I can't believe you guys seriously believe this stuffed suit no passion corporate vulture is actually going to be elected.

Compared to Obama he is a shining knight on a white horse.

You got the WHITE part RIGHT.

This election is going to be more racialized than ever. The vast majority of Romney's votes will be mighty white. The majority of ALL non-white groups will vote for Obama. Another reason Romney is fated to LOSE.

Not all republicans are racist, but if you meet an American racist, they are usually REPUBLICAN.

Can't decide who is worse.

http://www.capitolhi....com/node/27155

The trouble with Dr. Paul is that despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream. For instance, he holds an unacceptable view of civil rights, saying that while the federal government can enforce integration of government jobs and facilities, private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group.

Like father, like son.

(Yep. Racists.)

It's not racist at all. What you don't seem to understand, is that they believe that in today's day and age, it's bad business to have racist/discriminating policies - and they are right. For every white who will go into a business that has a sign saying they don't serve blacks, there will be 1000 who won't go in.

What is your opinion of their position on same sex marriage?

I can't believe you guys seriously believe this stuffed suit no passion corporate vulture is actually going to be elected.

Compared to Obama he is a shining knight on a white horse.

You got the WHITE part RIGHT.

This election is going to be more racialized than ever. The vast majority of Romney's votes will be mighty white. The majority of ALL non-white groups will vote for Obama. Another reason Romney is fated to LOSE.

Not all republicans are racist, but if you meet an American racist, they are usually REPUBLICAN.

Actually, liberals are just as racist as anyone else. They are either hide it better, or support policies based on their beliefs that minorities can't do for themselves what whites (and Asians) do.

Can't decide who is worse.

http://www.capitolhi....com/node/27155

The trouble with Dr. Paul is that despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream. For instance, he holds an unacceptable view of civil rights, saying that while the federal government can enforce integration of government jobs and facilities, private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group.

Like father, like son.

(Yep. Racists.)

It's not racist at all. What you don't seem to understand, is that they believe that in today's day and age, it's bad business to have racist/discriminating policies - and they are right. For every white who will go into a business that has a sign saying they don't serve blacks, there will be 1000 who won't go in.

What is your opinion of their position on same sex marriage?

They are for state's rights for same sex marriage. That's a crock. It HAS to happen at the federal level to get federal rights. The trouble is Obama is also using that up to the states BS. But believe me we know he knows it must be a supreme court matter. The libertarians actually BELIEVE it should only be a state matter.

Yes it is racist to think private businesses should be allowed to be racist.

I can't believe you guys seriously believe this stuffed suit no passion corporate vulture is actually going to be elected.

Compared to Obama he is a shining knight on a white horse.

You got the WHITE part RIGHT.

This election is going to be more racialized than ever. The vast majority of Romney's votes will be mighty white. The majority of ALL non-white groups will vote for Obama. Another reason Romney is fated to LOSE.

Not all republicans are racist, but if you meet an American racist, they are usually REPUBLICAN.

Actually, liberals are just as racist as anyone else. They are either hide it better, or support policies based on their beliefs that minorities can't do for themselves what whites (and Asians) do.

Actually, we're not. And actually we're not as white as republicans in the first place. I don't consider myself white, BTW.

I grew up in the South, but I met an awful lot of liberal racists in San Francisco that put those rednecks to shame.

I grew up in the South, but I met an awful lot of liberal racists in San Francisco.

I'm not buying that tripe. You aren't a real liberal if you're a racist.

Anyway, up till now Obama had a really bad month, but I'm feeling with this immigration bold move he has got his MOJO back. This is great. I now see how he will win easily. The Romney people think they can win with anybody but Obama. They fail to realize the greater power of anybody but Romney. Romney is just too dreary a person to imagine as president. He would make any depression much more depressing!

I grew up in the South, but I met an awful lot of liberal racists in San Francisco.

I'm not buying that tripe. You aren't a real liberal if you're a racist.

I've seen a lot of liberals that seem rather patronizing towards minorities. I think they may have good intentions at their core, but it smacks of racism to me.

I grew up in the South, but I met an awful lot of liberal racists in San Francisco.

I'm not buying that tripe. You aren't a real liberal if you're a racist.

I've seen a lot of liberals that seem rather patronizing towards minorities. I think they may have good intentions at their core, but it smacks of racism to me.

They're human beings. Nobody is perfect. However, they won't be voting for laws saying it is OK to discriminate based on race.

I grew up in the South, but I met an awful lot of liberal racists in San Francisco.

I'm not buying that tripe. You aren't a real liberal if you're a racist.

So a lot of liberals are hypocrites. Not a big suprise.

I grew up in the South, but I met an awful lot of liberal racists in San Francisco.

I'm not buying that tripe. You aren't a real liberal if you're a racist.

I've seen a lot of liberals that seem rather patronizing towards minorities. I think they may have good intentions at their core, but it smacks of racism to me.

They're human beings. Nobody is perfect. However, they won't be voting for laws saying it is OK to discriminate based on race.

Right, but what struck me was they seemed to regard the people they patronized as something less, save for their good intentioned help. Here's to human being. all of'em.

JT:

Just a quick question. Have you ever heard of the following organizations, to name just a few?

Congressional White Caucus

National Association for the Advancement of White People

The White Miss America Contest

White Entertainment Television

New White Panther Party

Ivory Magazine

White History Month

...yeah! I never heard of them either.

JT:

Just a quick question. Have you ever heard of the following organizations, to name just a few?

Congressional White Caucus

National Association for the Advancement of White People

The White Miss America Contest

White Entertainment Television

New White Panther Party

Ivory Magazine

White History Month

...yeah! I never heard of them either.

You're joking, right? There are a number of American white supremacist organizations. Often related to Nazis, anti-black, anti-Jewish, and anti-gay. In other words, fascist.

I grew up in the South, but I met an awful lot of liberal racists in San Francisco.

I'm not buying that tripe. You aren't a real liberal if you're a racist.

I've seen a lot of liberals that seem rather patronizing towards minorities. I think they may have good intentions at their core, but it smacks of racism to me.

They're human beings. Nobody is perfect. However, they won't be voting for laws saying it is OK to discriminate based on race.

Speaking of liberal hypocrites, even Obama, the Great Defender of Women's Rights pays women less than men...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128513/Women-paid-significantly-Obama-White-House-male-counterparts.html

All of President Barack Obama's employees may not be treated equally in the White House, as recently released financial records show that female employees earn significantly less than their male counterparts.

Using the 2011 annual report of White House staff salaries that was submitted to Congress, an $11,000 difference is clear between the median female employee salary and the median male employee salary.

That's total BS if it doesn't show what POSITIONS they have. Duh!

That's total BS if it doesn't show what POSITIONS they have. Duh!

So you are saying that Obama hires men for high paying adviser jobs, and women for lower paying cleaning and secretarial jobs. I guess that makes it OK then.

Of the administration's 20 top earners, who each took home a tidy $172,200 for their work in 2011, only six of those were women.

That's total BS if it doesn't show what POSITIONS they have. Duh!

So you are saying that Obama hires men for high paying adviser jobs, and women for lower paying cleaning and secretarial jobs. I guess that makes it OK then.

Of the administration's 20 top earners, who each took home a tidy $172,200 for their work in 2011, only six of those were women.

Not OK. Each job should be competitive and the best applicant should get the job, no matter what. Also, when they get the job they should be ALLOWED to do the job. Unlike the disgusting way Romney abused his token gay advisor. Will never forget that.

Romney isn't Rubio. Obama LED on this issue. Major points for Obama. The right wingers have BLOCKED the dream act. Obama did what he could do. That's LEADERSHIP. I love my Obama!

Romney has no answer on jobs. Just attack Obama. Just suggest the failed Bush policies that led to this crisis. His job performance in Massachusetts was atrocious. His experience as a corporate business vulture is irrelevant. Nobody is saying Obama's doesn't own the current economy, but Romney has no solution at all. Who will win in a landslide in Romney's supposed home political state of Massachusetts? OBAMA! Romney won't spend any money there. Should tell you something. Those that know him best want no part of him for president.

