Says alot of truth really; but still, nonetheless, quite offensive. 😯
How is it, that Liberals can threaten to kill a White Conservative President and it is really no big deal. However, if someone simply mocks a black Democrat; who just happens to be the President, it is a major scandal? How does that work? Really, how does that work? 🙄
Just an example of the sick world we live into today.
This is your last chance. If you blow this, I’m out and you need to be destroyed.
What is it? Repeal ObamaCare on Day 1. Don’t worry about replace, don’t worry about anything else. We will do everything we have to drag your sorry asses over the line this fall, including electing Mitt Fucking Romney.
In return this is what you will do:
Instead of adjourning for pictures and tea and cake to celebrate getting your pathetic asses elected to 2 or 6 years on the government teet, you will immediately pass a one line bill that says, “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and whatever statute number has to be included) is hereby repealed.”
That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Since Congress meets before Inauguration Day, Obama will still be President. Simply hold the legislation at the desk so the 10 day pocket veto clock doesn’t start. If other parliamentary BS is needed, just do it.
Then as soon as Mitt takes the oath of office, before his speech no one will care or remember, walk the bill up to him at the podium to sign.
If this does not happen, the GOP must be destroyed and a new party built to replace it. We’ve tried the carrot approach (votes, money, volunteers) to change your behavior. Now it’s time to show you the stick.
No more, “oh the other guys are worse” scare tactics. That might be true but it doesn’t mean you are any good.
This is your one job, do it or join the Whig Party in the dustbin of history.
I have to say that I do agree with all of the above. This is what happens when Conservatives and Republican settle for what they can get, instead of what they want to elect. I will say this, as the resident skeptical libertarian of the Blogosphere; if you all think that Mittens is going to rip out Obamacare, you are going to be in for a huge let down. Moderates always settle and compromise, they never take a stand, ever.
As I wrote earlier; from now until election day, is going to be very interesting.
Now for what I think: I believe this to be the biggest set back in American freedom since the McCarthy hearings and the red scare of the 1950’s. I guess I should not surprised, the this out of control federal behemoth that we call Government has always valued the idea of a tax on the American people. I will comment on one thing that I read over at the Weekly Standard, that I linked to above:
It is understandable why President Obama has no interest in framing this election as a referendum on Obamacare. His party already suffered perhaps its worst defeat since the 19th century thanks to his centerpiece legislation. With the Supreme Court’s ruling now behind him, he will have even less incentive to remind voters about Obamacare going forward. As far as he’s concerned, the less the American people think about it, the better.
This means, of course, that the more they think about it, the better it will be for Mitt Romney. It also means (of course) that Romney should encourage them to think about it, reminding them at every turn that this election isn’t merely — or even principally — about the economy; that it’s about something bigger; that we need to repeal Obamacare and replace it with real reform. And he should convey to them what real reform would look like, thereby bringing into the fold those independents who don’t want to go back to the pre-Obamacare status quo. He should start playing to win people’s votes, instead of merely trying not to lose them.
Yes, the fate of Obamacare will be the most important outcome of this election. On some level, the American people know this. There’s a reason why Romney gets standing ovations simply for mentioning repeal.
The question is whether either candidate will convey that he knows what this election is really about. Obama can’t say it’s about Obamacare — even though that’s what he considers it to be about — because he’ll lose if he does. Romney so far hasn’t said it’s about Obamacare — perhaps because that’s not what he considers it to be about — even though he’ll likely win if he does.
Regardless, the Court has cleared the field. The stakes are historic. The citizenry will decide.
Yes, and you can bet that Barack Obama will have a army of lawyers to make sure that he remains President too. In fact, that is just what the Boston Globe is reporting:
OLYMPIA, Wash.—President Barack Obama’s campaign has recruited a legion of lawyers to be on standby for this year’s election as legal disputes surrounding the voting process escalate.
Thousands of attorneys and support staffers have agreed to aid in the effort, providing a mass of legal support that appears to be unrivaled by Republicans or precedent. Obama’s campaign says it is particularly concerned about the implementation of new voter ID laws across the country, the possibility of anti-fraud activists challenging legitimate voters and the handling of voter registrations in the most competitive states.
Republicans are building their own legal teams for the election. They say they’re focused on preventing fraud — making sure people don’t vote unless they’re eligible — rather than turning away qualified voters.
Since the disputed 2000 presidential election, both parties have increasingly concentrated on building legal teams — including high-priced lawyers who are well-known in political circles — for the Election Day run-up. The Bush-Gore election demonstrated to both sides the importance of every vote and the fact that the rules for voting and counting might actually determine the outcome. The Florida count in 2000 was decided by just 537 votes and ultimately landed in the Supreme Court.
This year in that state alone, Obama and his Democratic allies are poised to have thousands of lawyers ready for the election and hope to have more than the 5,800 attorneys available four years ago. That figure was nearly twice the 3,200 lawyers the Democrats had at their disposal in 2004.
Romney has been organizing his own legal help for the election. Campaign attorney Ben Ginsberg did not provide numbers but said the campaign has been gratified by the “overwhelming number of attorneys who have volunteered to assist.”
“We will have enough lawyers to handle all situations that arise,” he said.
The GOP doesn’t necessarily need to have a numerical counterweight to Obama’s attorneys; the 2000 election showed that experienced, connected lawyers on either side can be effective in court.
Believe me when I tell you; President Barack Obama and the left have been emboldened by this decision and they will stop at nothing to remain in power. Furthermore, the President knows that if he is to protect Obamacare and everything else he and Congress have worked for; they will have to win the election. So, if you all think that Obama and Co. are just going to let White America, which, by proxy will be represented by Mitt Romney —- roll over them and defeat them, you are crazy. They are now going to be emboldened to, in figurative sense — of course — fight to the death to protect everything that they have worked for in the last 3 years.
Putting it in “Southwest Detroit ghetto” terms: things just got very real. The Republicans must know, the kiddie stuff just ended, and now the real fight is now underway. From today, till election day is going to be a bare knuckle brawl. I just hope that the right; bloggers, writers, news people and the politicos know what they are in for. I also hope they know how to fight it, without getting overly stupid and letting their words and actions get them into trouble. This is not 1957 and if they fight like it is, they will lose and lose badly.
Needless to say, it is going to be a very interesting next couple of months.
Just in case you are not inclined to watch the video, here’s what she said:
“Americans of course responded in very typically American ways to [terrorism], something that many people in the rest of the world had already experienced. We began with a kind of nationalist fervor that was justified as reasonable patriotism.”
“I’d like to point out that we clearly must have been having post-traumatic stress disorder because for about a year after September 11th, there were African-American men walking around the city of New York with N.Y.P.D hats on– that can only be explained as a P.T.S.D. response.”
“The other thing that happens in that moment, I don’t want to miss this, is that a new version of what America typically needs emerge, and that is a racial enemy. Americans in part identify who we are, and who deserves what, through our notions of whiteness and of the racial enemies that are the non-whites.“
“And in this moment, the new racial enemy became not so much Reagan‘s ’welfare queen,’ who was imaginary, but instead this imagined other that is somehow Muslim, or Arab, or Sikh, or something else.”
“We became willing to stomach a kind of horrific racial violence in the name of national security. It is something that we have been willing to stomach as a people over and over again in our history.”
“The Patriot Act was not an act of a Republican president acting alone. The Patriot Act was a bipartisan decision by both parties. It was not bought and paid for by corporations; it was bought and paid for by our fear.”
You see folks, this is why I do not vote for Democrats any longer. I was one of the many who were traumatized by the images of 9/11, which ran continuously; which almost drove me to suicide. For this BITCH to insinuate that I am some how a racist, because I still hold some very deep convictions about 9/11 and those who were responsible for it — is a grievous insult to those who died on that terrible day. This woman should be fucking fired from her job. She just shit on the graves of those who perished that day and just spit in the faces of those who lived through that horrible event.
