Since: Sep 12
#39466 Oct 18, 2012
LQQK PEOPLE. YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP. LOL
This makes Obama a hypocrite.
After Tuesday's town hall debate, President Obama is playing up his record on women's issues and ridiculing Mitt Romney for his "binders full of women" comment, but Mr. Obama has a mixed record when it comes to hiring women at the White House.
Team Obama clearly believes he thumped Mr. Romney on the question of equal pay and job opportunities for women.
"Mitt Romney still won't say whether he'd stand up for equal pay, but he did tell us he has 'binders full of women,' " Mr. Obama tweeted Wednesday morning, and his campaign later hosted a press call with equal pay advocate Lilly Ledbetter and Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood.
Although Mr. Romney has had several opportunities, he still hasn't said whether he believes the government should give women legal protections for pay equity, but during the debate he talked up his commitment to hiring several senior women staffers while governor of Massachusetts. Mr. Romney said he went to a "number of women's groups and said,'Can you help us find folks,' and they brought us whole binders full of women."
The binders comment immediately turned into a viral parody on social media networks and even had its own Twitter account with more than 12,000 followers by the end of the debate.
Later Wednesday in Iowa, when talking about his commitment to education and hiring more teachers, the president hammered Mr. Romney again on the binder comment.
"We don't have to collect a bunch of binders to find talented qualified young women" for these fields, Mr. Obama said.
But President Obama's own record on closing the gender pay gap is less than stellar. Using late 2011 figures, the latest available at the time, The Washington Times earlier this year surveyed 121 White House employees who were paid at least $100,000 and found that 47 were women and 74 were men. That is only slightly better than in 2003, the third year of the Bush administration, when 39 of the top 121 employees were women.
When all White House employees are considered, the Obama administration's record dims a bit further. Female employees earn a median salary of $60,000, roughly 18 percent less than men, whose median salary is $71,000.
While Mr. Obama has taken steps to ensure that senior women in the White House on average make as much or more than men, he has not dramatically increased the number of women at the highest levels compared with those serving under Mr. Bush.
In the highest-paid positions when Mr. Bush was in office — aides making $151,000 — four of 14 were women: Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser; Harriet Miers, a deputy chief of staff; Dina Powell, an assistant to the president for personnel; and Mary Spellings, an assistant for domestic policy.
In 2011, Mr. Obama had seven women compared with 14 men making the top White House salary —$172,000 — an increase of three women in the top ranks from the Bush administration's third year. Those women are: Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser; Melody Barnes, director of domestic policy; Stephanie Cutter, who served as deputy senior adviser before moving to the campaign; Nancy-Ann DeParle and Alyssa Mastromonaco, deputy chiefs of staff; Kathryn Ruemmler, White House counsel; and Christina Tchen, director of the White House Office of Public Engagement.
And statistics don't tell the whole story. Despite progress on closing pay disparities and hiring women for senior roles, the president has incurred persistent criticism that women in his White House for the most part are kept out of the inner circle.
The same woman who was one of Mr. Obama's debate coaches, Anita Dunn, complained that the White House when she worked there would have been in court for being a "hostile workplace" for women, according...
Since: Sep 12
#39467 Oct 18, 2012
OBAMA EXPOSED. TRUTH YOU MUST KNOW AND TELL
Obama DOES Have Investments In Cayman Islands Trust...
... and has a bigger pension than Romney!
One of the many tense moments in the second presidential debate turned on a new ...
Romney: "Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension?"
Obama: "You know, I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long. I don’t check it that often."
Romney says Obama also has investments in Chinese companies and through a Cayman Islands trust
Obama has larger pension then Romney http://www.cnbc.com/id/49450057
#39468 Oct 18, 2012
Come on sweetie, just because you republicans don't have Hitler to vote for as posted previously on this thread by the right winger you don't have to attack. Come on honey, hurry over. Get rid of the hate and sho me again how much you love my lovin.
#39469 Oct 18, 2012
as a man who has longer,stronger,more frequent erections, i would like to point out that this thread is 2 years old and needs to rest like the women i sleep with.
Since: Sep 12
#39473 Oct 18, 2012
Mitt Romney can count on more Electoral College votes than President Barack Obama, putting him closer to winning the White House than ever before. That's the new RealClearPolitics analysis based on the latest polling.
With 270 electoral votes needed to win, Romney now has 206, to Obama's 201. That leaves 131 tossups, according to RCP.
Not everybody's likely to sign off on this math. Most analysts agree that there are a handful of truly undecided states, including Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia.
But RCP also includes Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In those states polls are tightening, but still leaning Obama. And the track record favors the Democratic ticket. Republican presidential candidates haven't won there in at least 20 years.
