This topic is locked
sailor, on 06 September 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:
It takes one to recognize one.....
And it takes one to defend one....so?
FORUMS
ROADBLOCKS TO OBAMA RE-ELCTION 2012 Obama must prove eligiblity and overcome scandals.
MultiQuote
#202
sailor 
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: RED Subscribers
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: 11-July 04
Posted 06 September 2012 - 12:02 PM
jetguyz, on 06 September 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:
Perhaps Obama feel a kinship to those illegal criminal immigrants and chose not to deport them becos he himself is an illegal criminal "immigrant"....
It takes one to recognize one.....
They used to tell me I was building a dream,
and so I followed the mob.
When there was earth to plough or guns to bear,
I was always there, right on the job.
and so I followed the mob.
When there was earth to plough or guns to bear,
I was always there, right on the job.
#203
jetguyz
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9188
- Joined: 29-June 01
Posted 06 September 2012 - 10:02 AM
Perhaps Obama feel a kinship to those illegal criminal immigrants and chose not to deport them becos he himself is an illegal criminal "immigrant"....deceitfully and unconstitutionally elected as president.
Quote
Illegal Immigrants Released by Obama Administration Committed 19 Murders & 142 Sex Crimes
31 July 2012, 3:45 pm
Illegal Immigrants Released by Obama Administration Committed 19 Murders & 142 Sex Crimes
The Obama is the most dangerous threat to America, and the Obama administration has a lot of blood on their hands after failing to deport 47,000 illegal immigrants, and releasing other violent illegal immigrants into the US population, who went on to commit more violent crimes, including 142 sex crimes and 19 murders!
Obama’s attack on America’s immigration policy is just a veiled attempt to do away with border control completely, and move towards having an”Open Borders” situation, where any criminal and terrorist can walk freely into America, carrying their weapons, drugs, or even a dirty bomb.
" The Obama administration released illegal immigrants who went on to commit more crimes, including charges of 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the House Judiciary Committee said in a report Tuesday.
[u]All told, the nearly 47,000 illegal immigrants the administration was notified of but declined to deport between 2008 and 2011 under its Secure Communities program had a recidivism rate of 16 percent, the committee said.
They were just part of the nearly 160,000 immigrants — most of them here legally — who were flagged by Secure Communities during the three year period but who were either not eligible to be deported or who the administration decided to release. Those immigrants went on to be charged in nearly 60,000 more crimes, according to the committee and the Congressional Research Service, which issued a report on the matter.
The findings stem from the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program, which was designed to identify immigrants who run afoul of the law and who the administration decides it wants to deport.
While hundreds of thousands have been sent back home under the program, 159,286 were not put in deportation proceedings during the period under review, CRS said.
About three quarters of those weren’t eligible for deportation because they were legal immigrants and their criminal records didn’t rise to the level of deportation, though nearly a quarter could have been deported, CRS said.
Those who could have been deported but were released later went on to commit the 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the Judiciary Committee said.
“The Obama administration could have prevented these senseless crimes by enforcing our immigration laws,” committee Chairman Lamar Smith said. “But President Obama continues to further his anti-enforcement agenda while innocent Americans suffer the consequences. His unwillingness to enforce immigration laws puts our communities at risk and costs American lives.”
Mr. Smith requested the CRS report, which used data he had subpoenaed from the Homeland Security Department.
Secure Communities was designed to let federal officials check the immigration records of those booked into local prisons and jails to see if they can be deported.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency responsible for deportations, said many of those identified by Secure Communities and detailed in the report either weren’t eligible to be deported or were released by local officials before ICE could respond.
Spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez said that given limited resources, they have to pick and choose which aliens they go after.
“Because ICE is congressionally funded to remove a limited number of individuals each year, the agency prioritizes our enforcement efforts on individuals whose removal has the biggest impact on public safety, including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons, and repeat immigration law offenders,” she said.
The Obama administration has set records for deportations, removing about 400,000 aliens a year. But it has dramatically altered the composition of those being deported, shifting attention away from rank-and-file illegal immigrants and towards those who already have criminal records or who have repeatedly broken immigration laws.
In June President Obama announced yet another policy that shields most illegal immigrants age 30 and under from deportation. That policy won’t fully take effect until the middle of August, but it has already had an effect on those being deported."
31 July 2012, 3:45 pm
Illegal Immigrants Released by Obama Administration Committed 19 Murders & 142 Sex Crimes
The Obama is the most dangerous threat to America, and the Obama administration has a lot of blood on their hands after failing to deport 47,000 illegal immigrants, and releasing other violent illegal immigrants into the US population, who went on to commit more violent crimes, including 142 sex crimes and 19 murders!
Obama’s attack on America’s immigration policy is just a veiled attempt to do away with border control completely, and move towards having an”Open Borders” situation, where any criminal and terrorist can walk freely into America, carrying their weapons, drugs, or even a dirty bomb.
" The Obama administration released illegal immigrants who went on to commit more crimes, including charges of 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the House Judiciary Committee said in a report Tuesday.
[u]All told, the nearly 47,000 illegal immigrants the administration was notified of but declined to deport between 2008 and 2011 under its Secure Communities program had a recidivism rate of 16 percent, the committee said.
They were just part of the nearly 160,000 immigrants — most of them here legally — who were flagged by Secure Communities during the three year period but who were either not eligible to be deported or who the administration decided to release. Those immigrants went on to be charged in nearly 60,000 more crimes, according to the committee and the Congressional Research Service, which issued a report on the matter.
The findings stem from the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program, which was designed to identify immigrants who run afoul of the law and who the administration decides it wants to deport.
While hundreds of thousands have been sent back home under the program, 159,286 were not put in deportation proceedings during the period under review, CRS said.
About three quarters of those weren’t eligible for deportation because they were legal immigrants and their criminal records didn’t rise to the level of deportation, though nearly a quarter could have been deported, CRS said.
Those who could have been deported but were released later went on to commit the 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the Judiciary Committee said.
“The Obama administration could have prevented these senseless crimes by enforcing our immigration laws,” committee Chairman Lamar Smith said. “But President Obama continues to further his anti-enforcement agenda while innocent Americans suffer the consequences. His unwillingness to enforce immigration laws puts our communities at risk and costs American lives.”
Mr. Smith requested the CRS report, which used data he had subpoenaed from the Homeland Security Department.
Secure Communities was designed to let federal officials check the immigration records of those booked into local prisons and jails to see if they can be deported.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency responsible for deportations, said many of those identified by Secure Communities and detailed in the report either weren’t eligible to be deported or were released by local officials before ICE could respond.
Spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez said that given limited resources, they have to pick and choose which aliens they go after.
“Because ICE is congressionally funded to remove a limited number of individuals each year, the agency prioritizes our enforcement efforts on individuals whose removal has the biggest impact on public safety, including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons, and repeat immigration law offenders,” she said.
The Obama administration has set records for deportations, removing about 400,000 aliens a year. But it has dramatically altered the composition of those being deported, shifting attention away from rank-and-file illegal immigrants and towards those who already have criminal records or who have repeatedly broken immigration laws.
In June President Obama announced yet another policy that shields most illegal immigrants age 30 and under from deportation. That policy won’t fully take effect until the middle of August, but it has already had an effect on those being deported."
What the believer believes the prover proves..............Robert Anton Wilson
#204
jetguyz
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9188
- Joined: 29-June 01
Posted 06 September 2012 - 09:54 AM
At least when Obama unceremoniously get kick out of the White House, he would go down in America history record as the MOST corrupt and the LEAST Transparent Administration Regime!
Quote
SHOCKER! Obama Runs Least Transparent Administration in American History
25 July 2012, 2:11 pm
SHOCKER! Obama Runs Least Transparent Administration in American History
Anyone who doesn’t have their heads stuck up their butts (of cos we know who has his head stuck up in his butt here in Trevvy, don`t we?
) would be able to tell you that the Obama administration definitely has not lived up to it’s claim to be “the most transparent, open, and accessible administration in American history”, and in fact it has been shown that the Obama administration is actually one of the most closed and secretive administration in the history of our nation.
Obama is secret about his administration’s internal workings because, if the American People knew the truth about what they are doing, Obama knows that he would be kicked out of office so fast his head would spin!
" The Obama campaign has relentlessly questioned Mitt Romney’s openness on most everything from his tenure at Bain Capital to tax records to offshore accounts — but when it comes to transparency, the president hasn’t exactly been an open book, critics say.
Though presidents must run the country beyond the public eye in some respects, several watchdog groups complain President Obama has not lived up to the open-government promises he made when he took office. Republican leaders in Congress have bellowed in recent months about the administration’s secrecy. While the president’s campaign is making hay out of his GOP opponent’s supposedly shrouded financial records, the tack has already opened up the president to similar criticism.
On Tuesday, the Romney campaign posted a list on its website citing nearly two dozen reports that call into question the administration’s transparency.
“President Obama has run one of the least transparent administrations in American history,” said campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul. “Whether hiding lobbyists in coffee shops, cutting back-room deals on ObamaCare, or concealing the records of Fast and Furious, President Obama’s pledge to be transparent has turned out to be just another broken promise.”
Those keeping scoring of the administration’s transparency shortcomings point to its alleged reluctance in responding to document requests; its pursuit of whistle-blowers and leakers; the decision to invoke executive privilege to deny congressional investigators access to documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious; and the failure to televise health care debate meetings per the president’s campaign promise.
The complaints against Obama, unlike those against Romney, have little to do with his financial records. But watchdogs say his record could stand a closer look.
“I don’t know if it’s apple to apples when you line up the candidates, but Obama does have to take account of himself,” said Joe Newman, of the nonpartisan Project of Government Oversight. “When it comes to transparency, he has a mixed record.”
Newman said the Washington, D.C.-based group is particularly concerned about the whistle-blower issue, including cases in which people have been charged under the Espionage Act in connection with leaks to the media — which follow the administration’s early promises to bolster whistle-blower laws.