Unbelievable — just damn unbelievable.
UPDATE: I came back to this posting, because I knew I could do better. I figured some serial complainer would bring up the fact that I even mentioned that this woman was black. Okay, so I removed that — but how is it that this sort of disgusting sort of racism towards whites is even remotely tolerated in public discourse? I mean, if a white man had gotten up and said something similar about blacks or Latinos — or yes, even Jews — this person would be derided as a racist or antisemitic. But, yet, this woman, who happens to be black, can spout this sort of idiotic nonsense and it is just perfectly okay. My friends, something is wrong with this damned Country and I mean in a big way. I predict that 30 years from now, if the socialists continue the way they are going — people will be saying that America actually deserved the 9/11 attacks and that White Christians were the true cause of those attacks. Oh wait, they already do. 😡 I’m sorry, but this one gets me fighting mad. 😡 😡 😡
To which one can only reply, “Why the hell didn’t you do it?
Talk is cheap. If Pelosi’s Congress had actually pursued charges against the very real criminality in the Bush White House and had Rove’s pudgy ass frogmarched down Capitol Hill, it might have made the thieves and scoundrels think twice before embarking on their next caper. And even if it didn’t stop the GOPers, it would have at least made clear Democrats were as willing to fight as hard against the GOP agenda as the left did to put them into a majority.
That they didn’t is at least partly why they’re struggling right now to recapture the enthusiasm of the base.
I have to give the woman credit, when she is right — she is right. The no-nothing Democrats, during Bush’s term is why there was a good deal of lackluster support of the Democrats, during the era of Bush. This is why Obama shot forward, because the Democrats knew that if they did not pick someone like Obama, that they would lose to the Republican again in another election. This is sort of the problem that they have right now; just like during the Clinton era — their President is in trouble and the bench is empty. Except, back then they did have Gore, and Edwards and Hillary and Kerry. Now…. they have nobody at all.
It should be a lesson to them, overreach, when it suits your own political interests is never, ever a good idea. Yes, I know the Republicans have done it too and they paid for it in elections too. Now, it is the Democrats turn. I predict that this election coming in 2012 is going to be a wake up call for the Progressive community and to the Democratic Party. They are going to have to make some tough decisions about the future of that party. Because America is not happy with them, neither is their base. The old way of doing things in that Party is not going to work anymore. They need new ideas. The Democratic Party needs to come back to center and start over. This far-leftist way of doing things as failed and failed badly.
It is time for that party to change, and quickly, before that party is relegated to the dustbin of history.
Rep. Darrell Issa pressed ahead with a committee vote Wednesday to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, despite an eleventh-hour move by President Obama to assert executive privilege over the Fast and Furious documents at the heart of the dispute.
The announcement touched off a caustic debate on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that lasted well into the afternoon, as Democrats accused Issa of prosecuting a “political witch hunt” and Republicans stepped up their criticism of Holder’s “stonewalling” over the Fast and Furious probe. Even for Washington, the tone at the hearing was decidedly bitter and accusatory.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was first informed of the president’s decision to assert executive privilege in a letter Wednesday morning, shortly before the contempt vote was scheduled.
Issa said committee staff are evaluating the letter but described the move as too little, too late as he and other GOP lawmakers questioned the basis for the assertion.
“This untimely assertion by the Justice Department falls short of any reason to delay today’s proceedings,” Issa said.
Pelosi sounded off on the ordeal ahead of the committee vote.
“This is just strictly political,” she said. “It’s just the irresponsibility of the Republicans. We want jobs. Why are they spending this time doing this?”
The Democratic leader also took a shot at Issa for abusing the process of holding an official in contempt.
“‘Loose cannon’ would sort of be like such a compliment to Darrell Issa. ‘Loose cannon’ would be a moderate phrase. This is an explosive device,” she said. “It doesn’t serve our country, and it undermines the true purpose of contempt of Congress.”
