campaign trail this year. That's why so many candidates who are not your usual political fare are threatening many an entrenched officeholder with losing their seat. Some of them will win, some will not. But they all recognize that the fight is a good one to wage. Sen. Barbara Boxer should have a hard-fought re-election, and Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, an embarrassment in office, really could and should lose his re-election bid. Sens. Harry Reid and Linda Murkowski, Rep. Anthony Weiner — whoever your incumbent with a sense of entitlement is — would be exposing his or her foolishness by being angry and bitter because they have a battle on their hands. For there is prudence in the American voter, who truly appreciates democracy and his role in it, and that common sense is especially present this year.
Daniels: Climate key to growth
State's recovery hopes bank on success of private sector
Niki Kelly
The Journal Gazette
Daniels
[Advertisement]
Gov. Mitch Daniels' prescription for the state's economic recovery is simple: Get out of the way.
"The organizing principle of our entire administration is to provide the best possible business climate," he said. "That's what we work on all day, every day."
But instead of spending taxpayer dollars to spur the growth, Daniels prefers a different approach.
"It's action to increase the chance that the private sector can flourish," he said.
For instance, Daniels said the best way to encourage job creation – if politics and finances didn't matter – would be to simply remove the barriers to investment. This means, for example, eliminating environmental and safety permitting that holds up growth.
"I would set aside some of the barriers government puts to hiring," he said.
Daniels would institute instead a self-certification system that would include government monitoring.
If such monitoring detected violations, companies would be fined or penalized. But that would come after the company had invested in Indiana and Hoosiers had been hired.
Another proposal would be to reduce the state corporate income tax to bring it more in line with individual income tax rates. Indiana's corporate income tax of 8.5 percent is higher than many states, while its individual income tax rate is just 3.4 percent.
But with those ideas being out of reach in the near future, Daniels is relying on initiatives and programs that have been established since he was first elected in 2004.
The governor immediately created the quasi-governmental Indiana Economic Development Corp. to react more quickly to job opportunities. Changes in tax codes and state law made it more attractive, financially, for companies to add jobs and invest in equipment. Also, a property tax exemption was created for information technology equipment and tax credits were enhanced for research and development.
In addition, Daniels points to leasing the Indiana Toll Road to pay for major infrastructure improvements, as well as property tax changes and balancing the state budget, as helping to make Indiana attractive and competitive to prospective companies.
Several independent studies found Indiana to have one of the better tax and regulation climates in the nation, as well as being a national leader for the low cost to do business.
Those facts have helped Indiana lead the nation recently in private-sector job growth. In August, Indiana gained 54,700 jobs – fifth highest in the nation and third highest in terms of percentage growth.
"We're clearly recovering," Daniels said. "We are creating more jobs per capita than just about anybody after taking a big hit."
One reason behind Indiana's slow-and-steady growth is the IEDC is winning numerous competitive consolidations. This is when a company from Indiana or another state is consolidating facilities and therefore chooses to shut down plants in one state but keep them open – and even add jobs – in another state.
Since January 2009, Indiana has won 62 consolidations accounting for 10,000 new job commitments and more than 14,000 jobs retained. Many of these consolidations are located in northeast Indiana.
Indiana Secretary of Commerce Mitch Roob – who also runs the IEDC – said the state has lost only one competitive consolidation. He did not, however, count the recent decision of Navistar to leave Fort Wayne because Navistar refused to negotiate with the state.
Roob said Indiana needs more private-sector investment, noting that several major projects have been sidelined because companies are afraid to spend in the rocky economy.
"There are only so many competitive consolidations you can get," Roob said. "Eating the bones of neighboring states is not a national economic plan."
For all Indiana's success, the state unemployment rate has refused to budge. According to state figures released Friday, in September, unemployment stood at 10.1 percent, virtually unchanged from August, when it was 10.2 percent.
"Unemployment numbers are weird," Daniels said. "The important thing is to see the number of people in jobs keep growing. It's sometimes baffling."
Chris Ruhl, director of the Indiana Office of Management and Budget, said he can see in payroll withholding numbers that many employees are working additional hours, perhaps moving back to full time after having hours cut. The next step is for companies to add new employees.
One other factor helping Indiana keep ahead of its Midwestern neighbors is the growing national presence of Daniels as a possible 2012 presidential contender.
In recent months, he has appeared in numerous national newspapers, magazines and news shows. And he has been discussed more and more in national political circles.
"It's the chicken and the egg thing," he said.
Daniels thinks the only reason he is getting attention is because Indiana has a success story to tell in fiscal policy and other areas. But others think Daniels' potential run is causing others to look at Indiana differently.
Either way, Daniels said, "if this attention allows us to catch the eye of a business, great."
With the national debt nearing $14 trillion and a deficit of $1.3 trillion last year, Washington is sitting around and waiting for the recommendations from that toothless bipartisan deficit commission.
As for the president, the Associated Press reports that after the midterms, Mr. Obama plans to put more emphasis on
fiscal discipline in his next two years in office.
The president has said that if we're going to get serious about the deficit, we'll have to look at everything – including entitlements and defense spending & (( 'i' say gov spending on all the little frillies they're use to - like free health care - gett'n paid for doing nothing - retirement benifits - & all the other b___sh__! they get "US" citizens don't:: )) . He says it will be a "tough conversation."
Meanwhile, as candidates and lawmakers spew their ideas about cutting the deficit, experts say all the talk is nothing more than "fiscal fluff."
They say ideas like eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, earmarks, tax evasion, or returning unused stimulus funds won't solve our deep fiscal problems.
!!! :" IT COULDN"T HURT!!!"
In the meantime, the government keeps spending. Since 2007, when the newly-minted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (( PEW !! " )) vowed there would be "no new deficit spending," the national debt has increased by five trillion dollars.
Real Clear Politics TuesdayPresident Assails GOP on Clouded Final Push - David Espo, Associated Press
Public Focuses on Poor State of Economy - Mary Schneider, Indianapolis Star
The Difference Between Obama & FDR - John Steele Gordon, Commentary
Republican Plans Will Cut More Jobs - Jesse Jackson, Chicago Sun-Times
Obama Has Betrayed a Lack of Substance - Shmuley Boteach, AOL News
What If Gallup's Generic Numbers Are Right? - Jay Cost, Weekly Standard
Down-Ballot Power - John Nichols, The Nation
Hopeless: Inside the World of Robert Gibbs - Robert Draper, GQ Magazine
Obama Isn't Interested in Compromise - Marc Thiessen, Washington Post
RCP Morning Edition
The Spendthrift State & the Public's Burden - Neil Reynolds, Globe and Mail
Tea Party Movement is Deluded - George Monbiot, The Guardian
Optimism in U.S. Government Hits 36-Yr Low - Gary Langer, ABC News
Dems Quite Sure Somebody Else is to Blame - David Brooks, NY Times
Obama's Final Midterm Moves - Richard Wolffe, The Daily Beast
For Democrats: Red Alert in the States - David Paul Kuhn, RealClearPolitics
Tea Party Movement Takes Aim at D.C. - Rasmussen & Schoen, Politico
Age of Austerity Coming to the U.S.? - Thomas Edsall, The New Republic
The Coming Political Tsunami - Ed Koch, RealClearPolitics
The Midterm Through Lens of 5 Races - Naftali Bendavid, Wall St. Journal
Small Businesses Losing Out to Red Tape - Mellor & Berliner, USA Today
The Sorry State of America's Infrastructure - Bob Herbert, New York Times
Brass Oldies - Thomas Sowell, Investor's Business Daily
Like BBC, NPR Stamps on Free Expression - Janet Daley, Daily Telegraph
Juan Williams: Busted for Bigotry - Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic
Ask Molly Norris About Religious Tolerance - David Harsanyi, Denver Post
Meet the Man In Line to Manage Buffett's Billions - Carol Loomis, Fortune
Senate Polls: WV, CT, KY, CA, NC, IL / Gov Polls: OH, IL, CA, CT, NM, PA
RCP Election 2010: Tran Counts on Big Vietnamese Turnout in CA-47
Editorials
Independents Siding With GOP on the Issues - The Oklahoman
The GOP's Anti-Government Extremism - The Nation
Europe Rethinking the Welfare State - Orange County Register
Big Insurance, Big Medicine - Wall Street Journal
Last Updated: October 21. 2010 1:00AM .Jay Ambrose
Facts prove troublesome for Obama
... DO SAY!
Lots of pundits are trying to figure out why President Obama is facing disaster this midterm election, but few have said it better than Michael Oakeshott despite his disadvantage of having been dead for 20 years.
Oakeshott was an English philosopher whose specialty was politics and disposition was to prefer "fact to mystery," and "present laughter to Utopian bliss." He said all this in an essay titled, "On Being Conservative," in which he also trenchantly described politicians of the opposite sort, what I would call the Obama sort.
Such people, he said, see government "as a vast reservoir of power," and that power "inspires them to dream," to come up with "favorite projects" that "they sincerely believe are for the benefit of mankind." So they grab for the power, maybe increase it, and then use it to impose these projects on everyone else. To them, government is "an instrument of passion" and "the art of politics is to inflame and direct desire."
That's not Obama? Of course it is. He spent 2008 stirring up as much emotion as he could, telling voters how awful things were and how he would make it all better.
His favorite project has been the health care remake that leaves no stethoscope untouched, or nearly none as government intrudes massively when it more productively could have addressed certain particulars with nonabrasive, inexpensive prudence.
Oakeshott tells us something else is also at work, namely that some "prefer the promise of a provided abundance to the opportunity of choice and activity on their own account.," which is to say, some will shrug at liberty losses as they cheer pledges of income redistribution and extension of the welfare state.
As so it is with Obama's self-declared triumphs. Even though it won't fully kick in for some years, the health plan is already stymieing business expansion and raising premiums. And the $862 billion stimulus that was supposed to create millions of jobs? Facts caught up with this mystery.
When things like this go amiss, says Oakeshott, "we become aware of what the camel thinks of the camel driver," and that is what's happening.
A public plagued with Obama's version of plenty is turning on him and his abettors.
It's not because voters have been rendered idiots by economic circumstances, as Obama put it somewhat more circumspectly in one of his talks, but because we see a truth he seems incapable of accepting.
Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers, is a columnist living in Colorado. E-mail comments to letters@detnews.com.
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20101021/OPINION03/10210344/1008/OPINION01/Facts-prove-troublesome-for-Obama#ixzz13Uw8yXyp
In a move reminiscent of the Veitnam era leak of the Pentagon Papers, Wikileaks has released thousands of pages of documents about the war in Iraq. Much like the Pentagon Papers, the Wikileaks reports show how little the public really knew about the war and how it was conducted. Many more civilian casualties than the government admitted to. The disaster of unaccountable contractors. The duplicity of our supposed allies. The whole affair confirms yet again how important it is that we have an open, accountable government, one that doesn't hide behind a wall of classified documents. The Bush administration, in its enthusiastic marketing of  the war, clearly sanitized it for the American public. The truth is, war is always ugly, bloody and messy. At its best, it's hell. It's even worse when incompetent zealots wage it.
THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM
ONE OF THE BEST EXPLANATIONS
OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
"We are worried about 'the cow'
when it is all about the 'Ice Cream.'
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year.
The presidential election was heating up
and some of the children showed an interest.
I decided that we would have an election
for a class president.
We would choose our nominees.
They would make a campaign speech
and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates
were nominated by other class members.
We discussed what kinds of characteristics
these students should have.
We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.
I thought Jamie might have an advantage
because he got lots of parental support.
I had never seen Olivia's mother.
The day for their speeches arrived.
Jamie went first.
He had specific ideas about how to
make our class a better place.
He ended by promising to do his very best.
Everyone applauded and he sat down.
Now is was Olivia's turn to speak.
Her speech was concise.
She said, "If you vote for me,
I will give you ice cream." She sat down.
The class went wild.
"Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."
She surely would say more.
She did not have to.
A discussion followed.
How did she plan to pay for the ice cream?
She wasn't sure.
Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it? She didn't know.
The class really didn't care.
All they were thinking about was ice cream.
Jamie was forgotten.
Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds.
They want ice cream.
The other 48 percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.
This is the ice cream Obama promised us!
Remember, the government cannot give
--anything to anyone --
that they have not first taken away
from someone else.
Did you vote for the ice cream?
This is the ice cream Obama promised "US"!
(http://webmailb.netzero.net/webmail/new/21?folder=Inbox&msgNum=00000O00:001CnCWm00003A3d&count=1288524201&attachId=5)
Pick Your Reason
When your friends can't explain why they voted for Democrats, give them this list. They can then pick a reason .
10. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
9. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
8. I voted Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
7. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
5. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies through abortion so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
4. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.
3. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.
2. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
1. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my _ _ _ that it is unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.
I'll keep my Freedom, my God and my Guns... You keep the Change...
Get out and vote November 2nd, 2010!
Voice "U"r opinion!
Thanks Willy!
