LezloveVideo Group
Home
Login Member List
LezloveVideo Group   » General Discussions   » Off-Topic   » Backward  
Welcome Guest ( Login )

Backward
Author
Message
Posted 5/4/2013 9:28 AM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: Today @ 5:06 AM
Posts: 4,940

"I suspect this will be old news by 2016."

It will be old news long before then. Those 90% of the people want this or that gun law is a complete fabrication.This whole gun control debate has run its course and will have run out of steam, since what good are a bunch of new gun laws if they are not enforced and criminals who commit crimes with guns are not prosecuted. Obama's home town of Chicago is a good example of promising everything while delivering nothing.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/02/5_must-know_facts_about_chicagos_gun_violence.html

And Sylvester, dream on about Hillary and her machine...we're counting on it. There is just too much taint and slime attached to this dried up old woman for her to be a serious candidate for FFPOTUS.

 

IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 5/4/2013 11:31 PM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: 10/19/2017
Posts: 8,361

  I don't know, alot of female voters might have had enough of male only clubs and come to the conclusion if not Hilary and if not now when? If they ask me to take a prominent roll in her campaign i could see buttons and bumper stickers along the lines of " The time is right "

Her stint as secretary of state was no better no worst then any other in history. Your carrying the water for the boss that's all. Rubio vs. Clinton. Bring it on.....

IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 5/5/2013 12:06 AM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: 10/19/2017
Posts: 8,361

  More GOOD news.

 

Steve King Won't Run for Senate, Leaving Iowa Republicans Empty-Handed

 " Rep. Steve King announced he's not running for the Senate, a move that leaves the Republican field wide-open. (Richard A. Bloom)

Iowa Rep. Steve King won't be running for Senate, he announced in a tweet Friday night. The conservative firebrand had frozen the GOP field, as his entry into the race would have made him the favorite for the nomination.

King, like Rep. Tom Latham before him, cited work in the House as reason not to run. He was initially seen as likely to join the race -- especially after Latham announced he wasn't running -- but low fundraising numbers and long indecision made political observers second-guess his ambition.

This week, Republican Gov. Terry Branstad said Iowa didn't need "another congressman" in the upper chamber, a shot at Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley that also implicated King. Though clearly frustrated with the Branstad quote, King added fuel to the fire soon after by saying he was "embarrassed" at not reaching a decision.

Meanwhile, the GOP's crop of top-tier candidates -- backups should King not run -- emerged, expressed their interest, then bowed out before King reached a decision. Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds and Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey, both of whom grabbed the spotlight after Latham's decision, announced recently they wouldn't join the race; Northey urged King to run in his announcement. "

IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 5/5/2013 3:15 PM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: Today @ 9:42 AM
Posts: 12,973
The people who passed ObamaCare back in 2009 are no longer crowing about it. That's probably because the more the public is learning about it the LESS anybody's liking it! And just as its passage hurt Democrats in the 2010 off-year elections (e.g. the Republicans took over the House of Representatives and continue to hold it today), it could very likely DESTROY Democrat hopes in 2014!

National Editorial: Bad news just keeps coming for Obamacare

Obamacare goes fully into effect on Jan. 1, 2014, and the people who imposed it on a reluctant country -- President Obama and congressional Democrats -- are no longer celebrating their handiwork. The first prominent Democrat to wring his hands in public was Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., who two weeks ago voiced his fear that implementation of the law was becoming a "train wreck." This emboldened other Democrats to express their own forebodings after fingering their worry beads in private for the last several months. Things got so bad that even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- normally Obama's most consistent Senate advocate -- embraced Baucus' train wreck metaphor.

It seems that nothing concentrates the mind like a hanging or an election in November 2014. A week after his public blubbering, Baucus threw in the towel on his re-election effort and, as National Journal's Josh Kraushaar reported Friday, plenty of his Democratic colleagues may be having similar thoughts: "In the face of intraparty criticism that implementation of his health care law will be a 'train wreck,' new polls showing support for the law near all-time lows, and even the Democratic nominee in next week's House special election calling the law 'extremely problematic' -- there's plenty of evidence piling up to believe health care will be a political millstone for Democrats in 2014."

Making the millstone even heavier was a study published this week by the New England Journal of Medicine. The study compared two large samples of low-income people. Roughly half of them got expanded health benefits through Medicaid while the other half did not. Megan McArdle summarized the results in the Daily Beast: "People who had more generous coverage consumed more health care. But they weren't healthier. In fact, the people who had less generous coverage reported being less worried about their health and taking less sick time, presumably because they weren't going to the doctor to find things to worry about."

That result was devastating news for Obamacare advocates, because, as The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein reported, "during the health care debate, liberals argued that government had a moral duty to enact legislation that expanded health insurance among lower-income individuals. This was rooted in the assumption that obtaining health insurance translates into improved health."

So in the comparatively short space of a few weeks, the president's signature domestic policy achievement has gone from being a cornerstone of Democratic strategy to a severe political liability. Remember when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Obamacare had to be passed so the rest of us could see what's in it? These days, a lot of Democrats are hoping Americans keep their eyes shut.


What a difference four years makes!
IP Logged
This member is online.
Posted 5/7/2013 12:23 AM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: 10/19/2017
Posts: 8,361

  Myth....

The Ronald Reagan Myth

"Ronald Reagan must be the nicest president who ever destroyed a union, tried to cut school lunch milk rations from six to four ounces, and compelled families in need of public help to first dispose of household goods in excess of $1,000...1f there is an authoritarian regime in the American future, Ronald Reagan is tailored to the image of a friendly fascist." - Robert Lekachman

HOW THE REAGAN REVOLUTION DAMAGED THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

THINGS PEOPLE FORGET ABOUT REAGAN

Steve Kornacki, Salon - By the summer of 1992, just 24 percent of Americans said their country was better off because of the Reagan years, while 40 percent said it was worse off -- and that more Americans (48 percent) viewed Reagan unfavorable than favorably (46 percent). .

 
 
IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 5/7/2013 10:30 AM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: 10/19/2017
Posts: 8,361

  I know i know it can be disappointing to see the " great communicator " meeting with the throat cutters in the WH sharing tea and crumpets ....shocking for those who only get the sanitized version of Dutch Reagan the " freedom fighter " meeting with the very crowd Marines are fighting in Afghanistan and it's dusty suburbs....and Rumsfeld shaking hands no less with the Hussein Capo di tuta capo in Bagdhad then touting his " shock and awe " press conf in another Republican admin.

What can you say, gops like to spread the wealth and the arms all over the globe in one admin then hire the same guys ( Rumsfeld , Gates etc... ) to act lke the fireman going into the burning building 2 admins down the road....comical if it wasn't so damm tragic. 

Universal backgorund checks ....as Treasure of the Sierra Madre bandito told Bogart on a dust covered hillside ...." Universal backgound checks , we don't need no stinking backgound checks " . Came back to bite them too...

IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 5/7/2013 11:24 AM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: Today @ 9:42 AM
Posts: 12,973
Lezfriend wrote: "Not surprisingly, you are attempting to divert attention away from the travesty known as the Obama presidency with its abysmal economy and foreign policy failures by trying to malign the Reagan presidency"

I believe that Lezfriend has NAILED IT, Sylvester!

Things are going SO BADLY now for the Obama administration that even the pro-Obama MEDIA are beginning to abandon him! Check out THIS column on how they've already turned against him:

Turning on Obama

Could it be that the liberal press has finally figured him out?


If ponies rode men and grass ate cows,
And cats were chased into holes by the mouse …
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.


Once in a long while, an event evokes one of my favorite historical images: the British Army band, at Lord Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown which sealed the Americans’ revolutionary victory, playing “The World Turned Upside Down.”

In this case, the event is the dramatic change over the past two weeks in the “mainstream” media’s coverage of President Obama.

From reporters to opinion writers, from newspapers to television, after a mere four and a half years of economic fecklessness, foreign policy failure, unseemly narcissism, and a Nobel Prize for deeds to be named later, prominent liberal-leaning pundits and organizations may have finally realized that reality, if not journalistic ethics, demands a more clear-eyed look at the president they have been so deeply invested in.