In two of the most high-profile cases, former CIA officer John Kiriakou was charged in January in connection with information leaked to reporters about other agents and procedures, including the interrogation tactic known as waterboarding. And former National Security Agency official Thomas Drake was charged in 2010 under the Espionage Act for allegedly leaking classified information, which could have resulted in 35 years in prison. However, federal prosecutors last year dropped the original charges as part of a deal in which Drake accepted a separate, misdemeanor charge.
“We’re obviously concerned with the actions taken against whistle-blowers,” Newman said. “It’s very intimidating to know that if you speak up and do the right thing you’re going to get slapped with some serious charges.”
The Obama administration has defended the cases, disputing the notion that they are prosecuting whistle-blowers. The Justice Department describes them simply as a crackdown on classified information leaks. Ironically, the administration also has come under criticism for not cracking down hard enough on recent security leaks that supposedly led to news reports on an Al Qaeda affiliate’s bomb plot and efforts to counter Iran’s nuclear program.
The Obama campaign, meanwhile, has over the past several months launched a multi-pronged attack on Romney with the intent of portraying him as somebody perhaps concealing information about his personal finances and private-sector history.
Beyond calls for Romney to provide more information about overseas holdings and tax returns, the Obama campaign has most recently questioned when the GOP presidential candidate officially left the Bain Capital private equity firm.
The most severe attack came last week when Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter suggested Romney could have committed a felony by misrepresenting when he left Bain in his Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Romney’s call for an apology has gone unanswered, though Cutter later said she was not suggesting Romney committed a crime.
The president continues to press the transparency issue, saying, “I think that the issue here is simply for Mr. Romney to talk about his business background in a way that jibes with the facts and is clear.”
Defending the line of attack, campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Monday that Obama has set a bar for transparency that “Romney has not met, cannot possibly meet, even on his tippy toes.”
Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt earlier told Fox News that Romney is “the most secretive candidate we’ve seen since Richard Nixon.”
Romney hasn’t been helped by the fact that several prominent conservatives, most recently his former GOP primary opponent Texas Gov. Rick Perry, have called on him to release his tax returns.
But as the Romney campaign holds its ground — with the former Massachusetts governor deflecting calls to release any more than two years’ worth of returns — it’s gotten some measure of support from fellow Republicans. Donald Trump, who toyed with and then abandoned the idea of running for president himself, has said Romney shouldn’t release his returns unless and until Obama releases his college transcripts.
White House spokesman Jay Carney recently responded to a question about the subject by saying in part the president has displayed “unprecedented transparency” but did not discuss the documents.
John Wonderlich, policy director at the Sunlight Foundation, an advocacy group for open government, told FoxNews.com the back-and-forth over transparency “is a good thing because it keeps the issue alive.”
“The Obama administration’s record is mixed, but it is difficult to boil it down to a single grade,” he said.
Though a recent published analysis on FIOA.com suggests the Drug Enforcement Agency is finding more ways to deny requests under the Freedom of Information Act, Wonderlich said the administration has done good things with providing information on such sites about lobbying related to federal stimulus money and the Dodd-Frank financial industry overhaul.
Newman also said Obama has gone “well beyond” the Bush administration on other transparency issues, including greater public access through such websites as FIOA.gov and USAspending.gov.
Wonderlich said the administration opening the White House guest list, though, is a wash considering officials were facing several lawsuits.
Then there’s the treatment of the media. Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who with the help of an ATF whistle-blower and others in Congress exposed problems with Operation Fast and Furious, on Tuesday asked Attorney General Eric Holder for an accounting of a recent incident in which a federal lawyer allegedly threatened a journalist about getting “on the Department of Justice’s bad side” if the reporter quoted the lawyer. The alleged incident occurred at a meeting advertised as a public event.
Grassley said such reports, if accurate, confirm “a complete disconnect between the president’s words about transparency and the actual conduct of his administration.” "
25 July 2012, 2:11 pm
SHOCKER! Obama Runs Least Transparent Administration in American History
Anyone who doesn’t have their heads stuck up their butts (of cos we know who has his head stuck up in his butt here in Trevvy, don`t we?
) would be able to tell you that the Obama administration definitely has not lived up to it’s claim to be “the most transparent, open, and accessible administration in American history”, and in fact it has been shown that the Obama administration is actually one of the most closed and secretive administration in the history of our nation.Obama is secret about his administration’s internal workings because, if the American People knew the truth about what they are doing, Obama knows that he would be kicked out of office so fast his head would spin!
" The Obama campaign has relentlessly questioned Mitt Romney’s openness on most everything from his tenure at Bain Capital to tax records to offshore accounts — but when it comes to transparency, the president hasn’t exactly been an open book, critics say.
Though presidents must run the country beyond the public eye in some respects, several watchdog groups complain President Obama has not lived up to the open-government promises he made when he took office. Republican leaders in Congress have bellowed in recent months about the administration’s secrecy. While the president’s campaign is making hay out of his GOP opponent’s supposedly shrouded financial records, the tack has already opened up the president to similar criticism.
On Tuesday, the Romney campaign posted a list on its website citing nearly two dozen reports that call into question the administration’s transparency.
“President Obama has run one of the least transparent administrations in American history,” said campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul. “Whether hiding lobbyists in coffee shops, cutting back-room deals on ObamaCare, or concealing the records of Fast and Furious, President Obama’s pledge to be transparent has turned out to be just another broken promise.”
Those keeping scoring of the administration’s transparency shortcomings point to its alleged reluctance in responding to document requests; its pursuit of whistle-blowers and leakers; the decision to invoke executive privilege to deny congressional investigators access to documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious; and the failure to televise health care debate meetings per the president’s campaign promise.
The complaints against Obama, unlike those against Romney, have little to do with his financial records. But watchdogs say his record could stand a closer look.
“I don’t know if it’s apple to apples when you line up the candidates, but Obama does have to take account of himself,” said Joe Newman, of the nonpartisan Project of Government Oversight. “When it comes to transparency, he has a mixed record.”
Newman said the Washington, D.C.-based group is particularly concerned about the whistle-blower issue, including cases in which people have been charged under the Espionage Act in connection with leaks to the media — which follow the administration’s early promises to bolster whistle-blower laws.
In two of the most high-profile cases, former CIA officer John Kiriakou was charged in January in connection with information leaked to reporters about other agents and procedures, including the interrogation tactic known as waterboarding. And former National Security Agency official Thomas Drake was charged in 2010 under the Espionage Act for allegedly leaking classified information, which could have resulted in 35 years in prison. However, federal prosecutors last year dropped the original charges as part of a deal in which Drake accepted a separate, misdemeanor charge.
“We’re obviously concerned with the actions taken against whistle-blowers,” Newman said. “It’s very intimidating to know that if you speak up and do the right thing you’re going to get slapped with some serious charges.”
The Obama administration has defended the cases, disputing the notion that they are prosecuting whistle-blowers. The Justice Department describes them simply as a crackdown on classified information leaks. Ironically, the administration also has come under criticism for not cracking down hard enough on recent security leaks that supposedly led to news reports on an Al Qaeda affiliate’s bomb plot and efforts to counter Iran’s nuclear program.
The Obama campaign, meanwhile, has over the past several months launched a multi-pronged attack on Romney with the intent of portraying him as somebody perhaps concealing information about his personal finances and private-sector history.
Beyond calls for Romney to provide more information about overseas holdings and tax returns, the Obama campaign has most recently questioned when the GOP presidential candidate officially left the Bain Capital private equity firm.
The most severe attack came last week when Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter suggested Romney could have committed a felony by misrepresenting when he left Bain in his Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Romney’s call for an apology has gone unanswered, though Cutter later said she was not suggesting Romney committed a crime.
The president continues to press the transparency issue, saying, “I think that the issue here is simply for Mr. Romney to talk about his business background in a way that jibes with the facts and is clear.”
Defending the line of attack, campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Monday that Obama has set a bar for transparency that “Romney has not met, cannot possibly meet, even on his tippy toes.”
Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt earlier told Fox News that Romney is “the most secretive candidate we’ve seen since Richard Nixon.”
Romney hasn’t been helped by the fact that several prominent conservatives, most recently his former GOP primary opponent Texas Gov. Rick Perry, have called on him to release his tax returns.
But as the Romney campaign holds its ground — with the former Massachusetts governor deflecting calls to release any more than two years’ worth of returns — it’s gotten some measure of support from fellow Republicans. Donald Trump, who toyed with and then abandoned the idea of running for president himself, has said Romney shouldn’t release his returns unless and until Obama releases his college transcripts.
White House spokesman Jay Carney recently responded to a question about the subject by saying in part the president has displayed “unprecedented transparency” but did not discuss the documents.
John Wonderlich, policy director at the Sunlight Foundation, an advocacy group for open government, told FoxNews.com the back-and-forth over transparency “is a good thing because it keeps the issue alive.”
“The Obama administration’s record is mixed, but it is difficult to boil it down to a single grade,” he said.
Though a recent published analysis on FIOA.com suggests the Drug Enforcement Agency is finding more ways to deny requests under the Freedom of Information Act, Wonderlich said the administration has done good things with providing information on such sites about lobbying related to federal stimulus money and the Dodd-Frank financial industry overhaul.
Newman also said Obama has gone “well beyond” the Bush administration on other transparency issues, including greater public access through such websites as FIOA.gov and USAspending.gov.
Wonderlich said the administration opening the White House guest list, though, is a wash considering officials were facing several lawsuits.
Then there’s the treatment of the media. Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who with the help of an ATF whistle-blower and others in Congress exposed problems with Operation Fast and Furious, on Tuesday asked Attorney General Eric Holder for an accounting of a recent incident in which a federal lawyer allegedly threatened a journalist about getting “on the Department of Justice’s bad side” if the reporter quoted the lawyer. The alleged incident occurred at a meeting advertised as a public event.
Grassley said such reports, if accurate, confirm “a complete disconnect between the president’s words about transparency and the actual conduct of his administration.” "
What the believer believes the prover proves..............Robert Anton Wilson
#205
jetguyz
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9188
- Joined: 29-June 01
Posted 06 September 2012 - 09:42 AM
Another day another hypocrisy...from the Obama regime.
Quote
House Panel to Probe Obama’s Use of Stolen $500 Million in Bailout Funds for MSNBC TV Ads
31 August 2012, 4:00 pm
A House of Representatives panel has requested all records from the U.S. Department of Labor involving the half-million dollars that the Obama administration stole from the American People to pay off their corrupt media arm hacks – Rachel “Bull Dyke” Maddow and Keith “Wack-job” Olberman
We know that the Obama administration has done a good job of staying above the law, which allows the most corrupt administration in US history to continue breaking the law, with no fear of being held accountable.
Hopefully this time it will be different, but as Obama’s corrupt Justice Department did, they will probably just not comply with the House order.
" A House panel is calling on the U.S. Department of Labor to turn over all records involving a half-million dollar contract funded through President Obama’s $831 billion stimulus program that paid for more than 100 commercials on MSNBC touting a “green jobs” initiative.
The contract with McNeely Pigott & Fox Public Relations LLC in 2009 resulted in more than 100 commercials on cable shows hosted by Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman to raise awareness about the Job Corps program’s training in environmentally-friendly career areas.
But spending reports showed that no jobs were created through the contract.
The Washington Times first reported on the contract earlier this month, quoting one taxpayer watchdog who questioned not only the lack of jobs but why the commercials aired only on MSNBC, considered the most liberal of the major cable news outlets.
Republican leaders on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which oversees the Labor Department, are raising similar questions in a recent letter they sent to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
The letter, signed by Reps. John Kline of Minnesota, chairman of the committee, and Phil Roe of Tennessee, who chairs the panel’s subcommittee on health, employment, labor and pension issues, seeks all documents and communications concerning the public relations contract, as well as a list of dates, attendees and topics for any meetings between Labor officials and the public relations firm concerning the “public relations strategy.”
“We understand this contract used taxpayer dollars purchase advertisements on MSNBC during ‘Countdown with Keith Olbermann’ and ‘The Rachel Maddow Show,’” the lawmakers wrote.
“Despite the fact that these funds were made available as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — legislation President Obama said was critical for immediate job creation — an examination of public records show that the contract that resulted in the advertisements on MSNBC created no jobs.”
A spokesman for the Labor Department, Stephen Barr, said officials have received the committee’s letter and will be responding.
In an earlier statement to The Times, Labor Department officials said there was nothing political about the placement of the ads. They said research showed the advertisements would reach the target demographic of business owners and managers interested in hiring “green-trained” employees through a programming list that initially also included shows hosted by CNN’s Larry King and public television’s Jim Lehrer.
Public television was eliminated because advertising rates were too high, officials said, and Mr. King’s show was dropped because MSNBC, since renamed NBCNews.com, held the potential to reach more viewers.
The use of tax dollars on media and advertising services also came under scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers during the George W. Bush administration. In 2006, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study requested by Democrats found more than $1.6 billion in public relations and media spending by the Bush administration during a two-year span."
Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy – usbacklash.org
31 August 2012, 4:00 pm
A House of Representatives panel has requested all records from the U.S. Department of Labor involving the half-million dollars that the Obama administration stole from the American People to pay off their corrupt media arm hacks – Rachel “Bull Dyke” Maddow and Keith “Wack-job” Olberman
We know that the Obama administration has done a good job of staying above the law, which allows the most corrupt administration in US history to continue breaking the law, with no fear of being held accountable.
Hopefully this time it will be different, but as Obama’s corrupt Justice Department did, they will probably just not comply with the House order.
" A House panel is calling on the U.S. Department of Labor to turn over all records involving a half-million dollar contract funded through President Obama’s $831 billion stimulus program that paid for more than 100 commercials on MSNBC touting a “green jobs” initiative.
The contract with McNeely Pigott & Fox Public Relations LLC in 2009 resulted in more than 100 commercials on cable shows hosted by Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman to raise awareness about the Job Corps program’s training in environmentally-friendly career areas.
But spending reports showed that no jobs were created through the contract.
The Washington Times first reported on the contract earlier this month, quoting one taxpayer watchdog who questioned not only the lack of jobs but why the commercials aired only on MSNBC, considered the most liberal of the major cable news outlets.
Republican leaders on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which oversees the Labor Department, are raising similar questions in a recent letter they sent to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
The letter, signed by Reps. John Kline of Minnesota, chairman of the committee, and Phil Roe of Tennessee, who chairs the panel’s subcommittee on health, employment, labor and pension issues, seeks all documents and communications concerning the public relations contract, as well as a list of dates, attendees and topics for any meetings between Labor officials and the public relations firm concerning the “public relations strategy.”
“We understand this contract used taxpayer dollars purchase advertisements on MSNBC during ‘Countdown with Keith Olbermann’ and ‘The Rachel Maddow Show,’” the lawmakers wrote.
“Despite the fact that these funds were made available as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — legislation President Obama said was critical for immediate job creation — an examination of public records show that the contract that resulted in the advertisements on MSNBC created no jobs.”
A spokesman for the Labor Department, Stephen Barr, said officials have received the committee’s letter and will be responding.
In an earlier statement to The Times, Labor Department officials said there was nothing political about the placement of the ads. They said research showed the advertisements would reach the target demographic of business owners and managers interested in hiring “green-trained” employees through a programming list that initially also included shows hosted by CNN’s Larry King and public television’s Jim Lehrer.
Public television was eliminated because advertising rates were too high, officials said, and Mr. King’s show was dropped because MSNBC, since renamed NBCNews.com, held the potential to reach more viewers.
The use of tax dollars on media and advertising services also came under scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers during the George W. Bush administration. In 2006, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study requested by Democrats found more than $1.6 billion in public relations and media spending by the Bush administration during a two-year span."
Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy – usbacklash.org
What the believer believes the prover proves..............Robert Anton Wilson
#206
jetguyz
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9188
- Joined: 29-June 01
Posted 06 September 2012 - 09:33 AM
Hypocrisy after hypocrisy...
Now that`s what I like about the hypocrite Obama...
Just like his ardent clueless resident supporter here, he just could not help himself by constantly exposing his deceitful and hypocrite self.....hmmmm.
Now that`s what I like about the hypocrite Obama...
Just like his ardent clueless resident supporter here, he just could not help himself by constantly exposing his deceitful and hypocrite self.....hmmmm.
Quote
President Obama’s ‘Harold And Kumar’ Video Draws Marijuana Hypocrisy Charges
Benjy Sarlin September 4, 2012, 12:59 PM 9900
President Obama recorded a video with the actors who portrayed stoner duo Harold and Kumar to promote the Democratic convention to young voters. But critics of the White House’s drug policy are not laughing.
“The fact Obama uses these characters to joke about this issue while on the other hand continuing to arrest people he’s appealing to is really disingenuous,” Morgan Fox, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project, told TPM Tuesday. “As president he conducts more raids on medical marijuana facilities than Bush.”
The “Harold and Kumar” movies are inextricably tied to pot, which is featured or mentioned more or less continuously in each of their three films. At one point, the two characters smoke marijuana with an actor portraying President Bush, who they accuse of hypocrisy for arresting drug offenders.
The campaign film, too, derives its humor from the “Harold and Kumar” franchise’s drug gags. Without naming the characters, it features the two actors looking spaced out, laughing at cartoons and munching on junk food in a dirty apartment similar to the one in their own movies. Press materials promoting the video refer to “Kal Penn and John Cho (of Harold and Kumar fame).”
Obama press secretary Ben LaBolt said Tuesday that the film was meant to appeal to the youth vote by focusing on Penn, a former White House staffer and longtime campaign surrogate. But he declined to directly address the hypocrisy charge.
“Kal’s been a longtime supporter of the president,” he said. “He’s done more work organizing in states, getting college kids mobilized, than anybody else and we’re proud to have him lead our youth efforts”
Drug laws have been a recurring issue when Obama tries to connect to younger voters. A recent interview with users on online message board Reddit generated hundreds of questions about his marijuana policy, although Obama did not address the issue. After receiving a flood of similar questions online in 2009 for an interactive town hall, Obama joked, “I don’t know what this says about the online audience” before restating his administration’s stance against drugs.
Benjy Sarlin September 4, 2012, 12:59 PM 9900
President Obama recorded a video with the actors who portrayed stoner duo Harold and Kumar to promote the Democratic convention to young voters. But critics of the White House’s drug policy are not laughing.
“The fact Obama uses these characters to joke about this issue while on the other hand continuing to arrest people he’s appealing to is really disingenuous,” Morgan Fox, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project, told TPM Tuesday. “As president he conducts more raids on medical marijuana facilities than Bush.”
The “Harold and Kumar” movies are inextricably tied to pot, which is featured or mentioned more or less continuously in each of their three films. At one point, the two characters smoke marijuana with an actor portraying President Bush, who they accuse of hypocrisy for arresting drug offenders.
The campaign film, too, derives its humor from the “Harold and Kumar” franchise’s drug gags. Without naming the characters, it features the two actors looking spaced out, laughing at cartoons and munching on junk food in a dirty apartment similar to the one in their own movies. Press materials promoting the video refer to “Kal Penn and John Cho (of Harold and Kumar fame).”
Obama press secretary Ben LaBolt said Tuesday that the film was meant to appeal to the youth vote by focusing on Penn, a former White House staffer and longtime campaign surrogate. But he declined to directly address the hypocrisy charge.
“Kal’s been a longtime supporter of the president,” he said. “He’s done more work organizing in states, getting college kids mobilized, than anybody else and we’re proud to have him lead our youth efforts”
Drug laws have been a recurring issue when Obama tries to connect to younger voters. A recent interview with users on online message board Reddit generated hundreds of questions about his marijuana policy, although Obama did not address the issue. After receiving a flood of similar questions online in 2009 for an interactive town hall, Obama joked, “I don’t know what this says about the online audience” before restating his administration’s stance against drugs.
