Page 28 of 140 FirstFirst ... 182425262728293031323878128 ... LastLast
Results 676 to 700 of 3478

Thread: American Politics: THANKS OBAMA

  1. #676
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,277

    Default

    Why doesn't the rest of the GOP like Christie? Because he's working with the President.

    Some would call this "cooperation", which is the opposite of "obstruction" but the folks in Christie's party view it as a bad thing.

  2. #677
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Why doesn't the rest of the GOP like Christie? Because he's working with the President.

    Some would call this "cooperation", which is the opposite of "obstruction" but the folks in Christie's party view it as a bad thing.
    Difference between "cooperation" and appearing to be buddy buddies with the President and helping Obama pull off photo op after photo op to help mitigate political damage or help for political gain.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  3. #678
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,277

    Default

    Btw, Lutz, I found another version of the House Judiciary Committee's investigation on Holder:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/30...veillance-case

    Compare it to yours, and you'll find many "subtle" differences. (Like the fact that the word "perjury" is not even mentioned.)

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Difference between "cooperation" and appearing to be buddy buddies with the President and helping Obama pull off photo op after photo op to help mitigate political damage or help for political gain.
    What would Obama have to gain from that? He can't run for President again. One way or the other, he's retiring in 2017. Christie, on the other hand...

  4. #679
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Btw, Lutz, I found another version of the House Judiciary Committee's investigation on Holder:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/30...veillance-case

    Compare it to yours, and you'll find many "subtle" differences. (Like the fact that the word "perjury" is not even mentioned.)
    "The top two Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have initiated an investigation into whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath during his May 15 testimony on the Justice Department’s (DOJ) surveillance of reporters."


    per·ju·ry
    [pur-juh-ree] Show IPA
    noun, plural per·ju·ries. Law.
    the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perjury

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    What would Obama have to gain from that? He can't run for President again. One way or the other, he's retiring in 2017. Christie, on the other hand...
    A: The photo ops and friendship largely began when Obama was running neck and neck with Romney in 2012.

    B: Appearing with Christie right now and touring destruction and engaging in buddy buddy acts like the carnival is a good media distraction away from the numerous scandals plaguing him.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  5. #680
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,277

    Default

    A little off the subject... I may have just gained some respect for Paul Ryan.

    Sure, he's as incompetant as the rest of the GOP...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...risis/?hpid=z2

    ...but at least he admits it now.

  6. #681
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    A little off the subject... I may have just gained some respect for Paul Ryan.

    Sure, he's as incompetant as the rest of the GOP...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...risis/?hpid=z2

    ...but at least he admits it now.
    Hey if you need radical events to bring one side to the table and get the changes needed to keep us from spiraling into massive debt, then so be it. But it is a sad reminder that, that is the only way to get our spiraling debt fixed.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 30th May 2013 at 5:24 AM.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  7. #682
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Hey if you need radical events to bring one side to the table and get the changes needed to keep us from spiraling into massive debt, then so be it. But it is a sad reminder that, that is the only way to get our spiraling debt fixed.
    You act like there's some sort of risk of us spiraling into a debt crisis. Sure, if Republicans had there way, there would be, but with Obama in charge, it simply isn't the case. Deficits are down, the debt's growing at its slowest pace since Eisenhower. No dept crisis exists. But hey, don't take my word for it. Who else thinks we don't have a debt crisis? Well, there's Paul Ryan and John Boehner.

    Besides, even if the other side doesn't want to come to the table, it doesn't make a hostage crisis necessary. The Republicans refuse to negotiate, religiously oppose anything that will reduce the deficit, that doesn't mean a hostage crisis is necessary. Just because Republicans refuse to allow Democrats to cut the deficit further, doesn't mean they have to refuse to increase the debt ceiling and tank the world economy.
    99% of teens like 1 directon... put this in ur sig if you dont (started by blazeing man)

  8. #683
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WizardTrubbish View Post
    You act like there's some sort of risk of us spiraling into a debt crisis. Sure, if Republicans had there way, there would be, but with Obama in charge, it simply isn't the case. Deficits are down, the debt's growing at its slowest pace since Eisenhower. No dept crisis exists. But hey, don't take my word for it. Who else thinks we don't have a debt crisis? Well, there's Paul Ryan and John Boehner.
    And yet we are still pulling in a trillion a year over year in debt, something that has happened with no other President ever. Under Obama the debt we hold has nearly doubled, and even if slowing it is still at unmanageble levels.