(http://oi52.tinypic.com/25jxiko.jpg)
(http://edsteinink.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Stei101103.gif)
Back to the real story of this election, which is the $4 BILLION spent–as much as (and possibly more than, when it's all counted) the last presidential election. Most of the money, thanks to the Supreme Court's outrageous Citizens United decision and the inability of Congress to pass the Disclose Act, is secret. We simply have no idea who is behind the spate of ugly attack ads that dominated the election, but we can certainly guess. Let's just say that that money isn't being spent on good governance. It's going to defeat candidates who might want to regulate those businesses. Like Wall Street banks, which would just as soon not have new financial regulations depress their ability to make gobs of money, no matter how much damage they do to the economy. Or oil conglomerates which would just as soon not have government tell them not to cut corners when building offshore platforms. Or the Chamber of Commerce, which would just love to have the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy made permanent. They've successfully stoked public anger to the point that people are quite willing, even eager, to vote against their own interests on behalf of these anonymous players in this election. We'll see where this anti-government uprising leads.'i', for one, don't think it's going to make us happy. :mad:
Well, Obama promised change. I don't think this election is quite what he had in mind. It's hard to read the polls as anything but a repudiation of the Democrats now in power. Republicans will read this as a rejection of Obama's agenda. Democrats will read it as a rejection of Obama's failure to execute his agenda. Both will be wrong. Republicans remain as unpopular as ever. they were soundly defeated two years ago. Democrats are the new whipping boys, for precisely the same reasons the GOP was trounced in 2008. It's the economy, stupid, and the failure of our politicians to address it. Government is broken, and everybody knows it except those vying for power. the only reason the GOP is going to triumph in this round is that there's nowhere else for the electorate to go. With two more years of gridlock virtually assured, it's hard to know who will be repudiated in 2012.
Was this a ploy by big business & (the powers that rule) to guarantee grid-lock for the next 2 years?
WHAT IF? The Democratic Party had had both houses for 2 more years, would they have made changes to improve our economy? or just make it worse like they have the last 2 years? :confused: ::D: or visa-versa what if the last presidental election had gone republican?
Like 'i've said previously, "WE" got no chance of winning. Government is out of "OUR" hands; regardless of which way "WE" vote. ::(:
(http://oi56.tinypic.com/376td.jpg)
This guy is "ON" it!
Post-Election Rant #1
Yesterday's midterm election was nothing short of a catastrophe for the Democratic party. The combination of the worst economy since the Great Depression, a  jobless rate stuck at 10%, a president and a majority party unable to make a coherent case for their agenda or to articulate their vision, and the surprising uprising of the Tea Party movement, conspired to deliver an unprecedented spanking at the polls.
To read this as an endorsement of the Republican party and its agenda, however, would be a huge mistake. This was the party that only two years ago received a similar rebuke. Let's look back two years. Obama came in on a wave of optimism, promising Change, change in the way Washington works, certainly, but most important, change from what so many Americans saw as a slow, inexorable American decline. The expectations were enormous, and probably impossible to achieve, at least in the short term, especially given the dire state of the economy. Obama made a series of mistakes early on, misunderstanding the nature and scope of his mandate. He spent far too much time reaching out to an embittered Republican party, searching for compromises where none were possible. He appointed Wall Street insiders to head his economic team. He refused to pursue criminal prosecutions for Bush officials who created the torture policies that harmed this country so badly in the international arena. He failed to close Guantanamo, failed to make a clear distinction between his policies and those of the Bush administration in prosecuting the war on terror. And, in retrospect, he spent far too much capital on health care while ignoring jobs. Worst of all, he failed to make a forceful case for his agenda, failed to articulate his vision clearly and consistently, failed to rouse the American people in the pursuit of grand goals. He settled for half a loaf with the stimulus, extended TARP without restrictions on bonuses for bankers, and backed down repeatedly under the threat of filibusters instead of calling the Republicans out every time they blocked necessary legislation. The result was a massive defection from his base on the left, a dispirited disengagement from the independent middle, and an uprising from the right.
None of this should be read as a new electoral love for the Republican party. The GOP was perfectly happy to take the votes of dissatisfied voters without having to articulate a vision of its own. They sang the same old song of smaller government and lower taxes. Oh, and we'll create jobs. Now that they have control of the House, we'll see how that translates. It's easy to say you'll cut government, but government is the nation's largest employer. Do you eliminate jobs there? How will you get the private sector to start hiring? Where will you cut? The proposals made so far result in modest savings of a few hundred billion dollars. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans adds some $700 billion to the deficit. Then there's military spending, Social Security and Medicare, which make up the vast bulk of the budget. Do you make serious cuts in any of those? How will you work with a still-Democratic Senate and President to turn the economy around and solve our many other problems?
House Speaker-to-be John Boehner was hardly encouraging in his speech victory speech last night. He essentially invited Obama to kneel at his feet and throw out his agenda. Other Republicans say they'll continue the so far successful strategy of fighting anything Obama tries to do. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell claims that his agenda for the next two years is to defeat Obama in 2012. In a disturbing echo of the Republican over-reach of the Clinton years, others talk of starting a round of investigations of the current administration or of impeaching Obama.Does any of this sound like a way to move this nation out of the mess it's in? As we fall farther and farther behind in creating a renewable energy economy, in rebuilding our deteriorating infrastructure, in rebuilding an economy on principles that will sustain it in this century, do we really want another two years of partisan gridlock? Is that what the voters said when they threw the gauntlet down?
Rather, I believe that the last two election cycles were a repudiation of both parties and of the way business gets done (or doesn't) in Washington. We have a two party system, and when we throw one out, we have no choice but to put the other one in. Obama and the Democrats may well have been badly out of touch with the electorate, but I hardly think the Republican party, based on what I'm hearing from its leaders, can make a greater claim to the hearts and minds of the American people, or tunderstanding the real meaning of this election. It's ironic that John Boehner, of all people, the man who describes himself as "cozy with lobbyists," the man who once distributed checks from the tobacco lobby on the House floor, is the new face of the voters' revulsion with Washington. We'll see where he leads.
I'm not optimistic.
"WE" have no choice but to put the 'other' one in!
(http://page.townhall.com/arizonastrong/default.aspx)
Thank goodness!
Pelosi is gone
Obama goes to India -- below is the condos "WE" (tax payers) can afford to lodge them in -- not where they're booked:
(http://static.pyzam.com/img/funnypics/4/redneckmansion.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2TO2vS1jpA&feature=related
(http://webmailb.netzero.net/webmail/new/21?folder=Inbox&msgNum=000002k0:001CoiWQ00001D51&count=1288895359&attachId=4)
Hillrey makes her plea, vote for me for pres. in 2012, can't you see, I'll be the president "U" want me to be!
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/04/art.debate.jpg)
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4105490/2/istockphoto_4105490-spotlight-lame-duck.jpg)
QUACK! >>> QUACK!
Despite the fact that the Democrats took a real beating , the Democratic-led Congress will soon be back in Washington for a lame-duck session. Heavy emphasis on the word, "lame."
Because this Congress allowed so much unfinished business to pile up before the elections, there'll be no shortage of things to do should they actually decide to tackle some of the people's business.
There are the (1) Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of this year. If nothing is done, the biggest tax increase in American history will land on our doorsteps January 1.
There's the issue of (2) expiring unemployment insurance for two million Americans.
And don't forget about the (3)budget. Lawmakers need to either pass another temporary measure to keep the government funded - or pass the remaining spending bills for fiscal year 2011. The second won't happen, the first has to.
Let's see a Ginrich!
Other pending issues include the (4) estate tax and the alternative minimum tax.
Don't hold your breath on any of this stuff. Congress will only be in session for a few weeks before the Christmas recess.
Plus, insiders say this lame-duck session could be more unpredictable than most since the balance of power is shifting. They say Republicans could spend at least a week figuring out who will take leadership roles in the next Congress.
More importantly, it's likely the Republicans won't be in the mood to do much cooperating, since they'll be running the show come January.
{{{ "WHICH will it be?
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/03/art.palin.rally.jpg) or (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/04/art.debate.)
(http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/24500/Bill-and-Hillary-Clinton-----24886.jpg)
Terry what are you doing agreeing with CNN's Jack Cafferty you copied and pasted the same thing that Jackl is saying. ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D:
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/03/lame-duck-congress-first-order-of-business/
"Hee's "MY MAN!"
... not that 'i' agree with him on all points, but he certainly stimulates my thinking.
His approach to getting reaction from viewers is interesting. It's how he ask the questions & his dialogue before asking - that makes him interesting.
AdaLeft
Newbie
Posts: 42
Re: DON'T BLAME THE UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS...they didn't write the rulebook
« Reply #110 on: Today at 04:41:36 PM »QuoteMy point was, WE the people put these people in office, be it republicans or democrats. We've no one to blame but ourselves, whether it's debt, mandated health care, wars of choice, or any other gigantic mistake.
We've no one to blame but ourselves
NO! 'i' don't agree!
When "WE" put these people into office ( they claimed to think like '''''''''''''''''''''''''"WE" did, but after seeing where they were & what was going on they got 'greedy' & corrupt just like the others that were already there. That was due to "US" letting them do their own thing & not saying nothing. EXAMPLE: salary increases, better healthcare, better retirement, etc. which gave them the bighead, since it made'm feel better & {more important} than "US".
GIVE"M @ TERMS, out they go - 'i' say!
If it's good enough for the President, so be it for the others!
@ was suppose to be 2
Bring me an aspirin, Keith Olbermann: We watch, because we're paid to
By Ruth Graham - The Daily Caller | Published: 9:13 AM 11/05/2010 | Updated: 2:07 PM 11/05/2010
******************************************************************************Election week******** on "Countdown"! I'll give you three guesses as to whether it ended in elation or a splitting headache. Or perhaps it ended with the revelation just this morning on Politico that Olbermann made three $2,400 contributions in the recent election, violating both NBC policy and basic principles of journalism. One donation, to Arizona representative Raul Grijalva, took place on the same day Grijalva appeared on "Countdown." The other donations went to Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway and another Arizona representative, Gabrielle Giffords. (You will definitely want to read this.) But meanwhile, here's the week that was:
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29: Tonight, a final, desperate interview with soon-to-lose Florida candidate for Senate, Kendrick Meek. Meek dropped the words "KendrickMeek.com" at least twice into the conversation, which must have made Keith very angry since he cares so deeply when Republican candidates go on Fox and share their websites over and over to encourage fundraising. He must have been so mad! But since he is a paragon of professionalism, he didn't show his anger at all.
Next a segment about how the economy is actually doing a lot better than many Americans suspect. Finally, some optimism around here! The economy is growing, though 61 percent of Americans think it's shrinking! Much of the TARP money will be recovered! And federal taxes have actually gone down recently, Keith reports. These are interesting points!
Then he pivoted immediately to a conversation with Arianna Huffington, author of the totally reasonable book "Third World America," about how America is a sinkhole of poverty and economic despair. I guess she regrets immigrating here from ... Greece?
At the end of the interview, Huffington plugged her free shuttle bus from New York down to Washington, D.C., for the weekend's "Restoring Sanity" rally. Keith must been so mad!
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 31: Yes, SUNDAY. Oh, "Countdown," why do you persecute me? Why would you add a special weekend show? Is this what we get now that Keith isn't busy with Sunday Night Football? There is no god.
Or at least that's what I thought before this show began, when it came abundantly clear that this particular episode needs to exist. So much breaking news! So many fresh observations! And most of them happened during a riveting interview with Speaker-for-now Nancy Pelosi. Behold the brilliance:
"They [the Chamber of Commerce] want to buy these elections."
Zing! You used that one last week on this show, Ms. Pelosi, but it's such a good line, I can understand why!
"Elections are always about the future."
Brilliant!
"We're going forward. We're not about going backward. We're fighting for the middle class. This election is also about our democracy."
Oh, dear. The Pelosi-bot is broken! It's shorting out! It's spitting out cliches faster than we can process them! Call 911!
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1: On election eve, a grim conversation with Howard Fineman, in which Keith worried, "I'm not sure if my language was sufficiently apocalyptic to convey these late polls." When Keith "The World Is Ending and I Really Mean It This Time" Olbermann is worried about his insufficiently apocalyptic language, you know the polls are bad.
A little later in his conversation with Fineman, he mused that "both houses of Congress can be won or lost depending on whether people who already favor the Democrats will take half an hour, an hour, two hours out of their day, whatever it is, to bother voting."
You know what they say: If your election lasts more than two hours, you should consult with a doctor. Rimshot!
But seriously, two hours? It took me 15 minutes on Tuesday, and that included dealing with a line, an unfamiliar ballot, and the sterling competence of America's poll workers.
Then, the most significant moment of the week to Keith's 17 loyal fans: The END of "Worst Persons!" Seems Keith was guilted into suspending the nightly segment by Jon Stewart's "Rally for Sanity." He disputes the "false equivalence" between the partisans on MSNBC and Fox. (Confidential to Jon Stewart: You were right; Keith is wrong.) But Keith nonetheless thinks it's time to put the segment aside. "Satire and whimsy have gradually gotten lost in some anger," he said, which is the biggest understatement since Mel Gibson tried the same line.
But regardless, "Worst Persons" is gone! (I got into this in a little bit more depth in my review earlier this week of Keith's new book "Pitchforks and Torches.") Good riddance!
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4: Election night! That means no traditional "Countdown," just hours and hours and hours of Keith jockeying for air time with Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell and the rest of the crew. It was fun! It just wasn't as ... what's the word ... "good" as Fox's coverage.
In related news, you may be interested in this survey by Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky, who stepped into my personal hell and watched every episode of "Countdown" for one week, along with every episode of Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor." Bykofsky was curious about which show featured a wider ideological variety of guests. The shocking result, when he tallied up both shows' guests for the week:
"'The O'Reilly Factor' welcomed 20 guests from the right, 11 from the left and seven who were neutral. Left and neutral voices combined almost equaled those from the right. 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' had 20 guests from the left, two neutral and not a single voice from the right. Zero voices of dissent."
I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3: The day after a rough night for Keith and pals, tonight's show was mostly a post-mortem — hashing out the poll numbers, wondering aloud if Democrats were liberal enough, and a segment blaming the whole thing on the Chamber of Commerce. He also spent a lot of post-election time making fun of John Boehner for tearing up in public. Hahaha, only girls cry! Very progressive, Keith. Very cool.
