Jump to content

Usa Thread


TroyinEwa/Perv
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, that didn't last long. :dunno:

 

 

White House Pressure for a Donor?

 

 

The Pentagon has worried for months that a project backed by a prominent Democratic donor might interfere with military GPS. Now Congress wants to know if the White House pressured a general to change his testimony.

 

 

The four-star Air Force general who oversees Air Force Space Command walked into a highly secured room on Capitol Hill a week ago to give a classified briefing to lawmakers and staff, and dropped a surprise. Pressed by members, Gen. William Shelton said the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to a company tied to a large Democratic donor.

 

The episode — confirmed by The Daily Beast in interviews with administration officials and the chairman of a congressional oversight committee — is the latest in a string of incidents that have given Republicans sudden fodder for questions about whether the Obama administration is politically interfering in routine government matters that affect donors or fundraisers. Already, the FBI and a House committee are investigating a federal loan guarantee to a now failed solar firm called Solyndra that is tied to a large Obama fundraiser.

 

Now the Pentagon has been raising concerns about a new wireless project by a satellite broadband company in Virginia called LightSquared, whose majority owner is an investment fund run by Democratic donor Philip Falcone.

 

According to officials familiar with the situation, Shelton’s prepared testimony was leaked in advance to the company. And the White House asked the general to alter the testimony to add two points: that the general supported the White House policy to add more broadband for commercial use; and that the Pentagon would try to resolve the questions around LightSquared with testing in just 90 days. Shelton chafed at the intervention, which seemed to soften the Pentagon’s position and might be viewed as helping the company as it tries to get the project launched, officials said.

 

“There was an attempt to influence the text of the testimony and to engage LightSquared in the process in order to bias his testimony,†Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) said in an interview. “The only people who were involved in the process in preparation for the hearing included the Department of Defense, the White House, and the Office Management and Budget.â€

 

...

 

 

More

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5555555555555 So the Pedophile-in-Chief (the dude in the WH who's fucking our kids and grandkids by drowning them in debt) is doing nothing but what comes naturally out of Chicgao politicians. And this asshole was gonna give the country "hope and change". What a fuckstick Barry is. 16 more months can't come fast enough. And the libtards try to crucify Cheney for his former ties to Halliburton? Don't make me fucking laugh.

 

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think Obama will lose Florida. Jewish voters were skittish about him originally anyway. Not to say this about all Jews but like many Blacks they have a hypersensitivity to Jewish/Israeli related issues. Just like how many blacks (as well as other groups, Native Americans, Latinos, Gays, Arsenal supporters ;-) are.

 

With a moslem father, Hussein as his middle name and known divisions between American blacks and jews going back about 30 years, Jewish Americans were always going to be a tough sell for him. Younger jews, those under say 30, are an easier sell as they grew up in a different world, Older Jews, especially the retiree set in Florida were always wary of him. They trusted Hillary much much more.

 

Therefore, I think Ohio is vital for Obama. Its going to be very very difficult to win without Florida and Ohio. I've always said I'm not happy with Obama's performance. I don't think its as bad as Republicans say (I'd expect that..lol...just like how Dems usually say a Republican is worse than he really was...Bush excepted). I used to support Repbulicans regularly, statewide and national. I've supported both. I've written more than a few posts how the first part of this decade pretty much ruined my support for the party as a whole. A few here and there I like. Ironcially (and strangely) enough Jeb Bush for example. I think the wrong brother became President. In this current field none of the leaders (Romney, Perry) has gotten me excited. The one or two I like (Paul, Huntsman) don't stand a chance and the fact that candidates like Bachman are even supported to the extent they do scares me. The Dems seemed to have dropped their fringe people a while back and have went centrist.

 

As for our ME policy. Lets be real and frank. Our stance on Israel is partially based on Florida being a vital state for a candidate. The jewish vote in America is a huge part of our policy. Not many have the political will to fight that. I'm a zionist. I support the notion of a state for Israel. They may have become a state by means that aren't 'kosher' (pun intended) but we can't reverse history. They are here to stay. However, I do think we can be fair going forward and I do not agree with or support things Israel has done. I'd like to see us remove ourselves as arbiters between Israel and the Palestinians. We are not trusted or liked by both sides. Israeli prime ministers come to America and talk about us being such close allies but within Israel we are not as liked. We are seen by many as coddling the Palestinians. Its a no win situation. Let the UN or Europe or whomever be the main arbiters. We can help and support the process but not be the main ones.

 

The rest of our ME policy is based on oil to some extent. Possibly a large extent. We have not learned lessons from the past for being an oil based economy. What I don't agree with Republicans about is trying to expand oil exploration, etc. Its led by the oil giants who own the party (as well as some Dems). Western thirst for oil has kept us politically and militarily involved in the region and its the source of our current terrorism issues. I've written a few posts on how to lesson our need for oil. We should be moving away from an oil based economy.

