why would anyone want to re elect obama?

[francoHFW]

Fitz, you think an article full of facts by our paper of record is a rant, and Rush/Fox/Pub rants/spin are facts. You're a brainwashed moron at this point. The obscenity is very impressive.

 

[Big Fitz]

Fitz, you think an article full of facts by our paper of record is a rant, and Rush/Fox/Pub rants/spin are facts. You're a brainwashed moron at this point. The obscenity is very impressive.

Fucko, your and your 'paper of record's' credibility have long since vanished. Spare me your feigned sanctimony.

 

[francoHFW]

Yup, the WHOLE WORLD is wrong except HS Grad pundits Rush and Beck, and their ignorant parrots....

 

[Big Fitz]

Yup, the WHOLE WORLD is wrong except HS Grad pundits Rush and Beck, and their ignorant parrots....

 

[theunbubba]

Maybe Fox.com forum would be better for you, dittohead.

Teenzombie.com would be for you.

 

[theunbubba]

Yup, the WHOLE WORLD is wrong except HS Grad pundits Rush and Beck, and their ignorant parrots....

Tell it to Mark Levin. Twit.

 

[francoHFW]

Fitz, you think an article full of facts by our paper of record is a rant, and Rush/Fox/Pub rants/spin are facts. You're a brainwashed moron at this point. The obscenity is very impressive.

Fucko, your and your 'paper of record's' credibility have long since vanished. Spare me your feigned sanctimony.

BTW, "feigned sanctimony" proof positive you are ignorant and, it appears, ALWAYS wrong.

Sanctimonious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...
hypocritically pious or devout <a sanctimonious moralist> <the king's
sanctimonious rebuke — G. B. Shaw>. 2. obsolete : possessing sanctity : holy ...

Sanctimonious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary - Cached - Similar

 

[Big Fitz]

Fitz, you think an article full of facts by our paper of record is a rant, and Rush/Fox/Pub rants/spin are facts. You're a brainwashed moron at this point. The obscenity is very impressive.

Fucko, your and your 'paper of record's' credibility have long since vanished. Spare me your feigned sanctimony.

BTW, "feigned sanctimony" proof positive you are ignorant and, it appears, ALWAYS wrong.

Sanctimonious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...
hypocritically pious or devout <a sanctimonious moralist> <the king's
sanctimonious rebuke — G. B. Shaw>. 2. obsolete : possessing sanctity : holy ...

Sanctimonious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary - Cached - Similar

You've obviously mistaken me for someone interested in the shit you spout.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I don't understand anyone that would more of this failure President. I know that things are extremely hard for people right now and Obama has made it that way. I just don't understand anyone that would want more hardships on them by re electing this man.

Hmmm. Yeah I guess Bush didn't contribute just a little bit? Okay let's let that one slide.

So why would I vote for Obama? It's sure not because I think he's been a great president, that's for sure. Not even good, really. But he's had his good moments, mostly in the last six months.

So why vote for him? Because of what the GOP is giving me as an alternative. Santorum or Gingrich are a slam-dunk-no-thought-needed vote for Obama. If the GOP is follish enough to nominate one of those two, they're handing the election to the Dems.
Romney? Well the nice thing about Romney is that he agrees with me on everything. No matter what my position is.
Obama seems intent on pissing off the Catholics.
Romney doesn't care about old people - unless perhaps if he gets a chance to fire them. Apparently, he likes that.

I think this election is like a duel in which both candidates are racing to see who can shoot themselves in the head first.
I'm betting Obama will win the GE and the Dems will have minor victories in Congress.

 

[Douger]

I'm sending a write-in for James Trafficant.

 

[zonly1]

why would anyone want to re elect obama?

An Obama loss would very likely mean a GOP controlled government.

That should be a good enough reason for anyone after seeing what happens when either party has a controlled government these days.

Sounding incoherent but it's a typical from libnutter.
Obama has signed what over Christmas break and said he needs force to go around the founders....I never nooo you loved communism.

You could march in the streets of china or russia and at the sametime be against US without a conscious.

Back in the day would be treason and then death.