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4: The rough week continues. Tonight, poor Keith had to break from an interview with long-suffering Howard Fineman to massage his own temples on air, saying he had to get rid of a headache immediately. (And this was before the whole world found out he made those campaign donations.) You know, Keith, some of us have a headache during every minute of every episode of your show, and we manage to keep it together. Surely we can expect the same silent misery from you.
'i' that it was interesting & funny!
ought
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/05/bring-me-an-aspirin-keith-olbermann
Keith Olbermann needs more then one aspirin right now. ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D:
(http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Politics/pelosi_110310_397x224.jpg)
From Voters if Pelosi Stays Leader
Published November 07, 2010
| FoxNews.com
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., heads to a television interview on Capitol Hill in Washington on Nov. 3.
House Democrats "didn't get the message" from last Tuesday's election if they re-elect Nancy Pelosi as Democratic Party leader next year, the expected No. 2 Republican in the House said Sunday.
Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., told "Fox News Sunday" that Pelosi's decision to run as the party's No. 1 suggests Democrats aren't listening to voters who rejected the Obama administration's agenda.
"If Democratic members in the House elect Nancy Pelosi as their leader, it's almost as if they just didn't get the message from the voters this election. I mean, the voters outright rejected the agenda that she's been about," he said. "I mean this is the woman who really, I think, puts ideology first, and there have been no results for the American people. And that seems the direction they want to take again. It just doesn't make sense."
Cantor argued that Pelosi has refused to meet with House Republicans for nearly four years, even though Americans have been making clear that they are not in accord with the Democratic agenda.
"I don't think there's any question that this says to the voters, 'We're not listening to you. We think we're right. We're going to continue the same path,'" Cantor said.
'I Am Running for Democratic Leader',Peposi said "It hasn't produced results," he said, suggesting that he plans to go into the White House meeting offering to work on mutual solutions, but unwilling to continue on the path the administration is headed.
President Obama said Sunday that the election means that he's going to have to make some "midcourse corrections." Over the weekend, he gave an Internet and radio address in which he said the "message was clear."
"You're rightly frustrated with the pace of our economic recovery. So am I. You're fed up with partisan politics and you want results. I do, too," he said.
But those "midcourse corrections" apparently do not apply to the Democratic leadership.
Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., who is vying to become House minority whip in the next Congress -- which could put him in a race against Rep. Steny Hoyer for the Democrats' No. 2 spot -- said Pelosi has a place in the Democratic leadership next year.
"I am perfectly satisfied with Nancy Pelosi's leadership and I don't have any problems with that," he said.
Clyburn added that he disagrees with the argument that squeezing out Hoyer, who is considered a moderate by many, means that the Democratic leadership will be seen as even more liberal than if Hoyer were to retain his post as No. 2 in the caucus.
"I would ask anybody to look at my record of 18 years, look at my record here in South Carolina and tell me why you'd classify me as being liberal or conservative," said Clyburn, the highest ranking African American ever in the House.
"Everybody tells me it's very hard to pinpoint exactly where I am on the political spectrum. And I think that people are doing that by making some assumptions because of the way that I look."
(http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/members/photos/228/C000537.jpg)
He said, "because of the way that I look."
How's he look to "U"?
(http://news.google.com/news/tbn/otzvwv7bjHoJ/6.jpg)
Does that look like a person 'woman' that should be incharge of anything to "U"?
(http://edsteinink.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Stei101109.gif)
'i'd love to here "U"r comments on what "U" think of the healthcare plan!
Please don't be bashful, be general or specific
zzzzzzzzzzThank You :smile:
(http://webmailb.netzero.net/webmail/new/21?folder=Inbox&msgNum=00000FW0:001Cr7au000002MF&count=1289561250&attachId=9)
HE said; I don't mind "U" republicians joining "US", but "U" gotta set in back!
SHE said; that's fine with me, as long as you listen to & take me where I want to go.
Rachel Maddow Blasts Fox from her Glass House at MSNBC!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txjXBx9-2c0&feature=player_embedded#!
As on person posted 'Liars will always be exposed', Shame on you Rachel and MSNBC ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D:
Democrats pressing Pelosi to step aside
WASHINGTON – In a fresh sign of turmoil among defeated Democrats, a growing number of the rank and file say they won't support House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a politically symbolic roll call when the new Congress meets in January.
"The reality is that she is politically toxic," said Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, one of several Democrats who are trying to pressure Pelosi to step aside as her party's leader in the wake of historic election losses to Republicans last week.
Pelosi startled many Democrats with a quick postelection announcement that she would run for minority leader. She has yet to draw an opponent for the post.
Party elections are scheduled for next week, although a postponement is possible.
In the interim, Pelosi's critics have become more vocal in their efforts to retire her from the party leadership.
There's "starting to be a sense that this may not be as much of a done deal as people might have thought," Rep. Jason Altmire said of Pelosi's quest to remain the top Democrat.
"If enough people come out and voice a little discomfort with the idea of her continuing on, maybe she would reconsider," said the Pennsylvanian, one of a handful of Democrats who said he won't cast a ceremonial vote for her.
The election of a party leader occurs behind closed doors. A separate election for speaker to be held on Jan. 5, a few hours after the House convenes for the first time, is a very visible one. One member of each party is typically nominated, and each lawmaker is then called by name to stand and declare a choice. The event is customarily televised live.
Defections from party discipline are rare in such circumstances, but several Democrats said they would not support Pelosi. They did not specify how they would vote instead.
Despite the criticism, one prominent ally, Rep. George Miller of California, said Wednesday night that Pelosi enjoys the support of the "overwhelming number of members of the caucus" for a new term as party leader.
She's definitely got him in her pocket; can "U" guess why?
"There has always been in the caucus and there always will be in the caucus people who want to distance themselves from the leadership. That's not new. I think that's a very small percentage," Miller said.
Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, added that the speaker has strong support throughout the caucus and "is grateful for the confidence that her colleagues have placed in her to become House Democratic leader."
Most of the Democrats who say they would not support Pelosi are moderates from conservative districts who have toiled to distinguish themselves from their "liberal leader", and who watched dozens of like-minded Democrats go down in defeat after Republicans savaged them in TV advertisements as lapdogs of the San Francisco congresswoman.
Quigley stopped short of saying he would oppose Pelosi on a public vote, but others did not.
"You would find an unusual number of people not voting for the nominee of their party" if Pelosi were the choice, said Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah.
"There's a growing number of people in the caucus saying, 'Why's she running for minority leader in the first place?' We just got thumped in this election in a major way, and to act like we can just go back and do the same thing over again. It just seems like a very obvious situation when change is called for," Matheson said.
Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., another conservative, said through a spokesman that he, too, plans to vote against Pelosi in public and private.
Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., strongly suggested as much in a statement in which he said he wouldn't back Pelosi "for House Democratic leader or any other leadership position in the Congress."
Democrats lost at least 60 seats in last week's elections, with a handful of races yet to be settled. Many of the defeats came in conservative or swing districts, and many of her critics are lawmakers who survived narrowly.
Altmire won re-election by little more than 2 percentage points, but Quigley ran up more than 70 percent of the vote in his Chicago-area district. Pelosi has "probably been made the scapegoat in all this," he said in an interview, but he added that keeping her as the top Democrat "would make recruitment very difficult and winning back the House in two years nearly impossible."
The prospect of substantial Democratic defections from Pelosi on the first day of the new Congress comes amid a heated debate between liberals and conservatives about the party's future. Many liberals assert Democrats must reinvigorate core supporters by refusing to compromise with Republicans on key principles, while centrists argue they must tack to the middle to win over independent voters.
The divide is complicated by the fact that the party's losses disproportionately hit moderates, purging the ranks of conservatives who call themselves "Blue Dogs," a coalition that lost more than half of its members. Liberals who are Pelosi's natural constituency now make up a greater percentage of House Democrats.
Her decision to seek a new term as party leader has also set off a messy struggle between Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, currently the No. 2 Democrat, and Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the current No. 3.
Hoyer is widely viewed as the voice of moderate Democrats in leadership, although his list of public supporters includes powerful liberals. Clyburn is the most powerful African-American in Congress. The two are competing for the second-in-command position in the minority in a contest that has taken on racial overtones in recent days with the decision of the Congressional Black Caucus to endorse Clyburn.
Democratic officials say Pelosi has urged Clyburn to bow out of the race and run for a lesser leadership job, with an additional promise of a newly created face-saving position on a key committee. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss private discussions.
Kristie Greco, a spokeswoman for Clyburn, declined to confirm Pelosi's move, but said her boss remains a candidate and "The CBC wants to see this come to a vote."
Other Democrats, eager for a smooth transition, note that if Pelosi were to withdraw, it would avoid a face-off between Hoyer and Clyburn.
"It's still in play," Matheson said. But, he added, "without an alternative stepping up and saying, 'Vote for me instead,' it makes it a little more difficult."
Even the timetable for the selection of leaders has become embroiled in the controversy
My wife & 'i' could live a whole year on this amount, yet she spends it monthly on rent for an office. Is "SHE" that much better than "US" considering it's "OUR" money paying for it!!!???House of Representatives
Pelosi's New District Office Costs $18,736 a Month
The House Speaker's district office in the new federal building in San Francisco costs a whopping $18,736 a month -- the highest rental paid by any member of the House -- or, more precisely, the highest rental paid by taxpayers on behalf of a member of the House. The rental price was reported by Roll Call on Monday.
The Democratic congresswoman moved last fall from her old office in the Burton Federal Building, which she occupied for 20 years, to a "greener" space in the city's new federal building -- a move and a high price that her spokesman, Drew Hammill, says was amply justified.
Hammill cited the new building's increased security
measures and the new office's larger size as reasons for the move -- and the expense. "The new office space is 3,075 square feet, nearly a third larger than the old space, which was of inadequate size," he told FoxNews.com.
"As speaker, the security needs are different," then get rid of her and get someone else, 'i' say!. "The new San Francisco Federal Building offers enhanced security features, which were a major factor in the decision to move offices."
Pelosi's constituency hasn't significantly expanded in size, but her San Francisco staff has increased to a size that requires a larger space for files and storage, he said -- though he did not provide a precise number. The difference in office size is approximately 1,000 square feet, he said.
Roll Call reported Monday that Pelosi's new office space costs almost double that of the next-highest rental office held by a House member. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., reportedly pays just under $10,600 a month for his office in New York's Soho neighborhood.
The newspaper, which cites a database produced by the Sunlight Foundation, also reports that other lawmakers, like Democratic Reps. Stephen Lynch of Boston and Diane Watson of Los Angeles, pay exorbitant rental fees for their offices -- $9,000 to $10,000 a month
Wasn't about Eighteen months ago, President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised immediate relief through an economic stimulus package and They pledged that their so-called stimulus would keep the national unemployment rate below 8 percent. Don't ask questions, they told Americans. There's no time. Spend the money now and the jobs will come. ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D:
Recovery.gov
...what a whoot!
$787,ooo,ooo worth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
& how much it it cost http://[glow=red,2,300]"us"[/glow] tax payers?
President Obama Falls Short on G-20 Goals
Failure to Deliver on Key Trade Goals Reveals Limits of American Influence
President Obama began his trip to Asia with hopes of increasing exports and boosting American jobs, but he ends it with modesty being forced upon him, having failed to deliver in several key areas.
The president concluded the summit of the G-20 economic superpowers with an acknowledgement of the limits of American influence.
"Part of the reason that sometimes it seems that the United States is attracting some dissent is because we're initiating ideas. We're putting them forward," Obama said.
It's a remarkable admission for a president who won the office by running against leaders who set their sights only on what he called "incremental change."
"Instead of hitting home runs, sometimes we're going to hit singles," Obama said. "But they're really important singles."
Obama Fails to Achieve Key Trade Goals
But on this trip, the White House has made plenty of strikes.
Related
Lose-Lose Already for Obama at Start of G-20Obama's Visit to India Spotlights Both Prosperity and Dire NeedObama Backs India for Permanent Seat on U.N. Security CouncilStrike one: Obama failed to convince the South Koreans to open their market to American beef and cars, which could have amounted to $10 billion in exports and 70,000 American jobs.
Strike two: The president failed to successfully push Chinese President Hu Jintao to change policies that make it cheaper to manufacture in China by artificially building up the dollar and holding down Chinese currency.
"[Chinese currency] is undervalued, and China spends an enormous amount of money intervening in the market to keep it undervalued," Obama said in his sharpest and most accusatory language about the controversy to date.
The president's case could not have been helped by the Federal Reserve announcement of plans to inject $600 billion into the U.S. economy, prompting some G-20 nations to accuse the U.S. itself of currency manipulation.
Trade Decisions Could Hurt American Growth
With a $227 billion trade deficit with China, Obama was unable to convince the other G-20 leaders to agree to use stronger language on currency manipulation in the joint declaration, or take any firm actions on trade imbalances.
Obama argues that these failures are not a sign of political weakness, and he defended his economic record when asked if he could promise the American people that they would see noticeable job growth before he runs for re-election.
"We've grown the economy by a million jobs over the last year, so that's pretty noticeable," Obama said. "I think those million people who've been hired noticed those paychecks."
Geting pretty deep isn't it? better wear hip boots & a clothes pin!
Let me get this straight. We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who also smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/17/art.palin.jpg)
after considering the history of our country and reviewing past presidents & looking @ what "WE" now have and what ''''''''''''''''''we might get """""""""" in the future; it's self explanatory what our political system now offers.
For more reasons than 'i' care to go into "OUR" nation finds it impossible to find a candidate worthy of the position.
