2012 Elections in the USA

Permit me to make a few comments on the foregoing posts today.

Esten:

Your response was pretty much what I would expect. You resort to numbers to dehumanize Terry and attempt to trivialize his death. I now ask you to prove Terry would still have been killed if the weapons used had not been available, your turn to prove a negative my friend. Somehow I doubt you would take the same cavalier attitude if it were your life we are talking about here, now would you.

Your response reflects you have never been 'in the trenches' but only 'armchair quarterback' from a point of safety.

F&F is about many things, one of which is Terry's death via weapons supplied by his own government. Another aspect of the investigation is lying to a Congressional Committee. Liberals love to use this against others but whine and complain when the tables are turned, as is the case with Holder. Obama did not do himself any favors by invoking presidential privilege as this will only increases the perception by the public of a cover-up.

WT69:

Unions have withered in the private sector even in states with pro-union laws. The reason is they can no longer compete and even in states with pro-union laws when the membership is given the opportunity to cease paying dues they flee in large numbers. Now the same is beginning to occur in the government sector and it will continue as the people who have to pay the bill demand changes.

What I thing you miss here is that JP Morgan Chase lost privately invested capital for which they have been penalized by the market place while Obama gives away taxpayers money to his chorines with wild abandon.

I thing the principal point both Esten and you miss here is both corporations and private citizens funds belongs to them and not to the government. They earned it and they should have the right to determine how they spend it.

President Obama has now decided to rule by presidential fiat.

Earlier this year Obama clearly stated he could not circumvent statute law regarding immigration issues such as the 'Dream' act as it would be illegal and we lived in a country of laws. Witness his last presidential decree in which he reverses himself in an attempt to sway Hispanic voters to his cause.

If this was such a pressing issue, why did Obama fail to have it passed in his first two years in office when the Dem's had a lock on both the House and the Senate?

After the Supreme Court upheld a key portion of the Arizona law, what does Obama do? He cuts Arizona out of a cooperative agreement between the states and the fed and informs Arizona don't count on the Fed to come get the illegals they find as the Fed is going to get much more restrictive as to who they will accept and not accept. Looks pretty much like a temper tantrum by Obama after losing a key point with the court. I just can't wait to see how he reacts when ObamaCare is struck down.

Here why Obama did not get it passed.

It is called Filibuster by the Republicans.

[url]http://www.worldcorrespondents.com/dream-act-2010-republican-filibuster-vote-won/8811543[/url]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 423507]President Obama has now decided to rule by presidential fiat.

Earlier this year Obama clearly stated he could not circumvent statute law regarding immigration issues such as the 'Dream' act as it would be illegal and we lived in a country of laws. Witness his last presidential decree in which he reverses himself in an attempt to sway Hispanic voters to his cause.

If this was such a pressing issue, why did Obama fail to have it passed in his first two years in office when the Dem's had a lock on both the House and the Senate?

After the Supreme Court upheld a key portion of the Arizona law, what does Obama do? He cuts Arizona out of a cooperative agreement between the states and the fed and informs Arizona don't count on the Fed to come get the illegals they find as the Fed is going to get much more restrictive as to who they will accept and not accept. Looks pretty much like a temper tantrum by Obama after losing a key point with the court. I just can't wait to see how he reacts when ObamaCare is struck down.[/QUOTE]

It started in 2005. Guess who was in office. Why isn't Congress questioning anyone in Bush's Term?

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner[/url]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 423506]Permit me to make a few comments on the foregoing posts today.

Esten:

Your response was pretty much what I would expect. You resort to numbers to dehumanize Terry and attempt to trivialize his death. I now ask you to prove Terry would still have been killed if the weapons used had not been available, your turn to prove a negative my friend. Somehow I doubt you would take the same cavalier attitude if it were your life we are talking about here, now would you.

Your response reflects you have never been 'in the trenches' but only 'armchair quarterback' from a point of safety.

F&F is about many things, one of which is Terry's death via weapons supplied by his own government. Another aspect of the investigation is lying to a Congressional Committee. Liberals love to use this against others but whine and complain when the tables are turned, as is the case with Holder. Obama did not do himself any favors by invoking presidential privilege as this will only increases the perception by the public of a cover-up.

