Page 63 of 64 FirstFirst ... 1353596061626364 LastLast
Results 931 to 945 of 960

Thread: The 2012 Presidential Race

  1. #931
    Forum Veteran Daquan13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    East Boston, MA.
    Posts
    2,728

    Default

    When your own party wants nothing more to do with you, then you're just as through!! Not only was he an embarrassment to himself, but also to the Republican Party as well that he once belonged to!! Hah!!
    Last edited by Daquan13; November 16th, 2012 at 02:27 PM.

  2. #932
    Forum Veteran Daquan13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    East Boston, MA.
    Posts
    2,728

    Lightbulb

    Hill leaders voice confidence in debt deal



    Email Story Print

    By BEN FELLER and ANDREW TAYLOR, AP
    1 hour ago


    President Barack Obama shakes hands with House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio ...


    WASHINGTON Leaders of Congress declared confidence Friday they could reach a deal with President Barack Obama to avert economically convulsive tax increases and budget cuts at year's end, in a rare show of unity reflecting the dire stakes in a nation sick of political stalemate.

    "I believe that we can do this," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said after top lawmakers met with Obama at the White House.
    Significantly, the same tone emerged from every corner of divided government_ Obama spokesman Jay Carney, top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell, top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

    And while all sides sought to assure weary American consumers, edgy investors and wary employers that the nation would not plunge over the "fiscal cliff" come Jan. 1, they furnished precious few details on how they planned to proceed.

    "We understand our responsibility," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "I feel confident that a solution may be in sight."
    That solution exists only in the broadest sense, with Republicans conceding that any bargain to cut the debt must include tax revenue, and Democrats acknowledging there must be spending cuts to a host of major programs relied upon by millions of Americans.

    Any solution likely would come in two phases, with steps now to avert a crisis and promises of a broader tax reform process in 2013.
    None of the lawmakers made any mention of a big sticking point Obama's insistence that tax rates go up, as scheduled, at the start of the year for individuals making over $200,000 a year and families earning over $250,000. Republicans flatly oppose that proposal.

    At issue are a broad series of looming tax increases across every income bracket, coupled with across-the-board spending cuts. The gritty work of negotiations is now under way, and the White House work on this matter will be carried on by staff members as Obama heads off to Asia on Saturday.

    The president made a point of sounding and looking like a man willing to compromise.
    He joked with Boehner about his 63rd birthday on Saturday and later gave him a bottle of Italian wine.
    Obama said the goal was to prevent a tax hike for middle-class families, create jobs and keep the economy growing.
    "That's an agenda that Democrats and Republicans and independents, people all across the country share," Obama said. "So our challenge is to make sure that we are able to cooperate together, work together, find some common ground."

    Boehner said he put forward a plan that meets Obama's goals of "balance."
    "To show our seriousness, we've put (tax) revenue on the table, as long as it's accompanied by significant spending cuts," Boehner said later. McConnell, R-Ky., agreed but said his members believe too much spending, not too little taxing, is the problem.
    Reid, D-Nev., said any deal will not come down to the end of December.

    "There is no more, `Let's do it some other time,' " he said. "We're going to do it now. We feel very comfortable with each other."
    Vice President Joe Biden, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and top White House advisers also took part in the Roosevelt Room meeting.
    Said Obama: "My hope is that this is going to be the beginning of a fruitful process."

    In news conferences and other public statements, Obama and the congressional leaders have been setting negotiating markers for a debt deal. The session at the White House was their first meeting together since the election, one in which Obama says the American people voted for his way to cut the debt.

    Obama has insisted that any deal involve higher taxes on the top 2 percent of income earners. Republicans leaders are vowing to resist rate hikes as job-killers, though they've signaled they're open to added revenue through curbs on deductions and credits.

    On Friday afternoon, Obama will continue his efforts to build a coalition of support for his position when he and Biden meet with leaders of civil rights and other organizations. Obama has already met with leaders of labor and liberal organizations as well as corporate CEOs who have backed his call for greater tax revenue.