 

[ecinicola]

I'm not happpy with any of the candidates, but I will vote for who ever is nominated. I sure am not dumb enough to vote for Obama We citizens have got to stand together and vote Obama out, or all of us face the worst of times yet.

 

[Douger]

I don't understand anyone that would more of this failure President. I know that things are extremely hard for people right now and Obama has made it that way. I just don't understand anyone that would want more hardships on them by re electing this man.

I'll vote it in for shits and giggles.

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't understand anyone that would more of this failure President. I know that things are extremely hard for people right now and Obama has made it that way. I just don't understand anyone that would want more hardships on them by re electing this man.

Hmmm. Yeah I guess Bush didn't contribute just a little bit? Okay let's let that one slide.

So why would I vote for Obama? It's sure not because I think he's been a great president, that's for sure. Not even good, really. But he's had his good moments, mostly in the last six months.

So why vote for him? Because of what the GOP is giving me as an alternative. Santorum or Gingrich are a slam-dunk-no-thought-needed vote for Obama. If the GOP is follish enough to nominate one of those two, they're handing the election to the Dems.
Romney? Well the nice thing about Romney is that he agrees with me on everything. No matter what my position is.
Obama seems intent on pissing off the Catholics.
Romney doesn't care about old people - unless perhaps if he gets a chance to fire them. Apparently, he likes that.

I think this election is like a duel in which both candidates are racing to see who can shoot themselves in the head first.
I'm betting Obama will win the GE and the Dems will have minor victories in Congress.

yes, Bush had one important part. He started the bad policy rolling. The catch is that P-BO doubled, tripled and quadrupled down on bad policy AND added even MORE bad policy independent from the crisis into the mix a la Obamacare.

He has his own part in it now, and it's not a good one.

 

[mskafka]

Forget term limits- you'd lose the good ones- ZERO years should be the limit for these bought off pubs fer chrissake. And cutting their pay makes it a sport for power mad millionnaires...ay caramba! Change the GD channel= you are just being distracted into voting against YOUR INTERESTS...

PUBS TO SCREW WITH INSIDER ACT: (AND,if you think the best American paper is socialist, CHANG THE GD CHANNEL!!!! ty.

Ban on Insider Trading Faces G.O.P. Revisions
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: February 7, 2012
Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin

Sign In to E-Mail

Print


Reprints

Share
CloseDiggRedditTumblrPermalink WASHINGTON &#8212; Lobbyists were in a tizzy on Tuesday over provisions of a Senate-passed ethics bill that tighten regulation of lobbying and require secretive &#8220;political intelligence&#8221; firms to register in the same way as lobbyists.

Related
Senate Approves Ban on Insider Trading by Congress (February 3, 2012)
Election 2012 iPhone App
A one-stop destination for the latest political news &#8212; from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.

Download Now | Learn More
House Republicans and their floor leader, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, said they would amend the bill, going to the House floor this week, to strengthen it.

But Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York, said, &#8220;I think &#8216;strengthening&#8217; here is a euphemism for &#8216;weakening.&#8217; &#8221;

And Representative Tim Walz, Democrat of Minnesota, said the bill, to ban insider trading by members of Congress, was being rewritten behind closed doors by House Republican leaders.

&#8220;How ironic,&#8221; Mr. Walz said. &#8220;Insiders now appear to be writing a bill meant to ban insider trading.&#8221;

The bill is intended to restore trust in Congress, but Mr. Walz said the revisions could &#8220;make the cynicism that&#8217;s rampant in America even greater.&#8221;

The thrust of the bill, passed in the Senate last week by a vote of 96 to 3, is to prohibit members of Congress from trading stocks and other securities on the basis of confidential information they receive as lawmakers.

An amendment offered by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, requires individuals or firms that collect intelligence from political insiders to register as lobbyists do.

At present, Mr. Grassley said, when lawmakers and their aides meet with &#8220;political intelligence consultants,&#8221; they have no way of knowing if the information they share will be sold to hedge funds, private equity firms or other investors who make a profit on it.

Ms. Slaughter, who introduced insider trading legislation in 2006, said the regulation of political intelligence-gathering was &#8220;the most important part of the bill.&#8221;

Howard Marlowe, president of the American League of Lobbyists, a professional group, said, &#8220;The legislation moved so quickly that we did not have an opportunity to discuss it with Senator Grassley or his staff.&#8221;

Under the bill, Mr. Marlowe said, &#8220;the definition of political intelligence is very fuzzy.&#8221; It includes information derived from contacts with Congress or federal agencies that is &#8220;intended for use in analyzing securities or commodities markets, or in informing investment decisions.&#8221;

J. Patrick Cave, managing partner of the Cypress Group, which does lobbying and policy research for investors, said: &#8220;People are freaking out about the Grassley amendment. For many, it&#8217;s new, and it remains rife with loopholes, but it&#8217;s a good start, clarifying the law and expanding disclosure requirements to include everyone.&#8221;

Mr. Cave and other experts on lobbying said the bill would require companies like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and law firms like Patton Boggs to register and disclose the clients for whom they did policy research analyzing developments in Washington.

Michael W. Mayhew, who has analyzed the demand for such services as chairman of Integrity Research Associates in New York, said the global market for political intelligence services exceeded $400 million a year. He estimated that close to 300 companies systematically collected such information.

Under the bill, Mr. Mayhew said, some of the political intelligence coming out of Washington would be classified as &#8220;material nonpublic information&#8221; and &#8220;people who invest on it could go to jail for insider trading.&#8221;

In a bulletin sent to clients this week, Covington & Burling, one of the largest law firms in Washington, said the bill could have an immense impact on &#8220;the business community.&#8221;

&#8220;Hedge funds, private equity funds and investment advisers &#8212; many of which are not currently registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act &#8212; might now be required either to register or to alter their business practices to avoid the need for registration,&#8221; the bulletin said. &#8220;If, for example, a hedge fund calls a Congressional committee staffer to gather information about the status of a bill that relates to the fund&#8217;s investment decisions, the fund may need to register.&#8221;

Robert K. Kelner, chairman of the political law practice group at Covington & Burling, said: &#8220;We have been flooded with calls about this legislation. I suspect there is a lot of lobbying to change it.&#8221;

Indeed, said Representative Slaughter, critics are &#8220;flooding Congress to try to weaken this bill.&#8221;

House Republicans said they would add a provision to prohibit members of Congress, their aides and executive branch officials from receiving special access to initial public stock offerings because of their positions.

Republicans call this &#8220;the Pelosi provision&#8221; because, they say, it was inspired by an investment in 2008 by Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who was then the speaker and is now the House Democratic leader. An aide to Ms. Pelosi said that neither she nor her husband, Paul F. Pelosi, had received &#8220;preferential treatment&#8221; when the company, Visa Inc., went public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/u...ngress-faces-gop-revisions-in-house.html?_r=1

You're about as useful as chicken shit on a pump handle Fucko. If I wanted to read the deranged rantings of the NYTimes, I'd have followed your link instead of having to scroll past your pastejob to ignore it.

Fitz, even FoxNews says more-or-less the same thing. There just isn't as much emphasis on Eric Cantor removing the provision of political intelligence members being prosecuted, as well as the politicians who participate. Fox DID point the finger at Mr. Cantor, but one has to read it very carefully. He says that political intelligence members, basically, haven't been proven to exist, or that their methods need to be "studied more". What that basically translates into to me is: "Fuck you, America....at least until I'm out of office." Again, kudos to the man. At least he isn't pretending to take the moral high ground. I'm sure that there are some Democrats who were WELL AWARE that this provision would be removed, when it reached the house.

The majority of them seem interested in one thing: and that is getting re-elected. And they are well aware that many people will not pay attention to this story. And many who do pay attention, will not be able to get past the fact that congress managed to accomplish something. Even if it's a shitty bill, that was a waste of time and money. Now that it's illegal for the members of both houses to do it themselves, they'll just delegate the responsibility (like many of them were probably doing, anyway) legally.

 

[mskafka]

why would anyone want to re elect obama?

An Obama loss would very likely mean a GOP controlled government.

That should be a good enough reason for anyone after seeing what happens when either party has a controlled government these days.

