1 - 10 Next
Yes, yes we are. Because millions of people will continue to receive health CARE, not a "policy" that is accepted only by incompetent back alley "doctors" and substandard "hospitals." Because hundreds of thousands will not be forced out of their homes between the twin threats of higher taxes and either bloated premiums or an exorbitant "penalty" for not buying something they cannot afford. Because other hundreds of thousands of people will be able to keep their full-time jobs. Because yet more hundreds of thousands of people will have hope of getting a job. Obama looks bad because he is bad. We don't have to find things to make him look bad - we just have to try our best to limit the damages.
Whose identity has he stolen? He's stolen somebody's - even when he started working at the Washington Post, he had to submit an I-9. The only other possibility is that someone at the Post submitted a fraudulent I-9, a FELONY. Wups, one other possibility, which come to think of it is quite likely for a Democrat - he hasn't been paying any taxes.
They aren't following. They've been leading the pack for years now.
In response to:

The Stolen Job Myth

Richard31 Wrote: Jul 02, 2014 8:19 PM
Legal immigrants are just fine with most of us (I exclude some radicals - every group has some). Illegals though - let's look at their effect on jobs. OK, maybe they take the jobs that "Americans won't do." Two points here: First, Americans won't do those jobs because they are essentially slave labor. Sub-minimum wage (illegally), and absolutely no care about safety or health. Second, if you make all of these illegals American - don't you just need a whole new batch of non-Americans to do those jobs, as the newly minted Americans will start refusing them? Where does it end, pray tell? Let's compare two businesses - one that uses illegals, and one that does not. The legal business pays taxes, which are much higher to cover the expenses that the illegal business does not have - health care, bringing the effective income of the worker up to a barely livable level through welfare, educating the illegal children, paying police to keep the violent criminals that come with them in check - a whole host of expenses, paid through higher taxes (or, once the Fed has to stop fiddling, higher interest rates on their debt load). How do you think those higher expenses for doing business translate into whether the legal business will hire more legal workers, or lay off some of them? Or have to ask them to take a wage cut? And you are (theoretically) a business writer...
The adults here would appreciate if you would move your mutual idiocies elsewhere. In other words, please go poop in your own hallways, not in ours (we didn't need a $30K consultant to tell us it was a bad idea, unlike the Denver EPA office...)
Yes, we have had a 19% reduction (over two years) in hay production. However, I happen to follow ranching - the thinning of the herd last year was not so much hay not being available - it was hay not being deliverable to pastures, thanks to the heavy snows in much of the range. Ranchers, using forecasts that are NOT produced by the National Global Warming Propaganda Service, thinned herds in September and October, as they could not guarantee winter feeding in anything but their easily accessible pasturage. Feed grain stocks were also low, thanks to diversion to ethanol production.
The Democrats were just fine with the "status quo" - that's why they voted for Cochran.
Unless SHE really tanks (possible, yes - although I don't know who the next "Obama" is supposed to be), the publishers will happily give her another "advance" of that size, if not even a bigger one. You see, the "advance" for a book by any powerful politician (or one that looks like they will be) is about 5% pre-payment for the anticipated revenues - and 95% pre-payment for future crony political favors.
What she's saying is that she and Billy boy don't get any income from investing in companies that do such useless things as CREATE JOBS! That all of their money comes from flying around the country giving speeches, and receiving "fees" from their fellow Regressives. You know, that sounds much like the old tyrannical monarchies that they are trying to bring back - the Kings, Queens, and high Nobility never soiled their hands with grubby production of goods or services, or in trying to sell them. It just wasn't done. (Which is where we get the derogatory term "nouveau riche" from, for those who entered the wealth bracket of the "upper classes" by dint of productive effort, not squeezing the peasants for even more of their pitiful earnings.)
1 - 10 Next