Too late; Str8Foolish spoke for himself:

Quote :

"No, I also treat both grandstanding and raking in pork as accomplishments. Can we expect a guy who can't get a single piece of legislation through his entire career to somehow do so as president? Does the "no compromise, ever" approach work for anybody except dictators?"

[Edited on March 8, 2012 at 2:06 PM. Reason : ]

3/8/2012 2:05:08 PM

Quote :

"Can we expect a guy who can't get a single piece of legislation through his entire career to somehow do so as president?"

No requirement to do so. Paul can get his way merely by Vetoing everything and forcing congress to attempt an override. Political goals achieved. Just as he did in Congress: incessant no votes forced Congress to achieve a slight super majority to pass anything.

3/8/2012 2:07:35 PM

What he has done is incessantly vote no while inserting earmarks for his district.

Ron Paul doesn't really want to be President, because then he couldn't continue to have his cake and eat it too.

3/8/2012 2:32:32 PM

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/obama-admin-war-is-peace-tpp-negotiations-are-transparent.ars

Senate not required to ratify treaties.

3/8/2012 3:35:45 PM

Additionally, Congressional approval not required for military action, which is nothing new. Panetta states that international permission trumps Congressional authorization.

No hope in sight.

3/8/2012 5:27:07 PM

And you idiots still support this Administration...

3/8/2012 5:34:33 PM

Hey if Obama says Iran with nukes is not a threat. Who am I to judge.

He is after all our leader

3/8/2012 5:43:07 PM

Let them get nukes. Principle > Fearful double standards

3/9/2012 9:38:09 AM

Then I'll agree with Bill Maher on this one then... in his words basically:

They are horrible fucking animals that don't live the same principles that most other human beings have. They are fucking crazy... and cut off your arm for stealing and murder their wife(or multiple wives) if they think they are cheating on them. They throw acid in their faces for lying. They aren't civilized. Especially their leaders.

But I'm with you though. I actually want Iran to get nuclear weapons badly as a matter of fact. It can't come quick enough.

3/9/2012 2:21:06 PM

and you know what's great, prick_bryan? WE EFFECTIVELY PUT THOSE CRAZY FUCKERS IN POWER. You know how we did that? By overthrowing their gov't before and meddling in their internal affairs. But, hey, if we keep doing what we've always done, the result will be different this time, right?

3/9/2012 5:56:48 PM

Really? A whole day goes by and no one mentions the jobs report?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economy-adds-227k-jobs-in-feb-unemployment-rate-unchanged/2012/03/09/gIQAt01B1R_story.html

Quote :

"The nation’s economic picture brightened in February, as employers added more than 200,000 jobs for the third month in a row and more people were encouraged enough by the growing economy to start looking for work again. But the good news came with a technical caveat: The monthly unemployment rate -- a crucial number closely watched by both economists and politicians -- remained stuck in neutral at 8.3 percent. Though analysts welcomed Friday’s report as another step in the right direction for the recovery, the jobless rate has become a political flashpoint in Washington and on the campaign trail. The Labor Department said Friday that the economy added 227,000 jobs last month, more than analysts had expected. The gains spanned industries ranging from health care to manufacturing, and even government employment held relatively steady after shedding an average of 22,000 jobs a month last year. Government data also showed that 476,000 people joined the workforce in February, which kept the official unemployment rate unchanged at 8.3 percent. After months -- or even years — of discouragement, many who had given up hunting for a job have begun to dip their toes back into the market. The White House said Friday that the data show the economy is “continuing to heal” from the wounds of the Great Recession. At a rally at a factory in Richmond on Friday, President Obama said the recovery is getting stronger and highlighted the gains in manufacturing. “When I come to places like this and see the work being done, it gives me confidence there are better days ahead,” he said. “The key now, our job now, is to keep this economic engine churning.” Meanwhile, Republicans pointed to higher gas prices and the more than 5 million people who have been unemployed for more than six months as signs that the president’s economic initiatives were not gaining enough traction. “It is a testament to the hard work and entrepreneurship of the American people that they are creating any jobs in the midst of the onslaught of anti-business policies coming from this administration,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Friday. On the presidential campaign trail, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did not specifically mention the new unemployment figures but pointed out that millions of Americans remain out of work or underemployed. He continued to attack Obama’s handling of the economy during a town hall in Jackson, Miss., on Friday. “We have fewer jobs. We have more debt. And we have bigger government,” Romney said. “That’s why we have to get him out of office.” The unemployment rate had been steadily declining since August, when it was 9.1 percent. Despite February’s flatline, economists say the pace of hiring in recent months makes it likely the jobless number will fall below 8 percent before the presidential election in November. The bulk of the jobs were added in professional and business services, and over half of those positions were in temporary employment. Tig Gillam, chief executive of Adecco Group North America, a staffing agency, said that bodes well for the job market in the coming months. Temporary employment is often a leading indicator of a broader upswing and optimism among businesses."

3/9/2012 7:50:18 PM

^ Amazing what happens when Obama's "Bold and persistent experimentation" get's slowed down a bit.

It is also amazing what happens when austerity measures finally actually start to shrink the government. Not much, and clearly not fast enough to fix the jobs situation quickly, but the program is clearly working.

[Edited on March 10, 2012 at 3:11 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/10/2012 2:43:41 AM

not nearly as amazing as delusion

3/10/2012 2:52:24 AM

^^ Correlation don't equal causation, chump.

3/11/2012 1:47:22 AM

^wow. with that overwhelming evidence i'm now 100% convinced that raising taxes and forcing lazy people to accept welfare is the best way to advance our society.

3/11/2012 7:08:54 PM

Evidence is ^^^^^, chump.

3/11/2012 7:26:46 PM

so sheriff joe is back with pretty damning evidence of birth certificate forgery and separately there is an impeachment bill in congress now regarding use of military force sans congress.

not surprisingly the media is shush, as there are more important things to report on such as occupy DCs wind turbine memorial to bird deaths.

regardless of your opinion on these matters (or theirs) it should at least be on the goddamn tv?

at least they could maintain some inkling of credibility by at least presenting a heavily biased report of the story instead of just ignoring it altogether. this completely reeks of white house influence; they wanna suck that big dick so bad.

3/12/2012 2:00:55 PM

Quote :

" Racial profiling The MCSO has been accused of racial profiling in lawsuits filed by the ACLU. In one suit, the ACLU alleges that MCSO Deputies arrested and detained U.S. citizen and a legal resident without justification, stopping them as they were driving down a public roadway, and transporting them to the site of an immigration raid. A separate class-action suit, filed by the ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) alleges that MCSO Deputies unlawfully stopped and mistreated individuals because they were Latino. The lawsuit charges that this practice is discriminatory and unlawfully violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Arizona Constitution Department of Justice investigations In June 2008, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) began an investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.[12] In March 2009, the United States Department of Justice notified Arpaio that they were investigating the department for civil rights violations, in unfairly targeting Hispanics and Spanish-speaking people. The DOJ found "reasonable cause to believe that MCSO engages in a pattern or practice of violating the Constitution and laws of the United States" and that "MCSO is broken". In October 2009, it was reported that the FBI was investigating Arpaio for using his position to settle political vendettas. In January 2010, it was reported that the Department of Justice has impaneled a grand jury to investigate allegations of abuse of power by Arpaio. In March 2010, it was reported that an investigation into Arpaio is "serious and ongoing", according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jail conditions A federal judge ruled, in October 2008, that conditions in Maricopa County jails violate the constitutional rights of inmates. In April, 2010, the same judge ruled that conditions in the Maricopa County jails continue to violate the constitutional rights of inmates Controversial use of SWAT forces On July 23, 2004 SWAT served a search warrant looking for "a stockpile of illegal automatic weapons and armor-piercing pistol ammunition" that they believed was hidden at an upscale home. In the course of serving the warrant, multiple tear gas cartridges were launched into the home. The result of which was the home catching fire. During the fire, SWAT forced the homeowner's 10-month-old pit bull puppy back into the home with a fire extinguisher, causing the dog's death. It was reported that the officers laughed over the incident. Also, the armored personnel carrier used during the assault ran over and damaged a neighbor's vehicle when its brakes failed. Police recovered two weapons; one antique shotgun; and one 9mm pistol. Both weapons are legal to own in Arizona. After failing to find illicit weapons the police served an arrest warrant for the owner who was also wanted on a misdemeanor warrant for failing to appear in Tempe Municipal Court on a couple of traffic citations"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maricopa_County_Sheriff%27s_Office_controversies


Those are just 3 examples in an entire wikipedia entry of the controversies and abuse of power this dude has shown throughout the years. the cocksucker is using this birther movement as a way to deflect from his own criminal history. and you're falling for it.




[Edited on March 12, 2012 at 3:01 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2012 2:52:24 PM

where in anything i said did i appear to be falling for anything?

my entire post was a media critique and your response didnt even address the bill in congress.

why then isnt the media crucifying this guy (joe)? again, i would be happy as long as they werent ignoring any of these things. at this point they appear to be keeping obamas name off the air regardless of what he is doing (positive or negative). it all strikes me as very odd-

so really the issue now is this:

why are you do goddamn defensive? i believe youve stated before that youre no die-hard liberal or obama supporter, so why do you care either way? the media is supposed to be our information dispensary yes? i dont like for it to be "out of order."

[Edited on March 12, 2012 at 4:39 PM. Reason : -]

3/12/2012 4:39:19 PM

I'm going to vote for him again because I'm black and he's black.

3/12/2012 4:40:12 PM

Quote :

"why then isnt the media crucifying this guy (joe)? again, i would be happy as long as they werent ignoring any of these things."

If the media ran a story every time Arpaio did something slimy and revolting, or ran a story every time the birthers latched onto whatever flimsy straw presented itself, there wouldn't even be room for the stock ticker.

3/12/2012 4:48:08 PM

the media isn't running the story because it's a non-issue.

Arpario is a slimeball, and the birther story has been thoroughly debunked.

It's time to move on.

3/12/2012 4:57:28 PM

fair enough! although further dragging him through the mud would be a better usage of airtime than bird-eating alternative energy.

so now address the bill for his impeachment. surely this has more credibility than ol joe?

3/12/2012 5:08:22 PM

it's a curious time to all of a sudden give a damn about presidential abuse of his status as commander in chief, especially coming from the GOP, who seem hell-bent on re-claiming the white house by declaring Iran an existential threat to us and our ally...

this is a bullshit political stunt....nothing more, nothing less.

[Edited on March 12, 2012 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2012 5:10:33 PM

but its one you should appreciate!

i seem to remember liberals bitching about similar GW bush abuses; why not send a signal to get presidential powers BACK where they belong?

i cant help but feel obama will be protected from this because bush was able to avoid it and this will simply degenerate into a "thats not fair" argument.

or better yet, "hes only being dogged cuz hes black."

no, starting with him presidents need to quit throwing their weight around. THATS what needs to happen.

and of course the timing is suspect, but that doesnt make it any less legitimate.

3/12/2012 5:25:20 PM

Quote :

"but its one you should appreciate!"

I do appreciate it...when it's sincere. Dennis Kucinich said he would consider pushing for impeachment for Obama much like he did for Bush...but alas, he's no longer in the senate.

But when some faggy republican decides that he needs to stir up support from his mouth-breathing base before an election by going forward with the farce of impeachment while simultaneously supporting war in Iran, then I have a hard time getting my dick up for that. Sorry.



[Edited on March 12, 2012 at 6:41 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2012 6:39:14 PM

thats like stupid environmentalists that get upset when green measures are implemented NOT because they benefit the environment but because there was some dollar advantage to doing so.

who cares as long as it gets the job done? they start to pick and choose and then nothing gets accomplished.

you should learn to swallow your conscience.

