B-Man
-
Posts
68,398 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by B-Man
-
-
President Obama's jobs panel missing in action
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 7/18/12
President Barack Obama’s Jobs Council hasn’t met publicly for six months, even as the issue of job creation dominates the 2012 election.
Carney On Why Jobs Council Hasn't Met In Six Months: Obama Has "A Lot On His Plate"Romney Pounces on Six-Month Lapse in Obama Jobs Council MeetingsThe GOP candidate thanks small-business owners for supportive signs that may have come from his campaign.
By Sarah Huisenga
July 18, 2012 | 5:41 p.m.
BOWLING GREEN, Ohio – A fired-up Mitt Romney enlisted small-business owners at a town hall on Wednesday in his reenergized offensive against President Obama, arguing that Obama is so disinterested in job creation that he hasn’t met with his jobs council for six months.
“You know what he's been doing over the last six months?" Romney asked in a crowded gymnasium at a community center here. “In the last six months he has held 100 fundraisers. And guess how many meetings he has had with his jobs council? None. Zero. Zero in the last six months.”
-
So he shouldn't release his tax returns (like everyone else), becuase they would be too hard for everyone to understand?
Good Lord !
He has released them, but those who wish to distract, are asking for more.
They (laughingly) chose twelve years because thats what his father did in 1968.
.
-
-
Did you read the article you posted ?
It certainly doesnt support your thread title.
Fool.
.
-
Is it any wonder you carry Obama's water. You guys are tighter'n two fingers up a pig's nose.
Heh..........reminds me of the pigeon quote.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious."
.
-
There were several sites talking about the coincidence two days ago, Limbaugh was merely parroting that today.
As Tom said it is simply entertainment, that no one really takes seriously.
.
-
Romney Punches Back Twice As Hard.
“President Obama attacks success and therefore under Obama we have less success, and I will change that. . . . I don’t think that anyone could have said what he said, who had actually started a business. . . . I find it extraordinary that a philosophy of that nature would be spoken by a President of the United States.”.
-
! sdrawkcab s'ti won ,on hO
-
"
(And why is my post in bold?)
Well..........it was a heck of a post Tom.
apparently, so was mine....lol
-
Nothing at all!
His bailout of Detroit was a disaster! I'm sure you all will tell me how and why it was
U.S. taxpayers to ultimately lose more than $20 billion on the Detroit auto bailoutWhat a success ! ! !
Personally, I coukld have done it for 15 Billion.............................lol
-
-
B-Man is retarded by the way as always.
I'm sorry that you feel so.
It seems that if you start a thread lamenting a party line vote on a (campaign year) bill, that perhaps you would like an informed article describing how the bill came about and how it is not well-written.
Here is the author's bio, by the way. He certainly doesn't know as much about the subject as you and I
Bradley A. Smith is a professor of law at Capital University, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, and a former chairman of the Federal Election CommissionNo. You apparently just want posters to respond with....."yeah, both sides suck"
No problem.
.
-
Axelrod: Unlike Romney, Obama Doesn’t Use Tax Shelters
At the verrry end of this Washington Times piece we see this:
Mr. Axelrod also hit Mr. Romney hard on taxes, pointing out that the United States loses $100 billion a year to offshore tax havens such as Switzerland.
“We know Gov. Romney takes advantage of these,” he said. “I’m not suggesting that he’s done anything illegal, but what I am suggesting is that he’s taking advantage of every loophole.”
“The president could do those things, but he doesn’t do those things,” Mr. Axelrod added
April 13, 2012: Obama Sets Up Tax Shelter for His Kids:
President Obama and his wife, Michele, gave a total of $48,000 in tax-free gifts to their daughters, according to tax records made public on Friday.
The president and his wife separately gave each daughter a $12,000 gift under a section of the federal tax code that exempts such donations from federal taxes.
There is nothing illegal about the president’s taking advantage of this tax shelter, but it does raise eyebrows given that he has lamented the myriad tax exemptions used by the wealthy—“millionaires and billionaires” like himself—to pay less in taxes.
Time for Axerod to raise his own eyebrows!
-
There is ALWAYS a recovery after each of the U.S. recessions.
Mr Obama's economic policies delayed our recovery, which makes his constant claim of saving us, all the more pathetic.
.
-
I agree that Romney is waiting for the debates but disagree about Romney pushing for Obama's records
He won't "push" for their release, but it should be brought up in response to the continuing drumbeat of the sycophant press for release of moe tax records by Gov. Romney.
He doesnt legally have to release anything, so he should respond "I have released the last two years of my tax returns, and I find it hypocritical of the Obama campaign to call for more when they will not release Mr. Obama's records"
Short and sweet.
.
-
Image of Bank of America Stadium
So are we getting out the giant drapes ? ?
Perhaps a huge poster of "the One" to cover up the "offending" words ?
These actions certainly demonstrate what the dems think of their follower's intelligence.
.
-
DISCLOSE Is a SHAM:A proposed campaign-finance law attempts to scare and regulate opponents into silence.
By Bradley A. Smith
It’s an election year, and incumbents are nervous. And so, in a classic sign of political weakness, Senate Democrats have scheduled a vote on legislation that would manipulate campaign-finance laws to silence their opponents.
Their weapon is the “DISCLOSE Act,” a gimmicky acronym for “Democracy Is Served by Casting Light on Spending in Elections.” Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass various versions of the bill since the winter of 2010, when Republican Scott Brown’s stunning victory in the special election to succeed the late Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts revealed the unpopularity of Obamacare and the Democratic agenda.
Despite claims that the bill would merely inform the public about campaign spending, DISCLOSE originally would have prohibited large amounts of speech, and not just about candidates. Senate Democrats failed to break a Republican filibuster on this first version by one vote in 2010, and their majority has shrunk since then. But they haven’t given up, and while they haven’t passed a budget in over three years, they have scheduled a cloture vote (i.e., the vote needed to break a filibuster) on a new version of DISCLOSE for Monday.
In an implicit admission of the true scope of the original DISCLOSE bill, we are assured that the new bill has been stripped of all the 2010 bill’s provisions that had nothing to do with disclosure.
If the bill has been stripped of its non-disclosure provisions, why should anyone be opposed to it? First, because DISCLOSE attempts to scare and regulate people into remaining silent. Second, because this is clearly being done for partisan purposes. And third, because we already have more campaign-finance disclosure than ever before, and more disclosure is simply unnecessary.
First, silence. As Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said when introducing the original bill in 2010, “the deterrent effect [of DISCLOSE] should not be underestimated.”
The bill’s real aim is to force trade associations and nonprofits to publicly name their donors. Such lists might be used by competing groups to poach members, or, more ominously, by government officials to threaten or retaliate against political opponents, or by interest groups to gin up boycotts and threats against the individual and corporate members of the groups.
.
-
Seems like Obama cares about America while Romney just cares about idiological free market principles that hurt the country. Imagine electing a president that only cared out Conservative free market ideology instead of our nation? Neither can I!
How fortunate for all of us then, that your premise that Mitt doesn't care about America, is laughably false.
No matter how it seems to you................
.
-
Minnesota: The Latest Shameful Attack on Voter ID
Hans von Spakovsky, July 16, 2012
The latest attack on voter ID is occurring in Minnesota, where on Tuesday, the state Supreme Court will hear a case filed by the League of Women Voters (LWV).
In League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie, the LWV is trying to convince the court to remove a referendum question from the November ballot. Its argument is that voters won’t be able to understand the ballot question.
This referendum was passed by the Minnesota legislature in April and would amend the state constitution to require all voters voting in person to “present valid government-issued photographic identification before receiving a ballot.” The amendment would also require absentee voters to be “subject to substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification.”
In Minnesota, once a constitutional referendum has been approved by the legislature, it has to be approved by the voters of the state. But unlike some states that simply put the entire constitutional amendment on the ballot, Minnesota puts a shorter summary of the referendum. There have been 213 prior ballot questions decided by Minnesota voters, and the legislature has typically provided voters with a single-sentence description. The legislature designated the ballot question for this constitutional amendment as:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?"
According to LWV, this ballot question is “so fundamentally unfair and misleading that it evades the constitutional requirement to submit the proposed constitutional amendment to a popular vote.” In other words, Minnesota voters are too dumb and ill-informed to understand a ballot question that says that it will amend the state constitution to require photo ID of all voters.
To no one’s great surprise in Minnesota, the ACORN-endorsed secretary of state, Mark Ritchie, who helped Al Franken pull the 2008 Senate race right out from under Norm Coleman, refused to file an answer to the lawsuit. That indicates that he agrees with the plaintiff and would no doubt like to lose the case (what is called collusive litigation in legal circles).
So the Minnesota legislature intervened in the case to defend the ballot referendum and hired a prominent Minnesota law firm, Winthrop & Weinstine, to protect the interests of the Minnesota legislature and, most importantly, the voters of Minnesota.
The legislature has pointed out that under both Minnesota law and longstanding precedent, the language of such a ballot question is solely and exclusively within the province and authority of the legislature. It would indeed be an unprecedented interference in the legislature’s prerogatives and a violation of separation of powers if the court intervened and either changed or eliminated the referendum question from the ballot.