    At issue is a one-two punch of expiring Bush-era tax reductions and across-the-board spending cuts set to hit in January as self-imposed punishment for the failure of a gridlocked Congress to reach a deficit-cutting deal last year.

    The White House says Obama's starting point for negotiations is his February budget plan, which combined $1.6 trillion in new revenues over the coming decade chiefly from upper-income earners with modest cuts to benefits programs. Obama's plan promises $4.4 trillion in deficit cuts over 10 years, but more than half of that would come by banking already accomplished cuts and questionable savings from winding down military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    In the run-up to the meeting, Obama has been firm that taxes are going up on upper-bracket earners, though Boehner and McConnell are adamant that his campaign promise of raising the top income tax rate on family income exceeding $250,000 a year is a non-starter.

    The bargaining landscape has shifted markedly in Obama's favor since his failed talks with Boehner, R-Ohio, in the summer of 2011 on a "grand bargain" on the budget.

    Then, Obama squared off against a tea party-driven House on the need to extend the government's ability to borrow to avoid a market-crunching first-ever default on its debt obligations. Now newly re-elected, Obama is putting Republicans on notice that he's willing to mount a national campaign blaming them for holding up renewed tax cuts for most with an ultimatum against renewing them for top income earners.

  3. #933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IrishInNYC View Post
    Obama is just as guilty though. The dropped promises on issues like immigration could be deemed a blatant lie...his faux anger when challenged by Romney about his response to the Benghazi attack I found disturbing.
    Making campaign promises you can't keep has been part of every election I can remember.

    What Romney did, and the persistence and level of it, is unprecedented. And he did the same thing during his Primary run, only from the other side of the spectrum. If you look at where he started (to the right of Santorum), and where he ended up (channeling Eugene McCarthy), he may have been the most broad-based politician of all time.

    I don't know how you can be sure that Obama's anger wasn't genuine. The anger was consistent with his response to McCain a few days ago.

  4. #934
    Forum Veteran Daquan13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    East Boston, MA.
    Posts
    2,728

    Default

    Yeah, it wasn't during his election, but who can forget the time when Bush had stated and promised that he would (Quote) "smoke Osama Binladen out of his hole" (End quote)?

    Yet the controversial sadistic & sick cowardly wimp was on the lam for at least almost 11 years until Obama got in office, promised that he would get him, then found out where he was hiding and gave the order to have him snuffed out. People were very happy, having found this out, especially those in New York who came over to Ground Zero and celebrated his demise.
    Last edited by Daquan13; November 18th, 2012 at 12:20 PM.

  5. #935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Making campaign promises you can't keep has been part of every election I can remember.

    What Romney did, and the persistence and level of it, is unprecedented. And he did the same thing during his Primary run, only from the other side of the spectrum. If you look at where he started (to the right of Santorum), and where he ended up (channeling Eugene McCarthy), he may have been the most broad-based politician of all time.

    I don't know how you can be sure that Obama's anger wasn't genuine. The anger was consistent with his response to McCain a few days ago.
    I have no doubt he was angry, he's an arrogant man who was challenged in public...it's for that reason though that he was angry, not because of what Romney was saying; when Obama made the initial statement about Benghazi, he was clearly following the party line, blaming the event on some poxy video that had as much to do with Chris Stevens dying as my dog did. As poor old Davy Petraeus made clear this morning, it was al-Qaeda, plain and simple, and we always knew it.

    I'm not trying to dig deep into specifics like this and am the first to throw my hands up and admit how pathetically unsuitable Romney is for president but too many people are fixated on ridiculing him and glossing over Obama's decrepit performance so far. Best of a bad bunch is not best.

  6. #936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IrishInNYC View Post
    I have no doubt he was angry, he's an arrogant man who was challenged in public...it's for that reason though that he was angry, not because of what Romney was saying;
    That statement has no logic. The "public challenge" and what "Romney was saying" are the same thing.

