E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMARION, Iowa -- Speaking before a crowd of at least 500 supporters here in a suburb of Cedar Rapids, Mitt Romney unleashed a torrent of cheers at the end of his rally when he appeared for the first time to predict a flat-out victory in tomorrow's Iowa caucuses.
Almost half of the Iowa voters polled last week say they still aren't sure who they'll vote for on Tuesday night. Voters say they are not sure who has the best chance to beat President Obama. NBC's Ron Mott has more.
"You guys, I need you tomorrow night," Romney said. "I need every single vote in this room, and I need you to get a couple of other votes from yours in your neighborhood and get to your caucus. I need a great showing in Cedar Rapids. We’re going to win this thing with all of our passion and strength and do everything we can to get this campaign on the right track to go across the nation and to pick up other states and to get the ballots I need, and the votes I need, to become our nominee. That’s what we’re going to get."
The proclamation marked a shift for Romney, who's campaign has sought to tamp down expectations after a series of polls returned Romney to the frontrunner's perch here last week. After the rally, a Romney spokesperson told reporters that the former Massachusetts governor was saying he would win the nomination, not predicting a caucus victory.
The candidate himself had also been striking a more cautious tone regarding an Iowa victory, telling reporters and well-wishers in interviews and on rope lines that he thought he would do well on caucus night, but would make no predictions.
Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney tells TODAY's Savannah Guthrie he thinks he'll do well in Iowa but says he's "not predicting a win" in the state's caucuses.
"I'm pleased we're doing well. I can't tell you who's going to win this thing, but I do believe that I'm going to have a great deal of support and that will give me the kind of boost I need as I go into a season of a number of other states," Romney told reporters at a press conference yesterday afternoon.
Today, Romney has seen a series of progressively larger and more enthusiastic crowds at each of his first three campaign stops, and at each stop he kept his focus squarely on President Obama. At the third rally in Marion, he delivered his most direct assault on the president yet today, unveiling a laundry list of new labels for the president, which was also met by cheers.
"I want to see America united," Romney said. "I've watched a president who's become the great divider, the great complainer, the great excuse-giver, the great blamer. I want to have an America that comes together. I'm an optimist. I believe in the future of America. I'm not a pessimist."
Leave a Comment:
Of course he is...
The powers that be in the GNOP have finally held their collective noses & decided Willard is the 'ONE'!
Problem is, the speed bump in the road, also known as the tea baggers!
Not that it matters - he will lose to President Obama & lose BADLY!
You all do remember the old saying about being able to fool some of the people some of the time....?
You heard it here first folks, I am predicting record low turnout for the IA caucuses tomorrow!
You will be wrong in your projection. In fact, it will be a record or near record turnout (depending on the weather). How about a bet if you have the guts to back it up. If you are wrong, you are gone from Newsvine. If I am wrong, then I'm gone. Time to put on your big girl panties.
Howdy Feisty and happy nee year.
I guess I'm not surprised to see you here on this lovely holiday, but I suppose it's good to be so committed to something.
Say Feisty - I know how much you just hate nasty flip floppers so I was wondering how you feel about Obama's signing that nasty, horrible bill that allows unlimited detentions of american citizens without due process?
You are good with it, right?
Oh and the fact that Obama said many ties he'd veto the authorization bill if it included the unlimited detention language, but signed it anyway, is not a flip or a flop, right old gal?
Dude is against due process, is a full on 1%-er, and surrounds himself with Walls Street fat cats.
Yep, he's terrific.
Ben - ease up on old Feisty. If she left here she would literally have no way to go. Just look back. She is on every single thread. From the first, to the last, whether a Monday or a Sunday.
She is here. And that's just sad.
So don't get mad at her, feel bad for her.
Funny, the left mocks that Romney never polls more than 23%-25% ....
Yet when polled against Obama, the latest Rasmussen has Romney at 45% with Obama at 39%.
A guy that hasn't even ever pulled anything above 25% among repubs ...... before a vote is ever cast ..... against an incumbent president ... with the liberal media support .... with union support
..... and people think America isn't ready for change already?
Yea Obama ..... "We Can't Wait!"
Romney can't win the general election. Newt is out of the question. Paul is out of the question. Santorum is out of the question. Romney cannot win compared with Obama. If Obama didn't run, Romney has higher chance, but against Obama, I don't think he can win.
Very erudite Spanky...As I tend be more acerbic, I will let your post stand on its own! Must be terrible being a career cut and paster.
Why are you all so excited about Obama when HE is the one that SIGNED the NDAA? YOu know, the ones allowing American citizens to be INDEFINITELY DETAINED?
Nice big words Wealthy Guy, but since I neither cut, nor pasted, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
So how about you be a little more specific and maybe try using smaller words?
Spanky, If you do have no idea what Wealthy Guy is referring to you are not qualified to comment!
Pay attention to politics and government (all three branches) first then after you learn you MIGHT be able to make an intelligent comment. Stop listing to the propaganda and learn how to think on your own.
I hope Romney wins . I'm tired of the clown fest! Let Romney start debating Obama and lets get down to the serious issues, not clown issues.
I predict:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Mr. Citizen -
Man good thing there is not a qualification around here, eh?
Them were some mighty big words.
Makes Wealthy sound so very smart. Or not.
I always heard red heads were stupid, and now I know.
Why are you all so excited about Obama when HE is the one that SIGNED the NDAA? YOu know, the ones allowing American citizens to be INDEFINITELY DETAINED?
In the words of Zeppelin "its the same old story,same old song and dance my friends"
No new taxes.lol
Lay off the crack pipe Romney and share with the others, Batty Bachman, Sanctorum, Nutty Newt, and hermy Germy Cain.
RON PAUL 2012
Several of you on the right have brought up the NDAA signing as if what he did would upset us on the left. It does not, and here is why:
First, your interpretations of the provisions that were not to the liking of the President, are, as usual, wrong. You obviously have not read the 500 page bill (neither have I), nor have you read the signing statement (which I have, and can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540). As a result, your interpretation of the reasons that President Obama signed it were also wrong . . . but that is nothing new.
As you would know, if you took the time to actually research what you were talking about, President Obama has not said that he would not enforce what was made law by this bill (unlike President Bush, who used more signing statements than any other president in history, and often explicitly said that he would not enforce the laws in the bills he was signing), but rather his administration would interpret the requirements to ensure the administration's actions meet the spirit of the law, and the requirements of The Constitution.
His signing it was also a recognition that, 1) most of the bill was too important not to sign it, 2) changes had been made to ameliorate most of his concerns, and 3) that compromises must sometimes be made for the good of the country (something the Republican/TP Inc. party has forgotten).
So, no, his signing of the bill does not upset me, not in the least.
In fact, it just proves that this man we have as President, is a leader whose interest is not just what his supporters want him to do, but what is best for the country. It takes strength to do something that may not be popular, but is the right thing to do. That is something none of the Republican/TP Inc. presidential candidates can say that they have done. President Obama has more strength of character in his little finger than all of the Republican/TP Inc. party presidential candidates have when put together.
P.S. The NDAA does not allow American citizens to be indefinitely detained, without due process. Try reading, once in awhile, you'd be amazed as to what you'd learn . . . and you wouldn't sound so stupid.
Hey Matthew did you get that recipe?
Never mind I just realized did.
Sorry folks I am off topic my bad.
Hi Forrest. Yes sir, I certainly did. I also reformatted it, and sent it back to you. I hope I have faithfully recreated it, as it will be the first food I cook as a 'good luck' meal at the house warming when I buy my house in, about a year.
Thank you so very much.
Forrest, after I wrote the above and posted, you wrote 1.18, so I wrote the following:
I vote that it is never a 'bad' to go 'off topic' when discussing recipes, and good food. Register your vote by voting for this comment, I did.
I saw it Matthew, you did a great job, I downloaded it, thank you!
Bob, the first thing you should learn is to not trust Rasmussen. He was inaccurate in 2008 and he was inaccurate in 2010, and every one of his polls, his results consistently skewed Republican.
I'll add that he had Obama beating Romney a weak prior to that poll. I'm sorry, but no race has a swing of 9 points in one week when nothing happened to bring about any change.
The more likely explanation is some message enforcing that Romney is the most electable nominee. Now, he doesn't make up his numbers, but he can manipulate the sample he uses to include more Republicans than one will actually see on election day this year.
The bottom line? Rasmussen isn't credible. That poll is a complete outlier at the moment. Best to look at the RCP average, which has Obama up 1.6.
Matthew, Houston, TX
I have read the bill every damn page.
this statement sir.
Is an ABSOLUTE bold faced god damned LIE.
What the president objected to was language that created an issue of just who had jurisdiction on arresting citizens for terrorism in the USA proper, the language corrected for him made it clear that the army CID takes a back seat to the Nationalized (read militarized) FBI....
The provisions that everyone have been objecting to are STILL in there and haven't been changed ONE IOTA.
I can save you some time, go directly to Sections 1031 and 1032. They are still there and because they are, our 6th amendment rights are GONE, probably our 4th Amendment rights also.
Since you admit you haven't actually read it, I suggest that you DO go read it, then you can comment on it with some truth, rather than repeating the pack of lies the president and media is spewing about it.
