Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (1 Viewer)

[the moops]

Obama job approval with independents slumps to 35%

SOOOOOO glad that the independents saw through his latest teleprompter reading for the partisan hackery it was.

Don't mess this up Republicans.

Obama's approval ratings are so low, Kenyans are accusing him of being born in the USA.

I'm stealing this line. Awesome.

I'm amazed jon actually made a good joke.

 

[timschochet]

I'm impressed, Jon! Nice one.

ETA- I could actually see late night hosts and stand ups telling that joke.

 

[Statorama]

Obama administration squashes terrorism prosecutions for political reasons

2012 can't come soon enough.

a number of leaders of Islamic organizations... were about to be indicted on terror finance support charges by the U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas, which had been investigating the case for most of the past decade.

But those indictments were scuttled last year at the direction of top-level political appointees within the Department of Justice (DOJ) — and possibly even the White House.

Included in those indictments was at least one of the co-founders of CAIR, based on “Declination of Prosecution of Omar Ahmad,” a March 31 DOJ legal memo from Assistant Attorney General David Kris to Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler. A second DOJ official familiar with the investigation independently confirmed these details. Omar Ahmad is one of CAIR’s co-founders and its chairman emeritus. He was personally named, along with CAIR itself, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror finance trial in 2007 and 2008. During the trial FBI Agent Lara Burns testified that both Omar Ahmad and current CAIR executive director Nihad Awad were caught on FBI wiretaps attending a 1993 meeting of Hamas leaders in Philadelphia.

from a political perspective there was absolutely no way that they could move forward. That’s why this decision came from the top down. These individuals who were going to be prosecuted are still the administration’s interfaith allies. Not only would these Muslim groups and their friends in the media be screaming “Islamophobia” at the top of their lungs and that this is a war against Islam, but the administration would look like absolute fools. It’s kind of hard to prosecute someone on material support for terrorism when you have pictures of them getting handed awards from DOJ and FBI leaders for their supposed counter-terror efforts. How would Holder explain that when we’re carting off these prominent Islamic leaders in handcuffs for their role in a terror finance conspiracy we’ve been investigating for years? This is how bad the problem is. Why are we continuing to have anything to do with these groups knowing what we know?

 

[drfeelgood]

I'm impressed, Jon! Nice one. ETA- I could actually see late night hosts and stand ups telling that joke.

Jay Leno already used it two weeks ago.

 

[timschochet]

I'm impressed, Jon! Nice one. ETA- I could actually see late night hosts and stand ups telling that joke.

Jay Leno already used it two weeks ago.

Jon stole it??

 

[Statorama]

The President’s “matching deficit reduction” claim is off by a trillion dollars (or more)

In his weekly radio address the President said:

Now, one plan put forward by some Republicans in the House of Representatives aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years.

… That’s why I’ve proposed a balanced approach that matches that $4 trillion in deficit reduction.

In the radio address the President did not give a timeframe for his $4 trillion in deficit reduction. He did in his budget speech last Wednesday, however:

So today, I’m proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 12 years.

$4 trillion in deficit reduction over 12 years does not “match” $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. It’s not even close.

The twelve year timeframe is a red flag. Federal budgets are measured over 1, 5, and 10 year timeframes. Any other length “budget window” is nonstandard and suggests someone is playing games.

The President and his team have not yet provided sufficient detail for us to know precisely how his $4 trillion of deficit reduction is distributed over this 12 year window, but we can make some back-of-the-envelope guesses to get a feel for the magnitudes involved.

Based on my experience and until we get more detail from the Administration, I think it’s reasonable to assume the deficit reduction in the President’s plan increases linearly over time. Medicare and Medicaid savings generally fit this pattern, as do gradual plans to slow the growth of defense spending. After a jump in year 2, higher tax revenues should grow roughly with the economy.

If we assume the deficit reduction is a straight line increasing from year 1 to year 12, then $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 12 years would look like this:

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Savings $B 51 103 154 205 256 308 359 410 462 513 564 615 4,000 In this scenario, $4 trillion of deficit reduction over 12 years translates into about $2.8 trillion over 10 years. Because this scenario is linear, 29% of the savings would occur in years 11 and 12.

From the White House fact sheet, we know the timing of the President’s proposed Medicare and Medicaid savings:

the framework would save an additional $340 billion by 2021, $480 billion by 2023

This means that $140 B of his $480 B of health care savings would be in years 11 and 12, just over 29%. While this certainly is not conclusive proof that my overall linear assumption is correct, it is a nice positive reinforcement for that guess.

