That is correct. I didn't notice. Somehow that seems to be of interest to you. I can't identify, but hey, go with it. You still haven't answer the question, why was Obama running out of people to blame?
Printable View
That is correct. I didn't notice. Somehow that seems to be of interest to you. I can't identify, but hey, go with it. You still haven't answer the question, why was Obama running out of people to blame?
Anyone paying the LEAST bit of attention to the facts would have known that President Obama
is blamed by Conservatives for anything and everything that goes wrong in this country. Anyone with their eyes and hears open would have known that President Obama has been consistently blamed for every fall in the stock market, dip in the economy, and every rise in gas prices. Ignorance is bliss. I dont believe you didnt "notice".
Romney to a rock and a hard place
byJed Lewison
The Obama campaign congratulates the Republican Party's severely conservative presumptive nominee with a video serenade of the hard-right statements Mitt Romney made throughout the GOP primary:
I was a "severly Conservative Governor".
Its clear President Obama is the moderate in this race.
It's a great video, well-worth watching, and is a reminder that Democrats aren't about to let Mitt Romney Etch-A-Sketch away the extremely conservative agenda he's embraced since launching his presidential campaign five years ago. And as Greg Sargent points out, the Republicans who finally realized they had no other choice than Mitt Romney as their nominee, actually are on the same side as the Obama campaign: they too want to make sure Romney sticks to his positions.
Go to Dailykos.com and scroll down to watch the video.
Just one more example of the kind of extremism Presdent Obama is up against.
I will just call it the SeriouslyWrong brand of slime politics. You know "Marxist wizard of Oz". Incredibly ignorant and dangerous.
Allen West: I’ve ‘Heard’ That Up To 80 House Dems Are Members Of The Communist Party
Rep. Allen West (R-FL) delivers the keynote address at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. on February 12, 2011.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...ref=fpnewsfeed
ERIC KLEEFELD APRIL 11, 2012, 9:55 AM 8844 272
Rep. Allen West (R-FL) has done it again.
At a campaign town hall event on Tuesday, the Palm Beach Post reports, West declared that he’s “heard” that up to 80 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party. However, he would not name any specific people.
West also got in a verbal shot against President Obama, declaring that Obama is too scared to debate him:
“I really wish that, standing here before you, was Allen West and President Obama,” West said. “We could have a simple discussion. But that ain’t ever gonna happen.”
“Why not?” an audience member asked.
“Cuz he was too scared!” West responded in a mocking voice.
This is just the latest in a long line of provocative statements that West has made, which have helped to build up his notoriety — and his campaign coffers. In addition, Sarah Palin and Herman Cain have each suggested in recent days that West should be the Vice Presidential nominee on the 2012 Republican ticket.
West became a star of conservative political circles, and subsequently launched his political career, after his military career ended when he fired a pistol next to the head of an Iraqi policeman during an interrogation. West said this was done in order to stop an impending attack on his unit, but no evidence of such a plan was found based on the policeman’s coerced confession.
Since then, West has become known for declaring that America’s enemy is not just militant radical Islamism, but Islam itself.
Following his election to Congress in 2010, and a controversy involving anti-government comments by a woman who had been his first choice for chief of staff, he said that in Congress he would remain focused that “this liberal, progressive, socialist agenda, this left-wing, vile, vicious, despicable machine that’s out there is soundly brought to its knees.”
He has also called President Obama, whom he makes sure to refer to as “Barack Hussein Obama,” a “a low-level socialist agitator,” and he responded to an attack by DNC Chair and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz by sending her a letter that declared she had “proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!”
He has also said that Democratic Party has created what he calls a “21st-century plantation” over black voters, with appointed African-American politicians to act as “overseers” — the men who committed the day-to-day atrocities of ruling over slaves in the antebellum South. “So I’m here as the modern-day Harriet Tubman, to kind of lead people on the Underground Railroad, away from that plantation into a sense of sensibility.”
West has further called upon military generals to resign their posts, rather than follow the orders of the Obama administration’s recently announced reorganization of the Armed Forces: “And they have to be very careful about blindly following a Commander-in-Chief that really does not have the best intent for our military.”
Really? 80 House democrats are actuallly members of the communist party? Man, is that news or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Obama was REALLY polarizing yesterday. It's funny that he said something to the effect that government makes decisions to benefit all Americans, yet he somehow forgot that the government legislated the tax deductions many corporations take for the benefit to America (I'm talking about "Big Oil").
He was off and running about nothing that would help or harm this nation, just worried about how to get relected by agitating the masses on the subject of the rich.
More evidence that President Obama is indeed a moderate. :)
Eliot Spitzer: Obama 'Has Been On Wall Street's Side Since Day One'
The Huffington Post | By Melissa Jeltsen
Posted: 04/14/2012 12:33 pm Updated: 04/14/2012 12:59 pm
When it comes to reforming Wall Street, President Obama is all talk, according to Eliot Spitzer.
The former New York governor took to Reuters TV's Fast Forward with Chrystia Freeland to slam the president for what he says is a talk-tough, act-weak approach to the financial industry, which less than five years ago brought the global economy to the brink of disaster.
"I'm not persuaded that this President has really been a voice for reform when it comes to Wall Street," he said. "Wall Street has pretended that it has taken its hits, but it really hasn't."
Spitzer summarized Obama's efforts as the "occasional speech" criticizing Wall Street practices, largely followed by little to no substantial legislative action.
"When it has come to actually putting in place the reform-based structure that would actually have changed the way the banking system works, he has really been on Wall Street's side since day one," Spitzer said.
Spitzer criticized the Obama administration for what he perceives as opposition to the Volcker Rule, a key piece of financial reform that aimed to curb banks' high-risk bets with their own money. Such trading has been criticized for pitting banks against their own clients. The president first introduced the rule more than two years ago, calling it a "simple and common-sense reform" at the time.
Spitzer also claims the White House did not fight to give judges the ability to reform mortgages in the wake of the housing collapse.
"The White House and Treasury intervened to defeat that in the Senate, something that could have fundamentally altered the course of our mortgage crisis that still continues to this day," he said.
Last week Mr. SeriouslyWrong said he had not actually stated that President Obama was a Marxist. Today it seems he has changed his mind and is willing to state that he is. I'm very glad to get clarification on this because now i know who i am talking to. No longer hiding behind his pretense of moderation so he should just let it rip. Im sure it was hard for him to keep lying on a daily basis
about his true beliefs. :)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z2
AFL-CIO’s Trumka rips Obama: What about the government agencies. But he won’t say which ones.
Posted at 03:33 PM ET, 04/16/2012
AFL-CIO’s Trumka rips Obama: What about the 99 percent?
By Greg Sargent
Last month, the AFL-CIO endorsed Obama, quieting all the talk about any rift or lingering differences between the President and organized labor. Many Dems hope enthusiastic union support will help Obama limit losses among blue collar whites in the swing states — something that could prove decisive in the 2012 election.
Those hopes may have hit another snag: That rift has cracked open a bit once again.
In an interview just now, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka ripped into Obama for taking a key step this weekend towards the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement — which Trumka claimed would have domestic political ramifications for Obama. Trumka said continuing betrayal of labor would make it harder to turn out supporters this fall and was already muddying Obama’s efforts to draw a sharp contrast with Mitt Romney over who represents the 99 percent.
“The more these things happen, where workers interests are subjugated to other interests, it has a cumulative effect, making it harder for us to energize our members and get them out in the numbers necessary in the fall,” Trumka told me.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...s-wide-support
According to SiriuslyWrong these 72% must all be Marxists just like President Obama. Lmfao.
Poll: Buffett Rule Enjoys Wide Support
New numbers from CNN show the Buffett Rule, a proposal from the Obama Administration that would make those making more than a million dollars pay a higher effective tax rate, is supported by nearly three quarters of the American public. A 72 percent majority said they supported “…a proposal to change the federal income tax rates so that people who make more than one million dollars a year will pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes,” versus 27 percent who were against it. The Buffett Rule, named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, saw 90 percent support amongst Democrats, 69 percent of independent voters, and 53 percent of Republicans.
I was hoping that he would be willing to address the fact that a large majority of the population seems to agree with President Obama on the Buffett Rule.
Watch the video. Click on link
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ref=fpnewsfeed
Jon Stewart Rips The GOP’s Faulty Math
DAVID TAINTOR APRIL 18, 2012, 9:49 AM 3050 9
Jon Stewart on Tuesday turned to the so-called Buffett Rule, the proposal that Americans making more than $1 million a year should pay their fair share in taxes. To the Senate floor! Stewart said, where the rule was up for a vote on Monday.
Republicans predictably filibustered, claiming that the estimated $47 billion it will raise in the next decade is a drop in the bucket. “That wouldn’t pay for half a day’s work on the secret reanimate Ronald Reagan project,” Stewart mocked.
But point taken, he added. Then again, didn’t Republicans say $300 million was an awful lot to spend on Planned Parenthood? “Let me get this straight,” Stewart said. “$47 billion in millionaires’ money is less than $300 million in mammograms and birth control.”
