After watching all this crap on TV including the "conservative"? FOX News, I see Mitt Romney continue to climb in the polls is being portrayed as the likely GOP nominee......I keep thinking to myself, "Where the hell is the TEA Party?"

I haven't heard hardly a peep. FOX is sure not covering any rallys. Have they gone away? Given up? How can they let an SOB like Romney slip intom the positon?

It seems like the last I heard of the TEA Party in this GOP race was when Cain was in it....and they were referring to him as the "TEA Party Favorite?" Give me a F'ing BREAK!

I have a theory that FOX is not going to allow Ron Paul to get the nomination. They give him just enough coverage so followers don't beech but deep down, they want to see him lose. I really think he giot screwed by FOX in the last election and it seems to be continuing but everyone still watches FOX.

I have a feeling that the people are being fed a bunch of BS and being manipulated by propaganda into nominating someone who will be favorable to big business.

JMO

Now Mitt Romney wins the New Hampshire primary....News is talking like he will be the chosen one.

Still scratching my head.

That's just the trailer....can't wait to see the whole video. I understand it's 25 minutes long.

From all the polls, it looks like he is going to be THE GOP Nominee for 2012.

That's when all the problems started....New Video about GOP frontrunner.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2012/01/09/pro-gingrich-ad-blasts-romney-s-bain-work.html

Walmart is going to get sued for sure.

Arizona Law:

13-1805. Shoplifting; detaining suspect; defense to wrongful detention; civil action by merchant; public services; classification

C. A merchant, or a merchant's agent or employee, with reasonable cause, may detain on the premises in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time any person who is suspected of shoplifting as prescribed in subsection A of this section for questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer.


Was grandpa ddetained in a reasonable manner?

I also watched an interview on local news with the grandson...he said he had a video game and people were trying to grab it out of his hands. Grandpa stepped in to help. The kid is very believable and I am sure a jury will give him and grandpa a huge $$$$ settlement.

F Walmart

Hmmmm...that's strange. The SEALS were not supposed to talk to anybody. Their superiors qustioned them in regards to whether or not they talked to Pfarrer, the answer was "No".

If the SEALS had talked to Pfarrer, that would constitute a "violation of orders".

Do you think SEALS routinely violate orders?

So who is lying? The SEALs that were involved in the raid or Pfarrer?

I think Pfarrer stands to profit with the sale of his book...that is a motive.

Did Pfarrer put the SEALS in greater jeopardy, and our National Security at great risk if it is true, and he outlines in explicit detail how the operation was conducted???

Sounds a lot worse than what he is acusing the President of. And he is doing it for profit.

Something is very hokey about this whole thread and Mr. Pfarrer.

JMO

Here is another interesting bit of information:

Chuck Pfarrer is a novelist and screenwriter. He is a "former" Navy SEAL....he graduated buds training in 1981 and served 8 years. That was over 20 years ago.

Did he really talk to any of the SEALS that were on the mission???

CNN reported: “Every member of the Navy SEAL team on the raid has been questioned by superiors about whether they spoke to author Chuck Pfarrer, a former Navy SEAL, about the mission in violation of orders, a U.S. official told CNN. The official, who has direct knowledge of the questioning, told CNN that the SEALs all denied speaking with Pfarrer.”

That's a bunch of BS.

I watched the Robert Gates interview regarding the mission and he stated clearly that it was President Obama that requested the additional forces and Chinooks be sent as a back up should something go wrong. He wanted the SEALS to have an option to "Fight their way out" if they had to.

You don't hear very much about how those SEALS got out of Pakistan after their Blackhawk went down. They only went in with two Blackhawks...extracted by the back up units.

Bottom line is, President Obama GOT BIN LADEN!

You just have a hard time accepting it.

End of story.

Those SEALS owe their lives to President Obama. If you read the military accounts of the planning, they were ready to go with a typical helicopter assault. It was President Obama that requested additional support and wanted the SEALS to have the ability to fight their way out of Pakistan should anything go wrong.

Well, long story short, they added the 2 chinook helicopters for back up. That came in pretty damn handy when one of the assualt team choppers went down in the compound.

Thanks, President Obama. For taking out Bin Laden and getting our SEALS all home safely.

I never said I believed it. I just found it humorous since, in the last presidential election, there were internet postings that Obama was the Anti-Christ. Too funny!

What a bunch of HOGWASH!

The American people are tired of this war....time to bring the troops home.

