Page 4 of 5 First 12345 Last
  1. #34
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Almost 1K ballots found in Broward elections warehouse
    Posted: Today at 9:30 am EST Last Updated: Today at 9:58 am EST

    http://wn.wsvn.com/global/video/popu...News&h1=Almost 1K ballots found in Broward elections warehouse&flvUri=&partnerclipid=

    LAUDERHILL, Fla. (WSVN) -- Nearly a thousand ballots that were not included in Florida's final count have been found in a warehouse in Broward County.

    Tuesday morning and into the night, there was a buzz of activity at the Voting Equipment Center in Lauderhill, a week after the general election. There was a recount going on for two commission seats that were too close to call, one in Hallandale Beach and another in Dania Beach. Workers had to count those votes manually.

    Also keeping elections officials busy is the fact that 963 filled ballots were found in a warehouse. The supervisor of elections, Dr. Brenda Snipes, said this happens all the time, especially when dealing with paper ballots. Her department is not the only one to have seen more ballots added to the final number after the election, and they have until Nov. 18 to certify all the votes.

    Snipes noted that it is a routine thing to look for these kind of mishaps after election night and she is just glad that they are now being tallied into that final count.

    Last Tuesday, close to 800,000 people voted in Broward County, some waited in lines for four to five and sometimes six hours. Many have said the news of these ballots add to their uneasiness about how the election was run. Florida was the last state to officially announce its election results, long after President Obama was officially announced as re-elected.

    Snipes said there is no reason for alarm. "I've run several elections here, and this election was run no different than any other," she said. "I think the difference with this election is that there was a close race between the two presidential candidates, and there was pressure put on everyone, including our office, to get all of the votes, count, count, count, so you don't have an opportunity to check every box that comes back because you got to get what you got in hand and get it out of there, so if the voters would rather that we kind of sit back and relax and then clean up and find ballots. Then I think they would really be very upset."

    She said that further complicating this election was a very long ballot filled with proposed amendments. Snipes has promised that her department will meet their deadline by Sunday.

    http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/po...#ixzz2CEUMsxmC

    comments

    That's either incompetence or fraud. Either is unacceptable. "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes."

    ..

    Supervisor of Elections said "this happens all the time".

    Just exactly what Republicans have been saying ALL ALONG! Democrats steal votes. They vote multiple times. They even go to other states to vote. They stole this election. But the final laugh will be on them when the RED states leave this Union and leave liberals with all the $16 trillion in debt. Then you idiots can burn the Constitution like you've wanted to do all along.

    ..

    This is obviously not a case of individual voter fraud--the supervisor of elections has basically admitted in the article to mislaying the ballots en masse. That has nothing to do with "voter fraud" and relates, rather, to "voter suppression" since the votes were legitimately cast by real live voters and then "mislaid" by the people who were supposed to be in charge of them. Speaking as someone who has been clerk and warden at my local polling place its impossible for 1000 votes to be "mislaid" since they are all put into locked, sealed, boxes and delivered by the Warden and a police officer to state headquarters for the final count and recount after the paper ballots and the optical scan information have been sent directly to the state headquarters. If a box went missing you would know right away.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement November 6, 2012
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #35
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Secession, y’all: Why Texas can pull it off
    12:12 PM 11/13/2012

    When Thomas Dunne published Don’t Mess with Travis in May — my comedic political novel about a freewheeling Texas governor who becomes fed up with a Constitution-stomping president and decides to secede — I knew I had landed on something relevant. I didn’t know it was this relevant.

    As of writing, the Texas petition to peacefully “withdraw” from the United States via the White House’s open petition webpage is up to 62,481 signatures, on its way to tripling the required names needed to trigger a response from the Obama administration. No doubt Texas’s desire to break free is a source of amusement inside a White House that has mastered the art of belittling the opinions of its challengers, but there is one not-so-small problem here: Texas could pull it off.

    Here’s why:

    Resources. Texas currently sits on one-quarter of the nation’s oil reserves and one-third of the nation’s natural gas reserves. Even more, fully 95% of the country receives its oil and gas courtesy of pipelines that originate within Texas. This is what one might call leverage.

    The Texas Economy. This is well documented but worth repeating. In the last decade, even with the Great Recession, Texas has expanded by one million jobs. One million. That’s more than every other state … combined. Because of its friendly business climate, Texas is home to more Fortune 500 companies than anywhere else. If Texas were its own country, it would have the thirteenth-highest GDP in the world, just behind Canada and Russia. Or think about it this way: For every dollar Texas taxpayers send to Washington, they currently get only about 80 cents back. Theoretically, they could transfer those funds to the state’s coffers and still give every Texan a 20 percent tax cut.

    Utilities. Texas is the only state with its own power grid. Developed over the course of the last 100 years, the Texas grid covers the majority of the state and is fully state controlled. Translation: Texans could rest assured that the federal government doesn’t have the power — literally — to turn off their lights.

    Defense. While no match for Uncle Sam’s firepower, Texas does have a significant defense presence, namely in the Texas State Guard (which answers only to the governor), the Texas National Guard, the Air Guard and the legendary Texas Rangers. Texas is also home to two of the nation’s largest military bases — Fort Hood and Fort Bliss — and being able to control those two installations is nothing to sniff at. But let’s not forget the firepower of the citizenry itself. There’s a reason burglars don’t waste their time in Texas.

    History. Texas has done this before. Twice, actually. First in 1836, when it seceded from Mexico and became an independent country. Second in 1861, when it joined the Confederacy. And while the South did lose the Civil War, it didn’t lose it in Texas. In fact, by the end of 1864, the North didn’t have one square foot of Texas soil under its control despite many attempts. Even a full month after Robert E. Lee surrendered at the Appomattox Court House, Texas was still fighting. Texans love their state and they love a fight. That is a lethal combination.

    Still, all of this leads us back to a legal question: Can they do it? Texas lore claims that the permission to secede is woven into the state’s founding documents. Well, yes and no. The Texas Annexation Agreement of 1845 does say that the state has the right to split into as many as five separate states should it so choose — wouldn’t that make Harry Reid’s head spin? — and the Texas Constitution does say that “the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States,” … but there is no get-out-of-jail-free card.

    The counterargument, of course, is that Texas doesn’t need to look to its own history. It can look to America’s. After all, didn’t America secede, as it were, from Great Britain? And doesn’t the first line of our own Declaration of Independence defend a people’s God-given right to assume their own “separate and equal station” under the law?

    Just sayin’.

    Time to check that petition again.

    68,707 … and counting


    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/13/se...#ixzz2CIIzGubg
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #36
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    White House ‘secede’ petitions reach 675,000 signatures, 50-state participation
    2:01 AM 11/14/2012

    Less than a week after a New Orleans suburbanite petitioned the White House to allow Louisiana to secede from the United States, petitions from seven states have collected enough signatures to trigger a promised review from the Obama administration.

    By 6:00 a.m. EST Wednesday, more than 675,000 digital signatures appeared on 69 separate secession petitions covering all 50 states, according to a Daily Caller analysis of requests lodged with the White House’s “We the People” online petition system.

    A petition from Vermont, where talk of secession is a regular feature of political life, was the final entry.

    Petitions from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas residents have accrued at least 25,000 signatures, the number the Obama administration says it will reward with a staff review of online proposals.

    The Texas petition leads all others by a wide margin. Shortly before 9:00 a.m. EST Wednesday, it had attracted 94,700 signatures. But a spokesperson for Gov. Rick Perry said Tuesday afternoon that he does not support the idea of his state striking out on its own. “Gov. Perry believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it. But he also shares the frustrations many Americans have with our federal government,” according to a statement from the governor’s office.

    A backlash Monday night saw requests filed with the White House to strip citizenship rights from Americans who signed petitions to help states secede. And in a similar nose-thumbing aimed at Texas’ conservative majority, progressives from the liberal state capital of Austin responded Monday with a petition to secede from their state if Texas as a whole should decide to leave the Union.

    Late Tuesday a second group of Texans, this one from Houston, lodged their own White House petition. Secession-minded Texans, they wrote, “are mentally deficient and [we] do not want them representing us. We would like more education in our state to eradicate their disease.” Houstonian “Kimberly F” — The White House does not provide last names — submitted the petition. She told TheDC in an email that ”[w]e need both sides presented, or we all look like a bunch of fools.”

    A group from El Paso, too, wants no part of an independent Texas. “Allow the city of El Paso to secede from the state of Texas,” their petition reads. “El Paso is tired of being a second class city within Texas.”

    But smaller petitions like theirs are a political side show of a political side show. One effort, aimed at Missourians, called for a nationwide catered pizza party to celebrate when the Show Me State left the U.S.

    States whose active petitions have not yet reached the 25,000 signature threshold include Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

    Fourteen states are represented by at least two competing petitions. The extra efforts from two states — Missouri and South Carolina — would add enough petitions to warrant reviews by the Obama administration if they were combined into petitions launched earlier.

    Other states with multiple efforts include Alaska, California, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

    The White House provides a 30-day window of time for petitions to reach 25,000 signatures.

    Web surfers must register their names online with the White House before launching or signing a petition, but it’s not clear if the 675,000 signatures represent the same number of individuals, since the website permits signers to add their names to multiple petitions.

    Individual petition signers, however, may only add their names once to any proposal.

    The Daily Caller emailed White House deputy press secretary Joshua Earnest for comment, asking if the Obama administration was taking the grassroots effort seriously. “Does the President see this as a bunch of Gov. Romney’s supporters blowing off steam after the election?” TheDC asked. “As an earnest show of disaffection with the direction of the country? As something else?”

    Earnest did not respond.

    The most recent petition to attract at least 150 signatures — the threshold required before the White House adds a petition to its searchable database — suggests a way out, even if a state or two were to take the secession talk seriously. A Darlington, South Carolina man proposed Tuesday that the Obama administration ”allow the states that have asked to secede to do so and form their own NEW nation together.”

    That effort only has 24,000 more signatures to collect before it could find its way into the West Wing.


    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/14/wh...#ixzz2CIJVb5UU

    One effort, aimed at Missourians, called for a nationwide catered pizza party to celebrate when the Show Me State left the U.S.
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/14/pi...ss-gets-cheesy
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #37
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts




    SURPRISE! JOBLESS CLAIMS UP 78,000 WEEK AFTER ELECTION; PA, OH WORST HIT

    How is it that the states with the highest jobless claims were also the states who are
    screaming VOTER FRAUD? Why was our President so confident about the results of the election? Our "Fraud in Chief" didn't seem to have a care on election day. With horrible labor numbers looming (that were either falsified or hidden from the American public), a father of a Navy Seal (who lost his life in this horrible Benghazi cover up) CRYING OUT FOR HELP to his fellow citizens on FOX News, and reports of voter fraud in the early voting precincts in Ohio....one would have to wonder what this man already knew that kept him so "cool and collected" on that day? Did we even have a chance to change the outcome of this election by the time Nov. 6th rolled around?

    The Department of Labor has announced that new jobless claims rose by a staggering 78,000 in the first week after the election, reaching a seasonally-adjusted total of 439,000. Over the past year, and in the weeks leading up to the election, jobless claims were said to be declining, dipping as low as 339,000, with the media proclaiming that they had reached the "lowest level in more than four years." Now, suddenly, the news seems far less rosy.

    From the Department of Labor press release this morning:
    In the week ending November 10, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 439,000, an increase of 78,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 361,000. The 4-week moving average was 383,750, an increase of 11,750 from the previous week's revised average of 372,000.

    Some of the new claims, especially in New Jersey, were due to Hurricane Sandy--but these were offset by a decline in claims filed in New York. The highest numbers of new filings came from Pennsylvania and Ohio, where there were thousands of layoffs in the construction, manufacturing, and automobile industries.
    Both states had been targeted by the presidential campaigns. President Obama highlighted his record of job creation in Ohio in particular, focusing on the automobile industry. The state reported 6,450 new jobless claims in the week after the election--second-highest after Pennsylvania, which recorded 7,766 new claims.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-Up-Over-75000



    How's that "Hope" and "Change" ??
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 11-15-2012 at 05:06 PM.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #38
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    November 19, 2012 by Leon Puissegur
    Obama Held First Meeting After Election With Socialists & Communists

    Will anyone question just why Barack Obama met with Richard Trumka and the Progressive Caucus? Why is it that he met with them first rather than meeting with the congressional delegation? We as a nation should ask these questions because behind closed doors many things can be said that have very dangerous impacts upon our national standings. Why did Obama decide to meet with these particular groups? First we must find out just what does Richard Trumka and the Progressive Caucus have to bring into any discussion with the President of the United States.

    Richard Trumka, the head of most unions in the United States, was the man called to the White House to meet with President Obama to find out what he and the Progressive caucus think of the upcoming fiscal program created by an ineffective Congress. This man has close ties to socialistic ideology and it dates back to 1994.

    “In 1994, Trumka was honored at the annual Eugene Debs Award Banquet in Terre Haute, Indiana; the award was named after the man who founded the Socialist Party of America and ran for U.S. President five times on the Socialist Party ticket.”
    Here is the first indication that this man has close ties to the Socialist Party which indicates a man that does not have the idea of the United States Constitution in mind. If you wish to dig into the history of the Union, you will find close ties and beginnings with a man named Karl Marx, the founder of Marxism. Karl Marx had the idea that big companies were killing the people, forcing them to work for small wages, and making huge profits on the backs of the workers. It was here where the ideology of Marxism was created and it was here where the unions got their start to make sure that the profits of the companies that the people worked for were, in part, given back to the people for their work. It seemed like a good idea, but the flaws were noted even by Karl Marx himself when he realized that the very idea of everyone getting paid the same did nothing for creating a respectable work environment. However, this still shows up with Richard Trumka and his ideology that is embedded with the Marxist/Socialist ideology.
    “In 1995 Trumka was one-third of a troika elected to head the AFL-CIO. His running mates for election were Sweeney, head of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Linda Chavez-Thompson, who had been Executive Vice President of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Calling themselves the “New Voice,” this threesome pledged to replace the policies of the moderate AFL-CIO leaders who had preceded them. Trumka would go on to serve as the AFL-CIO’s secretary-treasurer from 1995 to September 2009, second in command to its president, John Sweeney.”
    As seen here, the “New Voice” has fallen into the realm of the Socialistic ideology and the changes made by the trio of people now guided the Unions in a way that made them become more of a political tool for Socialism then that of one representing the working people. It has to be noted here that now Sweeny is some sort of advisor in the White House, he gave up his position with the SEIU to become a top advisor for Obama. From these beginnings come the change in direction of the Unions that now seem to be part of high taxes and bigger Government. They have melded into a new organization that works hard to elect those that will help the very unions that place the politicians into office. Now here it begins to be shown why the Unions and the “Progressive Caucus” were the First ones to discuss the ever coming Fiscal Cliff everyone now sees on the evening news. Yet if Obama was so dead set upon working with the Congress, why did he see the Union and “Progressive Caucus” First? This is clearly explained below.

    “Trumka, Sweeney, and Chavez-Thompson represented a turn away from blue-collar industrial unionism and the AFL-CIO’s traditional emphasis on raising wages and improving working conditions. Rather, they focused on recruiting ever-growing numbers of government workers who would benefit from higher taxes and bigger government, and who therefore old reliably support socialism and America’s pro-big government Democratic Party.”
    Now the reason for seeing the union boss and the “Progressive Caucus” first becomes crystal clear. They are working to set up a socialist Agenda and Congress is contacted just as a picture taking opportunity. Why would any President of the United States open up talks about the fiscal problems of the United States with these extreme left wing people? Could this mean that Obama has found a way to “control” the masses with the unions and the “Progressive Caucus”?

    Now that we know that Richard Trumka is closely associated with the “Progressive Caucus” of Congress, let us now look at the ideology behind the “Progressive Caucus”. We will get back to Richard Trumka and his “weekly” visits to the White House. He has had more visits to the White House than most Congressional members!

    Ms. Cheryl K. Chumley wrote an article on the “Progressive Caucus” in January of 2007 and what she wrote explains this group as a very extreme left group and that they are closely associated with the Socialist agenda. Ms. Chumley writes in her article Fringe-Left Democrats Wield New Influence

    Summary: The Democrats’ capture of Congress gives unprecedented power to the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC)—the organized left wing of the party. Among its expected 70 members in the 110th Congress, at least seven are slated to chair powerful congressional committees and a dozen or more will head subcommittees. In 2005 the Caucus created a fundraising arm, the American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation (APCPF), whose capacity to inflict long-term damage on American liberty should not be underestimated.
    Here she gives a very brief idea of what this group really has as an agenda, and it does Not help the very Constitution of the United States! They are pushing ideas that will destroy our Constitution and the rights many men and women died for protecting through the years. Ms. Chumley goes on to say:

    The congresswomen from the 9th and 6th districts of California put it best. “Progressives have forged new and powerful ways to join and influence the debate here in Washington,” said Barbara Lee. Lynn Woolsey observed, “We are in the midst of a progressive awakening in this country and I have never been more confident and optimistic about the future of progressive politics.” Representatives Lee and Woolsey are the co-chairmen of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Lee represents the cities of Berkeley and Oakland, while Woolsey represents Marin and Sonoma counties.”
    This group now has some 75 known members that are proud to say they belong to the Socialist Democrat Party of the United States! This should be very disturbing in our nation mainly to the fact that our nation was never formed to accept Socialism; it fought wars to stop Socialism! Now we have members of Congress proudly stating they are members to a group that is dead set to destroy our very Constitution and replace it with the socialist ideology! The “Progressive Caucus” is nothing more than a shadow word for the Socialists that wish to ruin our nation and take it over under the umbrella of Socialism for their own benefit. One must wonder why would a nation based upon freedom and God given rights, which cannot and should not be derived from the government, allow this type of ideology be in the forefront of our political system? Have we failed the founders of the United States? We are a nation of many different people that came here in search of freedom to choose and live with the hope that we can achieve the many things we wish for our family including freedom of choice.

    This Progressive Caucus, which should be called the Socialist Caucus, since their ideas fall directly in line with the Socialist form of thinking. It cannot be stated enough that the very word, “progressive” is a word that has been used to ensure that people do not get scared when they hear that rather than hearing the terrible word, socialist! It cannot be stated enough that the “progressive” is a term that is clearly representing the socialists of this nation and they do not harbor the idea that people do have the right to choose what they want. This is shown exclusively by the way the progressives have designed and forced the Obamacare law down the throats of the people, even when over 70 percent of the nation opposed it. The biggest leader in the House of Representatives at the time, Nancy Pelosi was in fact a member of the Socialist Party but got out in order to show she was not a member, but her ideas are still aligned in the socialist ideology.


    Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/ob...#ixzz2CjWarJeY
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #39
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    White House rethinking that corporate-funding ban for Obama’s inauguration


    posted at 3:46 pm on November 23, 2012 by Erika Johnsen






    Although taxpayers always pick up the tab for the security and the costs of the actual inaugural ceremony in front of the Capitol, all of the parties, concerts, and events surrounding that auspicious occasion come from the generosity of the president-elect-or-incumbent’s supporters. After the 2008 campaign, that pervasive spirit of Hopenchange and the accompanying historic-ness of it all meant well-funded celebrations galore to usher in President Obama’s first term — but this year, perhaps not so much.

    It doesn’t look like the Obamas have any plans to tone down the festivities, but after a grueling election season and with an economy still in tatters, the White House is wondering if they shouldn’t maybe just ditch that lofty ban on corporate donations from last time around. The WSJ reports: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

    President Barack Obama’s fundraising advisers have urged the White House to accept corporate donations for his January 2013 inaugural celebration rather than rely exclusively on weary donors who underwrote his $1 billion re-election effort. …

    The White House wouldn’t release the cost of the ceremony or what the fundraising target is.

    Four years ago Mr. Obama barred corporations from donating to his inauguration, a gesture meant to show that well-heeled interests wouldn’t have undue influence in his administration. For the 2009 events he raised more than $50 million from other donors to help cover the costs of celebrations.

    But the climate is different now. The economy is still struggling, and the president’s campaign donors are drained from a long election season in which they were also asked to help fund the Democratic convention in Charlotte and congressional races.
    And heck, why not? We all know that that “transparency” and “ending business as usual” thing was a total sham anyways, so why not just put a stop to the charade and be honest about what’s going on here? In an ever-metastisizing big, progressive, regulatory government in which rent-seeking keeps taking the place of free-market signals, corporations and businesses are going to be looking for ways to ingratiate themselves with the Obama administration — so I think the White House should indeed feel free to quit with the pretensions any time now. Bring on the cronyism, round two!

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/2...-inauguration/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #40
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    The Obama administration proposed 80 new regulations… today
    posted at 2:11 pm on November 23, 2012


    The Obama administration proposed at least 80 new regulations the day after Thanksgiving (go ahead and give ‘em a scroll-through for some good times http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchR...PR;rpp=25;po=0 ), adding to the now 1,773 proposed in the last thirty days. …But tax hikes on the wealthy and more government spending are what we need to get our economy going again. Uh-huh.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #41
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Obama administration hurried to draft rulebook governing drone strikes in case Romney won the election
    By Doug Powers • November 25, 2012 01:27 PM

    Growing uneasy with the thought of unilateral kill list authority being inherited by a successor whose mantel doesn’t sport a Nobel Peace Prize, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1wHJDGfex the Obama administration spent some time during the campaign season drafting unmanned drone strike rules just in case Mitt Romney won the election: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill...uring-election

    The president’s team wanted to provide Romney a set of “clear standards and procedures” for drone strikes, a practice that thus far has been the cause of many behind-the-scenes debates, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

    While Administration officials openly say that the decisions to carry out drone strikes were both legal and done with great care, there was a sense that rules to govern the use of drone strikes should be institutionalized.
    According to the Times, a drone rulebook was being drafted because a lack of set standards governing the strikes could have been dangerous… in the hands of a potential Romney administration: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/wo...e-book.html?hp

    “There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands,” said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. With a continuing debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want to leave an “amorphous” program to his successor, the official said. The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mr. Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said.

    The reasoning apparently being that amorphous programs are best kept in the hands of amorphous administrations.

    In early September, this question was asked to people attending the Dem convention: "Can Mitt Romney be trusted with Obama’s kill list?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-RWnnwwvus Sensing they could be hit by an oncoming freight train of hypocrisy, top Dems in Charlotte responded with a resounding “no comment.” However, the White House’s position was obvious: Vague standards and unclear procedures in the hands of anybody except the administration that promised to toughen and clarify standards and procedures could have disastrous consequences.


    **Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/25...-drone-romney/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  10. #42
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Disagreeing with Obama can ruin Christmas, says White House report
    6:00 AM 11/26/2012

    Any Republican refusal to accept President Barack Obama’s fiscal plan may ruin Christmas for the nation’s retailers, the White House claimed in a report released Monday morning.

    “The National Retail Federation is forecasting that holiday sales will grow 4.1 percent this year … [but] if Congress does not act on the President’s plan to extend tax cuts for the middle-class, it will be risking one of the key contributors to growth and jobs in our economy at the most important time of the year for retail stores,” says the report, which was prepared by the Obama White House’s National Economic Council and the president’s Council of Economic Advisers.

    “The holiday season is no time to threaten middle-class pocketbooks,” urges the report, titled “The Middle-Class Tax Cuts’Impact On Consumer Spending & Retailers.”

    Democrats made the same claim June 28, 2011, during talks about increasing the federal government’s ability to borrow more funds.

    “Happy Holidays America: [Rep. John] Boehner plan would have the debt ceiling all over again during the holiday season, which is critical for the economy,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer declared.

    Obama spokesman Jay Carney and top political aide David Plouffe also made the same claim that day.

    The new report is part of Obama’s media campaign to blame Republicans for scheduled tax increases, spending cuts and the stalled economy during Obama’s tenure.

    The apparent disagreement over middle-class tax cuts — many of which were pushed by George W. Bush in 2001 amid opposition from Democrats — is also part of an ideological fight over the size and ambition of government.

    Obama and his progressive allies want to boost government’s spending and clout with extra taxes, primarily from wealthier Americans.

    Republicans want to curb governments’ reach, in part by keeping taxes low for all Americans, including the economy-boosting wealthy investors.

    That ideological fight is being waged during talks over the so-called “fiscal cliff,” the long-scheduled January arrival of tax increases and spending cuts that could extract $500 billion in annual spending from the economy.

    Obama says he wants the GOP to stop the scheduled tax increases for 98 percent of the public, and has promised to oppose any effort to stop planned tax increases for the wealthiest 2 percent.

    That position makes it difficult for the GOP to pass a temporary extension of current tax rates, prior to a bipartisan comprehensive tax-reform package planned for late 2013.

    Obama’s PR positioning frames the GOP as the instigator of the planned tax increases, which many Democrats have sought for years.

    The president’s messaging also seems poised to set up Republicans as scapegoats for the economy’s very slow growth during Obama’s first term in office.

    A failure to extend the expiring middle-class tax cuts would cost middle-class families roughly $2,200 per year and hurt the consumer-driven slice of the nation’s economy during the “holiday season” — the White House’s secular version of “Christmas” — says the report.


    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/26/di...#ixzz2DRmT5doE


    http://www.scribd.com/doc/114426293/...Report-Embargo

    RELATED: GOP aims to gut Christmas, White House alleges http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/28/go...house-alleges/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  11. #43
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Obama to meet with former presidential candidate he called a job destroyer about how best to create jobs
    By Doug Powers • November 28, 2012 04:11 PM

    Picture it: You’ve just been re-elected as president, and you want some feedback on how to create some jobs. What’s one of the first things you do? Exactly — call up the guy your campaign portrayed as a heartless and possibly felonious job destroyer for his thoughts on how to turn the economy around and give the middle class a boost.

    From ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ouse-thursday/

    President Obama will meet privately with former Republican rival Mitt Romney at the White House Thursday, their first meeting since the election, the White House announced Tuesday.

    The president and the former GOP nominee will meet for lunch in the private dining room, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced in a written statement.

    The meeting fulfills a promise the president made on election night to work with Romney going forward. ”We may have battled fiercely, but it’s only because we love this country deeply, and we care so strongly about its future,” the president said at the time. “In the weeks ahead, I also look forward to sitting down with Governor Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward.”
    A Secretary of Business job offer for Romney, perhaps? Hopefully Mitt would realize that addressing a bloated government’s crippling effects on private sector industry by creating yet another government job to figure it out is incredibly counterproductive and paradoxical. In other words, it might be more of a job for Biden.

    Meanwhile, Obama’s plan for the fiscal cliff is simple: Cushion the impact with a nice, soft pile of Twitter hashtags. http://twitchy.com/2012/11/28/hijack...hashtag-fails/

    **Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/28...y-white-house/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. #44
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Narcissist in chief: President Obama honors Rosa Parks anniversary ...
    with picture of himself
    Posted at 9:13 am on December 2, 2012 by Twitchy Staff


    Today is the 57th Anniversary of the day Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. Pic: President Obama on Rosa Parks bus http://t.co/cFaKOYDt

    The White House (@whitehouse) December 01, 2012


    Just when you think President Obama’s impossibly large ego can’t grow further, he makes it happen!

    President Obama loves to insert himself in other people’s biographies. He also loves to honor people, most recently Neil Armstrong http://twitchy.com/2012/08/27/narcis...re-of-himself/ and Vice President Biden http://twitchy.com/2012/11/20/all-ab...ic-of-himself/ with pictures of himself. All. About. Him. His laser-like focus never wavers from his own image.

    And the narcissism continues: To honor the 57th anniversary of the day Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus, President Obama paid homage with a picture of himself.


    Ugh.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...osa-parks-bus/

    The "personal moment" that was perfectly staged, photographed and distributed. #notAnOOpsie everywhere. #media—
    Josh (@PresPPsP) December 02, 2012
    A personal moment, giving him to time to reflect, as always, on himself.

    Rosa Parks’ history? She didn’t build that without Obama’s help. Criminy! Even honoring Rosa Parks is simply yet another reason for President Obama to stroke his own ego.

    http://twitchy.com/2012/12/02/narcis...re-of-himself/

    Obama has proven time and time again his lack of courage:

    * takes credit for the work of valorous men, then gets them killed because he can't keep his big mouth shut.

    * unwilling to do the right thing for the country as whole, but happy to bow to the illiterate, indoctrinated special interest groups that got him elected.

    * purposefully divides this once great nation so that those that are free-thinking, literate, and educated (self-educated or formally) can not derail the monstrosity that is the corporatist, entitlement state

    * claims to be "one of the black community", but has never lived there, never seen their hardships, and then gives them handouts instead of handups.

    I could go on, but it will just depress us all. Lies are all BHO has ... he's been lying since he was able to talk. Remember the stink over that DUI, alcohol at the age of 30. But BHO is hip because he was a pot-head/coke addict in high-school and college. Mitt Romney is a self made "rich white guy", BHO is a affirmative action, narcissist as evidenced by this photo.

    I agree, he is no Rosa Parks, no Booker T. Washington -- he's a nothing that has lied and cajoled his way into office. He isn't worthy to be on the same bus with Rosa Parks.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in