Hey Ben, be sure and get your big girl panties ready because you are about to find out the definition of majority. Fiesty Rules and you got it right hon. Hey Bob stop quoting fox polls they only prove that the righty tighties are all over the road and dont even have a majority within thier own ranks. You can thank your T party for that. I know I do. GObama
READ PEOPLE READ!!! Obama states:
Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies
established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for
Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be
construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention
of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any
other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My
Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to
make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm
authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001
AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the
indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I
believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values
as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that
ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the
laws of war, and all other applicable law.
I bore with people who hear what they want to hear and then never open their ears again!
Matthew, Houston, TX
I disagree with your interpretation of the law. And so does most of the civilized world, if you tried reading. My problem is with everyone in Washington. The bill was passed bipartisan, and I actually respect that our President has a problem with it. Just because he may not abuse the law doesn't mean any future president can't.
This is the Bill of Rights. Something sacred that should never have been touched by dumbs or pugs, yet they both voted for it. Many interpretations do interpret it to include American citizens. Taking away basic rights of 300 million Americans is treasonous. What is next? You posting arguments against the government seen as terroristic? They got you, your going to guantonimo.
Hows this one for you democrats, Nancy Pelosi tried to get these provision ELIMNATED calling them the greatest attack on civil liberties in the history of this country.
Spin that one people, your great Pelosi is against this!
You know, if you stay off of airplanes with C4 and AK47's, you probably don't have anything to worry about. First we complain that our government is too soft on crime and then when they try to get tough, you complain about that too. Terrorism is a horrible thing and it has killed many Americans... we know we have sleeper cells right here in America and some of those people may hold American passports but in my mind, they are not American! I am not worried about being detained indefinitely.... are you?
descrs-1664846
This is the problem.
"Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the
indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I
believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values
as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that
ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the
laws of war, and all other applicable law."
The key words as I see it is "My Administration" What is to keep any other President from undermining other rights guaranteed? It should have never been done. It is not Partisan. It is treason.
Ron Paul 2012!
You guys don't have to believe me I'm just a wee peon on a Blog, would you like to try that scion of liberal support the ACLU?
read this...
www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA
Just in case you want to call me a liar...
I would really like to hear the spin on this....
Matt,
This is a dangerous bill, and as usual uses language that can be open for interpretation by anybody in power to finish the job of creating a facist police state in this country. Obama gives his word that he won't abuse this? Damn dude, both Bush and Obama have flubbed international law and the Constitution with those secret prisons and extrajudicial killings, etc. Do you think he is going to give a @!$%# about abusing this if it means keeping the regime in power? And by regime I mean more than Pres Obama. I mean him, the House and Senate( both parties), and the bought off SC. Too much $ and power to be lost if another revolution were to occur or a viable 3rd party rose from the ashes(not likely, the neo cons took over the Tea Party and the Libertarian Party with Bob Barr).
How bout R.Maddow?
video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/45677673#45677673
Matt,
Also didn't Bush say that the Patriot Act wouldn't lead to abuse?
it's more than Likely; the BEST LIAR will WIN..politics is worse than car salesmen.......
All I can say is... please please give Gingrich the nomination... we all know Obama will CRUSH HIM in the election.
Matthew, you should do your research a little better yourself before chastising others for not doing theirs. Unlike you, I have read sections of the NDAA of 2012, including Section 1021 and 1022 pertaining to the detention of persons without due process.
There is a section that reads:
"(e)AUTHORITIES. - Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
People are reading this and thinking, "Oh, see! Right here, it says we're safe from being detained." THAT IS NOT TRUE. Interpreted correctly, it reads no existing LAW regarding detaining citizens is affected. LAW, not RIGHTS. In other words, that unconstitutional piece of filth the Patriot Act we have, that actually does give the government the right to detain citizens, won't be affected by this new bill.
Secondly, no AUTHORITIES are affected by the new bill. Meaning, the same power given to authorities in the Patriot Act to detain or arrest citizens, as well as the authority of state and local law enforcement, is still in place. So really, the only thing this provision protects are the laws written to detain us, and the authorities given power to enforce said laws.
Also Michael, before you take President Obama's signing statement as gospel truth that he doesn't agree with Section 1021, you might want to google Carl Levin stating that Obama refused to sign the bill UNLESS those provisions were included.
You might also want to research how many times Obama has flip-flopped on policies or promises while in office before you take his word that he doesn't intend to enforce the law he just signed.
Matthew, you should do your research a little better yourself before chastising others for not doing theirs. Unlike you, I have read sections of the NDAA of 2012, including Section 1021 and 1022 pertaining to the detention of persons without due process.
There is a section that reads:
"(e)AUTHORITIES. - Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
People are reading this and thinking, "Oh, see! Right here, it says we're safe from being detained." THAT IS NOT TRUE. Interpreted correctly, it reads no existing LAW regarding detaining citizens is affected. LAW, not RIGHTS. In other words, that unconstitutional piece of filth the Patriot Act we have, that actually does give the government the right to detain citizens, won't be affected by this new bill.
Secondly, no AUTHORITIES are affected by the new bill. Meaning, the same power given to authorities in the Patriot Act to detain or arrest citizens, as well as the authority of state and local law enforcement, is still in place. So really, the only thing this provision protects are the laws written to detain us, and the authorities given power to enforce said laws.
Also Michael, before you take President Obama's signing statement as gospel truth that he doesn't agree with Section 1021, you might want to google Carl Levin stating that Obama refused to sign the bill UNLESS those provisions were included.
You might also want to research how many times Obama has flip-flopped on policies or promises while in office before you take his word that he doesn't intend to enforce the law he just signed.
And doesn't the Patriot Act already authorize these things? I think that was why Obama did not insist on changing the language because the Patriot Act already authorizes indefinite detention for terrorism charges.
stupid double post - that was not intentional
Romney, Santorum, Paul, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann..What do they got?...Nothin.
Nobody will beat President Obama, he will come in for the kill at the right time.
Congress will have a new look in 2012. All the corp. paid for obstructors will be gone.
The American people will rise to the occasion for what is right in record numbers 2012.
descrs-1664846
I think the difference is that the Patriot Act had a timeframe and had to be renewed, this does not and gives the right to the executive branch to discriminate. Permanently killing the Sixth Amendment at the discretion of the President, whomever that may be.
""existing law or authorities relating to the detention
of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any
other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.""
Which just means they can arrest you overseas and it's a-okay. (Why don't you ask Pvt. Manning when his trial date is?) Frankly people should be appalled at the use of any sort of indefinite detention, whether or not it's being used against American citizens. If, say, North Korea or Iran decided to start detaining Americans indefinitely in retaliation, people would be frothing at the mouth. If you think this bill is a good thing I've got several bridges to sell you.
Egilman - The only thing you got right in your posting was - great Pelosi - love that woman best Speaker we've ever had - 200 bills - many passed - Boehner 12 bills none of them passed
As far as I'm concerned about this law is to make sure we have a future of Democrat Presidents to make sure reason wills out
Heard Barney Frank tonight - bumper sticker "We may not always be right, but we're not nuts!!"
P.S. What is a thing? The Presidency?
The bottom line is the NDAA was jammed through by the fascist Teapublicans who as usual attached this @#$% to mandatory legislation forcing passage by members of both Parties. President Obama was able to water down the language, but ultimately it is @#$%& fascism -- And as if Citizens United and other @#$%& Teapublican legislation hasn't been bad enough, and before they start another war, throw the @#$%& far-right fascist Teapublicans out!
strmz
The people won't rise for a Dem or a Republican, most of the people in this country don't rise at all, they don't give a $h!t about it and never vote. On top of that half of the people that do vote don't know what the fu## they are voting for and base their decisions off of 10 second ads and the # of candidate signs they see driving to work every day. We haven't had over about 65% turnout since the 19th century.
Democrat or Republican? What a joke. Political Parties have been the downfall of the American gov. system. Our first president was smart enough to realize this, and his theory has come true. They do nothing but divide the nation, deceive voters, and destroy everyone elses chance at winning the presidency before they can even say their name.
Bill, Excellent point. I have met some younger voters who been brainwashed from the truth. Depends on where they get the information, and we all know where the big money comes from that support certain major media outlets. Today we have more information at are fingertips then in any other time. More people are informed then in any other time. Major events such as in Wis., teachers, fire fighters policeman etc. are all fed up. It's a new day. Can you smell it?
TrueP @1.44
Fascist Teapublicans huh?
Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, and John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, are, respectively, the chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They wrote the provisions at question. the provisions passed unanimously in committee and passed 93/7 on the Senate floor
Obama? Threatened to veto it if it wasn't changed to his satisfaction, what was changed was provisions that left some question as to who is responsible for arresting and detaining people within the USA proper. The changes, which satisfied the President, made it clear that the FBI will handle things inside the USA.
Citizens United wasn't legislation, it was a Court Decision, to be accurate, a SCOTUS decision
So your fascist teapublican rant goes nowhere and is false, neither issue has anything to do with the Tea Party, why do you want to spread lies instead of the truth?
Its RON PAUL or U.S. Bankruptcy, More Wars and Many More Dead Solders.
I'm going to just post the relevant portions of the NDAA, sections 1031, 32 & 33 in three separate posts here for your perusal....
Just maybe some of you will understand why Nancy Palosi wanted to eliminate them.
TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force
pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person
who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in
subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of
2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other
foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope
of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.— The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress
regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals
considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
On to section 1032....
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under sub section (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under sub section (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
And Finally section 1033...
SEC. 1033. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.
(a) CERTIFICATION REQUIRED PRIOR TO TRANSFER.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.
(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to effectuate—
(A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or
(B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) CERTIFICATION.—A certification described in this subsection is a written certification made by the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, that the government of the foreign country or the recognized leadership of the foreign entity to which the individual detained at Guantanamo is to be transferred—
(1) is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or a designated foreign terrorist organization;
(2) maintains control over each detention facility in which the individual is to be detained if the individual is to be housed in a detention facility;
(3) is not, as of the date of the certification, facing a threat that is likely to substantially affect its ability to exercise control over the individual;
(4) has taken or agreed to take effective actions to ensure that the individual cannot take action to threaten the United States, its citizens, or its allies in the future;
(5) has taken or agreed to take such actions as the Secretary of Defense determines are necessary to ensure that the individual cannot engage or reengage in any terrorist activity; and
(6) has agreed to share with the United States any information that—
(A) is related to the individual or any associates of the individual; and
(B) could affect the security of the United States, its citizens, or its allies.
(c) PROHIBITION IN CASES OF PRIOR CONFIRMED RECIDIVISM.—
(1) PROHIBITION.—Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any individual who was detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at any time after September 11, 2001, who was transferred to such foreign country or entity and subsequently engaged in any terrorist activity.
(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to effectuate—
(A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or
(B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) NATIONAL SECURITY WAIVER.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense may waive the applicability to a detainee transfer of a certification requirement specified in paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b) or the prohibition in subsection (c) if the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, determines that—
(A) alternative actions will be taken to address the underlying purpose of the requirement or requirements to be waived;
(B) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b), it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated, but the actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate such risks with regard to the individual to be transferred;
(C) in the case of a waiver of subsection (c), the Secretary has considered any confirmed case in which an individual who was transferred to the country subsequently engaged in terrorist activity, and the actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate the risk of recidivism with regard to the individual to be transferred; and
(D) the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States.
(2) REPORTS.—Whenever the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress, not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual concerned, the following:
(A) A copy of the determination and the waiver concerned.
(B) A statement of the basis for the determination, including—
(i) an explanation why the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States; and;
(ii) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b), an explanation why it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated.
(C) A summary of the alternative actions to be taken to address the underlying purpose of, and to mitigate the risks addressed in, the paragraph or subsection to be waived.
(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) The term ‘‘appropriate committees of Congress’’ means—
(A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
(2) The term ‘‘individual detained at Guantanamo’’ means any individual located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who—
(A) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(B) is—
(i) in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense; or
(ii) otherwise under detention at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(3) The term ‘‘foreign terrorist organization’’ means any organization so designated by the Secretary of State under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).
(f) REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED AUTHORITY.—Section 1033 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fis
At this point I've posted the relevant parts of the bill that the president signed.
I'm going to leave it to all of you to decide if you prefer these laws remain in force and that you love your government so much you cannot see the danger in codifying this stuff.
My opinion is this is illegal, it's a potential usurpation of our 6th Amendment rights, and shows just what this government is willing to do to remain in power.
Egilman
What concerns me more than some of the posters on here that don't care about losing their rights is the lack of media coverage. This issue is all over international news, but none in the US
I guess we'll have to wait for the government to go after "free speech" before they will care.
Yea the repubs are just great people. Watch to find out how great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwrNmRK_I0A SolyndraGate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdc8cwv29ps Obamacare.
ALl for the fox news watcher. :) EAt it up and spit it out. Raw hide.
Virginia took the wind out of everyone's sails, enabling Slick Willard to ride the prevailing wind to the nomination. Iowa doesn't really matter now.
You could feel a big thud in this nomination race when it was announced that Willard and Ron Paul were the only two who will be on the Virginia primary ballot. That just strikes to the heart of everyone else's lack of national organization.
Willard could come in third in Iowa. Heck, let's say he comes in fourth. Pundits will be all over that, now that he looks like he's actually trying there. But a week later he'll win New Hampshire. The pundits might still remember Iowa, and note that Romney may have problems in South Carolina. Let's say he does, and gets hammered there as in Iowa.
Then what?
Romney is the only one set up to go the distance. The only chance of an anti-Romney was someone grabbing the attention in November at the latest and holding on, basically shoestringing his way state by state from that point on, building organization as he went. When Cain fell, I thought it wasn't possible. I was wrong. Gingrich did seem to have an opportunity to pull it off, but then the lack of organization bit him in the butt with the Virginia announcement.
The way to keep Romney and the establishment from their nomination coronation plans was to establish a single anti-Romney and then duke it out between establishment and tea party forces down the stretch. We're into Iowa today, and who is the anti-Romney? Santorum? Gingrich? Huntsman? All of 'em? No one knows, and my prediction is that no one will care in a couple days, because no matter how many early losses Slick Willard chalks up, its going to be clear there isn't an alternative, especially as some people start projecting forward to Super Tuesday.
Matthew in TX - It's not just people on the right who find the NDAA very dangerous. I'm a liberal and I'm extremely suspicious of such a far-reaching provision having been basically slipped in and not discussed. This doesn't pass the sniff test. "Due process" is whatever the government wants to call it. Never trust people in positions of authority to not abuse it. They must be kept in check. This gives them essentially free reign.
Then he said "I'm not predicting a win" good God this guy just can't decide what he means.
Egilman I could just kiss you thank you for not making me type most of what you said out I'm not likin subsections 1021 or 1022 either but I'm feeling lazy today so I'll let the Obama sheeple look it up on their own I'm sure it's even on wicki
@Thel4ugh!ngm@n,
He did sign the NDAA but with a provision that he=President Obama would not detain people in-diffidently also it had the military will take over terrorist, again president Obama made a provision that said no the homeland security will continue to do that. But those radical provisions were put in there by the radical republican party. If you get a Republican in the white house those radical provisions could be enacted. Talk about a dictatorship those two provisions alone could turn us into a communist nation. I guess the republican party will lock up all Hispanics and Blacks in diffidently because they deem them terrorist. This what happens when people do pay attention to who they elect. Thank you tea baggers American need a wake up call and boy are we fighting back against these radical laws. We will set the record straight come 2012
Solutions539
Regardless of what you may believe many Tea Party members voted against the bill.
The problem is that none of representatives should have voted for it, regardless of party.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to take anyone seriously that honestly thinks "in-diffidently" is the same as "indefinitely."
1SGFitzsWife4ID
No problem girl,
but, the collapse nazi's got to it, they do not like it when the truth is right there in front of their eye's where they cannot spin it or lie about it.
So they collapse the whole thread......(and they say they are "FOR" the people and civil rights) Given what they claim to be, they SHOULD be out in front on this one, shouting from the rooftops, but in reality they are either supporting the president and his lie, or are outstandingly silent on the loss of everyone's civil rights. I guess the Liberals are not really that much different from the Neo-Conservatives after all.
All you a$$holes who called me a liar, better just calm down, back the f off, and apologize. Your emotional tirades prove nothing, except a lack of thinking through what you are saying. Blind rage is not a good way to be when posting.
You, especially, Egilman, with your pompous attitude, and then calling me a liar. Your posts of the parts that you say provide for indefinite detention of US citizens without due process actually prove my assertion that nothing in the law allows for indefinite detention of a US citizen, again, without due process.
There is nothing in those sections posted by Egilman, nothing said by the ACLU, and nothing said by Rachel Maddow to dispute that statement. None of them say anything about denying anyone, including US citizens, the right to a lawyer. None of them deny anyone the right to habeas corpus, and most of the 'existing law' referred to in the NDAA guarantee that there will, at the least, be a hearing to determine the status of the person. Even international law allows holding enemy combatants without trial until the end of hostilities, but only if they are proven to be enemy combatants, or likely to commit criminal acts if set free (i.e. due process in determining their status).
Due process is not, and has never been a guarantee that a trial will be held.
Does this mean I agree with the law? Does this mean I like the law? No, it does not. But I still stand by my support of President Obama holding his nose to sign it, since he did get some very important concessions, and there was much more in it that needed to become law. This is, afterall, the president who reinstated habeas corpus, after it had been suspended by
he who cannot be blamed, even though it was his faultahh, screw it, President George Washington Bush.Romney will be our next President for the next Eight years.
Obama can head on back to the south side of Chicago. Rahm can take care of him, I'm sure.
Obama shelved in 2012.
Scroll through the comments here. Not one Republican has had anything positive to say about Romney. Not one.
Sure, you bluster on, betraying your insecurity. But even you talk about Obama more than Romney.
Sorry. That's not a winning strategy.
Any fundamentalist political candidate, whether it be fundamentalist Catholic, Mormon, or Muslim, is just interested in pushing their kooky religion on others- Santorum is against birth control of any kind and would like to make it illegal in the USA, and Romney is a devout follower of Joseph Smith- that in itself is enought to make me vote for OBAMA 2012...
Joseph Smith advocated and practiced polygamy-of course, he also found magic items Urim and Thummim to read magic book with,gave all the stuff back to Moroni, claimed the American Indians were the lost tribes of Israel, etc, etc,- then there came a fantasticalrevelation to quit with the polygamy, blah, blah, blah...- That adults can believe this load of crap is astonishing and hilarious- but of course, they have as much right to worship, believe and think absurdity as anyone else-Voodooists, snake handlers, ring kissers/criminal priest protectors (Santorum), and all the rest.
What they DON"T have the right to do is force others to obey their varied and kooky religious laws.