It seems most that are want 'no' part of it. Why is that?
Great Orators
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
"The buck stops here." - Harry S. Truman
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." - John F. Kennedy
And, from today's genius ' ..."It depends what your definition of 'Sex' is?'' - Bill Clinton
"That Obama ... I would like to cut his NUTS off." - Jesse Jackson
"Those rumors are false ... I believe in the sanctity of marriage." - John Edwards
"I invented the Internet." - Al Gore
"The next Person that tells me I'm not religious, I'm going to shove my rosary beads up their ASS." - Joe Biden
" America is ... is no longer, uh, what it ... it, uh, could be, uh, what it was once was ... uh, and I say to myself, 'uh, I don't want that future, uh, uh for my children." - Barack Obama
"I have campaigned in all 57 states." - Barack Obama (Quoted 2008)
"You don't need God anymore, you have us Democrats." - Nancy Pelosi (Quoted 2006)
"Paying taxes is voluntary." - Sent. Harry Reid
"Bill is the greatest husband and father I know. No one is more faithful, true, and honest than he." - Hillary Clinton (Quoted 1998)
And the most recent gem of wisdom from the "Mother Moron":
"We just have to pass the Healthcare Bill to see what's in it." - Nancy Pelosi (Quoted March, 2010)
HOW LUCKY CAN WE BE - TO HAVE SUCH BRILLIANT MINDS IN CHARGE OF OUR ONCE GREAT COUNTRY?''Life's tough ... it's even tougher if you're stupid.''- John Wayne
http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/nigel_jones/horse_shit.html
What are the liabilities of the Federal Government?
How many are there?
& in dollar amounts what are they?
"WE" gota start somewhere with lowering the Fed debt!
Welfare: how many & how long do they get it? It's time we looked out for the welfare of the nation & made some serious determinations as to what's worth it and whats not. Is all this money just a drag to the economy, if these people aren't ever going to be productive are they worth it? ... is helping them seriously hurting the economy of the country and making middle class people pay for others mistakes, problems, & deceitful claims!
What about GM making the largest stock offering in the history of the "US". Who provided the money for them to be able to do this when they were going down the tubes. What are the citizens of this country getting for bailing them out? Nothing! the gov gave'm our money & now the gov will get it back - hows' that help "US" - we'll never know!!
It's my opinion if gov would just stop the stupid waste of "OUR" money on all the useless gov projects they finance & get their salary & benefits in line with the common people they could then govern.
Modern History Sourcebook:
Ronald Reagan:
A Time for Choosing Speech, 1964
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.
It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government."
This idea? that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."
The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.
Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always "against," never "for" anything.
We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments....
We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world.
We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward I restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.... But we can not have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure....
Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of -very dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.
Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.
If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.
They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history
1 point being "WE" need an actor for president- not one that doesn't act!
WHY???...can't "WE" have a President like him today?
Quotes - Ronald Reagan
"The government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
Ronald Reagan - Los Angeles Times, January 7, 1970
It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work -- work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.
Ronald Reagan -First Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981
We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development.
Ronald Reagan -September 29, 1981
We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.
Ronald Reagan -Address to National Association of Realtors, March 28, 1982
How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan -Remarks in Arlington, Virginia, September 25, 1987
Quote from: mr.willy on November 13, 2010, 07:24:59 PM
...President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised immediate relief through an economic stimulus package and They pledged that their so-called stimulus would keep the national unemployment rate below 8 percent...
Let's see your sources for your claims.
Quote from: Terry on November 19, 2010, 11:45:59 AM
WHY???...can't "WE" have a President like him today?
Pffft! Ronnie 'Ray-Gun' was one of the worst presidents American has seen. It is to my everlasting shame I made the mistake of voting for him once.
Quote from: Y on November 19, 2010, 12:18:45 PM
Pffft! Obama is one of the worst presidents American has seen. It is to my everlasting shame I made the mistake of voting for him once.
But then 'i' had no alternatitive!
SORRY Y! 'i' adjusted "U"r quote
Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2009ViewDiscussion.Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2009 list of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians." The list, in alphabetical order, includes:
1.Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 "Ten Most Corrupt" list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch's complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.
2.Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year's worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times: "The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide..." The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign's office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans.
3.Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use." Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a "federal regulator," and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank's intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury." Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a relationship with a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
4.Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member countries that oversees the global financial system. (Did we mention Geithner now runs the IRS?) It wasn't until President Obama tapped Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid back most of the money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty penalties. In March 2009, Geithner also came under fire for his handling of the AIG bonus scandal, where the company used $165 million of its bailout funds to pay out executive bonuses, resulting in a massive public backlash. Of course as head of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner helped craft the AIG deal in September 2008. However, when the AIG scandal broke, Geithner claimed he knew nothing of the bonuses until March 10, 2009. The timing is important. According to CNN: "Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28. That is ten days before Treasury staffers say they first learned 'full details' of the bonus plan, and three days before the [Obama] Administration launched a new $30 billion infusion of cash for AIG." Throw in another embarrassing disclosure in 2009 that Geithner employed "household help" ineligible to work in the United States, and it becomes clear why the Treasury Secretary has earned a spot on the "Ten Most Corrupt Politicians in Washington" list.
5.Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can be sure he won't be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of his terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro's Cuba. Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism. Holder bypassed Justice Department procedures to push through Bill Clinton's scandalous presidential pardons and commutations, including for 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that orchestrated approximately 120 bombings in the United States, killing at least six people and permanently maiming dozens of others, including law enforcement officers. His record in the current administration is no better. As he did during the Clinton administration, Holder continues to ignore serious incidents of corruption that could impact his political bosses at the White House. For example, Holder has refused to investigate charges that the Obama political machine traded VIP access to the White House in exchange for campaign contributions – a scheme eerily similar to one hatched by Holder's former boss, Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Holder Justice Department also came under fire for dropping a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. On Election Day 2008, Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb threatened voters as they approached polling stations. Holder has also failed to initiate a comprehensive Justice investigation of the notorious organization ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), which is closely tied to President Obama. There were allegedly more than 400,000 fraudulent ACORN voter registrations in the 2008 campaign. And then there were the journalist videos catching ACORN Housing workers advising undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration, and child prostitution laws. Holder's controversial decisions on new rights for terrorists and his attacks on previous efforts to combat terrorism remind many of the fact that his former law firm has provided and continues to provide pro bono representation to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Holder's politicization of the Justice Department makes one long for the days of Alberto Gonzales.
6.Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama's then-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal: Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named "Senate Candidate A" in the Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama's seat. Three days later federal authorities arrested Blagojevich. Burris, for his part, apparently lied about his contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested in December 2008 for trying to sell Obama's Senate seat. According to Reuters: "Roland Burris came under fresh scrutiny...after disclosing he tried to raise money for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama...In the latest of those admissions, Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich -- later charged with trying to sell Obama's Senate seat -- at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor's aides about his desire to be appointed." Burris changed his story five times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the Illinois governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate. Three of those changing explanations came under oath.
7.President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama administration "lowlights" from year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's scheme to sell the President's former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.) Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability. President Obama boldly proclaimed that "transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act requests and is refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires. The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program) into propaganda machines, using tax dollars to persuade "artists" to promote the Obama agenda. According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the idea emerged as a direct result of the Obama campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation. President Obama has installed a record number of "czars" in positions of power. Too many of these individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no one but the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions). Under the President's bailout schemes, the federal government continues to appropriate or control — through fiat and threats — large sectors of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write: "The administration's central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption." Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors — this is Obama's "ethics" record — and we haven't even gotten through the first year of his presidency.
8.Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2009 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline. These documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Pentagon email correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi's numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker's 11th hour cancellations and changes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was never briefed about the CIA's use of the waterboarding technique during terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests otherwise. Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including a CIA Inspector General report, which further confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques. Aside from her own personal transgressions, Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of corruption within her own party, including many of the individuals on this list. (See Rangel, Murtha, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.)
9.Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman's largest campaign contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in return for their generosity? Earmarks -- tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it. Following an FBI raid of PMA's offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign contributions. According to The Hill, in April, "Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills." When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not alone. As many as six other Members of Congress are currently under scrutiny according to The Washington Post. They include: Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-VA), Norm Dicks (D-WA.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS.). Of course rather than investigate this serious scandal, according to Roll Call House Democrats circled the wagons, "cobbling together a defense to offer political cover to their rank and file." The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that Murtha's nephew received $4 million in Defense Department no-bid contracts: "Newly obtained documents...show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power with the military."
10.Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly "forget" to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He somehow "forgot" about $1 million in assets.) And what did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this? He apparently resorted to making "campaign contributions" to dig his way out of trouble. According to WCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate: "The reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently 'wrangling' other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles...Since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him." Charlie Rangel should not be allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knows it. That's why he felt the need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee members and other congressional colleagues.
http://www.nmatv.com/video/2139/Murthas-Airport
9.Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman's largest campaign contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in return for their generosity? Earmarks -- tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it. Following an FBI raid of PMA's offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign contributions. According to The Hill, in April, "Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills." When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not alone. As many as six other Members of Congress are currently under scrutiny according to The Washington Post. They include: Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-VA), Norm Dicks (D-WA.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS.). Of course rather than investigate this serious scandal, according to Roll Call House Democrats circled the wagons, "cobbling together a defense to offer political cover to their rank and file." The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that Murtha's nephew received $4 million in Defense Department no-bid contracts: "Newly obtained documents...show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power with the military."
Iran! close but 'no cigar!' ...try, try, again :rolleyes: :smile:
(http://edsteinink.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Stei101118.gif)
This pic w/ the poster 'may look familiar' ; the first word has been changed
(http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/BUSINESS/11/22/ireland.bailout.explainer/t1larg.protester.afp.gi.jpg)
Where'd this start anyhow & why didn't someone see it somewhere or everywhere before it got here. ( US )
'i' could see it coming and knew what it could lead to in '95. NO! 'i'm not smart but whenever one offers 120% of purchase price - no 20% down people get gullible - "OUR" gov. is people also, and they promoted it - that's who 'i' blame.
& not auto finance for 5 & 6 years - do people realize they're going to pay for their car twice???
What does the Irish bailout mean?November 22, 2010 1:45 p.m. EST
A protester stands outside the Irish prime minister's office in Dublin Monday as anger grows over the bailout.STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Europe and IMF discuss 100 billion euro bailout for Ireland's banking sector
Details of bailout announced this week along with austerity measures IMF will insist on
Big question is whether Ireland's low corporation tax of 12.5 percent can remain
Monday's papers express anger of Irish people over mess it is in; government is unpopular
Dublin, Republic of Ireland (CNN) -- Europe and the International Monetary Fund are discussing the final details of a rescue package worth up to 100 billion euros to bail out Ireland's banking sector. What are the implications of the bailout for Irish people and the rest of the world?
When will we know the full details of the rescue package?
There will be a news conference in Dublin this week when the exact size of the bailout will be announced, when it will take effect, and what changes to Ireland's austerity measures the IMF will insist on in exchange for the facility.
Why does Ireland need the money?
Ireland needs funds to shore up balance sheets after its government pumped billions of euros into Irish banks to keep them afloat, effectively nationalizing most of them. The European Central Bank is lending money to Irish banks because other banks won't. And lately people and companies have been pulling funds out of the banks. This couldn't have continued.
What would the dangers have been if the crisis continued?
Ireland
Irish Economy
A run on Irish banks -- mass withdrawals by customers worried their bank will go bust -- would have been bad for the euro, as it could have forced the EU and IMF to scramble to provide emergency funds within days, rather than in the more orderly, considered way now being organized.
Also if yields (interest rates) on Irish government bonds kept rising, the same would probably happen to bonds issued by countries such as Spain and Portugal -- this weakens the finances of banks in those countries (because their large holdings of Spanish and Portuguese bonds are growing less valuable), which will make them inclined to lend less -- which is damaging for the economy.
What does the bailout mean for Irish citizens?
Analysts say a bailout is not likely to affect Irish citizens directly but will have beneficial effects nonetheless. "All it's going to do is keep the banks going," said Peter Morici of the University of Maryland. "It's not going to change the objective conditions for the average Irish people." But Allan Timmermann, who holds an endowed chair of finance at the University of California San Diego, says a bailout will make life easier for ordinary folks because the aid might lessen the severity of service cuts the government will need to make. "If you imagine that there's no bailout, the measures that Ireland would have to take in terms of cutbacks would have to be much more drastic."
What will the bailout mean for people across Europe?
It means their tax dollars going to pay for yet another bank bailout plan, after the European Union bailed out Greece to the tune of 110 billion euros (currently $150 billion) in May.
But it also means the markets might calm down, taking pressure off Spain and Portugal, which are also facing budget problems. Bringing the yield on Portuguese and Spanish government bonds back to normal levels would mean they pay less on interest and more, hopefully, toward reducing their own deficits.
Would it mean anything for Americans?
The stock market might regain what it has lost in the past two weeks over "fears of European recovery." It could also mean the dollar starts to fall against the euro, which might boost American exports to Europe, since American good would be cheaper for euro-spenders to buy.
Who would pay for an Irish bailout?
After Greece took European and International Monetary Fund loans, European Union countries pledged nearly $1 trillion for any country that can't pay its bills by raising funds through normal debt markets. Ireland does not have that problem, but it's clear the EU will allow Ireland to pump loans into its banks (given the government controls them now anyway).
EU countries and their taxpayers pay according to their size: Germany the most and Malta the least. The United Kingdom and Sweden, neither of which use the euro currency, have also said they will lend about 8 billion euros and 1 billion euros respectively, to Ireland.