[Edited on March 12, 2012 at 9:09 PM. Reason : -]

3/12/2012 9:09:21 PM

I promise you that cocksucker would unquestionably endorse an attack on Iran.

He doesn't give a wet-fuck about the president abusing powers. He just wants to make a name for himself.

Don't even pretend that it's anything more than a stunt. He probably didn't oppose the Iraq War, or the first Gulf War, or Vietnam, or even Korea. Are you a dove, all of a sudden?

3/12/2012 9:28:22 PM

Asshole Senator to President: "Mr. President, sending troops to restore peace in the war-torn district of Homs, Syria is unconstitutional"

Asshole Senator to Fox News Bimbo: "We must invade Iran!"

3/12/2012 9:42:32 PM

Senator to the public:

Quote :

" The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

President to the public:

Quote :

"And for the general public -- I’ve said this before but I just want to reiterate -- this is not some abstract issue. These are obligations that the United States has taken on in the past. Congress has run up the credit card, and we now have an obligation to pay our bills. If we do not, it could have a whole set of adverse consequences. We could end up with a situation, for example, where interest rates rise for everybody all throughout the country, effectively a tax increase on everybody, because suddenly whether you’re using your credit or you’re trying to get a loan for a car or a student loan, businesses that are trying to make payroll, all of them could end up being impacted as a consequence of a default."

Candidate (rather, Junior Senator from Illinois) to the public:

Quote :

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."

President to the public:

Quote :

"It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance."

3/13/2012 12:01:30 AM

This killing spree is the straw that broke the camel's back. Obama needs to withdraw troops from Afghanistan right now. Shit's out of control. It cannot be salvaged. Osama's dead, bring the troops home immediately, or at lot of men are going to die needlessly.

3/13/2012 10:51:38 AM

obama approval rating down to 0% in afghanistan



[Edited on March 13, 2012 at 11:10 AM. Reason : resized image down from 400000 x 300000]

3/13/2012 11:07:24 AM

dick durbin throwing a fit over FEMA denying illinois any tornado relief.

3/13/2012 3:18:19 PM

kinda like he did with Texas?

3/13/2012 4:03:48 PM

"President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law."

So we doubled it...whats the big deal?

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cbo-obamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

3/14/2012 10:18:27 AM

From the actual CBO release that article is referring to:

Quote :

" The ACA’s provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012–2022 period (see Table 2, following the text); that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources)."

So, not only is the number not 1.76 trillion, but 1.25. But wait, there's more:

Quote :

"Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law. CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated."

Read the actual document. 1.76 trillion is NOT the overall cost of Obamacare, just of the insurance coverage provisions. The whole of Obamacare is still projected to reduce the deficit, by the very CBO the W.E. is linking to.

The Washington Examiner is a total rag, but I can't blame it for your failure to check their primary sources, that's 100% your own fault for falling for their shit. I wonder how many more times they'll lie to you before you stop reading it just because their headlines jive with your expectations.


[Edited on March 14, 2012 at 10:29 AM. Reason : .]

3/14/2012 10:22:47 AM

SO the projected costs to provide "free" health care doubles. But the line is now that its ok, we are going to be cutting tax credits to employers to make the offset and cutting medicare costs. Yeah, that seems about as likely to happen as obamacare actually SAVING money.

Oh and medicaid is jointly funded with federal and state money. And states are really swimming in funds currently. They actually do mention a probable larger federal share of medicaid (bc states cant afford it). But I have yet to hear anyone suggest cutting medicaid services, esp luxuries. Those will be the biggest cost growths and they will pay nothing for their care...well 1 dollar.