WT69:

Unions have withered in the private sector even in states with pro-union laws. The reason is they can no longer compete and even in states with pro-union laws when the membership is given the opportunity to cease paying dues they flee in large numbers. Now the same is beginning to occur in the government sector and it will continue as the people who have to pay the bill demand changes.

What I thing you miss here is that JP Morgan Chase lost privately invested capital for which they have been penalized by the market place while Obama gives away taxpayers money to his chorines with wild abandon.

I thing the principal point both Esten and you miss here is both corporations and private citizens funds belongs to them and not to the government. They earned it and they should have the right to determine how they spend it.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you are right. The Union's are losing members, because of things Romney and his like minded cronies have done. Buy a company, strip it down, sell off the assets, lay off all the Workers and send what is left to be done by non-Union workers Overseas.

So, goes the middle class.

WT69, the program run under Bush was a totally different program than F&F.

If the Democrats did not investigate it when they took over in 1/1/09 it appears obvious there was nothing to investigate or they would have been all over it.

The Democrats had a filibuster proof hold on the senate in the first two years beginning in 2009, can you say Arlan Specter?

They passed pretty much whatever they wanted telling the Republicans to sit down and shut up. How quickly you seem to forget!

They didn't pass it because they didn't care about it then. Now Obama is willing to reverse his statements from March and violate statute law via presidential fait, it will be reversed but it takes time to run through the court system and Obama knows this.

So what else would I expect from a person who lies at every turn. Now they are playing the 'race' card but I don't think it's going to get much traction.

Romney has nothing to do with the union's demise; they have done it to themselves. Today unions seem to live in some alternate universe where labor costs don't matter in the production and marketing of goods. They just don't compete well today. I guess the new restriction against unions out on the left coast is because of Romney?

Face it my friend the unions killed themselves and have now over reached again and lost on the public sector. The people who pay the bills just will not put up with it anymore and it has nothing to do with Romney.

Addendum.

What the hell are you doing down there. Say "Hello," to Daniel for me

This video shows Project Gunrunner was at fault for Terry's death.

[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7357550n[/url]

I do not recommend Nicaragua. Managua anyway. Granada is worth a visit, but not for mongering.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 423512]WT69, the program run under Bush was a totally different program than F&F.

If the Democrats did not investigate it when they took over in 1/1/09 it appears obvious there was nothing to investigate or they would have been all over it.

The Democrats had a filibuster proof hold on the senate in the first two years beginning in 2009, can you say Arlan Specter?

They passed pretty much whatever they wanted telling the Republicans to sit down and shut up. How quickly you seem to forget!

They didn't pass it because they didn't care about it then. Now Obama is willing to reverse his statements from March and violate statute law via presidential fait, it will be reversed but it takes time to run through the court system and Obama knows this.

So what else would I expect from a person who lies at every turn. Now they are playing the 'race' card but I don't think it's going to get much traction.

Romney has nothing to do with the union's demise; they have done it to themselves. Today unions seem to live in some alternate universe where labor costs don't matter in the production and marketing of goods. They just don't compete well today. I guess the new restriction against unions out on the left coast is because of Romney?

Face it my friend the unions killed themselves and have now over reached again and lost on the public sector. The people who pay the bills just will not put up with it anymore and it has nothing to do with Romney.

Addendum.

What the hell are you doing down there. Say "Hello," to Daniel for me[/QUOTE]

WT69, was the clip you posted accurate, well sort of but not really and here is why. F&F was an operation begun and run under the Obama administration. It was one of several operations under the original Bush ATF initiated known as Project Gunrunner. The weapon which killed Officer Terry was part of F&F which everyone now knows went haywire by letting over 2, 000 weapons "walk" across the border.

Here is the full story on Project Gunrunner and the ATF opertion known as F&F which was initated by the Obama administration under the overall umbrella of Project Gunrunner.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner[/url]

Read what Fortune Magazine says.

[url]http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/?iid=SF_F_MPM[/url]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 423546]WT69, was the clip you posted accurate, well sort of but not really and here is why. F&F was an operation begun and run under the Obama administration. It was one of several operations under the original Bush ATF initiated known as Project Gunrunner. The weapon which killed Officer Terry was part of F&F which everyone now knows went haywire by letting over 2, 000 weapons "walk" across the border.