What strings will be attached to the rescue package?
The extra banking injection will take Ireland's fiscal deficit from the planned 11.75 percent of gross domestic product in 2010 to as high as 32 percent. That's 10 times higher than the three percent allowed under the Maastricht Treaty agreed by the EU when it laid out the foundations of its single currency in 1992.
The big question is whether the EU and the IMF will demand that Ireland's low level of corporation tax of 12.5 percent -- one of the lowest in the EU -- which helps keep the country competitive, can remain. Ireland has said it alone decides taxes, and there is no indication that changes to tax levels are on the table. However, the IMF and financial markets will likely look closely at the details of a four-year austerity plan that Ireland will announce on Wednesday to reassure themselves that Finance Minister Brian Lenihan can deliver on his pledge to shrink the fiscal deficit back down to three percent of GDP in 2014.
So how did Ireland get into this mess?
Ireland recorded stunning economic growth during what is known as the "Celtic Tiger" era from around 1993 to 2007 when the global financial crisis hit. Irish banks, like others around the world, loaned money to people who in some cases couldn't pay it back. Cheap loans created extra demand for housing and as prices surged the construction industry raced to build more. House prices multiplied during the period, making many homeowners impressive profits and generating fat tax receipts for the government. However, when the housing bubble burst, consumer spending slowed sharply. Unemployment tripled from around four percent in 2005 to 11.8 percent in 2009. The most recent figure, for September, puts it even higher at 13.7 percent.
What has been the reaction of Irish people towards the bailout?
One of Monday's papers carries the word "humiliation" as part of its headline, and many people are unhappy that the IMF has come to town. The government is unpopular and it is hard to see how the bailout will help. But what people don't want to see is the IMF dictating terms of the budget over the next couple of years. The government is trying to reassure voters that will not be the case, but it remains to be seen.
This all sounds too familiar!!!!!
Sarah Palin: 'We Gotta Stand With Our North Korean Allies'
Liberals Seize on Palin's Gaffe on Glenn Beck Show
Nov. 25, 2010
it a simple blunder or did a possible 2012 presidential contender really get her geography wrong?
When asked by Beck how she would handle a situation like the one that was developing in North Korea, Palin responded: "This is stemming from, I think, a greater problem when we're all sitting around asking, 'Oh no, what are we going to do,' and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is going to do."
It is unclear whether Palin is talking about sanctions against North Korea, or U.S. sanctioning -- i.e. approving or supporting -- its actions.
Palin continued: "Obviously, we gotta stand with our North Korean allies," when Beck interrupted and corrected her to say "South Korea."
"And we're also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes," she responded.
Palin's gaffe immediately caught fire on the blogosphere. Liberals jumped to show her response as evidence of Palin's lack of foreign policy expertise. Conservatives came to her defense, pointing to her response immediately before the gaffe where she discusses sanctions.
The way politics is going 'i' can see Joe Biden & Sarah Palin getting together to form their own party.
"THE BLUNDER BUNCH!"
(http://cnnpoliticalticker.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/palin-kiss.jpg?w=416)
Palin delivers a gaffe-filled message
By: CNN's Gabriella Schwarz
(CNN) - In a Thanksgiving message, Sarah Palin made fun of the president, herself and one of her favorite targets, the media.
Thursday's Facebook post came on the heels of a mistake she made on conservative Fox News anchor Glenn Beck's radio show earlier this week. She mistakenly referred to America's ally, North Korea instead of South Korea, a story many in the media covered quickly.
"It seems they couldn't resist the temptation to turn a simple one word slip-of-the-tongue of mine into a major political headline," Palin wrote. "The one word slip occurred yesterday during one of my seven back-to-back interviews wherein I was privileged to speak to the American public about the important, world-changing issues before us."
She said her gaffes receive more attention than those made by the president and vice president. In honor of the claimed-disparity she titled the post "A Thanksgiving Message to All 57 States," a reference to a mistake President Obama made on the campaign trail in 2008.
The former Alaska governor dedicated the first paragraph of the post to almost a dozen slips of the tongue by Obama.
"I didn't have enough time to do one for Joe Biden," she wrote.
Palin also chastised the media for creating stories "out of thin air."
"Let's hope that perhaps, just maybe, they might get it right next time. When we the people are effective in holding America's free press accountable for responsible and truthful reporting, then we shall all have even more to be thankful for!"
'i'm not endorsing her to run for President, 'i' think there's alot better choices ( if they choose to run ) [ gov is so screwed up the 'good guys' want no part of it ], but she is a guttsey good looking gal, with a sense of humor & direction. Now add knowledge to the pot {experience} which takes time & "WE" might have a potential possibility of a future President with a first gentleman:
.A Thanksgiving Message to All 57 States
.by Sarah Palin on Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 8:46pm.My fellow Americans in all 57 states, the time has changed for come. With our country founded more than 20 centuries ago, we have much to celebrate – from the FBI's 100 days to the reforms that bring greater inefficiencies to our health care system. We know that countries like Europe are willing to stand with us in our fight to halt the rise of privacy, and Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. And let's face it, everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma and they end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early, and they got some treatment, and ah, a breathalyzer, or an inhalator. I mean, not a breathalyzer, ah, I don't know what the term is in Austrian for that...
All references to Obama's mistakes in speaking
Of course, the paragraph above is based on a series of misstatements and verbal gaffes made by Barack Obama (I didn't have enough time to do one for Joe Biden). YouTube links are provided just in case you doubt the accuracy of these all too human slips-of-the-tongue. If you can't remember hearing about them, that's because for the most part the media didn't consider them newsworthy. I have no complaint about that. Everybody makes the occasional verbal gaffe – even news anchors.
YouTube links 'i' got this from CNN, where the links are printed in light blue & you can click on them to see she is exactly right; 'i' don't think she came up with all this stuff by herself, but if she did she's more on the ball than 'i' thought she was.
Obviously, I would have been even more impressed if the media showed some consistency on this issue. Unfortunately, it seems they couldn't resist the temptation to turn a simple one word slip-of-the-tongue of mine into a major political headline. The one word slip occurred yesterday during one of my seven back-to-back interviews wherein I was privileged to speak to the American public about the important, world-changing issues before us.
If the media had bothered to actually listen to all of my remarks on Glenn Beck's radio show, they would have noticed that I refer to South Korea as our ally throughout, that I corrected myself seconds after my slip-of-the-tongue, and that I made it abundantly clear that pressure should be put on China to restrict energy exports to the North Korean regime. The media could even have done due diligence and checked my previous statements on the subject, which have always been consistent, and in fact even ahead of the curve. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story? (And for that matter, why not just make up stories out of thin air – like the totally false hard news story which has run for three days now reporting that I lobbied the producers of "Dancing with the Stars" to cast a former Senate candidate on their show. That lie is further clear proof that the media completely makes things up without doing even rudimentary fact-checking.)
"Hope springs eternal" as the poet says. Let's hope that perhaps, just maybe, they might get it right next time. When we the people are effective in holding America's free press accountable for responsible and truthful reporting, then we shall all have even more to be thankful for!
00 99)) (('i' agree! ))
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
- Sarah Palin
.
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/11/29/news/economy/federal_pay_freeze/chart_bubbles.top.gif)
Joe says: "HOW COME 'she' didn't say anything about ME?
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfsYAlBUsIQ4tvSvaCIWRL8tAX5serWP9j1L64CNOvJN_NVT0&t=1&usg=__cbj3-Mq96FPf6D5xZupoT1v789I=)
Obama says: "U" act disappointed?
Do you think we have been too hard on President Osama?
Subject: Lighten Up
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think everyone should lighten up on President Obama,why just two weeks ago he got jobs for 63 republicans.
"Saw the NEWS @ noon; do "U" believe it? The fed reserve spent 9 trillon dollars dolling it out to banks & companys-none to "US"
of the people, by the people, for the people 'i' don't think so!
Do the math, if they'd put that in the individuals hands [ wait a minute - bad idea ] anyhow, this is money they spent, "WE" don't have & it's going to be up to taxpayers to make it up.
The {GOV} taxes "US" out the a$$ - "WE" pay Uncle Sam more than "WE" make... Yea that's right - he gets more than 1/2. Did "U" know that?
Gasoline, cigarettes, booze, property taxes, <<< hidden taxes >>>... there isn't anything "WE" spend money on that isn't taxed. Even if "U"r not spending any money on anything - whatever "U" own has a tax on it "U" pay each year.
Don't even get me started on property taxes; 'i' bought property, built a house on it, it's not making me a dime, 'i' payed taxes on it when 'i' bought it, 'i' payed taxes on all the materials used to build the home & 'i' still pay taxes even though it's not making me a dime. IS THAT RIGHT?
Todd Palin on 'Dancing with the Stars'?By Ed Hornick, CNNDecember 2, 2010 1:15 p.m. EST
Todd Palin has remained mostly low key since his wife, Sarah, entered the political spotlight.STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Report: "Dancing with the Stars" producers eyeing Todd Palin for next season
Spider disrupts White House press secretary during briefing
Congresswomen are finally getting a bathroom near the House floor
Washington (CNN) -- Politics is serious business, but not all of the time. From the halls of Congress to the campaign trail to the international stage, there's always something that gets a laugh or a second glance. Here are some of the things you might have missed:
From gutting fish to waltzing on the dance floor?
Move over Bristol, papa grizzly may be headed to Hollywood to dance with the stars, E! News reports.
Producers are reportedly trying to get Todd Palin to join the next season of the ratings powerhouse TV show "Dancing with the Stars."
No word yet on what Sarah Palin thinks, though it's only a matter of time before a Twitter post comes out.
Bathroom equality in the House
Nancy Pelosi may have "shattered the marble ceiling" as the first female House speaker, but incoming Republican House Speaker John Boehner has decided to create equal bathroom access for female members of Congress, CNN reports.
According to an announcement from the GOP transition team, a women's restroom will be adjacent to the House floor to accommodate the 71 female members in the next Congress, something current female members live without.
Charlotte's White House web
A spider found its way into the White House briefing room, where press secretary Robert Gibbs tried his best to get rid of it .
Notable quotable
"I stand in front of you tonight as probably the second-most-famous immigrant in the history of state of California. The first, of course, is Meg Whitman's maid."
-- outgoing California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, to The Sacramento Bee
Notable quotable, take two
"I do believe Carl fell in love with the kerplunk of the turd in the punchbowl."
-- Michael Caputo, the campaign manager for former New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino
From the Twitterverse
The New York Daily News tweets that it may know the whereabouts of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who's wanted by Swedish authorities.
@nydailynews: Yep, seriously. #wikileaks founder Julian Assange may be roaming lower Manhattan. Seen him?
Late-night laughs
Jon Stewart: "So, another 7-11 beverage-based summit for the White House, based of course on the success of the previous beer summit -- the one that ended racism. What are we going to do about Iran's nuclear program? Perhaps it's time for a Four Loko summit. ... That's the kind of summit that ends with the phrase, 'nice doing business with you gentlemen. Has anybody seen my pants?' "
Jay Leno: "President Obama issued his annual Hanukkah message. See, this is what America is all about: When the son of a black Kenyan father and a white Kansas mother [is] elected president, thanks to Latino voters, [and] issues a statement over a Japanese-made computer, serviced by technicians in India, congratulating a Hebrew-speaking people of a land we took from the Native Americans. That's what this country is all about."
Conan O'Brien: "According to the [WikiLeaks] documents, U.S. officials think Afghan leader Hamid Karzai is 'paranoid and weak.' ... When reached for comment, Karzai said, 'I was afraid of something like this, but I guess there's nothing I can do
(http://images.politico.com/global/news/101203_barack_obama_sign_stimulus_ap_605.jpg)
2 - 19 - 09 the day the music stopped
*Joe, get that smurk off your face, even "U" can find a way to get your share - 'i' can see your already planning
11:47am Friday Dec. 4, 2010
Presidential address to follow immediately
E-Mail of the Year!!
WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR
REPUBLICAN, GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH? ::D: ::;:
'My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed.
Since Congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission
in Iraq is
complete.
This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces
from Iraq . This action will be complete within 30 days. It is
now time to
begin the reckoning.
Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which
have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The
United Kingdom , Spain , Bulgaria , Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there.
The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's
nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.
Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations
on List 2 ceases indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will
pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war.
THEN EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER It'll GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WONT GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.
The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell
holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.
Need help with a famine ? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France .
In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money
toward solving the vexing social
problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and
eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the
earth .
Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China .
I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France , and
Russia .Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well.
I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York
.
A special note to our neighbors: Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be
seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.
Mexico is also on List 2. Its president and his entire corrupt government
really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple thousand extra tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put 'em? Yep,
border security.
Oh, by the way, the United
States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.
We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska -which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come.
If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.
It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, 'darn tootin.'
Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America . It is time to eliminate homelessness
in America .To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget.
To the nations on List 2, a final thought : You might want to learn to speak
Arabic.
God bless America .. Thank you and good night.'
If you can read this in English, thank a soldier.
(http://edsteinink.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Stei101202.gif)
:: article to follow ::
One day after President Obama and GOP leaders met and announced that they had heard the message of the midterm elections–that the people of this country wanted them to find a way to work together– Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell delivered a letter signed by all 42 Republican senators threatening to bring business to a complete halt unless Democrats agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts. So much for cooperation. No progress on food safety, on repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, on the New START treaty, on extending jobless benefits for the unemployed (Merry Christmas!) unless the wealthiest Americans keep their precious tax break.
