Who do you support for Governor in Pe...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50802 Jul 8, 2013
G Bush wrote:
Obama said that the Fast and Furious program began "under the previous administration." That is not the case; Fast and Furious did begin during the time Obama held office.
Another similar program, called Operation Wide Receiver, did happen during the Bush administration, and a recent inspector general’s report criticized both operations as ineffective and seriously flawed.
But Operation Wide Receiver is not the same thing as the Fast and Furious program. We rate Obama’s statement False.
The first known ATF "gunwalking" operation to Mexican drug cartels, named Operation Wide Receiver, began in early 2006 and ran into late 2007.
At the time, under the Bush administration Department of Justice (DOJ), no arrests or indictments were made.


Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50803 Jul 8, 2013
G Bush wrote:
President Barack Obama has asserted executive privilege over documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious. The move followed Attorney General Eric Holder’s last-second request for him to do so, ahead of a scheduled House oversight committee vote to begin contempt of Congress proceedings against Holder.
Obama granted the 11th-hour request after negotiations between Holder and the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, fell apart again on Tuesday evening after a 20-minute meeting. Holder had agreed beforehand that he would provide internal DOJ documents to Issa ahead of the meeting. He did not bring the documents. On Tuesday evening, Issa gave him one final chance to provide the documents before the 10 a.m. scheduled vote to hold Holder in contempt.
Holder again did not provide the documents to Congress. Then, on Wednesday morning, minutes before the meeting, it was announced Obama had agreed to assert executive privilege over those documents.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/holder-asks...
Ranking member Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings said the assertion of executive privilege doesn’t block the committee from access to all documents, only some.

“As I understand it, the assertion does not cover everything in this category, such as whistleblower documents, and the administration has indicated that it remains willing to try to come to a mutual resolution despite its formal legal assertion,” Cummings said.

“As a member of Congress, I treat assertions of executive privilege very seriously, and I believe they should be used only sparingly. In this case, it seems clear that the administration was forced into this position by the committee’s unreasonable insistence on pressing forward with contempt despite the attorney general’s good faith offer.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/holder-asks...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50804 Jul 8, 2013
G Bush wrote:
The assertion of executive privilege raises monumental questions, Grassley said. How can the President assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the President exert executive privilege over documents he’s supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme? The contempt citation is an important procedural mechanism in our system of checks and balances. The questions from Congress go to determining what happened in a disastrous government program for accountability and so that it’s never repeated again.
Indiana Republican Rep. Dan Burton, a former chair of the oversight committee for six years, said Issa has been patient. He said the president’s decision to assert executive privilege to withhold documents makes him wonder if Obama knew of Fast and Furious.
The attorney general has asserted on numerous occasions that he didn’t know about this, now the president of the United States has claimed executive privilege,” Burton added. And now that brings into question how much Holder knew about this, and that the president knew about this. My question is, who knew about this, how high up did it go, did it go to the attorney general or president of the united states and when did they know about this?
When Obama asserted executive privilege over a set of internal Department of Justice (DOJ) documents on June 20, Fox News was quick to push the narrative -- straight from the GOP spin room -- that the president's use of privilege implied something sinister was afoot at the White House. As Happening Now guest host Gregg Jarrett put it, "If the president was not involved then executive privilege does not apply. If the president was involved, then three things, either Holder was not telling the truth in front of Congress, and or the White House was not telling the truth when it denied the White House and the president were involved, and the president himself may have not been telling the truth when he made statements."

There are two problems with this argument. First, Obama only asserted executive privilege over documents generated after February 4, 2011. Fast and Furious was terminated in January 2011. According to the letter that DOJ sent to Obama asking the president to assert his privilege, the documents in question "were created after the investigative tactic at issue in that operation had terminated and in the course of the Department's deliberative process concerning how to respond to congressional and related media inquiries into that operation."

