Obama i SAD (2008-2016)

[ahuseino]

Reforma ima dobre sanse da bude proglasena neustavna jer 4 sudije Ustavnog Suda jedva cekaju sudski slucaj gdje ce oni postaviti nove Ustavne standarde u skladu sa origanilistickom interpretacijom Ustava. Dakle, sudije koje gaje tu originalisticku interpretaciju Ustava su Scalia, Thomas, Roberts I Alito. Po nijihovoj teoriji, federalna vlast ima jedino one ovlasti koje su joj date Ustavom, a sve ostalo je na drzavama da odluce. Po ovoj interpretaciji, federalna vlast ne moze mandatom zahtijevati od gradjana da kupe zdravstveno osiguranje.

U svemu ovome, sumnjam da je slucajno da su drzave pokrenule tuzbu bas u Floridi. Vjerovatno vecina federalnih sudija su nominovani od strane Busha prvog ili drugog, a mozda I Reagana, pa samim tim I gaje konzarvativnu, originalisticku interpretaciju Ustava...

... Ne moze natjerati da kupe, ali moze taxirati ako su neosigurani. Ako gradjani mogu da imaju osiguranje da ga ne kupe, to je njihov izbor... ili poduhvat. Uz to drzava dokaze koliko neosigurani kostaju drzavu i eto ga... Drugim rijecima, drzava taxira one gradjane koji je vise kostaju, i trazi pred sudom da ona ne placa nikakve troskove zdravstvenim ustanovama za neosigurane...

Moje misljenje i logika oBrane.

[Ljevicar]

Pa dobro, svaki pravnik koji se bavi ustavnim pravo ce dati svoje misljenje, sa tim da ustavni pravnici dovedeni na Fox News ce tvrditi da je reforma protivustavna, dok oni koji odu na msnbc ce tvrditi da je ustavna I tako u krug. Medjutim, dosta njih se slaze sa cinjenicom ako Ustavni Sud bude ispostovao precedent(e), reforma ce biti ustavna. Ali, ovaj Ustavni Sud na celu sa Prijedsjednikom Suda John Robertsom (nominovan od strane G.W Bush-a) je prije nekih mijesec dana ponistio zakone stare oko 100 godina I dao "slobodu govora" korporacijama koje sad mogu doniratii neogranicene kolicine novca u politicke/izborne svrhe. Znaci ovaj Sud se ne plasi preokrenuti precedente sto moze pokazati kako ce se glasanje razvijati u slucaju ako reforma zdravstva dodje do Ustavnog Suda. Obamin Ustavni tim je sigurno imao sve ovo u vidu I spremio dobre argument kako bi pridobrili Kenneddya, koji je vecinom odlucujic glas u ovakvim liberalnim v. konzervativnim slucajevim.

Sto se tice Massachussettsa, sve sto nije explicitno zabranjeno Ustavom je ostavljeno na samim drzavama da odluce. Tako da njihovo zdravstveno osiguranje nije protivustavno, jer u pitanju nije federalna vec drzavna vlast.

[corolla02]

drug, ma nek su oni njeg passovali pa nek sad GOP se provaljuje koliko hoce, i izjavljuje ustavno ili ne, i budu ljubomorni ali ovaj zakon vec sutra nalaze promjene u zdravstvu, typa obaveznosti nosenja osiguranja ili postavljanje kaloricne vrijednosti na brzoj hrani, itd itd, uostalom ako gradjani SAD imaju novce za auta i njegova osiguranja, za cell phones, internet i druge gluposti e vala treba se i zdravstvo placati!

bravo za Obamu & Co.

[ahuseino]

Pa dobro, svaki pravnik koji se bavi ustavnim pravo ce dati svoje misljenje, sa tim da ustavni pravnici dovedeni na Fox News ce tvrditi da je reforma protivustavna, dok oni koji odu na msnbc ce tvrditi da je ustavna I tako u krug. Medjutim, dosta njih se slaze sa cinjenicom ako Ustavni Sud bude ispostovao precedent(e), reforma ce biti ustavna. Ali, ovaj Ustavni Sud na celu sa Prijedsjednikom Suda John Robertsom (nominovan od strane G.W Bush-a) je prije nekih mijesec dana ponistio zakone stare oko 100 godina I dao "slobodu govora" korporacijama koje sad mogu doniratii neogranicene kolicine novca u politicke/izborne svrhe. Znaci ovaj Sud se ne plasi preokrenuti precedente sto moze pokazati kako ce se glasanje razvijati u slucaju ako reforma zdravstva dodje do Ustavnog Suda. Obamin Ustavni tim je sigurno imao sve ovo u vidu I spremio dobre argument kako bi pridobrili Kenneddya, koji je vecinom odlucujic glas u ovakvim liberalnim v. konzervativnim slucajevim.

Sto se tice Massachussettsa, sve sto nije explicitno zabranjeno Ustavom je ostavljeno na samim drzavama da odluce. Tako da njihovo zdravstveno osiguranje nije protivustavno, jer u pitanju nije federalna vec drzavna vlast.

... Da dodam... Mislim da se ustanvost moze argumentovano odbraniti izvrtanjem optuzbe:
Dali je ustavno da mene natjera vlada (kao tax payera) da placam medicinske troskove neosiguranih? Jer government picks up the bill in the end.
Ako je neustavno da me tjera da placam za SVOJE medicinske troskove, kako moze biti ustavno da me natjera da placam za tudje (kroz taxe i government burden).

U stvari iz ove perspektive, onda mandatorno med. ins. upravo rijesava problem ustavnosti placanja medicinskih troskova stanovnistva ... jer racun placa... ko ga je i napravio
Kad razmislim... u stvari, potpuno... libertarijanski

[jefferson]

Reforma ima dobre sanse da bude proglasena neustavna jer 4 sudije Ustavnog Suda jedva cekaju sudski slucaj gdje ce oni postaviti nove Ustavne standarde u skladu sa origanilistickom interpretacijom Ustava. Dakle, sudije koje gaje tu originalisticku interpretaciju Ustava su Scalia, Thomas, Roberts I Alito. Po nijihovoj teoriji, federalna vlast ima jedino one ovlasti koje su joj date Ustavom, a sve ostalo je na drzavama da odluce. Po ovoj interpretaciji, federalna vlast ne moze mandatom zahtijevati od gradjana da kupe zdravstveno osiguranje.

U svemu ovome, sumnjam da je slucajno da su drzave pokrenule tuzbu bas u Floridi. Vjerovatno vecina federalnih sudija su nominovani od strane Busha prvog ili drugog, a mozda I Reagana, pa samim tim I gaje konzarvativnu, originalisticku interpretaciju Ustava...

... Ne moze natjerati da kupe, ali moze taxirati ako su neosigurani. Ako gradjani mogu da imaju osiguranje da ga ne kupe, to je njihov izbor... ili poduhvat. Uz to drzava dokaze koliko neosigurani kostaju drzavu i eto ga... Drugim rijecima, drzava taxira one gradjane koji je vise kostaju, i trazi pred sudom da ona ne placa nikakve troskove zdravstvenim ustanovama za neosigurane...

Moje misljenje i logika oBrane.

Upravo to. Kongres ima pravo da oporezuje gradjane. Federalna Vlada ne kaze da moras imati osiguranje, ali ces platiti doadtnu taxu ako nema! Takodje, 14 amandman, General Welfare clause daje ustavno pravo, ali vidjet cemo.
E sada, u diskusiji sa svojim kolegama na poslu, od kojih su mnogi strucnjaci za ustavno pravo, oni tvrde da ce proci. Ja opet tvrdim da je igrao na pogresnu kartu jer dodatno oporezivanje ce iskoristiti GOP kao predizbornu kartu toko midterm izbora, iako ne mora znaciti da ce biti uspjesna karta.
Drugo je sto je Stupak stvarno otisao predaleko. Obama je potpisao executive order koja nista ne znaci u ovom slucaju cime tvrdi da u zakonu stoji to sto stoji. Mislim da je Stupak otisao predaleko i nije mogao da kaze imao sam revelation, sad sam za zakon. Oni su mislim potrosili proslu sedmicu da bi skontali kako Obamu navesti da Stupaka izvuce iz govana (mislim Stupakov staff).
Stupak zastupa UP Michigana gdje zivi cirka 20 ljudi, i vec sada DNC obasipa parama domokratsku kandidaktinju da ga izazove na primaries prije midterm izbora.
Uglavnom bit ce interesantno tokom midterm izbora.

[corolla02]

Pa dobro, svaki pravnik koji se bavi ustavnim pravo ce dati svoje misljenje, sa tim da ustavni pravnici dovedeni na Fox News ce tvrditi da je reforma protivustavna, dok oni koji odu na msnbc ce tvrditi da je ustavna I tako u krug. Medjutim, dosta njih se slaze sa cinjenicom ako Ustavni Sud bude ispostovao precedent(e), reforma ce biti ustavna. Ali, ovaj Ustavni Sud na celu sa Prijedsjednikom Suda John Robertsom (nominovan od strane G.W Bush-a) je prije nekih mijesec dana ponistio zakone stare oko 100 godina I dao "slobodu govora" korporacijama koje sad mogu doniratii neogranicene kolicine novca u politicke/izborne svrhe. Znaci ovaj Sud se ne plasi preokrenuti precedente sto moze pokazati kako ce se glasanje razvijati u slucaju ako reforma zdravstva dodje do Ustavnog Suda. Obamin Ustavni tim je sigurno imao sve ovo u vidu I spremio dobre argument kako bi pridobrili Kenneddya, koji je vecinom odlucujic glas u ovakvim liberalnim v. konzervativnim slucajevim.

Sto se tice Massachussettsa, sve sto nije explicitno zabranjeno Ustavom je ostavljeno na samim drzavama da odluce. Tako da njihovo zdravstveno osiguranje nije protivustavno, jer u pitanju nije federalna vec drzavna vlast.

... Da dodam... Mislim da se ustanvost moze argumentovano odbraniti izvrtanjem optuzbe:
Dali je ustavno da mene natjera vlada (kao tax payera) da placam medicinske troskove neosiguranih? Jer government picks up the bill in the end.
Ako je neustavno da me tjera da placam za SVOJE medicinske troskove, kako moze biti ustavno da me natjera da placam za tudje (kroz taxe i government burden).

U stvari iz ove perspektive, onda mandatorno med. ins. upravo rijesava problem ustavnosti placanja medicinskih troskova stanovnistva ... jer racun placa... ko ga je i napravio
Kad razmislim... u stvari, potpuno... libertarijanski

USTAV kojim oni to Ustavom prijete

SAD Ustav originalni, samo ima 4 stranice i opet im treba Supreme Court da im ga cita i tumaci , tumaci zavisno od modea u kome se nalazi(rep. vecina ili dem. vecina). Svako neko ko se iole bavi politikom ili ima politicki ili pravni degree iz reda SAD naroda ce konstatovati da im je Ustav VAGUE i samim tim nedovoljan. Ironija je u tome sto to tzv. sveto pismo, po kome se ova drzava ophodi i harmonizuje, je toliko savrsenstvo da mu svako malo trebaju amandmani da ga odrzavaju i podupiru . Tamo kad je ustav potpisan 1788, bilo je 13 drzavica sa nekih par miliona ljudi, 4 stranice mozda i bile dovoljne za governing the small mass; well, vremena su se promijenila, i nema tog 4 stranice dokumenta koje ce da governuje sa 300+ mil. stanovnika u 21 stoljecu.

Ono sto @ljevicar pise, usput ko da mu je Rockefeller neki rod , moglo bi proci prije 200+ godina ali SAD i njegova struktura stanovnistva se promijenila since then. Ovo je veliki kao i ujedno historijski dogadjaj, ako hoces i pobjeda manjine u SAD ponovno ; sad to raja iz GOP i njihovi tajkuni vrlo dobro znaju te uzaludno nece i ne zele da prihvate, ali idemo dalje

[jeza u ledja]

Ljevicare, nista se ti ne brini za sud. Ne ide to tako lako.

A vjeruj da Obama i njegovi vrlo dobro znaju sta rade.

[Ljevicar]

[USTAV kojim oni to Ustavom prijete

SAD Ustav originalni, samo ima 4 stranice i opet im treba Supreme Court da im ga cita i tumaci , tumaci zavisno od modea u kome se nalazi(rep. vecina ili dem. vecina). Svako neko ko se iole bavi politikom ili ima politicki ili pravni degree iz reda SAD naroda ce konstatovati da im je Ustav VAGUE i samim tim nedovoljan. Ironija je u tome sto to tzv. sveto pismo, po kome se ova drzava ophodi i harmonizuje, je toliko savrsenstvo da mu svako malo trebaju amandmani da ga odrzavaju i podupiru . Tamo kad je ustav potpisan 1788, bilo je 13 drzavica sa nekih par miliona ljudi, 4 stranice mozda i bile dovoljne za governing the small mass; well, vremena su se promijenila, i nema tog 4 stranice dokumenta koje ce da governuje sa 300+ mil. stanovnika u 21 stoljecu.

Ono sto @ljevicar pise, usput ko da mu je Rockefeller neki rod , moglo bi proci prije 200+ godina ali SAD i njegova struktura stanovnistva se promijenila since then. Ovo je veliki kao i ujedno historijski dogadjaj, ako hoces i pobjeda manjine u SAD ponovno ; sad to raja iz GOP i njihovi tajkuni vrlo dobro znaju te uzaludno nece i ne zele da prihvate, ali idemo dalje

Rockefeller? lol Pokusavam da objasnim ljudima na koji nacin ce Ustavni Sud da funkcijinise po pitanju reforme a ispade da sam Rockefeller lol.