CNN Poll : 78% of Americans favor this troop withdrawal.

Even Ron Paul said he would withdraw all troops from the wars immediately if elected.

I just wonder why he never thought about it....that people would turn his "999 plan" upside down and get the 666.

He or his staffers should have thought about that.

I saw some of this posted on the internet....interesting?

I was contemplating Herman Cain's 999 Plan which is a 9% tax on business, a flat 9% personal tax and a 9% sales tax. All other current federal taxes would be abolished under Cain's plan. Anyway, I was expressing my admiration for the Cain plan by repeatedly doodling hearts and writing "Cain" and the number "999" in Magic Marker all over my notebooks. Then it happened...I glanced at a notebook upside down, and I realized that I had written "666" multiple times. I felt tricked! 666 is one of the most widely recognized symbols for the Antichrist.

I needn't mention that a brother named "Cain" makes an early and unpleasant appearance in the Bible. Cain murdered his brother Abel. Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
"I know not," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"
Then He said, "What have you done? Your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground! So now you are cursed from the ground that opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood you have shed."

An early Mormon leader, David W. Patten, encountered a very tall, hairy, dark-skinned man in Tennessee who said that he was Cain. The account states that Cain's mission was to destroy the souls of men. The recollection of Patten's story is quoted in Spencer W. Kimball's The Miracle of Forgiveness, a popular book within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This widespread Mormon belief is further emphasized by an account from Salt Lake City in 1963 which stated that "This account is based on the old Mormon belief that Cain is a black man who wanders the earth...."

Here is Lief Babin's previous article posted in WSJ...

By LEIF BABIN
Controversy erupted last week with the report that the United States will reduce troop levels in Iraq to as few as 3,000 by the end of the year. The assumption among many in the higher echelons of U.S. military leadership has long been that U.S. forces would remain in Iraq for decades, despite a formal security agreement with the government of Iraq for U.S. troop withdrawal in December 2011.

I deployed three times to Iraq between 2004 and 2010, and my question is this: Why leave any troops in Iraq? Make no mistake, for those of us who have fought and bled and lost close friends and brothers there, we want more than anything to know that the sacrifices were worth it. But what does winning mean? What does completing our mission entail? Never have I seen this clearly articulated or defined. The vision of Iraq as a flowering democracy free of violent extremist attacks and wielding advanced military capability in close alliance with the U.S. was always a utopian fantasy.

That is not to say the U.S. hasn't succeeded in Iraq. On the contrary, we've won.

As good soldiers will do, the troops on the ground defined the mission for themselves. Like many other units, the Special Operations Task Force, for which I served as operations officer, defined success as lowering the level of violence to a point where Iraqi Security Forces can unilaterally maintain a relative, sustainable peace. "Unilateral" meaning the Iraqis can do it themselves, without U.S. assistance. "Relative" meaning that violence is substantially reduced from its peak but is still present. "Sustainable" meaning the stability of the Iraqi government is not threatened despite this modicum of violence.

All this has been achieved. In fact, we've maintained this success since 2008. So why the argument for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq?

A total pullout, some claim, could risk another civil war. But U.S. troops aren't patrolling the streets and maintaining security—those duties have almost entirely been handed over to Iraqi Security Forces in the years since 2008. The vast majority of U.S. forces in Iraq today rarely leave their bases, except to conduct logistical runs, civil-affairs missions, or engagements with Iraqi military and government officials. Only a handful of Special Operations Forces, a small fraction of U.S. forces there, are engaged in offensive operations—and only when approved to do so by the Iraqi government.

What about staying in Iraq in order to deter Iran? The fact is that the U.S. footprint in Iraq emboldens Iran. For years, Iran has targeted U.S. troops in Iraq through its proxies. Iran has armed, trained and sustained these insurgent groups and thousands of U.S. troops have been killed by so-called explosively formed projectiles, rockets and other weapons exported from Iran.

U.S. forces have historically been severely limited in targeting these Iranian-backed insurgents, who are largely protected by the Shiite-dominated government of Iraq. Operatives from the Quds Force (part of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) in Iraq are virtually untouchable, with diplomatic protection from the very Iraqi government we've helped protect and support. As a result, the U.S. appears weak and powerless to take on Iran or Iran's proxies. Leaving only 3,000 troops in Iraq puts them at tremendous risk.

Many fear that Iran will gain significant influence in Iraq after a complete U.S. withdrawal. But Iran already has significant influence there. From 1980 to 2003, Iraq's ruling Dawa Party was based partly in Iran (and partly in Syria), and it maintains strong ties with the Iranian regime.