Or maybe they’ve just noticed that their fawning and sycophancy has meant declining circulation and viewership.

But whatever the reason, the dominant establishment mass media’s turn is as remarkable as it is welcome.

The first major crack in the dike may have come from New York Times opinion columnist Maureen Dowd in an April 20 piece entitled “No Bully in the Pulpit” in which she bemoans President Obama’s inability to pass restrictions on gun rights. It is not the liberal writer’s anger over the outcome that is surprising; it is that instead of the usual “it’s all the Republicans’ fault” meme, she lays the blame directly at the feet of the previously Teflon-coated president:

It’s unbelievable that with 90 percent of Americans on his side, he could get only 54 votes in the Senate. It was a glaring example of his weakness in using leverage to get what he wants. No one on Capitol Hill is scared of him. Even House Republicans who had no intention of voting for the gun bill marveled privately that the president could not muster 60 votes in a Senate that his party controls.”

Dowd’s criticism of Obama was, by N.Y. Times standards, withering:
President Obama thinks he can use emotion to bring pressure on Congress. But that’s not how adults with power respond to things.”
When you go into a fight saying you’re probably going to lose, you’re probably going to lose.”
And most to the point, “Unfortunately, [Obama] still has not learned how to govern.”

Apparently, Maureen Dowd gave other reporters and columnists a “permission structure” to tell their cloistered liberal readers what much of the rest of the country has long understood. Over the ensuing two weeks, they’ve used that permission, raining down a deluge of criticism of Obama.

On April 30, Dana Milbank — a liberal columnist for the Washington Post who recently asked in writing “Is there nobody who can tell Ted Cruz to shut up?” (Dana, I suggest you walk over there and try it yourself) — called Barack Obama “A presidential bystander.”

This was in response to Obama’s press conference that morning in which “The president was out of sorts from the start.…He didn’t attempt to set the tone for the event.…And he often found himself remarking on the difficulty of his job.”

Milbank closed his note with this advice for Obama: “[L]ively leadership is the way to resuscitate a moribund presidency.”

Also in response to Obama’s disastrous press conference performance, another liberal columnist, Frida Ghitis, says that the president is “failing on moral leadership.”

Ms. Ghitis argues that “The president is smart and eloquent. But leadership, especially for someone who has achieved that level of power, requires three elements: It must communicate a clear vision and a commitment to its realization; it must mobilize and inspire others into action; and it must produce results.” On a wide range of issues, she seems to believe Obama is accomplishing none of those things — and, regardless of political viewpoint, who could disagree?

Her conclusion echoes those of Milbank and Dowd: “Of course, the problems he has to deal with are difficult and often offer choices between bad and worse. But the time is right for a new display of conviction, of effectiveness, of leadership.”

It’s not just opinion writers but also reporters who suddenly seem willing to criticize President Obama’s abilities or leadership or favored programs and policies.

The highlight (or for Obama, the lowlight) of the April 30 press conference was a question by ABC News’ Jonathan Karl: After laying out a list of Obama’s political failures including gun control and the sequester, Karl asked “So my question to you is do you still have the juice to get the rest of your agenda through this Congress?” No, that wasn’t Fox News’ Ed Henry, but the White House reporter for one of the three old-line broadcast networks who dared to ask such a question.

In typical Barack Obama style, the response was a 9-minute passionless sermon best described by Tom Lehrer’s description of Gilbert and Sullivan’s comic operas: “Full of words…and signifying nothing.”

No doubt asking hard questions of a man so richly deserving of them was a liberating renewal for Mr. Karl and maybe part of a new permission structure for his Obama-adoring colleagues: “Oh, now I remember why I went to journalism school.” But perhaps I am too optimistic.

On April 25, N.Y. Times reporter Sharon LaFraniere published a remarkable piece of investigative journalism in criticism of a fraud-infested race-based scheme used by Democrats to buy elections. When I mentioned to Ms. LaFraniere how impressed I was to see this story in the Grey Lady, she responded “the NYT really wants to uncover the truth. There are no sacred cows.” Frankly, when it comes to Times management, I don’t believe it…though I believe LaFraniere does, and she can rightly point to the fact that she was allowed to publish a 5,300 word, front-page story which must have caused many Democrats, including Times editors and President Obama, to cringe.