 

This upcoming election is not exciting to me. I do wonder who will win the nomination for the Republicans and if Obama will lose. That is exciting in some ways but for me its one of those elections where I think the people will lose no matter who wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5555555555555 So the Pedophile-in-Chief (the dude in the WH who's fucking our kids and grandkids by drowning them in debt) is doing nothing but what comes naturally out of Chicgao politicians. And this asshole was gonna give the country "hope and change". What a fuckstick Barry is. 16 more months can't come fast enough. And the libtards try to crucify Cheney for his former ties to Halliburton? Don't make me fucking laugh.

 

HH

 

HH 'ol buddy, I love ya but quit being wishy washy. How do you feel about Obama? His 'Hope and change' campaign was good to get elected but being as centrist as he was, it didn't translate in action. Centrism isn't hope and change. The government is so effed up that only radical changes can be 'hope and change'. There3 are some things both considerate far right and left that he could have done. Guantanamo is symbolic. Closing that would have done a lot. Many of us have talked about the airport screeners and Homeland Security. That would have been a great PR move at least. There are some governmental cutbacks he could have done. A conservative issue that would have let out some steam from the Tea Party folks. Health care should've been tackled later, 2nd term. Jobs should have been priority. Large infrastucture push to provide jobs should have been done with the same energy he put into health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steveo...I warned you "don't go to sleep" ! 555555555 I fear you've been taking some "cat naps". :sad:

 

You keep calling Obama a "centrist". I just don't get it. He's a leftist, Marxist ideologue. Check his background and who is mentors and associates were/are. Just because he hasn't been able to get everything he'd like in 2 1/2 years doesn't make him a centrist. He's been FORCED to compromise. He hasn't done anything "centrist" that he hasn't been FORCED to do. What has Barry actually proposed that is "centrist"? What has he done that fiscal or social moderates or conservatives promote that he has accepted without being FORCED to accept? Nada, is the answer. He's broken so many of his campaign promises that I don't think I could count them all. Probably just about all of them except that fucking he gave the country with Obamacare. Even that is a shell game. Like somebody on TV said the other night, it's the old cup and ball game, except Barry only has one cup left. Barry is an empty suit. It's too bad that so many people fell for the hope and change bullshit. You remember I called him the equivalent of Professor Hill in "Music Man" when he was campaigning? He's turned out to be exact like that huckster...only with a Marxist agenda. Even the independent CBO has said that Barry's numbers don't add up. Barry would have to tax the shit out of the middle class to fund all of his initiatives (which, to date, have included massive failures and produced more fraud than we'll probably ever know--at least while he's in office).

 

I really believe Barry was elected as an anti-Bush backlash. Not because he was the best candidate either party could produce. He was a smooth talker, especially when he had a teleprompter or was giving the same rah-rah speech for the umpteenth time.

 

Well, we saw in NYC the same kind of backlash that we saw in 2008. And it's only going to snowball in the next 12 months.

 

Stay awake guy...If you must, jump in a shower every couple of hours. Open the windows...smell the kimshi. Take some NoDoze 555555555555

 

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HH, how ya doing? Hope all is well. First I definitely agree that Obama was an anti Bush vote. I thought so at the time. I don't think there would be any way he would be elected for a myriad of reasons some obvious. That is not a crime in itself. Its what you do as President. A few presidents have been elected in times of upheaval. I would classify Reagan's victory as such. Staglfation, Iran hostage crisis, recession, etc. The country was wary of very conservative Republicans because of Nixon. Bush was a moderate and normally he'd have been elected if the country wasn't desparate for a complete change from Carter. Same circumstances for FDR as well. The country had over a decade of Republican control when he got elected.

 

As for the big O being a centrist. He retained a few Bush appointees and appointed a few (Making the NY Fed gov. the Fed chief for example). Health care on a national level is no longer a liberal idea. Republicans have been forced to come up with some sort of health plan when they campaign because the people do not like the present system. National health care has been in the minds of America since Clinton. Its not as radica as it was 15 years ago. Expanding the fight in Afghanistan is centrist or right of center. Immigration program he has is centris or slightly left of center. Ending don't ask, don't tell was gonna happen at some point. It was outdated. I don't know of proposal he has that I woudl deem radical left. Maybe there is one. I don't think because he's dones so kicking and screaming either.

 

I do see reasons not to vote for him. Very valid ones. The rub is who is the alternative? Will the eventual Republican nominee be a step forward, backward or no different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be more sympathetic to the Republican candidates if one of them actually had a genuine military service record of any kind. I am VERY suspicious of superpatriots who think everyone except them should have to go to war. Just why the fark didn't they serve? (We know the answer: low pay and a delayed start to their money-grubbing political career.)

 

At least Hillary was under sniper fire in Bosnia. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton Popularity Prompts Buyer’s Remorse

 

 

The most popular national political figure in America today is one who was rejected by her own party three years ago: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

 

Nearly two-thirds of Americans hold a favorable view of her and one-third are suffering a form of buyer’s remorse, saying the U.S. would be better off now if she had become president in 2008 instead of Barack Obama.

 

The finding in the latest Bloomberg National Poll shows a higher level of wishful thinking about a Hillary Clinton presidency than when a similar question was asked in July 2010. Then, a quarter of Americans held such a view.