It’s fairly easy to see what’s going on here. The President decided on about $3 trillion of deficit reduction over 10 years, maybe a little less. He wanted to claim that he was “matching” the Ryan plan in deficit reduction, but was just achieving that same goal in a better way. Matching Republican deficit reduction is a lynchpin of the President’s fiscal argument. He was short by a trillion dollars or more, so he and his team decided to measure his proposal over a different timeframe and hope no one would notice. They lengthened the window by which they would measure the President’s deficit reduction until they matched the $4 trillion over 10 years in the Ryan plan and came up with 12 years.

Yes, these conclusions are based on my assumption of the President’s proposed deficit reduction path. We will see if anyone who challenges that assumption wants to provide their own alternate path that leads to a fundamentally different conclusion. We will also see if the Administration provides us with their actual deficit reduction path.

The President’s new budget plan provides insufficient detail to support his claim of $4 trillion of deficit reduction over 12 years. But if we stipulate that amount, it is likely that the President’s new budget proposal would result in $1 trillion more debt over the next ten years compared to the House-passed Ryan plan, and maybe more.

The President was therefore wildly incorrect when he said, referring to the House-passed Ryan budget plan, “I’ve proposed a balanced approach that matches that $4 trillion in deficit reduction.”

 

[Statorama]

President Whatever

Speaker John Boehner was criticized by some on the right for not pressing for deeper and more permanent cuts in spending than the $38 billion he claimed. But the deal nonetheless passed both houses by wide margins, and it contains some details that threaten to undermine the policies of the Obama Democrats in the future.

Most important, it requires the General Accountability Office to conduct an audit of the waivers from the Democrats' health care bill that are being issued in large numbers by the secretary of Health and Human Services Department.

This will raise an uncomfortable question. If Obamacare is so great, why are so many trying to get out from under it? And, more specifically, why are so many Democratic groups trying to get out from under it?

The fact is that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has granted more than 1,000 waivers from Obamacare. Many have been granted to labor unions. Some have been granted to giant corporations like McDonald's. One was granted to the entire state of Maine.

By what criteria is this relief being granted? That's unclear, and the GAO audit should produce some answers. But what it looks like to an outsider is that waivers are being granted to constituencies that have coughed up money (or in the case of Maine, four electoral votes) to the Democrats.

If so, what we're looking at is another example of gangster government in this administration. The law in its majesty applies to everyone except those who get special favors.

 

[Statorama]

Obama dusts off the Amnesty portion of his "vote for me in 2012" tour

How dumb does he think hispanics are? He didn't even blow a kiss to amnesty when he had a Democratic supermajority, but now that it's election time he's laying it on thicker than Sweet Baby Ray's.

That's why I highlighted the portion of the article I did. Look here President Zero, there was a time when you didn't need a single Republican vote to ram through your "mandate". NOW you're going to claim that it's Republicans holding up your "vision"? Are hispanics really going to buy that? I guess they bought it the first time, why not try it again.

2012 can't come soon enough.

President Obama is reviving the issue of immigration reform in the face of mounting political pressure as he readies his bid for reelection.

Obama is holding a meeting at the White House on Tuesday with current and former elected officials along with business and faith groups to discuss the "importance of fixing our nation's broken immigration system for our 21st-century economic and national security needs," according to his schedule.

Ahead of that meeting, the president insisted the fight for major immigration reform legislation is not yet over despite the fact Republicans, who are largely wary of current comprehensive proposals, made large gains in the 2010 midterm elections.

"The question is going to be, are we going to be able to find some Republicans who can partner with me and others to get this done once and for all, instead of using it as a political football?" he told Dallas-based WFAA-TV during one of four local television interviews on Monday.

The president's renewed focus on immigration reform comes as Latino advocates are demanding that he do more to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, a goal he touted during his 2008 presidential campaign.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), the head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus's immigration task force, is on a countrywide tour promoting the issue. He has repeatedly said he could refrain from supporting Obama next year if he does not seriously take on immigration reform.

Immigration reform has largely sat on the shelf ever since Republicans took control of the House and made significant gains in the Senate. The House last year passed the DREAM Act, which would establish a pathway to legal residency for some children of illegal immigrants, but it failed to advance past the Senate and its future prospects appear bleak in the current Congress. Some sort of compromise measure would likely be the only piece of legislation that could pass through the GOP House and the Democratic Senate.

In addition, the still-fragile economic recovery and the pro-democracy uprisings across the Middle East this year have drawn attention away from the issue. A Gallup poll released last week showed immigration at the bottom of a list of issues the public feels are most important. Only 4 percent ranked it as the top issue, compared to 45 percent who named either the economy in general or unemployment.

But at the same time, Obama needs to mobilize Latino groups and liberals, who favor comprehensive reform, to win reelection in 2012. Latino voters helped Obama win in a handful of key swing states three years ago, including Florida, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada.

Obama and the Democrats are looking to put other states with large minority populations into play in 2012, like Arizona and Texas, both typically GOP strongholds.