    By the way Investors Business Daily has looked at the numbers, and well... it is not as rosy as you wish to present.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBD
    " “Over the years,” Obama told the White House press corps, “I’ve signed into law about $1.4 trillion in spending cuts.” That may be news to most Americans, who see the federal government on track for a fifth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits under Obama. As these deficits show, Obama hasn’t done anything to bring the government in line with its revenues. In the FY2009 budget that Democrats kept out of Bush’s hands and which Obama approved in a final omnibus bill in March 2009, Bush proposed a spending level of $3.1 trillion, but Washington ended up spending $3.5 trillion instead, thanks in large part to the economic crisis.

    That level of spending hasn’t abated. In fact, it has increased. The budget submitted by Obama in early 2012 for FY2013 proposed $3.8 trillion in new spending, an increase of 31 percent over the final Bush-Democratic Congress budget, and a 9 percent increase over the budget Obama signed two months into his term. So where exactly has spending been “cut”?"


    " But a closer look at the numbers shows that Obama is exaggerating how much deficit reduction he’s actually achieved, and is being decidedly Pollyannaish about the nation’s still massive long-term budget gap and what will be needed to close it. …

    Obama’s Bowles-Simpson debt commission, for example, said in its final report — issued in late 2010 — that a credible $4 trillion deficit reduction plan would produce red ink of just $279 billion in 2020. But the current budget trajectory puts that year’s deficit at close to $600 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office data.

    Meanwhile, the commission plan called for national debt to be 65% of GDP by 2020, but the current CBO forecast has it at about 75%.

    Worse, while the debt commission plan produced a balanced budget by 2035, the CBO predicts that under current law annual deficits will start climbing again after 2018."


    " Meanwhile, a Government Accountability Office report issued last fall cast the nation’s long-term debt problem in even starker terms. Keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio constant over the next 75 years would require either a 32% cut in projected spending or a 46% increase in taxes, assuming a more realistic scenario for baseline deficits.

    And if nothing is done for a decade, the problem only gets worse, requiring a 55% hike in taxes or a 37% cut in spending."
    To say that there is no debt crisis is just purely wrong.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/1...icit-spending/

    Quote Originally Posted by WizardTrubbish View Post
    Besides, even if the other side doesn't want to come to the table, it doesn't make a hostage crisis necessary. The Republicans refuse to negotiate, religiously oppose anything that will reduce the deficit, that doesn't mean a hostage crisis is necessary. Just because Republicans refuse to allow Democrats to cut the deficit further, doesn't mean they have to refuse to increase the debt ceiling and tank the world economy.
    The Republicans are looking to take it down and reduce it, not keep plans that would continue it, the Democrats have shown no realistic plans to deal with the deficit. Hell even Obama has admitted that his budget is not balanced.

    Quote Originally Posted by ABC
    “Paul Ryan, today, put forward his budget,” says ABC, “and he says, he’s challenging you to come forward with a budget that also reaches balance. Are you going to do that?”

    “No,” Obama says. “My goal is not chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance.”
    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/1...-wont-balance/
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  9. #684
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,192

    Default

    Can't believe no one posted this but, Michelle Bachman, the founder of the House Tea Party Caucus won't be running reelection in 2014. According to her, it's DEFINITELY doesn't do with the ongoing ethics investigation which alleged misconduct in her last presidential campaign.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ml?ir=Politics

    Also, Rush Limbaugh said that President Obama and Chris Christie has a "master-servant" relationship.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ama-91973.html

