Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Disgusted with obama administration - Part II
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
May 13, 2014 11:08 PM
QuakerOats;1616022 wrote:
Impeachable?
Doubtful.

And I'd like to know the stats from Bush. Federal prisons (where ICE detainees are held) are overcrowded. I'm not sure where these offense rank relative to the "long-term" population, but capacity dictates this would be a fairly common occurrence, especially among less violent or first-time offenders.


Obama is a lousy POTUS, but nothing he's really done (other than sign Obamacare, which is passed by Congress) is new or unprecedented. He's mostly continued Bush policies most wanted to see reversed or ended while throwing the occasional regulatory/EPA bone to his base....when he's not laser focused on campaigning.
May 13, 2014 11:08pm
Belly35's avatar

Belly35

Elderly Intellectual

9,716 posts
May 14, 2014 6:26 AM
Send a message to the Democrats this midterm and 2016 ... Vote no for any and all Democrats.
May 14, 2014 6:26am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
May 14, 2014 8:04 AM
Belly35;1616063 wrote:Send a message to the Democrats this midterm and 2016 ... Vote no for any and all Democrats.
There's an interesting article in the WSJ today about how Harry Reid, and not Repubs, is the real obstructionist in Congress.

That meshes with what I've gleaned from what I've read and researched - Reid uses cloture votes to control the agenda, protect Dems from difficult votes, and then blames Repubs (along with Obama) for the gridlock. And his other favored tactic is blocking Repub amendments (when he hasn't already "filled the tree") to force them to vote against completely partisan legislation.

Some of that goes with being SML and the party that controls the Senate, but Reid has taken it to new heights.
May 14, 2014 8:04am
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
May 14, 2014 8:13 AM
gut;1616071 wrote:There's an interesting article in the WSJ today about how Harry Reid, and not Repubs, is the real obstructionist in Congress.

That meshes with what I've gleaned from what I've read and researched - Reid uses cloture votes to control the agenda, protect Dems from difficult votes, and then blames Repubs (along with Obama) for the gridlock. And his other favored tactic is blocking Repub amendments (when he hasn't already "filled the tree") to force them to vote against completely partisan legislation.

Some of that goes with being SML and the party that controls the Senate, but Reid has taken it to new heights.
Link?
May 14, 2014 8:13am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
May 14, 2014 8:30 AM
like_that;1616075 wrote:Link?
WSJ - that's the Wall Street Journal :)

Subscription only (why I didn't link). Here's a similar article, it's National Review but if you dig into the Congressional Record you'll see a lot of this jives.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368369/harry-reids-obstructionism-andrew-stiles
May 14, 2014 8:30am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
May 15, 2014 9:45 AM
gut;1616079 wrote:WSJ - that's the Wall Street Journal :)

Subscription only (why I didn't link). Here's a similar article, it's National Review but if you dig into the Congressional Record you'll see a lot of this jives.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368369/harry-reids-obstructionism-andrew-stiles
If you link it people can just copy/paste the title into google and read the article from there. Any WSJ subscriber articles are readable this way.
May 15, 2014 9:45am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
May 17, 2014 6:13 PM
jmog;1615302 wrote:There is no possible way you could believe all this with a straight face, no way.
Why wouldn't I? Watch the very first thing she says to Jake Tapper.

[video=youtube;bxf77xQ_NLU][/video]
Our best assessment is that in fact what this began as was in fact a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what had transpired in Cairo.
She then accurately describes how the Cairo protests began in response to the video. The notion that she blamed the Terrorist attack in Benghazi on the video is a completely made up Conservative meme. The protests in Cairo inspired protests all across the Muslim World; in 33 countries to be exact. The CIA incorrectly thought that happened in Benghazi too.

But exploiting the deaths of these men in Benghazi is all the GOP has at this point despite the utter mediocrity of the Obama Administration. Truly a sad state of affairs.
May 17, 2014 6:13pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
May 17, 2014 6:21 PM
Manhattan Buckeye;1615321 wrote:He has to be the biggest troll I've ever seen on any message board or the dumbest person I've ever met online or otherwise. Of course they lied to us, and continue to lie to us. Because they think we are stupid, and election results prove them right. People like BS are like Tina Turner that are married to an abusive spouse and kid themselves for years. "Hit me again Ike, and this time put some stank into it!" (from Liar Liar)
Susan Rice's exact words:
RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.
That is only in the minds of people like MB who have had it out for Obama as if he is the worst president ever since day one because he never worked at a White Shoe firm only to end up talking about his wife's pubes on a message board and chose to go on to become the leader of the free world instead.

But keep calling other people stupid when you consistently reveal that you don't understand basic concepts like inflation v. a high cost of living, liquidity v. safety among, what type of health care delivery would constitute "socialism", among numerous other examples. Your nauseating pretentiousness and insecurity keep me entertained : thumbup:
May 17, 2014 6:21pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
May 17, 2014 6:34 PM
gut;1615339 wrote:This is looney toons. We've made little real effort to reign in spending or limit debt .
And it's a good thing we haven't or we would already be in a recession unless the Fed successfully induced private citizens to take on more private debt to purchase our output. These are the years wherein depressions began in the history of the United States: 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1929. Guess what? The Federal Government ran a surplus in 1817-1821. The National Debt was paid off in 1836 (shortly followed by the Panic of 1837). The budget was in surplus in 1856 with the national debt having been paid down 59%....and so on and so forth. In every period of depression in the history of the United States, it was preceded by periods of Federal Debt reduction. And, this is not hard to understand. Removing Treasury Securities from circulation means removing assets from the balance sheets of the private economy, where it really matters. It means the destruction of the safest savings vehicles for the U.S. dollar in the world. The notion that the number of outstanding Treasury securities could be a "drag" on growth is literally just as silly as the notion that large amounts of Time Deposits in U.S. banks would be a "drag" on growth. Open your eyes and lose the deficit scoldery that is dragging our country down into a joke!.
May 17, 2014 6:34pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
May 17, 2014 6:35 PM
BoatShoes;1617226 wrote: who have had it out for Obama as if he is the worst president ever since day one
I don't think even most right-leaning people imagined he would be as disastrous as he is, and we knew it was going to be bad ....................... he is just 5 times as bad as we thought. He makes the lesser presidents in our history all look like George Washington. And it is too bad, because he could have been the one to actually lead black Americans to a much better place, but he simply does not have the ability to do so, other than the marxist way.

What a tragic waste of 8 years, and what a massive hole we now have to dig out of ....... if even possible.
May 17, 2014 6:35pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
May 17, 2014 6:36 PM
jmog;1615478 wrote:No, the WH would NEVER twist words, ask people to lie, ask people to misrepresent their findings, etc would they...

Oh wait, now Geithner is coming out and telling the truth about this administration...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/12/geithner-says-in-book-tried-to-put-words-in-his/
The notion that "Social Security Doesn't add to the Deficit" is a common liberal meme. Really what people should say is that the Social Security trust fund doesn't even exist. It is just an accounting record.
May 17, 2014 6:36pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
May 17, 2014 6:42 PM
believer;1615491 wrote:
This cartoon has a gold standard mentality. FDR took the U.S. off the gold standard in 1933 and no longer was the U.S. Federal Government making promises to delivery something that it had to dig out of the ground. At that point, the Federal Government could not "Go Bust"

The chairman of the New York Fed, Beardsley Ruml, understood this back then but now nobody does...and an entire political movement is grounded on a false premise. As he said, After FDR took us off the gold standard:
It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements
http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/cmt/ruml_obsolete.pdf
May 17, 2014 6:42pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
May 17, 2014 6:44 PM
BoatShoes;1617233 wrote:Really what people should say is that the Social Security trust fund doesn't even exist. It is just an accounting record.
It doesn't exist because moronic and corrupt Beltway "leadership" pissed it away to fund projects to line their own pockets and garner votes.