Sounding incoherent but it's a typical from libnutter.
Obama has signed what over Christmas break and said he needs force to go around the founders....I never nooo you loved communism.

You could march in the streets of china or russia and at the sametime be against US without a conscious.

Back in the day would be treason and then death.

Yes, but fortunately McCarthyism is over.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I don't understand anyone that would more of this failure President. I know that things are extremely hard for people right now and Obama has made it that way. I just don't understand anyone that would want more hardships on them by re electing this man.

Hmmm. Yeah I guess Bush didn't contribute just a little bit? Okay let's let that one slide.

So why would I vote for Obama? It's sure not because I think he's been a great president, that's for sure. Not even good, really. But he's had his good moments, mostly in the last six months.

So why vote for him? Because of what the GOP is giving me as an alternative. Santorum or Gingrich are a slam-dunk-no-thought-needed vote for Obama. If the GOP is follish enough to nominate one of those two, they're handing the election to the Dems.
Romney? Well the nice thing about Romney is that he agrees with me on everything. No matter what my position is.
Obama seems intent on pissing off the Catholics.
Romney doesn't care about old people - unless perhaps if he gets a chance to fire them. Apparently, he likes that.

I think this election is like a duel in which both candidates are racing to see who can shoot themselves in the head first.
I'm betting Obama will win the GE and the Dems will have minor victories in Congress.

yes, Bush had one important part. He started the bad policy rolling. The catch is that P-BO doubled, tripled and quadrupled down on bad policy AND added even MORE bad policy independent from the crisis into the mix a la Obamacare.

He has his own part in it now, and it's not a good one.

I agree. Obama should not have bailed out the banks - at the very least not the way he did.
I really don't know about the stimulus. It may have saved jobs but it was just plain stupid to promise "shovel-ready" jobs when the government bidding process was going to be involved. However, I do know a guy who has been working for over a year now on one of those jobs (Hover Dam highway project) and he's grateful as hell for what Repubs called "temp work".
ObamaCare sucks balls. It should be repealed. Replaced with what though? We definitely need something different than what we had.
So pretty much everything he did in his first couple years blew.

 

[Big Fitz]

An Obama loss would very likely mean a GOP controlled government.

That should be a good enough reason for anyone after seeing what happens when either party has a controlled government these days.

Sounding incoherent but it's a typical from libnutter.
Obama has signed what over Christmas break and said he needs force to go around the founders....I never nooo you loved communism.

You could march in the streets of china or russia and at the sametime be against US without a conscious.

Back in the day would be treason and then death.

Yes, but fortunately McCarthyism is over.

Are you kidding? It's alive and well on the left. It flipped upside down and is now used to blackball non liberal/socialist/communist/marxists from the entertainment industry, education and the media.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Sounding incoherent but it's a typical from libnutter.
Obama has signed what over Christmas break and said he needs force to go around the founders....I never nooo you loved communism.

You could march in the streets of china or russia and at the sametime be against US without a conscious.

Back in the day would be treason and then death.

Yes, but fortunately McCarthyism is over.

Are you kidding? It's alive and well on the left. It flipped upside down and is now used to blackball non liberal/socialist/communist/marxists from the entertainment industry, education and the media.

Okay that's just goofy. The Right isn't "blackballed" from any of those areas. Entertainment & Media? Heard of Eastwood, Chuck Norris or Mel Gibson? I mean sure, an industry that attracts more gays, liberals etc.. is more likely to BE liberal. Duh.
Education? Hmmm. How is the Right treating the educators of our country? Yeah, I'm reading about those great teachers and why they should earn more and be treated better from Conservatives all the time... not. But there are plenty of Conservative schools out there.
But in the last ten years, the only people I've seen calling for people to be investigated for being "UnAmerican" are Conservatives.

 

[Big Fitz]

Really? there's quite a few actors who have experienced blackballing or at least been eliminated because they are Republicans (not even conservatives) or voted for Bush. You don't hear about them because they've been driven out of the industry for the most part.

Also, when's the last time you've seen Mel Gibson or Clint Eastwood in a movie he didn't either produce or been the driving force behind? Occasionally star power overwhelms political and religious bigotry.