Secondly, presidents have traditionally asserted executive privilege over matters in which they are not personally involved. When President George W. Bush first used executive privilege in December 2001, he acted to shield internal DOJ documents. In a separate instance in 2008, his Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, advised the president that he could shield Environmental Protection Agency documents because "[t]he doctrine of executive privilege also encompasses Executive Branch deliberative communications that do not implicate presidential decisionmaking."

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50805 Jul 8, 2013
The Department of Justice strongly disputes that it did not comply with the House Oversight Committee's subpoena. The assertion that DOJ was not in compliance is the opinion of some Republican Members of Congress and is not the conclusion of a party neutral to the conflict.

On May 15, Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote a letter to Issa that described the "extraordinary lengths" that DOJ went to satisfy the subpoena:

The assertion in the Draft Resolution (p. 14) that the Department [of Justice] has provided documents only for 10 of the 22 subpoena items is incorrect. In fact, the Department has produced or made available for review documents responsive to 16 of the 22 subpoena items. As to 13 of these items, we delivered the documents to the [House Oversight] Committee or made them available for staff review (subpoena items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, and 21). We provided access to documents responsive to three additional items (subpoena items 15, 17, and 18) in the course of briefings on sensitive law enforcement matters on October 5, 2011 and on subsequent occasions, as referenced in Section IV(C) below. We have not located any documents responsive to a 17th item (subpoena item 3). The documents responsive to the five remaining items (subpoena items 8, 9, 16, 19, and 22), as well as additional documents responsive to the other 16 items of the October 11 subpoena, pertain to sensitive law enforcement activities, including ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions that raise significant concerns for the Department, as discussed in Section III(A) below, or are materials generated by Department officials in the course of responding to congressional investigations or media inquiries about this matter that are generally not appropriate for disclosure, as discussed in Section III(B) below.

Additionally, this past week DOJ "promised to provide hundreds of pages of documents" describing how DOJ initially reached an inaccurate conclusion when describing tactics used in Fast and Furious in a February 2011 letter to Congress if the House Oversight Committee would halt the contempt proceedings. This offer was rejected by Issa.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50808 Jul 8, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
An Obamacare Surrender
Delaying the employer mandate signals massive system failure, not mere incompetence.
July 5, 2013
Washington is riven by conflict and deep-seated division. It is rare indeed when both sides can agree on anything consequential. Therefore it is incredibly heartening that there is now bipartisan agreement that the implementation of Obamacare is a mess.
Republicans have long maintained this, but now the Obama administration has lent its implicit assent with its astonishing decision to delay by a year the law’s employer mandate. This is what the administration calls, via a blog post by the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for tax policy that announced the decision,“Continuing to Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner.”
The Treasury Notes blog can call it whatever it wants, but there is no hiding the embarrassment of a climb-down on a high-profile feature of President Barack Obama’s signature initiative. Although the administration was determined to do all it could to hide it. Obama was apparently planning to announce it on July 3 — only because the day before Thanksgiving or Christmas Eve was too far off.
LOL! Another misinformed and confused rightwing opinion. I can't tell if these poor, desperate wingnuts actually believe this shit or if it's just more propaganda to keep the base stirred-up.

In any case, as I said the other times you posted this malarkey, Obama just made a move that STRENGTHENS the ACA.

Only about 4% of large employers don't already provide health insurance, so there aren't many who are affected by this decision. It is hardly a "major element" as the right claims.

But by delaying the so-called employer mandate, there will be no employer penalty when employees choose to enter the health insurance exchanges for their coverage. And that means more Americans will be participating in the exchanges, which actually ARE a major element of the ACA.

If the administration actually believed the ACA was in trouble, they wouldn't be moving to ensure that MORE people participate in it.
MORE people

Chicago, IL

#50810 Jul 8, 2013

If the administration actually believed the ACA was in trouble,

they wouldn't be moving to ensure that MORE people participate in it.


Obama campaigned in 2008 on a promise that Obamacare would reduce the cost of health insurance by $2,500 for average families.

But since Obamacare passed, the cost of an average family policy has already increased by $3,000.

That reflects the philosophical problem that so many “progressives” have with math,

which they are certain is a fascist conspiracy against working people.

(Why must 2 +2 always equal 4?

That is just fascist authoritarianism.

Why can’t we be flexible so it can sometimes equal 3, or 5?)



Portland, OR

#50811 Jul 8, 2013
Enter the racial hating TEA BAG comedy zone, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha them desperate dumb asses

Canonsburg, PA

#50812 Jul 8, 2013
ha ha

Fayetteville, NC

#50815 Jul 8, 2013
The daily beast, huh? Really? Try and catch a clue.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50816 Jul 8, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Our Era of Bipartisan Ineptitude
* Bush 43 and Obama have brought us back to the unhappy era of Johnson, Nixon and Carter
Who says that the bipartisan spirit is dead? Just last week, Pew Research listed incompetent as the word most frequently associated with President George W. Bush, and President Barack Obama. A day later, the administration announced that it was putting Obamacare’s much-vaunted employer mandate on hold for a year, until January 1, 2015, even as television cameras steadily streamed pictures from Cairo of the lethal tumult once known as the Arab Spring.
"Lloyd Green was the opposition research counsel to the George H.W. Bush campaign in 1988."


Rightwing partisans STILL don't like President Obama!


Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50818 Jul 9, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
Obama to Huddle with Black Caucus
Jul 8, 2013
President Barack Obama will huddle tomorrow with the Congressional Black Caucus. The meeting will take place at the White House....
"Lawmakers, including CBC chairwoman Marcia Fudge, a Democrat from Ohio, plan to press the president on what he’s doing to lower black unemployment, according to one of the people, who requested anonymity ahead of a meeting announcement.
"Black unemployment in June rose to 13.7 percent from 13.5 percent, according to the U.S. Labor Department."
The reason for the increase appears to have been a rise in the percentage of African-Americans looking for a job, rather than job losses.
This trend is not a new one, as the black unemployment rate has been roughly double that of whites since the government started tracking the figures in 1972.
"More people wanting work is what really pushed up the unemployment rate for blacks. That's a good thing," Austin said. "You want people to participate in the labor force."



Tell me Legacy (if you can you speak for yourself?)- do you advocate for President Obama to implement special policies in order to specifically address black unemployment?

Of course you don't. If he did the entire rightwing would have a freak-out of epic proportions.

So why does the right keep bringing this issue up? It's just another attack-Obama-no-matter-what-he -does scenario.
no way

Canonsburg, PA

#50821 Jul 9, 2013
not a chance

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50822 Jul 9, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
<quoted text>
When Will Obama Address Black Unemployment?
"The Labor Force Participation Rate, has never been lower since the seventies -- the percentage of eligible workers who actually have a job -- has stubbornly remained under 64 percent since 2011." Against this background the "unemployment rate for African-Americans is a devastating 23.7 percent," for Hispanics 13.2 percent, women 11.6% and youth overall, 16.1%
The real largely untold story about our economy, however, is the magnitude of unemployment among African-American youth.
What a poignant political and historical irony that our nation's first elected African-American president would promote and sponsor a domestic political agenda that will facilitate one of the highest rates of unemployment in the African-American community, particularly among teenagers? This is exactly the probable consequence if the pending Immigration Bill passes in the House.
This is how desperate you are for something to attack Obama over? You're using LIBERAL critiques of the President now?


So you didn't answer - do you support President Obama implementing special policies in order to specifically address black unemployment? I'll be that's what Clarence Jones wants. Is it what YOU want too?

Since: Jun 08

Not Waynesboro or Hagerstown

#50823 Jul 9, 2013
He will, so as to perpetuate the idea that racism is still as rampant as in the 60s.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50824 Jul 9, 2013
DoD Coup wrote:
Obama's Legacy will probably be the first ever military coup in US history.
DoD Coup wrote:
I wonder when the military will coup under Obama?
Look Dood - the Onion is stealing your material.


Joint Chiefs Chairman Pretty Sure He Could Pull Off Junta If He Really Wanted To

WASHINGTON—While stressing that he has no plans to mount such an insurrection, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Martin Dempsey told reporters Friday that if he really wanted to, he could probably carry out a sweeping military junta that would oust President Obama from power.

“I’m just saying, there are seven joint chiefs, we all have extensive military training, and we spend a lot of time behind closed doors with the president,” said Gen. Dempsey, adding that the more he thinks about it, the more he realizes that, if he had a mind to do such a thing, installing a military dictatorship “wouldn’t be all that difficult.”

“There really are no insurmountable barriers to eliminating him, declaring martial law, and having tanks on the White House lawn by the end of the day. I can’t say that I’m interested in making myself the ruler of a 300-million-person police state, but it certainly would be easier to do than a lot of people think.”

Dempsey went on to state that the nation’s various police forces and local militia movements would also “pose no significant threat.”



A military coup. Everybody knows it's a joke except you.


Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50825 Jul 9, 2013
GenPatton wrote:
He will, so as to perpetuate the idea that racism is still as rampant as in the 60s.
You are delusional.

I will bet you any amount you choose that the President will never - NEVER - implement any economic policies that are designed to specifically benefit African Americans.

He has said many, many times - he is the President of ALL of America, not just one section of America. Just because whites have historically used their power to systematically disadvantaged other races doesn't mean this President has any interest in doing that.

Perkasie, PA

#50832 Jul 9, 2013
Honest to God wrote:
Just because whites have historically used their power to systematically disadvantaged other races doesn't mean this President has any interest in doing that.
Dems credited with starting group that attacked both blacks, whites
The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans,
both black and white,
according to a new television program and book, which describe how the
Democrats started the KKK
and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.
An estimated 3,446 blacks
and 1,297 whites died
at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.
The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book
“Setting the Record Straight:
American History in Black & White,” which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.
“Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective,” Barton said in his book.
“Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching.
Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_ (author)

"Barton holds no formal credentials in history or law, and scholars dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, "pseudoscholarship" and spreading "outright falsehoods".[7][8][9][10] According to the New York Times, "many professional historians dismiss Mr. Barton, whose academic degree is in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University, as a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible."[4] Barton's 2012 book The Jefferson Lies was voted "the least credible history book in print" by the users of the History News Network website.

gee did "Baghdad Bob" put a blurb on the dust jacket?
Barton would need someone with better credibility then himself to sell the book.
jobs jobs jobs

West Mifflin, PA

#50836 Jul 9, 2013
Young people who fail to find early jobs are more likely to remain underemployed or unemployed into their 20s and beyond. The risks are compounded for low-income youth, who are more likely to leave school and have other problems when they do not find work.

According to a recent analysis by Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University, the percentage of teens employed has fallen from nearly 45 percent in 2000 to about 30 percent today. That is almost 10 times the decrease for adult workers, who are increasingly taking jobs that once went to teenagers.

The situation is far worse in low-income minority areas, where the youth employment rate appears to be hovering not much above 10 percent. That will only get worse as the economy contracts. And even when the recession ends, it could take an additional two or three years before youth employment begins to recover.

The evidence indicates that even as individuals reach their late 20&#8242;s, they work less and earn less the longer they were exposed to a higher minimum wage, especially as a teenager. The adverse longer-run effects of facing high minimum wages as a teenager are stronger for blacks.

For the minimum wage, the evidence points to disemployment effects that are concentrated among young minority men. For young women, there is little evidence that minimum wages reduce employment, with the exception of high school dropouts. In contrast, evidence strongly suggests that the EITC boosts employment of young women (although not teenagers). We also explore how minimum wages and the EITC interact, and the evidence reveals policy effects that vary substantially across different groups. For example, higher minimum wages appear to reduce earnings of minority men, and more so when the EITC is high. In contrast, our results indicate that the EITC boosts employment and earnings for minority women, and coupling the EITC with a higher minimum wage appears to enhance this positive effect.

The last minimum wage increase was in July of 2008. It’s due to rise again next year. If Obama wishes to reduce unemployment, and particularly unemployment among the young and among minority groups, he might consider putting off this increase at least until troubled times are over (I would suggest abolishing the minimum wage altogether, but one must try to be realistic).
jobs jobs jobs

West Mifflin, PA

#50837 Jul 9, 2013
Obamanomics, the law of unintended consequences! This is what happens when you

a) Saddle businesses with a host of new regulations that it more difficult for them to start or operate. It means less new businesses = less jobs

b) Hit them with taxes related to expanded healthcare. It causes them to hire as few ‘full time’ employees as possible = less jobs.

c) Create uncertainty over capital gains taxes. It causes less private equity investment = less jobs.

d) You borrow from the private sector to expand government spending, a more inefficient type of spending, which staves the more efficient private sector = less jobs.

e) You devalue the currency, making imported raw materials more expensive (oil, iron ore, etc), any gains in cheaper production costs are offset by more expensive raw material cots = less jobs.

f) You threaten business and use them as a scapegoat for your failed programs = less jobs

g) You raise the minimum wage. It is an economic truism that anytime you make things more expensive people use less of it = less jobs.

f) You threaten to raise income tax which results in less discretionary spending and less saving/ investment = less jobs.

g) You threaten penalize companies and people for being successful, they leave and take their business and money with them = less jobs.

Class warfare is great politics but bad business and if you want jobs…you want business
Hooded hood

West Mifflin, PA

#50839 Jul 9, 2013
There are some frightening similarities between the current Republican Party and the KKK. And right wingers, don't get mad. Just admit that this is true:

1)The KKK and the GOP are both very strong advocates for state rights.l
2)The KKK and the GOP both hate Black anti-racist watchdog groups like the NAACP. also, the KKK and the GOP HATE black anti white racism fighters like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Lewis, etc.
3)The KKK and the GOP both hate social safety net programs because they benefit some black people
4) The GOP and the KKK are both passionately against a woman's right to choose (But the KKK is at least honest enough to admit that their opposition to abortion is soley because white babies are aborted. KKK admits that they could give a damn about black and hispanic babies being aborted, something that the GOP is too dishonest to admit)
5) The KKK and the GOP both passionately hate President Obama, and call him names like "Sambo,Stymie, communist, socialist, fried chicken eater, etc."
6) The KKK and the GOP both hate public schools (primarily because they believe that it gives black males and white females too much of an opportunity to date)
7) The KKK and the GOP both hate labor Unions (both are also opposed to the minimum wage
8) The KKK and the GOP both passionately hate LIBERALS,, which needs no further explaining.
9) The KKK and the GOP both admire Ronald Reagan (KKK endorsed Ronald Reagan in both 1980 and in 1984)
10) The KKK and the GOP both claim to be staunch Christians (Of course, here is the contingency -- all the Biblical Characters, and Jesus, have to be white, like in the movies e.g. Passion of Christ, King of King, etc.)

And these are only a few of the very disturbing similarities between the KKK and the GOP.

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.

Loretto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Help Jan 12 Help 1
Jesus, Son of God (Mar '14) Oct '15 Disagree 6
celebrities phone numbers (Mar '08) Sep '15 raj 18
brother in prison in loretto (Feb '10) Sep '15 horrified in hershey 18
News Our view: Could Erie church closing be new begi... (Jul '15) Jul '15 Arington Sonya 6
What happen now? (Jun '15) Jun '15 DontFront 1
Cambria County Prison (Dec '11) Jun '15 DontFront 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Loretto Mortgages