Watch the video:
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Great Buffett Caper
www.thedailyshow.com
Mitt Romney, yesterday on CNBC, defending his opposition to the Buffett Rule:
LARRY KUDLOW: Listen, the 30 percent millionaires' tax, the Buffett tax was stopped in the Senate last night, you know that. Let me ask you this. President Obama, Vice President Biden and others, they're taking to calling it the Romney Rule. It's not the Buffett tax. It's the Romney Rule because they say that wealthy, successful people like yourself don't pay their fair share in taxes. I want to get your initial response to that, please.
MITT ROMNEY: Well, you know, these kind of gimmicks that they've talked about, the so-called Buffett Rule, if they want to change the name, that's fine, too, they couldn't get it through their own Democratic Senate. And I think the reason is, people recognize that these gimmicks are not going to get America strong again, they're not going to create jobs. They're going to have the opposite effect of creating jobs.
Of course, the reason the Buffett Rule couldn't get through the Senate is that Republicans filibustered it. And the reason Republicans filibustered it is because they know that the Buffett Rule isn't a gimmick. Yes, making sure that folks like Mitt Romney don't pay lower taxes than anyone else would only raise about $47 billion over the next decade, but if we can't even do that, how can we realistically expect to handle the bigger fiscal issues? Far from being a gimmick, the Buffett Rule is a start—and a wildly popular one.
If you want a gimmick, look no further than Mitt Romney's absurd claim that letting him pay less than 15 percent in taxes on $21 million of income will create jobs. If you want a gimmick, look no further than the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy which have been steadily undermining our national strength for nearly twelve years. If you want a gimmick, look no further than the trickle-down economic philosophy that Mitt Romney has put front-and-center in his campaign. None of those gimmicks have created a single job, yet they persist to this very day. And for that, we have Mitt Romney and his Republican Party to thank.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1434225.html
Ex-Wall Street Banker: Volcker Rule Will Correct A Dangerous Mistake
The Huffington Post | By Alexander Eichler
Posted: 04/18/2012 11:11 am Updated: 04/18/2012siness News
Roger Vasey, who used to be in charge of global debt markets at Merrill Lynch, penned a pro-Volcker op-ed in The Wall Street Journal this week. In the piece, Vasey argues that the Volcker rule "is necessary to correct a mistake that poses a danger to our economy."
The mistake he's referring to is the partial repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which removed the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks, making it easier for the latter to make large-scale speculative trades -- a practice that some claim worsened the financial crisis.
The Volcker rule, which is part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform package, is meant to limit banks' ability to make risky trades with taxpayer-backed money, a practice known as propriety trading. The provision is not very popular on Wall Street, where bankers and their lobbyists have done everything they can to water down the legislation and paint it as a hindrance to economic growth.
But as Think Progress notes, Vasey isn't the only banking veteran who's voiced support for the Volcker rule. John Reed, the former CEO of Citigroup, said in February that if anything, the rule as currently written still grants too much....
Obama outpaces Romney big time with small donors.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...ref=fpnewsfeed
President Obama ended March with a 10:1 cash advantage over Mitt Romney, powered largely by a dominant edge with small
donors, a dynamic that’s cropped up throughout the campaign.
Obama’s campaign raised about $35 million in March 2012, leaving it with $104 million cash on hand. They raised an additional $18.7 million in March for a separate joint fund with the DNC. Romney raised $12.6 million in March and has $10 million cash on hand.
Breaking things down by itemized donors, who have contributed over $200 total, and unitemized donors, who have contributed under $200 total, the difference is striking. Obama raised $18.9 million his total from itemized donors, versus $15.8 million from unitemized, smaller, donors. For Romney, $10.9 million came from itemized donors, versus a paltry $1.6 million unitemized donors. That means roughly 87% of Romney’s total came from donors above $200.
Maybe the press isnt so liberal as the right wing thinks.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...+-+Politics%29
WASHINGTON -- Which presidential candidate has gotten the most negative coverage in the press during this year’s primary? According to content analysis by the Pew Research Center, it’s President Obama.
The benefits of residing in the White House, and the so-called bully pulpit that it provides, were outweighed by the sheer number of voices attacking Obama and his policies during the primary, the analysis found.
This reflexive trend, in which “candidates doing better in polls do better in the media” as Rosenstiel put it, is reflected in the turnaround in the media’s coverage of Mitt Romney.