"I never write off any states," he told WFAA. "I love Texas."

 

[Statorama]

Comparing Obamacare to the "dangerous" Ryan plan

A warning from Britain on where Obamacare will lead

 

[Statorama]

CBS refuses to release unedited Obama "hot mike" comments

Allegedly referred to Americans as "slugs"

CBS doesn't want to lose their seat at the Obama love-fest supper table.

 

[Sarnoff]

Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead

In what may be the strongest signal yet of the new pro-labor orientation of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama, the agency filed a complaint Wednesday seeking to force Boeing to bring an airplane production line back to its unionized facilities in Washington State instead of moving the work to a nonunion plant in South Carolina.

In its complaint, the labor board said that Boeing’s decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 Dreamliner passenger plane to South Carolina was motivated by an unlawful desire to retaliate against union workers for their past strikes in Washington and to discourage future strikes. The agency’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said it was illegal for companies to take actions in retaliation against workers for exercising the right to strike.

Although manufacturers have long moved plants to nonunion states, the board noted that Boeing officials had, in internal documents and news interviews, specifically cited the strikes and potential future strikes as a reason for their 2009 decision to expand in South Carolina.

Boeing said it would “vigorously contest” the labor board’s complaint. “This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both N.L.R.B. and Supreme Court precedent,” said J. Michael Luttig, a Boeing executive vice president and its general counsel. “Boeing has every right under both federal law and its collective bargaining agreement to build additional U.S. production capacity outside of the Puget Sound region.”

It is highly unusual for the federal government to seek to reverse a corporate decision as important as the location of plant.

But ever since a Democratic majority took control of the five-member board after Mr. Obama’s election, the board has signaled that it would seek to adopt a more liberal, pro-union tilt after years of pro-employer decisions under President Bush.

Not only is the federal government saying to Boeing that it gets to decide where it puts its production lines, it's telling South Carolina it may as well not enact laws designed to attract investment.

 

[timschochet]

The headline "Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead" is especially interesting in light of the fact that Boeing has expressed a great amount of gratitude to Obama for negotiating the purchase of 30+ C-17s by India and Saudi Arabia last year, which kept that program alive for several more years.

You guys need to chill out a bit...

 

[Stinger Ray]

The headline "Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead" is especially interesting in light of the fact that Boeing has expressed a great amount of gratitude to Obama for negotiating the purchase of 30+ C-17s by India and Saudi Arabia last year, which kept that program alive for several more years. You guys need to chill out a bit...

Go away.

 

[timschochet]

The headline "Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead" is especially interesting in light of the fact that Boeing has expressed a great amount of gratitude to Obama for negotiating the purchase of 30+ C-17s by India and Saudi Arabia last year, which kept that program alive for several more years. You guys need to chill out a bit...

Go away.

Nice pithy response.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead

In what may be the strongest signal yet of the new pro-labor orientation of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama, the agency filed a complaint Wednesday seeking to force Boeing to bring an airplane production line back to its unionized facilities in Washington State instead of moving the work to a nonunion plant in South Carolina.

In its complaint, the labor board said that Boeing’s decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 Dreamliner passenger plane to South Carolina was motivated by an unlawful desire to retaliate against union workers for their past strikes in Washington and to discourage future strikes. The agency’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said it was illegal for companies to take actions in retaliation against workers for exercising the right to strike.

Although manufacturers have long moved plants to nonunion states, the board noted that Boeing officials had, in internal documents and news interviews, specifically cited the strikes and potential future strikes as a reason for their 2009 decision to expand in South Carolina.

Boeing said it would “vigorously contest” the labor board’s complaint. “This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both N.L.R.B. and Supreme Court precedent,” said J. Michael Luttig, a Boeing executive vice president and its general counsel. “Boeing has every right under both federal law and its collective bargaining agreement to build additional U.S. production capacity outside of the Puget Sound region.”

It is highly unusual for the federal government to seek to reverse a corporate decision as important as the location of plant.

But ever since a Democratic majority took control of the five-member board after Mr. Obama’s election, the board has signaled that it would seek to adopt a more liberal, pro-union tilt after years of pro-employer decisions under President Bush.

Not only is the federal government saying to Boeing that it gets to decide where it puts its production lines, it's telling South Carolina it may as well not enact laws designed to attract investment.

That does make me pause.

 

[Sarnoff]

Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead

In what may be the strongest signal yet of the new pro-labor orientation of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama, the agency filed a complaint Wednesday seeking to force Boeing to bring an airplane production line back to its unionized facilities in Washington State instead of moving the work to a nonunion plant in South Carolina.

In its complaint, the labor board said that Boeing’s decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 Dreamliner passenger plane to South Carolina was motivated by an unlawful desire to retaliate against union workers for their past strikes in Washington and to discourage future strikes. The agency’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said it was illegal for companies to take actions in retaliation against workers for exercising the right to strike.

