Despite pledge, donations flow from Starbucks
If Starbucks chief Howard Schultz wants voters to withhold campaign cash from federal politicians, he may need to start with trying to halt the flow of donations coming from the people who work for him.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at KOMO News.
#1 Nov 24, 2011
;) Starducks! ;-0000h, free WiFive from Foxk dat Britee Hume from D see ;)
#3 Nov 25, 2011
thinking they will withold the other parasites send in money to get there cause thru
#4 Nov 25, 2011
Obama had convinced the electorate that he would end the wars, stop the violation of law by the US government, end the regime of illegal torture, close the torture prison of Guantanamo, and attend to the real needs of the American people rather than stuff the pockets of the military/security complex with taxpayers money.
Once in office, Obama renewed and extended the Bush/Cheney/neoconservative wars.
He validated the Bush regimes assaults on the US Constitution. He left Wall Street in charge of US economic policy, he absolved the Bush regime of its crimes, and he assigned to the American people the financial cost necessary to preserve the economic welfare of the mega-rich
“Hang 'em High”
Since: Sep 11
Commie Fake, Phony, & Fraud
#5 Nov 25, 2011
All the kenyan lizard does is lie. It's how corrupt, affirmative action subversive communist losers like him survive.
Sadly for him, his attempted communist coup WILL FAIL.
Here's a fine example of truth in journalism.....
Obama: The Affirmative Action President -- August 18, 2011
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
"To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass."
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
"And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?"
“Hang 'em High”
Since: Sep 11
Commie Fake, Phony, & Fraud
#6 Nov 25, 2011
[continued, part 2 of 2]
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
Add your comments below
|Water, historic sites are subjects of Washingto...||Jul '16||Go Blue Forever||1|
|Sen. Schumer helps fight city's homeless problem||Apr '16||Chucks False Charity||1|
|Senate passes energy bill with overwhelming bip...||Apr '16||Go Blue Forever||1|
|Hillary campaigns in Everett: Presidential cand...||Mar '16||NAFTAclinton||1|
|Forest Service likely to get more money to figh... (Dec '15)||Jan '16||billiesamolesrer||3|
|Congress Lifted the Crude Oil Export Ban, Which... (Dec '15)||Dec '15||Ritual Habitual||1|
|What Washington state's wildfires tell us about... (Sep '15)||Sep '15||Sterkfontein Swar...||6|
Find what you want!
Search Maria Cantwell Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC