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

[BoneYardDog]

“For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that they’re about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act,” then-Sen. Obama said in a July 17, 2007 press release. “The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.”

Obama was pushing for a 90 day warning

Change you can believe in indeed.I agree with you that it's nothing that would have any major impact on the election either way. Makes it all the more pathetic that he's done this.

WARN is basically a way for large firms to avoid paying severance. If you meet the 60 day notification requirement you don't have to pay, otherwise you need to make up the difference. What it seems the Admin has done is say that taxpayers will cover severance costs, so they aren't ignoring the law just saying that the government will fulfill the requirement if sequestration is enacted. Since the probability of sequestration is essentially zero, this is a good decision all around by the White House. Good for the workers who won't have to go through the Holidays with an impending layoff notice, good for the companies who won't lose people that would find other jobs during that time, and good for the economy as those workers won't go into layoff spending mode.

fixed...and any lawsuits that might result from not notifying.

No, they won't. Companies are just required to pay for 60 days if the layoffs exceed a certain % of the total workforce, the notice is in lieu of compensation. Again, zero percent chance sequestration happens and even if it did we'd be looking at a drop in the bucket of saving from the automatic cuts. This is an unambiguously good, and largely apolitical decision as far as I can tell. I don't see much political influence one way or the other, since both sides are equally accountable for the sequestration mess to begin with.

Another lie...

 

[Boston]

I think Obama is the first truly bi-partisan President...he's a combination of Jimmy Carter's ineptness and Richard Nixon's creepiness...

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

“For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that they’re about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act,” then-Sen. Obama said in a July 17, 2007 press release. “The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.”

Obama was pushing for a 90 day warning

Change you can believe in indeed.I agree with you that it's nothing that would have any major impact on the election either way. Makes it all the more pathetic that he's done this.

WARN is basically a way for large firms to avoid paying severance. If you meet the 60 day notification requirement you don't have to pay, otherwise you need to make up the difference. What it seems the Admin has done is say that taxpayers will cover severance costs, so they aren't ignoring the law just saying that the government will fulfill the requirement if sequestration is enacted. Since the probability of sequestration is essentially zero, this is a good decision all around by the White House. Good for the workers who won't have to go through the Holidays with an impending layoff notice, good for the companies who won't lose people that would find other jobs during that time, and good for the economy as those workers won't go into layoff spending mode.

fixed...and any lawsuits that might result from not notifying.

No, they won't. Companies are just required to pay for 60 days if the layoffs exceed a certain % of the total workforce, the notice is in lieu of compensation. Again, zero percent chance sequestration happens and even if it did we'd be looking at a drop in the bucket of saving from the automatic cuts. This is an unambiguously good, and largely apolitical decision as far as I can tell. I don't see much political influence one way or the other, since both sides are equally accountable for the sequestration mess to begin with.

Another lie...

You don't know wtf you are talking about. Companies can choose to pay a severance amount but are legally obligated to pay for 60 days from the notification date if they are over a certain size (100 I think) and more than 10% of the workers at a particular facility are affected.The labor dept. gave instructions back in July that sequestration wouldn't trigger the need to do WARN citing the relevant case law and the Act itself that specifically states it is not intended to the types of blanket notifications some of defense companies were talking about.

Republican Chicken Littles cried that it could only be politics.

Some of defense companies continued to press the issue, saying they might get sued in spite of the fact that the dept that oversees WARN specifically stated it doesn't apply. So the OBM issues a statement that companies will be imdemnified as long as they follow the Dept. of Labor instructions.

Republican Chicken Littles claim it can only be politics.

The Dept of Defense says that they wouldn't be adjusting contracts until well after Jan 2nd in any event, so not only is WARN unnecessary due to legal precedent and DOL instruction, but also inappropriate because of the timelines.

None of this deters the Republican Chicken Littles, who continue to claim that these decisions can only be political. Missing from any of their accusations, any evidence of understanding the law or legal precedence.

 

[BoneYardDog]

“For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that they’re about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act,” then-Sen. Obama said in a July 17, 2007 press release. “The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.”

Obama was pushing for a 90 day warning

Change you can believe in indeed.I agree with you that it's nothing that would have any major impact on the election either way. Makes it all the more pathetic that he's done this.

WARN is basically a way for large firms to avoid paying severance. If you meet the 60 day notification requirement you don't have to pay, otherwise you need to make up the difference. What it seems the Admin has done is say that taxpayers will cover severance costs, so they aren't ignoring the law just saying that the government will fulfill the requirement if sequestration is enacted. Since the probability of sequestration is essentially zero, this is a good decision all around by the White House. Good for the workers who won't have to go through the Holidays with an impending layoff notice, good for the companies who won't lose people that would find other jobs during that time, and good for the economy as those workers won't go into layoff spending mode.

fixed...and any lawsuits that might result from not notifying.

No, they won't. Companies are just required to pay for 60 days if the layoffs exceed a certain % of the total workforce, the notice is in lieu of compensation. Again, zero percent chance sequestration happens and even if it did we'd be looking at a drop in the bucket of saving from the automatic cuts. This is an unambiguously good, and largely apolitical decision as far as I can tell. I don't see much political influence one way or the other, since both sides are equally accountable for the sequestration mess to begin with.

Another lie...

You don't know wtf you are talking about. Companies can choose to pay a severance amount but are legally obligated to pay for 60 days from the notification date if they are over a certain size (100 I think) and more than 10% of the workers at a particular facility are affected.The labor dept. gave instructions back in July that sequestration wouldn't trigger the need to do WARN citing the relevant case law and the Act itself that specifically states it is not intended to the types of blanket notifications some of defense companies were talking about.

Republican Chicken Littles cried that it could only be politics.

Some of defense companies continued to press the issue, saying they might get sued in spite of the fact that the dept that oversees WARN specifically stated it doesn't apply. So the OBM issues a statement that companies will be imdemnified as long as they follow the Dept. of Labor instructions.

Republican Chicken Littles claim it can only be politics.

The Dept of Defense says that they wouldn't be adjusting contracts until well after Jan 2nd in any event, so not only is WARN unnecessary due to legal precedent and DOL instruction, but also inappropriate because of the timelines.

None of this deters the Republican Chicken Littles, who continue to claim that these decisions can only be political. Missing from any of their accusations, any evidence of understanding the law or legal precedence.

I have been given TWO WARN notices, yeah I know how they work... At the beginning of the fiscal year, last Friday 52 people were laid off, they were all give WARN notices and all received their separation bonuses... The company laying off the workers, are working a Federal Contract they were legally obligated to give everyone that might have lost their job a WARN notice, it is the law...We have gone thought these WARN notices for 18 months now since obama gutted manned space flight for the United States... I work for a company that has already had about 2000 layoffs since that time...

The 52 people that just got canned worked for another company and both are subcontractors to Boeing and Lockheed Martin...

Chicken Little my ###, I wish you were one of the ones that lost their job, this action was absolutely and only political in nature, period...

 

[djmich]

Terrible

 

[BoneYardDog]

obama To Defense Contractors: Hey, I Need You To Break Federal Law And Hold Off Issuing Those Layoff Warnings Until After The Election, Okay?

obama asked defense contractors to violate federal law – for political purposes – and promised to pay any fines or penalties they may incur as a result – with taxpayer money.

The federal legislation requiring the layoff notices - the WARN Act - was passed in 1988 by a veto-proof Democrat Congress, which allowed it to become law without President Reagan’s signature.



Democrats have viewed the Act as an important worker-protection safeguard for 24 years – until it threatened to adversely effect obama’s poll numbers, that is.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I have been given TWO WARN notices, yeah I know how they work... At the beginning of the fiscal year, last Friday 52 people were laid off, they were all give WARN notices and all received their separation bonuses... The company laying off the workers, are working a Federal Contract they were legally obligated to give everyone that might have lost their job a WARN notice, it is the law...We have gone thought these WARN notices for 18 months now since obama gutted manned space flight for the United States... I work for a company that has already had about 2000 layoffs since that time... The 52 people that just got canned worked for another company and both are subcontractors to Boeing and Lockheed Martin...Chicken Little my ###, I wish you were one of the ones that lost their job, this action was absolutely and only political in nature, period...

