POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

[Mr. Perfect]

As for obama vs Bush in the malevolence wars, obama is obviously the loser.

In Bush's case, any of the usual citations were done on a much smaller scale and conservatives and Republicans were leaving him in droves by 2006.

In obama's case, not only did he and his base actively campaign against them as evil, criminal, and terrorist provoking, which the Bush people did not agree with. The Bush people saw them as necessary evils, if you will. The obama crowd, of which Zack Morris was one, did not see them as necessary but only evil.

So obviously, and I feel embarrassed for certain people for having to point it out, but the obama crowd now executes policy that by their own words is evil, criminal, and terrorist provoking. The same cannot be said for Bush people. And of course obama hasn't lost any support from his base like Bush did. His base appears to be happier than ever.

So obviously obama is the far more immoral, as are his supporters, who now do things they once said were illegal, evil and terrorist provoking. Condemned by their own words and actions.

As for Iraq, this is all on obama. obama campaigned like almost all Democrats in 2006 forward for immediate withdrawal (as in 2006), yet when they gained power did nothing to stop the war, instead they fully funded it as the majority party even as they campaigned again for immediate withdrawal through 2008. Yet again they had the power to immediately end the war, but extended 18 months, and then again to 36 months, the McCain Bush timeline. And in the end they were negotiating with the Iraqis to stay, and they refused and kicked us out.

So both obama and Biden have stated that their stewardship of Iraq was a complete success and that Iraq was in good hands and would be an obama success story. They had no idea what they were talking about, as is the case in so many issues and cases.

Blaming Bush 6 years out of office for ISIS is like blaming Eisenhower for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Man up already libs, but of course that a waste of typing, it isn't in your nature.

[monster_gardener]

As for obama vs Bush in the malevolence wars, obama is obviously the loser.

In Bush's case, any of the usual citations were done on a much smaller scale and conservatives and Republicans were leaving him in droves by 2006.

In obama's case, not only did he and his base actively campaign against them as evil, criminal, and terrorist provoking, which the Bush people did not agree with. The Bush people saw them as necessary evils, if you will. The obama crowd, of which Zack Morris was one, did not see them as necessary but only evil.

So obviously, and I feel embarrassed for certain people for having to point it out, but the obama crowd now executes policy that by their own words is evil, criminal, and terrorist provoking. The same cannot be said for Bush people. And of course obama hasn't lost any support from his base like Bush did. His base appears to be happier than ever.

So obviously obama is the far more immoral, as are his supporters, who now do things they once said were illegal, evil and terrorist provoking. Condemned by their own words and actions.

As for Iraq, this is all on obama. obama campaigned like almost all Democrats in 2006 forward for immediate withdrawal (as in 2006), yet when they gained power did nothing to stop the war, instead they fully funded it as the majority party even as they campaigned again for immediate withdrawal through 2008. Yet again they had the power to immediately end the war, but extended 18 months, and then again to 36 months, the McCain Bush timeline. And in the end they were negotiating with the Iraqis to stay, and they refused and kicked us out.

So both obama and Biden have stated that their stewardship of Iraq was a complete success and that Iraq was in good hands and would be an obama success story. They had no idea what they were talking about, as is the case in so many issues and cases.

Blaming Bush 6 years out of office for ISIS is like blaming Eisenhower for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Man up already libs, but of course that a waste of typing, it isn't in your nature.

Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Mr. Perfect.

Largely seconded.

And in the end they were negotiating with the Iraqis to stay, and they refused and kicked us out.

Actually you may be being a little too kind to Darth obama the LIAR. AIUI his military advisers recommended ~20,000 troops as needed to do the job. Darth obama cut it down to ~3,000 or less.

Maliki knew that wouldn't work so he told Darth obama to shove in his Big Dumbo Ears (see video below ) and we were gone.

Not that this excuses Maliki's Marlarkey in persecuting his Sunni Vice President, not paying Sunni Iraqi troops and other nonsense that gave ISIS support that he probably wouldn't have done if American advisers were around.

Actually I suspect Darth obama may have been playing cute with Maliki.... Darth wanted Maliki to order him out so he could brag about a total withdrawal without it being his fault.

Didn't work out that well.....

Darth obama didn't get to brag about Iraq being a success story with the Loony Sunnis of ISIS beating the Living Shiite out of the Shia in Iraq....

And bragging that they are up to similar or worse against US

Lyrics....

"Stick it in your... ear" at: 3:15

6RbQT7TehdU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RbQT7TehdU

Full Multimedia version...

hEcjgJSqSRU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEcjgJSqSRU

[Simple Minded]

You should know. You guys are the ones constantly talking about how your preciour 'Murika just ain't what she used to be.

Now I'm really confused. I thought Merika ain't what it used to be was the battle cry of Occupy Wall Street?

Zack,

In the interest of celebrating diversity, if my homies will agree, "my guys" will take credit for creating half the worlds problems, if "your guys" will take credit for creating the other half.

There ain't no blue Merika. There ain't no red Merika. There's just the United (look that word up sometime ) States of Merika!

talk to your posse and see if they agree. We can draw the dividing line later, OK?

[Doc]

Using the IRS to target political opponents.

The IRS targeted both conservative and liberal organizations. No link to Obama.

A pathetic garbage argument that does not hold up to the light of day. 100% of groups having the words "teaparty", "patriot" or "012" in their name were not given tax exempt status for 27 months while 70% of Liberal groups got their tax exempt status during thta same 27 month period "PERIOD" (as Obama likes to say ). This was going into the 2012 elections and there fore was so much bigger than Watergate.

Covering up the targeting of political opponents by the IRS.

Again, no links to Obama. No actual evidence of a cover-up.

Right "nothing too see here folks" Yeah thats the ticket

viewtopic.php?p=75971#p75971
Lois Lerner in 2013: ‘Need to be cautious about what we say in emails’

Benghazi.

The nation is still trying to figure out where the scandal is.