What the believer believes the prover proves..............Robert Anton Wilson
#207
jetguyz
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9188
- Joined: 29-June 01
Posted 03 September 2012 - 06:14 PM
Now here are the FACTS which could easily be checked....that Obama is a pathetic hypocrite accusing others yet desperately lie and deceive Americans when he has been outsourcing jobs and downsizing the economy to the detrimental of American workers!
Quote
Obama Is A Job-Outsourcing Hypocrite
Investors.com
Investors business Daily
Posted 06/27/2012 06:26 PM ET
Politics: The president accuses his likely opponent of outsourcing jobs as his re-election campaign hires telemarketers in Canada and the Philippines. And what about GM in China and those electric cars built in Finland?
After his attacks on Mitt Romney's involvement in the job-creating private equity firm Bain Capital failed to resonate with an underemployed America, President Obama has retooled his message somewhat.
Now, after the Washington Post published a story about Bain's alleged role in outsourcing factory jobs overseas, he's blasting Republican nominee Mitt Romney as an "outsourcer in chief" and "outsourcing pioneer."
He did so even as, the Washington Free Beacon reports, Team Obama spent nearly $4,700 on services from a Canadian telemarketing company called Pacific East between March and June. The Obama campaign also paid a call center in Manila, Philippines, $78,314.10 for telemarketing services between the start of the campaign and March.
Few people remember an August 2010 report at InformationWeek.com about the U.S. Agency for International Development, a federal agency run by a hand-picked Obama appointee, launching a $36 million program to train workers, including 3,000 specialists in IT and related functions, in South Asia.
They were to provide offshore IT and business services to American companies looking to take advantage of the Asian subcontinent's low labor costs.
The hypocrisy only starts here. While blocking the Keystone XL pipeline and the 20,000 jobs it would bring immediately, with hundreds of thousands later in an economic ripple effect, this is the President who applauded a U.S. Export-Import Bank's loan to Brazil's state-run Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion with the promise of more to follow.
At the time, Obama was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies and still is.
With an offshore drilling ban in effect off both coasts, Alaska's continental shelf, ANWR and much of the Gulf of Mexico, and a de facto moratorium covering the rest, Obama told the Brazilians:
"We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers." Isn't that outsourcing, Mr. President?
The Obama administration had no problem with approving a plan by electric car company Fisker to use part of its $529 million federal stimulus loan guarantee to build its manufacturing facility, and the 500 jobs it supports, in Finland. Fisker employees were laid off at an old General Motors facility in Joe Biden's Delaware that Fisker was supposed to refurbish.
Speaking of GM, Government Motors, whose international headquarters is in Shanghai, recently announced it would be developing an electric car platform with its longtime Chinese partner, the Shanghai Automotive Industrial Corporation (SAIC). The president has no problem with that, either.
As part of doing business in China, GM, which has become virtually a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. taxpayer, must share its taxpayer-subsidized technology with Beijing as a cost of doing business there, including that used in the heavily subsidized Chevy Volt.
According to a recent report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at the American University's School of Communication in Washington, D.C., nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been spent on wind power. Nearly 80% of that money has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines, the study found.
Mitt Romney and Bain Capital oversaw the creation of tens of thousands of jobs by companies like Staples, Sports Authority and Domino's Pizza.
President Obama would keep the highest corporate tax rate in the world, carry out a job-outsourcing energy policy, expand job-killing regulations and impose job-killing ObamaCare.
It is President Obama who is outsourcing American jobs and downsizing the American economy.
Investors.com
Investors business Daily
Posted 06/27/2012 06:26 PM ET
Politics: The president accuses his likely opponent of outsourcing jobs as his re-election campaign hires telemarketers in Canada and the Philippines. And what about GM in China and those electric cars built in Finland?
After his attacks on Mitt Romney's involvement in the job-creating private equity firm Bain Capital failed to resonate with an underemployed America, President Obama has retooled his message somewhat.
Now, after the Washington Post published a story about Bain's alleged role in outsourcing factory jobs overseas, he's blasting Republican nominee Mitt Romney as an "outsourcer in chief" and "outsourcing pioneer."
He did so even as, the Washington Free Beacon reports, Team Obama spent nearly $4,700 on services from a Canadian telemarketing company called Pacific East between March and June. The Obama campaign also paid a call center in Manila, Philippines, $78,314.10 for telemarketing services between the start of the campaign and March.
Few people remember an August 2010 report at InformationWeek.com about the U.S. Agency for International Development, a federal agency run by a hand-picked Obama appointee, launching a $36 million program to train workers, including 3,000 specialists in IT and related functions, in South Asia.
They were to provide offshore IT and business services to American companies looking to take advantage of the Asian subcontinent's low labor costs.
The hypocrisy only starts here. While blocking the Keystone XL pipeline and the 20,000 jobs it would bring immediately, with hundreds of thousands later in an economic ripple effect, this is the President who applauded a U.S. Export-Import Bank's loan to Brazil's state-run Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion with the promise of more to follow.
At the time, Obama was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies and still is.
With an offshore drilling ban in effect off both coasts, Alaska's continental shelf, ANWR and much of the Gulf of Mexico, and a de facto moratorium covering the rest, Obama told the Brazilians:
"We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers." Isn't that outsourcing, Mr. President?
The Obama administration had no problem with approving a plan by electric car company Fisker to use part of its $529 million federal stimulus loan guarantee to build its manufacturing facility, and the 500 jobs it supports, in Finland. Fisker employees were laid off at an old General Motors facility in Joe Biden's Delaware that Fisker was supposed to refurbish.
Speaking of GM, Government Motors, whose international headquarters is in Shanghai, recently announced it would be developing an electric car platform with its longtime Chinese partner, the Shanghai Automotive Industrial Corporation (SAIC). The president has no problem with that, either.
As part of doing business in China, GM, which has become virtually a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. taxpayer, must share its taxpayer-subsidized technology with Beijing as a cost of doing business there, including that used in the heavily subsidized Chevy Volt.
According to a recent report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at the American University's School of Communication in Washington, D.C., nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been spent on wind power. Nearly 80% of that money has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines, the study found.
Mitt Romney and Bain Capital oversaw the creation of tens of thousands of jobs by companies like Staples, Sports Authority and Domino's Pizza.
President Obama would keep the highest corporate tax rate in the world, carry out a job-outsourcing energy policy, expand job-killing regulations and impose job-killing ObamaCare.
It is President Obama who is outsourcing American jobs and downsizing the American economy.
What the believer believes the prover proves..............Robert Anton Wilson
#208
jetguyz
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9188
- Joined: 29-June 01
Posted 03 September 2012 - 06:00 PM
One_of_us, on 03 September 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:
Which shows that you don't have the slightest clue of what happens in the US 
The Federal Reserve has set the prime interest to nearly zero. This and the promotion from the car manufacturers have set the interests on auto loans very low. I recently bought a new car with a 3-year loan at 0.9% interest, imagine! nearly interest-free!
The Federal Reserve has set the prime interest to nearly zero. This and the promotion from the car manufacturers have set the interests on auto loans very low. I recently bought a new car with a 3-year loan at 0.9% interest, imagine! nearly interest-free!
The key word is "nearly"...duh!
How much would be an additional $2,000 factored into your 3 year loan including interests...huh?
Or are you so bad at math that you believe the bank will waive the additional $2,000 interests (even at 0.9 interests) that Obama is sneakily trying to tax car owners?
One_of_us, on 03 September 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:
You confuse "more luxurious" with 'luxurious'. Their thinking is "if I'm going to spend so much money, I rather spend a little more and get some frills that make me happy".
FACT is ....do decent American families who are trying to make ends meet have that money to afford a "more luxurious car"?
Aren`t you confusing them with those who make money by selling their bodies like you?
One_of_us, on 03 September 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:
For 2 months only? That will make them quite fat. And they would not pay the $2000 upfront. They pay it in installments at very low interest. On a 3-year loan, the $2000 are about $60 more. Anybody who can afford a car can pay $60 a month more.
$60 more?!!
Hello?!!
How could a decent American family whose breadwinner might be at risk losing his job everyday (thanks to Obama`s corrupt policies and high unemployment rates), have kids to feed. clothe, school fees and mortgage to pay cough up an additional $60 more and that`s on top of the 3 year car loan...duh!
One_of_us, on 03 September 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:
You have no clue! The savings is not $10 out of $100, but much more. Obama increased the average gas mileage requirement from 35.5 to 54.5 miles/gal -> more than 50%!! So the saving out of $100 is $33.
And where comes your "additional $45" from? The added $2000 over a modest life time of 10 years (120 months) comes to $16.6. So the saving in gas is twice the prorated added cost! GREAT DEAL
No wonder you flanked math...
And where comes your "additional $45" from? The added $2000 over a modest life time of 10 years (120 months) comes to $16.6. So the saving in gas is twice the prorated added cost! GREAT DEAL
No wonder you flanked math...
If by your account the savings on $100 is $33, then if fuel prices hits the roof due to Middle East instability in the coming years (esp when the warmongering Obama is elected to second term and he decide to invade Syria or/and Iran like what he did to Libya), then how much would you think you will save if fuel prices hits $150?
Oh...I am sorry, you will have to fork out another $50 just to get another savings of $16.50...duh!
And oh yes, you are still paying your car loan and the interests on the $2,000...dummy.
No wonder you are clueless and ignorant...tsk..tsk..
What the believer believes the prover proves..............Robert Anton Wilson
#209
One_of_us
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7312
- Joined: 18-November 07
Posted 03 September 2012 - 01:14 PM
jetguyz, on 03 September 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:
For a family trying to make ends meet, and needing a car for work, paying for the car in installments (which most Americans do), the interests alone on the additional $2,000 would offset any savings that they would get as Obama has deceitfully claimed.