I'm sorry you have been on the receiving end of WARN, it not fun. I've been on the issuing end more times than I would like. My understanding admittedly comes from private industry, so I'm open if someone can point me to actual legal opinion that says the DOL, OBM, and DOD are giving guidance out of line with the correct interpretation of the law. What I've seen is plenty of opinions that they are correct, and those opinions also line up how we have applied it in the private sector. If a company came to us and told us that they might cut a project at the end of the year, but not what project, where, or how many people would be affected, we would be under no WARN obligation. That's the private equivalent of what's happening.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I should also add, if a company did come back to us in January and gave us a program to ramp down we would at that point be obligated to provide WARN notice and pay for 60 days per the statute, whether we keep them working for 60 days or just pay them separation is between us and the contracting company. Generally speaking we keep them working, since if they find a new job during that period of time it eliminates the obligation.

Oh and on your PM BYD, in spite of the fact that I generally find you to be a hateful troll, I honestly bear you no ill will. I'm also not lying, so I'm sorry you can't see that.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Obama Campaign Spokesman Abruptly Ends Radio Interview After Being Asked About Obama ‘Lying’ About LibyaObama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt abruptly ended a heated radio interview Thursday after being pressed on President Barack Obama’s differing statements on the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.LaBolt insisted on Cleveland‘s WTAM that the White House has been sharing all the facts as they’ve come in from the intelligence community. Asked whether the president should make a statement disavowing his past comments blaming the assault on an anti-Islam video, LaBolt pushed back.“The president called it an act of terror within 24 hours, he again updated the American people on the incident in Benghazi in his interview on ABC News last night and he — ” LaBolt said.“So which time was he lying, when he called it a terror attack or when he called it a video problem?” WTAM’s host interjected. “Because he said two different things.”“Thank you for having me this morning, I’ve gotta move to my next interview,” LaBolt said, ending the conversation.

 

[BoneYardDog]

David Axelrod Chucks Hillary and State Department Under the Benghazi Bus“The White House was talking about what the White House knew. There are embassies all over the world and requests all over the world and these requests go over the the security professionals at the State Department. And there’s no doubt that some of these matters went into the security department of the State Department. But it didn’t come to the White House and that’s what the White House was responding to.”

 

[Sarnoff]

First it was YouTube's fault. Now it's Hillary's. Got it.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Rupert Murdoch Predicts ‘Nightmare for Israel if Obama Wins,‘ Accuses White House of ’Still Lying About Benghazi’

 

[sublimeone]

He has not done a good job so far

 

[tommyboy]

interesting over the course of the three years this thread has been around that the results are 40% approve and 56% don't. Not only that but the strength of disapproval is greater than the strength of approval by more than double.

 

[Dickies]

interesting over the course of the three years this thread has been around that the results are 40% approve and 56% don't. Not only that but the strength of disapproval is greater than the strength of approval by more than double.

Most democrats I know are not totally thrilled with his first term, but every republican I know literally hate every single thing he's done. I don't really understand why that is, but I think that accounts for the poll numbers.

 

[Mello]

Rupert Murdoch Predicts ‘Nightmare for Israel if Obama Wins,‘ Accuses White House of ’Still Lying About Benghazi’

If this was true, I might be more satisfied with Obama.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

interesting over the course of the three years this thread has been around that the results are 40% approve and 56% don't. Not only that but the strength of disapproval is greater than the strength of approval by more than double.

Most democrats I know are not totally thrilled with his first term, but every republican I know literally hate every single thing he's done. I don't really understand why that is, but I think that accounts for the poll numbers.

This poll started around in the height of the Tea Party movement and the hard right was more motivated.Since then cooler heads have prevailed.

 

[adonis]

interesting over the course of the three years this thread has been around that the results are 40% approve and 56% don't. Not only that but the strength of disapproval is greater than the strength of approval by more than double.

And yet the best candidate the republicans had to run against him is only barely even with a "failed president". What does that tell you that the best Republican put up against Obama has barely hung in the race? Seems to me that the people STILL prefer a president who hasn't done too well in most people's eyes, to the best the republicans have to offer.Instead of reading this is a scathing condemnation of Obama, it should be a blistering appraisal of just how bad the republican party is right now.

 

[Dickies]

interesting over the course of the three years this thread has been around that the results are 40% approve and 56% don't. Not only that but the strength of disapproval is greater than the strength of approval by more than double.

And yet the best candidate the republicans had to run against him is only barely even with a "failed president". What does that tell you that the best Republican put up against Obama has barely hung in the race? Seems to me that the people STILL prefer a president who hasn't done too well in most people's eyes, to the best the republicans have to offer.Instead of reading this is a scathing condemnation of Obama, it should be a blistering appraisal of just how bad the republican party is right now.