Bottom line, it's likely to be a close election. The Daily Caller's Matt Lewis puts it this way: "Not predicting it, but the possibility that Romney could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote seems less and less ridiculous," he tweeted.
Since: Sep 12
#39474 Oct 18, 2012
How old did you say you are?
Are you just young and immature or is it a mental disorder you have?
When liberals post asinine statements like you just did you shame your fellow democrats and add another vote for the republicans.
I personally love it when you post your well thought out opinions....LMAO Keep up the good work. Post more and post lots. lol
Since: Sep 12
#39475 Oct 18, 2012
Hey bobby64, you kept asking me to show any electoral map that shows Romney winning. Well here it is my round brown friend.
Obama can't win without Ohio. LMAO
Since: Sep 12
#39476 Oct 18, 2012
Bobby64, it's okay, you don't need to keep hiding.
#39477 Oct 18, 2012
This is, of course, false. Obama can with without Ohio AND Florida. Romney can't win if he loses either one of them.
But more importantly, Romney isn't winning Ohio.
RCP Average - 10/5 - 10/17 - Obama +2.4
Rasmussen Reports - 10/17 - 10/17 - Obama +1
SurveyUSA - 10/12 - 10/15 - Obama +3
PPP (D)- 10/12 - 10/13 - Obama +5
Rasmussen Reports - 10/10 - 10/10 - Obama +1
Gravis Marketing - 10/6 - 10/10 - Romney +1
NBC/WSJ/Marist - 10/7 - 10/9 - Obama +6
ARG - 10/5 - 10/8 - Romney +1
CNN/Opinion Research - 10/5 - 10/8 - Obama +4
SurveyUSA - 10/5 - 10/8 - Obama +1
WeAskAmerica - 10/4 - 10/4 - Romney +1
Rasmussen Reports - 10/4 - 10/4 - Obama +1
#39489 Oct 18, 2012
Romney’s jobs plan revealed to be flim-flam
There you have it. Ten million of those jobs in Romney’s plan represent an entirely bogus promise. As for the remaining two million jobs that would be supposedly created by Romney’s trade policies, the report supplied by the Romney camp bills itself as “highly conditional”— and also doesn’t evaluate any of Romney’s policies. Kessler dubs Romney’s plan “bait and switch.”
Let’s recap what Kessler has discovered here. The plan that is central to Romney’s candidacy on the most important issue of this election — jobs — is a complete sham. This is every bit as bad — or worse — than Romney’s claim to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain, or his vow to cut spending by eliminating whole agencies without saying which ones, or his refusal to say how he’ll pay for his tax cuts.
Oh, and by the way: Economists have evaluated Obama’s jobs plan. And they concluded it would create one to two million jobs.
The bottom line is simple: One candidate has a jobs plan, and the other doesn’t.
#39490 Oct 18, 2012
Romney's central jobs argument exposed as fraudulent
If I had a nickel for every time Mitt Romney promised voters he'd create 12 million jobs if elected, I'd have nearly as much money as Mitt Romney. To a very real extent, it's become the central argument underpinning Romney's entire candidacy: vote for him, get 12 million jobs.
Indeed, the Republican best known for laying off American workers and failing to create jobs during his one term as governor, has been fairly specific, at least in terms of the goal: he'll not only create 12 million new jobs, Romney will do so in one term.
The main problem with Romney's vague and unspecified jobs plan has been the fact that the economy is on track to create 12 million jobs between 2012 and 2016 anyway. It makes this a pretty weak promise as campaign boasts go.
But to his credit, Glenn Kessler dug a little deeper, and discovered the Romney campaign's central argument is based on a shameless lie.
Since: Apr 11
#39491 Oct 18, 2012
a few weeks away and obama be elected out.
i still cant figure how people can slobber so much over a politician. kinda disturbing really
obama been nothing but a wall street puppet. yes having key wall st players such as larry summers,geitner,rubin, and bernanke(self proclaimed man above the law) is like putting the fox in the hen house. wall st reform? LMAO!!!
the fed has stolen over 24 TRILLION from the US treasury and much given to foreign banks and bernanke wont say which institutions or how much. whats that tell you ?
TOO BIG TOO FAIL IS A MYTH !!! you cant give wall st a blank check and hope all goes well via tarp and stimulus pay offs.
i can only hope romney does not offer the same.
the fed high rolling bankers do want:
CENTRAL BANK OF WORLD
NEW WORLD ORDER
with them in charge of the masses course
#39495 Oct 18, 2012
Here is a anti-marijuana and anti-gay Pennsylvania state congresswoman when the doors are closed.
Now here she is when the doors are open and her hypocrisy is in full view of others.