A couple of points.

The DEMOCRATIC Senate of Harry Reid killed immigration changes and a Dream Act in 2007. It had been proposed by George W. Bush. You remember him...right?

1. If Al Gore had carried his own state of Tennessee, he would not have needed Florida to become President.

2. If Walter Mondale had lost his home state of Minnesota, he would have lost all 57 states. Or is it 50 states, I get confused.

Sometimes the home state advantage doesn't mean a lot.

3. Romney has already said his first day in office he will do away with most all of Obama's job choking federal regulations and will start the process of dismantling Obamacare. These actions will be a big boost to private enterprises.

4. Dana Milbank is a died in the wool liberal media journalist firmly in the tank for Obama. You might be interested to read what he wrote:

____________________________________________________

Skip the falsehoods, Mr. President, and give us a plan

By Dana Milbank, Published: June 15

I had high hopes for President Obama’s speech on the economy. But instead of going to Ohio on Thursday with a compelling plan for the future, the president gave Americans a falsehood wrapped in a fallacy.

The falsehood is that he has been serious about cutting government spending. The fallacy is that this election will be some sort of referendum that will break the logjam in Washington.

...and this...

"Early in 2010, Obama told ABC’s Diane Sawyer that he’d “rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” Now he is acting in the opposite manner: hoping to limp to a second term without addressing the looming debt crisis — which, as JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon told Congress last week, has contributed to today’s economic malaise."

http://www.washingto...bXdV_story.html

OMG, what a sleazy attempt to oversimplify the issues of the 2007 immigration bill! The Dream Act was only one part of the package! You think you can sell the idea that it was all about Bush loving the Dream Act and democrats hating it? Pretty much characterizes your entire post. Kill regulations? Oh, that's brilliant. Who needs clean air and water? Kill Obamacare when most Americans love major parts of it especially the access for people with preexisting conditions. Also super brilliant.

The actual immigration bill issues:

Criticism

The bills received heated criticism from both the right wing and the left wing. Conservatives rejected providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as it would reward them for disregarding United States immigration laws. Liberals criticized the points-based system and provisions limiting family reunification visas available to only nuclear family members of US citizens as unfair. Labor unions, human rights, and some Hispanic organizations attacked the guest workers program, claiming that it would create a group of underclass workers with no benefits.^[15] Another criticism of the guest workers program was that because each guest worker is required to return home for a year before renewing his or her visa, these workers would instead overstay their visa, becoming illegal immigrants.

High-tech industry criticized the point-based green card system for scrapping employer sponsorship of green card applications and eliminating priority processing for the highly skilled workers specifically selected by the U.S. employers.^[16] Many immigration practitioners, while supporting aspects of the proposal, criticized the bill as "unworkable" and called for fundamentally revising it.^[17] Critics of the bill in the U.S. Senate also complained that the Senate consideration of the bill did not follow the usual procedure, as the bill did not go through the committee debate and approval process and the opportunities to offer floor amendments were limited.^[18][19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007

I agree Obama can be bolder and should focus his economic message. But that doesn't mean Romney from the party that created this mess, that will cause even MORE radical economic inequality in a country with some of the most severe economic inequality in the world, would be better than Obama.

All this is moot. Eventually, Obama will be impeached. No, not because he is black, but because he ignores the law. One of these days it will catch up to him - if he lasts longer than this November.

http://www.politico....0612/77486.html

President Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic — satisfying his political allies by not doing something.

Conservatives were angry when

Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue – gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards – the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive.

Rather than pushing new laws through a divided Congress to enact his agenda, Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters –like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.

Now, before anybody starts to praise Obama for ignoring laws, remember what a great idea you think it is when the next president you don't like starts doing it.

So predictable. Now it's about process. Impeach him. Why can't you just agree with him? The truth is the Dream Act can't get through the senate with the current insane 60 vote requirement. The republicans are so obstructionist now that they are ruining the country. They don't care to get ANYTHING done. All they care about is their obsession to remove Obama. If Obama said apple pie is good, they would say it is bad. This is not a two sided thing. The blame is squarely on the right wing for fanatical obstruction and extremism that makes Reagan look like a liberal. Even Jeb Bush is totally disgusted now with his own party. This must be stopped and elected the failed governor is not the way to stop it.