Here is the full story on Project Gunrunner and the ATF opertion known as F&F which was initated by the Obama administration under the overall umbrella of Project Gunrunner.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner[/url][/QUOTE]

Speaker Boehner today said that F&F was responsible for hundreds of deaths (unproven bs), and that the Administration was guilty of lying to Congress (unproven bs). I used to have a little respect for Boehner, but after this political speech it may all be gone.

On this board as well, Doppel still playing the sympathy card for agent Terry, even though as I previously posted there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he would not have been shot without F&F.

As proof positive the F&F sympathy card is a mere political ploy, ask any Republican about the 45,000 people who die in the US each year because they lack health insurance.

[QUOTE=Esten;423559]Speaker Boehner today said that.the Administration was guilty of lying to Congress (unproven bs).[/QUOTE]We don't know one way or the other because Holder is withholding the documents that would settle the issue.

[QUOTE=Esten;423559]As proof positive the F&F sympathy card is a mere political ploy, ask any Republican about the 45,000 people who die in the US each year because they lack health insurance.[/QUOTE]Are you referring to the 45,000 people who failed to exercise personal responsibility and buy their own health insurance?

The Supreme Court upheld Milt Romney's Health Care "individual mandate". Now, you just have to do your civic duty, and pay for it with a smile. Perhaps, you might have to sacrifice one visit to the local massage parlour.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;423566]The Supreme Court upheld Milt Romney's Health Care "individual mandate". Now, you just have to do your civic duty, and pay for it with a smile. Perhaps, you might have to sacrifice one visit to the local massage parlour.[/QUOTE]Once again, no comparison.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 422743]No, not the same thing.

Obamacare was rammed up America's ass by an incredibly narrow vote of 50. 3% of Congress, and without a single vote from any congressional representatives outside the Democratic party. The voting was so narrow that Democratic Party leaders couldn't even risk sending their own bill back to the Senate where it would have been voted down, and instead they passed the old version passed by the Senate just prior to Scott Brown's election.

On the other hand.

The health care law passed in Massachusetts was supported overwhelmingly in the MA legislature with 198 house reps supporting the bill and only 2 voting against it – 99% voting in favor of the plan! The bill also passed through the state senate without a single dissenting vote.

The difference is that Gov. Romney and the Massachusetts legislature worked together and crafted a health bill that had the support of an overwhelming majority of the people of Massachusetts.

I believe that Obama and the Democrats should have done the same thing for the American people by working to create a bill that more Americans could have supported, but that would have required real leadership, something that Obama is completely lacking.

Once again, I apologize for letting the facts destroy a common liberal rant.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]If ObamaCare had been passed by 99% of the members of the US Congress, I would have little to say about it's legitimacy.

Jeez this gets repetive.

Maybe I need to catalog these standard rebuttals so I can just refer to them by number.

Jackson

I can understand Justice Robert's perspective.

If it walks like a tax and it quacks like a tax, then it's a tax, and the government has the power to tax.

That's not how ObamaCare was sold, but there it is.

Now there's only one way to kill this monstrosity.

Of course, Obama no longer deny that he's levied a new tax on the back of every American worker.

Thanks,

Jackson

Except it's [b]not[/b] a tax on the back of [b]every[/b] American worker. It's a wealth transfer program and anyone making up to 400% of the poverty level will come out ahead, most likely. And 400% of the poverty level ($10, 890 x 4 = $43, 520 in 2011) corresponds roughly to the average wage per worker in 2010 ($41, 673. 83 per the Social Security website). Also, one of the ways it is funded is with a tax that definitely falls only on the rich: the Medicare tax on investment income.

What's fun about this stuff is that the IRS always says X% of income and not X% of assets. That makes it real easy to manipulate. This law benefits early retirees such as myself and therefore I favor it. I think it will favor a lot of us, if we do our research. At the very least it should be easy to get the subsidy every OTHER year, if you are living off your prior savings. The way the law defined "income" for the purpose of comparing it to the poverty level was also very favorable to early retirees.

[QUOTE=Jackson;423562]We don't know one way or the other because Holder is withholding the documents that would settle the issue.[/QUOTE]Then Boehner is out of line for making such accusations.

[QUOTE]Are you referring to the 45,000 people who failed to exercise personal responsibility and buy their own health insurance?[/QUOTE]No - the 45,000 people who could not afford health insurance or were denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.