#39496 Oct 18, 2012
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary, No longer voluntary. 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program, Now 7.65% on the first $90,000. 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,Nolonger tax deductible. 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program, and, under Johnson the money was moved to the general fund and spent. 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your social security can be taxed. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a social security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to 'put away'-- you may be interested in the following:--------- Q: Which political party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.--------- Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?A: The Democratic party.--------- Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.--------- Q: Which political party decided to startgiving annuity payments to immigrants? AND MY FAVORITE: A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!--------- Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Securityaway! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
#39499 Oct 18, 2012
Does anyone else find it ironic that the name of the first poster on this thread was:
"CLOSE IT DOWN"
This has to be one of the signs of the apocolypse that were going to experience if Romneys elected.
Since: Sep 12
#39500 Oct 18, 2012
President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures
It is no secret that President Obama’s and green-energy supporters’(from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.
The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.
So far, 36 companies that have received federal support from taxpayers have either gone bankrupt or are laying off workers and are heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.
The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
1.Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
3.Solyndra ($535 million)*
4.Beacon Power ($69 million)*
5.AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
6.Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
7.SunPower ($1.5 billion)
8.First Solar ($1.46 billion)
9.Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
10.EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
11.Amonix ($5.9 million)
12.National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
13.Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
14.Abound Solar ($374 million)*
15.A123 Systems ($279 million)*
16.Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
17.Johnson Controls ($299 million)
18.Schneider Electric ($86 million)
19.Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
20.ECOtality ($126.2 million)
21.Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
22.Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
23.Mountain Plaza, Inc.($2 million)*
24.Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
25.Range Fuels ($80 million)*
26.Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
27.Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
28.LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
29.UniSolar ($100 million)*
30.Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
32.Vestas ($50 million)
33.LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)
34.Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
35.Navistar ($10 million)
36.Satcon ($3 million)*
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.
The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.
The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.
#39501 Oct 18, 2012
9-14-12: The House reauthorized the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, then limited taxpayer exposure to a 2005 Energy Policy Act. No jobs were created.
9-17&18-2012: The House took the first two days of this week off, because they CAN. No jobs were created.
9-19-12: The House approved: funding for Colordo fish recovery, Mescalero Apache's right to lease water rights, passage of an Iranian boogey-man rule, meaningless lip music to Georgia (Asia), a pancreatic cancer initiative, astronauts right to retain personal artififacts, improved fiduciaries of veterans, donations by tax-payers to the IRS, freeing dead veterans from educational debt, change in interest rates for the Small Business Act, the tracking of cross-border violence, aid to Burma, banned Chinese drywall, provisions for a National Pediatric Research Network, and the easing of rules to allow veterans to become EMTs. No jobs were created.
9-20-2012: The House approved:
limiting the Secretary of the Interiors authority to issue regulations untils December of 2012, plus several incomprehensible child welfare bills. No jobs were created.
9-21-12: The House approved the "Stop the War on Coal Act". I needn't remind you how pointlessly absurd this bill was. No jobs were created.
9-24-12: The House took the day off. No jobs were created.
9-25-12: The House played a little game called "Hmm, I wonder what they're doing in the Senate today?" Otherwise, bupkis. No jobs were created.
9-26-12: The House took the day off. No jobs were created.
9-27-12: The House took the day off. No jobs were created.
9-28-12: The House passed three bills regarding privacy and security issues. No jobs were created.
10-1&2&3-12: The House is taking the week off. No jobs were created.
Sorry. No job creation here. In fact, if you want to really understand what the Republican Party is trying to tell you simply insert the phrase "corporate profits" every time they say "jobs".
#39502 Oct 18, 2012
7-18-2012: The House was in recess on Monday the 16th. On the 17th it passed both a Department of State appropriations bill and the Insular Areas Act of 2011.(Insular areas are, generally speaking, small islands which the U.S. claims for itself.) No jobs were created.
7-20-2012: The House spent the 18th and 19th debating the massive Defense Appropriations Bill. No jobs were created.
7-23-2012: The House spent the Friday the 20th debating the massive Defense Appropriations Bill. No jobs were created.
7-25-2012: The House spent the 23th and 24th marking time until the August recess debating various suspension bills (requires a 2/3 vote), one of which prohibits the issuance of new regulations on business until the unemployment rate falls below 6%. Need I add which party authored such a nonsensical piece of tripe?
7-27-2012: On Wednesday the 25th the House voted to require a full audit of the Federal Reserve. On Thursday the 26th the House spent most of the day passing amendments for suspension bills, plus one whole hour to fix one typo. No jobs were created.
7-30-2012: The House took last Friday, the 27th, off because it was SUCH a tough week accomplishing nothing.
8-1-2012: The House was in recess Monday the 30th. On the 31st they took votes on three bills. One was to reduce executive positions subject to Senate approval and one was to make tax delinquents ineligible for federal jobs. These were essentially job-reducing bills, so of course they both passed. The third was an anti-abortion bill. It failed. Negative jobs were created.