Pew’s study provides evidence that the media became convinced of Romney’s inevitability as the GOP nominee with his win in the Michigan primary. Before then, Romney’s coverage was more negative than positive by 4%. Since then, his fortunes have reversed, with 47% positive campaign coverage, and 25% negative. And media mentions of the topics of “delegate math and the concept of electoral inevitability”? They increased twelvefold after his home state victory.
For Rick Santorum, media coverage swung in his favor only after his major primary victories. After Iowa, Louisiana and his three-peat in Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota, his coverage became favorable, but lingering questions on his campaign’s financial viability and an inability to follow up with further victories stunted his momentum.
Look what i found here. Its an andidote to the lies and innuendos of Mr. SiriuslyWrong. How about that kids. :0
Obama's history is a lie? That's a new low for even you.
You can indeed judge a man by the company he keeps.
?????? Dont know what you are talking about there. Please explain.
Why did you call Soros a Socialist and why do you imply or believe that President Obama is
Socialist or Marxist? Please explain.
Just to jar your memory. Interesting study I think.
President Obama: The Most Polarizing Moderate Ever
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...cRwQ_blog.html
Obama: The most polarizing moderate ever
Posted by Ezra Klein at 10:04 AM ET, 02/07/2012
In 2011, Gallup’s polling showed that President Obama averaged an 80 percent approval rating among Democrats and 12 percent among Republicans, making his third year in office one of the most polarizing on record. For a candidate whose campaign promised an era of post-partisan unity, it must be a disappointing reality check.
But on Friday, political scientist Keith Poole released a study that probably cheered the White House. According to Poole’s highly respected classification system, Obama is the most moderate Democratic president since World War II. Which raises a question: How can Obama simultaneously be one of the most divisive and most moderate presidents of the past century?
(Keith Poole, VoteView.com)
Poole’s study is based on a system for sorting politicians known as “DW-Nominate.” But DW-Nominate doesn’t directly measure ideology. Instead, it measures coalitions. It’s got pretty much every roll-call vote taken between 1789 and December 2011. It looks to see who votes together and how often. The assumption is that the most ideological members of both parties will do the least crossover voting. And it works. Its results line up with both common sense and alternative ways of measuring ideology, like the scorecard kept by the American Conservative Union.
Over the past century, DW-Nominate has revealed a steady increase in congressional polarization. Democrats have moved to the left, while Republicans have moved to the right. But Republicans have moved a lot farther than Democrats.
Remember when Republicans were hootin and hollerin about gas prices and blaming it all on President Obama?
Do you think they are now praising him for bring the prices down? LOL
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cut...gas-2012-05-21
By Kelli B. Grant
Travelers may find it easier to budget for summer road trips this year: Not only are gas prices falling, but many hotels are offering to fill up the tank.
Hotels often offer free gas cards with a few nights’ stay when gas prices are on the rise. Many properties put their latest deals in place this spring when the national average for a gallon of regular unleaded was hovering close to $4—and more drivers were pledging to stay home.
For example, Riviera Palm Springs Resort & Spa in Palm Springs, Calif., offers a $50 gas card at check in through May 31, while the Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention and Visitors Bureau awards a $25 card with a two-night stay at select properties any time before September 30.
But over the past month alone, gas prices have dropped 18 cents, to an average $3.73, according to AAA. “The deal will go even further now,” says Gregg Laskoski, senior petroleum analyst for GasBuddy.com. “That card is going to give drivers more value in the tank.”
These offers could be worth a look if you’re among the nearly 31 million Americans AAA says plan to hit the road over Memorial Day weekend this year. The number of people expecting to drive is up 1.2%, and represents 88% of all holiday-weekend travelers. Most are planning to stay close to home, however—AAA reports the average trip will be 642 miles, 150 fewer than last year. Laskoski says that’s likely because some areas are still seeing elevated gas prices. “There’s a tremendous opportunity for destinations to capture the local drive market by offering gas cards,” he says.
Travelers should still compare rates and offers before booking. Many of the deals require a set number of nights, and some specify that only certain nights of the week are eligible. Dutchies View B&B in Woolwine, Va., promises a $25 gas card for a three-day stay or a $50 one for four nights. “A seven-day stay fills your entire tank,” says innkeeper Patrick Powells. Most require travelers to pay the full-room rate, which may make other sales or packages a better deal. A special coupon or code may also be needed to claim the offer before check-in. For example, at participating Marriott resorts in Canada, booking with code TRS means “your car will stay and eat free”—each weekend night stay gets free on-site parking and a $25 gas card.
Experts say that even though prices are expected to keep dropping over the next few weeks, consumers may continue to see new free-gas deals pop up throughout the summer travel season.