"Devout follower of Joseph Smith"? Wow, you've got a lot of things wrong with that comment. Being a member of the LDS church myself, I can say with confidence that we are devout followers of Christ and do NOT worship Joseph Smith.
And you can keep discounting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon all you want but it does not change the fact that 11 other witnesses viewed the record he claimed to have. Even though many of them left the church (and some returned), not ONE of them ever took back their testimony regarding this record.
Check it out: read the opening pages to find the testimony of the three witnesses and the testimony of the eight witnesses. Then try reading verses 3 - 5 in Moroni chapter ten (near the back of the book).
If it is a true book, then it puts things in a whole new light, doesn't it?
P.S. A discussion of one's faith does NOT imply coercing others to adopt said religion. Mr. Romney has made it clear that if he were to be president, NO religious authority would sway his decisions.
P.P.S. Since you brought up Catholicism, isn't President Kennedy considered one of America's most favorite leaders? Don't remember him pushing any religion down people's throats....just sayin'.
TO: Joseph E. Parent who wrote:
No, he won't. Republicans just don't get it, but we'll show them in November.
Republicans have cut taxes for the rich so that they don't even pay taxes anymore, and Republicans support pay cuts for working Americans.
We are sick and tired of Republicans using our Government and the power of the White House to make themselves rich, and stack the costs of their endeavors on the backs of the middle class and the poor while doing everything in their power to keep the American People down.
GWB wanted to be richer, so we stuck with the cost of him invading Iraq so that the Bush Family could (and do) control the Iraqi Oil and oil revenues. Now Republicans want us to pay the cost to make Romney richer while he ships our jobs overseas!
No thanks Republicans. Why not just let Romney run your businesses instead of turning the United States into a bargaining chip for sale to the highest bidder.
Romney won't ever be POTUS. Not ever. Not while 300 people in Marion Indiana stand up and tell the world how Romney and his cronies destroyed their livelihoods so that he could make his $250,000,000. Not while hundreds of people in New England can stand up and testify to the fact that Romney and his butt-buddies threw them away like so much garbage when they realized they could make more money by firing all of them.
Romney isn't EVER going to be POTUS. Count On THAT. Michele (one-El) Bachmann has a better chance.
Mr Apollonox, it is a logical fallacy to use the Book of Mormon (Moroni? whatever, but Moroni sure sounds like the plural of moron . . . just saying . . .) to prove the authenticity of The Book of Mormon. Got anything better?
Ohmigod. A defender of the Book of Mormon. I don't care if they had a 1,000 witnesses, anyone in this day and age who believes even a portion of how Joseph Smith came to write the Book of Mormon is a delusional fool. Why didn't Joseph Smith KEEP the golden plates as evidence of what transpired? No, he gave the plates back to Moroni. How convenient. Why were the plates buried? Why weren't they part of the canonical Bible? This religion is a total joke. But, then, arent' they all?
Just what is the plural of 'moron'? Moroni? Kind of like the plural of 'cactus' being 'cacti'? Right?
Right on , One term was enough for President Obama , lets put this in the past ,,, and Mitt is not going to blame the last guy , he'll just deal .
I am amazed at the integrity of Gorge Bush. This clown has been blaming him for everything these past three years but President Bush has stated that he will not undermone Obama's efforts. So he allows himself to be slandered and keeps quiet. He has something Obama will never know - it's called integrity.
Your right Watermoon, Bush a far better x-president than he was a president.
At least Obama is a better acting president. You conservatives whine all you want: Obama is gonna get re-elected. And if GWB had any integrity, he should have admitted that he made a mistake in invading Iraq. Mitt won't blame the last guy, because (a) the last guy did a pretty damn good job, and (b) he the only thing that he is gonna win is the Award for Most Failed Presidential Campaigns.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
GOP/TEA PARTY EXTINCT 2012
Watermoon, President Bush is keeping quiet because he knows that all of the blame being placed on him is well deserved.
Sorry Matthew, it is tradition and respect for what they went through that kept all but Carter and Clinton form commenting on the next President. They know that the job is difficult and show appreciation for their predecessor by not putting their two cents worth in.
Matthew--exactly. Bush went home with his tail between his legs, and although he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he did know better than to compound his errors by criticizing the sitting president. He knows that he left a horrible situation for the next CIC compared to the situation that he inherited. Too bad he didn't govern like his father.
Oh really now! Mitt, who like Obama has Goldman Sachs as his biggest campaign contributor is going to do anything differently than Obama or Bush? Think again mister. Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate that has called for a 180 degree about face from all of this BS we have had to endure since Reagan. Trouble is the Establishment doesn't want him, so he is destined to lose the GOP race. As he is indeed "all in" for 2012 he will run indie and kill off Mitt, which won't do any damage since Mitt is bought and sold for by the same folks who have bought and sold every other president I have voted for/or against.
Is that the best you liberals can do. Make excuses for Dumbo Obama by blaming Bush. Bush is not president and hasn't been for three years. Get over it. One of your Democrat Presidents had a sign on his desk that read, "the buck stops here." Do I need to explain that to you?
Floyd, read post 3.1; that's what I was responding to. I think Bush has kept quiet not out of integrity but out of necessity.
oldworker - that is the problem with Romney - he deals and he deals and he deals - not to your benefit but to his - and by the way his denims don't fool me one bit
Bush screwed up a lot of things but the one thing he did better than any other President was be CINC I wish Obama and his wife would stay away from us, especially his wife, every time she speaks to us all I can hear is "for the first time I'm proud of my country"
SGF, you're misquoting Michelle Obama. What she actually said was, "For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback." She obviously wants to see our country thrive. Besides, you would really want Bush (or someone with similar ideology) back just because of one sentence the president's WIFE said? Does it bother you that Romney said he'd NEVER hired an illegal alien, yet a lawn company that he hired consistently employs illegal immigrants to do his yard work? He didn't seem to care about that. I'd rather base my judgments on what a person does rather than on what he says. Bush did a lot of harm to this country, namely starting an unnecessary, expensive war and mishandling the economy. Although we have not yet fully recovered from the recession, we are making progress in the right direction.
Robert Bruce70, you are lying, but keep repeating it because, just like clicking your ruby slippers together will take you home, it will come true, if you do.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638
Ron Paul is a bigoted idiot (I used to have personal respect for him, but not after those articles came to light, and he tried to twist out of responsibility for them), who hasn't got a clue about economics (gotta hand it to him, though, he does know his history). He will not do a ". . . 180 degree about face from all of this BS we have had to endure since Reagan." He is one of the biggest deregulation, and trickle down our legs, free market advocates of any of the Republican/TP Inc. party candidates. He is more to the right on economics than Milton Friedman. God help our economy, if Ron Paul gets anywhere near the White House.
floyd <lotsanumbers>, just because the criminal committed the crime over 3 years ago, it does not mean that they cannot, nor should not receive the blame for what they did.
I actually also blame Milton Friedman, President Reagan, President Bush 1, President Clinton (to some extent), and President Bush 2 (with the exception of Milton Friedman, Dubya gets the most blame, by far).
Then there is the Republican/TP Inc. party that has, through the abuse of the filibuster rule, blocked every single bill that would have helped the economy, in a misguided quest to make President Obama ". . . a one term president." They are even blocking bills that are for things that they gave full throated support for, when it was a Republican/TP Inc. president proposing them.
Matt, Talking to a Republiclone about factual information is, in this day and age, against their thinking. You gave a perfect analogie with the "crime over 3 years ago. These Jerckos don't want to believe that their "Bushie" never lied comitted War Crimes The Hague would love to have Georgie in their court), but in their posts on blogs such as these, they always bring the very great and great American Jimmy Carter. Typical
The GOP has self-destructed. Maybe they can build during the next 4 years of President Obama. Then again with all the nutcases, they just might fade away. Bye Bye GOP.
It will be such a happy day when the Republicans sweep the House, Senate and Oval Office and put LWNJs in their proper place -- in the trash. Your opinion is worthless.
Guess IMHO missed the findings that DEM affiliation is at an all time low.
Must be watching too much football.
Not worthless, just amusing.
Fade away they will not. They are on the right track to victory! Why do you think the spotlight is on them? Either one of those candidates would be better than Obama at this job. Even Ron Paul. Whichever one makes it to the last vote, I'm all in! The only way Obama will beat any of these candidates is with his Billion dollar trust fund from his cronies from Wall Street and the Unions. He hasn't a good record to run on, so destroying his opponent with ridicule and lies will be his only chance. I don't think the majority of Americans are going to put up with it this time. See Ya Barrack. Don't let your wife's cheeseburger butt hit you on your way out!
Thats why the UAW is pushing to Unionize the dreaded"ferginers" They need more members and Democrats, they are digging into Union cash cow (retirement funds) and need to ensure its management survival. God what a great Outback bowl, MSU!
And there won't be an independent in America who will vote for Obama this time. Fool me once ... .
Bringit,
Welcome to FR.
Get your terms straight. "Obama's billion dollar trust fund"???? Do you mean super PACS?
Mr Romney's super PAC, Restore our Future has spent 3 million in Iowa alone. The negative ads resulted in Gingrich and Paul dropping in the polls.
RESTORE OUR FUTURE chief fund raiser is Romney's former fiance chair Steve Roche. The main source of contributions are NY hedge fund managers, Utah businessmen and Boston financiers. They alone have contributed over 30 million in 2011. (source:N.Y.times article)
Romney is "outsorucing his negative advertizing" and he does know about outsourcing as CEO of Bain Capitol!
