Morning Must Reads: Digital

  • Share
  • Read Later

 

263 comments
paulejb
paulejb

A complete list of Obama's failed "green" industry companies.

"President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures"

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/...

Mitt was right. Barry can only pick losers.

paulejb
paulejb

" 'If four Americans get killed, it's not OPTIMAL': Obama's extraordinary response to security fiasco after Benghazi massacre" 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... 

Can Barack Obama be more out of touch with reality?

ahandout
ahandout

 This explains WHY our UN ambassador Susan Rice was blaming the video.

With the help of the State Department, the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution that amounts to a resolution against free speech by means of apparently reaffirming it.

General Assembly resolutions carry no legal force, but this one, like

so many others, augments the influence of Islam throughout the world.

The resolution, an initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), is based on one passed by the U.N.’s Human Rights Council in Geneva last spring. The State Department last week hosted a meeting to discuss ways of “implementing” it.

http://www.theatheistconservat...

ahandout
ahandout

The government says the anti-protest bill was just a small tweak of the existing law. Don’t believe it.

And that brings us to the real problem with the change to the old protest

law.  Instead of turning on a designated place, the protest ban turns

on what persons and spaces are deemed to warrant Secret Service

protection. It’s a perfect circle: The people who believe they are

important enough to warrant protest can now shield themselves from

protestors.  No wonder the Occupy supporters are worried.  In the spirit

of “free speech zones,” this law creates another space in which

protesters are free to be nowhere near the people they are protesting.

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

ahandout
ahandout

 Maybe you can relate to a liberal perspective on Obama's attack on free speech.

anti-protest bill, H.R. 347

H. R. 347 makes protest of any type potentially a federal offense with

anywhere from a year to 10 years in federal prison, providing it occurs

in the presence of elites brandishing Secret Service protection, or

during an officially defined 'National Special Security Event' (NSSE).

NSSEs , ( an invention of Bill Clinton) are events which have been

deemed worthy of Secret Service protection, which previously received no

such treatment. Justified through part of 'Presidential Decision

Directive 62 in 1998; Bill Clinton created an additional class of

special events explicitly under the authority of the U.S. Secret

Service.

Past NSSE events included the funerals of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan,

and the national security concern that was Superbowl XXXVI. Other NSSE

protected events include the Academy Awards and the 2008 Democratic and

Republican National Conventions. I suppose presidential candidates, no

matter how insane they may be are deserving as much security protection

as Brad and Angelina's sex life. The dangerous part of this 'executive

order' lies not in the triviality of a SuperBowl receiving taxpayer

funded Secret Service protection -- but in the convenience manufactured

for any President desperate to hide deliberations of groups like the

G-8, the G-20 and the World Trade Organization. The classification of

such events as NSSE -- insures the rich and powerful against any pesky

accountability or transparency to the unwashed minions -- namely the US

public. HR 347 amp; S. 1794 insulates such events as the G-8, WTO and

presidential conventions against tough questions and politically

justified protests.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

MrObvious
MrObvious

Again - read the snopes link. It captures also objections from many free speech sources. Don't hurt yourself now.

Anyways; I'm sure you got really p!zzed at the majority GOP house for passing this legislation.

No?

ahandout
ahandout

 Obama Makes Free Speech a Felony, Signs Anti-Protest Bill!

Here you go, MR. O.  Your days of support for Obama are over.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/ob...

MrObvious
MrObvious

President Obama signs an anti-protest bill, H.R. 347, prohibiting protesters from occupying areas near the Secret Service.

Here's the funny thing - BOTH PARTIES (399-3) signed it into legislation.

And I thought this was about UN?

You're all over the place on this. You think Romney will not use this if he wins?

Seriously - I'm watching this Fox News hysteria and I sure can understand why guys are the way you are.

http://www.snopes.com/politics...

First off the law have technically been in place for FORTY years.

BTW, the snopes link also includes what ACLU thought about it - you know the group of people you admire above everything.

ahandout
ahandout

 Dance Mr O. Dance.

That is a US law and it limits free speech.  Keep dancing.

MrObvious
MrObvious

So you went from UN for two days blah blah blah and when I asked about any legislation in regards to the two days you have been harking about, you throw out legislation passed in February that have been on the books for forty years AND that passed 399-3.

Color me very unimpressed. So yeah, keep dancing bud.

ahandout
ahandout

 Mr O, I thought you wouldn't back a candidate that would limit free speech.

Obama Declares War on Free Speech

 “If the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some

speech,” he explains, “presumably we are taking the view that all

countries — including the U.S. — should adhere to this resolution. If we

are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic

constitution, then we’re implicitly criticizing that constitution, and

committing ourselves to do what we can to change it.” He adds that in

order to be consistent, “the Administration would presumably have to

take what steps it can to ensure that supposed ‘hate speech’ that

incites hostility will indeed be punished. It would presumably be

committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment

law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment

of Justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of

express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).”

MrObvious
MrObvious

Lots of presumptions. Do you have a link? Also, do you have any proposed legislation to this effect?

