I'm not old enough to be a curmudgeon but having the President perform borscht belt humor in front of Lindsey Lohan is pretty demeaning.   I know it raises money for charity and all.  Why can't he just host a charity fundraiser or something.  I know, how about a night with the President at the Westminister Kennel Club... I'm very sorry, I couldn't help it.

Here is a follow up.  We posted a job opening for a part time "pack and ship" clerk.  We were offering $10 an hour for roughly 20 hours of work. There was the possibility that it could lead to a full time job.   It was very difficult to find someone to take the job because the average unemployed worker could take unemployment benefits that were higher than their take home pay without having to work.  We ended up filling the job with a high school student.  This was when the unemployment rate was at its high.

I think it is a motivation and character issue.  We all pay unemployment insurance to help people who truly need it during a transition period.  I support that.   This person used it as a substitute for looking for a job.  I do not respect that. I guess I don't want anyone working for me who cannot tell the difference working for me.

I would read the article because it has nothing to do with the negative campaigning

How come you're putting Ann's face on Rob Long's body?

There is also the expansion factor that you are discounting.  As an entrepreneur who runs a business that employees over 100 people directly or indirectly, my calculations revolve around ROI.  Do I invest in my business to increase my return or hold on to capital because I am risk adverse.  If you cannot calculate your ROI because of uncertainty, how do you make a decision to expand.

Here is one example:  I was recently approached to buy out one of my competitors who is looking to retire.  The margins of his business when combined with my own make it an attractive proposition except that the uncertainty revolving around tax and regulatory policy make it a far riskier proposition than it needs to be.

I'm an entrepreneur and that means, by definition, someone who is comfortable with risk as long as that risk is something I can understand.  Unfortunately, I cannot fathom what that risk will be a year from now, especially if our current President is reelected. 

Its embarrassing for our country.  How does our President decide to go to Hawaii instead of attending the funeral.  What was the thought process that could have justified this decision.  Our country dedicated over 40 years to standing up to the Soviet Union.  We gave strength and support to the people of Eastern Europe during their dark times and were joined by courageous people like Vaclav Havel.  What could be going through our President's mind by not attending this funeral and celebrating a truly great man who stood up for the rights we find so sacred.  It truly mames me sick.  

American mediation probably would have been a help, but that presupposes that Obama really believed that Israel was in the right.  Our President has proved that he sides with the people who are performing "civil" disobedience.  This is why he likes the Occupiers.  Does anyone believe he agrees with the security measures Israel takes.

The video shows outnumbered cops following orders to end the tent city.  I have read about the incident and the police were ordered by the university to clear the quad.  Whether we like it or not, pepper spray is used to make it easier for the police to arrest an individual who is resisting arrest.  They were not sitting passively waiting to be arrested which happens in many protests.  When you lock arms, the police have to pry you apart from the people you are linked to.  Unfortunately, that makes you an easy target for anyone in arms reach.  Police don't need to put themselves in harms way.

Its pretty amazing.  He acts like he is above politics and calls others "selfish".  It is pretty offensive.  

Didn't he appoint the people on the NLRB who are suing Boeing.  How come no one calls him on this.

Is there any country in the world where its neighbors are actively trying to delegitimize and destroy it like Israel?  How can our President seriously think that Israel can make an interim security deal based on 1967 borders with people who do not want it to exist at all.  This should be a wake up call to the current administration, but, sadly, I am sure Obama and his European allies will see this as a further demonstration that Israel needs to do something for Peace.

I am not sure how anyone can think his speech was for domestic consumption.  According to some reports, it was pushed by HRC, his Secretary of State.  It smelled like another type of grand pronouncement like his unwise comments on Settlements.  Now that the US has taken the overt position on the 67' armistice lines, I am sure that the Palestinians will demand that Israel accept the 67' lines before they come back to negotiate anything else including the "mutually agreed" land swaps.  Shouldn't it be the US position that the Palestinians need to just come back to the table with no preconditions

Claire, I am not the only one to read it this way.  President Obama said Israel should make territorial concessions if their security concerns are somehow addressed.  This happens before a final settlement.  It is, by definition, an interim step. Don't take my word for it.  Evelyn Gordon in Contentions makes the same argument.  http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/20/obamas-speech-endorses-palestinian-state-at-war-with-israel/

Stop selectively quoting the President. Quote the rest

"These principles provide a foundation for negotiations.  Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met.  I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain:  the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees.  But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. Now, let me say this:  Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table."

This part of the speech explicitly says that the territorial question is to be made before final negotiations.

You miss the point.  The borders should be negotiated as part of a final settlement and not have a predetermined outcome.  The President said the exact the exact opposite.  He said that Israel must agree to territorial concessions as part of an interim step to build up trust.  Israel has made these steps over and over and has been greeted with rockets and bombs.