Sez you and all your white wing wibleral friends.

Bergdahl.

One of the few really good things the administration has done.

Well that is quite an admission.

ISIS - Iraq.

Bush's fault. Entirely.

Yes of course!!! How stupid of me "Its all Bush's fault" Lame Zack, really lame.

NSA spying on citizens. Lying about who the NSA is spying on. Obama's NSA said suspect terrorists Wikileaks says more or less everyone.

Bush started it. You didn't mind it then.

1)We did not know about it then
2)Obama said he was going to have "The most transparent administration ever !!!"
3)Obama has massively increased the NSA programto the point of building the most massive MASSIVE by magnitudes data center in history to store all the data collected by spying on American citizens.

Criminally charging Journalists as spys.

You might be onto something here.

Extrajudicial killing of US citizens..

Yep, Obama owns that one.

Spying on Journalists.

Bush did it, you didn't mind.

Not the same thing

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/opini ... press.html

Spying on The Associated Press
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: May 14, 2013

The Obama administration, which has a chilling zeal for investigating leaks and prosecuting leakers, has failed to offer a credible justification for secretly combing through the phone records of reporters and editors at The Associated Press in what looks like a fishing expedition for sources and an effort to frighten off whistle-blowers.

Assassination via drones that have killed countless innocent civilians including children.

Bush did it, you didn't mind.

Again Obama has surpassed Bush by Magnitudes Especial since Obama has a take no prisoners policy. SO much better to kill the bad guy and any innocent civilians in proximity to them than capture them and put them in Gitmo.

Extra constitutional executive orders.

Bush did it, you didn't mind.[/quote]

Obama has made himself the law unto himself. As you WILL RECALL Bush went to congress to get authorization for force against Saddam. When did Obama get authorization of force for Libya, and now Iraq? from congress?

Secret VA medical death lists.

More of an internal problem with the VA. Certainly not directed by the administration and, when discovered, was rectified.

Rectified by getting revenge on the whisle blowers. But you seem to be ceding that Obama should have known Which he should have

Thousands of border children encouraged to come through very dangerous narco terrorist territory by Obama.

And yet only a fraction of the rate at which illegals crossed the border during the Bush administration, which had an intentionally relaxed attitude toward border enforcement in order to appeal to Hispanics.

And you forgot that "Fast and Furious" program started under the Bush administration.

I think Obama's a clear winner here.

Again "Its all Bush's fault" Lame pretty lame. Fast and furious under Bush was very limited and they did not lose track of the weapons. Under Obama they were supplying the Sinola drug cartel with these weapons intentionally.

AND MORE IMPORTANTLY. The number of people coming from central America to the US was steady for years until Obama made his law by presidential decree that anyone in the US from before the age of sixteen will have a residency card and a path to citizenship. Which lead to so many children traveling 1000 miles through the territory of narco terrorist/ Human trafficers that are some of the most if not the most psychopathic individuals in teh world. That like to behad mre people than Al Qaeda. Proportedly 1/3 of these children are being abused in one way or another en route. So does Obama go to the border to see for himself>? No. He goes to CO for a fundraiser and play pool Then flies down to Texas for a fund raise but does not want to go to the border for a "Photo op" Next month he is going to take another 15 day vacation.

[manolo]

There ain't no blue Merika. There ain't no red Merika. There's just the United (look that word up sometime ) States of Merika!

SM,

Yes, I think Obama's greatest achievement has been bringing this message home to all of us in Europe.

Alex.

[Doc]

Support for Obama very high

Among Muslims

72 percent of US Muslims back Obama

By Mario Trujillo
Share on facebook72 Share on twitter48 Share on google_plusone_share More Sharing Services 26 Share on email
280

Seventy-two percent of Muslim people in the United States approve of President Obama — the highest among any other religion tested by Gallup in a poll released Friday.

Another 20 percent of Muslims disapprove of the president, according to the survey, which tracked approval from January through June.

The president's approval is lowest among Mormons. Only 18 percent approve, while 78 percent disapprove.

ADVERTISEMENT
Though those numbers reflect the extremes in approval, Mormons and Muslims make up two of the smallest religious demographics in the United States. Less than 1 percent of people in the United States identify as Muslim, while only about 2 percent of the population is made up of Mormons.

Obama's approval among all Americans stands at 43 percent.

Protestants, who make up the largest demographic, give Obama a 37 percent approval rating, lower than any other group except Mormons. Catholics, who represent the second largest group, give Obama a 44 percent approval rating, while 51 percent disapprove.

Together Protestants and Catholics make up about three-quarters of the population — about 53 percent protestant and 24 percent Catholic.

Fifty-four percent of those who do not identify with a religion approve of Obama, while 55 percent of Jewish people approve of him.

Other non-Christians give Obama a 59 percent approval rating.

The poll found the distribution of approval among religions has been constant throughout his presidency. However, every religious group has seen its approval of Obama drop by 5-to-7 points since 2009.

"Clearly, members of various religions view the president quite differently, but this may be attributable more to whether Obama's Democratic affiliation matches the political leanings of each religious group, and less to the specific policies and actions he has taken throughout his presidency," Gallup wrote in an analysis.

The poll is made up of interviews with more than 88,000 people through the first half of the year and has a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percent.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... ng-muslims

[Mr. Perfect]

obama living it up 1% style. I understand that he's never been more popular with his base.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/fore-obam ... le/2550914

It's going to be hot tubs, basketball, tennis and golf for the first family this summer, having set plans for a 16-day vacation in Martha's Vineyard, Mass., on a $12 million, 10-acre forested estate on the southwestern corner of the island.

Reports from the Bay State indicate that President Obama and his family will vacation August 9-24 at the 8,100-square foot, beachfront home of a Democratic donor that includes a pool, hot tub, basketball and tennis court.

It will be new digs for the first family, who have summered on tony Martha's Vineyard every year of Obama's presidency, except in 2012 when he was running for reelection.