FWIW, W won a second term.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

interesting over the course of the three years this thread has been around that the results are 40% approve and 56% don't. Not only that but the strength of disapproval is greater than the strength of approval by more than double.

And yet the best candidate the republicans had to run against him is only barely even with a "failed president". What does that tell you that the best Republican put up against Obama has barely hung in the race? Seems to me that the people STILL prefer a president who hasn't done too well in most people's eyes, to the best the republicans have to offer.Instead of reading this is a scathing condemnation of Obama, it should be a blistering appraisal of just how bad the republican party is right now.

FWIW, W won a second term.

Ouch (it hurts because it is true.)

 

[17seconds]

interesting over the course of the three years this thread has been around that the results are 40% approve and 56% don't. Not only that but the strength of disapproval is greater than the strength of approval by more than double.

Most democrats I know are not totally thrilled with his first term, but every republican I know literally hate every single thing he's done. I don't really understand why that is, but I think that accounts for the poll numbers.

If the GOP had a good candidate and wasn't overrun with Tea Party nuts this thing would be a Republican landslide. The GOP has lost the middle and Dems are sticking with Obama even though they don't love him.

 

[adonis]

interesting over the course of the three years this thread has been around that the results are 40% approve and 56% don't. Not only that but the strength of disapproval is greater than the strength of approval by more than double.

And yet the best candidate the republicans had to run against him is only barely even with a "failed president". What does that tell you that the best Republican put up against Obama has barely hung in the race? Seems to me that the people STILL prefer a president who hasn't done too well in most people's eyes, to the best the republicans have to offer.Instead of reading this is a scathing condemnation of Obama, it should be a blistering appraisal of just how bad the republican party is right now.

FWIW, W won a second term.

Certainly the same sentiment cuts both ways. Kerry wasn't the democrats best moment and certainly the Democrats grew stronger in 2008 in messaging, in the quality of their candidates (my opinion), but 2004 wasn't a great year for them or their messaging. Same is true this year for Republicans, and fwiw, probably more people today think Obama a "failure" than did W in 2004. 4 years after one of the worst recessions in modern history, and we're still reeling as a country. 2004 had its share of frustrations as well, but sentiment wasn't as low as it is right now, if memory serves me.

 

[BoneYardDog]

What a lying POS and still the media doesn't call him out on it...I am certainly shocked...

Obama: ‘We Got Back Every Dime’ of Bailout; CBO: Bailout Will Lose $24 BillionPresident Barack Obama said on Thursday that “we got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system."According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, the government will lose about $24 billion on the bailout.“We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system, but we also passed a historic law to end taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts for good,” Obama said in Miami Thursday.

 

[BoneYardDog]

(Reuters) - The largest 100 public pension funds have around $1.2 trillion of unfunded liabilities, about $300 billion above the nearly $900 billion they reported themselves, according to a new actuarial study to be released on Monday.

 

[Sarnoff]

Hillary: 'I'm responsible. The buck stops with me.'

"I take responsibility" for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Elise Labott soon after arriving in Lima, Peru for a visit. The interview, one of a series given to U.S. television networks Monday night, were the first she has given about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions, Clinton said.

 

[tommyboy]

hillary then also said the decisions on security were made by her underlings.

so the buck stops with her, but then it doesn't really. And in 2008 during the campaign Hillary said the buck stops in the Oval Office, but apparently that's not true anymore in 2012

 

[drummer]

Sometimes I wonder if tommyboy is trying to convince himself, since he does a poor job of convincing others.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Sometimes I wonder if tommyboy is trying to convince himself, since he does a poor job of convincing others.

it's blind hatred. They will say anything, true or false. Sad.

 

[drummer]

Sometimes I wonder if tommyboy is trying to convince himself, since he does a poor job of convincing others.

it's blind hatred. They will say anything, true or false. Sad.

I think it's based out of pure ignorance.

 

[BoneYardDog]

MITT-i-gate: The act of electing a qualified, competent executive to replace a narcissistic, naive, incompetent community organizer as POTUS

 

[StrikeS2k]

Ahead of Election, Obama Stops Releasing ‘Stimulus’ Reports9:01 AM, Oct 19, 2012 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON The $831,000,000,000 economic “stimulus” that President Obama spearheaded and signed into law requires his administration to release quarterly reports on its effects. But “the most transparent administration in the history of our country” is now four reports behind schedule and has so far not released any reports whatsoever in 2012. Its most recent quarterly report is for the quarter than ended on June 30, 2011.One wonders how the administration would treat a private citizen who acted like such a scofflaw in response to one of Obama’s principal legislative initiatives. It certainly appears that this administration, which is so very fond of regulating Americans’ lives — witness the 13,000 pages of Obamacare regulations it has already penned — doesn’t hold itself accountable to the same set of rules that it’s so eager to compel the American people to obey. Section 1513 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “stimulus”) explicitly states, “In consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers shall submit quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives that detail the impact of programs funded through covered funds on employment, estimated economic growth, and other key economic indicators.” (The head of the Council of Economic Advisors, currently Alan Krueger, is appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and works within the Executive Office of the President. He is the president’s chief economic adviser.)Indeed, the old reports that the administration released begin, “As part of the unprecedented accountability and transparency provisions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) was charged with providing to Congress quarterly reports on the effects of the Recovery Act on overall economic activity, and on employment in particular.” Section 1513 of the ARRA further specifies, “The first report…shall be submitted not later than 45 days after the end of the first full quarter following the date of enactment of this Act….The last report required to be submitted…shall apply to the quarter in which the [Recovery Accountability and Transparency] Board terminates under section 1530.” Section 1530 declares, “The Board shall terminate on September 30, 2013.” In other words, the Obama administration is required by law to submit quarterly reports on the “stimulus” through the third quarter of 2013. Yet the administration has apparently found it more convenient to stop after the second quarter of 2011 — more than two years early. Or perhaps it has just decided to put the release of these reports on hold until after the election. Either way, the Obama administration is now in violation of the president’s most prominent piece of legislation this side of Obamacare.Why would the administration not want to release these reports? Presumably because they have shown what a colossal waste of taxpayer money Obama’s “stimulus” has been. In January 2010, Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors reported that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it described as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” had at that point cost $263.3 billion and had added or saved about 1.8 million jobs, whether private or public. In other words, for every $148,000 in taxpayer money that had gone out the door, only one job had been added or saved — according to an estimate from Obama’s own economists.The numbers have gotten progressively worse with each passing quarter. By the April 2010 report, according to that same method of estimating the stimulus’s effects, the tally was up to $167,000 spent for each job added or saved. By the July 2010 report, the tally was up to $190,000. By November 2010, it was up to $206,000. By March 2011, it was up to $242,000. By July 2011, it was up to $278,000 (at which point the White House objected to my highlighting its own numbers, and I responded). And by the December 2011 report (which covered the stimulus’s effects through the second quarter of 2011), it was up to $317,000 — $317,000 of taxpayers’ money that was borrowed and spent for each job that was added or saved. The American people would presumably like to know what the tally is up to by now. Has the “stimulus” now cost taxpayers $350,000 per job? $400,000? $500,000? But, regardless of its legal obligation to do so, the Obama administration isn’t coming clean. Look for it to do so on November 7 — after (win or lose) Obama has acquired “more flexibility.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ahead-election-obama-stops-releasing-stimulus-reports_654968.html?page=1

 

[BoneYardDog]

Bank Failure #45: First East Side Savings Bank, Tamarac, Florida

 

[urbanhack]

Bank Failure #45: First East Side Savings Bank, Tamarac, Florida

If you look at the full list, it really started gaining momentum in 2008. Nice try.

 

[Dickies]

Bank Failure #45: First East Side Savings Bank, Tamarac, Florida

If you look at the full list, it really started gaining momentum in 2008. Nice try.

Yea, the bank I worked for went out of business at the end of 2008.

 

[Run It Up]

Bank Failure #45: First East Side Savings Bank, Tamarac, Florida

If you look at the full list, it really started gaining momentum in 2008. Nice try.

Yea, the bank I worked for went out of business at the end of 2008.

How long have you been off unemployment?

 

[cstu]

MITT-i-gate: The act of electing a qualified, competent executive to replace a narcissistic, naive, incompetent community organizer as POTUS

MITT-I-CIDE: When a country destroys its economy by voting in a con man who only wants to lower taxes to make himself more wealthy.

