Barack Obama, our next President

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ... Full Story
stars_and_bars

United States

#956348 Jul 29, 2013
Tonto 2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now's you chance. You have gun, You have inferiority complex. You can borrow wife's truck. Now's your chance. Tonto await you arrival with bated breath. But know this, yellow-eyes, Tonto will skin you like a rotten grape and shove the old stars and bars so far up your ass you'll sing Dixie. And then Tonto pour sulfuric acid on your face so you can hit all the high notes. Tonto spit on Tecas, as men have always done.
Dood,
You are a loser!
Using extinct cultures to project your self is not a good sign phukface...

You are finished...
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#956349 Jul 29, 2013
Memo: How The GOP Can Do The Right Thing On Immigration—And Win

July 29, 2013

To: Republican Colleagues

From: Ranking Member Jeff Sessions

The GOP needs to flip the immigration debate on its head.

The same set of GOP strategists, lobbyists, and donors who have always favored a proposal like the Gang of Eight immigration bill argue that the great lesson of the 2012 election is that the GOP needs to push for immediate amnesty and a drastic surge in low-skill immigration.

This is nonsense.

The GOP lost the election—as exit polls clearly show—because it hemorrhaged support from middle- and low-income Americans of all backgrounds. In changing the terms of the immigration debate we will not only prevent the implementation of a disastrous policy, but begin a larger effort to broaden our appeal to working Americans of all backgrounds. Now is the time to speak directly to the real and legitimate concerns of millions of hurting Americans whose wages have declined and whose job prospects have grown only bleaker. This humble and honest populism—in contrast to the Administration’s cheap demagoguery—would open the ears of millions who have turned away from our party. Of course, such a clear and honest message would require saying “no” to certain business demands and powerful interests who shaped the immigration bill in the Senate.

In Senator Schumer’s failed drive to acquire 70 votes, he convinced every single Democrat in his conference to support a bill that adds four times more guest workers than the rejected 2007 immigration plan while dramatically boosting the number of low-skill workers admitted to the country each year on a permanent basis. All this at a time when wages are lower than in 1999, when only 58 percent of U.S. adults are working, and when 47 million residents are on food stamps. Even CBO confirms that the proposal will reduce wages and increase unemployment. Low-income Americans will be hardest hit.

Ordinarily, this would be an act of political suicide for Democrats. How can they possibly succeed with a plan that will so badly injure American workers? Perhaps Senator Schumer, the White House, and their congressional allies believe the GOP lacks the insight to seize this important issue, push away certain financial interests, and make an unapologetic defense of working Americans. They seem, in fact, to expect the GOP House to drag their bill across the finish line. Indeed, more than a few in our party will argue that immigration reform must “serve the needs of businesses.” What about the needs of workers? Since when did we did we accept the idea that the immigration policy for our entire nation—with all its lasting social, economic, and moral implications—should be tailored to suit the financial interests of a few CEOs?

Americans broadly oppose further increases to our current generous immigration levels by a 2-1 margin, but the opposition among those earning less than $30,000 is especially strong: they prefer a reduction to an increase by a 3-1 margin. And no wonder: according to Harvard’s Dr. George Borjas, it’s the working poor whose wages have declined the most as a result of high immigration levels.
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#956350 Jul 29, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>poor waxy.
he's so jealous of tits magee!!!
So Yeah is you old man?

Yup, thought so.

You really are a sick flock Grey Ghost.

How is your "glorious" vacation going Wilhelm from Germany?

You leftards are so lame.

Baawaaahh!!!!

You, like Dupont, steal from your kids & future generations (thief).

Pathetic.

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#956351 Jul 29, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text> "many"? 99.2% are insured.
Hey 2008Bill. Are you going to back up your bunk? Ever?

