TexasCHLforum.com

Another huge "I'll have more flexibility after the election" problem... The EPA.

Environmental Protection Agency has delayed action or “punted” on numerous regulations while President Obama tries to “earn votes” for a second term.
.........................
EPA was pondering a change to how it analyzes problems and makes decisions, in a way that would also give it vastly expanded power to regulate businesses, communities and ecosystems in the name of “sustainable development.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... s-economy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dave2 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Obama campaign accepted foreign Web donation -- and may be hiding more
By ISABEL VINCENT and MELISSA KLEIN
Last Updated: 10:11 AM, October 21, 2012
Posted: 12:34 AM, October 21, 2012
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/b ... hyDCRyyrEL

The Obama re-election campaign has accepted at least one foreign donation in violation of the law — and does nothing to check on the provenance of millions of dollars in other contributions, a watchdog group alleges.

Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.

Walker said he used his actual street address in England but entered Arkansas as his state with the Schenectady, NY, ZIP code of 12345.

“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”

This administration wouldn't recognize moral behavior if it crawled up their pants and bit them on the crotch.

What's the fallout from this? Will it be investigated before the election? And what are the consequences if it's true?

I'm going to guess that is what is known as a "rhetorical question" based on how the bulk of the mass media in this country acts like a bunch of lap dogs for the current POTUS (no offense to lap dogs intended).

Heartland Patriot wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Obama campaign accepted foreign Web donation -- and may be hiding more
By ISABEL VINCENT and MELISSA KLEIN
Last Updated: 10:11 AM, October 21, 2012
Posted: 12:34 AM, October 21, 2012
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/b ... hyDCRyyrEL

The Obama re-election campaign has accepted at least one foreign donation in violation of the law — and does nothing to check on the provenance of millions of dollars in other contributions, a watchdog group alleges.

Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.

Walker said he used his actual street address in England but entered Arkansas as his state with the Schenectady, NY, ZIP code of 12345.

“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”

This administration wouldn't recognize moral behavior if it crawled up their pants and bit them on the crotch.

What's the fallout from this? Will it be investigated before the election? And what are the consequences if it's true?

I'm going to guess that is what is known as a "rhetorical question" based on how the bulk of the mass media in this country acts like a bunch of lap dogs for the current POTUS (no offense to lap dogs intended).

THIS ^

And by the way, THIS is why democrats cannot be trusted with the integrity of the electoral process:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=IQ3ahVJSjo8[/youtube]

Hudson said "At first I didn't think it was that big a deal because I'd always heard that's what everyone did."

Vodka.!!.??

Everyone knows votes are purchased only with Bourbon.! Barbarians, those Democrats.

RoyGBiv wrote:Vodka.!!.??

Everyone knows votes are purchased only with Bourbon.! Barbarians, those Democrats.

Nah. I only vote for money. Drinking is immoral.

RoyGBiv wrote:Vodka.!!.??

Everyone knows votes are purchased only with Bourbon.! Barbarians, those Democrats.

They're buying communist votes.

Happily Ever After wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Vodka.!!.??

Everyone knows votes are purchased only with Bourbon.! Barbarians, those Democrats.

They're buying communist votes.

Happily Ever After wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Vodka.!!.??

Everyone knows votes are purchased only with Bourbon.! Barbarians, those Democrats.

They're buying communist votes.

Comrade, it is properly known as redistributing wealth to dedicated members of the Party. вперед! (Forward)...

So after watching the debate last night I came away feeling that Romney kicked Obama's booty from start to finish, with a scant few exceptions. I'm not inclined to irrational exuberance, so, I was more than a bit surprised to find that even the right-wing pundits were saying that Obama "won".

While I would have liked Romney to roast Obama on Libya, I was worried that the full court press attempt at disambiguation by Team-O over the past few days had effectively rendered an attempt by Romney to pound the Libya issue as dangerous territory with a risk of sounding whiny and leaving voters worse for wear.... I think it was probably a good move avoiding it. Folks who were following the Libya issue closely already have their minds made up about Libya and about Mr. O's attempt at cover up.