A sto se tice Ustava, jedan od najvaznijih politickih dokumenata ikada napisan. To sto kazes da Amerikanci misle da nije dovoljan da regulise zemlju je po mom skromnom misljenju ne tacno. U Ustav se kunu i liberali i konzervativci, samo teorije tumacenja se razlikuju (liberalna teorija je da je Ustav "zivi dokument" i da se sa vremenom i drustvom mijenja, dok su konzervativci dosljedni originalnom tumacenju). To sto kazes da tumacenje Ustava zavisi od toga da li su sudije "demokrate" ili "republikanci" usudio bih se reci da bas i nije uvijek tacno. Postoje mnogi primjeri ustavnih sudija koji su nominovani od strane republikanskih Predsjednika, a ispostavilo se da su liberalni. Kao najbolji primjer je Earl Warren koji je nominovan od Eisenhowera a ispostavilo se da je predvodio "liberalnu revoluciju" 50tih i 60tih godina proslog stoljeca. Takodje i demokrati Predsjednci su nominovlali sudije koji su se ispostavili kao konzervativni. Gradjani koji su uopste upoznati sa Ustavnim Sudom (a nema ih bas previse) ce ti reci da je to "najmanje opasna" grana vlasti.

Sto se tice amandmana, od 1787 godine samo 27 amandmana je ratificirano, a ako ne racunas prvih 10 (Bill of Rights) koji su ratificirani 1791 godine, to je u prosjeku jedan amandman svakih haman 13 godina, a zadnji amandman je usvojen 1992 godine. Nisam bas siguran na sta mislis kad kazes "da mu svako malo trebaju amandmani da ga odrzavaju i podupiru." Koji Ustav koristis kao poredjenje?

I nesto za kraj http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpOUctyS ... r_embedded#

Bas 'zagorio" ovaj Boehner lol

[jeza u ledja]

Ih , Ajzenhauer, taj je covjek bio legenda. Posljednji dobar republikanski predsjednik. Daleko od toga da se njega moze nazvati socijalnim konzervativcem ovako esktreman kako je to postalo normalno danas u GOP. Pa on je progurao prve moderne verzije Civil Rights Act.

Mislim da su te previse isprepadali desnicari sa svojom retorikom. Ove tuzbe o kojima govoris nece nikad doci do Vrhovnog suda.

[corolla02]

Rockefeller? lol Pokusavam da objasnim ljudima na koji nacin ce Ustavni Sud da funkcijinise po pitanju reforme a ispade da sam Rockefeller lol.

A sto se tice Ustava, jedan od najvaznijih politickih dokumenata ikada napisan. To sto kazes da Amerikanci misle da nije dovoljan da regulise zemlju je po mom skromnom misljenju ne tacno. U Ustav se kunu i liberali i konzervativci, samo teorije tumacenja se razlikuju (liberalna teorija je da je Ustav "zivi dokument" i da se sa vremenom i drustvom mijenja, dok su konzervativci dosljedni originalnom tumacenju). To sto kazes da tumacenje Ustava zavisi od toga da li su sudije "demokrate" ili "republikanci" usudio bih se reci da bas i nije uvijek tacno. Postoje mnogi primjeri ustavnih sudija koji su nominovani od strane republikanskih Predsjednika, a ispostavilo se da su liberalni. Kao najbolji primjer je Earl Warren koji je nominovan od Eisenhowera a ispostavilo se da je predvodio "liberalnu revoluciju" 50tih i 60tih godina proslog stoljeca. Takodje i demokrati Predsjednci su nominovlali sudije koji su se ispostavili kao konzervativni. Gradjani koji su uopste upoznati sa Ustavnim Sudom (a nema ih bas previse) ce ti reci da je to "najmanje opasna" grana vlasti.

Sto se tice amandmana, od 1787 godine samo 27 amandmana je ratificirano, a ako ne racunas prvih 10 (Bill of Rights) koji su ratificirani 1791 godine, to je u prosjeku jedan amandman svakih haman 13 godina, a zadnji amandman je usvojen 1992 godine. Nisam bas siguran na sta mislis kad kazes "da mu svako malo trebaju amandmani da ga odrzavaju i podupiru." Koji Ustav koristis kao poredjenje?

I nesto za kraj http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpOUctyS ... r_embedded#

Bas 'zagorio" ovaj Boehner lol

da u pravu si , ja sam te zamijenio, jer Rockefeller i ljevicar nikad ne idu skupa

to sto ti govoris da oni hoce na vrhovni sud da stave zakon ili necije djelo, je posljednji adut iz rukava i prljavstina kojom se republikanci sluze. Samo kad Obama nesto potpise, to je ko bajagi neustavno a Alito i Co. moze da se ljuti koliko hoce pred ocima glasackog tjela u SAD i dok ostali na vlasti sto su radili prije njeg to je ono sve OK, i sad se koriste tim istim nejasnim ustavom da Obamu opovrgnu.

koliko je zakon neustavan to nije uopste bitno, u SAD neustavni zakoni ili djela su bili funkcionalni i dugi niz godina sve dok se sentiment gradjana a time i vlasti nije promijenio, puno je takvih actova kroz historiju SAD npr. "separated but equal" politika na dubokom jugu, koji su opet doveli do novih amandmana, kojih ce jos biti i nakon Obame, to je zasigurno.

nego, republikanci i njihovo blatenje po Obami, pocevsi od sudija na Supreme pa do ljigavog Boehnera koji se usput ponasa ko da je predsjednik (s pravom ultimativnog veta) koji nikako da shvati da republikanci nisu vise na vlasti; oni treba da pricekaju naredne izbore te ako im narod dade glasove neka izaberu kakav kontra zakon, ili sta drugo.

do tada, politika je kao: USA politics and driving are the same-- put it in "D" to go forward, and "R" to go backward!

@jez;
da prostis, *ebes tog Predsjednika kome je prvi i najvazniji background military experience, a ako su republikanci dali novijeg dobrog predsjednika onda je to bio Nixon, pogotovo na medjunarodnom nivou, ali ni on nije mogao bas potrajatii..

[ahuseino]

To: U.S. Employees
From: -------, Director, Compensation, Benefits, & HRIS
Date: March 26, 2010
Re: Health Care Reform and ahuseino-Employer’s Medical Plans

As many of you have heard in the recent news, federal legislation known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” implementing health care reform was approved this week. Although the legislation is broad in scope and impacts various aspects related to health care coverage, I wanted to provide you with a brief overview of the impact of the legislation on ahuseino-Employer’s medical plans in the current and upcoming year:

· There is no impact to ahuseino-Employer’s medical plans in 2010. Benefits coverage and eligibility under the plans will continue to remain the same.

· Effective January 1, 2011, the following changes will apply:

o Employees enrolled under an ahuseino-Employer’s medical plan will be able to cover a dependent child up to the age of 26 regardless of whether the child is unmarried and a full-time student provided that the child does not have access to other employer coverage.

o Over-the-counter medications will no longer be eligible for reimbursement under the Health Care Flexible Spending Account Plan unless prescribed by a physician.

o 2011 W-2s issued in January 2012 will disclose the value of an employee’s medical coverage.

Additional provisions under the new legislation that might have an impact on ahuseino-Employer’s medical plans will not become effective until later years with all provisions under the law being fully implemented in 2018 or later. Therefore, it may be a fairly lengthy process and timeframe before regulatory details and guidance become available. As finalized details related to the impact on Axcelis’ medical plans beyond 2011 become known, this information will be communicated.

If you have any questions, please call me at (-----) or contact your department’s HR representative.

Thank you.

This message contains confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
---- i ja ga naljepio ovdje....

Tema nije healthcare, ali me ovo plavo malo brine.

Ako me oporeze na benefit, to bi moglo biti znacajno. Recimo da mi u W2 listaju $23,000 (godisnje za porodicu) beneficiju koju mi placa poslodavac kao prihod u 2012-oj. Onda ispada da cu morati platit $7,000 - $8,000 dodatnih u taxama na ovo .

Na brzinu sam guglo da vidim ima li sta o ovome, ali ne'am vremena... znal' ko sta vise?

Ne znam kako bi' se osjecao da placam bas 5 - 6 joja mjesecno vise nego sto sad placam... da mi kaze joja ti je extra mjesecno, hajde, moze, ali ovoliko...?

[jeza u ledja]

Zar ti ne placas vec u MA za te stvari?

Jel ti to imas 'cadillac' osiguranje?

Nije mi bas jasno sta govoris, ovo samo kaze da ces IRSu morati disclose da imas osiguranje, vjerovatno da ne bi morao placati kaznu.

[ahuseino]

Zar ti ne placas vec u MA za te stvari?

Jel ti to imas 'cadillac' osiguranje?

Nije mi bas jasno sta govoris, ovo samo kaze da ces IRSu morati disclose da imas osiguranje, vjerovatno da ne bi morao placati kaznu.

