President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Behshad]

Now this is rich....nope, no bias at NBC.

On her MSNBC program this afternoon, NBC News' Andrea Mitchell said the network would not air the clip of then-State Senator Barack Obama endorsing redistribution in 1988 because the network could not "authenticate" the clip.

"Let's explain this redistribution issue because we have not authenticated this 14-year-old tape from Loyola College when Barack Obama was a state senator. So because we have not independently at NBC news and MSNBC authenticated it, we're not airing it," Mitchell said.

"But the basic issue is they're accusing President Obama, as John Sununu said to be yesterday, of class warfare. That is trying to change the subject," Mitchell added.

1988? That was so far the best year of my entire life.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Where did you find that picture of me?

[Behshad]

Where did you find that picture of me?

[brandonx76]

The sad part is those who want to go back 14 years to come up with something to deflect the attention from Romney's foot stuck in his mouth.

Christ...no kidding...I can't believe (well I can) but absolutely no coverage of the Romney 47% gaffe on Drudgereport when the story broke...what a sham/shame...selective news.

[The Sushi Hunter]

So what exactly did Romney say about 47%?

[Memorex]

The sad part is those who want to go back 14 years to come up with something to deflect the attention from Romney's foot stuck in his mouth.

Christ...no kidding...I can't believe (well I can) but absolutely no coverage of the Romney 47% gaffe on Drudgereport when the story broke...what a sham/shame...selective news.

Every article I read on it mentioned how Drudge had it up right away. I think Drudge obviously shies away from many stories, but if they know it's going to be news, I imagine they put it up, even if to link to sites to help lessen the blow.

In any case, I don't think there should be any issue with this. What Romney said was absolutely fact no matter how people want to parse it. There are people, and i know many of them, that will vote Democrat simply for the gift bags. And i know many people that vote Republican because they don;t want to pay for gift bags. That's just reality. Romney was simply saying he was not going to campaign to either side. Just like Obama doesn't campaign to those that already agree with him or never will. That's why you spend all the money on swing states, I guess.

[Monker]

So what exactly did Romney say about 47%?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnB0NZzl ... re=related

One fact to point out. A huge portion of this %47 are working....and paying payroll tax at 15%.

The fact is also that Romney, according to his own words is "probably closer to %15".

So, Romney whines and complains when a huge swath of this %47 is already paying more tax then he is...and he is saying they are dependent on the government "handouts".

[slucero]

Out of Romney's own mouth comes the true end-game...

Gin & Tonic will love this one...

Romney: [The] former head of Goldman Sachs, John Whitehead, was also the former head of the New York Federal Reserve. And I met with him, and he said as soon as the Fed stops buying all the debt that we're issuing—which they've been doing, the Fed's buying like three-quarters of the debt that America issues. He said, once that's over, he said we're going to have a failed Treasury auction, interest rates are going to have to go up. We're living in this borrowed fantasy world, where the government keeps on borrowing money. You know, we borrow this extra trillion a year, we wonder who's loaning us the trillion? The Chinese aren't loaning us anymore. The Russians aren't loaning it to us anymore. So who's giving us the trillion? And the answer is we're just making it up. The Federal Reserve is just taking it and saying, "Here, we're giving it." It's just made up money, and this does not augur well for our economic future. You know, some of these things are complex enough it's not easy for people to understand, but your point of saying, bankruptcy usually concentrates the mind.

[brandonx76]

The sad part is those who want to go back 14 years to come up with something to deflect the attention from Romney's foot stuck in his mouth.

Christ...no kidding...I can't believe (well I can) but absolutely no coverage of the Romney 47% gaffe on Drudgereport when the story broke...what a sham/shame...selective news.

Every article I read on it mentioned how Drudge had it up right away. I think Drudge obviously shies away from many stories, but if they know it's going to be news, I imagine they put it up, even if to link to sites to help lessen the blow.

