More nonsequitur. More off-topic. More hiding. Your FICO might be 800, but your apparent ability to respond on the merits is the absolute value of zero (0).
"Where is YOUR proof for: 1) Socialist Anti-American Values 2) Incompetence 3) Corruption" 1) Obamacare 2) Fast and Furious 3) Solyndra
Rome, as an ancient "superpower," collapsed because it spent itself into oblivion trying to maintain dominance and military supremacy. Sound familiar? It should, because contrary to the belief of some in this thread, that is precisely what happened to the former Soviet Union, with or without Reagan's assistance. That very same thing will happen to us, if we don't get our fiscal house in order. We will spend ourselves right down the same avenue that Rome once strolled before it became a ruin. We need to wake up, while we still have a chance, because some very wise people are already saying that it is too late for the United States of America to recover from the spending binge that it has been on for the past several decades. I'm not sticking around, I've got a trading forum to build. I just wanted to weigh-in on this tiresome topic and expose some of the hypocrisy that is all to often accompanied with such drivel.
1.Gingrichcare,Romneycare,Obamacare are mostly the same but republicans only have a problem with it when Obama passes it 2."Fast and Furious" http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-second-bush-era-gun-smuggling-probe-202043091.html AP Exclusive: Second Bush-era gun-smuggling probe WASHINGTON (AP) â A second Bush administration gun-trafficking investigation has surfaced using the same controversial tactic for which congressional Republicans have been criticizing the Obama administration. The tactic, called "gun walking," is already under investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general and by congressional Republicans, who have criticized the administration of Democratic President Barack Obama for letting it happen in an operation called "Fast and Furious". Emails obtained by The Associated Press show how in a 2007 investigation in Phoenix, agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives â depending on Mexican authorities to follow up â let guns "walk" across the border in an effort to identify higher-ups in gun networks. Justice Department policy has long required that illicit arms shipments be intercepted whenever possible. The 2007 probe operated out of the same ATF office that more recently ran the flawed Operation Fast and Furious. Both probes resulted in weapons disappearing across the border into Mexico, according to the emails. The 2007 probe was relatively small â involving over 200 weapons, just a dozen of which ended up in Mexico as a result of gun-walking. Fast and Furious involved over 2,000 weapons, some 1,400 of which have not been recovered and an unknown number of which wound up in Mexico. Earlier this month, it was disclosed that the gun-walking tactic didn't begin under Obama, but was also used in 2006 under his predecessor, George W. Bush. The probe, Operation Wide Receiver, was carried out by ATF's Tucson, Ariz., office and resulted in hundreds of guns being transferred to suspected arms traffickers. The older gun-walking cases now coming to light from the Bush administration illustrate how ATF â particularly its Phoenix field division, encompassing Tucson, Ariz., as well as Phoenix â has struggled for years to counter criticism that its normal seize-and-arrest tactics never caught any trafficking kingpins and were little more than a minor irritant that didn't keep U.S. guns out of the hands of Mexican gangs. Even those cases against low-level straw buyers are problematic for the ATF. There is no federal firearms trafficking law, making it difficult to prosecute cases. So law enforcement agencies resort to a wide variety of laws that do not carry stringent penalties â particularly for straw buyers. Documents and emails relating to the 2007 case were produced or made available months ago to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, though the Republicans on the panel have said little about them. In the congressional investigation, committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has focused on the questions of what Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, knew about Fast and Furious, and when he knew it. The 2007 probe began when an ATF agent identified several suspects from Mexico who bought weapons from a gun shop in Phoenix over a span of several months. According to the emails obtained by AP, the probe ran into trouble after agents saw the same suspects buy additional weapons from the same store and followed the suspects south toward the border at Nogales, Ariz., on Sept. 27, 2007. ATF officials notified the government of Mexico to be on the lookout. ATF agents saw the vehicle the suspects were driving reach the Mexican side of the border, but 20 minutes later, Mexican law enforcement authorities informed ATF that they did not see the vehicle. Committee spokesman Frederick Hill said the documents on the 2007 probe stand in contrast to statements "the Obama administration's Justice Department made to Congress in February 2011 that 'ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.'" Hill added that one difference between the 2007 incident and Operation Fast and Furious was that in the 2007 operation, "Mexican authorities were notified. However, in Operation Fast and Furious the Mexican authorities were deliberately kept in the dark." The emails from the 2007 probe show there was concern that ATF in Arizona had engaged in a tactic that resulted in the guns disappearing inside Mexico. "Have we discussed the strategy with the US Attorney's Office re letting the guns walk?" headquarters official William Hoover asked in an Oct. 4, 2007 email to William Newell, then ATF's special agent in charge of the Phoenix field division. "Do we have this approval in writing?" asked Hoover. "Have we discussed and thought thru the consequences of same? Are we tracking south of the border? Same re US Attorney's Office. Did we find out why they missed the hand-off of the vehicle?" At the time, Hoover was assistant director for the office of field operations. He was ATF's deputy director from May 2009 to September 2011 and is now special agent in charge of ATF's Washington, D.C., field division. "Would like your opinion on a verbal approval from the US Attorney in Phoenix re the firearms walking," Hoover emailed ATF's senior legal counsel for field operations on Oct. 5, 2007. "This is a major investigation with huge political implications and great potential if all goes well. We must also be very prepared if it doesn't go well." The lawyer, Anne Marie Paskalis, wrote back: "Sure. We will work this out. Perhaps a conference call ... to discuss what if any assurances they have received from USAO that this investigation is operating within the law and doj (Department of Justice) guidelines." On Oct. 5, Hoover wrote Carson Carroll, then ATF's assistant director for enforcement programs and services at agency headquarters in Washington, D.C., saying "I do not want any firearms to go South until further notice. I expect a full briefing paper on my desk Tuesday morning from SAC Newell with every question answered. I will not allow this case to go forward until we have written documentation from the US Attorney's office re full and complete buy in. I do not want anyone briefed on this case until I approve the information. This includes anyone in Mexico." On Oct. 6, Newell, the Phoenix SAC, wrote Carroll: "I think we both understand the extremely positive potential for a case such as this but at this point I'm so frustrated with this whole mess I'm shutting the case down and any further attempts to do something similar. We're done trying to pursue new and innovative initiatives â it's not worth the hassle." Newell, as the special agent in charge of the Phoenix division, was at the center of Operation Fast and Furious. He has acknowledged that mistakes were made in the agency's handling of the operation, and has been reassigned to a Washington headquarters job.
Hence one of many reasons I'm adamantly opposed to four more years of Odumbo. He has NO intention of reducing ANY spending.
This has been a very funny diatribe. IQ47 and V16, what a pair. They must have gotten some new computers with faster Internet at the loony bin. I hope they haven't given you two voting rights. The mentally challenged should not be allowed to vote.
Before I go: National Health Care is a National Strategic Emergency. It affects our National Security. Why? Because, we simply cannot afford to continue spending more than 1/6th of our national GDP, on a broken health care system that yields inferior results as compared to other health care systems around the world. Fail to reign-in health care costs, you place a permanent fault directly into the growth engine of any economy we dare dream-up to support our future needs as a nation. What Obama, did with Health Care was epic, historic and very much needed. He specifically said that it was not the be-all end-all. He specifically stated that it was not the end of our Health Care crisis, just the beginning of more comprehensive solution. He specifically stated that more needs to be done with structuring and cost containment, that would yield the savings necessary to correct the imbalance of care given -vs- cost of care care given. What he did was the right thing for America. He guided the nation to taking the first step toward solving our health care problem, but he in no way concluded that nothing more need be one to solidify the solution to STOP spending 1/6th of our national GDP on health care. Sure, the health care insurance companies don't like it, but the health care insurance companies who deny your claims when you need the health care the most are not the ONLY Americans represented by the new National Health Care laws. I have not met single individual who was able to clearly articulate the specific reasons WHY the new National Health Care laws were the wrong direction to move the country, other than using the politically driven phrase: Obama Care. As if that somehow excuses them from having to spell out what they do not like about All Americans having access to Health Care at an affordable price, or a Health Care system that does not discriminate against you because you happen to have a per-existing condition. The insurance providers have been making hundreds of billions of dollars over the years, by denying claims and raising your rates each and every year. It is long since time that ALL Citizens of this country, have affordable access to proper medical care and preventative care, which will go a long way toward helping to reduce overall costs. Lastly, what he heck does Solyndra, prove to you? How many oil companies benefited from the Bush wars? Fuel prices have been moving up, ever since Bush 43 took office, yet you don't classify Bush 43, as being corrupt, do you? Saudi Royal Oil concerns have raked in revenue hand over fist, ever since the Bush Family walked into the White House, starting with Bush 41. Yet, I don't see you labeling that family as "corrupt." Solyndra, was in no way a part of the Obama Administration, for the record. Solyndra, is like MANY new technology companies trying to find a foothold in the New Energy economy. Some will success, and some will fail along the way. Any new start-up involved in any brand new industry, will have to overcome many obstacles to success. Solyndra, in that regard is no different. Merely because a company failed, whose constituents once supported a Presidential campaign, and who later applied for and received a Government Loan (which many companies do who previous supported one political candidate or another) is in no way shape or form, an indictment on the Presidential candidate who later becomes President. If the company succeeded, you would have nothing to say, because MANY private companies received Government Loans, or Government Loan Guarantees and/or Government Welfare in the form of Subsidies, Tax Credits, Tax Deductions, Tax Loopholes, etc., all of them, donating money to somebodies political campaign somewhere in this country. The extreme Right Wing's reaction to Solyndra, is typical, classic and predictable. You take something that is highly normative and when you think it benefits you, you attempt to use it as a weapon, until that very same normative event happens to you. How many Bank executives, CEO and Founders, that went under during the 2008 implosion, were also contributors to the Bush Campaign during the 2000 and 2004 election cycles - only later to receive TARP I (Bush's TARP) tax payer money? This pointless game can be played all day long. Because the current system of campaign finance and the current failure of Congress and the Supreme Court, to get Corporate campaign money out of politics in general, we will constantly be seeing this problem. We've seen it in the past, we are seeing it right now and we will continue to see it in the future, until we decide that Corporate money has no place in National Political Elections.