Nije kadilak plan, ja mislim da je taj valjda (considered) $25,000+ godisnje i to za jednu osobu... valjda... nisam bas siguran... mislim da ga ni ne moras ti placat, recimo Citi sigurno placa svom CEO-u kadilak plan, ali ce onda ovaj placati taxe na to jer mu je to sada prihod... listed in W2

U MA je mandatorno osiguranje, ali ako ga imas kroz employera onda ti je jeftinije i mozda bolje... sto je diskutabilno. Nisam se nikada morao za to interesovati, ali kako ja razumijem, ovdje postoji siri spektrum planova koji su subsidized by the state i ovise o prihodima. Znaci moRes kupit' onaj od $50/mj ali ce te pokriti... haman samo carsafom ako te udari auto... ili kakve skuplje recimo $200 - $300 koje ce imati nekakvo pokrice. Poenta je da su SVI osigurani (ili ogromna vecina)... Loophole je sto ovi jeftini planovi te broje kao osiguranog, ali to sto coverage ne mirise na zumbule je druga stvar. Bitno je da planovi diktiraju preuzimajne potencijalnog veceg troska sa stejta na osiguravajucu kompaniju.

Recimo da placam za osiguranje $170 /mj za porodicu od 4... Mog emplojera to kosta vjerujem $1200 - $1800 mjesecno (ove cifre izvlacim iz guzice, ali su tu negdje u 'komsiluku') - to su pare koje moj emplojer plati Blue Cross Blue Shield - u. Sace moj emplojer morati prijaviti vladi da mi je to u stvari (dodatni) income na W2 kad se fajliraju taxe... bude li to slucaj, eto meni monthly car payment out the window... Mislim da ce kvaka biti u tim limitima kadilak vs. chevy... Takodjer, ako se ispostavi da je meni recimo payment vise nego taj kadilak $25,000 / god, a ja imam 4 glave na planu, jeli to automatski triggers kadilak on, ili je onda u tom slucaju 4 x $25,000 = $100,000 limit?

Sve ce ti se samo kasti

[jeza u ledja]

Ne znam, previse me pitas buraz.

Trebace nam neko vrijeme da se svi prekontamo kako ovo fercera, i da li fercera.

[ahuseino]

Ne znam, previse me pitas buraz.

Trebace nam neko vrijeme da se svi prekontamo kako ovo fercera, i da li fercera.

Beli ce se neko javit da zna...

... prije nego ja sam razradim ... preko vikenda...

P.S. Mozda bi ti i bilo korsno da znas, jer si morebit' upravo dobio povisicu a da i ne znas ... i valja platit taxe... ... pa je onda mozda bolje rec' posniZicu...

[ljubav_aha]

Ne znam, previse me pitas buraz.

Trebace nam neko vrijeme da se svi prekontamo kako ovo fercera, i da li fercera.

Beli ce se neko javit da zna...

... prije nego ja sam razradim ... preko vikenda...

P.S. Mozda bi ti i bilo korsno da znas, jer si morebit' upravo dobio povisicu a da i ne znas ... i valja platit taxe... ... pa je onda mozda bolje rec' posniZicu...

samo nam blagovremeno javite

[jeza u ledja]

Iz danasnjeg Telegrapha:

Barack Obama’s humiliation of Israel is a disgrace
By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: March 25th, 2010

I wrote recently about Barack Obama’s sneering contempt for both Israel and Great Britain. Further confirmation of this was provided today with new details emerging regarding the President’s appalling reception for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House earlier this week. As Adrian Blomfield reports for The Telegraph:

Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family, it emerged on Thursday. The snub marked a fresh low in US-Israeli relations and appeared designed to show Mr Netanyahu how low his stock had fallen in Washington after he refused to back down in a row over Jewish construction in east Jerusalem.

… (Mr. Obama) immediately presented Mr Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Key among those demands was a previously-made call to halt all new settlement construction in east Jerusalem.

When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Mr Obama rose from his seat declaring: “I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the klix.” As he left, Mr Netanyahu was told to consider the error of his ways. “I’m still around,” Mr Obama is quoted by Israel’s Yediot Ahronot newspaper as having said. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

This is no way to treat America’s closest ally in the Middle East, and a true friend of the United States. I very much doubt that even third world tyrants would be received in such a rude fashion by the president. In fact, they would probably be warmly welcomed by the Obama White House as part of its “engagement” strategy, while the leaders of Britain and Israel are frequently met with arrogant disdain.

The ritual humiliation of the Israelis is an absolute disgrace, and yet another example of how the Obama administration views its allies with indifference, contempt, and at times outright hostility. It is extraordinary how far the Obama team has gone out of its way to grovel to state sponsors of terrorism, such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Muammar Gaddafi, while kicking America’s friends in the teeth.