I understand you're all hysterical about this since he's a Moslem anti-colonialist Marxist and fascist and all that. I therefore assumes that when you talk about this you can point to actual legislation that proves.

I mean you guys always talk about the private insurance overtake of our healthcare system (ACA) as proof of marxism.

MrObvious
MrObvious

2009???

Jesus Christ.

You sure are a very hysterical person aren't you?

So when I asked for legislation I did so thinking this was something new, but it turns out that it was from 2009 and you bait and switch with something else passed in February with almost ALL OF THEM VOTING YES.

MrObvious
MrObvious

Free bacon decided to go after some of the people in the second debate. Such as the woman who asked about assault weapons and the woman that asked about equal pay.

I always laugh when paulejb hark about so called liberal impulses since most of it is just a projection of what he and his kind does.

I would link to it but it's free bacon - if you're curious feel free and visit that special place.

Sue_N.
Sue_N.

Not if you paid me.

paulejb
paulejb

Sue_N,

I admire your loyalty to the liberal dogma. You never let the facts confuse you, do you, Sue?

MrObvious
MrObvious

Yeah Sue, by 'facts' he mean the fact that free bacon went after two people asking questions. Wonderful bunch of people huh?

paulejb
paulejb

mantisdragon91,

 on Obama Campaign Bullish after Strong Second Debate yesterday"

Romney

is bringing up Fast and Furious – a program initiated under the Bush 

administration, operated by a local office without consulting their 

superiors; it was fully investigated, and found not to reflect badly on 

anyone in the Obama administration.Red Green amp; Blue (http://s.tt/1qhiS)" (Emphasis mine)

======================================

Aren't you aware that DISQUS keeps a record of your lies, Bugs?

Eric Holder himself has testified that you are lying through your teeth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

 Then they must have pages and pages on you Troll.

paulejb
paulejb

mantisdragon91,

Clipped your wings, Bugs.

paulejb
paulejb

Steve0T,

"It's illegal to use federal money for abortions."

=================================

Not under ObamaCare.

"How ObamaCare uses Taxpayer Money to Pay for Abortions"

http://aclj.org/obamacare/how-...

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

 Some new studies by the Tax Policy

Center show, once again, that Mitt Romney's tax plan is mathematically

impossible. The plan, you may recall, is this relative to the current

policy baseline in which the Bush tax cuts are fully extended:

— Cut rates 20 percent across the board from the new baseline.

— Make up the lost revenue by reducing deductions and loopholes but not the tax preferences for investment income.

— Do so without raising taxes on the middle class.

The verbal argument that this is impossible is, I think, clearer than

the study based argument but I'll get to the latter. But in words, if

you want to change the tax code something has to change about the tax code.

You can either change the amount of revenue it brings in, or you can

shift around who bears the burden. But if your goal is to neither shift

the burden nor alter the distribution, then you can't change the tax

code. It's Romney's Trilemma—our of base-broadening reform, revenue

neutrality, and distributional neutrality you have to pick two. Romney

argues in the debates by switching between which two he's picking.

For his latest stunt, Romney has floated the idea that instead of

ending specific deductions he would just generically cap deductions at

$25,000 a year. That's a politically clever way to do it, and since the

cap is high it's a very progressive way of raising the revenue. But

Romney's Trilemma still bites. This base-broadening, distributionally

progressive reform doesn't raise enough revenue for Romney's proposed

across-the-board rate cuts. The Tax Policy Center says it gets you about $1.3 trillion over ten years when Romney's rate costs would cost $5 trillion. And that's $5 trillion over and above the price of fully extending the Bush tax cuts.

paulejb
paulejb

"Maybe where Romney is most sketchy is on women’s rights. I got a daughter and lost a daughter. I’ve got four granddaughters and Barack has two daughters. And this is to our core. Our daughters and our granddaughters are entitled to every single solitary operation, every single solitary opportunity!" (Emphasis mine)

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Breast implants and nose jobs too, Joe?

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

It's hardly a dog whistle when he was being frank about it like that.  They do have a right to abortions.

paulejb
paulejb

DonQuixotic,

Not on the taxpayers dime, Don.

Steve0T
Steve0T

It's illegal to use federal money for abortions. Guess you teabaggers scum don't even know what policies you're fighting for.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

That's a matter of opinion.  Either way I wouldn't call what Joe said a dog whistle.

robbert5
robbert5

Not sure if somebody else already posted this but I just read this on Paul Krugman's blog and next to being funny it pretty much sums Romney's economic plan up (emphasis mine):

"The true plan is to provide an economic stimulus in the form of Romney’s awesome awesomeness; the cover story is the pretense of having an actual program."

bobell
bobell

I posted this idea a day or two ago, but of course I stole all the ingredients from Krugman (including the Confidence Fairy, to which I made specific reference).  I just happened to put this particular salad of ideas together before he did.  That doesn't make me all that smart; it's pretty obvious when you think about it (unless you're paulejb, to whom the only things that are obvious are also wrong).

What it mainly is is very funny and extremely relevant to the election.