Which shows that you don't have the slightest clue of what happens in the US
The Federal Reserve has set the prime interest to nearly zero. This and the promotion from the car manufacturers have set the interests on auto loans very low. I recently bought a new car with a 3-year loan at 0.9% interest, imagine! nearly interest-free!
Quote
And you must be living in backward meteorite to believe that "majority" of Americans could afford luxurious version cars...
If they could afford those luxurious version cars, they would not have bothered if they could save $8,000 on fuel in the future....duh!
If they could afford those luxurious version cars, they would not have bothered if they could save $8,000 on fuel in the future....duh!
You confuse "more luxurious" with 'luxurious'. Their thinking is "if I'm going to spend so much money, I rather spend a little more and get some frills that make me happy".
Quote
$2,000 can feed a family for 2 months, and given that Obama has destroy the economy, jack up unemployment, and wantonly misuse taxpayers` money to pad his cronies and donors` pockets, how could a decent American family trying to make ends meet afford the $2,000 upfront, or pay higher interests on their installments??
For 2 months only? That will make them quite fat. And they would not pay the $2000 upfront. They pay it in installments at very low interest. On a 3-year loan, the $2000 are about $60 more. Anybody who can afford a car can pay $60 a month more.
Quote
What a moronic logic...
If the fuel price today is supposedly $100.
Let`s say the saving is $10.
But if the fuel price goes up to $150, the supposedly "savings" is of cos, $15.
Now for your lack of brain cells...why don`t you calculate how much does the car owner have to fork out to get the savings of $15?
An additional $45 just to get another $5 of savings!!!.....dummy!
If the fuel price today is supposedly $100.
Let`s say the saving is $10.
But if the fuel price goes up to $150, the supposedly "savings" is of cos, $15.
Now for your lack of brain cells...why don`t you calculate how much does the car owner have to fork out to get the savings of $15?
An additional $45 just to get another $5 of savings!!!.....dummy!
You have no clue! The savings is not $10 out of $100, but much more. Obama increased the average gas mileage requirement from 35.5 to 54.5 miles/gal -> more than 50%!! So the saving out of $100 is $33.
And where comes your "additional $45" from? The added $2000 over a modest life time of 10 years (120 months) comes to $16.6. So the saving in gas is twice the prorated added cost! GREAT DEAL
No wonder you flanked math...
#210
jetguyz
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9188
- Joined: 29-June 01
Posted 03 September 2012 - 10:57 AM
One_of_us, on 03 September 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:
It shows that you have never bought, owned a car! Let me try to explain it to you.
These days an average cost of a modest car is about $20,000. If instead you have to pay $22,000 (a 10% more) that does not make the card "unaffordable". Anyway, a majority go for the more luxurious version of that car (those who least can afford it but need a boost to their self-esteem) even if they have to pay $25,000 instead of $20,000.
These days an average cost of a modest car is about $20,000. If instead you have to pay $22,000 (a 10% more) that does not make the card "unaffordable". Anyway, a majority go for the more luxurious version of that car (those who least can afford it but need a boost to their self-esteem) even if they have to pay $25,000 instead of $20,000.
It shows that you have never bought, owned, or even know what a car is! Let me try to explain it to you.
For a family trying to make ends meet, and needing a car for work, paying for the car in installments (which most Americans do), the interests alone on the additional $2,000 would offset any savings that they would get as Obama has deceitfully claimed.
And you must be living in backward meteorite to believe that "majority" of Americans could afford luxurious version cars...
If they could afford those luxurious version cars, they would not have bothered if they could save $8,000 on fuel in the future....duh!
One_of_us, on 03 September 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:
$2,000 is nothing compared with the difference in prices between practically similar cars due to being more or less prestigious or with more or less fancy stuff.
$2,000 can feed a family for 2 months, and given that Obama has destroy the economy, jack up unemployment, and wantonly misuse taxpayers` money to pad his cronies and donors` pockets, how could a decent American family trying to make ends meet afford the $2,000 upfront, or pay higher interests on their installments??
One_of_us, on 03 September 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:
Poor jetz! 
Again you show that one ounce of brain cells is an unattainable goal inside your skull!
Again you show that one ounce of brain cells is an unattainable goal inside your skull!Poor "OOU"!
Again and again you have shown Trevvy members that not only you do not have an ounce of brain cells in that empty skull of yours, you have also constantly showcase your ignorance and stupidity by shooting your mouth off with crap...tsk...tsk.... One_of_us, on 03 September 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:
The higher the price of fuel, the higher the savings attained by Obama's new mileage standards. So if the price of gas increases 10 times, what is today a $1,000 in savings will become $10,000 in savings! 
What a moronic logic...
If the fuel price today is supposedly $100.
Let`s say the saving is $10.
But if the fuel price goes up to $150, the supposedly "savings" is of cos, $15.
Now for your lack of brain cells...why don`t you calculate how much does the car owner have to fork out to get the savings of $15?
An additional $45 just to get another $5 of savings!!!.....dummy!
Thus Obama deceitful claims that car owners can save up to $8,000 for the life span of the car is pure crap...!
Car owners have to fork out lots more...if fuel prices continue to rise......duh!
But as I have said, please go on making such stupid clueless comments...cos we at Trevvy could have a chuckle over your cuckoo.....leh!
WAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!
What the believer believes the prover proves..............Robert Anton Wilson
#211
One_of_us
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7312
- Joined: 18-November 07
Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:03 AM
jetguyz, on 03 September 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:
You obviously don't read what you yourself write (maybe you can't stand it or too dumb to read...either, ha ha).
The car owner will have to fork out additional $2,000 upfront for the purchase of the car, BUT the saving of $8,000 in fuel costs is spread over the life span of the car ...dummy!
If you take the life span of the car as 20 years, then that`s only a saving of less than $400 a year or $33+ a month.
The car owner will have to fork out additional $2,000 upfront for the purchase of the car, BUT the saving of $8,000 in fuel costs is spread over the life span of the car ...dummy!
If you take the life span of the car as 20 years, then that`s only a saving of less than $400 a year or $33+ a month.
It shows that you have never bought, owned a car! Let me try to explain it to you.
These days an average cost of a modest car is about $20,000. If instead you have to pay $22,000 (a 10% more) that does not make the card "unaffordable". Anyway, a majority go for the more luxurious version of that car (those who least can afford it but need a boost to their self-esteem) even if they have to pay $25,000 instead of $20,000.
$2,000 is nothing compared with the difference in prices between practically similar cars due to being more or less prestigious or with more or less fancy stuff.
Quote
Which means if you have an ounce of brain cells, you would have realize that if the car`s life span is 20 years, then the saving of $8,000 is negligible and that`s not taking into consideration the soaring fuel prices in the future...duh!
Can Obama or his corrupt auto-car makers guarantee that fuel prices would not soar?
Can Obama or his corrupt auto-car makers guarantee that fuel prices would not soar?
Poor jetz!
Again you show that one ounce of brain cells is an unattainable goal inside your skull!The higher the price of fuel, the higher the savings attained by Obama's new mileage standards. So if the price of gas increases 10 times, what is today a $1,000 in savings will become $10,000 in savings!
#212
jetguyz
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9188
- Joined: 29-June 01
Posted 02 September 2012 - 11:03 PM
One_of_us, on 02 September 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:
You obviously don't read what you yourself write (maybe you can't stand it either, ha ha).
Read in your sneaky quote "Obama’s Sneaky, Deadly, Costly Car Tax":
"Given this crony government’s abysmal track record in “investing” in new technologies (cough — Solyndra — cough), we can safely dismiss that fantasy math. What (SET ITAL) is (END ITAL) real for consumers is the $2,000 per vehicle added cost that the new fuel standards will impose now."
So the increased fuel efficiency will add $2,000 to the price of the vehicle while saving $8,000 in fuel costs. Is this a "costly car tax"? Maybe in the meteorite you come from, where everything is backwards.
Read in your sneaky quote "Obama’s Sneaky, Deadly, Costly Car Tax":
"Given this crony government’s abysmal track record in “investing” in new technologies (cough — Solyndra — cough), we can safely dismiss that fantasy math. What (SET ITAL) is (END ITAL) real for consumers is the $2,000 per vehicle added cost that the new fuel standards will impose now."
So the increased fuel efficiency will add $2,000 to the price of the vehicle while saving $8,000 in fuel costs. Is this a "costly car tax"? Maybe in the meteorite you come from, where everything is backwards.
You obviously don't read what you yourself write (maybe you can't stand it or too dumb to read...either, ha ha).
The car owner will have to fork out additional $2,000 upfront for the purchase of the car, BUT the saving of $8,000 in fuel costs is spread over the life span of the car ...dummy!
If you take the life span of the car as 20 years, then that`s only a saving of less than $400 a year or $33+ a month.
Which means if you have an ounce of brain cells, you would have realize that if the car`s life span is 20 years, then the saving of $8,000 is negligible and that`s not taking into consideration the soaring fuel prices in the future...duh!
Can Obama or his corrupt auto-car makers guarantee that fuel prices would not soar?
So for the increased fuel efficiency car owners will have to fork out an additional $2,000 on top of the sticker price of the vehicle NOW... while the saving of $8,000 in fuel costs is supposedly spread out for the life-span of the vehicle with no guarantee that fuel prices will remain stable.....
If this is NOT a "costly car tax" which Obama is sneakily trying to imposed on car owners for buying their cars, then why should car owner fork out additional $2,000 UPFRONT when they buy the car?
Maybe in the mental meteorite you come from, where everything is backwards [b] and corrupt....izzit?
But of cos, I would prefer not to stop you from making a fool of yourself or exposing yourself as an ignorant by making such clueless, stupid comments....lor.
Trevvy members need to have their daily dose of "entertainment" by "One_of_the house joker, won`t you agree?
WAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!
What the believer believes the prover proves..............Robert Anton Wilson
#213
One_of_us
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7312
- Joined: 18-November 07
Posted 02 September 2012 - 10:20 PM
jetguyz, on 02 September 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:
So Obama expect poor Americans to fork out higher cost for their cars NOW and intends to pocket the difference in his pockets before he is unceremoniously kicked out of the White House...eh!?
