|  | | | | | 
Mar 9, 2009, 09:44 PM
|
#2
| | Full Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 370
| Geez...when did putting the American people, especially those laid off within the last 90 days before foreign workers become an issue for the Right?
Oh wait, it's probably an issue because foreign workers can replace American workers at a lower rate of pay which means more profit for the corporation.
Oh wait, that's why illegal immigration wasn't a priority for Bush because business would lose workers they could pay lower wages too.
The only shot heard in this one is, profit before America which people having been saying all along about American business interests; hence American jobs going to China, India, etc.
Is it not enough for you right wing types to export our jobs to other countries, or do you want to do it right before our eyes and replace a hard working American who has just been devastated from being laid off from a job they've likely had for 5 years or more by a foreign worker who is here only temporarily under a visa.
You guys kill me.
Perhaps if you viewed American's as Christian's and the rest of the world as another Religion, you might get what it is to help your own.
I don't know who's immorality your talking about, it's certainly not President Obama's. I would start by taking the plank out of your own eye and see the immorality against the American people by a industry that through it's greed and fraudulant dealings of packaging worthless paper with other financial products and selling them to the next unwitting sucker first before you start posting your partisan pinhead koolaid drinking Limbaugh spew. |
 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mar 10, 2009, 05:19 AM
|
#3
| | Ultra Member
Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: New York
Posts: 1,682
| Quote: |
when did putting the American people, especially those laid off within the last 90 days before foreign workers become an issue for the Right?
| TP
in fact President Bush regarding immigration was part of the open border crowd. Perhaps you weren't here during the immigration debates but on this board at least conservative broke from the President on the issue. Quote: |
I would start by taking the plank out of your own eye and see the immorality against the American people by a industry that through it's greed and fraudulant dealings of packaging worthless paper with other financial products and selling them to the next unwitting sucker first before you start posting your partisan pinhead koolaid drinking Limbaugh spew.
| turns out that the lack of transparency in the financial sector is in the highly regulated Euro-socialist state of Great Britain.
Gordon Brown is going to make it a big issue at the G-20 meeting coming up. The special relationship is going global | Gordon Brown - Times Online
But although he correctly identifies it as an international problem and not exclusive to US banking practices;the fact is that his nation became of haven for the finacial sector's shadow system.
If the UK collected the kind of detailed data that the US collects , a large part of the shadow financial system would emerge from the shadows.
The over-regulating of the banking system in fact encouraged this type of behavior and growth of financial institutions that became "too big to fail" .It was regulations that forced banks as an example to loosen well established industry lending practices .I can assure you that No Job, No Income or Assets (NINJA ) loans were not the banks ideas. They were imposed on the banks by the Chris Dodds and Barney Frank's ;and enforced by street thug "community activists" .
What is the best way to ensure that you have a flexible, adaptable banking system? Remove the regulations that encourage large institutions to form and, indeed, permit them to fail instead of propping them up with tax payer's money. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mar 10, 2009, 05:41 AM
|
#4
| | Ultra Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,104
| Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent  The only shot heard in this one is, profit before America which people having been saying all along about American business interests; hence American jobs going to China, India, etc....
"... the immorality against the American people by a industry that through it's greed and fraudulant dealings of packaging worthless paper with other financial products and selling them to the next unwitting sucker first .... | You are describing the Carter/Clinton/ACORN/Obama welfare-mortgage enterprise, which has everything to do with Lefties among us: http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current...wn-325169.html
The Lefties persisted in their mischief, notwithstanding the warningns of Greenspan and members of Congress, and the non-capitalist Bush. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mar 18, 2009, 07:40 AM
|
#5
| | Ultra Member
Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Amarillo, TX
Posts: 1,096
| Speaking of another Genie out of the bottle... Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns
Quote:
After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.
Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.
The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.
This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. There are no cases where any of them has improperly brandished or used a gun. There are just a few cases where officers have improperly used their IDs.
Fewer than one percent of the officers have any administrative actions brought against them and, we are told, virtually all of those cases “are trumped up.”
Take a case against one flight officer who had visited the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles within the last few weeks. While there, the pilot noticed that federal law enforcement officers can, with the approval of a superior, obtain a license plate that cannot be traced, a key safety feature for law enforcement personnel. So the pilot asked if, as a member of the federal program, he was eligible. The DMV staffer checked and said “no.” The next day administrative actions were brought against the pilot for “misrepresenting himself.” These are the kinds of cases that President Obama wants to investigate.
Since Mr. Obama's election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers - the pilots who have been approved to carry guns - indicate that the approval process has stalled out.
Pilots cannot openly speak about the changing policies for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Administration. Pilots who act in any way that causes a “loss of confidence” in the armed pilot program risk criminal prosecution as well as their removal from the program. Despite these threats, pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officers program have raised real concerns in multiple interviews.
Arming pilots after Sept. 11 was nothing new. Until the early 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns. Indeed, U.S. pilots were still allowed to carry guns until as recently as 1987. There are no records that any of these pilots (either military or commercial) ever causing any significant problems.
Screening of airplane passengers is hardly perfect. While armed marshals are helpful, the program covers less than 3 percent of the flights out of Washington D.C.'s three airports and even fewer across the country. Sky marshals are costly and quit more often than other law-enforcement officers.
Armed pilots are a cost-effective backup layer of security. Terrorists can only enter the cockpit through one narrow entrance, and armed pilots have some time to prepare themselves as hijackers penetrate the strengthened cockpit doors. With pilots, we have people who are willing to take on the burden of protecting the planes for free. About 70 percent of the pilots at major American carriers have military backgrounds.
Frankly, as a matter of pure politics, we cannot understand what the administration is thinking. Nearly 40 House Democrats are in districts were the NRA is more popular than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We can't find any independent poll in which the public is demanding that pilots disarm. Why does this move make sense?
Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots. So why is the Obama administration catering to this tiny lobby at the expense of public safety?
| And as Ed Morrisey pointed out, Obama's porkulus bill contained $6 million for snowmakers in Duluth. We have to divert a measly $2 million to help keep airlines safe from terrorist attacks? What an a$$. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mar 18, 2009, 09:04 AM
|
#6
| | Ultra Member
Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Amarillo, TX
Posts: 1,096
| Pelosi: Enforcing American law is "un-American" Quote:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants and their families that enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is "un-American."
The speaker, condemning raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, referred to the immigrants she was addressing as "very, very patriotic."
"Who in this country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families?" Pelosi told a mostly Hispanic gathering at St. Anthony's Church in San Francisco.
"It must be stopped....What value system is that? I think it's un-American. I think it's un-American."
Pelosi said she was invited to the church by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., as part of his 17-city, cross-country tour called United Families, which he says is intended to put a human face on the immigration debate.
"We think that families are the cornerstone of our society and our nation, and an immigration system should preserve those families, not destroy them," Gutierrez told FOX News Capitol Hill Producer Chad Pergram on Tuesday.
| Um, if illegals in this country are “very, very patriotic,” shouldn’t they be living in their own country? Maybe they'll go home now that they can't get a job with a TRAP...er, TARP company. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mar 18, 2009, 02:42 PM
|
#8
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 782
| Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx | Is this another example of what the President means by not letting facts interfere with ideology ?  | |
| | | | | | | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | |
Thread Tools |
|
Search this Thread |
|
Bookmarks
| |
|