Although manufacturers have long moved plants to nonunion states, the board noted that Boeing officials had, in internal documents and news interviews, specifically cited the strikes and potential future strikes as a reason for their 2009 decision to expand in South Carolina.

Boeing said it would “vigorously contest” the labor board’s complaint. “This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both N.L.R.B. and Supreme Court precedent,” said J. Michael Luttig, a Boeing executive vice president and its general counsel. “Boeing has every right under both federal law and its collective bargaining agreement to build additional U.S. production capacity outside of the Puget Sound region.”

It is highly unusual for the federal government to seek to reverse a corporate decision as important as the location of plant.

But ever since a Democratic majority took control of the five-member board after Mr. Obama’s election, the board has signaled that it would seek to adopt a more liberal, pro-union tilt after years of pro-employer decisions under President Bush.

Not only is the federal government saying to Boeing that it gets to decide where it puts its production lines, it's telling South Carolina it may as well not enact laws designed to attract investment.

That does make me pause.

Surely it's a consideration every time a company moves from a union to a non-union/right-to-work state. If choosing where to locate is indeed a free market among the states, shouldn't "we won't have to deal with any more costly strikes in S.C." be part of the discussion?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Absolutely. It's likely nothing more than that. I'd still like to read the emails or at least get more information than the fact they mentioned the strikes.

 

[Statorama]

That Boeing story is right out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged. Buy the book / see the movie.

 

[timschochet]

That Boeing story is right out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged. Buy the book / see the movie.

If you read the book, you'll be horrified by the movie. If you didn't read the book, you'll simply be confused by the movie and you'll probably fall asleep a few minutes in.

 

[Statorama]

That Boeing story is right out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged. Buy the book / see the movie.

If you read the book, you'll be horrified by the movie. If you didn't read the book, you'll simply be confused by the movie and you'll probably fall asleep a few minutes in.

Do you have some kind of financial stake in the movie "Rio"? Quit trying to depress ticket sales for Atlas Shrugged.

 

[bueno]

The headline "Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead" is especially interesting in light of the fact that Boeing has expressed a great amount of gratitude to Obama for negotiating the purchase of 30+ C-17s by India and Saudi Arabia last year, which kept that program alive for several more years. You guys need to chill out a bit...

This was a bad decision by the NLRB

 

[Statorama]

Obama administration threatens to withhold Social Security checks if Debt Ceiling isn't raised

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner likely scared millions of senior Americans recently when he claimed the government would have to stop sending Social Security checks if Congress fails to raise the national debt limit.

In fact, not once did the government fail to issue Social Security checks on time during the three previous occasions Congress did not raise the debt limit before Treasury’s deadline.

When a debt ceiling is reached, the Treasury Department is forbidden from issuing additional Treasury securities in order to pay the nation’s financial obligations. Geithner sent a letter to Congress earlier this month identifying May 16th as the probable date that the Treasury Department would have to start choosing which bills it would pay since it could not issue more debt. Asked by ABC News last Sunday what happens if the debt limit is reached, Geithner responded:

What will happen is that we’d have to stop making payments to our seniors — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. We’d have to stop paying veterans’ benefits. We’d have to stop paying all the other payments on all the other things the government does.

And then we would risk default on our interest payments. If we did that, we’d tip the U.S. economy and the world economy back into recession, depression. I think it would make the last crisis look like a tame, modest crisis. It would be much more dramatic. The cost of borrowing would go up for everybody, and it would have a permanent devastating damage on our credit rating as a country.

Is any of this true? Will seniors not get their June Social Security checks? Will doctors be stiffed for the health care they provided Medicare patients? Will the Pentagon be unable to buy fuel for missions in Afghanistan? If history is any guide, the answer to all of these questions is ‘no’.

The United States has reached its debt limit three times in the past thirty years and not only did economic Armageddon never materialize, but not a single Social Security check was late. First in 1985, then in 1995, and then again in 2002, Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling for months after the limit was reached. Contra Geithner, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security payments were all made. No interest payments were missed. The world economy did not collapse. Nothing that Geithner warned about came true.

That is not to say that none of those things could happen. In August 1996, the Government Accountability Office produced a report on the legality of steps taken by then Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin during the 1995-1996 debt ceiling showdown.

Among other actions, Rubin delayed reinvesting interest payments from government employee trust funds into new Treasury securities, redeemed some pension trust fund bonds early, and even recalled cash balances Treasury had parked at some large banks. The GAO found that all of these actions were perfectly legal.

The GAO reports highlights the tremendous discretion Secretary Geithner has over how and when the federal government pays what bills. So the only reason June Social Security checks might not go out, as Geithner warned they might not, is if Geithner chose not to send them.