I hope (although I doubt it) that Obama has finally learned the lesson that Republicans have absolutely no interest in compromising with Democrats on anything, and that they are willing to hold the people of this country and our allies hostage for the sole purpose of scoring partisan political points. It's way past time for Obama and the Democrats to call their bluff. No more negotiating. No more meetings. No more attempts at compromise. And no more backing down in the face of their obstructionism. Bring everything to a vote, again and again if you have to, and force the GOP's hand.
And please, please, PLEASE, Mr. Obama, no more Mr. nice guy.
Try being a President dude!
Washington DC -- Superfluous (su-PER-flu-us): Adjective. Unnecessary or needless & useless ::D: ::D: ::D:
On 'State Secrets,' Meet Barack W. Obama
April 10, 2009 9:20 AM
President Obama's Justice Department quietly argued in a San Francisco court that it was maintaining the same position as President Bush's Justice Department on a case involving detainees trying to sue a private company for its role in their (allegedly) extraordinary renditions.
The Obama administration pushed the status quo administration argument by invoking the "state secrets" argument, also a Bush-era fave.
"It is the policy of this administration to invoke the state secrets privilege only when necessary and in the most appropriate cases," said DOJ spox Matt Miller.
Last week, Team Obama did it again.
And why wouldn't they?
Attorney General Eric Holder recently said he was reviewing the way the Bush administration used the "state secrets" argument, but "on the basis of the two, three cases that we've had to review so far -- I think that the invocation of the doctrine was correct."
Huh.
That seems a little different from the Obama-Biden campaign website where "The Problem" is described in part as the Bush administration having "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court."
Because that's just what the Obama administration tried to do.
This time the issue was the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, and whether courts would be able to assess its constitutionality in a case called Jewel v. NSA, where the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is challenging the NSA surveillance by suing on behalf of AT&T customers whose records may or may not have been caught up in the NSA "dragnet."
Last Friday, while President Obama traversed throughout Europe, his Justice Department sought to have Jewel v. NSA dismissed because "the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction with respect to plaintiffs' statutory claims against the United States because Congress has not waived sovereign immunity" and "because information necessary to litigate plaintiffs' claims is properly subject to and excluded from use in this case by the state secrets privilege and related statutory privileges."
Argued the Justice Department: Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair "has once again demonstrated that the disclosure of the information implicated by this case, which concerns how the United States seeks to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security."
"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."
This of course is just the latest in Mr. Obama's evolution on the matter. When the question came up last Summer as to whether then-Sen. Obama would support a filibuster of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill if it allowed telecommunications firms immunity for cooperating with the NSA program, Sen. Obama's flip on the matter was worthy of an Olympic gold medal.
Obama spox Bill Burton had told Talking Points Memo in October 2007 that "Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
His office reaffirmed that position in December 2007: "Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies ... Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster."
But things change. And Mr. Obama voted to end the filibuster.
On June 25, 2008, Mr. Obama said, "It is a close call for me but I think the current legislation with exclusivity provision that says that a president -- whether George Bush, myself or John McCain -- can't make up rationales for getting around FISA court, can't suggest that somehow that there is some law that stands above the laws passed by Congress in engaging in warrantless wiretaps. ... The underlying program itself actually is important and useful to American security as long as it has these constraints on them. I thought it was more important for me to go ahead and support this compromise."
DOJ spox Miller says that "the administration recognizes that invoking the states secret privilege is a significant step that should be taken only when absolutely necessary. After careful consideration by senior intelligence and Department of Justice officials, it was clear that pursuing this case could unavoidably put at risk the disclosure of sensitive information that would harm national security."
Continued Miller: "An examination by the Director of National Intelligence and an internal review team established by the Attorney General determined that attempting to address the allegations in this case could require the disclosure of intelligence sources and methods that are used in a lawful manner to protect national security. The administration cannot risk the disclosure of information that could cause such exceptional harm to national security."
But there's a new wrinkle to the Obama DOJ argument, critics say.
As Glenn Greenwald wrote in Salon earlier this week, "beyond even the outrageously broad 'state secrets' privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they 'willfully disclose' to the public what they have learned...
"Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ -- using an absurdly broad rendition of 'state secrets' to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity -- are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself," Greenwald writes.
~WHAT IS THAT SMELL~
Top 10 Obama Administration Investigation Targetsby Human Events
Rep. Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.), the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has signaled he will conduct numerous oversight investigations of the Obama Administration. Here are the Top 10 areas ripe for investigation for Issa and other congressional Republicans:
(1) ObamaCare: Any measure that restructures one-sixth of the U.S. economy bears scrutiny particularly when passage of the bill required legislative bribes such as the Louisiana Purchase and Cornhusker Kickback. To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, now that ObamaCare has passed, let's see exactly what is in it — and how it got there.
(2) Stimulus: The American people deserve to know what they got for the $787 billion stimulus package that Obama signed in February 2009, including how much money was spent frivolously to publicize the legislation. And where exactly are all those jobs that the administration claims were "created or saved?"
(3) Freddie and Fannie: Previous attempts by congressional Democrats to get to the bottom of the 2008 financial meltdown conveniently overlooked the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. How much of the housing crisis was due to financial donations going to Democratic officials, who overlooked financial transgressions at the agencies so long as mortgages flowed to unworthy credit risks?
(4) Wikileaks: Someone in the administration needs to explain how the lowly serviceman who served up secret documents to Wikileaks could have access to such a large amount of classified material. And were any actions taken to shut down Julian Assange in the months after the initial disclosures and before the embarrassing leak of State Department cables?
(5) Climate science: Considering the Obama Administration used concerns over global warming to advance its cap-and-trade energy tax and, via the EPA, regulate carbon dioxide emissions, a hearing on how climate science is impacting public policy is in order.
(6) ACORN: How much federal money was sent to ACORN and what was it used for? That this vote-stealing, partisan group of thugs received tens of millions of taxpayer dollars is an outrage.
(7) Oil spill response: So many questions over the Obama Administration's response to the Gulf oil spill last April: Why was the response tardy, and did the administration slow local efforts through unnecessary red-tape? Was science politicized with the administration's rosy estimates over how much oil was left? Were there legitimate concerns or did politics come into play with the decision to impose an offshore oil drilling moratorium?
(8) Justice Department: There are concerns that politics is running amok in the halls of the Justice Department. From undermining national security by trying enemy terror combatants in criminal courts to unequal enforcement of civil rights laws, Attorney General Eric Holder's shop should be scrutinized. A good place to start is the department's handling of the New Black Panthers' voter intimidation case that was dropped.
(9) Czars: While other Presidents have named advisers without congressional approval, Obama has taken the appointment of policy czars to a new level. With appointments going to people like former Green Jobs czar and Marxist Van Jones, Congress needs to know who has been given authority beyond the scope of the Senate's confirmation process.
(10) Obama's presidential eligibility: This one should be easy to settle once and for all. Even Hawaii's Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie says President Obama's birth records should be released. Let's see what the White House does if a congressional subpoena is issued. For a President who promised transparency, there are an awful lot of his personal documents still under wraps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I gotta joke for ya.....
Obama
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/o/v/3/Chinese-Takeout.jpg)
(http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/1/2011/01/27/88533_600.jpg)
Obama's Director of National Intelligence (oxymoron) James Clapper had no idea
Obama "snaps & snorets" @ one of his Czars~~!!
US intelligence on Arab unrest draws criticism
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. intelligence agencies are drawing criticism from the Oval Office and Capitol Hill that they failed to warn of revolts in Egypt and the downfall of an American ally in Tunisia. President Barack Obama has told National Intelligence Director James Clapper that he was "disappointed with the intelligence community" over its failure to predict the outbreak of demonstrations would lead to the ouster of President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunis, according to one U.S. official familiar with the exchanges, which were expressed to Clapper through White House staff.
Obama didn't have gutts enough to do it himself-sound familiar?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Clapper, Jr. has extensive experience in intelligence matters, having worked in the field during his four-decade career in the U.S. Air Force and in the administration of President George W. Bush. However, his nomination by President Barack Obama on June 5, 2010, to be Director of National Intelligence was controversial due to Clapper's aggressive support for outsourcing intelligence work, including prisoner interrogations, to private contractors, and his multiple payroll connections with defense and intelligence contractors. On July 29, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee voted unanimously to approve Clapper's nomination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES! the topic for this thread is POLITICS: subtitile: "OBAMACARE"; ...but 'i'm
going to put a twist on it!
SPIN METER: Not much savings from stimulus money
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional Republicans say they want to cut federal spending by raiding $45 billion from President Barack Obama's politically unpopular economic (((stimulus program))). But they won't be able to get their hands on most of that money." @" most, only about $7 billion of the $814 billion in economic recovery money awarded under the 2009 federal law hasn't already been spoken for,
IF! the Republicans wanted to get serious they'd investigate exactly where all that money went-'i' didn't get any DID 'U'?
according to the latest White House estimates. And Republican leaders now acknowledge they would be lucky to identify as much as ***$5 billion in stimulus-related spending cuts as part of a plan to save taxpayers $2.5 trillion over 10 years.
....Now 'i'm not sure 'i' understand exactly **what that said?**
$5 billion is going to cost taxpayers $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years?? ~~~O0ops! 'i' didn't see the secret words
"part of a plan"
***$5 billion goes in Obamas' secret savings account - O YEW! 'U' didn't know that (&) it's invested over seas...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran's Khamenei says uprisings represent 'defeat' for U.S.
U.S. presses Egyptian army to bless talks with opposition
Protesters swarm Cairo for 'Day of Departure'
Speaking amid heightened security during a Friday sermon at Tehran University, Khamenei drew comparisons between Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution and the recent Arab protest movements, characterizing the protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and around the region as an "Islamic awakening."
He also accused the United States of propping up corrupt leaders in the region to protect its interests and those of its ally Israel.
"This is a war between two willpowers: the willpower of the people and the willpower of their enemies," he said. "The Israelis and the U.S. are more concerned about what would happen to their interests in a post-Mubarak regime."
The protest movement in Tunisia was largely secular, while the anti-government opposition in Egypt is a loose but diverse coalition that includes the Muslim Brotherhood. Some have drawn comparisons between ousted Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the U.S.-backed shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was overthrown in Iran's revolution.
Others, however, see more similarities between the recent Arab protests and the opposition "green movement" that swept Iran after a disputed presidential election in 2009. Footage of Mubarak supporters wielding rocks and sticks against Egyptian protesters Wednesday and Thursday was reminiscent of the violent crackdown carried out in Iran by security forces and plainclothes security forces known as the Basij, who are loyal to Khamenei.
- Los Angeles Times
This ol,boy is telling it exactly like it really is!
History has a way of repeating itself, that's what he's saying.
I won't even go into the number of times this has happened to "US"; but "WE" never seem to learn to keep "OUR" nose out of other peoples business ( which wouldn't be so bad it we backed ((( RIGHT! ))) all the time - but "WE" don't!!!
"WE" play games with other countries by forcing "OUR" will on them, [[ and YOU ]] wonder why "WE'RE" hated by so many?
How many times have "WE" backed the wrong guy and provided him with weapons to defend himself and then he gets kicked out of power only to have those same weapons used against "US"?
Ain't it the truth? don't 'U' get tired of it?
(http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/10/2011/02/04/88909_600.jpg)
When is the NEWS MEDIA! going to get real? Report the news as it is and leave the forcasting to the Weather men, which are wrong 90% of the time also!
Freed young leader energizes Egyptian protests
CAIRO (AP) - A young leader of Egypt's anti-government protesters, newly released from detention, joined a massive crowd in Cairo's Tahrir Square for the first time Tuesday and was greeted with cheers, whistling and thunderous applause when he declared: "We will not abandon our demand and that is the departure of the regime." Many in the crowd said they were inspired by Wael Ghonim, the 30-year-old Google Inc. marketing manager who was a key organizer of the online campaign that sparked the first protest on Jan. 25 to demand the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak. Straight from his release from 12 days of detention, Ghonim gave an emotionally charged television interview Monday night where he sobbed over those who have been killed in two weeks of clashes and insisted, "We love Egypt ... and we have rights."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did'j here it? What Egyptian people had to say after Obama's spill! (3pm Fri. ). His mealy mouth comments concerning what was happening and what he thought should be done in the country was ignored by the people.
This was gratifying to me, because 'i' thought he had no business being in their business. "WE" can't even take care of "OURSELVES" why try to dictate to other countries what they should do?
When are "WE" going to learn to take care of "OURSELVES" and leave others alone. Contrary to current common government beliefs "WE" are no longer the voice of the [world] if "WE" ever where - how long does it take for "US" to learn this? What have "WE" accomplished by trying It?
It's ( way past time) "WE" looked out for ourselves first, and took care of our own problems and let the world do what it may!
Just one example: "OUR" 60.4 million deficit in commerce in December!
Dear Abby,
My husband has a long record of money problems.
He runs up huge credit-card bills and at the end of the month . If I try to
pay them off, he shouts at me, saying I am stealing his money. He says pay
the minimum and let our kids worry about the rest, but already we can
hardly keep up with the interest.
Also, he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbors that most of
them no longer speak to us. The few that do are an odd bunch, to whom he
has been giving a lot of expensive gifts, running up our bills even more.
Also, he has gotten religious. One week he hangs out with Catholics and the
next with people who say the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and the next he's
with Muslims.
Finally, the last straw. He's demanding that before anyone can be in the
same room with him, they must sign a loyalty oath.
It's just so horribly creepy!
Can you help?
Signed, Lost in D. C.
---------------------------------------------------
Dear Lost:
Stop whining, Michelle. You can divorce the jerk any time you want. You're
getting to live in the White House for free, travel the world, and have
others pay for everything for you. The rest of us are stuck with the
bastard for two more years!