Instead of hammering him on Libya, Romney absolutely skewered Obama on Russia. I literally screamed at the TV when Romney hit Obama with his own words to Medvedev. (I'm officially an "old man", screaming at the TV for politics rather than sports. )

Other than my Libya disappointment, I saw Mr. Romney as being far more "Presidential" last night, while Obama sniped away and played "small ball". On almost every topic Romney answered with clarity and gave details. His details were forward looking and did a great job comparing to the Obama record. I thought he was pretty meticulous picking apart Obamas record on Iran and Israel. Romney gave a clear picture of what he would do on Iran and Israel (as far as anyone can, not knowing how events will unfold). Romney successfully parried every Obama attack. Not only did Obama offer nothing new, he was soundly admonished for his record. Obama was on defense all night. He offered NOTHING that would leave me to believe another 4 years for him would be any better.

About the only winning moment for Obama was, I thought, the bit about the size of the Navy. Romney handled it well and moved on. On substance and on "having a vision", I have no idea why anyone would think Obama won that debate.

The one guy that agreed with my assessment is Charles Krauthammer...
"Romney went large, Obama went small, shockingly small"

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=YGWEKRHrak8[/youtube]

And in case you missed it (unlikely)...

Dear Mr. President, we are still using horses and bayonets TODAY to fight in Afghanistan.


From: http://exposethemedia.com/2012/10/23/u- ... n-in-2001/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RoyGBiv wrote:So after watching the debate last night I came away feeling that Romney kicked Obama's booty from start to finish, with a scant few exceptions. I'm not inclined to irrational exuberance, so, I was more than a bit surprised to find that even the right-wing pundits were saying that Obama "won".

While I would have liked Romney to roast Obama on Libya, I was worried that the full court press attempt at disambiguation by Team-O over the past few days had effectively rendered an attempt by Romney to pound the Libya issue as dangerous territory with a risk of sounding whiny and leaving voters worse for wear.... I think it was probably a good move avoiding it. Folks who were following the Libya issue closely already have their minds made up about Libya and about Mr. O's attempt at cover up.

Instead of hammering him on Libya, Romney absolutely skewered Obama on Russia. I literally screamed at the TV when Romney hit Obama with his own words to Medvedev. (I'm officially an "old man", screaming at the TV for politics rather than sports. )

Other than my Libya disappointment, I saw Mr. Romney as being far more "Presidential" last night, while Obama sniped away and played "small ball". On almost every topic Romney answered with clarity and gave details. His details were forward looking and did a great job comparing to the Obama record. I thought he was pretty meticulous picking apart Obamas record on Iran and Israel. Romney gave a clear picture of what he would do on Iran and Israel (as far as anyone can, not knowing how events will unfold). Romney successfully parried every Obama attack. Not only did Obama offer nothing new, he was soundly admonished for his record. Obama was on defense all night. He offered NOTHING that would leave me to believe another 4 years for him would be any better.

About the only winning moment for Obama was, I thought, the bit about the size of the Navy. Romney handled it well and moved on. On substance and on "having a vision", I have no idea why anyone would think Obama won that debate.

The one guy that agreed with my assessment is Charles Krauthammer...
"Romney went large, Obama went small, shockingly small"

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=YGWEKRHrak8[/youtube]

Don't feel bad, I get ticked by politics and get loud reading stuff on the computer, drives my wife nuts.

Heartland Patriot wrote:Don't feel bad, I get ticked by politics and get loud reading stuff on the computer, drives my wife nuts.

At least you're screaming at a 21st century device... I was doing an Archie Bunker imitation.

Allred is a total waste of humanity. She reminds me of a hyena.

Famed civil rights attorney Gloria Allred will be in a Boston area courtroom Wednesday in an attempt to unseal the sworn testimony given by Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, in a prior court case, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.

"The Boston Globe is headed to court tomorrow morning for an emergency hearing in an attempt to obtain a court order to unseal the sworn testimony given by Mitt Romney in a prior court case and to lift a gag order so that the parties can speak about Romney. Gloria Allred will be in court representing one of the parties in the case," a source close to the situation tells RadarOnline.com.--http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2 ... -gag-order

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2 ... -gag-order

Clint.!

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=klXTb-s7d9A[/youtube]

There are Lies, "Darn" Lies and then there's Debbie Wasserman Schultz...

Debbie Wasserman Schultz wrote:What I was surprised about Greta, during the entire section of the debate on the Middle East, Mitt Romney didn’t bring up Israel once and I think it just shows he isn’t committed to Israel as he says he is and has really only used the issue as a political opportunity.

And then the facts:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=hnlctN1gPf4[/youtube]