 

[BoneYardDog]

And yet you were afraid of Sarah Palin... LMAO

Did you mean Afghanistan, Joe? Biden asks Las Vegas audience if they know someone who has 'served in Iraq or Iran'

By Toby Harnden In Washington

PUBLISHED: 16:54 EST, 19 October 2012



Vice President Joe Biden got a little bit confused at a campaign rally in Las Vegas when he twice asked members of the audience whether they knew anyone who had served in Iraq or Iran.

'How many of you know someone who served in Iraq or Iran?' he asked. 'How many of you know someone who has been injured or lost in Iraq or Iran?' Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader and a U.S. Senator for Nevada was among those who raised his hand.

Absolutely amazing and sad, for America...

 

[drummer]

And yet you were afraid of Sarah Palin... LMAO

Did you mean Afghanistan, Joe? Biden asks Las Vegas audience if they know someone who has 'served in Iraq or Iran'

By Toby Harnden In Washington

PUBLISHED: 16:54 EST, 19 October 2012



Vice President Joe Biden got a little bit confused at a campaign rally in Las Vegas when he twice asked members of the audience whether they knew anyone who had served in Iraq or Iran.

'How many of you know someone who served in Iraq or Iran?' he asked. 'How many of you know someone who has been injured or lost in Iraq or Iran?' Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader and a U.S. Senator for Nevada was among those who raised his hand.

Absolutely amazing and sad, for America...

Still don't have a job yet eh?

 

[BoneYardDog]

And yet you were afraid of Sarah Palin... LMAO

Did you mean Afghanistan, Joe? Biden asks Las Vegas audience if they know someone who has 'served in Iraq or Iran'

By Toby Harnden In Washington

PUBLISHED: 16:54 EST, 19 October 2012



Vice President Joe Biden got a little bit confused at a campaign rally in Las Vegas when he twice asked members of the audience whether they knew anyone who had served in Iraq or Iran.

'How many of you know someone who served in Iraq or Iran?' he asked. 'How many of you know someone who has been injured or lost in Iraq or Iran?' Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader and a U.S. Senator for Nevada was among those who raised his hand.

Absolutely amazing and sad, for America...

Still don't have a job yet eh?

Been working as a contractor to the government since February of 1979, how about yourself...

 

[Zeff]

And yet you were afraid of Sarah Palin... LMAO

Did you mean Afghanistan, Joe? Biden asks Las Vegas audience if they know someone who has 'served in Iraq or Iran'

By Toby Harnden In Washington

PUBLISHED: 16:54 EST, 19 October 2012



Vice President Joe Biden got a little bit confused at a campaign rally in Las Vegas when he twice asked members of the audience whether they knew anyone who had served in Iraq or Iran.

'How many of you know someone who served in Iraq or Iran?' he asked. 'How many of you know someone who has been injured or lost in Iraq or Iran?' Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader and a U.S. Senator for Nevada was among those who raised his hand.

Absolutely amazing and sad, for America...

Still don't have a job yet eh?

Been working as a contractor to the government since February of 1979, how about yourself...

Typical pseudo-con hypocrite.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Here are some good ones...

For many Americans, Obama is like a football coach who has had four straight losing seasons. At some point, you gotta let him go.

Question for Liberals: Liberals tax cigarettes and alcohol to reduce consumption, so why do they tax capital and job creators?

The only buck that stops on President Obama's desk - came from someone else's bank account!

DOES THIS SURPRISE YOU NOW? Calif. official whose agency under-reported unemployment stats was Obama campaign donor

obamnesia - forgetting that you blamed embassy attacks on a YouTube video

 

[Ursa M]

And yet you were afraid of Sarah Palin... LMAO

Did you mean Afghanistan, Joe? Biden asks Las Vegas audience if they know someone who has 'served in Iraq or Iran'

By Toby Harnden In Washington

PUBLISHED: 16:54 EST, 19 October 2012



Vice President Joe Biden got a little bit confused at a campaign rally in Las Vegas when he twice asked members of the audience whether they knew anyone who had served in Iraq or Iran.

'How many of you know someone who served in Iraq or Iran?' he asked. 'How many of you know someone who has been injured or lost in Iraq or Iran?' Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader and a U.S. Senator for Nevada was among those who raised his hand.

Absolutely amazing and sad, for America...