Israel is literally fighting for its survival on a daily basis against an array of vicious terrorist groups, from Hamas to Hizbollah, while facing a looming threat from a genocidal, nuclear-armed Iran. President Obama’s top priority in the Middle East should be preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapons programme. Instead he seems obsessed with kowtowing to America’s enemies by bashing Israel at almost every opportunity.

This is a foreign policy doctrine that is both destructive and fundamentally against the US national interest. The future security of the United States rests not upon the degree to which it can appease her enemies, but upon the strength of her enduring alliances with the rest of the free world. Israel needs Washington’s support and vice versa, not a slap in the face from a president whose idea of world leadership seems to consist largely of apologising for his country while throwing America’s friends to the wolves.

-------------------------

Buahahahaha

[ljubav_aha]

hm,ne bih rekla da je Obama ludo hrabar ima on doooobru podlogu za tako nesto

[jeza u ledja]

Najbolje mi je ovo:

[quote]“I’m still around, let me know if there is anything new.”[/quote]



Kralj.

[ahuseino]

Iz danasnjeg Telegrapha:

Barack Obama’s humiliation of Israel is a disgrace
By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: March 25th, 2010

I wrote recently about Barack Obama’s sneering contempt for both Israel and Great Britain. Further confirmation of this was provided today with new details emerging regarding the President’s appalling reception for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House earlier this week. As Adrian Blomfield reports for The Telegraph:

Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family, it emerged on Thursday. The snub marked a fresh low in US-Israeli relations and appeared designed to show Mr Netanyahu how low his stock had fallen in Washington after he refused to back down in a row over Jewish construction in east Jerusalem.

… (Mr. Obama) immediately presented Mr Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Key among those demands was a previously-made call to halt all new settlement construction in east Jerusalem.

When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Mr Obama rose from his seat declaring: “I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the klix.” As he left, Mr Netanyahu was told to consider the error of his ways. “I’m still around,” Mr Obama is quoted by Israel’s Yediot Ahronot newspaper as having said. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

This is no way to treat America’s closest ally in the Middle East, and a true friend of the United States. I very much doubt that even third world tyrants would be received in such a rude fashion by the president. In fact, they would probably be warmly welcomed by the Obama White House as part of its “engagement” strategy, while the leaders of Britain and Israel are frequently met with arrogant disdain.

The ritual humiliation of the Israelis is an absolute disgrace, and yet another example of how the Obama administration views its allies with indifference, contempt, and at times outright hostility. It is extraordinary how far the Obama team has gone out of its way to grovel to state sponsors of terrorism, such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Muammar Gaddafi, while kicking America’s friends in the teeth.

Israel is literally fighting for its survival on a daily basis against an array of vicious terrorist groups, from Hamas to Hizbollah, while facing a looming threat from a genocidal, nuclear-armed Iran. President Obama’s top priority in the Middle East should be preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapons programme. Instead he seems obsessed with kowtowing to America’s enemies by bashing Israel at almost every opportunity.

This is a foreign policy doctrine that is both destructive and fundamentally against the US national interest. The future security of the United States rests not upon the degree to which it can appease her enemies, but upon the strength of her enduring alliances with the rest of the free world. Israel needs Washington’s support and vice versa, not a slap in the face from a president whose idea of world leadership seems to consist largely of apologising for his country while throwing America’s friends to the wolves.

-------------------------

Buahahahaha

Who does he think he is...? Walking away like that...

Jadan Izrael, samo se bori da prezivi, pored strasnih Hamasa i Hezbolaha.

[jeza u ledja]

Evo jos jedan clanak na istu temu, iz The Times:

Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

Left to talk among themselves Mr Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. He spent a further half-hour with Mr Obama and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks to try to restart peace negotiations. However, he left last night with no official statement from either side. He returned to Israel yesterday isolated after what Israeli media have called a White House ambush for which he is largely to blame.

Sources said that Mr Netanyahu failed to impress Mr Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Mr Obama was said to be livid when such an announcement derailed the visit to Israel by Joe Biden, the Vice-President, this month and his anger towards Israel does not appear to have cooled.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, cast doubt on minor details in Israeli accounts of the meeting but did not deny claims that it amounted to a dressing down for the Prime Minister, whose refusal to freeze settlements is seen in Washington as the main barrier to resuming peace talks.

The Likud leader has to try to square the rigorous demands of the Obama Administration with his nationalist, ultra-Orthodox coalition partners, who want him to stand up to Washington even though Israel needs US backing in confronting the threat of a nuclear Iran.