Hope of limiting Iranian influence in Iraq grew following the narrow victory of Ayad Allawi's secular party in the Iraqi national elections of March 2010. Yet the U.S. presence in Iraq remains a catalyst empowering Iranian influence through Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric who drums up popular support based on opposition to the U.S. "occupation." Thus the U.S. presence subtracts credibility from the government of Iraq and empowers anti-American, pro-Iranian forces.

Our presence in Iraq also limits us militarily. Every day that thousands of U.S. forces remain there, Iran can count on mounting U.S. public opinion against employing those forces to open another front in conflict with Iran or otherwise.

It is understandable to want to protect all we've gained in Iraq, but it's important to recognize when we've accomplished all that is reasonably possible. The U.S. dominated the opening salvo of the war but saw Iraqi insurgents gain the upper hand for a substantial period of time. After a shift in strategy and resources, the U.S. radically reduced the level of violence and made lasting security gains. But to stay engaged with a substantial number of troops on the ground risks snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. As greater strategic priorities emerge elsewhere, it's time to call it a game in Iraq.

Mr. Babin is a former Navy SEAL officer who served three tours in Iraq, earning a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart.

It's not the taxes and tariffs that are causing corporations to move their manufacturing out of this country, it's the cheap labor. It's a global market. For corporations to compete globally, they seek cheap labor to produce their products. That's the bottom line. Cheap labor allows them to compete globally and results in higher profits for the corporation.


In the Wall Street Journal:

Big US Firms Shift Hiring Abroad

U.S. multinational corporations, the big brand-name companies that employ a fifth of all American workers, have been hiring abroad while cutting back at home, sharpening the debate over globalization's effect on the U.S. economy.

The companies cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million, new data from the U.S. Commerce Department show. That's a big switch from the 1990s, when they added jobs everywhere: 4.4 million in the U.S. and 2.7 million abroad.

As an example, Caterpillar increasingly relies on foreign markets for its sales. It has been adding workers world-wide but is hiring much faster abroad. Between 2005 and 2010, its work force grew by 3,400 workers, or 7.8%, in the U.S. and 15,900, or nearly 39%, overseas.

end

I really believe that the mind set of these big American Corporations is that they have no allegiance to the US, they have allegiance to the corporation to maximize profits. This is just the way it is with globalization.

These manufacturing jobs that were in the US were typically high paying, skilled jobs that created and sustained the middle class of America. What I see now is many people blaming the unions for forcing these jobs abroad. Unions or not, I can't see Americans willing to work for the same wages that these corporations pay their labor in China, Mexico, etc.. They just keep playing the "blame game".

As to the tax argument, do some research on what GE paid in taxes. Almost nothing.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting pregnant.

JMO

After watching the debates and hearing more about the GOP field of candidates, I really think the GOP has already lost the election. There isn't one of them that can beat President Obama. All the candidates have major flaws....

Romney: Mormon and Romneycare
Cain: 9 9 9 will cost everyone more in taxes + abortion issue.
Perry: Illegal aliens issues
Bachmann: too cooky
Paul: too radical but has many good points
Gingrich: Old white guy with too many personal issues
Santorum: ????
Huntsman: Another mormon

The problem is globalization. The corporations are spreading propaganda in the US to promote what is termed the "Chinafication" of the American worker.

The chinese are not stealing our innovation and technology, we are giving it to them. Just look at what GE is doing.

The bottom line is that if any company is going to compete in a global market place, they are going to take their jobs and manufacturing plants overseas or out of the country, to get their products produced cheaper.

Americans are competing with Chinese and Mexican labor....how are we going to win? If you listen to the right wing, we blame the unions and bust them up, create jobs in America, paying minimum wage....and then lets do away with the minimum wage and shaaazaaam, we have become just like the chinese factory laborer.

Open your eyes.

The USA is NATO. We had the most firepower in the region and contributed the most resources at the outset of the conflict.

Who the heck do you think is flying those drones? How many CIA operatives do you think we have on the ground in Libya?

If memory serves me correctly, it was President Obama who called for the Libyan leader to leave the country and stepped up the military actions.

And then it was John Beohner that came out criticizing and threatening to cut off military funding.

Conservatives always want to blame the President for anything that goes wrong but never give credit for things that go right.

Remember, it was President Obama that killed Bin Laden.

Another WIN for President Obama.