 

“Looking back, I wonder if she would have been a stronger leader, knowing the games and the politics and all that goes on,†said Susan Dunlop, 50, a homemaker in New Port Richey, Florida. “I don’t think she would have bent as much.â€

 

Clinton, 63, a former first lady and U.S. senator from New York, fought with Obama for the Democratic nomination until June 2008, in what was often a combative primary that included her questioning his presidential readiness.

 

While 34 percent say things would be better under a Clinton administration, almost half - 47 percent - say things would be about the same and 13 percent say worse.

 

“Some of her appeal is that she is not Barack Obama,†said J. Ann Selzer, president of Des Moines, Iowa-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the Sept. 9-12 poll.

 

Obama’s Job Approval

 

Obama’s job approval rating stands at the lowest of his presidency, 45 percent, the poll shows.

 

Republicans are slightly more inclined than the national average to think the U.S. would be better off with Clinton running the country, with 39 percent saying so. A majority of Democrats - 57 percent - say things would be the same.

 

Clinton’s international sphere of influence offers some of the only areas where Obama scores well in the poll. On Libya, 42 percent approve of his job performance, while 65 percent like his efforts on terrorism, which include the May capture and killing of al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden.

 

A plurality of Tea Party supporters - 44 percent - say the U.S. would be better off with Hillary Clinton as president, even though 59 percent of those respondents have an unfavorable impression of her.

 

“She’s a more stable person who gets results,†said Joseph Cherney, 67, a retired Republican automotive purchasing worker from Mineral Ridge, Ohio. “The president we have now isn’t much of a president because he really doesn’t do anything. He’s pompous and arrogant.â€

 

Women’s Support

 

Women are no more or less likely to think the U.S. would be better off with Hillary Clinton at the helm than the rest of the population.

 

She is more likable to women, with 68 percent holding a favorable view, compared to 59 percent of men. All age groups hold favorable views of Clinton, although those 65 years and older are more fawning, with 68 percent in that group holding a favorable view.

 

Ninety percent of Democrats like Clinton, compared to 35 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of independents.

 

Those in the northeast U.S. are her biggest backers, with 77 percent there holding a favorable view, compared to 59 percent in the South and West and 64 percent in the Midwest.

 

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee in 2008, does not enjoy quite as much wishful thinking among Americans about what he would have done with a presidency.

 

McCain Ranking

 

Twenty-nine percent say things would be better if McCain were president, while 28 percent say things would be about the same and 35 percent say the nation would be in worse shape.

 

McCain’s numbers are virtually unchanged from the July 2010 Bloomberg poll.

 

In a Sept. 4 interview on Fox News, former Vice President Dick Cheney praised Clinton as he speculated on whether the Democrats would have been better off if she had been nominated.

 

“I have the sense that she’s one of the more competent members of the current administration, and it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president,†he said.

 

Clinton was asked about Cheney’s remarks and whether she had any interest in challenging Obama in a primary during a Sept. 9 interview on CNN.

 

“It’s below zero,†Clinton said, when asked about the chances of a challenge to Obama. “One of the great things about being secretary of state is I am out of politics. I am not interested in being drawn back into it by anybody.â€

 

 

Bloomberg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 Men Accused Of Taking Dead Friend Out For Night On The Town

 

 

DENVER (CBS4) – Two men are facing charges in a crime that has family members shocked.

 

They are accused of putting their deceased friend into a car and then heading out for a night of bar hopping.

 

Jeffrey Jarrett died last month. The cause of Jarrett’s death is still being investigated.

 

Jarrett’s family is appalled by what happened. Two of his friends, Robert Young and Mark Rubinson, allegedly loaded his body into a car, hit a bar in Denver then another one in Aurora, before finally taking Jarrett, 43, home.

 

Rubinson, 25, and Young, 43, then ended their night at Shotgun Willie’s in Glendale, but without Jarrett. They then allegedly took $400 out of Jarrett’s account.

 

 

post-98-0-89977900-1316181523_thumb.jpg

 

 

A member of Jarrett’s family, who didn’t want to be identified, said he was a loving father, graduate of Colorado State University and hockey player. She is devastated by the actions of Rubinson and Young.

 

"Taking a deceased person in a car, I mean, it just seems totally wrong,†said Jarrett’s family member.

 

Rubinson and Young face charges of abusing a corpse, identity theft and criminal impersonation. A relative said Young was living with Jarrett and came home on Aug. 27 to find him dead, but didn’t call for help.

 

“I’m horrified, I’m absolutely, I can’t even put in to words, I can’t imagine anybody thinking that maybe their friend is in trouble and not calling 911,†said Jarrett’s family member.

 

Family members still don’t know what caused Jarrett’s death but they say the circumstances surrounding it are still hard to believe.

 

“It’s terrible, it’s just something that we’re really having trouble coming to terms with,†said Jarrett’s family member.

 

 

My link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the only plan I saw the Republicans had was when they went and registered as Democrats and then voted for Obama in the primary. Their "Stop Hillary Express" was a sucess. It got Hillary out of the race and gor Obama elected.

 

I claim Obama is a creation of the Republican party - if it wasn't for the Republican party he would never have got elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...