Just a classic example of Mericun socialism run afoul.
May 17, 2014 6:44pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
May 17, 2014 6:57 PM
ccrunner609;1615210 wrote:this thread is starting to suck
Maybe you could add more insightful comments like this doozy from you that unsurprisingly is so far from corresponding to reality that you would think you might have a little grace and reevaluate why everything you ever predict is so totally and completely wrong.
Here is a hunch from me............most people that are signing up are going into the medicare part. THis is a huge unfunded mandate that will drain medicare. THe others that are in the insurance exchanges are going to get such a huge sticker shock on their deductible when they actual see what they are come the first of the year since most of those people are at the lower end of the population when it comes to income.

At that point, people will just stop paying and drop their insurance. by June, Obamacare will be gone.
May 17, 2014 6:57pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
May 17, 2014 6:58 PM
QuakerOats;1615499 wrote:You mean similar to the one currently being undertaken by the obama regime?
What's sad is that you are serious.
May 17, 2014 6:58pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
May 17, 2014 7:01 PM
believer;1617236 wrote:It doesn't exist because moronic and corrupt Beltway "leadership" pissed it away to fund projects to line their own pockets and garner votes.

Just a classic example of Mericun socialism run afoul.
No. There never was a social security "trust fund". It's just an accounting mechanism and a political device to generate support for regressive taxation.
May 17, 2014 7:01pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
May 17, 2014 7:43 PM
QuakerOats;1617232 wrote:I don't think even most right-leaning people imagined he would be as disastrous as he is, and we knew it was going to be bad ....................... he is just 5 times as bad as we thought. He makes the lesser presidents in our history all look like George Washington. And it is too bad, because he could have been the one to actually lead black Americans to a much better place, but he simply does not have the ability to do so, other than the marxist way.

What a tragic waste of 8 years, and what a massive hole we now have to dig out of ....... if even possible.
Obama is nothing like the mythological Obama you imagine him to be. He is a mediocre president at best who sold short on full employment because he was obsessed with 1. passing a healthcare law that would allow people who had gotten sick to get healthcare coverage again and 2. the fact that the economy was sending the deficit up and up and up and he had campaigned on closing the Bush Deficits.

In the grand scheme of history he is well to the right of Richard Nixon, passed a meager healthcare reform that didn't change its fundamental failures and has paid lip service to the unemployed, the pending threat of climate change, and our crumbling infrastructure in comparison to the rest of the world. Progressives got so caught up in the Obama hype machine that they never really noticed that there was no there, there. He never would have been President if he hadn't have gotten passed the Hillary machine purely on the fact that he was basically a real life version of a pluralistic liberal fantasy.

In reality, he is a moderate deficit hawk with strong anti-interventionist tendencies who is nevertheless happy to let little kids get murdered by drones. He's nothing a progressive could ever want in an ideal President save better than any of the complete turds that would come out of today's totally insane GOP that is captured by the oligarchs and driven by Tea Partiers who are the marks in the con game being run by the power brokers behind the GOP establishment.

But what is absolutely fascinating is that none of the talk radio crowd, yourself included, gets that. You are so completely warped that you think he's actually a Marxist but you're not the only one. It absolutely blows my mind.
May 17, 2014 7:43pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
May 17, 2014 7:49 PM
BoatShoes;1617242 wrote:No. There never was a social security "trust fund". It's just an accounting mechanism and a political device to generate support for regressive taxation.
Yes there was...it's how it was sold to the people. In reality, JUST LIKE BARRYKARE, it was sold to the people one way and implemented an entirely different way. It's called fraud in our court systems, but when control abd taxation are on the table, then ALL MEANS of selling are permissable. The people buy pablum every time and your marxist brethren KNOW IT.
May 17, 2014 7:49pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
May 17, 2014 7:56 PM
BoatShoes;1617226 wrote:Susan Rice's exact words:



That is only in the minds of people like MB who have had it out for Obama as if he is the worst president ever since day one because he never worked at a White Shoe firm only to end up talking about his wife's pubes on a message board and chose to go on to become the leader of the free world instead.