A week later, a group of four Times reporters published another front page article — a dagger in the heart of what little foreign policy credibility President Obama has left, even among the left. In that story, readers learn that Obama’s infamous “red line” regarding the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria was an unscripted ad-lib which came “to the surprise of some of his advisers” and which “defined his policy in a way some advisers wish they could take back.”

By putting his foot in his mouth, by implicitly committing to some substantive American response to a particular event that may now have happened, Obama may have cornered himself into taking an action that he doesn’t want to take, namely “providing lethal assistance to the Syrian rebels” — which is, despite Congressional chicken hawks’ pleas to go down that very road, a truly terrible idea.

In short, the article suggests that by not understanding the significance of his words, the president has narrowed his options, possibly forced his own hand, and impacted the already jaundiced eye that America’s allies and enemies alike turn toward any American foreign policy statements of this administration. Obama has through his egocentrism and naïveté added instability to an already dangerously unstable world. May I remind you: this was the New York Times.

And last week, following a “sunny speech in Mexico,” reporters at the Los Angeles Times penned an article stating that “audience members didn’t necessarily agree with [Obama’s] assessment” of Mexico’s current situation and likely future progress.

The article corrected several Obama claims on issues like immigration and an emerging Mexican middle class, noted that “many among the several hundred people in attendance said he seemed too upbeat about their country” and quoted audience members with reactions like “Obama is fantastic, but I believe that today he was talking about another country, not ours.”

Particularly when it comes to foreign affairs, Barack Obama is no longer the adoringly-fêted citizen-of-the-world who, on July 24, 2008 spoke in Berlin to 200,000 adoring, mindless fans, in a speech that German magazine Der Spiegel called “People of the World, Look at Me.”

To be sure, not all of the usual suspects in the liberal media have changed their tunes. Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather, still bitter over losing his job in an attempt to smear George W. Bush with a forged document, says that Obama’s Republican opponents “want to cut his heart out and throw his liver to the dogs.” (One wonders what they want to do with the heart.)

But when reporters and columnists from the N.Y. Times to the Washington Post, L.A. Times, CNN, ABC News, and others have suddenly come out of their Obama-critique group-laryngitis and are telling the world that the president is a reckless, feckless, spineless non-leader, the political world has indeed turned upside down.


Better late than never, I suppose!
IP Logged
This member is online.
Posted 5/7/2013 2:09 PM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: 10/19/2017
Posts: 8,361

  OOOPS....

 



Attachments:

Please login
to view the image

   
reaganmeetstalibanwhitehouse.jpg   
IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 5/7/2013 2:17 PM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: 10/19/2017
Posts: 8,361

  Ironic....?  OOOOPS.

 

 



Attachments:

Please login
to view the image

   
shake.jpg   
IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 5/7/2013 2:55 PM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: 10/19/2017
Posts: 8,361

  And some more from the cowboy school of diplomacy ....

Friday, 16 March 2012

Senator McCain Advocates War Against Syria

Written by  Raven Clabough

 

Though two-thirds of Americans are opposed to American military intervention in Syria, and despite the lack of constitutional authority to intervene in Syria, Arizona Senator John McCain continues to advocate for the United States military to involve itself in Syria’s affairs.

In an article McCain wrote for USA Today, McCain outlines that various reasons .....

 

 

aw you get the picture. More bombs more intervention more dead servicemen and women while the American THINKING public voted Democrat in 08 and 12 to do the opposite, GET the American military and tax dollars out of of foreign entanglements that lead nowhere. Rather , put our brains and human and fiscal treasure in building a strong country and a strong economy.



Attachments:

Please login
to view the image

Please login
to view the image

  
4066507.jpgboehnercrying_fullsize.jpg  
IP Logged
This member is offline.
Showing page 4 of 146 - 1460 messages found « First Page Prev Page Next Page Last Page »
« Next Oldest :: Next Newest »


Design & Architecture © 2004 SMG Video, Inc | Terms & Conditions | All rights reserved.