He's been moving in that direction for a while under the guise of not moving in that direction.

6/2/2011 9:09:41 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/3/bipartisan-congress-rebuffs-obama-libya-mission/

Quote :

"Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya. In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. Obama — Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya. The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must give explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off. “He has a chance to get this right. If he doesn’t, Congress will exercise its constitutional authority and make it right,” said House Speaker John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who wrote the resolution that passed, 268-145, and sets a two-week deadline for the president to deliver the information the House is seeking. Minutes after approving Mr. Boehner’s measure, the House defeated an even more strongly-worded resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, that would have insisted the president begin a withdrawal of troops. Most lawmakers said that was too rash at this point, and said they wanted to give Mr. Obama time to comply. Some also said immediate withdrawal would leave U.S. allies in the lurch. The Kucinich resolution failed 148-265. In a telling signal, 87 Republicans voted for Mr. Kucinich’s resolution — more than the 61 Democrats that did. Still, taken together, 324 members of Congress voted for one resolution or both resolutions, including 91 Democrats, or nearly half the caucus. The size of the votes signals overwhelming discontent with Mr. Obama’s handling of the constitutional issues surrounding the Libya fight."

6/3/2011 3:18:37 PM

^Came in here to post that. Nice to see that our congress can actually do something and hasn't gone full retard.

6/3/2011 3:41:37 PM

Nice.

6/3/2011 3:48:32 PM

I thought this was god damn hilarious as well

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/half-last-months-jobs-came-single-employer-mcdonalds_573220.html

Quote :

"Half of Last Month's New Jobs Came from a Single Employer — McDonald's 11:13 AM, Jun 3, 2011 • By MARK HEMINGWAY Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text According to the unemployment data released this morning, the economy added only 54,000 jobs, pushing the unemployment rate up to 9.1 percent. However, this report from MarketWatch suggests data is much worse than that: McDonald’s ran a big hiring day on April 19 — after the Labor Department’s April survey for the payrolls report was conducted — in which 62,000 jobs were added. That’s not a net number, of course, and seasonal adjustment will reduce the Hamburglar impact on payrolls. (In simpler terms — restaurants always staff up for the summer; the Labor Department makes allowance for this effect.) Morgan Stanley estimates McDonald’s hiring will boost the overall number by 25,000 to 30,000. The Labor Department won’t detail an exact McDonald’s figure — they won’t identify any company they survey — but there will be data in the report to give a rough estimate. If Morgan Stanley is correct, about half of last month's job growth came from the venerable fast-food chain. That is hardly the sign of a healthy economy."

6/3/2011 4:56:10 PM

look at that wikipedia page. FIRST FUCKING SENTENCE:

Quote :

"Marriages in Israel can only be performed under the auspices of the religious community to which couples belong"

as in, THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY DECIDES WHO IS MARRIED, NOT ISRAEL. jesus christ, you are dense.

Quote :

"I can’t believe burro is arguing in favor of a theocracy… ludicrous."

I argue that a sovereign nation has the right to make its own laws. If they want them to be Jewish laws, that's their business.

6/3/2011 6:15:26 PM

Quote :

"There is no provision for interfaith marriages, same-sex marriages or civil marriage in Israel."

That's as clear as it gets.

Quote :

"I argue that a sovereign nation has the right to make its own laws."

So you're ok with slavery, genocide, and oppression?

[Edited on June 3, 2011 at 6:51 PM. Reason : ]

6/3/2011 6:50:23 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "I can’t believe burro is arguing in favor of a theocracy… ludicrous." I argue that a sovereign nation has the right to make its own laws. If they want them to be Jewish laws, that's their business. "

LOL

I’ll remember that...

6/3/2011 7:01:34 PM

Quote :

"That's as clear as it gets."

yes. there's no provision for ANY marriage unless the religious community performs it. like I said. I mean, what part of "Marriages in each community are under the jurisdiction of their own religious authorities." do you not understand?

Quote :

"So you're ok with slavery, genocide, and oppression?"

Is israel doing any of that? of course not.

6/3/2011 7:03:32 PM

Quote :

"there's no provision for ANY marriage unless the religious community performs it"

No. It says there is "no provision". "Unless the religious community performs it" is the VERY definition of a provision.

Quote :

"Is israel doing any of that?"

That's not relevant. The point is that even though a sovereign nation has the right to make their own laws, they do not have the right to violate basic human rights, and I and many others would argue that freedom from discrimination is one of those. Israel is discriminating both racially and religiously and it is deplorable.

6/3/2011 7:10:18 PM

6/3/2011 7:57:12 PM

6/3/2011 8:06:17 PM

Quote :

"No. It says there is "no provision". "Unless the religious community performs it" is the VERY definition of a provision."

oh look, Kris is playing semantics again! Show me where in the law it says "a jew can't marry a non-jew." It's not there. The law says it recognizes marriages performed by the religious community. If one of those communities will marry a jew and non-jew, then said law allows marriage of a jew and non-jew. AGAIN, you are lying and misrepresenting the simple fucking facts.

Quote :

"Israel is discriminating both racially and religiously and it is deplorable."

Again, facts not in evidence. Just because you declare the sky to be a big pepperoni monkey, doesn't make it so.

6/4/2011 10:23:28 PM

I bet people defending Jim Crow era the grandfather clauses sounded just like you.

It’s pretty sad.

6/5/2011 11:55:17 AM

Quote :

"Show me where in the law it says "a jew can't marry a non-jew." It's not there."

Well here's a guy who got stopped. Hell the funny thing about this story is that the guy WAS a jew, he just wasn't the right race of jew:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/10964-israeli-rabbis-ban-marriage-for-jewish-untouchables-350000-immigrants-classed-as-without-religion.html

Now you can defend this however you like but the fact is that interfaith/interracial marriages are being prohibited, and it is wrong.

6/5/2011 12:16:10 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150714

This article has more info. The issue is from 2009 though, so maybe Israel has become more progressive on the issue since then.

And it definitely proves without any doubt that Israel still has lots of issues on the religious and ethnic freedom front.

No rational person could deny this, and I don’t see why anyone would. It’s not like Israel has to be perfect to be our ally, all of our other allies have their own set of problems.

[Edited on June 5, 2011 at 12:35 PM. Reason : ]

6/5/2011 12:34:49 PM

Quote :

" The point is that even though a sovereign nation has the right to make their own laws, they do not have the right to violate basic human rights, and I and many others would argue that freedom from discrimination is one of those."

So now it's a basic human right to have a religiously sanctioned marriage?

Look, I think it's dumb, but it's very clear that in Israel if you want to get married, it's a wholly religious process.

6/5/2011 12:44:22 PM

Quote :

"So now it's a basic human right to have a religiously sanctioned marriage?"

People just want to get married, and yes, that is a basic human right.

Quote :

"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

- Article 16, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

People there don't care if it's religious or not, they just want to be married, and it's a violation of human rights not to allow them to do so.

6/5/2011 12:52:23 PM

a human rights violation?

LOL, friend.

I am all for gay marriage but thats a bloody ridiculous statement.

6/5/2011 5:12:34 PM

Then I would ask what are your thoughts on the anti-miscegenation laws of 60's?

Additionally, gay marriage has nothing to do with that.

6/5/2011 8:08:27 PM

I just said I am in favor of the gheys getting married. Why would I care about interracial marriage?

however, governments (especially elected ones) determining their criteria for marriage under their system of laws is hardly tantamount to a human rights violation. your suggestion that it is is silly sauce.

6/5/2011 8:39:20 PM

I have more faith in the UN's ability to define human rights than I do in yours.

6/5/2011 8:46:29 PM

yeah the UN never gets anything wrong. you're right.

we should add a gay-marriage wing to the holocaust museum

6/5/2011 10:10:55 PM

You keep saying gay marriage. It has no relevance whatsoever to this thread. It has no relevance to the article of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I have no idea why you keep bringing it up, but just to go ahead and nip this in the bud, I'm flattered, but I'm straight.

I was just pointing out that it's not my suggestion that interracial and interfaith marriages are a basic human right, it's the suggestion of the voting members of the UN. You should feel free to let them know that you believe it is "silly sauce".

6/5/2011 11:53:58 PM

It's not even a matter of interfaith marriages, it's a matter of non-State sponsored marriages.

I never thought conservatives would argue so strongly for gov. imposing religious beliefs onto people so blatantly. I guess because it's God's chosen people, they are allowed to have despicable marriage laws...?

6/6/2011 12:27:18 AM

People have a basic human right to marriage? Are we talking about the bond that can exist between two people, or the institution of marriage? I think there's a substantial difference between the two. The former will exist regardless of the state's recognition, while the other grants special privileges to state-sanctioned relationships.

6/6/2011 1:42:47 AM

Quote :

"The former will exist regardless of the state's recognition"

Not necessarily, the state can be quite effective at stopping miscegenation when it puts it's mind to it, society has a lot to do with it in a more de facto way.

6/6/2011 2:53:48 AM

Quote :

"I guess because it's God's chosen people, they are allowed to have despicable marriage laws...?"

Just as despicable as some of America's marriage laws. At least Israel manages a level of consistency.

Realistically speaking, it's not that different from things here -- if you want to have a religious wedding, you still have to find someone to marry you; the only difference is that here you can bail on the religious aspect of it.

Quote :

"People just want to get married, and yes, that is a basic human right."

Though I find it laughable, it's interesting how divorce isn't a basic human right.

[Edited on June 6, 2011 at 9:12 AM. Reason : .]

6/6/2011 9:12:01 AM

Quote :

"Are we talking about the bond that can exist between two people, or the institution of marriage?"

The institution; the civil benefits that accompany a marraige license. People have a basic right to equal treatment under the law.

^When is divorce not a basic right?

6/6/2011 9:44:48 AM

Quote :

"^When is divorce not a basic right?"

It's not listed on the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".

It also isn't allowed in Vatican City, which should come as a shock to absolutely no one.

6/6/2011 10:14:07 AM

Quote :

"Just as despicable as some of America's marriage laws"

Not nearly. Here in america we have no laws against interracial or interfaith marriages

Quote :

"Realistically speaking, it's not that different from things here -- if you want to have a religious wedding, you still have to find someone to marry you; the only difference is that here you can bail on the religious aspect of it."

No, things are quite different. Here a jew can marry a non-jew, there, one cannot.

Quote :

"[Divorce is] not listed on the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"."

You should have read the link to the UDHR I posted, it's clearly listed right there:
"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution"

[Edited on June 6, 2011 at 1:32 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2011 1:24:16 PM

^^OK, maybe I just dont "get" why that was interesting..

6/6/2011 1:28:03 PM

Quote :

"It's not even a matter of interfaith marriages, it's a matter of non-State sponsored marriages. I never thought conservatives would argue so strongly for gov. imposing religious beliefs onto people so blatantly. I guess because it's God's chosen people, they are allowed to have despicable marriage laws...?"

I personally find government imposition of morality a major annoyance.

I just also find the sensationalism of minor issues a major annoyance.

6/6/2011 3:36:10 PM

Wait, where do you see sensationalism?

burro was saying reality was one way, when it obviously wasn't. I didn't realize an observation of facts was now "sensationalism" to the right.

6/6/2011 7:10:06 PM

Quote :

"You should have read the link to the UDHR I posted, it's clearly listed right there:"

That does not say they have the right to divorce, it says they have the same rights at the dissolution of the marriage as they do during marriage (which is bizarre).

But, that said, if you do believe that divorce is a basic human right, do you agree that the Vatican should be labeled a human rights violator as well?

Quote :

"^^OK, maybe I just dont "get" why that was interesting.."

I thought it was interesting because if you don't view divorce as a "basic human right", then places like the Vatican are A-OK; if you do, then apparently they're violators as well.

Quote :

"No, things are quite different. Here a jew can marry a non-jew, there, one cannot. "

In a civil ceremony, which exists here, but doesn't exist in Israel. If a Jew wants to marry a non-Jew here in a religious ceremony, they still have to find someone who will actually allow it.

[Edited on June 6, 2011 at 8:27 PM. Reason : .]

6/6/2011 8:26:34 PM

^Should not be that hard....

6/6/2011 8:56:30 PM

Quote :

"That does not say they have the right to divorce, it says they have the same rights at the dissolution of the marriage as they do during marriage (which is bizarre)."

It's not really bizarre. Divorce is the dissolution of the marriage. They said humans have the right to dissolve their marriage, or in other words, divorce.

Quote :

"But, that said, if you do believe that divorce is a basic human right, do you agree that the Vatican should be labeled a human rights violator as well?"

I don't think the Vatican doesn't stop anyone from getting divorced, just stops them from receiving communion, which I have no problem with. But I could be wrong about that, so yes if the Vatican City stopped it's citizens, all 500 of them, from getting a divorce (which I'm pretty sure they don't), then I would have a problem with it and would agree that they are a human rights violator.

Quote :

"I thought it was interesting because if you don't view divorce as a "basic human right", then places like the Vatican are A-OK; if you do, then apparently they're violators as well."

The link I posted stated clearly that the dissolution of marriage is a basic human right just like marriage.

Quote :

"In a civil ceremony, which exists here, but doesn't exist in Israel. If a Jew wants to marry a non-Jew here in a religious ceremony, they still have to find someone who will actually allow it."

The point is that they can still get married. Whether the church wants to allow them is a religious matter, whether the state wants to allow it is a human rights matter.

Is there something about being a jew that makes you have to defend israel? You sound like a black guy defending OJ.

6/6/2011 9:06:18 PM

Quote :

"Is there something about being a jew that makes you have to defend israel? You sound like a black guy defending OJ."

From my original post:

Quote :

"Look, I think it's dumb, but it's very clear that in Israel if you want to get married, it's a wholly religious process."

6/6/2011 9:34:22 PM

Israel = Racist Nation

6/6/2011 10:24:18 PM

^^ That still sounds fairly apologist, especially when we're talking about what basically equates to modern day anti-miscegenation laws.

6/6/2011 10:53:34 PM

I mean, I feel the same way about the Vatican, but if you want to infer I'm some sort of Israel apologist, you're more than welcome to search through my previous posts.

Like I said, I think it's dumb they can't marry in Israel. It'd be nice if they could, but I'm not going to start screaming violation of basic human rights because a religious state follows their religious laws on religious marriage.

6/6/2011 11:45:11 PM

Quote :

"I mean, I feel the same way about the Vatican"

But they're not doing anything.

Quote :

"Like I said, I think it's dumb they can't marry in Israel. It'd be nice if they could, but I'm not going to start screaming violation of basic human rights because a religious state follows their religious laws on religious marriage."

I will start calling it a violation of human rights, and I will point out that Israel shouldn't consider itself a theocracy if it wants the support of the rest of the civilized world, and it most certainly shouldn't expect the arabs to recognize them as theocracy ruled by one race.

6/7/2011 12:12:21 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-phony-accounting-on-the-auto-industry-bailout/2011/06/06/AG3nefKH_blog.html

Quote :

"What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan. Let’s look at the claims in the order in which the president said them. “Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency — and it repaid that money six years ahead of schedule. And this week, we reached a deal to sell our remaining stake. That means soon, Chrysler will be 100 percent in private hands.” Wow, “every dime and more” sounds like such a bargain. Not only did Chrysler pay back the loan, with interest — but the company paid back even more than they owed. Isn’t America great or what? Not so fast. The president snuck in the weasel words “during my presidency” in his statement. What does that mean? According to the White House, Obama is counting only the $8.5 billion loan that he made to Chrysler, not the $4 billion that President George W. Bush extended in his last month in office. However, Obama was not a disinterested observer at the time. According to The Washington Post article on the Bush loan, the incoming president called Bush’s action a “necessary step .?.?. to help avoid a collapse of our auto industry that would have had devastating consequences for our economy and our workers.” Under the administration’s math, the U.S. government will receive $11.2 billion back from Chrysler, far more than the $8.5 billion Obama extended. Through this sleight-of-hand accounting, the White House can conveniently ignore Bush’s loan, but even the Treasury Department admits that U.S. taxpayers will not recoup about $1.3 billion of the entire $12.5 billion investment when all is said and done. The White House justifies not counting the Bush money because, it says, that money was completely spent when Obama was making a tough political decision on whether to extend another loan. In other words, a decision to do nothing at the time would have resulted in the immediate loss of the $4 billion that Bush had extended. This is chicanery. Under the president’s math, Chrysler paid back 100 percent of Obama’s loan and less than 70 percent of Bush’s loan. A more honest presentation would combine the two figures to say U.S. taxpayers got back 90 percent of what they invested. In fact, that is how the Treasury and other administration officials frequently portray it; it is just when Obama speaks that the numbers get so squishy. The White House justifies saying that Chrysler will be in 100 percent “in private hands” because there will no longer be government ownership once Fiat completes its purchase of the U.S. stake. For the record, the United Auto Workers will own 46 percent of the company. “All three American automakers are now adding shifts and creating jobs at the strongest rate since the 1990s.” The White House says the data to back this claim concerning the Big Three automakers is not public information. The official Bureau of Labor Statistics data refers to the entire auto industry — including foreign auto manufacturers, auto parts manufacturers, auto parts dealers and auto dealers. If you look at the data, the 113,200 jobs added between June 2009 and May 2011 amounts to about a 5 percent increase — from a rather low base. “GM plans to hire back all of the workers they had to lay off during the recession.” This is another impressive-sounding but misleading figure. In the five years since 2006, General Motors announced that it would reduce its workforce by nearly 68,000 hourly and salary workers, creating a much smaller company. Those are the figures that generated the headlines. Obama is only talking about a sliver of workers — the 9,600 workers who were laid off in the fourth quarter of 2008. About 4,100 were sent home for a few weeks. Another 5,500 were put on indefinite leave, meaning there were no jobs at the time for them. All but 1,000 have returned to work, and the rest should be back at work by year’s end, according to GM spokesman Greg A. Martin. “In the year before I was President, this industry lost more than 400,000 jobs, and two great American companies, Chrysler and GM, stood on the brink of collapse. Now, we had a few options. We could have done what a lot of folks in Washington thought we should do — nothing.” This is quite a straw man — that many people wanted to do nothing. It was never so black and white. The debate was over the right course to take in the bankruptcy process. The Wall Street Journal published Monday an interesting conservative critique of the government’s intervention by David Skeel, a law professor at University of Pennsylvania. Skeel says that the revival of the auto industry “is a very encouraging development,” but “to claim that the car companies would have collapsed if the government hadn’t intervened in the way it did, and to suggest that the intervention came at very little cost, is a dangerous misreading of our recent history.” To support the claim that “a lot of folks” wanted to do nothing, the White House referred us to statements by the House minority leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Sens. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). We do not read Boehner’s quote that way; in this 2009 comment, he is questioning the administration’s approach while saying, “The success of our automotive industry is critical.”Shelby and Kyl in 2008 were protesting the use of taxpayer funds by Bush to delay a bankruptcy filing; they preferred immediately putting the companies through the bankruptcy process. It will be up to historians to decide what the best solution would have been for taxpayers and the auto industry. We can understand why the president wants to portray himself as making a lonely and tough decision. But the debate was not either/or, bur rather what was the best policy to bring the automakers back to financial health. "

6/7/2011 8:44:32 AM

Vatican City is just a big church and a big garden. Comparing it to Israel is ridiculous.

In fact, in the context of this discussion, comparing most nations to Israel is ridiculous. Israel's special relationship with the US warrants scrutiny of its laws and government.

6/7/2011 9:23:54 AM

Obama's rating on economy hits new low: poll

Quote :

"Americans' disapproval of how President Barack Obama is handling the economy and its growing budget deficit has reached new highs amid broad frustration over the slow pace of economic recovery, according to a Washington Post-ABC New poll released on Tuesday. The ratings boost Obama received after the killing of Osama bin Laden has dissipated with his job approval rating back to 47 percent. Forty-nine percent disapprove of his performance. Obama's approval rating bounced to 56 immediately after bin Laden was killed last month. Fifty-nine percent, a new high, gave Obama negative marks for his handling of the economy, up from 55 percent a month earlier. Obama's approval rating on the deficit issue hit a new low of 33 percent, down 6 points since April. The state of the economy poses a huge challenge for the president, whose re-election in 2012 may depend on his ability to convince voters that his economic policies have been successful."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/07/us-poll-obama-idUSTRE7560UH20110607

While the article does say that voters have become more convinced that a Republican would do a better job handling the economy, I'm not so sure. Romney would not be a big improvement over Obama; he simply doesn't have the backbone to do what's necessary. He caved to big government while governor, and we're supposed to believe that he would behave differently when he's given even more power? C'mon, I wasn't born yesterday.

[Edited on June 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM. Reason : ]

6/7/2011 12:47:07 PM

Quote :

"STATE DINNER MENU DONE ON BUDGET: White House Honey Gastrique Tuna Tartare with Rye Crisps Pickled Young Carrots and Mustard Oil Spring Pea Salad Shaved Ham and Ginger Snaps Petite Filet With Maryland Crab Ravioli Wild Ramp Puree Apple Strudel Golden Raisins and Topfen"

6/8/2011 7:28:05 AM

Now he's blaming Europe for our economy and has pledged the US to help bail out Greece...and specifically calls out Germany too

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43321461

Quote :

"President Barack Obama on Tuesday urged European countries and bondholders to prevent a "disastrous" default by Greece and pledged U.S. support to help tackle the country's debt crisis. Obama, whose political prospects have suffered from persistently high unemployment and ballooning U.S. debt, has pinpointed the euro zone crisis as one foreign "headwind" hitting the U.S. economy. After a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he stressed the importance of German "leadership" on the issue - a hint that he expects Berlin to help - while expressing sympathy for the political difficulties European Union countries face in helping a struggling member state. "I'm confident that Germany's leadership, along with other key actors in Europe, will help us arrive at a path for Greece to return to growth, for this debt to become more manageable," Obama said. "But it's going to require some patience and some time. And we have pledged to cooperate fully in working through these issues, both on a bilateral basis but also through international and financial institutions like the IMF." A proposal for a second Greek bailout package worth 80 billion to 100 billion euros over three years was taking shape, euro zone sources said. Merkel, under political pressure at home to avoid being the financial savior for other struggling European countries, said Germany understood its role. "We've seen that the stability of the euro as a whole will also be influenced if one country is in trouble," she said. "So we do see clearly our European responsibility and we're shouldering that responsibility, together with the IMF." With U.S. unemployment at 9.1 percent, Obama has blamed outside forces for impeding the economy, including high fuel prices, the earthquake in Japan and the euro zone crisis. "America's economic growth depends on a sensible resolution of this issue," he said. "It would be disastrous for us to see an uncontrolled spiral and default in Europe because that could trigger a whole range of other events." [moar] "

[Edited on June 8, 2011 at 8:25 AM. Reason : link]

6/8/2011 8:25:11 AM

Well at least this time he didn't blame George Bush; although I'm sure when the crickets here subside regarding his auto industry bailout speech the Soapbox will blame him, Walmart, and McDonald's for forcing benevolent Obama to give our feta-cheese and olive exporting friends non-existent money.

Our economy surely cannot overcome this "economic headwind" without a caesar salad-assisted push.

[Edited on June 8, 2011 at 8:54 AM. Reason : -]

6/8/2011 8:53:51 AM

Huh?

6/8/2011 9:18:00 AM

Attempted humor...

Greece isn't our problem though- it's the EU's.

We aren't in a position to help them- we can't even help ourselves at this point.

Typical Obama spending money that doesn't exist just to save face abroad- regardless of the impact or perception here.

6/8/2011 10:05:14 AM