This is serious folks. Dead serious.

Acrimony and hyperpartisanship have seeped into every part of the political process. Congress is deadlocked and its approval ratings are at record lows. America’s two main political parties have given up their traditions of compromise, endangering our very system of constitutional democracy. And one of these parties has taken on the role of insurgent outlier; the Republicans have become ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, and ardently opposed to the established social and economic policy regime.

In It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein identify two overriding problems that have led Congress—and the United States—to the brink of institutional collapse. The first is the serious mismatch between our political parties, which have become as vehemently adversarial as parliamentary parties, and a governing system that, unlike a parliamentary democracy, makes it extremely difficult for majorities to act. Second, while both parties participate in tribal warfare, both sides are not equally culpable. The political system faces what the authors call “asymmetric polarization,” with the Republican Party implacably refusing to allow anything that might help the Democrats politically, no matter the cost.

It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism

Obama had two years when Congress and the Senate were mostly democrats, but he did nothing about immigration reform and nothing about gay marriage (except saying he was against it) and nothing worthwhile about fixing the economy - he made it worse. All he can do is blame everyone else, but the buck stops at HIS desk.

OMG, what a sleazy attempt to oversimplify the issues of the 2007 immigration bill! The Dream Act was only one part of the package! You think you can sell the idea that it was all about Bush loving the Dream Act and democrats hating it? Pretty much characterizes your entire post. Kill regulations? Oh, that's brilliant. Who needs clean air and water? Kill Obamacare when most Americans love major parts of it especially the access for people with preexisting conditions. Also super brilliant.

The actual immigration bill issues:

Criticism

The bills received heated criticism from both the right wing and the left wing. Conservatives rejected providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as it would reward them for disregarding United States immigration laws. Liberals criticized the points-based system and provisions limiting family reunification visas available to only nuclear family members of US citizens as unfair. Labor unions, human rights, and some Hispanic organizations attacked the guest workers program, claiming that it would create a group of underclass workers with no benefits.^[15] Another criticism of the guest workers program was that because each guest worker is required to return home for a year before renewing his or her visa, these workers would instead overstay their visa, becoming illegal immigrants.

High-tech industry criticized the point-based green card system for scrapping employer sponsorship of green card applications and eliminating priority processing for the highly skilled workers specifically selected by the U.S. employers.^[16] Many immigration practitioners, while supporting aspects of the proposal, criticized the bill as "unworkable" and called for fundamentally revising it.^[17] Critics of the bill in the U.S. Senate also complained that the Senate consideration of the bill did not follow the usual procedure, as the bill did not go through the committee debate and approval process and the opportunities to offer floor amendments were limited.^[18][19]

My post wasn't "sleazy" Discussing somebody's alleged dirty underwear is "sleazy".

1.You apparently failed to read your Wikipedia quote all the way through.

The last sentence reads: "Critics of the bill in the U.S. Senate also complained that the Senate consideration of the bill did not follow the usual procedure, as the bill did not go through the committee debate and approval process and the opportunities to offer floor amendments were limited."

The Senate Majority Leader decides which bills go to committee. Who was the Senate Majority Leader in 2007 and what party does he represent? What was Obama's stance on this bill...or did he merely vote "present"?

2. Poll: Obamacare still very unpopular....byPhilip Klein Senior Editorial Writer

Despite predictions by Democrats that President Obama's health care law would become more popular once it was passed, more than two years later, a new WSJ/NBC poll finds the legislation is still deeply unpopular.

According to the poll, just 36 percent of respondents say the law was a "good idea" compared with 45 percent who say it's a bad idea. Furthermore, 49 percent favor "repealing and eliminating" the law, compared with just 42 percent who favor keeping it.

http://articles.busi...-rasmussen-poll

3. Regulation Nation: New study finds Obama’s regs cost $46 billion a year

March 12, 2012 -- 4:39 PM

Paul Bedard

Some 10,215 new federal regulations from the Obama administration are costing consumers, businesses and the economy overall $46 billion annually, more than five times the regulatory price tag of former President Bush in his first three years in office. Worse: just implementing those regulations had a one-time additional cost of $11 billion, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis provided to Washington Secrets.

Ironically, Bush instituted more regulations, 10,674, but they cost just $8.1 billion annually, said the Heritage report, titled “Red Tape Rising: Obama and Regulation at the Three Year Mark.” It will be released Tuesday.

The analysis backs up complaints from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups that the president’s regulations are stalling the economy and employment growth. It also calls into question Obama’s promise to put the brakes on new regulations and his State of the Union bragging about issuing less red tape than Bush.

http://washingtonexa...cost-46-billion

The analysis backs up complaints from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups that the president’s regulations are stalling the economy and employment growth

Hence no reelection - despite his ever "evolving" stance on gay marriage.

All this is moot. Eventually, Obama will be impeached. No, not because he is black, but because he ignores the law. One of these days it will catch up to him - if he lasts longer than this November.

Now, before anybody starts to praise Obama for ignoring laws, remember what a great idea you think it is when the next president you don't like starts doing it.

Don't forget Libya

Yes the system as we know it is broken. It is true that dead lock at times holds things up but this is the law.

If a President is suddenly allowed to sidestep these laws/safety measures/ going through Congress & act on his own how is he different from a dictator?

Obama had two years when Congress and the Senate were mostly democrats, but he did nothing about immigration reform and nothing about gay marriage (except saying he was against it) and nothing worthwhile about fixing the economy - he made it worse. All he can do is blame everyone else, but the buck stops at HIS desk.

Yes but in his first two years his re-election campaign was not yet in full swing.....

Obama had two years when Congress and the Senate were mostly democrats, but he did nothing about immigration reform and nothing about gay marriage (except saying he was against it) and nothing worthwhile about fixing the economy - he made it worse. All he can do is blame everyone else, but the buck stops at HIS desk.

Yes but in his first two years his re-election campaign was not yet in full swing.....

Sorry to disagree but Obama started his reelection campaign immediately after he signed his decree to close Guantanamo.

Sorry to disagree but Obama started his reelection campaign immediately after he signed his decree to close Guantanamo.

Touche'

How about some looks at Obama's history while in the White House:

________________________________________________________

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

The U.S. has never before had a President who thinks so little of the American people that he imagines he can win re-election running on the opposite of reality. But that is the reality of President Obama today.

Waving a planted press commentary, Obama recently claimed on the campaign stump, “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years.”

http://www.forbes.co...-world-history/

________________________________________________________

Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws

By STEVE FRIESS | 6/16/12 7:02 AM EDT Updated: 6/16/12 8:21 PM EDT

President Barack Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic — satisfying his political allies by not doing something.

Conservatives were angry when Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants, but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue — gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards — the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive.

Rather than pushing new laws through a divided Congress to enact his agenda, Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters — like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.

“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz3qCxfyB00

So predictable. Now it's about process. Impeach him. Why can't you just agree with him? The truth is the Dream Act can't get through the senate with the current insane 60 vote requirement.

IT IS THE LAW. What part of that do you - and the Obama Admin - NOT UNDERSTAND? Obama is blatantly ignoring laws that are on the books. In doing so he is violating his oath of office to defend the Constitution. Ignoring the Constitution and going around it are not part of his oath. At least Nixon had enough shame to try and hide it.

The childlike mentality of liberals is that they want to do what makes them feel good even if it goes against the law. Remember, while you might think it is fine to ignore laws you disagree with, there are other people who would ignore laws you believe are absolutely necessary. What if some people decide that they want to ignore Hate Crime/Speech laws? I bet some around here would crap in their panties if that ever happened.

There are procedures to be followed in changing laws. Obama has been ruling (not governing) by presidential decree his whole term. Even early on he appointed over 50 "tsars" to oversee certain functions instead of traditional positions which need Congressional approval. I've always thought the calls for impeachment were ludicrous, but as more and more examples of him ignoring laws pile up, I find myself wondering WHY hasn't he been impeached yet?