B-Man
-
Posts
69,610 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by B-Man
-
-
Someone is sabotaging the Senate bill ?..........................ANY requirement for improving border security it seems is too high to allow the amnesty bill go forward.....................................or since actual governing requires effort and playing politics comes effortlessly to the Won, maybe thats whats up.
Obama to oppose Senate bill’s border enforcement requirements in immigration speech todayI use the term “border enforcement requirements” loosely, of course.
I’m sticking with what I wrote yesterday, that Obama’s insistence on giving a big left-wing speech about immigration is really just a way to make the Senate bill look “moderate” by comparison. He has to walk a fine line in praising the bill to keep skittish Democrats on board while criticizing the enforcement parts so that skittish Republicans can sell it to their supporters as being “too conservative for Obama.” I think that’s what he’s up to today in Vegas, but you never know with The One. The urge to fatally polarize this issue by attacking Republicans in front of a microphone might simply be too great.
A friend in politics e-mailed last night with the subject line “HAHAHAHAHA” linking to this piece, which describes how Obama “does not favor linking legal status to border security,” i.e. that he wants to get work on citizenship for illegals ASAP. My friend’s take: “Obama either wants a bill to fail so that he can continue clubbing Republicans as intransigent, or he can’t help himself effing up the process.” C’mon. Could O really be so stupid as to refuse the GOP’s insane offer to add millions more Democratic voters to the rolls via a path to citizenship? We’re about to find out, my friends.
-
How in hell's name do you expect to get growth from the policies this f'n administration has pursued? Cash For Clunkers? Lending money to the next Solyndra? Funding union pensions? We would get more growth by showing fiscal responsibility, thus setting a new tone to the business owners that are hording their cash.
You didn't mention Obamacare and the other new regulations that are now starting this year that will continue to suppress economic growth.
.
-
More Krugman nonsense.
Krugman sees a "major rhetorical shift" from Romney's campaign to Bobby Jindal's recent speech.
Krugman's column is titled "Makers, Taker, Fakers." Here's one thing that seemed off to me:
Mr. Jindal posed the problem in a way that would, I believe, have been unthinkable for a leading Republican even a year ago.“We must not,” he declared, “be the party that simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys. We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive.”After a campaign in which Mitt Romney denounced any attempt to talk about class divisions as an “attack on success,” this represents a major rhetorical shift.There are 2 propositions: A. Those who are successful should be able to keep the fruits of their efforts, and B. All Americans should have the opportunity to work toward their own success.
Krugman comes close to saying Romney only said A and Jindal only says B.
But Romney continually said both things. His opponents worked constantly — and successfully — to make people feel that he was only saying A. And Jindal is also saying both things. That's the function of the word "simply."
Jindal — in the quoted sentence — isn't saying Romney only said A. He's talking about the way people think about the Republican Party, which is in A terms, because that's the way Democrats have successfully framed them. Jindal is saying the B frame is better political rhetoric.
Krugman goes on to explain why B rhetoric doesn't properly apply to what Jindal and the rest of the GOP are really doing. That is, he's continuing the process that was used so successfully in the campaign to defeat Romney — pushing A, obscuring B.
There is no major rhetorical shift. Not from Jindal and not from Krugman. Everyone is doing, rhetorically, what they've been doing all along.
.
-
Foolish article, foolish thread.
.
-
Will this keep out the Coloreds?
That's kind of weak, for you "B".
Unless you mean the Reds and Blues.............
.
-
An ABC News story entitled “Hot guns fueling crime, US study says” contains this enlightening piece of information:
Video surveillance cameras caught the masked burglars red-handed, stealing rifle after rifle. Police arrested the four men, and were able to recover the guns.But all too often, stolen weapons end up in the hands of criminals.How I long for the good old days when only law abiding citizens stole guns.
.
-
-
lol B-Man producing a stupid article on cue. If you think the citizens of Virginia would honestly think it would comply with basic fairness principles that in their state last year if Obama could win the majority of votes and come away a big electoral loser to Romney as a result of a structure put in place by a Republican legislature, then you can't imagine a Virginian thinking in nonpartisan terms.
