Shady

Great video from Robert Gibbs being eviscerated by two mainstream media journalists (Helen Thomas and Chip Reid). Apparently, they've also been very disappointed in the so-called "change" in politics that was suppose to take place by the new Administration. And actually, Helen Thomas even asserts that "it's never been this bad", in terms of White House media control. Watch Gibbs worm and squirm at the podium, trying to defend the indefensible. RCP Video

No. It seems, for whatever reason, that when a Democrat asks for a recount, they always find many "extra" votes, in the gosh darn, most unexpected places. Oh well, Sen. Stuart Smalley's gonna have a tough time getting re-elected, minus any similar "extra" vote finds scenarios. His approval ratings are already pretty crappy, and he hasn't even taken office yet.

More like they keep on getting asked about it, over and over again. Even when it's been asked and reported on in the past. It's just the usual drive-by media hit piece on Sarah Palin. They hate her, and they can't let it go. I'm guessing, after this thread, you're going to post the results of the November election, as if that's also some type of new story aswell.

How exactly did the test promote only non-Blacks? So you're saying the test was done in a way in which only White and Hispanic firefighters would do well? How is that even possible? Give it up man, you've lost.

Geez, it'd be nice if you applied this standard to all politicians, like maybe Sarah Palin? Hypocrite. If this indeed turns Canadians off of politics (which I doubt), then you contribute to it.

Unfortunately, but not suprisingly, your point sailed way past Dobbin's tiny little brain.

Are you disputing the fact that there were more ballots cast then eligible voters in Minnesota? It's fact. The dispute was what to do about it after the fact.

You're mixing two seperate issues. Anyways, looks like public opinion is shifting... Public Support for Sotomayor Falls After Supreme Court Reversal A heavily publicized U.S. Supreme Court reversal of an appeals court ruling by Judge Sonia Sotomayor has at least temporarily diminished public support for President Obama's first Supreme Court nominee. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the two nights following the Supreme Court decision, finds that 37% now believe Sotomayor should be confirmed while 39% disagree. Two weeks ago, the numbers were much brighter for the nominee. At that time, 42% favored confirmation, and 34% were opposed. Link

Unfortunately, it's all too real. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. WSJ

I liked the story better when I first read it, back in October of 2008. I'm not sure why this is news. CNN

And they agreed the case was handled inappropriately. That is fact. But there is a mystery in Sotomayor's recent history: a brief, unsigned opinion in the difficult race case now before the Supreme Court, Ricci v. DeStefano. Sotomayor punted when Ricci came before her, to such a degree that she raised more questions than she answered. In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal." If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. Slate That would be Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee. And it's nice that Ms. Sotomayor didn't want to legislate from the bench. But one still has to follow proper procedure, and those involved in the case still deserved an opinion/answer as to why they were rejected. She should have handled it professionally, instead of like amateur-hour. The Supreme Court of the United States ins't a place for such amateurs.

Nice try. The final decision may have been 5-4. But all 9 Justices agree the case was handled improperly by Sotomayor.

Why do you say again? He lost the election on Nov 4th, and lost the first re-count. It wasn't until he started to "find" extra votes in all kinds of places that he finally came out ahead. More votes cast in Minnesota then there are eligible voters. Chicago politics Minnesota-style. :angry:

Why? One of the firefighters who was discriminated against is Hispanic.