"Fewer people are now expected to obtain health insurance coverage from their employer or in insurance exchanges; more are now expected to obtain coverage from Medicaid or CHIP or from nongroup or other sources. More are expected to be uninsured. The extent of the changes varies from year to year, but in 2016, for example, the ACA is now estimated to reduce the number of people receiving health insurance coverage through an employer by an additional 4 million enrollees relative to the March 2011 projections."

Ahhhh, success.

3/14/2012 10:40:58 AM

Dipshit, are you even reading? Your reference is the CBO. The CBO itself says the overall effect of Obamacare will be a deficit reduction. Fuck, the article didn't even get the number for the insurance provision costs right, when the correct number appeared in the same sentence.

[Edited on March 14, 2012 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

3/14/2012 10:43:03 AM

Quote :

"The whole of Obamacare is still projected to reduce the deficit, by the very CBO the W.E. is linking to"

Where did you see that?

Quote :

"CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.4"

I imagine that PREVIOUS estimate didnt include the insurance provisions DOUBLING.

3/14/2012 10:44:15 AM

Quote :

"Where did you see that?"

The fucking CBO report that came out when it fucking passed. You wouldn't know this because you read shit like the W.E. that was probably 100% silent on that report.

Here's the CBO telling Boehner that repealing Obamacare would mean $210 billion dollar deficit increase over 2012-2021 http://cbo.gov/publication/22027

Quote :

"I imagine that PREVIOUS estimate didnt include the insurance provisions DOUBLING."

They didn't double. That, again, requires only reading a single paragraph in the report they're linking, a single sentence within that paragraph, and only half of that sentence. As I pointed out, the 1.76 trillion dollar figure is not the bottom line, something you can realize by simply reading the sentence that number appears in all the way to the end.

If you look at their summary, within the very report the WE is referring to, you'll see:

Quote :

"CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period (see Table 1, following the text)."

Here's a hint: Before you post anything else, read the original report I linked above, then read the report the W.E. is referring to which you can find here: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf


Read them both, in full, and stop reading partisan rags like the W.E. expecting them to do anything but outright lie.



[Edited on March 14, 2012 at 11:03 AM. Reason : .]

3/14/2012 10:51:03 AM

Quote :

"CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated"

The 1.76T is what it will cost to cover everyones insurance. I understand that. They count on 500B in penalities (which dont exist) and other "budgetary effects" to bring it to 1.2T. They then count on cutting medicare to "save" more. I just find this to be a fantasy. Something for nothing, spend 1T but we are "saving" money... Expanding medicaid roles will only increase demand for services, which will increase the costs to whoever is actually paying. That is basic economics.

Cutting medicare, esp with the boomers coming on board, will be politically impossible imo.

You are correct, the increase isnt nearly what the headline makes it out to be.

3/14/2012 11:05:26 AM

CBO says it'll cost something: 100% taken as gospel

CBO says it'll save something: I'M SKEPTICAL...

3/14/2012 11:09:58 AM

Makes sense. The government has a reason to convince the population that it's "saving" money and to prevent people from understanding that things will cost more than projected.

3/14/2012 11:19:33 AM

That's how conspiracy theories work. Take disparate facts and mash them to fit your conclusion, ignore all else. Good work.

3/14/2012 11:27:31 AM

Quote :

"The government has a reason to convince the population that it's "saving" money and to prevent people from understanding that things will cost more than projected."

The CBO is bipartisan and, as a result, one side of it is extremely incentivized to vastly overstate the costs and understate the savings. I'm not really sure who you'd trust over the CBO, and I'm afraid your personal intuition isn't very convincing to anybody who isn't you.

3/14/2012 11:29:31 AM

he picked UNC to win it all in his 2012 bracket...what a prick

3/14/2012 11:38:38 AM

He at least had us getting to the sweet-16 by beating georgetown

3/14/2012 6:53:14 PM

3/15/2012 11:43:06 AM

TTDB possibly the best political webcomic ever, hands down.

3/15/2012 12:07:13 PM

It's comforting knowing that in 2012, the President of the United States has the power to say, "off with their heads."

3/15/2012 12:28:20 PM