You really come across as disorganized and childish.
You start a thread on a message board about an ill-conceived legislation to "get around" the electoral college, not just in Virginia, but other states. I supply an article from a well-known Law professor's blog, and instead of any reasoned response, we get your "that was stupid" cliche.
You are simply not worth the effort to respond to, you cannot grasp other people's viewpoints and offer little to no facts in your attempts.
For anyone else interested in the subject, I would offer this.
Liberals who have long hated the Electoral College and want it abolished in favor of direct popular vote are suddenly . . . in love with the EC just as it is. Why? Because noises by some solid blue states to follow the Maine and Nebraska model of apportioning electoral votes by congressional district instead of winner-take-all might tilt the playing field towards Republicans.
I love the situational ethics of today’s liberals. Right before the 2000 election, when it appeared possible that George W. Bush might win the popular vote but lose the EC to Gore, there were a series of preemptive articles arguing why an EC result against the popular vote result should be respected. Then, when the opposite happened. . . Well, it was rather embarrassing to see the Left turn on a dime and return to their argument from the 1970s that the EC needed to be junked.
More recently, the Left has been arguing for a compact among states whereby states would pledge to cast their EC votes for the popular vote winner regardless of how their state votes, apparently afraid that the Bush 2000 scenario might repeat itself. But now with some Republicans agitating for a similar scheme that would surely hurt Democrats’ current geographic EC advantage, the Left is saying, “No—wait, we like the EC just fine the way it is.”
Well, I personally disagree with the GOP proposals, and I hope that they do not go any further. They ARE, however, quite legal, but the hypocrisy by those on the left in their reaction to these proposals, should serve us all as a reminder that ANY effort to change the way our President is elected, should be viewed as suspect.
.
-
I agree that it works well enough as is....but to suggest a national popular vote is a worse idea than just splitting the electoral vote in states where GOP controls the legislature and Dems can win, while not doing it in places like Texas...well...clearly this is a worse idea.
“Rigging” the electoral system only is bad when it hurts Democrats
As things stand now, the Electoral College favors Democrats because they are all but guaranteed to win a small number of large winner take all states, such as California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, plus a coalition of hopelessly blue states.
Democrats start off close to victory because of winner-take-all voting in those states, even if they win those states by a small margin in each state.
The system currently is “rigged” to favor Democrats, if you want to look at it that way.
So Republicans in some states have come up with a perfectly constitutional alternative which already is used in Maine and Nebraska, awarding electoral college votes by congressional district. This would help Republicans in several states. It’s perfectly constitutional because states get to decide how to award electoral votes.
The possibility that this may help Republicans has Larry Sabato screaming Stop Thief:
As we suspected, it would permit a GOP nominee to capture the White House even while losing the popular vote by many millions. This is not a relatively small Electoral College “misfire” on the order of 1888 or 2000. Instead, it is a corrupt and cynical maneuver to frustrate popular will and put a heavy thumb — the whole hand, in fact — on the scale for future Republican candidates. We do not play presidential politics with a golf handicap awarded to the weaker side.Republicans face a choice that can best be characterized by personalizing it. A healthy, optimistic party is Reaganesque, convinced that it can win the future by embracing it, and by making a positive case for its philosophy and candidates to all Americans. A party in decline is Nixonian and fears the future; it sees enemies everywhere, feels overwhelmed by electoral trends, and thinks it can win only by cheating, by subverting the system and stacking the deck in its favor. Whose presidency was more successful, Reagan’s or Nixon’s? Which man made the Republican brand more appealing?Sorry, but that argument doesn’t cut it.
Award by congressional district is in use in two states, has been proposed many times before elsewhere, and still requires presidential candidates to win elections in congressional districts. It may favor Republicans, or it may not, depending on the state and the presidential candidate. Awarding electoral votes by district may have a positive impact of forcing candidates to campaign outside the large cities and bring a more geographically diverse electorate into the voting booth for them.
To equate it to cheating is constitutionally ignorant. I also reject the methodology of looking back at the last election in which the system was not in place and forecasting future results. The fact is we don’t know what the results would have been if the candidates had to alter their campaign strategies under a district-based formula.
While awarding electors by congressional district may favor Republicans now in some states, it may favor Democrats in the future, just as the winner take all favors Democrats now. To take a temporal view and declare it “cheating” shows that the accuser is politicizing the issue just as much as the alleged cheaters.
-
Its a bad idea, almost as bad as the liberal's initiative called the “National Popular Vote Compact”, that the dems (and media) have been pushing for almost 10 years now.
Leave the Electoral college as it is.
.
-
Yep, the party that nominated George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney is way too far to the right.......................lol
(see how silly misconceptions and propaganda can look)
-
stop it!!! We all know now that he stepped down from his place on high to assume the presidency, Obama is above the law...
oh.................okay, sorry.
-
Any reasoned analysis of what our military actually is, reveals it to in fact be a giant socialist institution well beyond it's surface level purpose (which is of course, necessary and important as I have acknowledged)
Unadulterated Horse Hockey !
There is no need to ask for any further explanation, the whole statement reaks of desperate spin.
.
-
Chicago Suburb Arrests Mothers for Refusing Energy Meters
Many opponents to the meters worry about the type of data the smart grid will collect, opening up a potential for hackers and criminals to know when residents are home or not. Also, because the meters work on a wireless RF system, some are concerned about health safety in their home.
Reports of health risks due to the meter's wireless transmitter's omission of electromagnetic frequencies surfaced in 2011. People with the meters installed on their homes reported symptoms such as headaches, insomnia, tinnitus, and DNA breakdown.According to the
Chicago Tribune, Malia “Kim” Bendis was also arrested on two misdemeanors for resisting a police officer and attempted eavesdropping, when she filmed police on scene, despite a recent federal court ruling that the state of Illinois’s ban on recording police officers in the line of duty was “unconstitutional.” The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling in November.Good thing that they don't have anything important to worry about;
an unfair comparison I realize, but thats how the left does it, I thought that I'd give it a try.
-
God help the U.S. that we have re-elected someone with such a disconnect.........
It's truly laughable that a Democrat President of the United States would be blaming members of the media for his inability to reach across the aisle and convince members of the opposition to work with him.
Ronald Reagan had a far more hostile media and seemed capable of doing it. Ditto George W. Bush during his first term.
But Obama can't, and that's Fox News and Limbaugh's fault?
No, compromise with Republicans has been a dirty word to the left and their media minions at least since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007.
Suggesting otherwise is absurd.
President worried that media just isn’t liberal enough
Perhaps the second term of the Obama presidency will wind up being an era of bipartisan unity after all. One hopeful sign comes with a recent interview done by The New Republic with the President, in which he identifies an area where the POTUS and his Republican opponents clearly seem to agree. The media is just too darned biased.
“One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates,” he tells editor Frank Foer and owner and publisher Chris Hughes. “If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”But it’s not just Fox or Rush who are to blame. Nearly as culpable are those who ostensibly provide both sides of the debate, because… well, you know:
The president also faulted nonpartisan media outlets for their adherence to “he said, she said” journalism, which places equal blame on Democrats and Republicans when, according to the president, Republicans should bear more blame.“[T]hat’s one of the biggest problems we’ve got in how folks report about Washington right now, because I think journalists rightly value the appearance of impartiality and objectivity,” Obama told Foer and Hughes. “And so the default position for reporting is to say, ‘A plague on both their houses.’ On almost every issue, it’s, ‘Well, Democrats and Republicans can’t agree’—as opposed to looking at why is it that they can’t agree. Who exactly is preventing us from agreeing?”See? That’s the problem with the media! You can’t just go around reporting on the views of both parties, or even blaming one party more than the other. In order for media coverage of politics and governments to truly be fair, they need to point out that Barack Obama is always right, the Republicans are always wrong, and the Democrats would be getting so much more done if the GOP would only stop trying to block their agenda. Is that so much to ask?
Look, the national media has a lot of problems, and there’s no doubt about it. And the problems are not found exclusively at MSNBC or Fox. Print media has essentially died, no longer commanding the resources to do the kind of reporting – particularly on local stories – which they once took charge of. Television news seems all too often to have become jealous of the success of the Real Housewives franchise and begun emulating them wherever possible. But if the President wants to call them out for bias, he’s going to have to do a bit more credible job than that.
For full disclosure, it should be noted that the (New Republic) interview above was conducted, in part, by Chris Hughes, who is listed as “an Obama donor who worked on the 2008 campaign,” and who bought The New Republic last year and now runs it.
So… balance............................
http://hotair.com/ar...age-1/#comments
.
-
So you believe Obama has no say whatsoever in his policy?
Hey, look who stopped playing "spaceman" long enough to ask a question.
Mr. Obama is certainly in agreement with the policies and with the use of the TOTUS.
.
-
Sorry to interrupt,
ABC Gives Sen. Menendez Six Minute Interview With No Questions About FBI's Hooker Investigation
The news was just announced Friday, but not ONE question.
Can you imagine her ignoring such an issue if she were interviewing a Republican? That probably would have been the first order of business if not the entire six minutes.
and if she "agreed" not to ask............why would she?
.
-
LOL...........this guy just cannot help himself, it seems that Rep. Joe Wilson was right.
Obama claims that he totally goes secret skeet shooting all the time, guys. in New Republic interview.
Funny we’ve never heard about that before.
.
-
Hey, we have another voice railing against the "takers" in this country, why must these outspoken jerks be so selfish and unfe.....................oh wait, it's Bill Maher
Never mind.................if the star ofCannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death (1989) says it, it must be true.
"Okay, so basically what Mitt Romney was saying was, you know, “These spongers, these grifters, these people, I wouldn't piss on them if their ass was on fire because they don't pay in.” But it's not really 47 percent. But I, here’s my question: It's not zero percent either, takers. I mean, there are a lot of dirt bags in this country, and I think it's somewhere in between 47 and zero. I think we should split the difference and say we have 23.5 percent dirt bags in America. I do. Like the Octomom. California pays, we pay to, you know, feed and cloth and spay and neuter her children. And she's not giving back to society."
Moments later, he continued:
MAHER: And here, listen to this about disability. People who take disability, who are on disability, in 1968 it was 51 to1, people on disability to people who worked. In 2001, not that long ago, it was 23 to 1. Now it's 13 to 1, 13 people to one who are on disability. Now, of course, you know, some of that is real. We are an overworked, overstressed, polluted, ripped off and lied to people. So, I mean, obviously there are some people who really do have disabilities. But 13 to 1?
You know, it just seems like there’s less people pulling the wagon and more people in the wagon, and at some point the wagon is going to break.
.
-
This is not just a political game, the ruling, will effect Americans everywhere, and it was all due to an unnecessary action by the administration.
From the Washington Post:
John Eastman, a professor at Chapman University School of Law, explained via e-mail, “The D.C. Circuit today has forcefully reiterated the importance of separation of powers to our constitutional system of government. . . . The President should have known that his ‘recess appointments,’ made when the Senate was not in recess, flouted this core constitutional check on the President’s powers. Now, his administration will have to clean up the mess he created, with over a year’s worth of decisions by the NLRB now illegal because issued by an illegally constituted board.”
James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation is compiling a list of those cases likely to be invalidated:
a) The NLRB’s “ambush election” proposal that would shorten the timeframe for union elections to less than three weeks and limit the ability of employers’ lawyers to challenge NLRB decisions about who votes in the election;b) Forcing employers in all industries . . . to bargain with “micro-unions” that represent narrow groups of workers within a company (even workers of a single job title);c) Limiting employees’ rights to not fund political activities by preventing workers from viewing auditors reports of union spending and by classifying lobbying expenses as “representational activities”’;d) Preventing employers from ending payroll dues deductions when a collective bargaining agreement expires;e) Restricting employers ability to limit off-duty access to a workplace in order – thus expanding access for union organizers;f) Narrowing the definition of supervisors (who cannot be unionized) to expand the number of employees unions can organize;g) Expanding the definition of “concerted activity” to include public complaints about an employer or boss in social media;h) Asserting NLRB jurisdiction over public charter schools;i) Requiring employers to give unions copies of sworn witness statements in investigations into workplace misconduct, chilling the ability of employees to speak freely without fear of repercussions.{snip}
“President Obama’s flagrant violation of the Constitution not only will damage relations with Congress for years to come but will ultimately weaken the office of the presidency. There eventually may be litigation over the illegal appointments, but it will be a failure of government if the political branches do not resolve this injustice before a court rules.” Indeed, the courts were forced to take matters into their own hands to enforce the Constitution.
Although he often talks as if Congress is an inconvenient distraction, the president has been reminded that he does not reign supreme and must actually share power with the legislature. The decision throws into doubt the validity of a slew of egregiously pro-union decisions by the board.
Consider the utter chaos caused by Obama’s power grab. In all likelihood, the rulings in the cases above will be voided. What happens to the employee who paid money into a union as a result of one of those cases? An employer who had to pay higher wages or pay money into a union pension plan? What if an employer had to shut down because of a union contract that he never should have been forced to sign? The myriad of complications and the economic and personal dislocation could be tremendous.
This, by the way, is the very reason why the rule of law is so valuable — it provides clarity, dependability and finality. But not in the Obama era.
-
Obama Continues to Violate His Own ‘Stimulus’ Law by Not Releasing Quarterly Reports
Have you heard much about President Obama’s $787,000,000,000 economic “stimulus” (now estimated to cost $831,000,000,000) lately? In its last report, published in 2011, the president’s own Council of Economic Advisors released an estimate showing that, for every $317,000 in “stimulus” spending that had by then gone out the door, only one job had been created or saved. Even in Washington, that’s not considered good bang for the buck.
Moreover, that was the fifth consecutive “stimulus” report that showed this number getting progressively worse.
Alas, that was the last report we’ve seen. Never mind that Section 1513 of the “stimulus” legislation, which Obama spearheaded and signed into law, requires the executive branch to submit a new report every three months.
“In consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers shall submit quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives that detail the impact of programs funded through covered funds on employment, estimated economic growth, and other key economic indicators.”
{snip}
With only 58.6 percent of Americans currently employed — down 2.4 percent from the time of Obama’s first inauguration — it’s not surprising that the Obama administration doesn’t really want to fulfill it legal responsibilities and release subsequent reports on its failed “stimulus.” However, it hardly seems fair — to use one of Obama’s favorite words — that the rich and (extremely) powerful think that they can choose whether or not to abide by the laws they spearhead and sign, while the rest of us are forced to obey them.
Perhaps it’s time for the rich and powerful to do their fair share and obey the laws that they enforce against others. And perhaps this is something that the House of Representatives might want to look into.
-
The fact that he can reign hell fire on a person walking around in the dessert halfway around the world is a pretty good argument for why his power might need to be reigned in.
Heh...........too true
without any due process either.
.
-
i would say that Bman is one of the smarter and more rational of the right leaning posters here. He, like me and Oxrock are also some of the refugees from the "other board".
Can we all now stop with the "B word slaps" threads? Here's half the problem. We have two different parties with two vastly different ideologies trying to take the nation in to vastly different directions. Just because "your man" chewed out the member of another party, or a ruling went the way your party wanted it to go doesn't mean you made the other party your B word. It's the system working the way it should.
Very gracious of you to say Bfbf, since, as you point out we agree on very little.......................................................other than my rationality...lol
You are correct about the "B word slap" silliness also
.
-
All very straightforward,and honest opinion from Gov. Palin.
She will continue to be a strong advocate and spokesperson for many, many Americans.
Of course, much of the simple-minded, cliched beliefs about her will probably be repeated later in this thread, it will be funny in a sad way.
.
General deal on Immigration among Senate gang...
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by B-Man
So the triggers are good enough for the bipartisan effort by the six senators, but not good enough for man more concerned with 2014 and 2016 than he is with the country's welfare......................after four years, he still doesn't know how to display any leadership................once a community organizer, always a community organizer.
http://www.nationalr...n-andrew-stiles
.