OTTAWA -- In a clear indication that Canada is starting to be considered a low-tax place to do business, Tim Hortons Inc. announced Monday plans to shift its base of operations from Delaware to Canada for tax purposes. Further, analysts indicate this is also a sign of unease among corporations regarding the U.S. business environment, where taxes are likely heading upward to deal with trillion-dollar deficits and proposed health-care reforms; and the White House is looking to crack down on companies that invest abroad. In Canada, the federal corporate tax rate is headed to 15% in 2012, and the federal Conservative government has called on the provinces to get to a 10% business levy by the same timeframe – for a combined 25% rate on corporate income. Alberta is already at 10%, British Columbia will be there in 2011, Ontario by 2013, and New Brunswick will go down further, to 8%, in 2012. In the United States, the top corporate tax rate is in the mid-30% range. As a result, the U.S. now has about the highest combined corporate tax rate, second only to Japan among industrialized countries. “If the U.S. tightens up on the tax treatment on foreign income, many Canadian companies — as well as other foreign entities operating in the U.S. – might look to put headquarters and holding company functions in Canada since dividends from foreign affiliates are not taxed by Canada,” said Jack Mintz, a public policy expert from the University of Calgary and a renowned tax expert. Link It's good to see that Canada is being placed in a very good position regarding the global economy, especialy going forward, and especially as other countries raise their taxes to cover foolish spending, such as Obama's and Brown's spending disasters. Congratulations to Mr. Harper, and congratulations to Canadians. On a side note, this type of story proves thoroughly that the NDP would be an absolute disaster with federal power, and would contribute greatly to Canada's economic demise, seeing as raising corporate and business taxes, and raising personal income taxes is what much of their economic platform is based upon.

Yep. Even his own generals believed they had WMD. That's why it's so laughable when people claim President Bush lied America into the war in Iraq. As it turns out, the only person really lying about WMD was Saddam Hussein.

Let's not forget about the Hispanic firefighters involved in the same court decision. Today's ruling is a triumph over discrimination of all kinds.

You're completely wrong. From the link I posted... Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016

And how exactly did his so-called family values policies invade the personal lives of citizens. If anyone's policies are invading the lives of citizens, it's President Obama's. He's going to tell you what you can eat, and what you can drink. He's going to tell you what you can drive, and what you use to fuel your vehicles. He's going to tell you who you can purchase healthcare coverage from, and what kind of coverage it'll be. He's the one who's going to tell you how much a private company can pay its employees, and how much of a bonus they'll get. He's the one who's going to force you to pay higher taxes on energy, if it's the "wrong" kind of energy. He's the one who's signed on to Bush's wiretapping, while at the same time issuing new tools such as "preventive detention". And he's the one who's chosen which car dealerships are allowed to remain in business, and which ones are to be closed. If you have a problem with Bush, then I can't begin to measure the problem you must have with Obama. Wow, you mean he was benign to an ally? I'm shocked. How exactly was his treatment of Saudi Arabia different from any other President? Wrong. Afghanistan was the source of Al Qaeda. Remember, it was their safe-haven. Complete nonsense. Go start a 9/11 was an inside job thread if you wanna spread that shit around. Nobody ignored the warnings of possible attacks on U.S. soil. Everyone was quite aware of the threat of an attack ever since the first bombing of the WTC in 1993 by Islamic terrorists. You mean the Patriot Act that was voted on by Congress? You mean the same Patriot Act that President Obama uses today? You mean the same wiretapping that President Obama uses today? How about Obama's "prolonged detention" order? How long before Obama establishes a pre-crime division? YouTube

This is a great graph, illustrating the astronomical debt that Obama's "hope n change" is going to dump on America. *This image contains fiscally explicit images* PIC What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details: President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion. President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course. President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund. President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it. President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent. President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend. President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

That's because, luckily, the NDP hasn't been able to implement it's radical environmental agenda federally yet.

I'm not sure I'd trust the NDP to grow the oil industry. If it was up to them, they'd put oil and coal out of business.

Then it's my contention that Liberals would rather steal taxpayer's money then govern. When they're in power, they use government as their personal bank account. Everyone should be constantly reminded of that fact. Kinda like what you've been doing.

Exactly. His answers are nothing but his own false premises. Because the Conservatives have successful political ads out, criticizing the Liberals, they must be more interested in attacking then governing. Please. Go setup strawmen somewhere else. It's just more of Dobbin's usual political hackery.

Actually, no. It shows that the Conservatives are winning. Winning is winning. Whether it's by a minority or by a majority. What it does really show is that the Liberals are losing. And that's why they're complaining now. It might. It has for the Liberals in the past.