 

[Statorama]

This was a bad decision by the NLRB

No kidding. Why public sentiment is turning against unionized labor

The US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) says it will seek an order to require Boeing to place the second 787 production line in Washington state, in response to charges filed by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) 17 months after Boeing selected North Charleston, South Carolina to host the site.

Acting general counsel Lafe Solomon says the NLRB "found reasonable cause to believe that Boeing had violated two sections of the National Labor Relations Act because its statements were coercive to employees and its actions were motivated by a desire to retaliate for past strikes and chill future strike activity."

So basically unionized workers can strike whenever they want without any repercussions? They can try to ruin a business without any risks of their own?It's madness.

This is one of the reasons why the House tried to defund the NLRB

 

[jamny]

Seems there's more talk about how people are dissatisfied with "government" now. I remember how it used to be mostly disatisfaction with "Bush" in the past.

 

[Raider Nation]

Worst President ever. I'm aboot ready to move to Canada.

 

[tommyboy]

The headline "Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead" is especially interesting in light of the fact that Boeing has expressed a great amount of gratitude to Obama for negotiating the purchase of 30+ C-17s by India and Saudi Arabia last year, which kept that program alive for several more years. You guys need to chill out a bit...

dumbest post you ever put up, and that's saying something.

 

[quickhands]

The headline "Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead" is especially interesting in light of the fact that Boeing has expressed a great amount of gratitude to Obama for negotiating the purchase of 30+ C-17s by India and Saudi Arabia last year, which kept that program alive for several more years. You guys need to chill out a bit...

dumbest post you ever put up, and that's saying something.

it's exactly the kind of post that makes it impossible to take tim seriously. His shtick is balanced thoughtful thinker. But his conclusions are consistently on the side of bigger govt. Especially on big issues.The govt saying where a business can locate it's production. Totalitarian?

 

[timschochet]

The headline "Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead" is especially interesting in light of the fact that Boeing has expressed a great amount of gratitude to Obama for negotiating the purchase of 30+ C-17s by India and Saudi Arabia last year, which kept that program alive for several more years. You guys need to chill out a bit...

dumbest post you ever put up, and that's saying something.

it's exactly the kind of post that makes it impossible to take tim seriously. His shtick is balanced thoughtful thinker. But his conclusions are consistently on the side of bigger govt. Especially on big issues.The govt saying where a business can locate it's production. Totalitarian?

That wasn't my point. I don't particularly like this decision. I don't like the NLRB. But I also think it's not right to label Obama as the enemy of Boeing in light of what he did last year. And I don't know the exact level of Obama's involvement in this anyway. I think your use of the word "totalitarian" is extremist.As far as me being a "balanced thoughtful thinker" I never made that claim. I would be very happy if people described me as thoughtful, and as independent. Balanced, I'm not.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

The headline "Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead" is especially interesting in light of the fact that Boeing has expressed a great amount of gratitude to Obama for negotiating the purchase of 30+ C-17s by India and Saudi Arabia last year, which kept that program alive for several more years.

You guys need to chill out a bit...

dumbest post you ever put up, and that's saying something.

it's exactly the kind of post that makes it impossible to take tim seriously. His shtick is balanced thoughtful thinker. But his conclusions are consistently on the side of bigger govt. Especially on big issues.The govt saying where a business can locate it's production. Totalitarian?

That wasn't my point. I don't particularly like this decision. I don't like the NLRB. But I also think it's not right to label Obama as the enemy of Boeing in light of what he did last year. And I don't know the exact level of Obama's involvement in this anyway. I think your use of the word "totalitarian" is extremist.As far as me being a "balanced thoughtful thinker" I never made that claim. I would be very happy if people described me as thoughtful, and as independent. Balanced, I'm not.

Nobody is saying Obama made the decision himself. But he put together the team that DID make the decision. And it was widely known the team he assembled was going to lean towards unions.

 

[quickhands]

The headline "Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead" is especially interesting in light of the fact that Boeing has expressed a great amount of gratitude to Obama for negotiating the purchase of 30+ C-17s by India and Saudi Arabia last year, which kept that program alive for several more years.You guys need to chill out a bit...

dumbest post you ever put up, and that's saying something.

it's exactly the kind of post that makes it impossible to take tim seriously. His shtick is balanced thoughtful thinker. But his conclusions are consistently on the side of bigger govt. Especially on big issues.The govt saying where a business can locate it's production. Totalitarian?

That wasn't my point. I don't particularly like this decision. I don't like the NLRB. But I also think it's not right to label Obama as the enemy of Boeing in light of what he did last year. And I don't know the exact level of Obama's involvement in this anyway. I think your use of the word "totalitarian" is extremist.As far as me being a "balanced thoughtful thinker" I never made that claim. I would be very happy if people described me as thoughtful, and as independent. Balanced, I'm not.

clear is what I meant. Balanced is not. Apology.I'm not sure what obama has to do with this either except for who he appointed to this board. The ruling stinks. It is definitely extremeist.the word totalitarian fits because the govt is in effect saying it decides where a company can set up it's production.but if you want to call it fascist I'll be ok with that description.and as to why I have a hard time taking you seriously is that you are elitist. And I have more respect and trust in the unwashed masses than you appear to.

 

[Statorama]

Washington Post slams Obama's shameful inaction in Syria

Conservatives have been calling him on this for five weeks. Better late than never I guess.

It's Obama's M.O. though. If you're a friend of or neutral towards the U.S., Obama will fight against you every step of the way. If you're antagonistic toward the U.S. Obama lets you do as you please.

FOR THE PAST five weeks, growing numbers of Syrians have been gathering in cities and towns across the country to demand political freedom — and the security forces of dictator Bashar al-Assad have been responding by opening fire on them. According to Syrian human rights groups, more than 220 people had been killed by Friday. And Friday may have been the worst day yet: According to Western news organizations, which mostly have had to gather information from outside the country, at least 75 people were gunned down in places that included the suburbs of Damascus, the city of Homs and a village near the southern town of Daraa, where the protests began.

Massacres on this scale usually prompt a strong response from Western democracies, as they should. Ambassadors are withdrawn; resolutions are introduced at the U.N. Security Council; international investigations are mounted and sanctions applied. In Syria’s case, none of this has happened. The Obama administration has denounced the violence — a presidential statement called Friday’s acts of repression “outrageous” — but otherwise remained passive. Even the ambassador it dispatched to Damascus during a congressional recess last year remains on post.

The administration has sat on its hands despite the fact that the Assad regime is one of the most implacable U.S. adversaries in the Middle East. It is Iran’s closest ally; it supplies Iranian weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip for use against Israel. Since 2003 it has helped thousands of jihadists from across the Arab world travel to Iraq to attack American soldiers. It sought to build a secret nuclear reactor with the help of North Korea and destabilized the pro-Western government of neighboring Lebanon by sponsoring a series of assassinations.

Like people across the Middle East, the protesters in Syria say that they are seeking the establishment of a democratic system. A statement issued by organizers of the protests Friday called for an end to torture and killings by security forces; the release of all political prisoners; an investigation into the deaths of those killed so far; and reform of the constitution, including a limit on presidential terms. The mass demonstrations on Good Friday were called to show that the cause is neither Islamic nor sectarian.

Yet the Obama administration has effectively sided with the regime against the protesters. Rather than repudiate Mr. Assad and take tangible steps to weaken his regime, it has proposed, with increasing implausibility, that his government “implement meaningful reforms,” as the president’s latest statement put it. As The Post’s Karen DeYoung and Scott Wilson reported Friday, the administration, which made the “engagement” of Syria a key part of its Middle East policy, still clings to the belief that Mr. Assad could be part of a Middle East peace process; and it would rather not trade “a known quantity in Assad for an unknown future.”

As a practical matter, these considerations are misguided. Even if his massacres allow him to survive in power, Mr. Assad will hardly be a credible partner for Israel. And no matter what happens, Syria will not return to the police-state stability it has known during the past several decades.

As a moral matter, the stance of the United States is shameful. To stand by passively while hundreds of people seeking freedom are gunned down by their government makes a mockery of the U.S. commitment to human rights. In recent months President Obama has pledged repeatedly that he would support the aspiration of Arabs for greater freedom. In Syria, he has not kept his word.

 

[BoneYardDog]

4 times more deaths in Afghanistan...

National debt in record territory and going up...

4 dollar a gallon gas...

Crap economy and high unemployment...

Back room deal to his friends...

Enemy to business...

Backs the wrong side on every turn in the middle east...

Liar...

Totally partisan...

Craps on people/states/businesses who disagree with him...

Unethical...

Shutting down NASA...

Thinks green is going to work...

Huge moron...

Union hack...

Yeah doing a great job...

 

[Hoart Petterson]

4 times more deaths in Afghanistan...National debt in record territory and going up...4 dollar a gallon gas...Crap economy and high unemployment...Back room deal to his friends...Enemy to business...Backs the wrong side on every turn in the middle east...Liar...Totally partisan...Craps on people/states/businesses who disagree with him...Unethical...Shutting down NASA...Thinks green is going to work...Huge moron... Union hack...Yeah doing a great job...

Seek help bro.

 

[jon_mx]

What's the over/under for Obama's war for oil? I am thinking maybe 3. Libya, Syria, and Saudi.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

What's the over/under for Obama's war for oil? I am thinking maybe 3. Libya, Syria, and Saudi.