Still don't have a job yet eh?

Been working as a contractor to the government since February of 1979, how about yourself...

Now that's irony.

 

[BoneYardDog]

And yet you were afraid of Sarah Palin... LMAO

Did you mean Afghanistan, Joe? Biden asks Las Vegas audience if they know someone who has 'served in Iraq or Iran'

By Toby Harnden In Washington

PUBLISHED: 16:54 EST, 19 October 2012



Vice President Joe Biden got a little bit confused at a campaign rally in Las Vegas when he twice asked members of the audience whether they knew anyone who had served in Iraq or Iran.

'How many of you know someone who served in Iraq or Iran?' he asked. 'How many of you know someone who has been injured or lost in Iraq or Iran?' Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader and a U.S. Senator for Nevada was among those who raised his hand.

Absolutely amazing and sad, for America...

Still don't have a job yet eh?

Been working as a contractor to the government since February of 1979, how about yourself...

Now that's irony.

No that was being in the right place at the right time and doing a damn good job for over 33 years and still going and going and going...

 

[drummer]

And yet you were afraid of Sarah Palin... LMAO

Did you mean Afghanistan, Joe? Biden asks Las Vegas audience if they know someone who has 'served in Iraq or Iran'

By Toby Harnden In Washington

PUBLISHED: 16:54 EST, 19 October 2012



Vice President Joe Biden got a little bit confused at a campaign rally in Las Vegas when he twice asked members of the audience whether they knew anyone who had served in Iraq or Iran.

'How many of you know someone who served in Iraq or Iran?' he asked. 'How many of you know someone who has been injured or lost in Iraq or Iran?' Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader and a U.S. Senator for Nevada was among those who raised his hand.

Absolutely amazing and sad, for America...

Still don't have a job yet eh?

Been working as a contractor to the government since February of 1979, how about yourself...

Doing great here in SoCal. Do we pay you to post?

 

[RCon]

Here are some good ones...For many Americans, Obama is like a football coach who has had four straight losing seasons. At some point, you gotta let him go. Question for Liberals: Liberals tax cigarettes and alcohol to reduce consumption, so why do they tax capital and job creators? The only buck that stops on President Obama's desk - came from someone else's bank account! DOES THIS SURPRISE YOU NOW? Calif. official whose agency under-reported unemployment stats was Obama campaign donor obamnesia - forgetting that you blamed embassy attacks on a YouTube video

Stop helping.

 

[drummer]

Here are some good ones...For many Americans, Obama is like a football coach who has had four straight losing seasons. At some point, you gotta let him go. Question for Liberals: Liberals tax cigarettes and alcohol to reduce consumption, so why do they tax capital and job creators? The only buck that stops on President Obama's desk - came from someone else's bank account! DOES THIS SURPRISE YOU NOW? Calif. official whose agency under-reported unemployment stats was Obama campaign donor obamnesia - forgetting that you blamed embassy attacks on a YouTube video

Stop helping.

He needs more help than even Romney can offer him.

 

[Dickies]

Bank Failure #45: First East Side Savings Bank, Tamarac, Florida

If you look at the full list, it really started gaining momentum in 2008. Nice try.

Yea, the bank I worked for went out of business at the end of 2008.

How long have you been off unemployment?

Still on unemployment.... To be fair, I didn't actually lose my job until last year as we were running off the portfolio and I was in one of the final rounds of layoffs.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Here are some good ones...For many Americans, Obama is like a football coach who has had four straight losing seasons. At some point, you gotta let him go. Question for Liberals: Liberals tax cigarettes and alcohol to reduce consumption, so why do they tax capital and job creators? The only buck that stops on President Obama's desk - came from someone else's bank account! DOES THIS SURPRISE YOU NOW? Calif. official whose agency under-reported unemployment stats was Obama campaign donor obamnesia - forgetting that you blamed embassy attacks on a YouTube video

Stop helping.

Note to BYD and other overzealous political shills: the election is not decided in the FFA.

 

[Sarnoff]

2008 Called. It Wants to Know What Happened to Barack Obama.

One of the many little thrills of being a part of the Obama campaign four years ago was a deep and abiding sense that, finally, a political leader had come along who could live up to our highest aspirations. Yes, Obama was cool and played basketball and was conversant in ironical youth culture, but when it came down to it, he was overwhelmingly serious. The other guys were hauling unlicensed plumbers onstage and suspending their campaign at the drop of a hat, but Obama kept his eyes on the prize and played the grown-up. Now he's talking about "Romnesia."