  10. #685
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Can't believe no one posted this but, Michelle Bachman, the founder of the House Tea Party Caucus won't be running reelection in 2014. According to her, it's DEFINITELY doesn't do with the ongoing ethics investigation which alleged misconduct in her last presidential campaign.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ml?ir=Politics
    I wouldnt be surprised if she was gearing up for a Senatorial run, honestly politicians survive ethics investigations no matter how big they are, just look at Ted Kennedy or Charlie Rangel. That being said I also understand why the left is so happy she is gone, personally I am too, but then I would be throwing a party if say Nancy Pelosi stepped down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Also, Rush Limbaugh said that President Obama and Chris Christie has a "master-servant" relationship.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ama-91973.html
    And? One cant claim racism on that since Obama is clearly the master in their relationship.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  11. #686
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    I wouldnt be surprised if she was gearing up for a Senatorial run, honestly politicians survive ethics investigations no matter how big they are, just look at Ted Kennedy or Charlie Rangel. That being said I also understand why the left is so happy she is gone, personally I am too, but then I would be throwing a party if say Nancy Pelosi stepped down.
    I wouldn't be surprised either. If she actually won on the other hand, I'd be so surprised I'd die of shock.

    I mean, seriously. I read an article that claimed to sum up her accomplishments in Congress on one chart. I can do it one WORD: none.


    And? One cant claim racism on that.
    Want a bet? Seriously, his implication could not have been more obvious. Times like this I feel Al Franken should write a follow-up to that book of his. He's gotten SO much new material to work with since then.

  12. #687
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,277

    Default

    Hate to double post, but something happened that just put me at my limit.

    Tobacco giant Reynolds American Inc. last year helped fund several of the nation’s most politically active — and secretive — nonprofit organizations. Their contributions include $175,000 to Americans for Tax Reform, a nonprofit led by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, and $50,000 to Americans for Prosperity.

    In other words, The tobacco company’s donations are just a fraction of the nearly $50 million that those two groups reported spending during the 2012 election cycle, almost exclusively on negative advertising. Federal records show that Americans for Prosperity alone sponsored more than $33 million in attack ads that directly targeted President Barack Obama.

    Okay. Forget about being a Democrat, Independent, Republican, or whatever..... Just STOP!

    Now think, American Tax Payer....working a 40+ hour week with kids and responsibilities, and trying to figure out how to make it all stretch to next month....and you flick on the TV or pick up a newspaper to relax or get informed.....and what do you get?

    BY WHO? People like tobacco companies! Guys who make money selling something that kills people! The only reason they're in business is because of "lobbying", which in my book, is nothing more than legalized bribery!

    Or blackmail, in some cases.

    And honestly, how good can anything end up, when it starts out with $83 Million in NEGATIVE ADS?

    You know, Dolly Parton's mom used to say something to her that Dolly herself still says: "You don't plant peas and end up with corn." This has gone too far.

  13. #688
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Want a bet? Seriously, his implication could not have been more obvious. Times like this I feel Al Franken should write a follow-up to that book of his. He's gotten SO much new material to work with since then.
    Think for a second, who is the master in their relationship? Clearly Obama, who is the servant? Clearly Christie. What is racist about that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Hate to double post, but something happened that just put me at my limit.

    Tobacco giant Reynolds American Inc. last year helped fund several of the nation’s most politically active — and secretive — nonprofit organizations. Their contributions include $175,000 to Americans for Tax Reform, a nonprofit led by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, and $50,000 to Americans for Prosperity.

    In other words, The tobacco company’s donations are just a fraction of the nearly $50 million that those two groups reported spending during the 2012 election cycle, almost exclusively on negative advertising. Federal records show that Americans for Prosperity alone sponsored more than $33 million in attack ads that directly targeted President Barack Obama.

    Okay. Forget about being a Democrat, Independent, Republican, or whatever..... Just STOP!

    Now think, American Tax Payer....working a 40+ hour week with kids and responsibilities, and trying to figure out how to make it all stretch to next month....and you flick on the TV or pick up a newspaper to relax or get informed.....and what do you get?

    BY WHO? People like tobacco companies! Guys who make money selling something that kills people! The only reason they're in business is because of "lobbying", which in my book, is nothing more than legalized bribery!

    Or blackmail, in some cases.

    And honestly, how good can anything end up, when it starts out with $83 Million in NEGATIVE ADS?

    You know, Dolly Parton's mom used to say something to her that Dolly herself still says: "You don't plant peas and end up with corn." This has gone too far.
    So members of a tobacco company can't have their first amendment right?
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  14. #689
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    So members of a tobacco company can't have their first amendment right?
    Sure.

    But I got the same right, and I think I just made good use of it.

  15. #690
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Sure.

    But I got the same right, and I think I just made good use of it.
    Okay so what is your point then? I mean you are free to rail against them, you are free to contribute ads, etc etc.

    Meanwhile Clinton's approval rating is in a free fall.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hill
    Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating dropped significantly in a Quinnipiac University poll released Friday, as the months-long investigation into the terrorist attacks in Benghazi have begun to drag on the former secretary of State.

    According to the survey, 52 percent said they have a favorable view of Clinton, against 40 unfavorable. That’s down from her all-time high of 61 percent favorable and 34 unfavorable in February of this year.

    “Her score is down substantially from her all-time high score in February,” said Quinnipiac director of polling Peter A. Brown in a statement.

    “The drop in favorability is substantial among men, Republicans and independent voters. One reason for her drop may be that 48 percent of voters blame her either a little or a lot for the death of the American ambassador in Benghazi.”
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...#ixzz2Uskt6F4l
    Last edited by BigLutz; 31st May 2013 at 3:53 PM.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  16. #691
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,277

    Default

    Really? 52%? Gee, that would seem to be an excellent score by the House's standards of what's acceptable.

    I mean, at 52%, she's still beating Genghis Khan and head lice by a very comfortable margin, unlike the GOP-controlled House.

    But the House can take comfort knowing they're still doing better than Lindsay Lohan, though, last I checked.

  17. #692
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Really? 52%? Gee, that would seem to be an excellent score by the House's standards of what's acceptable.

    I mean, at 52%, she's still beating Genghis Khan and head lice by a very comfortable margin, unlike the GOP-controlled House.

    But the House can take comfort knowing they're still doing better than Lindsay Lohan, though, last I checked.
    Last time I checked she wasn't running against Congress, nor does she have to have a higher approval rating than them to win the Presidency.

    Furthermore it is CONGRESS' approval rating, which includes the Democratically Controlled Senate.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  18. #693
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,277

  19. #694
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    I do say

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/161771/co...ins-slump.aspx

    Both sides are in the teens and thus contribute to the Congressional slump.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  20. #695
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,277

    Default

    I already told you how I feel about Gallup. You'll notice that the poll (or polls, plural) I posted a link to is not completely one-sided, suggesting I was not being biased.

    And why is my poll any less accurate than yours, may I ask?

  21. #696
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    I already told you how I feel about Gallup. You'll notice that the poll (or polls, plural) I posted a link to is not completely one-sided, suggesting I was not being biased.
    I will note that the mod has already told you, that your feelings on a website does not matter. Furthermore neither is the Gallup poll it blames both sides for the slump.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  22. #697
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,277

    Default

    By the way, Lutz, your poll rates Congress as a whole. Mine rates each party seperately (and the President, who seems to be up two points). They measure two different things. Did you actually read it?

  23. #698
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    By the way, Lutz, your poll rates Congress as a whole. Mine rates each party seperately (and the President, who seems to be up two points). They measure two different things. Did you actually read it?
    Note this one also rates these by each party separately, and shows that both parties massively disapprove with Congress, as such both parties contribute to the low approval rating.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  24. #699
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,277

    Default

    Lol.

    Look at it again. You were wrong about "both in the teens".

    Your own poll shows the Democrats in the teens by party ID, but the Republicans at 9%, officially at the single digit mark. In other words, 9% of Republian voters approve of them, as opposed to 17% of Democrat voters. Seems you gave me sort of a self-defeating poll.

  25. #700
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Lol.

    Look at it again. You were wrong about "both in the teens".

    Your own poll shows the Democrats in the teens by party ID, but the Republicans at 9%, officially at the single digit mark. In other words, 9% of Republian voters approve of them, as opposed to 17% of Democrat voters. Seems you gave me sort of a self-defeating poll.
    Oh I agree both are horrible, but honestly it doesn't matter if one is at 9% or 17% both of them suck.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

Page 28 of 140 FirstFirst ... 182425262728293031323878128 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •