PoliticsLiberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It?

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (121724)1/14/2012 1:24:12 PM
5 Recommendations   of 210267
Senile Kenny, I already gave you my name once. Your dementia prevents you from remembering where you put it or what it is.

You are America hating garbage, just like Obama.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (121680)1/14/2012 1:56:24 PM
3 Recommendations   of 210267

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: FUBHO who wrote (121737)1/14/2012 2:12:26 PM
From: Hope Praytochange
3 Recommendations   of 210267
Businesses Need Relief From Obama, Not Gov't Reorg Posted 01/13/2012 06:51 PM ET

Business: After pushing through one of the largest expansions of government in history, the president now claims he wants to streamline it on behalf of struggling businesses. Pardon us if we're skeptical about his sincerity.

On Friday, Obama pushed Congress to give him the authority to reorganize several government agencies, merging six that deal with trade and business development. The idea, he claims, is to cut duplication and red tape to make it "easier to do business in America." As a bonus, Obama says this will trim spending by $3 billion over a decade.

Obama's sudden realization that the federal government is a bloated mess is welcome. There's no shortage of targets at which to aim. But his proposal should be seen for what it is: a crass political move designed to inoculate himself against charges that he's anti-business.

After all, if these reforms are so important to companies, why did Obama wait three years to propose them, or wait a full year after promising such changes in his last State of the Union address, knowing Congress would never get it done in an election year?

It's just as well, since once you scratch the surface, you realize Obama's reorg would almost certainly do more harm than good. Of particular concern is his plan to mash the lean and effective U.S. Trade Representative office together with the bloated and aimless Commerce Department.

In a joint memo Friday, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., warned that making the USTR "just another corner of a new bureaucratic behemoth would hurt American exports and hinder American job creation." And former USTR head Susan Schwab told the Washington Post that "I don't think it makes sense to put USTR in Commerce because you'd have to reinvent USTR."

The real problem with Obama's latest gambit is that it completely misses the point. Businesses aren't complaining that the federal government has too many agencies doing the same job. They're complaining that they have to deal with the federal government at all.

On that score, Obama has made their lives far worse by imposing a mass of expensive rules and regulations, to say nothing of the nightmare that businesses know is coming from ObamaCare.

Obama's so clueless about business needs that just last week he told a bunch of Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats that "when we put in place new common-sense rules to reduce air pollution, we create new jobs."

If the president really cared about making it "easier to do business in America," he wouldn't move boxes on an organization chart for political points. He'd undo all the anti-business policies he's already imposed.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: FUBHO who wrote (121737)1/14/2012 2:13:20 PM
From: Hope Praytochange
3 Recommendations   of 210267
Keystone XL Pipeline And Jobs — Put Up Or Shut Up Posted 01/13/2012 06:51 PM ET

Politics: The day after the president announces he would reward businesses that bring jobs into the U.S., the Chamber of Commerce asks: What about the pipeline from Canada that would bring both jobs and energy?

The irony was mind-boggling when President Obama addressed a group of business leaders at the White House last Wednesday on his plans to reward "insourcing."

"There are workers ready to work right now," he told them. "In the next few weeks, I will put forward new tax proposals that reward companies that choose to bring jobs home and invest in America — and eliminate tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas. Because there is opportunity to be had right here."

Indeed, there are opportunities right now for companies to bring jobs to the U.S. and workers ready to fill them, as U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue reminded Obama the next day during his "State of American Business 2012" address.

"We can put 20,000 Americans to work right away and up to 250,000 over the life of the project," Donohue said. "Labor unions and the business community alike are urging President Obama to act in the best interests of our national security and our workers, and approve the pipeline."

It would be in the president's best political interests as well, helping lower energy prices and creating jobs in an economy struggling to do so. Even a number of unions, a major part of the Democratic base, are backing the project.

They include the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Teamsters, the Laborers' International Union, the Building & Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO and the United Association of Plumbers & Pipe Fitters for the United States & Canada. They want the jobs Keystone XL would bring.

TransCanada wants to bring those jobs plus 700,000 barrels of Canadian tar sands oil to the U.S.

But another key Democratic constituency — environmentalists — have raised the canard that Keystone XL would endanger the Ogallala Aquifer centered on Nebraska. TransCanada has agreed to a rerouting, but that merely gives the administration an excuse for further review and delay until after the 2012 election.

At a press conference following Donohue's address, Bruce Josten, chamber vice president of government affairs, noted that Keystone XL had already cleared an extensive three-year review and that only presidential politics stood in the way. "I think we've already stated this was a political decision," Josten said. "This is obviously not an environmental or economic decision."

As for risks to the Ogallala Aquifer and other states along the route, 50,000 existing miles of pipeline already crisscross America. The technology is neither new nor unsafe. One is the Keystone 1 pipeline, which already carries crude from the oil sands.

Josten, noting Obama's proposal to reward businesses that bring jobs to the U.S., said: "The president missed the biggest insourcing opportunity yesterday, and it's called the Keystone Pipeline."

Indeed, the gathering of business leaders at the White House would have been the perfect opportunity to give the green light to what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has rightly called the biggest shovel-ready project ever.

"If this episode tells us anything," McConnell has said, "it's that the president is clearly more concerned about getting himself re-elected than getting somebody in Nebraska or Kansas or South Dakota or Missouri a job today."

The president's inaction and hypocrisy on jobs will have consequences. "I'll tell you what the Canadians are going to do about it," said Donahue. "If they put a long-term delay on (the pipeline), they're going to build a pipeline to the West and sell that oil to the Chinese."

If the president passes on this opportunity to create jobs, he should lose his in November.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (121724)1/14/2012 2:13:33 PM
From: longnshort
4 Recommendations   of 210267
CNN's Soledad O'Brien and Piers Morgan each have a go at NY Times reporter Jodi Kantor over her new book "The Obamas". This is a great display of the mainstream media in full protection mode of First Lady Michelle Obama.

MSM Gatekeepers Hammer NY Times Reporter Over Obama Book

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (121687)1/14/2012 3:39:16 PM
From: tonto
2 Recommendations   of 210267
Kenneth, the first major Walker event is scheduled for January 21. A great list of speakers are scheduled to speak and a large crowd is expected!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: chartseer who wrote (121685)1/14/2012 3:51:36 PM
From: chartseer
   of 210267
What was the outcome of the government investigation of why with accurate tips on madoff the sec still could not realize he was running a ponzi scheme. There was a government investigation wasn't there? wasn't there?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: chartseer who wrote (121726)1/14/2012 6:11:48 PM
From: lorne
4 Recommendations   of 210267
chartseer...Seems like most democrats will lie to your face knowing they know you know they are liars yet still do it without any feelings of shame....amazing. what kind of a sick mind does this.

Obama campaign makes ‘ridiculous distortion’ on Israel
See why president earned 'Pants-on-Fire' rating in attack on GOP contenders
by Aaron Klein
Saturday, January 14, 2012

JERUSALEM – President Obama’s reelection campaign misleadingly claimed GOP presidential contenders Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich would all cut foreign aid to Israel.

“Stand against ‘zeroing out’ aid to Israel,” reads the title of a page of Obama’s official campaign website.

Continues the page: “Republican candidates for president Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich all say they would cut foreign aid to Israel – and every other country – to zero.

“Stand up to this extreme isolationism and join the call to reject the Romney-Perry-Gingrich plan,” the campaign concludes

The claim was so faulty that, a Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-check project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, labeled it a “ridiculous distortion” deserving of the site’s “Pants-On-Fire” rating.

Obama’s campaign told the website’s claim on foreign aid stems from a series of statements made at a foreign-policy themed debate last November in which Romney, Perry and Gingrich stated they would review U.S. foreign aid.

Discussing U.S. aid to Pakistan, Perry stated at the debate: “The foreign aid budget in my administration for every country is going to start at zero dollars. Zero dollars. And then we’ll have a conversation. Then we’ll have a conversation in this country about whether or not a penny of our taxpayer dollar needs to go into those countries.”

Perry did not say he would cut off foreign aid to all countries, but that foreign aid would start at “zero” and then aid would be discussed.

Gingrich was asked if he agreed with Perry’s position.

“What he said made absolutely perfect sense,” replied Gingrich. “Consider the alternative. You’re giving some country $7 billion a year … or in the case of Egypt, $3 billion a year. So you start off every year and say, ‘Here’s your $3 billion, now I’ll start thinking’? You ought to start off at zero and say, ‘Explain to me why I should give you a penny.’”

He continued: “The Pakistanis hid Bin Laden for at least six years in a military city within a mile of their national defense university. And then they got mad at the people who turned him over to us? And we think those are the acts of allies? I think that’s a pretty good idea to start at zero and sometimes stay there.”

During the debate, Perry was asked if his aid review policy included Israel.

He explained: “Absolutely. Every country would start at zero. Obviously, Israel is a special ally. And my bet is that we would be funding them at some substantial level. But it makes sense for everyone to come in at zero and make your case.”

Romney himself later agreed with this same approach when he was addressing Pakistan at the same debate.

“One of the things we have to do with our foreign aid commitments, the ongoing foreign aid commitments – I agree with Gov. Perry. You start everything at zero,” he said.

Following the debate, all three candidates clarified their respective administrations would continue to fund Israel.

Gingrich referred to a 10-year memorandum from the Bush administration that laid out future funding commitments.

“We have a 10-year commitment that we have to live out,” Gingrich said. “So I think because we’ve made this long-term commitment, you wouldn’t be able to go back to zero.”

Jeff Ballabon, an activist with the Perry camp, told Ben Smith of Politico that Perry’s proposal would only benefit Israel: “Perry believes Israel’s an extraordinary friend and our greatest ally. … Under Rick Perry, Israel will set the bar for judging foreign aid to any country. Perry’s Start at Zero is exactly the right policy – no country stands to benefit more than Israel from merit-based foreign aid.”

Romney’s spokesman, meanwhile, clarified to the Jewish Telegraphic agency that “he would exempt Israel from the policy.”

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: FUBHO who wrote (121736)1/14/2012 6:33:13 PM
From: lorne
2 Recommendations   of 210267
FUBHO..watched a bit of an interview with a debbie wasserman thingie..what a sick excuse for a human...she talks over people with no regard for what they may say, lies without flinching, sounds just like lefty posters here and in the democratic party in general. obama comes to mind.

IMO....I guess even psychopaths need to hang out somewhere...I suppose it is a good thing that sane people know where most of them congregate. unfortunately some of them end up in a position of political power

CHARISMATIC PSYCHOPATHS are charming, attractive liars. They are usually gifted at some talent or another, and they use it to their advantage in manipulating others. They are usually fast-talkers, and possess an almost demonic ability to persuade others out of everything they own, even their lives. Leaders of religious sects or cults, for example, might be psychopaths if they lead their followers to their deaths. This subtype often comes to believe in their own fictions. They are irresistible.

Sociopaths have always existed in varying form and to various degrees. They have been known by various titles. They have been studied using various techniques, and through the years their ailment has been blamed on various causes. But one thing never varies: all sociopaths share three common characteristics. They are all very egocentric individuals with no empathy for others, and they are incapable of feeling remorse or guilt. [The Sociopath Rebecca Horton (April 1999)]

Mentally ill or unstable who has a poorly balanced personality and does not feel guilty about not living up to normal moral social responsibilities.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: lorne who wrote (121744)1/14/2012 6:51:45 PM
3 Recommendations   of 210267
This is the ultimate and perfect description of Obama from your link:

How Psychopaths View The World

Not only do they covet possessions and power, but they gain special pleasure in usurping and taking from others (a symbolic sibling, for example); what they can plagiarize, swindle, and extort are fruits far sweeter than those they can earn through honest labor.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.