The Vineyard Gazette reported that the White House has no major or public events planned for the almost three weeks, typical at this stage of a presidential vacation.

[Doc]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cbo-quiet ... 00918.html

CBO Quietly Drops Forecast That Obamacare Will Cut the Deficit
The Fiscal Times
By Eric Pianin June 5, 2014 2:05 PM

One of the Obama administration's major selling points in passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010 was a Congressional Budget Office forecast that the controversial legislation would reduce the deficit by more than $120 billion over the coming decade.

The CBO has consistently projected that President Obama's overhaul will reduce the deficit, and the agency estimated that the Republicans’ 2011 effort to repeal the legislation would increase deficits by $210 billion from 2010 to 2021.

Related: Problems Found with 2 Million Obamacare Signups

In April, the agency quietly signaled that it can no longer make that projection; that the law had been changed and delayed so much that there is no longer a credible way to estimate the long-term effects on the deficit of all elements of the program taken together.

In a little noticed footnote to a report updating estimates of the effects of the insurance coverage provisions of the law, the agency headed by Douglas Elmendorf acknowledged that neither CBO nor the Joint Committee on Taxation could determine precisely how scores of provisions other than the insurance coverage would impact long term government spending.

“CBO and JCT can no longer determine exactly how the provisions of the ACA that are not related to the expansion of health insurance coverage have affected their projections of direct spending and revenues,” the CBO wrote. “The provisions that expanded coverage established entirely new programs or components of programs that can be isolated and reassessed. Isolating the incremental effects of those provisions on previously existing programs and revenues four years after enactment of the ACP is not possible.”

The footnote was first reported this week by Roll Call and is just now gaining the attention of health care policy experts who question the basis of CBO’s retreat from its earlier forecasting.

Related: The Coming Obamacare Shock for 170 Million Americans

The CBO’s acknowledgment that there is no longer a credible method for gauging the long term budgetary effects of the huge and complex program for extending health coverage to millions of Americans could become fodder for renewed Republican attacks during the mid-term congressional election campaign.

“From purely an analyst’s perspective, I don’t think I would consider this terribly exciting,” Bill Hoagland, a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Senate Republican budget expert, said in an interview Wednesday. “But politically, I think it’s dynamite.”

Hoagland said critics are almost certain to say, “Wait a minute, you told us it would reduce the deficit back in 2010, why can’t you tell us that today?”

Related: Voters Want the GOP to Move On from Obamacare

After an incredibly rocky launch of the Affordable Care Act last fall, the program has signed up slightly more than 8 million people through the state and federal exchanges, while millions more enrolled through an expansion of the Medicaid program.

Republicans continue to hammer away at the program, on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail, although the issue has lost some of its intensity after the administration matched or surpassed its sign-up targets for the first year of operation. And while the law remains largely unpopular among the public—45 percent have negative views of Obamacare—the majority would prefer that lawmakers fix it and then focus on other issues.

Now it’s unclear whether the law is still on track to reduce the deficit or end up adding many billions of dollars more to the current $17 trillion national debt. CBO and JCT currently estimate that the insurance coverage provisions alone of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period.

A little-noticed rule change in May will also add to the overall cost of the law. The Department of Health and Human Services’ new regulation slows the growth of premiums on subsidized exchange plans, shifting the cost to the government-at an additional cost of $7 billion over 10 years, according to an analysis by Investor’s Business Daily.

Related: Over $5 Billion and Counting for Obamacare Websites

CBO continues to maintain, however, that many of the provisions of the law other than the insurance coverage and subsidies – will “on net” reduce budget deficits in the future. The law created 21 tax hikes, limits to deductions, tax credits, tax breaks, and other changes that will raise revenue and defray the cost of the government subsidies.

As the Roll Call story noted, the CBO based its original estimate of long term deficit reduction on the assumption that the new law – including hundreds of billions of dollars of Medicare cuts and tax increases to finance insurance subsidies—would be implemented as written.

That was before a blizzard of administrative changes, delays in deadlines for implementation and an important 2012 Supreme Court ruling upholding the law but granting states the discretion to opt out of a new expansion of the Medicaid program.

“Now, after a chaotic start and a series of delays or adjustments in various provisions of the act, including an employer mandate that was expected to bring in new tax revenue, it’s unclear to what extent those promised savings are being realized,” according to Roll Call.

Related: CBO Says Obamacare Will Cost Less Than Projected

Charles Blahous, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s free-market oriented Mercatus Center, characterized CBO’s inability to project the net effect of the law “a real problem,” according to Roll Call.

“The ACA’s financing provisions were assumed to be effective so as to get a favorable score out of CBO upon enactment,” he said. “But no one is keeping track of whether they’re being enforced. . . . We receive occasional updates on the gross costs of the law, but none on whether the previously projected savings provisions are producing what was originally projected.”

[Mr. Perfect]

Has any single CBO projection related to obamacare come true yet?

[Doc]

Has any single CBO projection related to obamacare come true yet?

Not one. Noticed they are claiming that Obamacare will raise teh deficit by $1.1 Trillion with a "T" but also claim that this will be offest by taxes and fees. I do recall some mention of there not being any raising of taxes to pay for Obamacare.. $1.1 Trillion in new taxes doesn't exactly seem to make the no new tax promise true does it ?

BTW have you seen Dasousas' new movie? You will hate the first part and love the last part if you see it.

The movie has extensive footage of one Saul Alinsky that is quite eye opening.

[Simple Minded]

Has any CBO projection ever come true? About any program?

Me thinketh not!

My understanding of the CBO's 100% record of failure is that they are only allowed to use the numbers given to them by the proponents of the programs they "evaluate."

If Senator/Congressman/President X says "My plan will work because apples are 15 cents a pound, a new house costs $2,000, and no one will milk the system!" that is what they put in their "cost analysis."

Ideology vs. administration.

There is a reason why those with "magical solutions" never discuss hidden costs, actual costs, perverse incentives, and unintended consequences. Probably because reality never compares well with their imagination.

Unfortunately, reality often kicks one's imagination in the nuts!

[Doc]

I taught constitutional law for ten years,” Obama claimed. “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and "NOT GO THROUGH CONGRESS AT ALL" and that’s what "I INTEND TO REVERSE" when I’m President of the United States of America.

-- Barrack Obama Campaigning in 2008

[Doc]

I will have the most transparent Administration ever

-- Barrack Obama 2008

Yeah that's the ticket !! So can we now say "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !!"???

http://washingtonexaminer.com/censorshi ... le/2550647

Censorship: 38 journalism groups slam Obama's 'politically-driven suppression of news'
By Paul Bedard | July 9, 2014 | 11:21 am
Topics: White House Washington Secrets Barack Obama Media Newspapers White House Correspondents Assoc
Photo - President Obama in the White Hosue briefing room. AP Photo President Obama in the White Hosue briefing room. AP Photo

In unprecedented criticism of the White House, 38 journalism groups have assailed the president's team for censoring media coverage, limiting access to top officials and overall “politically-driven suppression of the news.”

In a letter to President Obama, the 38, led by the Society of Professional Journalists, said efforts by government officials to stifle or block coverage has grown for years and reached a high-point under his administration despite Obama's 2008 campaign promise to provide transparency.

Worse, they said: As access for reporters has been cut off, the administration has opened the door to lobbyists, special interests and “people with money.”

And as a result, they wrote, Obama only has himself to blame for the current cynicism of his administration. “You need look no further than your own administration for a major source of that frustration – politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. We call on you to take a stand to stop the spin and let the sunshine in,” wrote David Cuillier, president of SPJ.

The administration has dismissed similar charges from other journalism groups, notably the White House Correspondents’ Association, but the new letter sent Tuesday provided several examples of censorship and efforts to block reporter access. Among them:

• Officials blocking reporters’ requests to talk to specific staff people.

• Excessive delays in answering interview requests that stretch past reporters’ deadlines.

• Officials conveying information "on background" — refusing to give reporters what should be public information unless they agree not to say who is speaking.

• Federal agencies blackballing reporters who write critically of them.

“In many cases, this is clearly being done to control what information journalists — and the audience they serve — have access to. A survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote,” added the letter.

In addition to asking for openness, the groups demanded Obama create an ombudsman position to help clear away barriers to news coverage.

“It has not always been this way,” concluded the letter. “In prior years, reporters walked the halls of agencies and called staff people at will. Only in the past two administrations have media access controls been tightened at most agencies. Under this administration, even non-defense agencies have asserted in writing their power to prohibit contact with journalists without surveillance. Meanwhile, agency personnel are free speak to others — lobbyists, special-interest representatives, people with money — without these controls and without public oversight.”

SPJ's Cuillier told Secrets, "I feel this excessive message management and information control are caused by the professionalization of PR in the bureaucracy — in all levels of government."

And, he added, "It is up to journalists — and citizens — to push back against this force. Hard!"

[Doc]

doe_nTBQ4MY

Published on Jul 28, 2014

TENNANT STANDS UP FOR COAL JOBS IN FIRST TV AD
Tennant Sends Strong ‘Message’ on Coal with First Ad from Either West Virginia Senate Candidate

(Charleston, WV) – Following a recent wave of momentum, West Virginia Secretary of State and U.S. Senate nominee Natalie Tennant’s campaign is making a bold move by launching the first TV ad from either candidate in West Virginia’s Senate race on Monday. The ad itself sends an even bolder statement, with a powerful message that Tennant is an independent leader who will buck her party and stand up to President Obama to fight for West Virginia coal jobs.

The spot features an opening scene of the White House, with Tennant asking, “Where do they think their electricity comes from?”

“You and I know it’s our hard-working West Virginia coal miners that power America,” Tennant’s voiceover continues over shots of power lines leading back to a coal-fired power plant in West Virginia.

Then the shot cuts to Tennant herself standing in front of the West Virginia coal plant saying, “I’ve fought to protect our coal jobs right alongside Joe Manchin, and I’ll stand up to leaders of both parties who threaten our way of life.”

“I’ll make sure President Obama gets the message,” Tennant says boldly as she cuts the power and viewers see a flash of power lines before the booming sound of the electricity shutting off at the White House as the lights go dark.

“No one will fight harder for West Virginia coal jobs and coal miners than Natalie Tennant, and this ad sends that message loud and clear,” said Tennant’s Campaign Chairman and former mine supervisor, Major General Allen Tackett (ret.). “Natalie has proven she's an independent leader who stands up to her own party, and she'll work hand-in-hand with Senator Manchin to stand up to President Obama and protect our coal jobs.”

In addition to serving as former Adjutant General of West Virginia’s National Guard, Tackett is the son of a coal miner and worked as a mine supervisor and manager for decades.

U.S. Senator Joe Manchin has endorsed Tennant saying, “Natalie Tennant is a proven, statewide leader, whose passion and dedication to public service will resonate well in Washington.”

Tennant has vowed to fight President Obama’s regulations on coal-fired power plants, and has been outspokenly critical of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy for refusing to come to West Virginia as part of a so-called “listening tour.”

In June Tennant released a Coal and Energy Jobs Agenda designed to protect West Virginia coal jobs and spur investments in advanced coal technology that will keep coal competitive for years to come.

Tennant has a proven track-record of bucking her own party. When three democratic officials committed election fraud in 2010, Tennant led the investigation that put them in prison.

[Simple Minded]

Nice.

States standing up for themselves seems to stand a better chance of success than DC reforming itself.

It will be interesting to see how the DC elites attack her.

[monster_gardener]

Nice.

States standing up for themselves seems to stand a better chance of success than DC reforming itself.

It will be interesting to see how the DC elites attack her.

Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Simple Minded.

It will be interesting to see how the DC elites attack her.

I hope the DC Elites do attack her..... Hard........

Hopefully it may put her on her guard....

Maybe even develop a lasting effective despite for them...

Because the real danger is that they will corrupt her....

In my experience the real danger for both Republicans and Democrats who go from the local level where they are often close to their constituents to WashingToon, AC/DC District of Criminals is that they will be corrupted into becoming Replicants & DemonRat DemocRATs.....

Not that corruption can't be found at the local & State level too but once you get inside the Beltway, it changes...
Eventually too many of the Congress Critters get converted full and live there instead of their districts, staying there after they retire/are forced to retire to be Evil Lobbyists on Replicant K street and DemonRat equivalents..

It's one thing to prosecute fellow Republicans & Democrats on the local or State level.... Kudos to her...
I've seen it on the Republican side too.

It's another thing to face down your party Leader such as Dirty Harry Reid when he tells you vote as I say or you will get the worst committee assignment I can devise and your bills will go no where.....

Similar for Republicans though it seems that it may be easier to defy Bone Headed Boehner the Drunk Crier of the House who Darth obama the Liar has gulled ..... That will likely change if the Republicans get a Speaker with a Spine

These days it may be easier to denounce the Evil Lying Sith Lord Darth obama because Darth obama doesn't really care that much as long as you vote the way Dirty Harry says....

Darth will even let you dump him at Fund Raiser date as long as you do what Dirty Harry says....

[Doc]

Obama will never run for office again so is pulling Rev Wright. He is distancing himself from Democrats in states where his endorsement is the kiss of death.

Besides Obama doesn't care about people in Red States

Tennant has vowed to fight President Obama’s regulations on coal-fired power plants, and has been outspokenly critical of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy for refusing to come to West Virginia as part of a so-called “listening tour.”

[Doc]

http://time.com/3060276/obamacare-affor ... -act-cost/

GAO Report: Cost of HealthCare.Gov Approaching $1 Billion

Kate Pickert @katepickert

4:27 PM ET
Marketplace guide Jim Prim works on the Healthcare.gov federal enrollment website as he helps a resident sign up for a health insurance plan under the Affordable Care Act at an enrollment event in Milford, Delaware on March 27, 2014. Marketplace guide Jim Prim works on the Healthcare.gov federal enrollment website as he helps a resident sign up for a health insurance plan under the Affordable Care Act at an enrollment event in Milford, Delaware on March 27, 2014. Andrew Harrer—Bloomberg/Getty Images
GAO Report places cost overrun blame squarely on the shoulders of the federal government
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU
David Letterman Walks Out During Joan Rivers Interview
This Hilarious Ad Perfectly Captures the Awkwardness of Puberty
World Cup Whimsy Captured in New McDonalds Ad
by Taboola

Federal officials badly managed the development of a website to sell health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, potentially costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in cost overruns, according to testimony that will be delivered to a House subcommittee on Thursday.
More
House Approves VA Health Care OverhaulMississippi’s Only Abortion Clinic Will Stay Open After Court RulingPETA to Detroit: Go Vegan and We'll Pay Your Water Bill NBC NewsNot Just Ebola: What Other Diseases Could Threaten Americans? NBC NewsCowabunga! Surf's Up at Munich Airport NBC News

In prepared remarks posted online Wednesday, William T. Woods, an official at the General Accounting Office, says HealthCare.gov, a federal website charged with managing new individual health plans for consumers in 36 states, was marred by inadequate oversight by officials from the Department of Health and Human Services. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), an HHS agency in charge of the insurance website, “undertook the development of HealthCare.gov and its related systems without effective planning or oversight practices, despite facing a number of challenges that increased both the level of risk and the need for effective oversight,” according to Woods.

Details of Woods’ testimony were first reported by the Associated Press. The GAO conducted its investigation of HealthCare.gov at the request of the Investigations and Oversight subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

As became obvious in the days and weeks after HealthCare.gov launched on Oct. 1, 2013, the website was hobbled by technical problems and software glitches that prevented consumers from signing up for health plans until a repair effort was undertaken months later. The episode was a significant embarrassment for the Obama Administration, which had promised buying health plans through the website would be akin to purchasing any other goods or services on the Internet. Contractors charged with building HealthCare.gov and a data hub meant to verify identities, eligibility and income used to calculate federal subsidies had not completed their work by the time the site launched, according to Woods’ testimony. But the GAO placed blame on federal officials for not anticipating problems that would occur and for incurring significant cost increases as well as improperly approving additional spending.

According to Woods’ testimony, the cost of building one part of HealthCare.gov increased from $56 million to more than $209 million between September 2011 and February 2014. Expenses for the associated data hub ballooned from $30 million to $85 million. Woods says that by March 2014, CMS reported “obligating $840 million for the development of HealthCare.gov and its supporting systems.”

Federal officials, according to Woods, delayed assessing whether HealthCare.gov was ready for launch from March 2013 to September 2013, noting that this was just weeks before the site went live. Software experts have said in the months since HealthCare.gov launched and crashed that such a short window is far too narrow to evaluate a brand new, complex system like a new national website to sell health insurance and dole out federal subsidies to those who qualify.

As it became clear that the building of HealthCare.gov was not going smoothly, Woods says federal officials approved additional expenditures to contractors, including CGI Federal, the lead company hired to build the website. The GAO, he says, found approximately 40 instances in which CMS employees approved additional spending totaling $30 million.

“This is not to say the work was not necessary,” says Woods, “however, the work was not approved properly.”

As HealthCare.gov’s launch approached and CMS officials had the chance to withhold major funds from contractors, they chose not to. To save HealthCare.gov after its failed launch, HHS hired the firm Accenture to continue work on the website. But that contract, too, has cost far more than planned. According to Woods’ testimony, the $91 million contract awarded to Accenture in January 2014 increased to $175 million by June 5.

Eventually, HealthCare.gov was repaired and some 8 million Americans signed up for health plans through the website by the spring of 2014.

[Doc]

More Dems thinking to abandon Obama.

At-risk Democrats stress over Obama and immigration

President Barack Obama is shown. | AP Photo

Executive action deferring deportations for immigrants could be a boon to the party. | AP Photo
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN and SEUNG MIN KIM | 7/30/14 12:17 PM EDT

The Senate’s most vulnerable Democratic incumbents, caught in the crosscurrents of immigration reform, are urging President Barack Obama to show restraint in using his executive powers to slow deportations.

Obama is locked between a progressive base demanding aggressive action and voters in conservative states that will decide the fate of the Senate and hold outsized importance in shaping the final two years of his presidency. The White House is weighing how far it can go, legally and politically, in delaying deportations for millions of undocumented immigrants.

His decision will be announced just weeks before Election Day, and the timing is precarious for Democrats running in conservative states, where any reminder of their ties to the unpopular president is problematic — let alone for a decision as sweeping and controversial as what the White House is considering.

A White House official said the president didn’t choose the timeline. Senate Democratic leaders, facing pressure from immigrant rights groups, began insisting in February that Obama act on his own by the summer if overhaul legislation remained stalled in the House.

At-risk Senate incumbents will be consulted along with other congressional constituencies such as the Hispanic caucus and Democratic leaders, administration officials said. But Obama isn’t planning to moderate his approach based on what plays best in Anchorage or Little Rock because Republicans will attack any executive action, ambitious or restrained, as an abuse of presidential power, the officials said.

Two of the top Republican targets, Sens. Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, have gone further than any of their Democratic colleagues in warning that Obama shouldn’t take any steps without the approval of Congress.

“I’m not for government by executive order,” Pryor said in an interview. “He needs to have statutory authority before he acts.”

Hagan said through a spokeswoman that “this is a problem that needs to be solved legislatively and not through executive action.”

Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) also said there are limits to what the president can — and should — do.

“We want him to be careful not to go too far,” Begich said.

That red line, in Begich’s view, is providing temporary legal status to all 8 million undocumented immigrants who would’ve qualified under a bill passed last year in the Senate. Hispanic lawmakers and immigrant rights groups are demanding that the president do just that.

The attempt to create distance with Obama highlights the discomfort among some Democrats. An executive action deferring deportations for millions of undocumented immigrants could be a boon to the national party as it heads into the 2016 presidential election. It isn’t considered such a clear winner in the Republican-leaning states that dominate the 2014 midterm map, although the extent to which it helps or hurts Democrats this year remains a point of debate.

A sweeping use of executive authority could do a lot to boost Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who is locked in an unexpectedly tight race. Hispanics make up 14 percent of the voting population in Colorado, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Udall was one of the first Democratic senators to endorse the move towards executive action. “The president should take action to stop tear apart families whose only crime is seeking a better life for themselves,” Udall told a Denver radio station in June.

But in the top battlegrounds of Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina, Hispanics in each state constitute about 2-3 percent of the voting population. The fear is that efforts to motivate the progressive base won’t be offset by how much it could galvanize Republicans. At the very least, Democratic strategists said, it’s an annoyance for campaigns that are trying to stay focused on local and state issues.

“In a situation where we can only afford good things to happen, we can’t now afford bad things to happen,” said one strategist working in a battleground state. “If we were going into the 2012 or 2010 cycle, it would be whole different story. It creates a whole new issue. Members have to choose between their base and their swing. They have to look at what they have said in the past and comment on what the president has said in the past.”

GOP advocates of a comprehensive immigration overhaul have long warned against unilateral moves on immigration reform, arguing it would foreclose the possibility of any legislative action on immigration for the remainder of Obama’s term.

If Obama takes some executive action on deportations, Alfonso Aguilar, the executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, said Republicans will “go ballistic” and it “certainly doesn’t help” red-state Democrats running for reelection.

“Not that immigration is a huge issue in those states, but it really doesn’t help, because they’ve been supportive of the president and just by association,” Aguilar said. “This helps create the image of the president as not working with Congress, not respecting the law.”

Even senators running in Democratic states weren’t eager to weigh in on the issue.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) declined through a spokesman to talk about it. Some offices, including those of Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), didn’t respond to requests for comment. Other senators didn’t want to get into details.

“I’m not going to speculate,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). “Congress needs to act on the issue. Once I see what he is proposing, I will be in a better position to comment.”

Landrieu said she voted for the Senate overhaul legislation last year because it is a “pro-business bill and it helps us create jobs here in America and secures our borders.” But she’s seeking her third term in a state where her Republican colleague, Sen. David Vitter, won reelection in 2010 the help of a TV ad touting his opponent’s support for “illegals.”

“The president should take what actions he can,” Landrieu said. “But he is not going to be able to take too many because there are limits to what he can do. The best thing would be for Congress to act. I’m going to leave it there.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/d ... 09541.html

[monster_gardener]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH for Maintaining the Forum Admins Typhoon & YMix

Darth Break It obama the Son of a Bitch Eating LIAR Singing Fancy by Iggy the Flowering Azalea Tree Dryad...

Oops I mean Iggy Azalea...

WARNING: Original May be NSFW

Parody singer Darth obama is Not Safe for America (NSFA)

b8tFaU571xg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8tFaU571xg


Original.......

AfdJ40pjx2I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfdJ40pjx2I

[monster_gardener]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH for Maintaining the Forum Admins Typhoon & YMix

More BarakDubs....

What Does It Matter Hillary & Darth obama the LYING Son of a Bitch Eater sing "Timber" by Pitt Bull

How appropriate!

You can also vote for something important at the end of the Video....

Whether more Hillary or more BarackDubs should be done!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotatio ... lgGTBi3y3A

[Doc]

Obama's exceptionalism --- He's an exceptional i-d-i-o-t

The Kurds have taken in over 600,000 refugees They have sent Pesmerga to risk their lives to try to rescue Yazidis and Christians from Mount Sinjar. They are fighting the most reviled group of thugs in the world who also are bragging about how they are going to make attacks on the US homeland and in Europe and Obama cuts off their money !?!?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/0 ... 62720.html

While U.S. Defends The Kurds With Airstrikes, It's Choking Off Needed Oil Revenue
Posted: 08/08/2014 4:27 pm EDT Updated: 08/08/2014 8:59 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- A leading Democratic voice on foreign affairs called Friday for the White House to drop U.S. opposition to allowing the Kurdistan Regional Government to sell its own oil.

On Thursday night, President Barack Obama declared that the United States would defend the Kurds, who are facing an onslaught from the militant forces of the Islamic State. By Friday morning, that promise had turned into airstrikes on Islamic State positions threatening the Kurdish regional capital, Erbil. But at the same time, the administration is contributing to a problem that undermines the Kurds at their most vulnerable moment: They are running out of cash.

The Iraqi national government is required to share oil revenue with the Kurdistan Regional Government, but the Kurds say it has failed to do so recently. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has moved to block the Kurds' efforts to sell oil on their own. A State Department official told The Washington Post that the U.S. government is warning potential buyers that they face "serious legal risks." And so, even as the Kurds are under siege, a tanker carrying $100 million worth of their oil just sits in the Gulf of Mexico, one of several such stranded tankers.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said on Friday that "if the Iraqi government does not resume the financial support owed to the Kurds, we should end our resistance to the direct sale of Kurdish oil."

Brett McGurk, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, has said on Twitter that the Iraqi central government and the Kurds must come to an agreement. "[T]he situation demonstrates why it is incumbent on Baghdad and Erbil to find a negotiated resolution," he said.

But politicians in Baghdad have been unable to even form a government or persuade Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to step aside, much less reach a negotiated resolution with the Kurds.

Apparently ignoring the real-world effects of the U.S. stance, McGurk added, "There is no U.S. ban on the transfer or sale of oil originating from any part of Iraq. Suggestions to the contrary is false."

McGurk didn't reply on Twitter Friday when asked if the administration would now support the Kurds' selling oil, given the U.S. military support underway.

The U.S. has opposed the independent sale of oil over concerns that permitting the Kurds economic independence would be another step toward their long-sought dream of an independent Kurdish state.

"We are trying to help the Kurds meet immediate needs. We don't think the solution to that is to shift toward them acting more like a state in things like oil sales. We still believe that this can be done within the context of a united Iraq," a senior administration official told HuffPost. The U.S. is sending weapons to the Kurds but funneling them through the Iraqi central government, he said.

Asked if the White House was concerned about the Kurdistan Regional Government's cash flow situation, the official said, "The Kurds have, relative to the rest of Iraq frankly, a more successful economy in many ways. So I think we can meet their needs as far as urgent arms and financial resources without beginning to carve out a relationship that separates them from Iraq. We're not dealing with them as an independent entity but rather as a region within Iraq."

The Kurds "haven't been able to pay their soldiers for a few months nor their civil servants," said Peter Galbraith, an American foreign policy expert close to the Kurds. "The U.S. position ought to be either Baghdad pays the 17 percent [of national oil revenue] or allow the Kurds to sell the oil."

Galbraith said the Kurds have borrowed internationally and from companies doing business in Kurdistan, as well as effectively from the population itself, and are running short on options. "It's a tough situation," he said. But, he said, the airstrikes "have had a very big effect on both military and civilian morale," and seasoned Kurdish fighters are flooding in from Turkey, Iran and Syria.

Schiff said he understands that the White House is "walking a fine line" and that any apparent support of Kurdish independence could make formation of a unity government in Iraq more difficult. But, he said, the situation is at crisis levels and requires action. "Certainly the events of the last few days couldn't put it in any sharper relief," Schiff said.

Vice President Joe Biden called Kurdistan Regional President Masoud Barzani on Thursday, the White House said, "and reaffirmed his commitment to take whatever actions necessary to protect Americans in Erbil, including targeted airstrikes."

Biden has been a past supporter of Kurdish statehood, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said that the Kurds should be able to form their own state if they choose. Turkey has long been opposed to an independent Kurdistan on its border, worried that statehood would energize Turkish Kurds who similarly wish to break away. But Turkey's ruling party recently switched its position, declaring its openness to Kurdish independence on its border.

Indeed, it was a deal with Turkey that allowed the Kurdish oil to make it to sea. And in June, Israel purchased some of the Kurds' oil.

Iraqi leaders in Baghdad, meanwhile, are fiddling. "They're still negotiating and want to keep the Kurds economically dependent on Baghdad, and they don't seem to realize the world is falling apart around them," Schiff said.

[monster_gardener]

Obama's exceptionalism --- He's an exceptional i-d-i-o-t

The Kurds have taken in over 600,000 refugees They have sent Pesmerga to risk their lives to try to rescue Yazidis and Christians from Mount Sinjar. They are fighting the most reviled group of thugs in the world who also are bragging about how they are going to make attacks on the US homeland and in Europe and Obama cuts off their money !?!?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/0 ... 62720.html

While U.S. Defends The Kurds With Airstrikes, It's Choking Off Needed Oil Revenue
Posted: 08/08/2014 4:27 pm EDT Updated: 08/08/2014 8:59 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- A leading Democratic voice on foreign affairs called Friday for the White House to drop U.S. opposition to allowing the Kurdistan Regional Government to sell its own oil.

On Thursday night, President Barack Obama declared that the United States would defend the Kurds, who are facing an onslaught from the militant forces of the Islamic State. By Friday morning, that promise had turned into airstrikes on Islamic State positions threatening the Kurdish regional capital, Erbil. But at the same time, the administration is contributing to a problem that undermines the Kurds at their most vulnerable moment: They are running out of cash.

The Iraqi national government is required to share oil revenue with the Kurdistan Regional Government, but the Kurds say it has failed to do so recently. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has moved to block the Kurds' efforts to sell oil on their own. A State Department official told The Washington Post that the U.S. government is warning potential buyers that they face "serious legal risks." And so, even as the Kurds are under siege, a tanker carrying $100 million worth of their oil just sits in the Gulf of Mexico, one of several such stranded tankers.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said on Friday that "if the Iraqi government does not resume the financial support owed to the Kurds, we should end our resistance to the direct sale of Kurdish oil."

Brett McGurk, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, has said on Twitter that the Iraqi central government and the Kurds must come to an agreement. "[T]he situation demonstrates why it is incumbent on Baghdad and Erbil to find a negotiated resolution," he said.

But politicians in Baghdad have been unable to even form a government or persuade Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to step aside, much less reach a negotiated resolution with the Kurds.

Apparently ignoring the real-world effects of the U.S. stance, McGurk added, "There is no U.S. ban on the transfer or sale of oil originating from any part of Iraq. Suggestions to the contrary is false."

McGurk didn't reply on Twitter Friday when asked if the administration would now support the Kurds' selling oil, given the U.S. military support underway.

The U.S. has opposed the independent sale of oil over concerns that permitting the Kurds economic independence would be another step toward their long-sought dream of an independent Kurdish state.

"We are trying to help the Kurds meet immediate needs. We don't think the solution to that is to shift toward them acting more like a state in things like oil sales. We still believe that this can be done within the context of a united Iraq," a senior administration official told HuffPost. The U.S. is sending weapons to the Kurds but funneling them through the Iraqi central government, he said.

Asked if the White House was concerned about the Kurdistan Regional Government's cash flow situation, the official said, "The Kurds have, relative to the rest of Iraq frankly, a more successful economy in many ways. So I think we can meet their needs as far as urgent arms and financial resources without beginning to carve out a relationship that separates them from Iraq. We're not dealing with them as an independent entity but rather as a region within Iraq."

The Kurds "haven't been able to pay their soldiers for a few months nor their civil servants," said Peter Galbraith, an American foreign policy expert close to the Kurds. "The U.S. position ought to be either Baghdad pays the 17 percent [of national oil revenue] or allow the Kurds to sell the oil."

Galbraith said the Kurds have borrowed internationally and from companies doing business in Kurdistan, as well as effectively from the population itself, and are running short on options. "It's a tough situation," he said. But, he said, the airstrikes "have had a very big effect on both military and civilian morale," and seasoned Kurdish fighters are flooding in from Turkey, Iran and Syria.

Schiff said he understands that the White House is "walking a fine line" and that any apparent support of Kurdish independence could make formation of a unity government in Iraq more difficult. But, he said, the situation is at crisis levels and requires action. "Certainly the events of the last few days couldn't put it in any sharper relief," Schiff said.

Vice President Joe Biden called Kurdistan Regional President Masoud Barzani on Thursday, the White House said, "and reaffirmed his commitment to take whatever actions necessary to protect Americans in Erbil, including targeted airstrikes."

Biden has been a past supporter of Kurdish statehood, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said that the Kurds should be able to form their own state if they choose. Turkey has long been opposed to an independent Kurdistan on its border, worried that statehood would energize Turkish Kurds who similarly wish to break away. But Turkey's ruling party recently switched its position, declaring its openness to Kurdish independence on its border.

Indeed, it was a deal with Turkey that allowed the Kurdish oil to make it to sea. And in June, Israel purchased some of the Kurds' oil.

Iraqi leaders in Baghdad, meanwhile, are fiddling. "They're still negotiating and want to keep the Kurds economically dependent on Baghdad, and they don't seem to realize the world is falling apart around them," Schiff said.

Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Doc.

obama the Son of a Bitch Eating Liar is FAR Worse than an !diot..

Evidenced by the fact that you, I, even Biden who too often seems to be more or less an !diot and Reid seem to agree on letting the Kurds sell their own oil....

EVEN the TURKS agree now!

Trying to think of a possibly valid reason.....

Maybe Marlarky oops I mean Maliki wouldn't let US come in and run airstrikes to save his wortless SHIiTEy Butt if the US bought oil from the Kurds.....

Or similar........

Unless one is full of SHIiTe, Marlarky Maliki seems to have little good for you.....

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

.

.

While U.S. Defends The Kurds With Airstrikes, It's Choking Off Needed Oil Revenue

.

.

obama the Son of a Bitch Eating Liar is FAR Worse than an !diot..

.


.. come on, Monster, come on .. unless you in dealing with "stolen property"


That oil is Republic of Iraq Oil and money .. Reuters & WP

(Reuters) - U.S. authorities were set on Tuesday to seize a cargo of crude worth more than $100 million from Iraqi Kurdistan anchored off the Texas coast after a judge approved a request from Baghdad, raising the stakes in an oil sales dispute between Iraq's central government and the autonomous region.

..

The U.S. judge's overnight approval of the request from Baghdad on Monday deals another blow to the Kurdistan Regional Government's (KRG) attempts to establish its own oil sales, which are seen as a crucial step in the autonomous region's push for independence. Baghdad, which is struggling to contain a Sunni Islamist insurgency that has captured swathes of central and northern Iraq, sees such oil sales as smuggling.

Arguing, as "amateurs" doing, this Kurd oil (and not Iraqi oil), leads only to disaster for west .. it would imply West not accepting Iraq's integrity & sovereign (what even Barzani doesn't imply) .. if West does so, a lot of (crazy) things will start which are badly against western interest in that space

One should know history and be professional for debating politics .. that is why I have advocated implementation of a "license to vote" system that only people who pass a simple test (of knowledge of issues at hand) should be allowed to vote

.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

US starts providing weapons to Kurdish forces in Iraq


Kurdish forces reverse Iraq militant gains amid U.S. airstrikes


.