Surely Obama knows that whatever savings at the pump is negligible since majority of the Americans are now facing higher petrol prices and the corrupt Obama`s opposition for the Keystone Project and his incompetent handling of the unemployment have drastically wiped out any savings that this deceitful undocumented president has claimed.
He is desperately trying to squeeze as much money as he could before Nov. 2012.
In fact any person with an ounce of intelligence would quickly realize the statements in the article:
"Critics say the rules will make cars unaffordable by adding thousands of dollars to the sticker price.
-----
The administration says the latest changes will save families up to $7,400 on fuel over the life of a vehicle. "
In other words, "families can save up to $7,400 on fuel over the life of a vehicle" (in 20-30years?!!)....BUT they have to fork out "thousands of dollars (probably more than $7,400) to the sticker price."... FIRST when they buy the car!!!
What kind of bullshit savings is that!???
Only clueless dumb pro-Obama supporters would be taken in by his lies and deceits...lor!
Surely Obama knows that whatever savings at the pump is negligible since majority of the Americans are now facing higher petrol prices and the corrupt Obama`s opposition for the Keystone Project and his incompetent handling of the unemployment have drastically wiped out any savings that this deceitful undocumented president has claimed.
He is desperately trying to squeeze as much money as he could before Nov. 2012.
In fact any person with an ounce of intelligence would quickly realize the statements in the article:
"Critics say the rules will make cars unaffordable by adding thousands of dollars to the sticker price.
-----
The administration says the latest changes will save families up to $7,400 on fuel over the life of a vehicle. "
In other words, "families can save up to $7,400 on fuel over the life of a vehicle" (in 20-30years?!!)....BUT they have to fork out "thousands of dollars (probably more than $7,400) to the sticker price."... FIRST when they buy the car!!!
What kind of bullshit savings is that!???
Only clueless dumb pro-Obama supporters would be taken in by his lies and deceits...lor!
You obviously don't read what you yourself write (maybe you can't stand it either, ha ha).
Read in your sneaky quote "Obama’s Sneaky, Deadly, Costly Car Tax":
"Given this crony government’s abysmal track record in “investing” in new technologies (cough — Solyndra — cough), we can safely dismiss that fantasy math. What (SET ITAL) is (END ITAL) real for consumers is the $2,000 per vehicle added cost that the new fuel standards will impose now."
So the increased fuel efficiency will add $2,000 to the price of the vehicle while saving $8,000 in fuel costs. Is this a "costly car tax"? Maybe in the meteorite you come from, where everything is backwards.
#214
jetguyz
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9188
- Joined: 29-June 01
Posted 02 September 2012 - 09:57 PM
The REAL FACTS about Obama`s corrupt car tax...
Quote
Obama’s Sneaky, Deadly, Costly Car Tax
Michelle Malkin — August 31, 2012
While all eyes were on the Republican National Convention in Tampa and Hurricane Isaac on the Gulf Coast, the White House was quietly jacking up the price of automobiles and putting future drivers at risk.
Yes, the same cast of fable-tellers who falsely accused GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney of murdering a steelworker’s cancer-stricken wife is now directly imposing a draconian environmental regulation that will cost untold American lives.
On Tuesday, the administration announced that it had finalized “historic” new fuel efficiency standards. (Everything’s “historic” with these narcissists, isn’t it?) President Obama took a break from his historic fundraising drives to proclaim that “(by) the middle of the next decade, our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today. It’ll strengthen our nation’s energy security, it’s good for middle-class families, and it will help create an economy built to last.”
Jon Carson, director of Obama’s Office of Public Engagement, took to Twitter to hype how “auto companies support the higher fuel-efficiency standards” and how the rules crafted behind closed doors will “save consumers $8,000″ per vehicle. His source for these claims? The New York Times, America’s Fishwrap of Record, which has acknowledged it allows the Obama campaign to have “veto power” over reporters’ quotes from campaign officials.
And whom did the Times cite for the claim that the rules will “save consumers $8,000″? Why, the administration, of course! “The administration estimated that the new standards would save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs,” the Times dutifully regurgitated, “resulting in an average savings of more than $8,000 a vehicle by 2025.”
The Obama administration touts the support of the government-bailed-out auto industry for these reckless, expensive regs. What they want you to forget is that the “negotiations” (read: bullying) with White House environmental radicals date back to former Obama green czar Carol Browner’s tenure — when she infamously told auto industry execs “to put nothing in writing, ever” regarding their secret CAFE talks.
Obama’s number-massagers cite phony-baloney cost savings that rely on developing future fuel-saving technology.
Given this crony government’s abysmal track record in “investing” in new technologies (cough — Solyndra — cough), we can safely dismiss that fantasy math. What (SET ITAL) is (END ITAL) real for consumers is the $2,000 per vehicle added cost that the new fuel standards will impose now. That figure comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
War on Middle-Class Consumers, anyone?
Beyond the White House-media lapdog echo chamber, the economic and public safety objections to these sweeping rules are long grounded and well founded.
For years, free-market analysts and government statisticians have warned of the deadly effect of increasing corporate auto fuel economy standards (CAFE). Sam Kazman at the Competitive Enterprise Institute explained a decade ago: “(T)he evidence on this issue comes from no less a body than the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a report last August finding that CAFE contributes to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year. Given that this program has been in effect for more than two decades, its cumulative toll is staggering.”
H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis adds that NHTSA data indicate that “322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles.” USA Today further calculated that the “size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths.”
[size]These lethal regulations should be wrapped in yellow police “CAUTION” tape. The tradeoffs are stark and simple: CAFE fuel standards clamp down on the production of larger, more crashworthy cars. Analysts from Harvard to the Brookings Institution to the federal government itself have arrived at the same conclusion: CAFE kills. Welcome to the bloody intersection between the Obama jobs death toll and the Obama green death toll.[/size]
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
Michelle Malkin — August 31, 2012
While all eyes were on the Republican National Convention in Tampa and Hurricane Isaac on the Gulf Coast, the White House was quietly jacking up the price of automobiles and putting future drivers at risk.
Yes, the same cast of fable-tellers who falsely accused GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney of murdering a steelworker’s cancer-stricken wife is now directly imposing a draconian environmental regulation that will cost untold American lives.
On Tuesday, the administration announced that it had finalized “historic” new fuel efficiency standards. (Everything’s “historic” with these narcissists, isn’t it?) President Obama took a break from his historic fundraising drives to proclaim that “(by) the middle of the next decade, our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today. It’ll strengthen our nation’s energy security, it’s good for middle-class families, and it will help create an economy built to last.”
Jon Carson, director of Obama’s Office of Public Engagement, took to Twitter to hype how “auto companies support the higher fuel-efficiency standards” and how the rules crafted behind closed doors will “save consumers $8,000″ per vehicle. His source for these claims? The New York Times, America’s Fishwrap of Record, which has acknowledged it allows the Obama campaign to have “veto power” over reporters’ quotes from campaign officials.
And whom did the Times cite for the claim that the rules will “save consumers $8,000″? Why, the administration, of course! “The administration estimated that the new standards would save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs,” the Times dutifully regurgitated, “resulting in an average savings of more than $8,000 a vehicle by 2025.”
The Obama administration touts the support of the government-bailed-out auto industry for these reckless, expensive regs. What they want you to forget is that the “negotiations” (read: bullying) with White House environmental radicals date back to former Obama green czar Carol Browner’s tenure — when she infamously told auto industry execs “to put nothing in writing, ever” regarding their secret CAFE talks.
Obama’s number-massagers cite phony-baloney cost savings that rely on developing future fuel-saving technology.
Given this crony government’s abysmal track record in “investing” in new technologies (cough — Solyndra — cough), we can safely dismiss that fantasy math. What (SET ITAL) is (END ITAL) real for consumers is the $2,000 per vehicle added cost that the new fuel standards will impose now. That figure comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
War on Middle-Class Consumers, anyone?
Beyond the White House-media lapdog echo chamber, the economic and public safety objections to these sweeping rules are long grounded and well founded.
For years, free-market analysts and government statisticians have warned of the deadly effect of increasing corporate auto fuel economy standards (CAFE). Sam Kazman at the Competitive Enterprise Institute explained a decade ago: “(T)he evidence on this issue comes from no less a body than the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a report last August finding that CAFE contributes to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year. Given that this program has been in effect for more than two decades, its cumulative toll is staggering.”
H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis adds that NHTSA data indicate that “322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles.” USA Today further calculated that the “size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths.”
[size]These lethal regulations should be wrapped in yellow police “CAUTION” tape. The tradeoffs are stark and simple: CAFE fuel standards clamp down on the production of larger, more crashworthy cars. Analysts from Harvard to the Brookings Institution to the federal government itself have arrived at the same conclusion: CAFE kills. Welcome to the bloody intersection between the Obama jobs death toll and the Obama green death toll.[/size]
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
What the believer believes the prover proves..............Robert Anton Wilson
#215
jetguyz
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9188
- Joined: 29-June 01
Posted 02 September 2012 - 02:49 PM
That`s the reason why Obama is trying to thwart the Military`s voting rights...cos the Military will definitely not vote for this egomaniac, deceitful corrupt undocumented president....
Obama Campaign Sues to Restrict Military Voting
Not forgetting the lies and deceits that the "state media" of the corrupt regime kissing the butt of their "messiah".
Obama Campaign Sues to Restrict Military Voting
Not forgetting the lies and deceits that the "state media" of the corrupt regime kissing the butt of their "messiah".
Quote
'No Easy Day,' Bin Laden Raid Book: Osama Was Unarmed
Posted: 08/28/2012 8:06 pm Updated: 08/29/2012 8:43 am
NEW YORK -- The much-anticipated firsthand account of the Navy SEALs raid that killed Osama bin Laden reveals the terrorist leader was unarmed and was already dead with a bullet to the brain when the SEALs entered his bedroom in the compound at Abbottabad, Pakistan.
As the SEALS ascended a narrow staircase, the team's point man saw a man poke his head from a doorway, wrote a SEAL using the pseudonym Mark Owen (whose real identity has since been revealed by Fox News) in “No Easy Day,” a copy of which was obtained at a bookstore by The Huffington Post.
"We were less than five steps from getting to the top when I heard suppressed shots. BOP. BOP," writes Owen. "I couldn't tell from my position if the rounds hit the target or not. The man disappeared into the dark room."
Team members took their time entering the room, where they saw the women wailing over Bin Laden, who wore a white sleeveless T-shirt, loose tan pants and a tan tunic, according to the book.
Despite numerous reports that bin Laden had a weapon and resisted when Navy SEALs entered the room, he was unarmed, writes Owen. He had been fatally wounded before they had entered the room.
"Blood and brains spilled out of the side of his skull” and he was still twitching and convulsing, Owen writes. While bin Laden was in his death throes, Owen writes that he and another SEAL "trained our lasers on his chest and fired several rounds. The bullets tore into him, slamming his body into the floor until he was motionless."
Then the SEALS repeatedly examined his face to make sure he was truly bin Laden. They interrogated a young girl and one of the women who had been wailing over Bin Laden’s body, who verified that it was the terror leader.
The shots fired inside the room appear to contradict the mission they were given. During a meeting with top commanders, a lawyer from either the Pentagon or the White House "made it clear that this wasn't an assassination," writes Owen, who recounted the instructions: "I am not going to tell you how to do your job. What we're saying is if he does not pose a threat, you will detain him."
Searching bin Laden’s neatly organized room, Owen found two guns -– an AK-47 and a Makarov pistol -– with empty chambers. “He hadn’t even prepared a defense. He had no intention of fighting. He asked his followers for decades to wear suicide vests or fly planes into buildings, but didn’t even pick up his weapon. In all of my deployments, we routinely saw this phenomenon. The higher up the food chain the targeted individual was, the bigger a pussy he was.”
The book calls out inaccurate accounts of the assault. "The raid was being reported like a bad action movie," Owen writes. "At first, it was funny because it was so wrong."
Contrary to earlier accounts, Owen says SEALs weren't fired upon while they were outside the gate of the compound. There was no 40-minute firefight. And it wasn't true that bin Laden had "time to look into our eyes."
Owen, a 36-year-old SEAL who also took part in a previous 2007 attempt to get Bin Laden and was involved in the heroic 2009 operation to free Captain Richard Phillips from pirates off the coast of Somalia, also had harsh words for President Barack Obama.
Though he praises the president for green-lighting the risky assault, (actually Obama did not, he called off Bin Laden raid three times, and Leon Panetta and Hillary initiated the raid) ....
He writes: “We all knew the deal. We were tools in the toolbox, and when things go well they promote it. They inflate their roles. But we should have done it. It was the right call to make. Regardless of the politics that would come along with it, the end result was what we all wanted.”
Later, when they meet Obama at the White House, Owen says he was reluctant to sign the American flag presented to the president because it would disclose his identity. So, at least one SEAL scribbled a random name on the flag. While going through the metal detector to meet the president, Owen’s pocketknife set off the alarm.
After listening to Obama’s speech and enduring Biden’s “lame jokes that no one got (He seemed like a nice guy, but he reminded me of someone’s drunken uncle at Christmas dinner)" the president invited the team to return to his residence later for a beer.
But Owen writes a few weeks later: “We never got the call to have a beer at the White House.” Joking with a fellow SEAL, “Hey, did you ever hear anything about that beer?” Walt cracks: “ You believed that shit. I bet you voted for change too, sucker.”
Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said in an email: "As President Obama said on the night that justice was brought to Osama bin Laden, 'We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country.'"
He writes: “We all knew the deal. We were tools in the toolbox, and when things go well they promote it. They inflate their roles. But we should have done it. It was the right call to make. Regardless of the politics that would come along with it, the end result was what we all wanted.”
Later, when they meet Obama at the White House, Owen says he was reluctant to sign the American flag presented to the president because it would disclose his identity. So, at least one SEAL scribbled a random name on the flag. While going through the metal detector to meet the president, Owen’s pocketknife set off the alarm.
After listening to Obama’s speech and enduring Biden’s “lame jokes that no one got (He seemed like a nice guy, but he reminded me of someone’s drunken uncle at Christmas dinner)" the president invited the team to return to his residence later for a beer.
But Owen writes a few weeks later: “We never got the call to have a beer at the White House.” Joking with a fellow SEAL, “Hey, did you ever hear anything about that beer?” Walt cracks: “ You believed that shit. I bet you voted for change too, sucker.”
Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said in an email: "As President Obama said on the night that justice was brought to Osama bin Laden, 'We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country.'"
Posted: 08/28/2012 8:06 pm Updated: 08/29/2012 8:43 am
NEW YORK -- The much-anticipated firsthand account of the Navy SEALs raid that killed Osama bin Laden reveals the terrorist leader was unarmed and was already dead with a bullet to the brain when the SEALs entered his bedroom in the compound at Abbottabad, Pakistan.
As the SEALS ascended a narrow staircase, the team's point man saw a man poke his head from a doorway, wrote a SEAL using the pseudonym Mark Owen (whose real identity has since been revealed by Fox News) in “No Easy Day,” a copy of which was obtained at a bookstore by The Huffington Post.
"We were less than five steps from getting to the top when I heard suppressed shots. BOP. BOP," writes Owen. "I couldn't tell from my position if the rounds hit the target or not. The man disappeared into the dark room."
Team members took their time entering the room, where they saw the women wailing over Bin Laden, who wore a white sleeveless T-shirt, loose tan pants and a tan tunic, according to the book.
Despite numerous reports that bin Laden had a weapon and resisted when Navy SEALs entered the room, he was unarmed, writes Owen. He had been fatally wounded before they had entered the room.
"Blood and brains spilled out of the side of his skull” and he was still twitching and convulsing, Owen writes. While bin Laden was in his death throes, Owen writes that he and another SEAL "trained our lasers on his chest and fired several rounds. The bullets tore into him, slamming his body into the floor until he was motionless."
Then the SEALS repeatedly examined his face to make sure he was truly bin Laden. They interrogated a young girl and one of the women who had been wailing over Bin Laden’s body, who verified that it was the terror leader.
The shots fired inside the room appear to contradict the mission they were given. During a meeting with top commanders, a lawyer from either the Pentagon or the White House "made it clear that this wasn't an assassination," writes Owen, who recounted the instructions: "I am not going to tell you how to do your job. What we're saying is if he does not pose a threat, you will detain him."
Searching bin Laden’s neatly organized room, Owen found two guns -– an AK-47 and a Makarov pistol -– with empty chambers. “He hadn’t even prepared a defense. He had no intention of fighting. He asked his followers for decades to wear suicide vests or fly planes into buildings, but didn’t even pick up his weapon. In all of my deployments, we routinely saw this phenomenon. The higher up the food chain the targeted individual was, the bigger a pussy he was.”
The book calls out inaccurate accounts of the assault. "The raid was being reported like a bad action movie," Owen writes. "At first, it was funny because it was so wrong."
Contrary to earlier accounts, Owen says SEALs weren't fired upon while they were outside the gate of the compound. There was no 40-minute firefight. And it wasn't true that bin Laden had "time to look into our eyes."
Owen, a 36-year-old SEAL who also took part in a previous 2007 attempt to get Bin Laden and was involved in the heroic 2009 operation to free Captain Richard Phillips from pirates off the coast of Somalia, also had harsh words for President Barack Obama.
Though he praises the president for green-lighting the risky assault, (actually Obama did not, he called off Bin Laden raid three times, and Leon Panetta and Hillary initiated the raid) ....
He writes: “We all knew the deal. We were tools in the toolbox, and when things go well they promote it. They inflate their roles. But we should have done it. It was the right call to make. Regardless of the politics that would come along with it, the end result was what we all wanted.”
Later, when they meet Obama at the White House, Owen says he was reluctant to sign the American flag presented to the president because it would disclose his identity. So, at least one SEAL scribbled a random name on the flag. While going through the metal detector to meet the president, Owen’s pocketknife set off the alarm.
After listening to Obama’s speech and enduring Biden’s “lame jokes that no one got (He seemed like a nice guy, but he reminded me of someone’s drunken uncle at Christmas dinner)" the president invited the team to return to his residence later for a beer.
But Owen writes a few weeks later: “We never got the call to have a beer at the White House.” Joking with a fellow SEAL, “Hey, did you ever hear anything about that beer?” Walt cracks: “ You believed that shit. I bet you voted for change too, sucker.”
Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said in an email: "As President Obama said on the night that justice was brought to Osama bin Laden, 'We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country.'"
He writes: “We all knew the deal. We were tools in the toolbox, and when things go well they promote it. They inflate their roles. But we should have done it. It was the right call to make. Regardless of the politics that would come along with it, the end result was what we all wanted.”
Later, when they meet Obama at the White House, Owen says he was reluctant to sign the American flag presented to the president because it would disclose his identity. So, at least one SEAL scribbled a random name on the flag. While going through the metal detector to meet the president, Owen’s pocketknife set off the alarm.
After listening to Obama’s speech and enduring Biden’s “lame jokes that no one got (He seemed like a nice guy, but he reminded me of someone’s drunken uncle at Christmas dinner)" the president invited the team to return to his residence later for a beer.
But Owen writes a few weeks later: “We never got the call to have a beer at the White House.” Joking with a fellow SEAL, “Hey, did you ever hear anything about that beer?” Walt cracks: “ You believed that shit. I bet you voted for change too, sucker.”
Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said in an email: "As President Obama said on the night that justice was brought to Osama bin Laden, 'We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country.'"
What the believer believes the prover proves..............Robert Anton Wilson
#216
jetguyz
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9188
- Joined: 29-June 01
Posted 02 September 2012 - 02:08 PM
Hooray!!!
FOUR BOOKS ON CORRUPT DECEITFUL OBAMA and his REGIME will hit book stores this coming weeks!!
Not one, not two,...... BUT FOUR !!!
"Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington" by Ron Suskind (won a Pulitzer Prize for his work at The Wall Street Journal)
"Education of a President"by Ron Suskind (won a Pulitzer Prize for his work at The Wall Street Journal)
"No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission That Killed Osama bin Laden" by a Navy SEAL writing under the pseudonym Mark Owen.
“The Price of Politics” by Bob Woodward (one of America’s preeminent investigative reporters and non-fiction authors that helped to bring down Nixon)
And not forgetting the anti-Obama movie..."2016: Obama's America," directed by Gerald R. Molen and Dinesh D'Souza from Rocky Moutain Pictures....which is raking in millions at the box-office!!! (on Rotten Tomato, there is no consensus yet, but it listed "80% of the audience liked it!")
Note: As of September 2, 2012, the film had grossed more than $14.7 million making it the 13th highest-grossing documentary and the 5th highest-grossing political documentary[15] since 1982 in the U.S.
Now THAT would be 4 +1 BIG HUGE ROADBLOCKS for the corrupt deceitful OBAMA to cross
....WO ....HOO....HOO!!!
FOUR BOOKS ON CORRUPT DECEITFUL OBAMA and his REGIME will hit book stores this coming weeks!!
Not one, not two,...... BUT FOUR !!!
"Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington" by Ron Suskind (won a Pulitzer Prize for his work at The Wall Street Journal)
"Education of a President"by Ron Suskind (won a Pulitzer Prize for his work at The Wall Street Journal)
"No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission That Killed Osama bin Laden" by a Navy SEAL writing under the pseudonym Mark Owen.
“The Price of Politics” by Bob Woodward (one of America’s preeminent investigative reporters and non-fiction authors that helped to bring down Nixon)
And not forgetting the anti-Obama movie..."2016: Obama's America," directed by Gerald R. Molen and Dinesh D'Souza from Rocky Moutain Pictures....which is raking in millions at the box-office!!! (on Rotten Tomato, there is no consensus yet, but it listed "80% of the audience liked it!")
Note: As of September 2, 2012, the film had grossed more than $14.7 million making it the 13th highest-grossing documentary and the 5th highest-grossing political documentary[15] since 1982 in the U.S.
Now THAT would be 4 +1 BIG HUGE ROADBLOCKS for the corrupt deceitful OBAMA to cross
....WO ....HOO....HOO!!!
What the believer believes the prover proves..............Robert Anton Wilson
#217
jetguyz
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9188
- Joined: 29-June 01
Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:43 PM
One_of_us, on 30 August 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:
Obama keeps making positive changes that were shuned under the previous republican administration , while the GOP keeps criticizing and blocking these changes whenever they can.
If the higher cost of cars wipes out the savings at the pump, nothing is taken away from this very positive measure. The purpose of it is to reduce consumption of oil and pollution, dummy Romney! But he surely knows this. He is just criticizing anything good Obama does
If the higher cost of cars wipes out the savings at the pump, nothing is taken away from this very positive measure. The purpose of it is to reduce consumption of oil and pollution, dummy Romney! But he surely knows this. He is just criticizing anything good Obama does
So Obama expect poor Americans to fork out higher cost for their cars NOW and intends to pocket the difference in his pockets before he is unceremoniously kicked out of the White House...eh!?
Surely Obama knows that whatever savings at the pump is negligible since majority of the Americans are now facing higher petrol prices and the corrupt Obama`s opposition for the Keystone Project and his incompetent handling of the unemployment have drastically wiped out any savings that this deceitful undocumented president has claimed.
He is desperately trying to squeeze as much money as he could before Nov. 2012.
In fact any person with an ounce of intelligence would quickly realize the statements in the article:
"Critics say the rules will make cars unaffordable by adding thousands of dollars to the sticker price.
-----
The administration says the latest changes will save families up to $7,400 on fuel over the life of a vehicle. "
In other words, "families can save up to $7,400 on fuel over the life of a vehicle" (in 20-30years?!!)....BUT they have to fork out "thousands of dollars (probably more than $7,400) to the sticker price."... FIRST when they buy the car!!!
What kind of bullshit savings is that!???
Only clueless dumb pro-Obama supporters would be taken in by his lies and deceits...lor!
What the believer believes the prover proves..............Robert Anton Wilson
#218
jetguyz
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9188
- Joined: 29-June 01
Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:34 PM
One_of_us, on 30 August 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:
There are a lot of movies about fiction out there, and this is one of them. After all, the poor anti-Obama crowd needs to purge their bowels after the big indigestion from swallowing raw so much lies and deceptions released by the republican convention. What works for this crowd are the juicy anti-Obama fantasies offered by this movie. Too bad the movie doesn't last forever, but after one hour or so they have to come out back into reality.
Gee... and I remember you said that about Micheal Moore`s book on Bush...
After all, the poor pro-Obama crowd needs to purge their bowels after the big indigestion from swallowing raw so much lies and deceptions released by the current Democrat Party`s convention. What works for this crowd are the lies and deceptions perpetuated by their own fantasies of their corrupt messiah depicted by this movie. Too bad their illusions and fantasies doesn't last forever, but after Nov 2012 Election, they have to come out back into reality.
What the believer believes the prover proves..............Robert Anton Wilson
#219
One_of_us
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7312
- Joined: 18-November 07
Posted 30 August 2012 - 02:50 AM
Obama keeps making positive changes that were shuned under the previous republican administration , while the GOP keeps criticizing and blocking these changes whenever they can.
If the higher cost of cars wipes out the savings at the pump, nothing is taken away from this very positive measure. The purpose of it is to reduce consumption of oil and pollution, dummy Romney! But he surely knows this. He is just criticizing anything good Obama does
Quote
New mileage standards would double fuel efficiency
By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press – 19 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration has finalized regulations that will force automakers to nearly double the average gas mileage of all new cars and trucks they sell by 2025.
The rules mean that all new vehicles would have to get an average of 54.5 miles per gallon in 13 years, up from 28.6 mpg at the end of last year. The requirements will be phased in gradually between now and then, and automakers could be fined if they don't comply.
The regulations, announced Tuesday, will change the cars and trucks sold in U.S. showrooms, with the goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption. Automakers will need to improve gasoline-powered engines, and sell more alternative fuel vehicles. Critics say the rules will make cars unaffordable by adding thousands of dollars to the sticker price.
The "Corporate Average Fuel Economy," or CAFE standards, will vary by automaker depending on the mix of models they sell. The requirements will be lower for companies such as General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, which offer more pickup trucks. The standards can be lowered by the government if people suddenly start buying less-efficient vehicles in the future, although few expect that to happen.
The administration says the latest changes will save families up to $7,400 on fuel over the life of a vehicle. The standards also are the biggest step the U.S. government has ever taken toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said. Tailpipe emissions from cars and light trucks will be halved by 2025.
President Barack Obama said the new fuel standards "represent the single most important step" his administration has taken to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
But Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has opposed the standards, and his campaign on Tuesday said any savings at the pump would be wiped out by the rising cost of cars and trucks.
Already, automakers have committed to an average of 35.5 mpg by model year 2016 under a deal reached with the Obama administration three years ago.
By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press – 19 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration has finalized regulations that will force automakers to nearly double the average gas mileage of all new cars and trucks they sell by 2025.
The rules mean that all new vehicles would have to get an average of 54.5 miles per gallon in 13 years, up from 28.6 mpg at the end of last year. The requirements will be phased in gradually between now and then, and automakers could be fined if they don't comply.
The regulations, announced Tuesday, will change the cars and trucks sold in U.S. showrooms, with the goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption. Automakers will need to improve gasoline-powered engines, and sell more alternative fuel vehicles. Critics say the rules will make cars unaffordable by adding thousands of dollars to the sticker price.
The "Corporate Average Fuel Economy," or CAFE standards, will vary by automaker depending on the mix of models they sell. The requirements will be lower for companies such as General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, which offer more pickup trucks. The standards can be lowered by the government if people suddenly start buying less-efficient vehicles in the future, although few expect that to happen.
The administration says the latest changes will save families up to $7,400 on fuel over the life of a vehicle. The standards also are the biggest step the U.S. government has ever taken toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said. Tailpipe emissions from cars and light trucks will be halved by 2025.
President Barack Obama said the new fuel standards "represent the single most important step" his administration has taken to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
But Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has opposed the standards, and his campaign on Tuesday said any savings at the pump would be wiped out by the rising cost of cars and trucks.
Already, automakers have committed to an average of 35.5 mpg by model year 2016 under a deal reached with the Obama administration three years ago.
If the higher cost of cars wipes out the savings at the pump, nothing is taken away from this very positive measure. The purpose of it is to reduce consumption of oil and pollution, dummy Romney! But he surely knows this. He is just criticizing anything good Obama does
#220
One_of_us
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7312
- Joined: 18-November 07
Posted 30 August 2012 - 01:20 AM
jetguyz, on 28 August 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:
YEAH!
And the hypocrisy, lies and deceptions of the corrupt phony "president" Obama is on the big screen and if his clueless ignorant supporters are still loyal to him...then clearly it just prove that they are conclusively too dumb and stupid to think for themselves...lor!
And the hypocrisy, lies and deceptions of the corrupt phony "president" Obama is on the big screen and if his clueless ignorant supporters are still loyal to him...then clearly it just prove that they are conclusively too dumb and stupid to think for themselves...lor!
There are a lot of movies about fiction out there, and this is one of them. After all, the poor anti-Obama crowd needs to purge their bowels after the big indigestion from swallowing raw so much lies and deceptions released by the republican convention. What works for this crowd are the juicy anti-Obama fantasies offered by this movie. Too bad the movie doesn't last forever, but after one hour or so they have to come out back into reality.