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#956352 Jul 29, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say "deserve", I said "caused". Lots of things from Iraq Food for Oil to installing the Shah of Iran in the 50's to a proposed permanent military base in Saudi. OBL spelled it all out in his '96 fatwah. Fact is, most countries that haven't meddled in Middle Eastern affairs have not been targeted by Islamic extremists and its not likely we would have had our government adhered to the US Constitution.
I'd have thought a "libertarian" constitutionalist such as yourself would know that.
But, but, but, I didn't say...

Typical libtard.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#956353 Jul 29, 2013
Lily Boca Raton Fl wrote:
<quoted text>
You sucked in high school
So did O'bama, it was practice. Then came Larry Sinclair and the Love Reggie of his life.
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#956354 Jul 29, 2013
Where'd you go Grey Ghost/Wilhelm/Tits Magee/Dem/Yeah?

Don't tell us you forgot to pay your VPN provider, did you?

Or did your nurse slap you and tell you to lay down?

Judged:

11

10

8

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#956355 Jul 29, 2013
Update on California flag controversy:

The property manager tells CBS13 she met with Elliot Monday morning. They are giving her the option to move the flag to be in compliance with their policies or to keep the flag exactly where it is.

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#956357 Jul 29, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming that you mean median, not average, the median household income is approximately $50K, the dividing line between those who pay taxes and those who do not.
Do you know the difference between median and average?
Do you know the difference between tax payers and non-tax payers? Most of the wealthiest 1% don't pay dollar one in taxes, but enjoys the majority of Government services and perks .
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#956358 Jul 29, 2013
Tonto 2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now's you chance. You have gun, You have inferiority complex. You can borrow wife's truck. Now's your chance. Tonto await you arrival with bated breath. But know this, yellow-eyes, Tonto will skin you like a rotten grape and shove the old stars and bars so far up your ass you'll sing Dixie. And then Tonto pour sulfuric acid on your face so you can hit all the high notes. Tonto spit on Tecas, as men have always done.
Sorry Tonto (Grey Ghost), I didn't mean to forget about you.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#956359 Jul 29, 2013
John Galt wrote:
Memo: How The GOP Can Do The Right Thing On Immigration—And Win
July 29, 2013
To: Republican Colleagues
From: Ranking Member Jeff Sessions
The GOP needs to flip the immigration debate on its head.
The same set of GOP strategists, lobbyists, and donors who have always favored a proposal like the Gang of Eight immigration bill argue that the great lesson of the 2012 election is that the GOP needs to push for immediate amnesty and a drastic surge in low-skill immigration.
This is nonsense.
The GOP lost the election—as exit polls clearly show—because it hemorrhaged support from middle- and low-income Americans of all backgrounds. In changing the terms of the immigration debate we will not only prevent the implementation of a disastrous policy, but begin a larger effort to broaden our appeal to working Americans of all backgrounds. Now is the time to speak directly to the real and legitimate concerns of millions of hurting Americans whose wages have declined and whose job prospects have grown only bleaker. This humble and honest populism—in contrast to the Administration’s cheap demagoguery—would open the ears of millions who have turned away from our party. Of course, such a clear and honest message would require saying “no” to certain business demands and powerful interests who shaped the immigration bill in the Senate.
In Senator Schumer’s failed drive to acquire 70 votes, he convinced every single Democrat in his conference to support a bill that adds four times more guest workers than the rejected 2007 immigration plan while dramatically boosting the number of low-skill workers admitted to the country each year on a permanent basis. All this at a time when wages are lower than in 1999, when only 58 percent of U.S. adults are working, and when 47 million residents are on food stamps. Even CBO confirms that the proposal will reduce wages and increase unemployment. Low-income Americans will be hardest hit.
Ordinarily, this would be an act of political suicide for Democrats. How can they possibly succeed with a plan that will so badly injure American workers? Perhaps Senator Schumer, the White House, and their congressional allies believe the GOP lacks the insight to seize this important issue, push away certain financial interests, and make an unapologetic defense of working Americans. They seem, in fact, to expect the GOP House to drag their bill across the finish line. Indeed, more than a few in our party will argue that immigration reform must “serve the needs of businesses.” What about the needs of workers? Since when did we did we accept the idea that the immigration policy for our entire nation—with all its lasting social, economic, and moral implications—should be tailored to suit the financial interests of a few CEOs?
Americans broadly oppose further increases to our current generous immigration levels by a 2-1 margin, but the opposition among those earning less than $30,000 is especially strong: they prefer a reduction to an increase by a 3-1 margin. And no wonder: according to Harvard’s Dr. George Borjas, it’s the working poor whose wages have declined the most as a result of high immigration levels.
Jeff Sessions is a racist pig.