“That’s why I didn’t arrest Karl Rove when I had the chance.”
A House panel voted Wednesday to place Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for his failure to comply with a subpoena, defying an assertion of executive privilege from President Obama.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by Republican Chairman Darrell Issa (Calif.), approved a resolution along party lines to place Holder in contempt after battling him for months over access to internal agency documents about the gun-tracking operation Fast and Furious.
The vote came after Obama escalated the conflict by sending a letter to the committee claiming executive privilege over the documents that the panel had sought.
All 23 Republicans on the committee voted for the contempt resolution, while all 17 Democrats voted against it. Every member of the panel was present for the vote.
If the House committee actually cites Holder for criminal contempt, it would require House Speaker John A. Boehner to schedule a vote. If passed by the full House, the matter would then wind up in the hands of the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald C. Machen Jr.
President George W. Bush asserted executive privilege six times during his terms of office while President Bill Clinton did so 14 times. This would be the first time for President Obama.
…..and now, President Obama is doing the same very thing. Seems there is something to that whole, “New Boss, same as the old boss” thing eh? I think so and I am sure many of my libertarian friends agree with that too. As you can tell, I was not a fan of Bush and I am really not a fan of this President either.
I was going to try avoid writing about this, but I am seeing some rather silly stuff being written about this win; So, I thought I would offer my thoughts as a former Democratic Party voter. Update:Greg Sargent over at The Washington Post hits the post a bit, but fails, as most progressives do; to see the full picture.
Putting it plain and simple, The Democrats in Wisconsin picked a fight that they could not win. — They were outspent, out-organized, and out-boxed; the Democrats had zero chance of winning this recall election at all. But yet, they still decided to fight for a recall election. They should have taken their cues from Michigan and left well enough alone. The Democrats in Michigan tried unsuccessfully to get Governor Snyder recalled here twice and both times they failed horribly. This is because residents of Michigan knew that the former Governor of Michigan was a incompetent moron who could not Govern worth a damn and they did not want a Democrat back in office again. Thus, the Democrats wisely dropped the issue and decided to try and win the 2012 election. Wisconsin should have followed their lead, but they did not and decided to try and force their hand and failed.
Walker crushed his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, in the political money wars. The governor raised $30.5 million while Barrett pulled in $3.9 million—a nearly 8-to-1 advantage in candidate fundraising. Walker banked on in- and out-of-state donors, including heavyweight GOP contributors such as Houston homebuilder Bob Perry and Amway heir Dick Devos. Walker was able to raise so much money because of a quirk in state law that lets candidates potentially facing a recall raise unlimited funds for their defense. (The normal limit for individual donors in $10,000.) Barrett did not get to raise unlimited funds in his recall campaign—which placed him at a great disadvantage.
All that money helped Walker pound Barrett in the ad wars. An analysis by Hotline On Call found that Walker and his GOP allies outspent Barrett and his backers 3-to-1 on TV ad buys in the three months before Tuesday’s recall. The dark-money-peddling Republican Governors Association itself spent $9.4 million to keep Walker in office.
Just as the political money advantage proved crucial to labor’s win last year in repealing Ohio’s anti-union SB 5 law, campaign cash appears to have played a pivotal role in the GOP’s Wisconsin wins .
2) The Candidate
Filing nearly one million signatures to trigger a recall election, Democrats and union leaders and members had their sights trained on the governor. The recall election’s Democratic primary forced them to take their eyes off the prize. A primary fight between Barrett and former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk splintered the labor movement. The major unions endorsed Falk early on, sometimes over the opposition of their own rank-and-file. Several other unions held out until late March, when Barrett entered the race, and then endorsed the mayor. This primary drama knocked the anti-Walker effort off course for weeks, if not a month, in a race where every single day counts. It divided a unified movement into Barrett supporters and Falk supporters.
