believer;856281 wrote:Movies? I don't think so. He'll probably replace Tiger Woods on the PGA tour. He's getting plenty of practice.

Caddyshack 3?

Imagine the leftists, knowing full well the answer, going into anaphylactic shock next year when the question is asked:


Were you better off under President George W. Bush, or obama?


I can hardly wait ....

QuakerOats;856314 wrote:Imagine the leftists, knowing full well the answer, going into anaphylactic shock next year when the question is asked:


Were you better off under President George W. Bush, or obama?


I can hardly wait ....

That question will never be asked by the MSM.

wkfan;856318 wrote:That question will never be asked by the MSM.

Nope...and I doubt they'll use "it's the economy, stupid" either.

QuakerOats;856314 wrote:Imagine the leftists, knowing full well the answer, going into anaphylactic shock next year when the question is asked:


Were you better off under President George W. Bush, or obama?


I can hardly wait ....

wkfan;856318 wrote:That question will never be asked by the MSM.

Actually, the question they will ask is, "Since all of the good times under GW Bush were caused by Bill Clinton, and all of the misery therein caused by GW Bush himself- how much of the misery under Obama is really Bush's fault?"

jhay78;856402 wrote:Actually, the question they will ask is, "Since all of the good times under GW Bush were caused by Bill Clinton, and all of the misery therein caused by GW Bush himself- how much of the misery under Obama is really Bush's fault?"

I like it!

jhay78;856402 wrote:Actually, the question they will ask is, "Since all of the good times under GW Bush were caused by Bill Clinton, and all of the misery therein caused by GW Bush himself- how much of the misery under Obama is really Bush's fault?"

You're hired. Please come work for us.

Sincerely,

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, AP, Reuters, BBC and NPR.

Breaking ----- obama is interrupting this financial crisis with a dinner ushering in Ramadan



Change we can believe in ......

And then getting ready for 10 days at Martha's Vineyard. He feels your pain.

I'm glad he wasn't on my restructuring/turnaround team.

Change we can believe in ........

QuakerOats;857661 wrote:And then getting ready for 10 days at Martha's Vineyard. He feels your pain.

I'm glad he wasn't on my restructuring/turnaround team.

Change we can believe in ........

Yep, he's going to meet up with his exhausted bride whom is vacationing now in Portland and will need a breather next week after flying around on Air Force 2 all week. Man...tough life for the elites.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/127263683.html

Martha's Vineyard is quite therapeutic. Maybe he will come back with some reinforced vigor. Hope is all we got fellas.

rydawg5;857737 wrote:Martha's Vineyard is quite therapeutic. Maybe he will come back with some reinforced vigor. Hope is all we got fellas.

Or maybe he'll just stay at Martha's Vineyard for the next 18 months. That will give him fewer opportunities to "fix" things like the economy.

jhay78;858057 wrote:Or maybe he'll just stay at Martha's Vineyard for the next 18 months. That will give him fewer opportunities to "fix" things like the economy.

The island is hardly large enough for his ego .... I'm sure the natives will welcome his departure.

QuakerOats;858537 wrote:The island is hardly large enough for his ego .... I'm sure the natives will welcome his departure.

Naw...Martha's Vineyard is full of rich liberals like the Kennedy's. BHO will think he's died and gone to heaven.

11th Circuit rules the Individual Mandate unconstitutional. http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html

Bam isn't having a very good week.

fish82;860170 wrote:11th Circuit rules the Individual Mandate unconstitutional. http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html

Bam isn't having a very good week.

If individuals can opt out, it will sort of defeat the purpose of providing coverage to people who supposedly can't afford it. I suspect many of these people will opt out because they don't want to pay for it, eventhough Obamakare intends to give them free coverage. Free food, free healthcare, free cell phones...if we just give them a house these people won't even have to work!

We did give them free houses; we forced banks to make mortgage loans to people who could not afford them. In fact we gave them '120' loans so many of them probably cashed in the 20% and used it to buy tattoos, new rims, and some dope.

Rioting in the streets as the money runs out is probably around the corner.

fish82;860170 wrote:11th Circuit rules the Individual Mandate unconstitutional. http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html

Bam isn't having a very good week.

He can always cling to the opinions of morons like this guy:

The Obama administration did win some support from the appeals court for the individual mandate. One of the three judges, Stanley Marcus, dissented from the majority opinion.

The majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," wrote Marcus, also a Clinton appointee to the appeals court.

There you go. "Generally accepted" (even though nearly 60% favor repeal of Obamacare) now trumps the individual liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.

jhay78;860302 wrote:There you go. "Generally accepted" (even though nearly 60% favor repeal of Obamacare) now trumps the individual liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.

I'm appalled that even the most liberal judges can honestly believe that blatant interference by the Feds in personal liberties and the free market is remotely acceptable let alone openly support it.

jhay78;860302 wrote: "Generally accepted" (even though nearly 60% favor repeal of Obamacare) now trumps the individual liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.

Didn't you get the 'change-we-can-believe-in' memo?


You're probably late with your TPS reports too ....

Obama Warns Automakers Against Focusing On SUVs And Trucks.
The Hill (8/16, Restuccia) reports in its "E2 Wire" blog that President Obama, speaking in Cannon Falls, Minnesota yesterday said that "automakers should ditch their focus on SUVs and trucks in favor of smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles," explaining that while "there is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market. People are going to try to save money." The President also "said his administration 'turned around' the US auto industry and is calling on automakers to change the way they do business."


The first president to tell companies what products to make.

But he is "governing from the right".

Oh, and that is not a mega gas-guzzling $2,200,000 bus he is campaigning in this week.

Change we can believe.

Political elites (typically liberals) want you to do as they say, not as they do. Obama and his wife are the poster children of the political elite class. They've produced virtually nothing their entire lives and are very eager to tell hardworking, productive people how to better spend their money -- what isn't being taken away by government, of course.

gut;860188 wrote:If individuals can opt out, it will sort of defeat the purpose of providing coverage to people who supposedly can't afford it. I suspect many of these people will opt out because they don't want to pay for it, eventhough Obamakare intends to give them free coverage. Free food, free healthcare, free cell phones...if we just give them a house these people won't even have to work!

This may be a good thing as the mandate could have been better constructed anyways. The creator of the individual mandate, Mark Pauly, an economist who was part of the George H.W. Bush administration who crafted as a policy for the POTUS to propose as an alternative to liberal models of universal health care believes it could be better structured to be more like a tax than it's current form as a penalty.

This is his view in response to it being ruled unconstitutional:

"I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax. You either paid the tax and got insurance that way or went and got it another way. So I've been surprised at that argument. But I’m not an expert on the Constitution. My fix would be to simply say raise everyone’s taxes by what a health insurance policy would cost -- Congress definitely has the power to do that -- and then tell people that if they obtain insurance, they'll get a tax break of the same amount. So instead of a penalty, it’s a perfectly legal tax break. But this seems to me to angelic pinhead density arguments about whether it’s a payment to do something or not to do something."

Crazy 90's republicans and their reasonable approach to the world...

But additionally, this Court ruled it severable from the rest which is huge for BHO because that is largely the only Constitutional problem with it if we're to view it in light of contemporary jurisprudence. Congress could easily keep PPAC and craft a better mandate. I honestly think it's a win for BHO since the whole thing didn't get ruled unconstitutional at the appellate level. If republicans just did what the Heritage Foundation wanted in 1991 it'd be an easy fix but we all know that won't happen....

It is still a constitutionally illegal mandate regardless if they view it as a "fee" or "tax".

The government can not force the citizens to buy a good or service that they may or may not want.

jmog;864071 wrote:The government can not force the citizens to buy a good or service that they may or may not want.

But you forget, we are in the midst of a "fundamental transformation of America", as obama said in his campaign.