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#956361 Jul 29, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
I take care of myself & my family on my own. Nice try, dickweed.
I love it when you insured people pretend like you are so freakin' wealthy that you don't need health insurance. It makes me laugh.
I work, employ Americans, export US made products, & pay my taxes without whining about it 24/7.
You should learn from that.
"I take care of myself & my family on my own."

That's why you are an Obama voter, right?

Bullshitter.

Judged:

13

13

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#956362 Jul 29, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
See, Galt is learning to use the word "mean". Who says old goats can't learn.
BTW, I have degrees from two of those schools.
Only the first page counts, preferably the top ten.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#956363 Jul 29, 2013
frontporchreactionary wrote:
<quoted text>Do you know the difference between tax payers and non-tax payers? Most of the wealthiest 1% don't pay dollar one in taxes, but enjoys the majority of Government services and perks .
Hi Johnny!



Nice to see a liberal ninny make silly remarks.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#956364 Jul 29, 2013
Homey's, whites, and Eureaka! It CAN be a hate crime if a black person beats-up someone!

"Adams Morgan hate crime was motivated by Zimmerman verdict, police say"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/adams-mor...

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#956365 Jul 29, 2013
Planned Parenthood to Pay $1.4 Million in Medicaid Fraud Settlement

NOT ENOUGH!!!

Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, which serves southeast Texas and Louisiana, agreed this week to pay $1.4 million to the state of Texas, settling claims that one of the largest abortion providers in the Southeast had fraudulently overbilled the state’s Medicaid program.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office stated that its investigation into the fraud allegations “revealed that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast improperly billed the Texas Medicaid program for products and services that were never actually rendered, not medically necessary, and were not covered by the Medicaid program.”

The Texas Planned Parenthood allegedly “falsified material information in patients’ medical records” to bolster fraudulent claims for reimbursement.

*IF Planned Parenthood is doing this in TEXAS, they are doing it everywhere.

Seems Planned Parenthood is costing every tax payer money, any liberal every think this is why 'not about health, not about care' is so expensive?

Judged:

12

12

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#956366 Jul 29, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
The point being: investors aren't afraid of the colored fella as you claim to have been.
The fact that stocks indices have more than doubled in four years means that, if you were in stocks before the colored fella was nominated and have been out since then you've missed out on a whole buncha money.
Too bad. Guess it'll be King's Point in Delray instead of the Hamptons huh? Its ok, you can get a 1/1 for about $25k and all the Mahjong you can stand.
Galt hates Florida.

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#956367 Jul 29, 2013
Weaker men more likely to support welfare state and wealth redistribution

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-232...
Follow us:@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#956368 Jul 29, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why should Weiner pull out?"
There's just too much mileage to be had out of that name for him to fade into obscurity.
The Clintons may make an offer that Weinerman cannot refuse.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#956369 Jul 29, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text> "many"? 99.2% are insured.
Depends how you define "very wealthy."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 16 min harmonious 47,066
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 55 min Top of the Heap 4,054
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr KiMerde 50,063
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr Mister Tonka 98,373
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr WelbyMD 178,617
Group of thieves hit Bentley Gold Coast store 2 hr Go Blue Forever 4
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr HughBe 69,541
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]