“The Prime Minister leaves America disgraced, isolated and altogether weaker than when he came,” the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz said.

In their meeting Mr Obama set out expectations that Israel was to satisfy if it wanted to end the crisis, Israeli sources said. These included an extension of the freeze on Jewish settlement growth beyond the ten-month deadline next September, an end to building projects in east Jerusalem and a withdrawal of Israeli forces to positions held before the second intifada in September 2000.

Newspaper reports recounted how Mr Netanyahu looked “excessively concerned and upset” when he pulled out a flow chart to show Mr Obama how Jerusalem planning permission worked and how he could not have known that the announcement that hundreds more homes were to be built would be made when Mr Biden arrived in Jerusalem.

Mr Obama then suggested that Mr Netanyahu and his staff stay at the White House to consider his proposals so that if he changed his mind he could inform the President right away. “I’m still around,” the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot quoted Mr Obama as saying. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

With the atmosphere so soured by the end of the evening, the Israelis decided that they could not trust the telephone line they had been lent for their consultations. Mr Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, his Defence Minister, went to the Israeli Embassy to ensure that the Americans were not listening in.

The meeting came barely a day after Mr Obama’s health reform victory. Israel had calculated that he would be too tied up with domestic issues to focus seriously on the Middle East.

----------------------


Hehehe, sto mi je godra, ne mogu se prestat smijat.

Eto vam Obama, 'pion cionista'.
Jos kontali da ih prisluskuju. ihihihih

[corolla02]

Evo jos jedan clanak na istu temu, iz The Times:

Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

Left to talk among themselves Mr Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. He spent a further half-hour with Mr Obama and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks to try to restart peace negotiations. However, he left last night with no official statement from either side. He returned to Israel yesterday isolated after what Israeli media have called a White House ambush for which he is largely to blame.

Sources said that Mr Netanyahu failed to impress Mr Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Mr Obama was said to be livid when such an announcement derailed the visit to Israel by Joe Biden, the Vice-President, this month and his anger towards Israel does not appear to have cooled.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, cast doubt on minor details in Israeli accounts of the meeting but did not deny claims that it amounted to a dressing down for the Prime Minister, whose refusal to freeze settlements is seen in Washington as the main barrier to resuming peace talks.

The Likud leader has to try to square the rigorous demands of the Obama Administration with his nationalist, ultra-Orthodox coalition partners, who want him to stand up to Washington even though Israel needs US backing in confronting the threat of a nuclear Iran.

“The Prime Minister leaves America disgraced, isolated and altogether weaker than when he came,” the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz said.

In their meeting Mr Obama set out expectations that Israel was to satisfy if it wanted to end the crisis, Israeli sources said. These included an extension of the freeze on Jewish settlement growth beyond the ten-month deadline next September, an end to building projects in east Jerusalem and a withdrawal of Israeli forces to positions held before the second intifada in September 2000.

Newspaper reports recounted how Mr Netanyahu looked “excessively concerned and upset” when he pulled out a flow chart to show Mr Obama how Jerusalem planning permission worked and how he could not have known that the announcement that hundreds more homes were to be built would be made when Mr Biden arrived in Jerusalem.

Mr Obama then suggested that Mr Netanyahu and his staff stay at the White House to consider his proposals so that if he changed his mind he could inform the President right away. “I’m still around,” the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot quoted Mr Obama as saying. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

With the atmosphere so soured by the end of the evening, the Israelis decided that they could not trust the telephone line they had been lent for their consultations. Mr Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, his Defence Minister, went to the Israeli Embassy to ensure that the Americans were not listening in.

The meeting came barely a day after Mr Obama’s health reform victory. Israel had calculated that he would be too tied up with domestic issues to focus seriously on the Middle East.

----------------------


Hehehe, sto mi je godra, ne mogu se prestat smijat.

Eto vam Obama, 'pion cionista'.
Jos kontali da ih prisluskuju. ihihihih

[bogoljub]

Eno Obama stigo u Afganistan. Kažu iznenada. Bahn'o onako. Let mu trajao 13 h.
Čak i Karzaiji predsjednik nije znao da dolozi. Samo prije sat nego sto ce sletjeti javili mu.
E sad, šta je došao tamo!?

[ljubav_aha]

Eno Obama stigo u Afganistan. Kažu iznenada. Bahn'o onako. Let mu trajao 13 h.
Čak i Karzaiji predsjednik nije znao da dolozi. Samo prije sat nego sto ce sletjeti javili mu.
E sad, šta je došao tamo!?

back-up/date

[jeza u ledja]

Da vidi sto ga Karzai zakida za njegov dio tala od heroina.