SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: steve harris who wrote (53670)8/6/2012 2:52:19 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 71588
 
“The DHS takes their marching orders from the Obama administration, from Obama himself, but mostly from his un-appointed czars. And Jarrett, especially Valerie Jarrett. Don’t think for a minute that the administration is doing anything to stabilize events in the U.S. They are revolutionaries, and revolutionaries thrive on chaos,” he added.

My source stated that he has not seen things this bad since he began working within DHS. “It’s like they [DHS agency heads] don’t care about what the American people see or feel about what the DHS agencies are doing. They figure that if the average American will put up with being “sexually groped and nuked” just to fly, they’ll accept almost anything. “That’s why their actions are becoming more overt. “It’s in your face and the brass actually chuckle about it” said my source.

canadafreepress.com



To: steve harris who wrote (53670)8/7/2012 2:03:57 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
My concern upon the dems losing is their unlimited hate machine.

I've posted before years ago, I expect Detroit and other liberal bastions to be burned to the ground if the generational welfare recipients gets a whiff they will lose something they have already stolen.

You have a point there. Actually you have several points. On the point of democrats losing something they have already stolen you have to consider that the value of what they have stolen quickly depreciates to near zero so they get tired of it and discard it soon anyway. People only value what they acquired through effort. This is one of the reasons that Obama can't win again. The babies got their toy and now they lost interest.

On rage, jealousy, hate and envy nobody outdoes democrats. Only when they get real leadership that tells them to fall into line will they ever start to contribute to the solution rather than remaining the problem. After 911 democrats behaved civilly for a matter of mere weeks. That was their finest moment. It appears to be the best they are capable of under current leadership.



To: steve harris who wrote (53670)8/8/2012 2:03:26 AM
From: greatplains_guy2 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
Angry man Obama
‘Hope and change’ have transformed into hatred and rage

The latest headline in the 2012 race is that President Obama hates Mitt Romney. The subtext of the story is that the president is in fact afraid of his challenger.

According to Politico’s Glenn Thrush in his new campaign e-book, “Obama’s Last Stand,” Mr. Obama “began campaign preparations feeling neutral about Romney,” which “made the 2012 grind bearable and at times even fun.” However, he “quickly developed a genuine disdain” for Mr. Romney, which “stoked Obama’s competitive fire, got his head in the game.” Thus, “hope and change” transformed into hatred and rage.

The roots of Mr. Obama’s wrath aren’t ideological. According to another unnamed source, he “didn’t even feel this strongly about conservative, combative House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the Hill Republican he disliked the most” because “at least Cantor stood for something.” Put another way, Mr. Obama despises Mr. Romney for having a quality that most Americans say they would like to see in a president: the ability to rise above dogmatism and forge compromises. Mr. Obama has shown himself to be completely unable to exercise that kind of leadership.

This centrist image conflicts with the Democrats’ fanciful campaign storyline that Mr. Romney is captive of a Republican Party that has become so radical that even Ronald Reagan would be a moderate by comparison. Yet the GOP rejected more traditionally conservative candidates in favor of the former governor of liberal Massachusetts, which is hardly evidence of Republican extremism. It shows that the elephants have a bigger tent than the Democratic Party, which these days chiefly represents left-wing activists, public-sector unions, welfare recipients and others who depend on big government and an increasing flow of government handouts. Their radical interests are what Mr. Obama stands for.

It’s hard to picture Mr. Romney hating anyone. He has a well-earned “good guy” image that frustrates some of his supporters who think he should be tougher. There is a difference, however, between coming across as tough and being perceived as mean. Mr. Obama’s natural coolness more easily translates into a sense of aloofness and disdain. Angry-man Obama will turn off moderate voters already disappointed in his inability to heal the partisan breach as he promised in 2008.

Mr. Thrush’s sources also allege that Mr. Obama respected his 2008 opponent, Sen. John McCain, because of his service record. According to an unnamed senior Obama adviser, “That doesn’t hold true for Romney. He was no [blasphemy deleted] war hero.” It is hard to take that premise seriously. No one with Mr. Obama’s sterling leftist, countercultural credentials would have a high degree of respect for a combat veteran, especially someone who fought in the Vietnam War, which liberals have always disdained as an immoral undertaking.

If Mr. Obama didn’t hate Mr. McCain, it was because he knew that he could defeat the Arizonan. The same is not true of Mr. Romney. Mr. Obama’s burning animosity stems from a stiff sense of insecurity. The president detests Mr. Romney because he fears him — and he fears him because he knows Mr. Romney can win.

The Washington Times

washingtontimes.com



To: steve harris who wrote (53670)10/1/2012 10:04:36 PM
From: greatplains_guy3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Obama Owns the Bad Economy
By: David Harsanyi
10/1/2012 10:26 AM


It’s simple. During the upcoming debates, no matter what question is thrown at him, Mitt Romney has to dump the economy onto the lap of its rightful owner. The president, Romney might suggest, shouldn’t be judged on the economy he campaigned so hard to inherit, but the recovery he has botched. As it stands, Obama is the owner of the most pathetic economic revival in American history. A recovery so weak, it’s difficult to believe that voters even think of it as one.

So, when the president starts unfurling his economic vision of growth through wind-powered fairness factories, Romney has to bring it back to reality. Mr. President, you passed $831 billion special interest “stimulus” plan that you promised the American people would spark growth, yet it has had a negligible impact on economic growth.

It was your administration that claimed growth would climb to 4 percent during your first term if we passed the stimulus. This year, growth is under 2 percent. And it was your economic forecasters who told us that the stimulus would help avert an unemployment disaster. But the unemployment numbers we’re now facing are actually worse than the ones your administration predicted we would have had without the “stimulus.”

Nowadays, the president and his advocates are compelled to cobble together ludicrous claims of success. “In the last 29 months,” Obama will say, “our economy has produced about 4.5 million private-sector jobs.” Or, under the Obama administration “we’ve created more private sector jobs than George Bush’s entire term.”

Romney can’t get bogged down deconstructing these ridiculous cherry-picked assertions. Mr. President, he has to explain, if labor force stood where it was when the Bush administration handed it to you, rather than being depleted by millions of Americans who have given up hope of finding a job, the unemployment rate would be somewhere around 11 percent. That’s what you own.

More than that, the economy has only seen a net gain of around 300,000 jobs over the course of your entire administration. If you’re telling the American people that it takes trillions in extra government spending to create those 300,000 jobs, I say your philosophy is an abject failure. Considering those numbers, it is, in fact, more likely that your policies have hampered the private sector economic growth then helped it.

Obama boasts about spending for stimulus and bailing out industry, but takes no credit for the cost of these enterprises. Recently on 60 Minutes, the president asserted falsely that “over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”

Ninety percent, you say? Now, if I may, Romney might retort: Mr. President, no one is disputing the fact that you inherited debt; what we’re arguing is that you’ve dramatically expanded it. George Bush didn’t promise the American people to cut the deficit in half during your administration’s first term. You did. And George Bush didn’t increase the nation’s accumulated debt by over 40 percent these past four years. You did. You, not George Bush, added 6 trillion dollars to the debt in a single term as president—without any plan to pay for it. You, not any other president, oversaw a trillion dollar deficit every year of your administration. Over 40 percent of last year’s debt can be tied directly to your policies—that’s according to the fact-checkers that you so like to quote. You’re certainly not in any position to point fingers.

Obama will, no doubt, continue his complaints about the democratic process and Republican opposition to his policies (“obstruction”). Romney might want to point out that if Republicans had allowed Obama to his own prescription the president would have spent trillions more not creating jobs and the nation’s debt would be far larger. The argument that Obama’s “jobs” plans would create jobs is undercut by his own history.

Romney must also take a more consistent stance on taxes. Not only did Romney recently claim, “I admit this, he has one thing he did not do in his first four years—he’s said he’s going to do in the next four years—which is to raise taxes,” but according to Gallup (and other polls), the Republican nominee has completely lost his lead among in voter on the issue.

Obamacare contains 20 different tax hikes. Actually, one could argue–if we accept the administration’s stand on the individual mandate–that Obamacare is the largest tax increase in American history. The president’s entire economic plan is based on the idea that taxing the millionaires and billionaires–by which he mean anyone making over 200,000, including thousands of small businesses across the country–we can spark prosperity. It’s a preposterous proposition that Romney must highlight.

These are the facts of the Obama recovery. Romney must make the president own it. These debates are his final chance to directly challenge the president and force him to own it.

humanevents.com