3) No New Ground
Democrats and labor unions touted their massive get-out-the-vote operation, which was supposed to tip the scales in their favor. Turn-out was way up in the elections, at 2.4 million, but the left failed to win over the types of people who elected Walker in 2010. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelnotes, Walker’s Tuesday win is a mirror image of his 2010 victory—just with more voters. He won men and lost women; won independents and lost moderates; and won suburban and rural voters but not urban voters.
More notably, Walker won 38 percent of votes from union households—an increase of 1 percent from 2010. Remember, union members or their spouses didn’t know in 2012 that Walker planned to target them after the election with his anti-union “budget repair” bill curbing collective bargaining rights. Yet 16 months after Walker launched his attack on unions, just as many people in union households voted for him. The unions failed to rally their own ranks.
My thoughts on the Unions — One of the main reasons why the unions failed; not because of a lack of members or money. The unions failed because for the following:
They over played their hand, by storming the capital building and occupying it. This made them look like total buffoons in the eyes of the people, not mention the heavy handed tactics that were on par with communist gulags.
The second reason is a rather simple one; not all union members are on board with the progressive movement, just because someone has a union card, does not necessarily make him a Democrat. Some union members are free thinkers and some of them resent being culled in together with the socialist crowd.
The last reason is this; some union members are just not happy with the Democratic Party and with Obama. I believe Obama fatigue played a big part in the loss in Wisconsin. I believe it will also play out in November as well.
Needless to say, Scott Walker won big and the Unions and Democrats lost big. The results of this will be far-reaching and the Democrats in Wisconsin would be wise to lay low and try to hang on in 2012. But if they do not, they should learn the lessons of the massive over-reach that took place in Wisconsin and with the Democratic Party as a whole. However, knowing Democrats like I do; they will not learn a thing from this.
(CNSNews.com) – The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which took office in January 2011, has enacted federal spending bills under which the national debt has increased more in less than one term of Congress than in the first 97 Congresses combined.
In the fifteen months that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives–led by Speaker John Boehner–has effectively enjoyed a constitutional veto over federal spending, the federal government’s debt has increased by about $1.59 trillion.
You really cannot blame all of them; John Boehner is the leader of the house and he is constantly caving to the left on important issues like this one here.
Let’s look at the party that is in control of the house and see just how responsible they really are, shall we?
When Boehner became speaker on Jan. 5, 2011, the federal government was operating under a continuing resolution that had been passed on Dec. 21, 2010 by a lame-duck Congress. That CR expired on March 4, 2011.
On March 1, 2011, Boehner agreed to a new short-term spending deal with President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to keep the government running past the March 4, 2011 expiration of the old CR. Since March 4, 2011, federal expenditures have been carried out under a series of CRs approved by both the Republican-controlled House and the Democrat-controlled Senate and signed into law by President Obama.
At the close of business on March 4, 2011, the total federal debt was $14,182,627,184,881.03, according to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. At the close of business on May 31, 2012, it was 15,770,685,085,364.14. That is an increase of $1,588,057,900,483.11—in just 15 months.
All of the debt accumulated by the federal government throughout the history of the country did not exceed $1.588 trillion until October 1984.
Under the Republican-controlled House, the federal debt has been increasing at an average pace of about $105.9 billion per month.
Remember that Tea Party that I blogged about, went to bat for and supported? Remember all of the promises by the Republican Party to listen to that gathering of Americans fed up with DC? All of that, as far as this writer is concerned was nothing more than a bad joke and a horrible one at that. The Republican Party had no intentions of changing their ways at all. The Republican Party saw an organic. populist-type movement of the people, capitalized on it, whenever they could; and proceeded to put forth a moderate candidate and continue on with business as usual.
I have written this before and it is the honest truth; if these Republicans and Tea Party people believe that Mitt Romney is going to shrink the size and scope of Government one lousy iota; they are going to be in for a very horrible surprise. If these same Republicans and Tea Party people think that Mitt Romney will revoke “Obamacare” they are going to be in for a big, shocking surprise. Mitt Romney, like Obama; as the Democrats have found out, is a moderate and moderates never do anything ever that will change the course of history, ever.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