We can thank the SCOTUS for providing this obscene method of campaign financing.
President Obama will match dollar to dollar what the Republicans raise.
Get ready for the most expensive and most negative campaign in US history.
I look forward to your future posts.
Umm, watermoon, what do you base that prediction on? This Independent (actually, I'm an Independent Populist) will definitely be voting for President Obama, especially if any of the Republican/TP Inc. candidates currently running are the nominee. Kind of blows your theory out of the water, now doesn't it?
obama has already said he has 1 billion dollars for his re-election campaign.
Really? When? Where? Proof, please.
(Just an FYI, but you might want to check this out: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/candidate.php?id=N00009638)
Bringit--reread what you wrote. Now tell me why, as a woman, I should vote for any candidate that you support.
Bringit - what is a cheeseburger butt? Do you buy those at McDonalds or White Castle?
Yes and a guy who is willing to spend 1 billion dollars to become President does not sound like the kind of guy willing to save our hard earned tax dollars LMAO
Sounds more like a guy who loves to spend spend spend Ohbumma!
IQ2high Not his money or yours why should you care - what about Romney with his Pacs - It was the Supreme Court bought by Corporations who made the rules - so Obama should not take advantage of them?
If you're so concerned why is Clarence Thomas who forgot to put Ginnie's $600,000 from the Koch Bros on his income statement not on your gripe
Sorry boy - if you're going to go after the President go after all of them - or are you just selective with your prejudice
Ben that was kind of mean even if it were true. IMHO we don't have four more years to waste, it's now or never, we cannot allow President Obama to stay sorry. Hey nothin wrong with football Spanky! lol other than my stupid Cowboys let me down again ;)
We're not allowed to Barbara unless we're blaming Bush we can't say anything because clarence isn't running for Pres.
Barbara
Your intelligigence shines like a black hole in your first sentence.
This is why voting should never have been based on age, but should have been based on intelect.
People like you scare me. Allowing you to vote is like allowing a 5 year old to drive.
"Not his money or yours why should I care?"
What the hell kind of moronic statement is that? LOL
If it's not mine and it's not his, then 1- who the hells is it? 2- and Why the hell is he spending it like that?
3-when there are starving children, homeless people and not to mention people camping infront of Walmarts arround the country because they have no job or home to go to?
And I shouldn't care why some pric non shalontly spends a billion bucks to gain a position where he can manipulate and dictate our lives and ruin the lives of generations to come by runing our country into catastrophic debt?
You are one of those people that are so dumb we want to knock the sence into you but we know that by trying to knock more sence into you we'd only be killing the few brain cells you have left.
Do us all a huge favor Barabara, "stay away from the voting booths come election time"
Thats all you needed to say, it made me laugh anyway too bad common sense isn't so common anymore eh? I love Democrats they taste good with ketchup.
One more thing Barbara, I am not selective about anyone or my judgement.
I don't care if you are a Republican, a democrate or just an @!$%#.
Anyone who spends money foolishly is a fool.
I guess I am prejudice, but I am only guilty of prejudism against idiots.
Not mentally handicaped people, just idiots Barbara.
IQ--if your IQ is so high, why can't you respond to Barbara without calling her names? Besides, you didn't address her point that people donate the money to be spent on the campaign. He paid off Clinton's debts after he won the nomination, remember? Nevertheless, I totally agree that campaign spending has gotten totally out of control. It should be limited. If campaigns were held to higher standards of truth-telling, maybe we wouldn't need so much money to fight the "dirty" ads and lies spread around on the web. The "birthers" were rabid in their own campaign to bring down Obama with their ridiculous conspiracy theories (along with the "truthers" and "deathers"). It just makes me sick. They keep calling for Obama's transcripts--why? Harvard has never disputed that he graduated magna cum laude from their law school or that he was president of the Harvard Law Review. Ain't that enough? Obama has released his tax records, while Romney refuses. THAT is more telling to me.
TO: Watermoon who wrote:
Wrong again. I'm and independent, and I will definately be voting for President Obama.
Why should I vote for Republicans who let the rich live tax free while they pile on their bills on me and give me a pay cut to boot?
There is absolutely no reason for any American to vote for a Republican. Republicans ONLY worked for corporations who will make their families rich while they cut our pay and deny us affordable health care.
No, no, no.
Obama / Biden 2012
Hey, IQ2high, is it too high to learn how to spell? Bragging about your intelligence, and then proving a lack of same, just cries out for ridicule.
LMAO!!!
Obama has filed his NDAA Signing Statement. Here is mine:
Americans must not be distracted by Corporate Fascist Puppet Barack Obama saying "my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens" in his signing statement for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (H.R.1540). Presidential "signing statements" are political propaganda with no Constitutional basis. A President who breaches a signing statement covenant faces no more consequences than any other corrupt politician who renegs on a promise. By signing NDAA and attempting to give its unconstitutional provisions the force of law, Barack Hussein Obama became complicit with all of the bought-and-paid-for U.S. Senators and Representatives who voted for this bill, and along with them should be charged with Seditious Conspiracy under U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 Section 2384. Unless and until these vermin are arrested, charged and removed from office, I will no longer consider the government they infest to be legitimate. Nor will I respect any ruling to the contrary from a judicial system that grants rights of citizenship to corporate entities that treat settlements and penalties for criminal conduct as costs of doing business with no concerns about incarceration or execution to deter their illegal, immoral or unethical conduct.
IronBoltBruce via VVV PR
bruce,,,, Let me know again if you decide to run... You would be a good distraction like Perry is
Why don't you think America should be kept safe from terrorists?
What's the matter Jim, not a fan of due process?
Strange isn't it? All of a sudden conservatives & independents are on the side of America's enemies
Why doesn't that surprise me? ----------- Conservative policies cause t the destruction of the USA
SO Jim - which Obama signed the bill?
The one that was against unlimited detention.
Flipping, flopping.
Like when raising the debt ceiling was a failure of leadership. Of course he is the 'leader' that just asked for a $1Trillion increase.
He's fantastic, and really good at flopping.
Face it, we will get screwed no matter who gets elected (or re-elected).
move to Iran please. get some sleep
Didn't Obama signed a statement showing that he had reservations and would be ready to act against any parts of the law that violated American civil liberties? The only problem I have with him is that he is too compromising. But I do hope that the election will give him what he needs: a pair.
Freshieee,
Yes President Obama did issue a statement about this bill which he signed.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/reality-obama-ndaa-signing-statement
"Didn't Obama signed a statement showing that he had reservations and would be ready to act against any parts of the law that violated American civil liberties?"
"Just not for those damn dirty foreign people, who cares if we blow them up or lock them away for the next 50 years while we wait for the war on terror to sort itself out? Heck, we won't even give you a proper trial if we think you're a terrorist, we'll just send drones on you."
iron bolt where were you when Bush signed all of his signing statements? Asleep in your bed?
I was out protesting the Patriot Act where were you Barbara?
So Romney says "We will win this thing" huh? -- He's taken every side on all the issues, so his loss is his win ----- He can't defeat himself... Nice theory Mittens
Jim - when I read that "this thing" it bothered the hell out of me - what is a thing? An annoyance? Something you must bear because of the peons - what an arrogant person
Then he said "I'm not predicting a win" he can't stop flipping or flopping
R O N P A U L
Ron Paul --- The Rip Van Winkle of Big Government...... He slept for 35 years doing nothing on the tax payer dollar
Maybe he should run as Obama's v.p. since B.Hussein also did nothing in Congress during his bried career.
He got the FED audited and was a dissenting voice that works for me Jim.
I just saw victims of Romney's job killing agenda on TV ..warning the American people ..he is about the profit and could give a rats butt about the workers he had fired ...when Bain Capital took over and killed jobs !
------------------------- A VOTE FOR ROMNEY IS A VOTE THE GEORGE BUSH POLICY'S !
Yep Say this whole blowing through $4 billion in new debt a day seems to be really working out for us, right?
But tell me Say - how many workers has Obama laid off so far? If it'll make it easier you can just focus on the GM workers. And for fun, what did he do to the Chrysler bond holders?
Say, have you at least gone out and gotten a Volt? GM could really use your support.
Man Volts on fire, Fisker's Karmas on fire.
Recalls all over the place for electric cars.
Hey Say, how about we find a list of all the George W Bush Policies that Obama has continued?
Let's start with Gitmo and Tax cuts for the rich and then move on to the Iraq withdrawl.
What's up WCA?
Man, that Fisker thing is fantastic. Plus I saw what Fisker actually means.
Too damn funny.
I was watching a car show - some dude had a Tesla. He said it was essentially 3600 laptop batteries wired together. Oh My!
But come on - Say is the queen of free advertising for MSNBC.
Obama = Bush with a different haircut.
If not for G W Bush's policies Obama would not have the debt in his budget but keep drinking the kool-aid of the GNOP.
It's costing us a billion dollars a day just for interest not counting the cost of the war started by Bush.
Because Obama's policies are so much better than Bush's right?
Indefinite detention [check]
Expanding America's wars [check]
Fueling the military-industrial complex with Treasuries sold to China [check]
Detention and execution of American citizens without due process [check]
Secret prisons and warrantless surveillance [check]
Maintaining the unjust and racist drug war [check]
Corporate bailouts using the Fed and Treasury[check]
Republican [nope]
WELL I GUESS HE'S OKAY THEN, OBAMA 2012!!!
Hey Spanky. Happy 2012.
Some may remember, I warned of excessive heat problems with the Karma months ago. They are claiming it is a loose clamp leaking fluid on Batteries. I doubt it.
That's right Larry, the interest is crazy!
So why does Obama keep adding to it?
I remember WCA.
Funny how GM was going to buy the Volts back, but then backed off.
Hey, at least a Fed. Court here in Cali just punked the new gas laws here.
Yeah, GM should have no problem making a a 1/2 ton, 4x4 Silverado get 42 mpgs.
Better come equipped with a fire depression system.
Why are you all so excited about Obama when HE is the one that SIGNED the NDAA? YOu know, the ones allowing American citizens to be INDEFINITELY DETAINED?
READ comment #93.16, for GOD's sake. Stop posting the same ignorant drivel over and over.
Happy New Year Paul
Happy New Year to you and yours, newdayDAWNING. Looks like we're in for a long slog of arguing with the willfully igorant for the next 300 some days.
And it is going to get really, really nasty.
Obama is Bush the 3rd your point?
It'll only get nasty if you allow it to newday.... You seem to act like a grown up same with Phine, we can all agree to disagree without calling each other names right?
I hope so,1SGFitzsWife4ID. I have little hope that all of us can discuss without the personal issues weighing in. And honestly, there are some who post that I find extremely provocative, which means that I may cross that line myself sometimes. Hope not. You?
Everyone was so busy this weekend that nobody realized the fact that the President signed the defense bill. Included in the bill is NDAA. This portion of the bill gives the right to the military ie the executive branch the authority to arrest, detain for any amount of time and even shoot American citizens under the guise of combating terrorism here at home.
That means that our Congress and President, both Democrats and Republicans took away the right to due process from 300 million Americans. I hope that at some point the people who support both parties realize that instead of fulfilling their oath to uphold the Constitution, our representatives changed it to suit there needs.
Every single person who signed away our right to due process should be arrested and tried for treason, regardless of party affiliation.
Strange isn't it? All of a sudden conservatives & independents are on the side of America's enemies with opposing NDAA
Why doesn't that surprise me? ----------- Conservative policies cause t the destruction of the USA
So Jim, you must be cool with flip flopping and changing opinions?
See, none of the conservatives ever said they'd veto the very language Obama.
That was Obama. A constitutional lawyer, who just screwed the due process pooch.
Neat, right?
You don't want to compare signing statements between Obama & the last conservative President do you? ------ You lose the argument again dude
You should know better than to listen to conservative rhetoric by now in the 1st place.. It's only intent was to deceive conservative voters ---- It only makes you look foolish & dishonorable
Jim-372206
Excuse me Jim, but you will not be able to even protest too loud without the government calling it terrorism. They undermined a basic right in the Bill of Rights. And without due process, they can take the rest.
Why would any right minded American defend a thing like this? Regardless of party affiliation. After all, we are all Americans.
Why?? Because it keeps us safer ---- It does nothing to your rights unless you are planning a terrorist attack
Question should be, do you want that power in the hands of a conservative who would use torture & any means to extract information out of you.. Or in the hands of a President like Obama who you know will use it correctly?
No need to compare Jim.
Obama is the current pres. He said so many times he would never, ever sign a bill that allowed unlimited detention.
But then again he said a lot of things.
Oh and Jim, it would seem that the good libbies at Firedog, Kos and elsewhere are none too pleased, so you can forget about this being 'conservative rhetoric.'
So Jim, did he sign the bill, and does it allow for unlimited detainment without due process?
Cause that's foolish and dishonorable.
America's enemies? What the boogey men terrorists?
"He who forsake freedom for security deserves neither."
By Jim's line of reasoning the government should have unlimited power so that we can fight our "enemies".
Did you even research it?
Let's say there are 1000 terrorists in the country willing to do harm. Taking a right that has been in existence for over 230 years from 300 million Americans is treason. It will not make us safer, regardless of the fear-mongering that goes on, it will leave us with no rights whatsoever.
This doesn't make a strong national security argument for you folks at all
Your extreme libertarian policies permits & nurtures radical dangerous groups like White Supremacy & the Kill the Gay groups as well as protects those terrorists & militant groups who would attack this nation from within
I kinda think it does already.
Did Obama ever gets congressional approval for the war in Libya?
But it's cool - Jim feels much safer.
He lost a butt load of liberty, but what's the dif, right Jm?
And hey how about Obama's continuation of the Patriot Act?
Yep, there a great POS bill.
What happens when the government decides that speaking out against it is a crime in which you can get indefinetly detained Jim? You're missing the point. @!$%# national security. We can not compromise the rights that this nation is built upon in the name of false safety.
Jim-372206
I'm sorry, but to not even care whether you lose your rights is just scary. In reality, narrow minded, paranoid lemmings scare me more than any terrorist ever could.
Stuck on Stupid Spanky? ----- Conservatives demanded we "GO IT ALONE",,, Iraq deja vu
Jim is obviously a troll. He deflects all arguments and changes the subject. He is just feeding off our replies to his ridiculous statements
Satanick
We'll see how he feels about it when they take his right to be a troll.
No he is the picture of perfection, I have not observed any post where he has been wrong. When he loses he goes away!
Yep, Jim, it must be me.
NOT you. No way.
Too funny.
I know Jim is a troll. But I find it interesting that the people we call supposed terrorists are out fighting in their streets for rights and democracy, and are willing to die for the same things most here take for granted.
And we call them backwards.
But come on - who doesn't love Bugs?
In Obama we trust!!!!
2012 year of the O
Yes and when you're entire Trust (fund) disapears, you can yell OhBumma!!! LOL
Ahhh yes and as for year of the O that looks like a big zerO to me LOL
according to this pile of crap Jim we've BECOME the enemy have you read it????? It's worse than the Patriot Act!
Keeps us safer Jim? Thats a laugh like the TSA right?
So today Mitt is forecasting a win... Didn't Newt have to eat those words last week? Obama is looking stronger and stronger. Sorry Joseph & Brad... Your party in self destructing. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch of greedy, selfish ba$tards...
Now when you say Ohbumma is looking stronger and stronger...I am asuming in smell right?
Because that Dude stinx! LOL
What about Grinch ... I thought the lunatic-fringe base were appeased by a cantankerous 'ol fool ... I mean where's the love for a senile 'ol grandpa who wakes-up to burp, fart, hack, srcatch his butt & groin and spout off vile hate in front of everybody before going back to bed ...
LOL.
I believe Romney can beat Obama. The losers will be the middle class, the poor, the elderly and the disabled.
And, we'll probably go into another middle east country and have dead children again. OH Ya, pro life until 18 years old.
Which Romney?
He's not conservative enough for conservatives & he's got different angels than they do... & he's not a Tea Bagger or Birther
Romney is like Kerry in 2004 (lack of excitement). The difference is that Kerry is qualified.
Yes, Romney could beat Obama. The issue is does the republicans who nominate him think he is the right one to run the country. There have been two consistencies about Romney. He has never exceeded 25% of the Republican vote as their first choice, but over half list him as their second choice.
Romney has no carry over with dems or indies. He has nothing to offer them, other than GOP Establishment crap. Paul can get them on his opposition to the Drug War and his foreign policy of non interventionism.
It won't matter who the republican candidate is. The GOP/TPers will be out in droves to elect him and everyone up for re-election in the house and senate. That is a very scary thought. I don't always agree with President Obama but overall his actions have been for our country and all its people not just a select few. I would be a mindless fool if all I could do was quote the good things President Obama, or any president, has done and none of the bad.
Romney can't beat Obama he IS Obama!
Bad idea. If he loses, it'll seriously damage the morale of his campaign.
If this clown or any of the other Repugnantican court jesters get elected we may as well bend over and kiss our butts goodbye.
That's all we need right now is another greedy, two-faced, corrupt Repugnantican cancer in the oval office.
That time I checked, it's the Democrats messing things up right now. All the restrictions on things, Obama doesn't seem to want us to have any jobs. Name one policy he signed into law that helped any business, excluding the hiring of the temp Census Jobs and the few thousands workers paid on OUR tax dime for the Recovery Act. NAME ONE.
Extending the Bush tax cuts, payroll tax cuts, offered a balanced debt deal plan that would lower corporate tax rates, tax credit for hiring veterans, and offered a jobs bill that would put billions into our nation's infrastructure and economy, hiring an estimated 2 million people. The tax cuts and credits may or may not work, but the Jobs Act and the balanced debt deal surely would have, with employers and investors confident that the government could control its debt. And this is just the start...
Let me see if I get this right.
A group of corn and soybean farmers, who are 60% Baptists, and predominantly white, are going to be responsible for choosing the most powerful leader int the free world whose sysetm of beiefs is based upon, among other things, magic underwear? WTF????????
.
Yeah - just Iowa.
You need to go back to civics class there tapgirl.
Or heck, just watch some TEEVEE. Ed Schultz will explain it for you.
Spanky,
You are encouraged to check the historical record of previously elected presidents who took Iowa in the primarys . Iowa is (regretfully) a statistically sound predictor of who will be elected president.
Are you dumb?
tapgirl, I just wanted to thank you.
You are about as precious as they come. :)
Briingit
No, I live in a state other than Iowa.
Once again, tapdancingirl shows her incredible ignorance, and Spanky is right behind her. Intelligent, open-minded people no longer take potshots at Mormons for the unusual aspects of their religion. They recognize them as honest, hard-working, contributing members of the community. Mormons value education and integrity--the FBI and Treasury Department make their first recruiting stop at Brigham Young University. They occupy responsible positions at every level of local, state and federal government. They own businesses. They are doctors, lawyers, CPAs and CEOs. And their children are high achieving athletes, scholars and studentbody presidents.
On the other hand, tapdancingirl, Spanky and others of their ilk continue to beat the old worn-out drum: Let's see how many laughs we can get at the expense of the Mormons. Underwear is a common target (no, it's not magic), yet what mature adult would ever dream of poking fun at a Jewish man wearing a yarmulke? Polygamy? Educated people understand that while it was a minor part of the early church, it hasn't been practiced for over 100 years. No Mormon I know even thinks about it, much less aspires to it. Abstaining from premarital sex? When you consider the damaging impact of unwanted pregnancy and STDs, you realize that the world would be a far better place if abstinence was the rule rather than the exception. No alcohol or tobacco? Once again, how would it be if there were fewer DUI auto accidents and deaths, fewer alcohol-fueled domestic assaults and murders, and less lung and liver cancer.
How sad that religious bigotry is alive and well in 21st century America. Regarding the nomination, it is obvious that tapdancingirl has not read the Constitution lately: "There shall be no religious test for office."
Wow Finally someone I can relate too.
Thank you Dr. Ray!!
It was a pleasure reading your comment.
BTW the only sane one here =)
BTW Tapdancintgirl...the correct spelling is Tapdancinggirl LOL
So when you stereotype others? perhaps you should first learn to type then to stereo lol
WTH That was probably over your head =)
Bringit - were you asleep - the infrastructure Obama wanted was shut down by the Republicans - accelarating green energy was shut down by the Republicans
Are you all so brain dead that you don't know Congress makes the laws and the President signs them
When a person comes here to become an American citizen - why is it they know more than you?
Man it's funny on how much all the candidates both Rep and Dem have that sneaky snake oil salesman look. And there wife's have that classic preppy look with the Buffy yuppie hairdo and the famous pearl neck less. Are these people clones of the Yuppie gene pool . We need a regular guy look with a white t-shirt with coffee stains on it. How cool would that be. Whats that famous saying, If there not kissing your babies there stealing there lollipops.
politicians kiss babies, babies kiss Ron Paul (google it)
win WHAT? dead heat, 5 more iowa idiots pick you over paul and santorum. what does that say?????
What a meaningless dog and pony show. I guess something to watch while Rome burns!!
No S#!t. Sadly no one on this planet or at least the internet seems to get it. Its all about being Democratic or Republican, Leftie or Rightie, Conservative or liberal yack yack yack.......
Has no one woken up to the fact that the ideals of old held those principles. Our government whether Dem or Rep has forgotten what their true job is. Everyone here can sling mud on either party and justifiably back it up with facts, data, and/or bills that have been passed.
Let me sum it up for you so you can all quit arguing, REPUBLICANS ARE FOR THE 1% getting richer, and the DEMOCRATS ARE FOR BIG BUSINESS. Thats it ..... no one cares about the guy with a blue collar, a backbone and a family PERIOD.
So how about instead of arguing amongst ourselves (Which is exactly what either party wants us to do) How about we band together and become what made us great originally. THE UNITED states of america.
Ever heard the comment divide and conquer well the dems and the Repubs have been doing that to the common man for years and obviously with great success.
VOTE FOR CHANGE VOTE INTELLIGENTLY VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE WITH INTEGRITY VOTE FOR YOUR RIGHTS VOTE FOR YOUR FREEDOM VOTE FOR OPPORTUNITY
Look for the candidate that will give these things back and thats the right vote regardless of party affiliation
These Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Left Wing, Democrat Kooks who post on these threads, think that the American people will just do what THEY WISH we all would do and that's simply "ignore" B. Hussein Obama's THREE YEARS OF FAILURE AS POTUS, INCREASE OF AMERICAN JOBLESSNESS AND SPENDING MORE U.S. TAXPAYER MONEY AND DRIVING UP THE FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT AND U.S. NATIONAL DEBT, MORE THAN ALMOST ALL THE OTHER U.S. PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM...COMBINED!!!
Now if the U.S. Economy were going great and if the U.S. Unemployment Rate was like 5%, if the U.S. Housing Market was turned around and home values were no longer upside down with their mortgages and home foreclosures were way down and if American workers' salaries were way up and health care and health insurance costs were way down, we all know these Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Left Wing, Democrat Kooks would be singing Obama's praises and telling about all his positive accomplishments as POTUS and how B. Hussein Obama saved the American people from former President Bush's horrible "inherited" economy. THEY WOULDN'T BE GIVING FORMER PRESIDENT BUSH THE CREDIT FOR OBAMA'S NOW THREE YEARS IN OFFICE IF THE ABOVE POSITIVE THINGS WERE HAPPENING WITH REGARDS TO THE U.S. ECONOMY, WOULD THEY?
So if they wouldn't be giving former President Bush credit if the CURRENT U.S. Economy were going great with all the above things I mentioned, why wouldn't they be giving B. Hussein Obama the credit for making the U.S. Economy WORSE THAN EVER, with his failed policies and presidency IN THREE YEARS...hhmm??!!
They foolishly and ignorantly think that THEY ARE in the majority thinking of the American Electorate and that the American Voters next Nov. 6th, 2012 will simply "ignore" B. Hussein Obama's entire FOUR YEAR TERM AS POTUS and just "blame Bush" to re-elect him. Ha!!!
I knew there was a lot of recreational drug use amongst the Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Left Wing, Democrat Kooks, I just didn't know it was so widespread!!! Anyway, all the more wailing they'll be doing when on Election Night 2012, B. Hussein Obama will be on Int'l TV giving his Concession Speech to the new REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT-ELECT. I can't wait and it can't come soon enough.
I'm so tired of this Inexperienced and Unqualified, Socialist/Marxist "Community Organizer" being in the White House and not having a d**ned clue as to what the h*ll he's doing and taking all of his multi-week family vacations b/c he likes to be President, but doesn't like the governing part. What an abject failure the B. Hussein Obama presidency has been. He needs to and will be sent back to Chicago come Election Night 2012.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Whoa!! slow down there Rush and have some more Oxyicointin you'll feel alot better!
Johnny Bee: A "lot" of nothing = garbage in your post about your fantasy's. Did your family have a chance to get a word in when you had your XMAS DINNER? See you in November 2012 when Barack thanks Americans for keeping him busy!!
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
Johny Bee - "These Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Left Wing, Democrat Kooks" as you called them can not deal with facts and truths.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams 1770
There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily. - George Washington 1795
"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." --Samuel Adams, in the Boston Gazette, 1781
With {his} mouth the godless man destroys his neighbor, But through knowledge the righteous will be delivered. - Proverbs 11:9
I will not tolerate people who slander their neighbors. I will not endure conceit and pride. Psalms 101:5
The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life, but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit. - Proverbs 15:4
veritas omnia vincit -
veritas vos liberabit -
Well articulated, Mr. Bee, and most likely an accurate prediction of the majority sentiment. Only 11 months left for the Lame, Lamer, Lameless Duck. Pay no mind to the likes of "jim" and "feisty fister" since their's didn't develop properly.
Well spoken, Mr. Citizen. You are the spitting image of the idiotic, anti-American, Commie-bashing, stuck-up, out-of-touch, right wing fools who are an embarrassment to both this great nation and the human race.
Oh and FWI, quoting the Bible when referring to the political spectrum is extremely sad. Since you have nothing credible to use against Obama, you simply sputter out Bible references when that quote was talking merely of the relationship between the right and left hands, and how one must follow the right path, not the wrong one. A mere play-on words. I would have expected more from you, but then again, knowing that you are a foolish right-wing Teatard, I wouldn't have...
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Soooooooooooo, you think Dubya was a good President, right?
At one time I didn't think Romney was sufficiently dishonest to win the nomination. After a full month of one lie after the other, he has sunken low enough to become the Tearrorist/GOP nominee. I would have much prefered the juvenile Ron Paul, but Mitt will be enough to give the Congress back to the Democratic Party and to middle class America.
I hope you're correct occamsedge. We need a dem house and super-majority dem senate. I never thought I'd say this, since in the past I voted rep and dem, but the worse dem is better than any republican at this time.
If B. Hussein Obama couldn't handle the job of being POTUS, then he should've never run for it in the first place. I mean this is the Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democrat, "Community Organizer" who promised that he would cut the U.S. Federal Deficit IN HALF by the end of his first term (He's doubled it in less than THREE YEARS) as POTUS.
He promised that his Obamacare, socialized medicine scheme, would decrease the cost of health care and health insurance once passed and since its passage, the cost of health care and health insurance has gone nothing, but UP.
B. Hussein Obama also promised he would close down GITMO, which he never did and won't ever do.
He also promised that if the U.S. Economy didn't turn around in three years, from him taking office as POTUS, then his presidency would likely be a "one term deal." (See YouTube) Not only has the U.S. Economy NOT TURNED AROUND, but it's gotten exponentially worse since this no-good, inexperienced, unqualified, Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democrat, "Community Organizer" took office.
Now what IS REALISTIC, is instead of making excuses and apologies for "poor ole Barack," why not hold him ACCOUNTABLE for his THREE YEARS OF ABJECT FAILURE AS POTUS??!! If you Left wing, Nut Job Kooks were so wise and knowledgeable in the "truths of life" why would you let this Left wing skunk hold the most powerful office in the world, much less the United States of America, a minute longer than you had, as an American voter, with his FAILED performance on the U.S. Economy as POTUS, so far by voting for him?
Neither the Republican party, nor Fox News, nor Rush Limbaugh, nor Sean Hannity, nor Ann Coulter, nor etc. made those promises of JOBS, ECONOMIC PROSPERITY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND HEALTHCARE COSTS BEING REDUCED FOR ALL, B. Hussein Obama made ALL those promises back in 2008.
And when B. Hussein Obama made those promises, he never promised the American people, "blame Bush" strategies, he never promised the American people excuses for the U.S. Economy and Joblessness not improving under his non-leadership, he never promised the American people that he would simply demonize and dehumanize his political opponents and/or allow his political cronies to do so, like Jimmy Hoffa Jr., without speaking out against that. He promised the American people Jobs, Jobs, Jobs and at least an improvement in the U.S. Economy, Housing Market and declining property values, that we'd already see AFTER THREE YEARS in the White House. The reason we don't see any improvement in the U.S. Economy is simple, his policies don't work!!
Admit it already. B. Hussein Obama is one of the worst U.S. Presidents in the history of this nation and certainly in most of our lifetimes. This guy makes Jimmy Carter looks like a good, sound, fiscal conservative, for goodness sakes. STOP MAKING EXCUSES, HOLD B. HUSSEIN OBAMA RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN PRESIDENCY. IF THE U.S. ECONOMY WAS GOING REALLY GOOD RIGHT NOW, AND JOB CREATION WAS WAY UP, WOULD YOU BE GIVING FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH THE CREDIT FOR IT? OR WOULD YOU BE GIVING B. HUSSEIN OBAMA THE CREDIT FOR IT?
SO IF YOU WOULD GIVE OBAMA THE CREDIT IF THE U.S. ECONOMY WERE GOING GREAT RIGHT NOW AFTER HIS THREE YEARS AS POTUS, THEN YOU SHOULD ALSO GIVE HIM THE BLAME FOR THE U.S. ECONOMY REMAINING AWFUL RIGHT NOW AND EVEN BECOMING EXPONENTIALLY WORSE UNDER HIS NON-LEADERSHIP..PERIOD...END OF STORY.
Johnny,,,, Don't jump over a candlestick --- You'll burn yourself
Johnny Bee is the same'ol right-wing wacknut broken-record since 2008 where he and his tea-bag throngs made Palin a multi-millionaire ... then abandoned you ...
... and now you're stuck with this freakish-goulish thing called the 2012 GOP / Tea Bag Prez hopefuls ... all of them claiming to be the *new* right-wing prophet, the Messiah ... and second coming of Reagan ...
... and simply because of course ... Bush, Faux Noize, Fatbo, insHannity, Beckerhead and the Coultergeist tell you so ...
You seriously need a new 2012 ticket ... I suggest Bush / Cheney ...
That is, Jeb Bush & *Lez* Cheney ... save you a couple of bux since you don' t need to remove that faded bumper sticker since 2000 ... jus'buff it out a bit ...
LOL.
Nice pic exotix! LOL! Before casting more dispersions on the GOP, you probably should just take a little time in front of the mirror. your name calling sort of loses credibility when you show your mug. HAHAHAHA!
Johny Bee:
End of Story? Good now go and have a nice warm glass of milk and go to bed already.
JB--turn off the caps. We are not listening to you any more when you use them. You are just spouting emotional, illogical, untrue ideas. Guess what? I disagree with you. Obama needs more time to continue cleaning up the mess that Bush and Cheney made and which the Republicans refuse to lift a finger to help improve our situation. Electing Romney would mean going back to Bush's policies. Thx, but no thx.
Obama will not win this one. Sorry folks.
Nobody is strong enough to defeat Obama ---- Conservatives can't win on rhetoric nor can they lead on it ---- Besides they are still looking for Nemo
Conservatives can't find their Ronald Reagan because Obama is their Ronald Reagan
HAPPY NEW YEAR ----- DEAL WITH IT LOSERS
LOL your totally wrong. Obama is closer to being Adolph Hitler than Ronald Reagan. :)
Wow--when you have NOTHING else, invoke Hitler. Weak.
Correct, this time, Obama Loses!!! I hope it isn't RINO Romney that beats Him,
but Even That Liberal Romney is better than Obama anyday! Romney IS a Liberal in disguise.
I will still vote for Him against Obama!
No- what the USA needs is real change- change that goes beyond the Democrat/Republican dichotomy that has perpetuated our problems for far too long. Be part of the solution and not part of the problem: Vote out of the box!!!
Those who recognize progress & our economic issues as well as national security & military issues will be supporting this President.... He's accomplished far more in his first term than any Conservative President has in spite of the conservative congressional opposition
Millions of American Families now have insurance for their children.. Seniors are saving .... The Affordable Health Care Act is one of many policies that work ----- I'm surprised Romney & Gingrich didn't take full credit for it,, it was their idea
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
...you know Jim...folks said you were a troll a few posts back...but, I gave your 'opinion' some slack for a bit until this last one;
"He's accomplished far more in his first term..." "...those who recognize progress & our economic issues..."
what economically has Obama done???...gave away billions of tax free grants, loans to friends???...prolonged a war which was promised to end?....employed the largest amount of folks on the federal payroll via the armed services ever in the history of the USA?....
Obama's accomplishments are nill and none to improving the economy or 'progressiveness' of our USA...indeed he's done quite the opposite and I for one am quite certain he's a smug and proud as ever; because he truly thinks that the state of the union is not his fault, but; rather the fault of everyone else that did not play his 'game' with his rules...more than a friggin child and narcissistic POS to me...a real professional politician who creates problems so he'll have a job to return to...
The stimulus, maintaining America's strength without wasting trillions of dollars, Obamacare, 22 months of private sector growth, showing political maturity, saving the auto industry, creating millions of jobs, etc. I could go on and on. You, my dear friend, have been brainwashed by the evil political entity that is the GOP, and its leaders: Rush, Sean, Glenn, Bush, and Old Man Norquist. Free yourself before you are entangled in its doom. Seek the truth, my misinformed friend, for as they say "the truth will set you free" (John 8:32).
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
It is very sad that you fail to realize that the auto industry did not need saving. The mismanagement is what brought both Chevrolet and Chrysler to need a bail out and that is only because of the unions bankrupted them. Ford did not need a bail out and did fine without the taxpayers footing the bill. You cannot say that Obama has created thousands of jobs when it shows that any jobs that were created were not full time but instead part time so that Millions of Americans are working 2 or 3 jobs to keep their families housed and fed. If you want to live in a country that is controlled by socialism then move to either Greece or Italy and see how you fair. As for the truth, the real truth is that the individual you so clearly love is no more a leader than Hitler was. His own personal agenda is to destroy the United States and its citizens. More American Citizens are homeless during his time in office than in U.S. History and he does nothing to combat it. More children are either undernourished and underfed during his time in office than any other time in U.S. History, and more Americans are unemployed than anytime in U.S. History including the Great Depression. If you do not believe any of this ask your President for the government statistics on this and he himself will show you that it is true.
Mr. Citizen: My favorite verse to be sure.
I got some news for you Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democrat Kooks, NOBODY OWES YOU JACK S**T, INCLUDING A JOB!!! It's people like you that put people like our Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democrat, "Community Organizer" President in office in 2008.
Stop complaining and being so envious of people who are smarter, work harder and are far more economically successful than you and start working just as hard or harder to make the wealth that they have, if you're so "angry" about them having wealth.
And since when does being wealthy in America automatically equal being a crook, as you Left Wing Kooks say? And when does being poor automatically equal being honest & loveable as you say? You all's talking points are coming straight out of the Communist Manifesto pals and the sad part about that is, a lot of no-good, lazy, jealous, and envious Americans like you, just want to simply re-distribute wealth that you've never earned, nor ever deserved. All just to get back at "rich whitey." People who believe as you do are called THE DEMOCRAT PARTY (& their robot minions).
If you're tired of being poor and worthless, GO OUT AND START BUSTING YOUR BUTT AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. DON'T EXPECT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OR WORSE THE U.S. TAXPAYERS, TO DO IT FOR YOU, YOU MARXIST, SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST SCHLEPS!!!
I would like to know if any of the Left wing, Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democrat Kooks who post and/or read on this blog, please give us (by posting your) HONEST ASSESSMENT of B. Hussein Obama's, the great "Community-Organizer-in-Chief" job performance on the U.S. Economy since becoming POTUS in January 2009?
Simple as that, can you give an honest grading of B. Hussein Obama's job performance on the U.S. Economy?
Can any of you scared, cowardly Socialist Democrats do just that?
I can in one word. FAILURE, F - GRADE and imo, I don't believe an F - Graded POTUS deserves re-election to another four year term in the White House. With your grade, does B. Hussein Obama deserve re-election? Yes or No?
I would advise you to stop with with the anti-left wing/Obama BS, because that is a leading indicator that points to your obviously misinformed state of being.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
And I would advise you to look up the definitions Liberal, Socialist, and Marxist, instead of just spouting out these words much like your prophet Rush Limbaugh.