    The entire exchange at the debate begins at 2:50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldu_jU56C74

    when Obama made the initial statement about Benghazi, he was clearly following the party line, blaming the event on some poxy video that had as much to do with Chris Stevens dying as my dog did. As poor old Davy Petraeus made clear this morning, it was al-Qaeda, plain and simple, and we always knew it.
    Are you sure Davy Patraeus made it clear?

    A timeline:

    Sept 11

    04:43 ET: Cairo Embassy tweets
    Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy.
    06:17 ET: Statement released by Cairo Embassy
    The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
    13:00 ET: Embassy in Cairo reports a breach of the compound.
    We did have reports just before I came down here that we had a protest outside our embassy in Cairo. We had some people breach the wall, take the flag down, replace it -- what I heard was that it was replaced with a ... With a black flag -- a plain black flag, but I may not be correct in that. We are obviously working with Egyptian security to try to restore order at the embassy and to work with them to try to get the situation under control.
    The above was the source of the "apology" that was picked up on right-wing blogs, and later used by Romney.

    18:25 ET: Consulate in Benghazi attacked.

    18:32 ET: Cairo embassy cleared.

    22:10 ET: The Romney campaign emailed a message (embargoed until midnight due to 09/11)
    I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks
    At about the same time as reported by Politico, the Administration disavowed the remarks by the Cairo Embassy.

    22:13 ET: Hillary Clinton confirms that one State Department officer was killed.

    23:11: ET: RNC chairman Reince Priebus tweets:
    Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.
    Sept 12

    00:11 ET: Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt
    We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack
    06:16 ET: Reports confirm that Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other officers were killed.

    07:22 ET: Obama statement

    I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

    I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

    On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

    The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.
    The Patraeus testimony involved what he said about the Benghazi attack in a briefing on Sept 14th. That's two days after Obama's initial statement. How are you so sure what was known 13 hours after the attack?

    If I had to guess as to why Obama was angry at Romney, I'd say it was his behavior during the entire crisis. He issued a political statement as the situation was unfolding, and when his position became worse as more information came in, the came back with his famous "double-down."

    I'm not trying to dig deep into specifics like this and am the first to throw my hands up and admit how pathetically unsuitable Romney is for president but too many people are fixated on ridiculing him and glossing over Obama's decrepit performance so far
    I've had issues with Obama's first term, but if I thought it was decrepit, I think I would get specific.

  7. #937

    Default

    Listing specifics on how bad Obama's first term was is the work of political experts and commentators, of which I am neither (as a guide they could start with unemployment, the deficit, immigration, Guantanamo Bay and failure to hit even one of his 2008 economic predictions).

    The Benghazi matter though, to me, is more clear cut. As Obama was gearing up for the debates, the last thing he wanted was a major hit on his war against terrorism, specifically al-Qaeda. His Bin Laden ace in the sleeve was about all he had to play, the last thing his spin doctors could handle was the American public knowing that al-Qaeda had waltzed up to the doors of a US Embassy and killed four US citizens. So in wonderful socialistic fashion they muddy the water with a story of a riot, caused by a video.

    We'll have to wait 10 or 15 years for the right person to write a book and explain exactly how, but there's no great mystery here that Obama and his team lied about Benghazi, because of the election, and suppressed the Petraeus story, because of the election.

  8. #938

    Default

    [QUOTE=IrishInNYC;409166]
    So in wonderful socialistic fashion they muddy the water with a story of a riot, caused by a video.
    Is the word 'socialistic' meant to add some cachet to the argument?

    If I want that, I can tune in Limbaugh.

  9. #939
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IrishInNYC View Post

    .... the last thing his spin doctors could handle was the American public knowing that al-Qaeda had waltzed up to the doors of a US Embassy ...
    Who's lying now?

    If you're going to go on a rant you need to get your facts straight.

    The compound in Benghazi wasn't an embassy. It was a consulaye. Entirely different in terms of security.

  10. #940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    Who's lying now?

    If you're going to go on a rant you need to get your facts straight.

    The compound in Benghazi wasn't an embassy. It was a consulaye. Entirely different in terms of security.
    Because that's the key part of the argument right? If al-Qaeda killed four US citizens in a garden shed in Libya; any different?

    Security, or lack thereof is not what I'm discussing.
    Last edited by IrishInNYC; November 19th, 2012 at 08:34 AM.

  11. #941

    Default

    [QUOTE=ZippyTheChimp;409167]
    Quote Originally Posted by IrishInNYC View Post
    Is the word 'socialistic' meant to add some cachet to the argument?

    If I want that, I can tune in Limbaugh.
    I have never listened to a second of Limbaugh in my life. Nor do I listen, watch or read anything Fox News related. My only exposure to anything remotely conservative would be the Post, and I read it for Steve Serby and Phil Mushnick mainly. This isn't a left versus right argument anyway. It's about a president who lied to the country, and continues to do so. Clinton did it, Bush did it (a lot) and Obama is dancing to the same tune. Nothing new, and that's the shame.

  12. #942
    Forum Veteran Daquan13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    East Boston, MA.
    Posts
    2,728

    Default

    Romney needs to learn that you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

    He was not nice enough to the people whom he thought would help him get in. He stepped on a lot of toes and didn't care who he hurt along the way and in the process.

  13. #943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IrishInNYC View Post
    Listing specifics on how bad Obama's first term was is the work of political experts and commentators, of which I am neither (as a guide they could start with unemployment, the deficit, immigration, Guantanamo Bay and failure to hit even one of his 2008 economic predictions).
    So your secure enough in your position to qualify the Obama presidency as 'decrepit' but not secure enough to indicate the specifics?

    The Benghazi matter though, to me, is more clear cut. As Obama was gearing up for the debates, the last thing he wanted was a major hit on his war against terrorism, specifically al-Qaeda. His Bin Laden ace in the sleeve was about all he had to play, the last thing his spin doctors could handle was the American public knowing that al-Qaeda had waltzed up to the doors of a US Embassy and killed four US citizens. So in wonderful socialistic fashion they muddy the water with a story of a riot, caused by a video.

    We'll have to wait 10 or 15 years for the right person to write a book and explain exactly how, but there's no great mystery here that Obama and his team lied about Benghazi, because of the election, and suppressed the Petraeus story, because of the election.
    There is not lie here. No scandal, no acts of treason. This is a bunch of cranky old white guys who can't get over the fact that Obama won again and want to make sure he knows who the bosses really are. Watergate style hearings over this?? Reallty?? History is going to look back laugh.

    The great shame here is that McCain has gone from being a true American hero to being a bitter old clown.

  14. #944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IrishInNYC View Post
    I have never listened to a second of Limbaugh in my life.
    Doesn't matter; that's what he does. Take a buzz word, and build an argument around it. Most of his audience aren't even sure what Socialism is (is it the one with the capital or not?), or the difference between Socialism (which we're not) and a Social Democracy (what we've been for almost a century).

    Words like that signal a predetermined conclusion looking for justification.

    It's about a president who lied to the country, and continues to do so.
    Actually, you didin't just say he lied; you said he lied to save his campaign:Post 937
    His Bin Laden ace in the sleeve was about all he had to play,
    Actually, that's ludicrous.

    I guess we can all agree now that the pools were correct. The issue of foreign affairs was low on the list of voters' priorities. How many times was the war in Afghanistan discussed during the campaign? How about drone targeted assassinations? Both candidates concentrated on the economy. The topic of the last debate was foreign policy, but both of them steered it toward the economy. Benghazi is important as a security issue; as a political matter, it's a dud.

    Are you sure Obama lie; is it possible he just got it wrong?

    Are you sure the story isn't a matter of national security? There were CIA operatives in a safe house not too far away.

  15. #945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddhead View Post
    The great shame here is that McCain has gone from being a true American hero to being a bitter old clown.
    For some reason, McCain still has this mantle of foreign policy expertise, but he's been making blunders for more than a decade.

    Due to term limits, McCain is losing his ranking position on the Senate Armed Services Commission in January. The only other post available to him would be the Indian Affairs Commission. All this bluster keeps him relevant.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software