What do you mean? I really doubt the media will start calling it Obama's war for oil even if he attacked all 3 countries. It's just the way things go.

 

[jon_mx]

What's the over/under for Obama's war for oil? I am thinking maybe 3. Libya, Syria, and Saudi.

What do you mean? I really doubt the media will start calling it Obama's war for oil even if he attacked all 3 countries. It's just the way things go.

In the age of the internets, we are the media.

 

[johnnycakes]

I'm in China right now. They love 0bama here. Got this great t-shirt that shows a bust of 0bama. He is wearing a cap with a red star and, from the shoulders and chest area, appears to be a Chinese military uniform. Underneath it says, in Chinese, "working for the people." In other words, the Chinese say he is doing a great job of working for them. No joke. Do you really need to know any more?

 

[Sarnoff]

Got this great t-shirt that shows a bust of 0bama. He is wearing a cap with a red star and, from the shoulders and chest area, appears to be a Chinese military uniform. Underneath it says, in Chinese, "working for the people."

 

[bueno]

The headline "Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead" is especially interesting in light of the fact that Boeing has expressed a great amount of gratitude to Obama for negotiating the purchase of 30+ C-17s by India and Saudi Arabia last year, which kept that program alive for several more years. You guys need to chill out a bit...

dumbest post you ever put up, and that's saying something.

it's exactly the kind of post that makes it impossible to take tim seriously. His shtick is balanced thoughtful thinker. But his conclusions are consistently on the side of bigger govt. Especially on big issues.The govt saying where a business can locate it's production. Totalitarian?

That wasn't my point. I don't particularly like this decision. I don't like the NLRB. But I also think it's not right to label Obama as the enemy of Boeing in light of what he did last year. And I don't know the exact level of Obama's involvement in this anyway. I think your use of the word "totalitarian" is extremist.As far as me being a "balanced thoughtful thinker" I never made that claim. I would be very happy if people described me as thoughtful, and as independent. Balanced, I'm not.

Isn't the opposite of balanced unbalanced Tim?

 

[johnnycakes]

Got this great t-shirt that shows a bust of 0bama. He is wearing a cap with a red star and, from the shoulders and chest area, appears to be a Chinese military uniform. Underneath it says, in Chinese, "working for the people."

THIS is what they look like.

 

[jon_mx]

Got this great t-shirt that shows a bust of 0bama. He is wearing a cap with a red star and, from the shoulders and chest area, appears to be a Chinese military uniform. Underneath it says, in Chinese, "working for the people."

THIS is what they look like.

Chairman Barack!

 

[timschochet]

The headline "Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead" is especially interesting in light of the fact that Boeing has expressed a great amount of gratitude to Obama for negotiating the purchase of 30+ C-17s by India and Saudi Arabia last year, which kept that program alive for several more years. You guys need to chill out a bit...

dumbest post you ever put up, and that's saying something.

it's exactly the kind of post that makes it impossible to take tim seriously. His shtick is balanced thoughtful thinker. But his conclusions are consistently on the side of bigger govt. Especially on big issues.The govt saying where a business can locate it's production. Totalitarian?

That wasn't my point. I don't particularly like this decision. I don't like the NLRB. But I also think it's not right to label Obama as the enemy of Boeing in light of what he did last year. And I don't know the exact level of Obama's involvement in this anyway. I think your use of the word "totalitarian" is extremist.As far as me being a "balanced thoughtful thinker" I never made that claim. I would be very happy if people described me as thoughtful, and as independent. Balanced, I'm not.

Isn't the opposite of balanced unbalanced Tim?

Yes.

 

[Raider Nation]

4 times more deaths in Afghanistan...National debt in record territory and going up...4 dollar a gallon gas...Crap economy and high unemployment...Back room deal to his friends...Enemy to business...Backs the wrong side on every turn in the middle east...Liar...Totally partisan...Craps on people/states/businesses who disagree with him...Unethical...Shutting down NASA...Thinks green is going to work...Huge moron... Union hack...Yeah doing a great job...

Seek help bro.

Which part did he get wrong?

 

[timschochet]

4 times more deaths in Afghanistan...National debt in record territory and going up...4 dollar a gallon gas...Crap economy and high unemployment...Back room deal to his friends...Enemy to business...Backs the wrong side on every turn in the middle east...Liar...Totally partisan...Craps on people/states/businesses who disagree with him...Unethical...Shutting down NASA...Thinks green is going to work...Huge moron... Union hack...Yeah doing a great job...

Seek help bro.

Which part did he get wrong?

Most of it. Specifically:1. I don't blame Obama for the debt being what it is. The stimulus package was necessary and has been a great positive IMO.2. Not sure what Obama can do about the price of gasoline. I wonder what solution, if any, Boneyard Dog would offer, other than to blame Obama. 3. The economy is getting better. Unemployment is getting better. I don't think Obama can be blamed for either (nor should he be credited for the improvement, for that matter.)4. "Back room deal to his friends"?? Don't know what this refers to.5. Unfortunately, Obama is more of an enemy to business than I would have hoped. Not at the level that BYD and his critics describe, but I wish he were friendlier to business. 6. I think Obama's actions in the Middle East have been largely correct and I support them generally. There are exceptions.7. Obama has been forced to change his positions on a few issues due to politics, and then, like most politicians, pretended that his new position was consistent all along. This is typical Washington, but I don't think it makes him out to be a liar.8. Ask progressives if Obama is partisan. I don't think he is at all. 9. "Craps on those who disagree with them?" When? I don't know what BYD refers to here.10. I've seen no sign of a lack of ethics.11. Agree with BYD, I don't approve of reducing funds for NASA. Unfortunately both parties seem to be in favor of this.12. Agree with BYD, I don't approve of green solutions over natural gas and nuclear options.13. A huge moron? Hardly. One of the brightest presidents we've ever had. This doesn't make him necessarily an excellent president; Carter was very bright as well. But Obama is not stupid.14. Obama supports unions more than I would. But he's a Democrat, so that is to be expected. It shouldn't be a major source of criticism.So overall, though Boneyard Dog gets a small amount of stuff right, as usual he so overstates his case as to come off rather ridiculous. On the whole I believe Obama is doing an OK job, pretty good in some areas, not so good in others. He is certainly not one of our worst presidents.

 

[Jewell]

14. Obama supports unions more than I would. But he's a Democrat, so that is to be expected. It shouldn't be a major source of criticism.

That's weak. Sure Democrats support unions, but there are varying degrees of support and influence.
and Acorn.You know about Obama's regular meetings with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

And you know about Obama speaking out on a state issue in support of the unions (Wisconsin).

So which Democratic President do you think may have been as influenced or in support of unions as Obama?

 

[Jewell]

7. Obama has been forced to change his positions on a few issues due to politics, and then, like most politicians, pretended that his new position was consistent all along. This is typical Washington, but I don't think it makes him out to be a liar.10. I've seen no sign of a lack of ethics.

Analysis: Obama went too far in critiqueBY FACTCHECK.ORG President Barack Obama misrepresented the House Republicans' budget plan at times and exaggerated its impact on U.S. residents during an April 13 speech on deficit reduction.-  Obama claimed the Republicans' "Path to Prosperity" plan would cause "up to 50 million Americans "¦ to lose their health insurance." But that worst-case figure is based in part on speculation and assumptions.-  He said the GOP plan would replace Medicare with "a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry." That's an exaggeration. Nothing would change for those 55 and older. Those younger would get federal subsidies to buy private insurance from a Medicare exchange set up by the government.-  He said "poor children," "children with autism" and "kids with disabilities" would be left "to fend for themselves." That, too, is an exaggeration. The GOP says states would have "freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that fits the needs of their unique populations." It doesn't bar states from covering those children.-  He repeated a deceptive talking point that the new health care law will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion. That's the Democrats' own estimate over a 20-year period. The Congressional Budget Office pegged the deficit savings at $210 billion over 10 years and warned that estimates beyond a decade are "more and more uncertain."-  He falsely claimed that making the Bush tax cuts permanent would give away "$1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire." That figure — which is actually $807 billion over 10 years — refers to tax cuts for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000, not just millionaires and billionaires.-  He said the tax burden on the wealthy is the lowest it has been in 50 years. But the most recent nonpartisan congressional analysis showed that the average federal tax rate for high-income taxpayers was lower in 1986.

 

[Bronco Billy]

CBS refuses to release unedited Obama "hot mike" comments

Allegedly referred to Americans as "slugs"

CBS doesn't want to lose their seat at the Obama love-fest supper table.

Obama's disdain of the majority of Americans is well documented. It's difficult to figure why the GOP hasn't seized on his statements and actions to show the rest of the country just how removed and out-of-touch he is.

 

[Jewell]

One of the brightest presidents we've ever had.

How on Earth can you prove that "factual" statement?

 

[Bronco Billy]

One of the brightest presidents we've ever had.

How on Earth can you prove that "factual" statement?

Read the whole 14 point list. It's a complete joke starting with the first point and maintaining all the way through. Not that we should expect any less given the source.

 

[timschochet]

14. Obama supports unions more than I would. But he's a Democrat, so that is to be expected. It shouldn't be a major source of criticism.

That's weak. Sure Democrats support unions, but there are varying degrees of support and influence.

What I'm saying is we all knew going in that he was a strong pro-union president. If this is a decisive issue for you, then you're probably not going to support him. I don't like this, but its not particulary a decisive issue for me and I don't know that it deserves extra criticism.