But keep calling other people stupid when you consistently reveal that you don't understand basic concepts like inflation v. a high cost of living, liquidity v. safety among, what type of health care delivery would constitute "socialism", among numerous other examples. Your nauseating pretentiousness and insecurity keep me entertained : thumbup:
Where are the 30+ eye witnesses and why won't your government allow them to talk to Congress and the alleged 4th Estate? What size anvil is your government holding over the eyewitnesses and their accounts of 9-11-12? If Bush43 muzzled them this long, you can bet your sweet ass it would be page 1 news until their muzzles were removed. These eyewitnesses are the Zapruder's to Obama's conjured-up fairy tale.
May 17, 2014 7:56pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
May 17, 2014 8:23 PM
BoatShoes;1617252 wrote: In reality, he is a moderate deficit hawk with strong anti-interventionist tendencies who is nevertheless happy to let little kids get murdered by drones. He's nothing a progressive could ever want in an ideal President save better than any of the complete turds that would come out of today's totally insane GOP that is captured by the oligarchs and driven by Tea Partiers who are the marks in the con game being run by the power brokers behind the GOP establishment.


hahahaaaaaaaa ..................... the chardonnay has kicked in ......
May 17, 2014 8:23pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
May 17, 2014 9:01 PM
BoatShoes;1617252 wrote: In reality, he is a moderate deficit hawk...
How warped does one's perception of reality have to be to say this with a straight face?
May 17, 2014 9:01pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
May 17, 2014 9:17 PM
I have to dig into it, but the deficits might be a fair bit worse than we understand. This is because TARP and UAW bailout the spiked the deficit in 2008/2009, but when paid back actually gets counted as a "contra-expense" ...in other words, TARP added $150B to the deficit in 2009, but as that was repaid in 2010-11, it "artificially" lowered spending by $150B.

And for 2013 and 2014, we're looking at another $100B a year in dividends (read: the deficit is overstated $100B each year) from Frannie and Freddie.
May 17, 2014 9:17pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
May 18, 2014 6:31 AM
gut;1617289 wrote:I have to dig into it, but the deficits might be a fair bit worse than we understand. This is because TARP and UAW bailout the spiked the deficit in 2008/2009, but when paid back actually gets counted as a "contra-expense" ...in other words, TARP added $150B to the deficit in 2009, but as that was repaid in 2010-11, it "artificially" lowered spending by $150B.
Liberals are experts at fuzzy math.

If, for example, Democrats want to raise taxes 5% but Republicans only approve 3% they - and their anal sex partners in the mainstream media - can claim with straight faces that the Repubs cut the budget by 2% because they hate the poor and old people.
May 18, 2014 6:31am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
May 18, 2014 8:09 AM
BoatShoes;1617226 wrote:Susan Rice's exact words:



That is only in the minds of people like MB who have had it out for Obama as if he is the worst president ever since day one because he never worked at a White Shoe firm only to end up talking about his wife's pubes on a message board and chose to go on to become the leader of the free world instead.

But keep calling other people stupid when you consistently reveal that you don't understand basic concepts like inflation v. a high cost of living, liquidity v. safety among, what type of health care delivery would constitute "socialism", among numerous other examples. Your nauseating pretentiousness and insecurity keep me entertained : thumbup:
You do realize that the quote you posted from Rice actually does suggest Benghazi was spontaneous as a result of the video right? It actually is contrary to your belief unless you want to play semantics and grammar plays on words. Anyone who isn't on the left wing tit would take away from her statements that she was saying that Benghazi was a result of the video and not terrorism. Even though at that point the US government already KNEW it was terrorism.
May 18, 2014 8:09am