Welcome President Obama

[Elderberry]

[quote="can't sit still"]“I’m only going to be president a little bit longer,â€

[ygmir]

[quote="jkisha"][quote="can't sit still"]“I’m only going to be president a little bit longer,â€

[can't sit still]

Amazing how much I stir things up with a quote. Imagine if I actually attacked. As I mentioned a few times, obummer is hemmed in from all sides. There are very strong demands that spending on the social net is drastically cut BEFORE the election. There are MANY facets to every issue. he can only control a few.

[Elderberry]

[quote="ygmir"][quote="jkisha"][quote="can't sit still"]“I’m only going to be president a little bit longer,â€

[cowboyangel]

John,

The list looks impressive, but on the scale of things, it's relatively unimportant and I wonder who really is behind publishing it. The list just doesn't matter to those million or so already foreclosed on or facing it...the list of the 20% or or more still unemployed, the unions who've been waiting for passage of the employee free choice act and for that matter a strong White House response to anti-union Gov. Walker of Wisconsin, the empty promise of "green jobs", the promise, in the face of the level 7 nuke nightmare of nuclear power in Japan, to build more plants here and not step up the oversight and decommissioning of aging plants, the targeted assassinations by drone, the 9/11 wars continuation, the White House rule by banking and corporations, the failure to reign in Israel and allowing it to continue its illegal and brutal war against Palestinians...God...my list is much better and more dismal and all the more reason to ouster this corporate shill, this empty nothing of a leader, this failed democrat, this tool of Wall St.....crap....and replace him with a candidate of the people. If such exists.

If not, then maybe it's time to take Jefferson literally.

OK now let's stop with the crazy talk.

Aside from that, read the post that Ygmir made earlier. It's not only the President, it's the congress and the senate.

If only I were king of the world things would be a lot different too, and a lot more quickly.

Congress isn't working all that well, but the fickleness of the voters doesn't help the situation either. Change takes time and happens in baby steps...sometimes, because of the afore mentioned fickle voters, it's like one step forward and two steps back.

Join this site and start making yourself heard https://www.popvox.com

crazy talk??? People thought abolitionists engaged in "crazy talk" before the civil war....not so after the war. Same here. The government does not serve the people anymore and to wait for your so called slow moving train change will result in the death of our planet and most of us along with it. John, we're talking about the end of democracy here. We don't have it. We don't have representational government. It's a charade we see, not the real McCoy.

[can't sit still]

This writer has a lot of information and reason to show that Obummer is going to clash with the Supreme Court in a big way. Very interesting;
http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/07/is-ob ... smackdown/

[Elderberry]

Way too many conservative extreemists on the court right now.

[can't sit still]

jk, you can look through my 4000 posts and you won't see me use the word conservative or liberal,, left or right. For whatever reason, I just don't reference things that way. You mentioned that you like political treads. When I was a kid, I used to put scorpions in an enclosure with black widows. That seems like a fitting analogy for politics

[ygmir]

isn't the SCOTUS (why do I think scrotum?) about evenly split?

[Sic Pup]

Something about hoisting a drink with the common man I find endearing (that and being able to nibble on a pretzel without an EMT)

[youtube][/youtube]

[Elderberry]

isn't the SCOTUS (why do I think scrotum?) about evenly split?

No. Unfortunately nine isn't an even number.

[ygmir]

isn't the SCOTUS (why do I think scrotum?) about evenly split?

No. Unfortunately nine isn't an even number.

ergo my use of the term "about".
is it 5/4? and, are you sure, five are "conservative"? or, are they just not liberal enough for you?

[Elderberry]

isn't the SCOTUS (why do I think scrotum?) about evenly split?

No. Unfortunately nine isn't an even number.

ergo my use of the term "about".
is it 5/4? and, are you sure, five are "conservative"? or, are they just not liberal enough for you?

I don't care that they might not be as liberal as I would prefer. I do care that they are not as nonpartisan as we should expect them to be.

[ygmir]

No. Unfortunately nine isn't an even number.

ergo my use of the term "about".
is it 5/4? and, are you sure, five are "conservative"? or, are they just not liberal enough for you?

I don't care that they might not be as liberal as I would prefer. I do care that they are not as nonpartisan as we should expect them to be.

yeah, that's one of my pet peeves, too.
Judges legislating from the bench, in a partisan way.
Of course, they are human and have "leanings", but, one would hope they can recognize partisan opinion, from the rule of law and fairness.
I've sure seen that from both sides, on many courts over the years.

[can't sit still]

isn't the SCOTUS (why do I think scrotum?) about evenly split?

Yes, the scrotum is evenly split,,, one ball on each side.
The supreme court is the weak link in America. It has the final say in contested matters between the federal GOV and the states. It almost always rules in favor of the Feds.

[can't sit still]

Here's a nice quote from 2007;

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank."
--- Candidate Barack Obama, October 27, 2007
2006;
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

[ygmir]

Here's a nice quote from 2007;

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank."
--- Candidate Barack Obama, October 27, 2007
2006;
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

that should be a sticky.

[can't sit still]

The one thing that almost everyone did agree with was how “idiotic”, “moronic”, “pathetic”, “self-serving”, “arrogant”, and “scary” President Obama’s role was during the process. Those are actual descriptions used against the president, and most of them came from Democrats. Everyone stunned over how little Barack Obama understands about anything

Read more: http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-polit ... z1TyaEZ9RY

[can't sit still]

"The Obama regime is not a failure. The Obama regime is not incompetent. The Obama regime has achieved more in two and a half years than anyone could have possibly foreseen. It has debased the currency by 50% of the GDP and guaranteed that our economy will collapse. It has looted the Treasury for more than the size of a top-ten economy and embezzled that wealth into the hands of their fellow Marxists in preparation for the final collapse of the United States. It has ground the economy of the United States to a screeching halt. It has destabilized the entire Muslim world and ensured that there will be a nuclear war centered around Israel within the decade. "
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... tupid.html
Success is it's own reward.

[can't sit still]

"In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: "Barocky Road"

Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes.
The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.

The cost is $82.84 per scoop....so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some CHANGE..!

When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you pay for it, the ice cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you at no charge.

You are left with an empty wallet, holding an empty cone with no hope of getting any ice cream.

Are you stimulated?"

[can't sit still]

It's great to know that you are on the right track. It's great to have an honest endorsement from people that matter.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=329449#ixzz1U4eGVzff

[can't sit still]

It seems that obummer has set some kind of new record.
http://www.thedailybell.com/2794/Obama- ... -2-Minutes

[Ugly Dougly]

The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.

Some of my best friends are nuts and flakes.

[can't sit still]

Did I say that
I prefer interesting people myself.

[cowboyangel]

Woopie do...please please please Bruce Willis....endorse this.....


[youtube][/youtube]

[can't sit still]

Here's a list of "firsts" for your commander in chief;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2736859/posts

[can't sit still]

Here's another first;


THE WASHINGTON TIMES - 1ST PUBLIC NEWSPAPER TO CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT
FINALLY -- SOMEONE IN THE MEDIA HAS STATED THE OBVIOUS. Please share widely!!! Perhaps other writers will grow SPINES. A strong article and hopefully not the last public newspaper to do so.

President's socialist takeover must be stopped
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Washington Times

President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.

He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela 's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go.

He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was - and remains - opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson - taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.

Yet Obamacare's most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists - evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews - have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania ) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.
I would add that, he has also granted hundreds of waivers to groups, organizations and companies that supported his canidacy, who claimed hardship if not excluded from Obamacare. dwr
Mr. Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights. The BP oil spill is a case in point. BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf. There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia 's Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda. Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims - much of it to Democratic constituents. This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.

Mr. Obama's multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America . He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass "cap-and-trade," which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life - beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds. Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.

To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Mr. Obama calls for "comprehensive immigration reform" - granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority. It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty. Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion. It means the death of American nationhood. We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.

Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama's Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama's decision on this case is treasonous.

As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site. A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. Mr. Adams says that under Mr. Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims - no matter how much they cry for justice - are not to be prosecuted. This is more than institutionalized racism. It is an abrogation of civil rights laws. The Justice Department's behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.

The gun running of "fast and furious" and continueing attempt to cover up, pass the blame and hide from the responsibility by Obama and Holder is indicitave of Obama's ignoring the Constitution and his lawlessness. It was undoubtedly an effort to create a public outcry for more gun control. In my opinion, his plan also was to cause chaos for the Mexican citizens by letting the guns go into the drug cartels' hands and terrorize the Mexican citizens. Forcing them to flee north across the border. Which would create a need for a refugee program for the fleeing Mexicans. Hence, an urgent need for amnesty for the sudden influx of illegal immigrants. dwr.

Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime. The Chicago way has become the Washington way. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political hit man.. He is an amoral, ruthless operator. It was Mr. Emanuel who reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. It was Mr. Emanuel who offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary. And it was Mr. Emanuel - as the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has revealed - who acted as the go-between to try to have Valerie Jarrett parachuted into Mr. Obama's former Senate seat. The only question was: What did Mr. Blagojevich want in exchange?

This is not simply sleazy Chicago machine politics. It is the systematic breaking of the law - bribery, attempt to interfere (and manipulate) elections using taxpayer-funded jobs, influence peddling and abuse of power.

The common misperception on the right is that Mr. Obama is another Jimmy Carter: an incompetent liberal whose presidency is being reduced to rubble under the onslaught of repeated failures. The very opposite, however, is true. He is the most consequential president in our lifetime, transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would find not only unrecognizable, but repugnant. Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power - attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr.. Obama's fledgling thug state must be stopped.

It is more crucial now than ever that the leadership in the House instigate a committee to investigate every aspect of Obama's administration, his cabinet and his czars. He will stop at nothing, we the people should stop at nothing and turn over every stone Obama has placed to bury our Constitution. dwr.

If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should - and likely will - launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com <<http://www.talk570.com/) from 5 to 7 p.m.

SOURCE: KUHNER: President's socialist takeover must be stopped - Washington Times

A MUST READ

[cowboyangel]

Impeach? How about replace....like with Bernie Sanders?

President Capitulation is not about to stand up for workers...it ain't the class he represents anymore. Consider the following:

The Slow Disappearance of the American Working Man
by Mike Dorning
Thursday, August 25, 2011


provided by
bloomberg_businessweek

A smaller share of men have jobs today than at any time since World War II

As President Barack Obama puts together a new jobs plan to be revealed shortly after Labor Day, he is up against a powerful force, long in the making, that has gone virtually unnoticed in the debate over how to put people back to work: Employers are increasingly giving up on the American man.

More from BusinessWeek.com:

• The Lost Generation

• The Hidden Job Crisis for American Men

• Clear the Fog, Bring on the Jobs

If that sounds bleak, it's because it is. The portion of men who work and their median wages have been eroding since the early 1970s. For decades the impact of this fact was softened in many families by the increasing number of women who went to work and took up the slack. More recently, the housing bubble helped to mask it by boosting the male-dominated construction trades, which employed millions. When real estate ultimately crashed, so did the prospects for many men. The portion of men holding a job—any job, full- or part-time—fell to 63.5 percent in July—hovering stubbornly near the low point of 63.3 percent it reached in December 2009. These are the lowest numbers in statistics going back to 1948. Among the critical category of prime working-age men between 25 and 54, only 81.2 percent held jobs, a barely noticeable improvement from its low point last year—and still well below the depths of the 1982-83 recession, when employment among prime-age men never dropped below 85 percent. To put those numbers in perspective, consider that in 1969, 95 percent of men in their prime working years had a job.

Men who do have jobs are getting paid less. After accounting for inflation, median wages for men between 30 and 50 dropped 27 percent—to $33,000 a year— from 1969 to 2009, according to an analysis by Michael Greenstone, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor who was chief economist for Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. "That takes men and puts them back at their earnings capacity of the 1950s," Greenstone says. "That has staggering implications."

What is going on here? For one thing, women, who have made up a majority of college students for three decades and now account for 57 percent, are adapting better to a data-driven economy that values education and collaborative skills more than muscle. That isn't to say women have yet eclipsed men in the workplace. They continue to earn about 16 percent less than men and struggle against gender discrimination and career interruptions as they disproportionately take time away from the job to raise children. And both men and women have confronted job losses in the weak economy. In July, 68.9 percent of women aged 25-54 had jobs, vs. 72.8 percent in January 2008. (In 1969, however, fewer than half did.) After a long decline in men's work opportunities, the recession worsened things with a sharp drop in male employment. Unemployed men are now more likely than women to be among the long-term jobless.



The economic downturn exacerbated forces that have long been undermining men in the workplace, says Lawrence Katz, a Harvard professor of labor economics. Corporations have cut costs by moving manufacturing jobs, routine computer programming, and even simple legal work out of the country. The production jobs that remain are increasingly mechanized and demand higher skills. Technology and efforts to reduce the number of layers within corporations are leaving fewer middle-management jobs.

The impact has been greatest on moderately skilled men, especially those without a college education, though even men with bachelor's degrees from less selective schools are beginning to see their position erode. "There's really been this polarization in the middle," Katz says, as men at the top of the education and income scale see their earnings rise while those in the middle gravitate downward.

For generations, American workers kept up with technological change by achieving higher levels of education than their parents. High school education became the norm as the country progressed from an agrarian society to an industrial one. After World War II, increasing numbers of Americans went to college as the economy became more complex. But for reasons not fully understood, college graduation rates essentially stopped growing for men in the late 1970s, shortly after the Vietnam War ended, perhaps in part because draft deferments were no longer an inducement. Women, on the other hand, continued to pursue college degrees in greater numbers and have been more responsive to the changing economy in other ways, taking many of the nursing and technician positions in the expanding health-care industry and making greater headway in service jobs.

While unemployment is an ordeal for anyone, it still appears to be more traumatic for men. Men without jobs are more likely to commit crimes and go to prison. They are less likely to wed, more likely to divorce, and more likely to father a child out of wedlock. Ironically, unemployed men tend to do even less housework than men with jobs and often retreat from family life, says W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.

The long-term fix is simple to spell out and tough to achieve: getting more men to attend college and improving the skills of those who don't. Reducing financial barriers to higher education would be a start. But there isn't much political appetite for spending the billions it would take to make that happen. Even once-sacred Pell Grants are on the block as Washington looks for budget cuts. A strapped public education system that leaves many young men unprepared for the workplace, let alone college, doesn't help. It's noteworthy but not especially comforting to know that this is not just an American problem. The same gender differences in college attendance and employment are emerging in rich societies around the world.

Grappling with these intractable problems won't likely be Obama's top priority. He is under pressure to do something that will be felt now, not a generation from now. The longer people who are currently unemployed remain out of work, the more their skills will atrophy and the greater the risk of a cohort of men—and women—who become permanently detached from the workplace. Anything that raises employment overall would help. Obama is expected to propose tax incentives for employers to hire workers, a reduction in payroll taxes employers pay, and spending on infrastructure. Money for labor-intensive projects, such as retrofitting buildings for energy conservation or refurbishing aging schools, would be especially effective in putting men back to work in construction—though Washington is likely in no mood to pay for that either.

Other ideas that economists have proposed are geared toward keeping men with diminished opportunities from drifting out of the workforce altogether. They include reducing unemployment-benefits extensions for those who have been out of work for a year or more—to give those who are getting by on an unemployment check a stronger incentive to take a job, even if it's not the most desirable one. Others have proposed modifying the Social Security disability insurance system so that it is no longer an all-or-nothing proposition and instead subsidizes employers for hiring workers with partial disabilities. Since 1970, the fraction of 25- to 60-year-old men on disability has more than doubled, from 2.4 percent to 5 percent. Once they begin receiving disability payments, few return to work.

If there is any upside to recessions, it's that they tend to expose deep problems that go ignored or at least overlooked in better times. The short-term fixes the President proposes may provide much needed relief for the millions of people looking for a job. The danger is that the fixes will work just well enough to let us pretend—for a while longer—that the real problem is no longer there.

The bottom line: As women saw workplace gains in recent decades—68 percent of those 25 to 54 have jobs—men's prospects have diminished.

[FIGJAM]

I don't mind that the american economy is a pyramid sceem, but I don't understand how the peak thinks it can work when their kicking the middle bricks out.

Don't they realize that will eventually leave them down in the rubble with the rest of us?

[can't sit still]

FIGJAM, they are stupid. It's that simple. Here's a list of pertinent facts;
The rich are getting richer
Workforce participation is falling
More and more people are dropped from the tax rolls
Tax and taxable income is falling
Corporate profit margins are getting squeezed by the falling economy
The consumer economy is collapsing

OK, so where does that lead us? WE / America has huge bond funding costs,,, huge military costs,,, huge societal costs. GOV has had a huge drop in income.
So,,, who gets cut,,, who gets taxed? Corporate America has a target on it's back. Europe has already talked about a Tobin tax. If America does it, investors can't flee to the Eurozone. They can't possibly move all the wealth to developing economies. It's possible that when push-comes-to-shove, corporations will get run the through the wringer. They can't tax the middle class. They just raised the tax in Illinois and it threw employment off a cliff. It would be a bad political move to cut the safety net or default on bonds. That kinda leaves the military.
We got a hint of that already. Supposedly, if the super committee doesn't come up with enough cuts, it will automatically kick in cuts in the military. I'm not well read on the subject.
If GOV needs money, they will go after the people WITH money.