What no doubt annoys the LWV and the other organizations that have joined the suit (such as the ACLU and Common Cause) is that they lost in the legislative process. This amendment was thoroughly debated and discussed by the duly elected representatives of the voters in three House committee hearings, four Senate committee hearings, one conference committee hearing, and numerous floor debates. Fourteen amendments were offered in the House and 15 in the Senate. But neither the LWV nor any of the other opponents of voter ID could make the case that there was anything wrong with this common-sense election reform.
The LWV, whose mission statement says that it works to promote the “active participation of citizens in government,” is trying to prevent the active participation of voters in government in Minnesota. The LWV does not want Minnesota voters to vote on this issue because they are afraid it will pass—polling shows that Americans overwhelmingly approve of voter ID. So the LWV is trying to stop the democratic process through litigation, a thoroughly anti-democratic action that strikes at the very idea of popular sovereignty.
The LWV should be ashamed that it is trying to suppress the vote of Minnesota citizens. Let’s hope the Minnesota Supreme Court is not taken in by this discreditable attempt to circumvent the democratic process
-
Boxer B-Man works tirelessly for the cause of Animal Farm, America
operating under his personal maxim,
“I will work harder"
.
-
Let them eat hope
By Gene Healy
After much soul searching, Barack Obama has figured out where his presidency has gone wrong -- and he shared it with CBS's Charlie Rose and viewers across the fruited plain Sunday morning.
"The mistake of my first term -- couple of years," the president allowed, "was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right." At times, Obama confessed, he'd forgotten that "the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times." He needed to do "more explaining, but also inspiring."
"Because hope is still there," the first lady added.
There you have it. Contemplating the policy wreckage that surrounds him, the president has concluded that what this country needs is a fresh injection of presidential hope. Like "more cowbell" in the old "Saturday Night Live" skit, it's the magic ingredient that makes everything better.
Obama considers himself a sophisticated and nuanced guy, so you wouldn't think his descent into self-parody would be so unsubtle.
Anyone else out there for the explanation that a lack of storytelling, explaining and inspirational speeches was the great sin of the Obama presidency? According to CBS's Mark Knoller, in his first two years in office, the president clocked 902 speeches and statements and gave 265 interviews. Anybody who talks that much runs the risk of saying too much. Case in point, this gem from the president's speech Friday in Roanoke: "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Inspiring!
To be fair, Obama didn't invent the juvenile notion of the president as inspirer in chief. But he has served as its reductio ad absurdum, relentlessly stoking irrational public expectations for presidential salvation, raising hopes that no human institution could possibly fulfill.
Some political scientists attribute declining presidential popularity to the "expectations gap" -- the vast distance between what the public expects of the president and what he can realistically deliver. No chief executive in modern memory has done more than the Yes We Can president to boost expectations and widen that gap. Obama seems oblivious to the fact that those irrational public expectations are a large part of his political problem.
-
I'll throw this in the "hollywood" thread;
Winning: Sheen Gives $1 Million-Plus to TroopsCharlie Sheen's latest headline-grabbing movie may be pure publicity stunt, but the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces likely won't mind a bit.
Sheen, the troubled sitcom star now appearing on "Anger Management," is steering some of his new salary to the USO, according to TMZ.
Sheen has pledged to give at least $1 million to the U.S.O (United Service Org.) ... the largest single contribution the USO has ever received from an individual.
Sheen says he will donate 1% of the profits from his "Anger Management" earnings ... with a minimum of $1 mil ... and an unlimited cap. So the more $ he makes from his show, the more $ goes to the USO....
Sheen also released a statement saying, "It’s an honor for me to be able to give back to these men and women of the military who have done so much for all of us."
.
-
another great episode. sure, it's biased. but progressives need an articulate, witty show
There's bias, and there is non-reality;
Two things have yet to happen in Sorkin’s portrayal of what an idealist’s pursuit of journalism would be via his new HBO series.
Number one, over the course of the season McAvoy (who is supposed to be the show's Republican character) has yet to express a single sentiment that even approaches the thinking of a moderate liberal, let alone a conservative or a Republican.
Number two, there hasn’t been a single substantive criticism of the President or the left whatsoever.
.
-
It Also Takes a Village to Build a Business
By Peter Kirsanow
July 16, 2012
While regaling supporters in Roanoke, Va., about the indispensability of government, Barack Obama uttered one of the more insulting phrases of his presidency:
“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
One of the president’s advisers may want to pull him aside and explain that most businesses in this country aren’t (yet) Solyndra.
Note to president Obama: The vast majority of business owners can claim more credit for building their respective businesses than you can claim credit for killing Osama bin Laden, yet they’re not constantly crowing about it. They’re too busy trying to comply with your administration’s mandates.
.
Who Do You Think Will Win The Presidential Election?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Dr. Charles Krauthammer on why Mitt Romney should not release more tax returns:
.