If anything, Obama's 2008 campaign promised a president who would actively repudiate the frenetic, aggressively stupid cable-news culture that had engulfed political reporting. His campaign manager David Plouffe was openly derisive of Time's Mark Halperin and Politico, the two chief avatars of empty-calorie #####-slap politics: "If Politico and Halperin say we're winning, we're losing." Obama himself confidently mocked the cable-news conflagration that was the Tea Party summer—people were getting "all wee-wee'd up" for no good reason. His inaugural address—a deeply depressing read in light of the last four years—contained a stern admonition to those who insisted on sweating the small stuff: "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises.... n the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things."

That's the same guy who let loose last night, in the midst of a debate that was ostensibly about how many people we are going to kill over the next four years and under what circumstances, this little nugget: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back."

That's a middling joke. It should by no means be coming from the president of the United States, let alone one who promised to put away childish things. It's a dumb "zinger," transparently crafted to appeal to the Mark Halperins and Politicos of the world. That's not to say that humor has no place in political rhetoric or that Obama betrays his promise every time he deigns to insult his opponent. But to graft a pre-planned VH1 Best Week Ever-level joke onto a nationally televised discussion about life and death and our role on the world stage is scarcely less pathetic than the desperate flailings of the McCain campaign that I smugly scoffed at four years ago.

It's not just that joke. Obama has taken to using "Romnesia" to describe Romney's inability or unwillingness to hew to a policy position for more than two weeks. "He's forgetting what his own positions are, and he's betting that you will, too," Obama said at a rally in Virginia last week. "We've got to name this condition that he's going through. I think it's called 'Romnesia.'" Today, summing up the debate, Obama called Romney's performance "at least Stage 3 Romnesia."

This is very, very dumb. Maybe "Romnesia" is a funny, handy term that usefully carries an important anti-Romney message. But even if it is, it is just too juvenile and jokey to be coming from the president. He shouldn't be making jokes based on his opponent's name. That's what vice presidents are for. Put it in John Kerry's mouth. He'll say anything.

But when Obama says it, it comes off as unserious and jocular. It's the kind of joke that, had a speechwriter proposed it four years ago, 2008 Obama would have smirked at and said, "OK guys, let's get down to work." The term, it bears noting, was apparently coined on Twitter by a guy going by the name of @breakingnuts. This is not how you put away childish things.

Nor is it by holding up a binder at your stump speech, as Joe Biden has taken to doing in mockery of Romney's "binders full of women line." The "binders" meme is just that—a funny little Twitter and Tumblr belch, an acerbic diversion. For the vice president of the United States to pick up on it and amplify it in an attempt to harvest a perceived opportunity is to confuse dumb gags with arguments. It's what John Ellis calls the "trending on Twitter" campaign, and it's beneath Obama. Twitter—as with other social media that both campaigns are desperately working—is just as empty and mindless as the cable news void Obama decried so effectively four years ago. For his campaign to routinely venerate its judgments today is fundamentally at odds with Obama's sense of himself as the adult in the room.

So stick to the serious stuff and let dumb bloggers make the jokes, Mr. President. That's what we're here for. You're getting all wee-wee'd up.

 

[BoneYardDog]

100 Reasons to Vote Against obama / For Mitt Romney- 21 to 25...

21 - Paul Ryan. No one knows the budget like Paul Ryan. No one is prepared to make extraordinary steps to correct our shortcomings.

22 - Joe Biden. Enough said.

23 - One word – Israel. If you are a supporter of the state of Israel, you cannot vote for obama. He has no love for the State of Israel. He has not been to the state of Israel since he has been elected. His hostility for the Jewish State has been omnipresent in his foreign policy.

24 - obama’s tense relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu. He is the strongest Israeli prime ministry in recent times and obama refuses to meet with him as Iran is getting critically close to gaining nuclear power status. He doesn’t have time for Netanyahu, yet he has time to go on David Letterman and The View.

25 - obama did nothing for the Iranian green revolution. He was urged by many people to stand by the Iranian people when they stood against our enemies, the Iranian regime. He did nothing and the revolution was suppressed.

Defenders, Defenders, Anyone???