8-3-2012: On Wednesday, the 1st, the House passed a series of ho-hum suspension rules and eventually voted down a revision of the Bush tax cuts that would have only taxed earnings in excess of $250k.
On Thursday, the 2nd, the House passed a resolution that said the government should keep its grubby mitts off the internet.
The House will now be in recess for the next five weeks. Maybe.
9-10-12 & 9-11-12: The House is finally back in session and the past two days have seen a flurry of voting on various bills, but they all ended on the same note:
"Motion to reconsider laid on the table and Agreed to without objection."
Meaning "Okay, we voted for this turkey but we're going to give it old skunk-eye once more before passing it along to the Senate."
9-12-12: The House passed bills to: extend the FISA Act, promote competitiveness in American manufacturing (don't get excited), and a land swap in Minnesota. No jobs were created.
9-13-12: The House passed nothing today, and for the first time in modern history, in the midst of a terrible drought, the House will not pass a Farm Bill. Not only have no jobs been created but our nation's farmers are going bankrupt. No jobs were created.
#39503 Oct 18, 2012
5-21-2012: On Friday the House passed a bloated defense spending bill, even though they were obligated to cut defense spending as part of the Super Committee agreement. Not only did the new bill include discriminitory language it also included an amendment allowing the government to institute propaganda against the American people. The president has vowed to veto this bill. No jobs were created unless you count the military contractors rolling in effluent streams of your tax dollars.
5-23-2012: Say it with me now: "The House is in recess until the 30th of May. Must be nice to have so many vacations. Oh, how I hate those indolent GOP swine."
6-1-2012: Another day, another abortion bill. This time the "Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act." Which was designed to stop abortions based on sex or race. Seriously. It failed to pass. Apart from that bit of nonsense the day was one long last-minute rush to pass bills that pay the government credit card. No jobs were created.
6-4-2012: Last Friday three Democratic (Hahn, Kaptur, Tonko) amendments to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy failed, while three Republican (Hultgren, Chaffetz, McClintock) amendments to reduce funding of energy efficiency and renewable energy also failed. No jobs were created.
6-6-2012: The House was not in session on Monday but on Tuesday it spent the day amending water and energy bills, mostly shuffling money from one account to another. It was not a job creating event.
6-8-2012: The House passed a bill to repeal a new exise tax on medical devices. The GOP refers to this as a "jobs bill". Another waste of time as the Senate will not consider the bill. In the meantime the GOP is still losing its shit over incandescent lightbulbs, voting to restrict funding for the application of energy-efficient lighting (The GOP evidently believes that CFL's are manufactured in Hell itself.) Job creation was not in evidence.
6-11-2012: On Friday the House voted to cut funding for Open World Leadership Center, the Congressional Research Service, and the Washington Botanic Garden. But, on the bright side, they voted themselves funds to print some snazzy new pocket-sized editions of the U.S. Constitution to hand out to constituents. As always, no jobs were created.
The House is in recess until the 18th of June.
6-20-2012: The past two days have seen nothing fancy from the House. Just a couple of suspension bills and some laws aimed at American Indians. No attempt was made to create jobs.
6-22-2012: The clusterfuck that is the Republican-led House of Representatives spent much time dawdling over the transportation bill, the only meaningful jobs bill under consideration.(Don't get your panties twisted about the "jobs" part of this bill. This same bill must be extended each and every year and the only time there's any opposition is when the president is black.) No jobs were created.
6-25-2012: The House adjourned on Friday, the 22nd. No jobs were created.
6-27-2012: The House was pro forma on Monday but was in session until almost 11:30 Tuesday night. Nothing got done. They couldn't even agree to name four post offices. No jobs were created.
6-29-2012: On Thursday, the 28th, the House passed several Homeland Security bills, named a couple of post offices, and voted to hold U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of.... something, because the right-wing base is screaming for blood and they must be appeased. No jobs were created.
7-2-2012: On Friday, the 29th, the House grudgingly passed the Transportation Bill, which has never been a problem up until now, and mortgaged the future of college graduates. No jobs were created.
The House is now adjourned until the 9th of July.
#39505 Oct 18, 2012
More job creation from the GOP here
Add your comments below
|Snyder's of Hanover (Aug '09)||Thu||Who dat||6,081|
|Snyder lance||Aug 19||unknown||4|
|Heroin problem grows in Hanover area (Nov '08)||Aug 18||Joan Bennett||323|
|Review: Dean's Auto Plaza (Sep '13)||Jul '15||Truthfull1||11|
|Review: Happy Nails||Jul '15||George Costanza||2|
|Heroin sentence 12 years (Jun '10)||Jun '15||gab||93|
|12-time DUI repeater gets up to 7 years in prison (Sep '08)||Apr '15||Trista Biddle||23|
Find what you want!
Search Hanover Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC