B-Man
-
Posts
68,404 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by B-Man
-
-
Who’s Secretive?
I don’t envy Barack Obama’s campaign advisers. Every day, they have to invent some new distraction to avoid talking about his record in office. It is only July, and already they are running low on irrelevancies. This week David Axelrod offered the opinion that Mitt Romney is the “most secretive candidate since Richard Nixon.”
Was Nixon a secretive candidate? Not that I recall. It was John Kennedy, not Nixon, who kept secret a serious medical condition (Addison’s disease) that almost certainly would have cost him the election had it become known. And, of course, it was Kennedy, not Nixon, who carried out endless secret dalliances both on the campaign trail and while in office. But let’s compare Nixon with Obama: Nixon didn’t publish a fictional memoir in his thirties to create an essentially false identity for himself. How secretive is that?
The litany of Obama’s non-disclosures is familiar. Unlike other recent presidential candidates, to cite just one example, Obama has kept his college and law school records under wraps. But that is relatively trivial. It seems to me that another instance of Obama’s secretiveness is much more significant: his refusal to release his medical records. Almost all major party nominees in modern election cycles have made their medical records public. (Bill Clinton is the notable exception.) Mitt Romney has said that he will release his. Yet in 2008, Obama did not make public any medical records at all; instead, he produced a one-page letter from a doctor to the effect that he is in good health.
I don’t doubt that Obama is in good physical health. He is a young man who golfs frequently and boasts about his prowess on the basketball court. So why does he, almost uniquely among modern presidential candidates, insist on keeping his medical records secret? There are obvious possible explanations, which hardly need to be spelled out. In his book The Amateur, Ed Klein recounts that after Obama lost a primary race to Bobby Rush in 2000, Michelle threatened to divorce him, and Obama was so depressed that friends feared he might be suicidal. Do Obama’s medical records contain references to this incident? Or perhaps to other occasions when he has been diagnosed or received treatment for depression?
This is pure speculation. Yet we know there is some powerful reason why Obama does not want voters to learn his medical history. What is it? A president’s mental health is critically important, and I have always found it remarkable that reporters show no curiosity about what drives Obama to keep his medical history secret, contrary to the practice of nearly every other presidential nominee. Perhaps the Obama campaign’s claim that Mitt Romney is the most secretive candidate since Nixon will be the occasion on which journalists finally ask: Mr. President, since you are so offended by secrecy, why can’t we see your medical records?
-
As you are no doubt aware from reading Obama/DNC handouts (and their stenographers in the media)
Any cuts, to any federal or state program, will only effect teachers, fireman and police.
.
-
Of course the economy is not his fault, it's Bush's.
However if the poor economy is Bush's fault than logic would dictate that the slow recovery is Obama's fault? Or is that Bush's fault too.
Majority of voters believe Obama has changed country for worseTwo-thirds of likely voters say President Obama has kept his 2008 campaign promise to change America — but it’s changed for the worse, according to a sizable majority.
A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama’s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership.
The results signal broad voter unease with the direction the nation has taken under Obama’s leadership and present a major challenge for the incumbent Democrat as he seeks reelection this fall.
Conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, the poll comes in the wake of last month’s Supreme Court decision that upheld the primary elements of Obama’s signature healthcare legislation.
.
-
Hmmmmm.
A desperate cry for attention, using standard liberal cliches, or a troll also seeking replies.
Okay Park, here's a response for you.
There won't be another.
.
-
While I don't disagree with the posters here who have remarked about our decreased work ethic,
there would also be a huge difference from the thirties with todays "projects" due to the vast overreach of the government today.
You can't put up the smallest structure without jumping through the hoops of multiple,repetitive regulations, environmental studies, lawsuits, hiring requirements, and just, plain old opposition.
Good luck to anyone trying to buck that, ironically enough, even the Feds would have trouble with it.
.
-
Sorry to interrupt EiI's self exam, but back in Obama's America ....................on the campaign trail,
Obama: Most People "Would Acknowledge That I've Tried Real Hard"yeah, that's what we want from a "leader"
also note, its always about him.
.
-
Slavery Good!
Bush Good!
Obama Bad!
DING! My HotPocket is ready!
The same tired "good/bad" response again.............
Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
.
-
And it only takes between 150,000 and 200,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with population growth.
We're on the right track!!!!
"evolving" = spin... throw it all together and see what the public will buy. Heck, I'm convinced that's what the current PBO bus tour is all about. His campaign is still trying to throw crap at the wall to find out what sticks...
"Betting on America" bus tour and
Obama: Jobs report 'step in the right direction'
This is their A-Team ?
It was a little easier when the whole country was tired of Bush and you didnt have to really do or say much to the fawning media.....wasn't it?
.
-
Which article or which source ?
it really is not the point.
More people went on disability than got a job in June
thats the point.
.
The economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. But that same month, 85,000 workers left the workforce entirely to enroll in the Social Security Disability Insurance program, according to the Social Security Administration..
-
Your daughter does impressions?
Does she tell jokes too?
Funny, I had no sooner entered that when I thought that I had left myself open with my wording.
Prosecutor: Dr. Stone, would you give the court your impression of Mr. Striker?Dr. Stone: I'm sorry, I don't do impressions... my training is in psychiatry.
.
-
Obama's America....................
Broader Jobless Rate Ticks Up to 14.9%.
Just 80,000 jobs added in June...
780,000 More Women Unemployed Today Than When Obama Took Office
On a personal note, my daughter is presently in row 10, listening to our President speak in Pittsburgh..........She will call me with her impression.
.
-
To summarize: Brad Pitt's mom has an opinion.
That's news?
I agree, its not much.
But, if Brad Pitt"s mom was the "New Face of Terror"
now you got something.............................................................
.
-
Yeah it's the author's fault that woman's own words and voting record make her out to be a biogoted, Christian-elitist dumbass.
Must be a page out of the O'Reilly Culture Warrior's playbook: when another warrior's been exposed and is going down, distract, distract, distract!
For all your Judeo-Christian "ethicists", here's the same story from The New Republic, known to be popular within the Jewish-American community: Link
No, try and concentrate Joe.
Rep. Hodges is responsible for her actions,
and the author IS responsible for inserting their own anti-Christian bigotry into the article.
as are you.
.
-
Lol!
I know right, because I have an obligation to discuss things in a fashion that obliges the slant.
Thanks for that.
Discuss the politics or the merits or get the !@#$ out the thread. I've already acknowledged that I don't like the guy.
What does that have to do with an article that is substantiated by offical documents written by someone who is not me?
Leave the ad hominems elsewhere or just politely ignore the thread.
What a hoot you are.
How can I go on knowing that I'm not following the "thread rules"..........................
Look, if you're going to play the fool, all I ask is that you start lamenting about how hard it is for you to support President Obama and post a "substantiated" article critical of him also
Equal time.
.
-
My whole issue is about the judgment of someone who would invest is something of that nature that he claimed to be so philosophically antithetical towards.
He is facilitating a process that he claims to be against.
It just seems to clash in so many respects.
There is, of course, no end of examples of this behavior in the present administration,
perhaps your "Hamlet" threads would carry a little more believability, if we could see one that wasn't about Mitt.
.
-
-
-
Broken link. You've got an extra http://
Thanks /dev/null, I fixed it.
the hell with my posting skills too..........................lol
.
-
the hell with these guys too.
Occupy Movement Set to Ruin July 4 for Philly’s 99 Percent
.........and a good link too.
.
-
I think this is less about heath care and more about control. They could care a less if there is a efficient, effective plan. Problem is it's not the democrats plan and most of all, it's a free market plan. We can't have that.
Maybe its just the "4th of July" talking but,
Yes,........................We the People ............can have control back.
.
-
A Choice, Not a Whine
By DAVID BROOKS
Hostility toward the Supreme Court has risen sharply since Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. upheld the Obama health care law. People are apparently angry that the court didn’t rid them of a law they detest. But that’s silly. If Americans want to replace this thing, they should do it themselves.
The case against Obamacare is pretty straightforward. In the first place, the law centralizes power. Representative Tom Price, a Republican of Georgia, counted 159 new federal offices, boards and councils, though nonpartisan researchers have had trouble reaching an exact tally. In the first six months after passage alone, federal officials churned out an awesome 4,103 pages of regulations.
The law also creates the sort of complex structures that inevitably produce unintended consequences. The most commonly discussed perverse result is that millions of Americans will lose their current health insurance.
A report by the House Ways and Means Committee found that 71 of the Fortune 100 companies have an incentive to drop coverage. But nobody really knows what’s going to happen. A Congressional Budget Office study this year estimated that 20 million could lose coverage under the law or perhaps 3 million could gain employer coverage. Or the number could be inside or outside the range.
There are other possible perverse effects. According to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services, over the next 75 years Medicare payment rates for inpatient hospital services would steadily fall from around 67 percent of private insurance payment rates to an implausibly low 39 percent. Doctors would either flee the program in droves or Congress would override the law, exploding the costs.
Another report from the department suggests there could be 84 million Americans on Medicaid, an astounding burden on that already stretched system.
The law threatens to do all this without even fixing the underlying structures that make the American health care system so inefficient. It fails to fix the fee-for-service system that rewards people for the volume of services provided. It fails to fix the employer tax exemption that hides costs and encourages overspending.
Critics of the bill shouldn’t be hating on Chief Justice Roberts. If they can’t make this case to the voters, they really shouldn’t be in public life.
Moreover, there are alternatives. Despite what you’ve read, there is a coherent Republican plan. The best encapsulation of that approach is found in the National Affairs essay,"How To Replace Obamacare" by James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit.
Capretta and Moffit lay out the basic Republican principles: First, patients should have skin in the game. If they are going to request endless tests or elaborate procedures, they should bear a real share of the cost. Instead of relying on the current tax exemption that hides costs, the Republican plans would offer people a tax credit for use to purchase the insurance plan that suits their needs. The tax credit could phase out for the wealthy. Employees of small business who aren’t covered now would see an immediate benefit, which they could take from job to job.
{snip} (5 more points follow in the article.)
Capretta and Moffit have more details (at the link). Their plan is flexible, decentralized and compelling.
Republicans say they trust the people. If that’s true, then they won’t waste another futile breath bashing the court for upholding Obamacare. They’ll explicitly tell the country how they would replace it. Democracy is a contest between alternatives, not a deus ex machina stroke from the lords in black robes.
.
-
Supreme Court didn't agree with Obama
Last Thursday, President Obama walked before the cameras and said, "Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act— the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. In doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America — in the wealthiest nation on earth — no illness or accident should lead to any family's financial ruin."
A bit later, Obama added, "Today, the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance."
The casual listener might take Obama to be saying that the Supreme Court agrees with him and that the ruling was a ringing endorsement of what Obama takes to be the core "principles" of ObamaCare.
But that's not the case, at all.
The dissenting opinion written by four justices found the whole thing to be an affront to the Constitution. And the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the law is constitutional for reasons the president — a famous teacher of the Constitution — passionately rejected.
"You reject that it's a tax increase?" George Stephanopoulos asked the president in a now legendary interview in 2009. "I absolutely reject that notion," replied Obama.
In Roberts' words
Obama might respond that regardless of how they got there, the justices did affirm the principles of ObamaCare. Nope. "We do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies," Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority. "That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders." And again, Roberts writes of ObamaCare: "It is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."
This was Justice Roberts' diplomatic way of paraphrasing Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous defense of judicial restraint: "If my fellow citizens want to go to hell, I will help them. It's my job."
No doubt, Obama is delighted with the court's decision. The court might have repudiated the president's own opinions, but as a political matter there's little doubt Obama welcomes such repudiation.
Still, it's telling that Obama's fraudulent claim that the Supreme Court agrees with him is not so unusual. The president has a well-known habit of insisting that not only is he right, but also that all smart people agree with him.
.
-
Well at least the administration has a plan..........................................lol
Obama campaign fundraising off heat wave?President Obama’s campaign has issued increasingly urgent fundraising pleas, and the latest appears to capitalize on the record heat sweeping through the mid-Atlantic and Midwest.
“Keep cool while you’re canvassing this summer,” the Obama campaign tweeted Saturday evening. The message contained a link to a $30 Obama tank top. “Our Vote Obama Tank Top is a stylish and fun way to show your support,” the campaign says.
The campaign was pushing the tank tops as record heat combined with a loss of power following storms to create a humanitarian emergency in several states.
.
-
WSJ Blasphemes against 1/3 of Democratic Sacred Trinity
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
You (purposely ?) misunderstand.
No one is saying all firemen and policemen are dems,
but the democrat party, supported by their unions, drag the poor workers in to block ANY cuts in government spending.
.