Abby
(http://edsteinink.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Stei110215.gif)
I keep wondering when conditions here will become so intolerable that Americans take to the streets. Nine percent unemployment, much worse than that for minorities and young people. Millions of homes foreclosed. Bankers raking in megabuck bonuses after having brought the economy to its knees. Tens of millions without access to health care. A crumbling infrastructure. Income disparity rivaling that of third world countries. Egypt has less of a gap between rich and poor than the United States. The top one percent in this country now takes in 26% of all income, and controls a third of the nation's personal wealth. Yet we continue to pursue policies that make the problems worse.
The Tea Party revolt is not what I'm talking about here. Tea Partiers, by and large, are richer, whiter and older than the general population, and hardly represent the downtrodden and the disposessed. If anything, they seem to be an extension of the angry white male phenomenon of a few decades ago, more worried about losing their place in a rapidly changing culture than about economic justice.
The deep cuts being proposed by Republicans are nothing short of cruel; aside from the obvious partisan agenda items (NPR, PBS, the EPA) they seem to be intent on cutting every program that might actually help people: preschool, higher education, health care for the poor, food safety, science funding, and the list goes on and on. Obama's budget, with its own set of cuts to essential programs, is not nearly as mean-spirited, and does include some funding for building for the future, but hardly qualifies as a responsible budget.
What disturbs me the most in both is that the Republicans seem to have succeeded in taking taxes completely off the table. In their words, "we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem," as if in the real world the two could possibly be separated. When we spend more than we make, we have both. In the past, both cuts and tax increases were always on the table. Even the sainted (and misremembered) Ronald Reagan raised taxes when it was necessary to reign in the deficit.
Missing from this discussion is the conversation we ought to be having first: what is our responsibility to each other as a society--the social contract. It's as though the only issue out there is the size of the deficit. Yes, it's huge, and we're in a pickle if we don't address it, but how can we address it in any rational way until we decide what programs are essential to the well-being of the citizens of this country? Only then can we decide if we spend too much or too little on education, on health care, on clean air and water, on Social Security, and create a tax base and a budget that accommodates our needs. That neither party even bothers to talk about it is what makes me want to man the barricades. Let's show those Egyptians what we can do. Anyone want to join me?
[size=12]
I'M IN!
[/size]
February 21, 2011
The Real Revolution Has Begun
By J. Robert Smith
How delicious is irony, how fickle fate?
Just a little more than two years ago, liberals were ecstatic about Barack Obama's election and Democrats' control of Congress. Liberal pundits were all atwitter about the brand new Democratic Era that voters had ushered in. America would finally become what America should have been years ago: a European-style social democracy.
Boy, did Democrats misread their mandate! With very little hindsight needed, it's apparent to all but ideologically-blinkered liberals that the Democrats' gross overreach isn't what voters wanted or expected. Voters wanted a redo of the Clinton years. Instead, in the person of Barack Obama, voters got an amalgam of FDR and LBJ with a dash of Neville Chamberlin thrown in.
But here's the real kicker. Two years of Obama-Reid-Pelosi overreach and excesses may have been the table-setter for the real revolution now unfolding. Voters and taxpayers first needed to see the irresponsibility and recklessness of unalloyed liberalism to appreciate that conservative government is far superior. Thank you, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.
Of course, the real revolution began last year with the 2010 midterm elections. Yes, the GOP made the largest gains in U.S. House seats since 1948. But the underappreciated story is that the GOP racked up huge gains in state legislative contests, and further down ballot, Republicans swept plenty of local offices. State legislatures control congressional redistricting. Republicans now dominate enough key statehouses to lock-in GOP congressional electoral advantages for a decade.
Had voters limited their ballots to throwing out the rascals in Congress, a fair argument could be made that 2010 was just a protest vote -- an attempt by voters to shake up the Democrats. But when voters drill down to change party control of legislatures, city halls, and county commissions, you can bet that they're thoroughly repudiating the party in power. The 2010 repudiation of Democrats was a clear expression of what voters did and didn't want from government.
Move now to the present time. Republicans are on the march in Congress. Late last week, House Republicans passed a budget bill containing $61 billion in cuts. It's not the $100 billion that conservatives aimed for, but it's substantial and can be considered a down payment. The House Republican proposal now goes to the Senate. The budget process wrangling is just in its first phase. Moving forward, the GOP will have multiple opportunities to push more cuts.
And look what else House Republicans are doing. They're using the budget process to hamstring Obamacare by denying it funding. Shutting down and then nixing ObamaCare would be an historic victory in the fight to end liberalism's nearly hundred-year dominance; it would be one of those critical turning points in history -- like Vicksburg and Gettysburg -- a momentum shifter that leads to other key victories, such as entitlements reform.
Also, Indiana Republican Mike Pence offered and passed an amendment cutting funding for the odious abortion mill called Planned Parenthood. Another amendment, offered by Oregon Republican Greg Walden, that passed, chokes off funds for the Federal Communications Commission's net-neutrality gambit. Net -neutrality would concentrate more power in the FCC's hands and stymie free speech across the internet. Net-neutrality could well have been made in China.
Of course, the revolution just beginning isn't confined to the Halls of Congress. Chris Christie, New Jersey's intrepid Republican governor, fired the first shots last year in the burgeoning struggle to bring sanity back to state affairs. Christie's efforts aren't limited to balancing state budgets and reining in taxes, important as those things are. Christie is working to limit government and expand the playing field for the private sector. As we're seeing, government without proper limits is a ruinous beast. California is a prime example.
Now newly elected Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is making headlines because he dares to say that his state is broke and that the public employees' gravy train needs to end. Governor Walker wants to end collective bargaining for public employees, excepting police and firefighters, on the simple, common sense premise that employees shouldn't be negotiating the hours they work, among other things.
In Ohio, Governor John Kasich is gearing up to slash budgets, rollback taxes, cut regulations, and confront the Buckeye State's public employee unions. There'll be fireworks aplenty in Columbus.
Thomas Jefferson is being proven right again. The states are the laboratories of democracy. Christie, Kasich, and Walker are seeking to demonstrate that limited, financially responsible government is best for economic and societal health. If successful -- and we should all have high confidence that these governors will succeed -- the lessons will not be lost on voters and politicians in other states. Revolutions are like that; it takes just a few courageous leaders to embolden others and for revolutions to spread.
A marvelous, if unintended, consequence of this burgeoning conservative revolution is what it's doing to liberalism. The budding conservative revolution is starting to place strains on liberalism; beginning to make liberals and their allies fight defensive battles in multiple -- and multiplying -- places. Call this a modified Cloward-Piven -- or Cloward-Piven turned on its masters.
Challenging liberal governance, and pressing limited government reforms, will help bring down liberalism across the nation. And that should be an indisputable aim of the new conservative revolution. Liberalism became a pox on the nation years ago. Marginalizing liberalism would be an incomparable service to generations to come -- and to those kids being lied to now by too many Wisconsin teachers.
"Change We Can Believe In." Mr. Obama's slogan always had a nice ring to it, but it was misapplied and a little ahead of its time. With the conservative revolution, change we can really believe in has arrived. How's that for rich irony?
The Supreme Court's decision to allow the Westboro Baptist Church to protest military funerals does set limits for such demonstrations, USA Today writes.
* Justice Alito was the only one to offer a dissenting opinion on the case, and he argued that "free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case,"
Ruger is coming out with a new pistol in honor of Obama. It will be named the "Union Worker".
It doesn't work and you can't fire it.
"LONG TERM Resolutions!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to see some 'long term resolutions' for our current deficit situation and I want to see them now!
#"WE" can't wait any longer on Washington to do something!
* if they haven't got a plan to get "US" out of this mess ( THEY CAUSED! ) by the end of this year, it's time we joined the middle-east in a revolt!
(+) I'm serious, this has gone on long enough. This Nation is never going to make it if 'we' don't make plans now on what we're going to do!
No one wants to invest until there is some certainty in the market and a game plan for the future. This includes lowering the unemployment rate and stabilizing the economy. A forecast for the future would do this.
Our trade agreements, tariffs, and consumer agreements need to be looked @ closely and modified to fit our needs.
"WE" can no-longer afford to cater to foreign powers ( not from the US ) we must decide our own fate!
Be it [ fat or famine ] we have no choice!
It's now or never!
(http://edsteinink.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Stei110309.gif)
"Ain't it the truth! "(?)"
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/g/2/4/Ask-Not.jpg)
A Wish To Live Forever
I met a fairy today that said she would grant me one wish.
"I want to live forever," I said.
"Sorry," said the fairy, "I'm not allowed to grant wishes like that!"
"Fine," I said, "then I want to die after Congress gets their heads out of their asses!"
"You crafty bastard," said the fairy.
"HIGH WATER!"
(http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f11574%5fAK5YimIAAHuQTdQIfQnHs3R0TDw&pid=2.3&fid=Inbox&inline=1)
The game of chicken over raising the debt limit continues, with Republicans (and some Democrats) vowing that any vote for it will have to be accompanied by deep budget cuts, and tax increases of any kind will not be considered. If Republicans have their way, there's only one possible outcome. The social safety net, already badly frayed by the deep recession, will have to be trimmed even further. There's simply no way to make the deep cuts the GOP is demanding without attacking Medicare and Medicaid, health care programs for the elderly and the poor. Much of the pain could be alleviated, of course, by repealing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, but Republicans will not hear of it. They stubbornly cling to the fiction that any tax increases (even repealing the oil depletion allowance for oil companies swimming in record profits) will deepen the recession and cost jobs. The inescapable truth, though, is that the most vulnerable among us are being asked to underwrite the increasing income inequality in America, which is already at the shameful levels seen in the Third World. This is all neatly packaged as absolutely necessary deficit reduction, but if the Grand Old Party was really serious it might ask those who can afford it the most to share a little of the pain.
= While they fight (political hassles only to make 'themselves' look good) "WE" suffer! = [size=8]
What are "WE" going to do about it!!
[/size]
Quote from: Hoosier Hillbilly on May 19, 2011, 08:39:05 AM
"HIGH WATER!"
(http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f11574%5fAK5YimIAAHuQTdQIfQnHs3R0TDw&pid=2.3&fid=Inbox&inline=1)
The game of chicken over raising the debt limit continues, with Republicans (and some Democrats) vowing that any vote for it will have to be accompanied by deep budget cuts, and tax increases of any kind will not be considered. If Republicans have their way, there's only one possible outcome. The social safety net, already badly frayed by the deep recession, will have to be trimmed even further. There's simply no way to make the deep cuts the GOP is demanding without attacking Medicare and Medicaid, health care programs for the elderly and the poor. Much of the pain could be alleviated, of course, by repealing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, but Republicans will not hear of it. They stubbornly cling to the fiction that any tax increases (even repealing the oil depletion allowance for oil companies swimming in record profits) will deepen the recession and cost jobs. The inescapable truth, though, is that the most vulnerable among us are being asked to underwrite the increasing income inequality in America, which is already at the shameful levels seen in the Third World. This is all neatly packaged as absolutely necessary deficit reduction, but if the Grand Old Party was really serious it might ask those who can afford it the most to share a little of the pain.
= While they fight (political hassles only to make 'themselves' look good) "WE" suffer! =
[size=8]What are "WE" going to do about it!!
[/size]
What indeed!?
The thing that gets my hide chapped is the fact that so many citizens of this country just suck up the propaganda and bleat with the contentedness of the sheep they have become! :mad:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if these allegations are true or not...but if they are....
Just common knowledge that citizens of a country - especially American citizens who even know that Andrew Jackson's wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery or that Lincoln never went to school or Kennedy wore a back brace or Truman played the piano – are interested in their presidents' personal lives. Conversely, FDR's polio was concealed, but ostensibly because we were in the midst of twin perils; the Great Depression and WW II.
Good grief... we are Americans! We are known for our humanitarian interests and caring for our 'fellow man'. We care, but no one knows one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president.
Honestly, and this is a personal thing but it disturbed me that no one who ever dated him ever showed up. The simple fact of his charisma that caused the women to be drawn to him so obviously during his campaign, looks like some lady would not have missed the opportunity to announce her connection. We all know about JFK's magnetism, McCain was no monk, Palin's courtship and even her athletic prowess were probed. Biden's aneurysms are no secret. Look at Cheney and Clinton.. we all know about their heart problems and certainly speaking of the opposite sex- we heard and read a lot about Bill Clinton before and during his Presidency. Why hasn't someone, anyone stepped up and said, "Barack was soooo shy..." or "What a great dancer!!"
Now look at the rest of this... no classmates, not even the recorder for the Columbia class notes ever heard of him.... "I just don't know about this fellow."
Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? Isnt it odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.
When did he meet Michele.. and how? Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen. Are their photos there? Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library, etc. What has he released? And who in hell voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010?
Does this make you wonder? Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from President Obama's past saying they knew him, they were buddies or drank a beer together or attended some school with him, were his friend or even a friend of a friend of Obama., etc. ?? Not one person has ever come forward from his past.
VERY, VERY STRANGE.. This should really be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man. If you ever saw The Manchurian Candidate?....ever give it one single thought? Not precisely the same hypnotic scereno but the idea of planting someone with a planted history to go with him, Who financed his education and worldly travels? Who spoke for him for his early jobs? Where and who are those folks?
Let's face it. As insignificant as we all are .. someone whom we went to school with remembers our name or face ... someone remembers we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us. George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos would have been a classmate in what would have been Obama classes at Columbia -- the class of 1984 and he said he never had a single class with him.
While he is such a great orator, why doesn't anyone in Obama's college class remember him? And, why won't he allow Columbia to release his records?
NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA
Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but none remembered him.
Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me very well. I don't have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia .. EVER!
Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, "Class of '83 political science, pre-law" and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that." Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! and five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York, 'the macha' who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him."
Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.
NOTE: Root graduated as Valedictorian from his high school, Thornton-Donovan School, then graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a Political Science major in the same class in which Barack Hussein Obama states he was. Never there.
Some other interesting questions..
Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002? Answer: I am told because he was caught falsifying background information on his BAR application. This can be verified with the Illinois bar examiners bureau.
Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by Court Order?
It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases. WHAT? The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is never reported to have lived.
No wonder all his records are sealed!
Nobody in the media, and I mean nobody, has ever simultaneously triangulated the facts about his foggy claims to citizenship, his Occidental college records (foreign aid maybe?) and his mysterious ability to travel, prior to holding public office, to foreign countries completely off limits to American citizens as well as the aforementioned "Columbia Cover-up".
Please continue sending this out to everyone asking for anyone, anywhere, to acknowledge that they knew him in school...before he "reorganized" Chicago & burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention & made us all swoon with his charm, poise & speaking pizzazz. Who the hell can verify anything about the myth of this guy. Certainly all the people who know of his citizenship and educational background, one of them would step forth. One of them.
Just when I began to suspect you had a brain. . . :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 21, 2011, 04:49:22 PM
Just when I began to suspect you had a brain. . . :rolleyes:
So what's your analogy?
Again I get blasted, but you show "NO" proof of having a brain yourself.
Just a put-down not constructive comment, typical "MO" palehorse :-\
Quote from: Hoosier Hillbilly on May 21, 2011, 07:51:20 PM
So what's your analogy?
Again I get blasted, but you show "NO" proof of having a brain yourself.
Just a put-down not constructive comment, typical "MO" palehorse :-\
And just HOW would you be able to ascertain my "credibility", at 24 posts? Just how do you establish the criteria for my "MO"?
If you happen to be someone that has posted with me at some point, then you should de-cloke yourself and stop hiding in a new dress!
I "BLASTED" you? Really?!
My prediction is that if you "sincerely" mean that statement, you are not going to do well in this type of environment. . .
I,m the same guy you been fus'n & fight'n with all the time. For some reason my computer knocked off all my sign in places, so ( it was start over ). When I got a new password I also got to start again.
Best I can explain it, sorry!
Nothing against my buddy "MY man Mitch" cause he's one too!
And then there's Ron Paul!
It's way past time a ((( REDNECK! ))) run this country. Yes, we've had some in the past and they made good presidents { for the most part}.
Let's call'm 'moderate' rednecks, cause just like anything else there's many different varieties.
Wouldn't matter which one was president to me, either would beat anybody else that's running.
THE REDNECK PARTY, got a nice 'ring' to't doesn't?
Quote from: Hoosier Hillbilly on May 22, 2011, 06:38:35 AM
Nothing against my buddy "MY man Mitch" cause he's one too!
And then there's Ron Paul!
It's way past time a ((( REDNECK! ))) run this country. Yes, we've had some in the past and they made good presidents { for the most part}.
Let's call'm 'moderate' rednecks, cause just like anything else there's many different varieties.
Wouldn't matter which one was president to me, either would beat anybody else that's running.
THE REDNECK PARTY, got a nice 'ring' to't doesn't?
Neither is it surprising to me to discover you would blindly throw your support behind a closet Nazi!
I bet you voted for Charlie White too!
Who in the-hell is Charlie White ?
throw your support behind a closet Nazi! ...Remember liable & slander? To what do 'U' refer?
Neither is it surprising to me that 'i can't get a civil anwer out of 'U' no matter how hard 'i' try!
Quote from: Hoosier Hillbilly on May 22, 2011, 05:24:05 PM
Who in the-hell is Charlie White ?
That you do not know, and claim to live in Indiana, speaks volumes surrounding your political knowledge and attention span!
Quote from: Hoosier Hillbilly on May 22, 2011, 05:24:05 PM
throw your support behind a closet Nazi! ...Remember liable & slander? To what do 'U' refer?
Neither is it surprising to me that 'i can't get a civil anwer out of 'U' no matter how hard 'i' try!
Yeah. . . right. . . :rolleyes:
Neither is it surprising to me to discover you would blindly throw your support behind a closet Nazi!
palehorse what's Obama?
Who in the-hell is Charlie White ?
throw your support behind a closet Nazi! ...Remember liable & slander?
'U' get it now palehorse?
define *closet Nazi*
Palehorse
Sr. Member
Quote:
That you do not know, and claim to live in Indiana, speaks volumes surrounding your political knowledge and attention span!
yew it might, but speaking of speaking volumes ::) :o :confused: it's not 'U'r game either!
'TOPIC' under Discussion:
Hoosier Hillbilly
Newbie-been on this forum for 'many years', lost all my seniority
Nothing against my buddy "MY man Mitch" cause he's one too!
And then there's Ron Paul!
It's way past time a ((( REDNECK! ))) run this country. Yes, we've had some in the past and they made good presidents { for the most part}.
Let's call'm 'moderate' rednecks, cause just like anything else there's many different varieties.
Wouldn't matter which one was president to me, either would beat anybody else that's running.
THE REDNECK PARTY, got a nice 'ring' to't doesn't?
??? ::) Now! can 'we' get back on the subject palehorse, don't
need your insults just your ((( other opinions )))
(http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f16009%5fAJNYimIAAPUxTdqxKQX8QCH9Xxc&pid=2&fid=Inbox&inline=1)
The topic is politics. . .
You endorse candidates that want to repeal the civil rights act, for example.
Seriously?! How can ANYONE who is serious about the future of this nation even consider such a move? ::O:
Ron Paul is a candidate who will say anything to tweak the establishment.
In other words; He likes to stir the "poop" so the smell comes out and everyone can get a whiff!
In (ways) he's unconventional but in others he's just= "A good'ol boy with the countries best interest @ heart and not his own! Name another congressman that's that way?
Sure! There's lots of people I don't agree with entirely, but if their general focus is on improving this country (which I think his it), turn him loose and let him have a-go @ it!! Considering { the alternatives we've had and are faced with } why not?
I'm kinda like him, I like to stir the pot (not that I necessarily agree with what I say) but it gets what I'm looking for; A REACTION!
Quote from: Hoosier Hillbilly on May 25, 2011, 06:36:06 AM
Ron Paul is a candidate who will say anything to tweak the establishment.
In other words; He likes to stir the "poop" so the smell comes out and everyone can get a whiff!
In (ways) he's unconventional but in others he's just= "A good'ol boy with the countries best interest @ heart and not his own! Name another congressman that's that way?
Sure! There's lots of people I don't agree with entirely, but if their general focus is on improving this country (which I think his it), turn him loose and let him have a-go @ it!! Considering { the alternatives we've had and are faced with } why not?
I'm kinda like him, I like to stir the pot (not that I necessarily agree with what I say) but it gets what I'm looking for; A REACTION!
^- - - - Proof of my point.
Palehorse
Sr. Member
Offline
Posts: 344
Re: Horse Opinion
« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2011, 07:01:32 PM »Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoken like a true alcoholic!
^- - - - Proof of my point.
Hun HUH! Missed me, didn't YA!
Skoal
WELL. With a 'dumb a** answer like that 'i' assume 'U' didn't! so be gone my man!
Don't need 'U'r criticisms any longer anyhow!
You have a 'good' life impressing yourself on others-for those who believe and 'i'll do my thing! Sa.anrya!
$ Stock Market $
A Double Dip Recession May Be Inevitable
A potential double dip recession was a large concern a year and a half ago. There was a belief that the deep economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 could not generate enough momentum for an even modest recovery. Then, the unemployment rate started to fall, car sales began to rebound, same-store retail sales improved, corporate earnings moved higher and fuel prices dropped. The comeback was confirmed by a strong holiday sales season last year and fourth quarter GDP rose 3.1%. Unemployment has fallen below 9% much sooner than most economists believed it would.
It has only taken a few weeks, but the chances of a double dip recession have increased. The term is mentioned more often in the media and in speeches by economists. Several large companies have said that their margins and sales may be hurt by inflation.
There are a relative small number of reasons that the economy has begun to slow and most of these have worsened quickly. This 24/7 Wall St. analysis looks at each one, explains how its trajectory and momentum has changed this year, and how it could derail the economic recovery
Hasn't "OUR" president done a 'wonderful job' with all the concerns of the economy? If ((( he ))) could blotch things any worse 'i' don't know how!
He's absolutely out=of-tune with "REALIZATION"
He can fly @ our expense wherever & whenever he wishes, whether it's business or { Monkey business } [[ no pun intended ]], but he does have large ears...
He is able to give billions to other countries [ & himself ] with no regrets or regards for the "state of matters here in the "US". He expects "US" to bail him out again- OR! "WE" gon'a do it?
::) :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 06, 2011, 08:51:53 AM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
(http://images./new/rolleyes.gif)(http://images./new/rolleyes.gif)(http://images./new/rolleyes.gif)
(http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f17388%5fAIBYimIAAP%2bwTfAI8Qp3lQ35EGQ&pid=2.3&fid=Inbox&inline=1)
(http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f832%5f3170%5fAKlYimIAAFJOTfETIwpAfW%2fhd%2bI&pid=2.3&fid=%2540B%2540Bulk&inline=)
:confused: :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Chew on this palehorse!!!!!!
Stocks retreated broadly on Friday, with the Dow ending below 12,000 for the first time in three months and the Nasdaq erasing all of its gains for the year.
Double-dip recession, 'i' can smell it coming "&" it doesn't smell good @ all. It's been rotting for over a year now and the smell is rank!
'i' guess we never thought we'd have another revolution but it's just around the corner. Maybe 'we' won't have the federal government on "OUR" side, but "WE" got the states - more than less!
"WE" can't handle a situation like that, unlike other supposedly uncivilized countries, the population will panic and all hell will break loose.
This nation hasn't got the guts (( the people )) to pull off a real honest revolution. I say this because if WE" did we'd have already done something about our countries situation. We're all a bunch of pansies with only "OUR' best [[ SELF ]] interest in mind!!!
OK! now spit it
OUT!
I won't deny the economy is in the toilet. . . Anyone with half a brain knows it. . .
The real question is what is to blame for it! (NOT just the current administration that is for sure).
Quote from: Palehorse on June 11, 2011, 12:02:51 PM
The real question is what is to blame for it!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
9/11/2001 says it all!
So in other words, in your view, they won?!
Where in the hell do you get these hair-brain ideas you say are mine? If you got something to say constructive let's here it, but quit critiquing my comments, stick to what you think not what you think I think!!! OK????
palehorse, answer me this; has world war III already began?
Quote from: Hoosier Hillbilly on June 12, 2011, 08:05:38 PM
Where in the hell do you get these hair-brain ideas you say are mine? If you got something to say constructive let's here it, but quit critiquing my comments, stick to what you think not what you think I think!!! OK????
Welcome to the internet. . . Where your inane posturing and drunken rages have ZERO impact upon others ability to state their perspectives and support them with credible, empirical evidence that relegates your position to that of the Neanderthal!
Quote from: Hoosier Hillbilly on June 12, 2011, 08:15:29 PM
palehorse, answer me this; has world war III already began?
NO. Instead, the second civil war of this land simmers. . .
And you evil agenda propagandists just keep on parroting the words and buzz phrases of the jackasses that are leading you headlong over a cliff, to your death, and the death of this nation.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11220534/1/buffett-tax-the-rich.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN[/url]][url=http://www.thestreet.com/story/11220534/1/buffett-tax-the-rich.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN]http://www.thestreet.com/story/11220534/1/buffett-tax-the-rich.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN[/url] (ftp://www.thestreet.com/story/11220534/1/buffett-tax-the-rich.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN)
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Legendary investor Warren Buffett, chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway(BRK.A_)(BRK.B_), wrote in an opinion editorial on Monday that it's time to stop coddling the super-rich and to increase the taxes they pay.
Quote from: Confido on August 15, 2011, 11:52:55 AM
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11220534/1/buffett-tax-the-rich.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN[/url]][url=http://www.thestreet.com/story/11220534/1/buffett-tax-the-rich.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN]http://www.thestreet.com/story/11220534/1/buffett-tax-the-rich.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN[/url] (ftp://www.thestreet.com/story/11220534/1/buffett-tax-the-rich.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN)
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Legendary investor Warren Buffett, chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway(BRK.A_)(BRK.B_), wrote in an opinion editorial on Monday that it's time to stop coddling the super-rich and to increase the taxes they pay.
Finally, a billionaire who gets it!
I guess the conservatives in this country are proud. They've succeeded in wrecking this country's credit rating, and turned the stock markets into nothing more than a global casino franchise! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Quote from: Palehorse on August 18, 2011, 11:35:49 AM
I guess the conservatives in this country are proud. They've succeeded in wrecking this country's credit rating, and turned the stock markets into nothing more than a global casino franchise! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Palehorse, you are going to get a lot of denial thrown at you on this statement, however the postulations will be hollow because when all is considered, there can be no doubt that the Republicans in Congress, and especially their upstart child (Tea Party) own this one. The Tea Party
has but one true calling....defeat Obama at any & all cost, even the ruination of America if necessary.
Quote from: Confido on August 18, 2011, 02:48:07 PM
Palehorse, you are going to get a lot of denial thrown at you on this statement, however the postulations will be hollow because when all is considered, there can be no doubt that the Republicans in Congress, and especially their upstart child (Tea Party) own this one. The Tea Party
has but one true calling....defeat Obama at any & all cost, even the ruination of America if necessary.
I agree.