Maybe Drudge did, I'm not sure actually when it first broke, but it definitely wasn't one of those "lights flashing" / "red bold" headlines. Just seemed strange to me...I like the drudgereport, but it's not quite non-partisian

[Gideon]

The 47% remark was pretty dumb, but it was refreshingly honest for Romney to admit that he only needs to worry about 10% or so to sway-- that's a political reality for any candidate.

[Gideon]

The 47% remark was pretty dumb, but it was refreshingly honest for Romney to admit that he only needs to worry about 10% or so to sway-- that's a political reality for any candidate.

I need to know why some people think it was dumb? It was brutally honest and refreshing as you said, but I will never understand why a basically true statement can be dumb or a bad political move. Maybe he had a percentage or two off or whatever but the fact remains that there are record numbers of Americans on the dole and more are added everyday. Can we all agree that this has to stop or at least be curbed. We can argue over how to do it, but it has to stop one way or another or we'll all be on the dole.

It was a broad and imprecise remark about a large number of people, no different from when any other group demonizes another.
What was refreshing was Romney acknowledging that partisans aren't likely to vote against their party of choice and that the presidency tends to swing on those ~10% of moderates.

As far as the dole goes, it's inarguable that there exists an epidemic of welfare abuse in this country, but not everyone on the dole is lazy, entitled, and lacking a sense of personal responsibility.

[AR]

[slucero]

The 47% remark was pretty dumb, but it was refreshingly honest for Romney to admit that he only needs to worry about 10% or so to sway-- that's a political reality for any candidate.

I need to know why some people think it was dumb? It was brutally honest and refreshing as you said, but I will never understand why a basically true statement can be dumb or a bad political move. Maybe he had a percentage or two off or whatever but the fact remains that there are record numbers of Americans on the dole and more are added everyday. Can we all agree that this has to stop or at least be curbed. We can argue over how to do it, but it has to stop one way or another or we'll all be on the dole.

It was a broad and imprecise remark about a large number of people, no different from when any other group demonizes another.
What was refreshing was Romney acknowledging that partisans aren't likely to vote against their party of choice and that the presidency tends to swing on those ~10% of moderates.

As far as the dole goes, it's inarguable that there exists an epidemic of welfare abuse in this country, but not everyone on the dole is lazy, entitled, and lacking a sense of personal responsibility.

Actually Romney underestimates the sad reality of America's transition to a welfare state.

The rough math:

107 million Americans already receiving some form of means-tested government welfare, to the
46 million seniors collecting Medicare and
22 million government employees at the federal, state and local level,

175 million people, a clear majority of the 308 million Americans counted by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010, are at least partially dependents of the state.

[Gideon]

The 47% remark was pretty dumb, but it was refreshingly honest for Romney to admit that he only needs to worry about 10% or so to sway-- that's a political reality for any candidate.

I need to know why some people think it was dumb? It was brutally honest and refreshing as you said, but I will never understand why a basically true statement can be dumb or a bad political move. Maybe he had a percentage or two off or whatever but the fact remains that there are record numbers of Americans on the dole and more are added everyday. Can we all agree that this has to stop or at least be curbed. We can argue over how to do it, but it has to stop one way or another or we'll all be on the dole.

It was a broad and imprecise remark about a large number of people, no different from when any other group demonizes another.
What was refreshing was Romney acknowledging that partisans aren't likely to vote against their party of choice and that the presidency tends to swing on those ~10% of moderates.

As far as the dole goes, it's inarguable that there exists an epidemic of welfare abuse in this country, but not everyone on the dole is lazy, entitled, and lacking a sense of personal responsibility.

Actually Romney underestimates the sad reality of America's transition to a welfare state.

The rough math:

107 million Americans already receiving some form of means-tested government welfare, to the
46 million seniors collecting Medicare and
22 million government employees at the federal, state and local level,

175 million people, a clear majority of the 308 million Americans counted by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010, are at least partially dependents of the state.

Not disputing (or discussing, really) the number of people who are completely or semi-dependent on government welfare, I'm taking issue with what was said about those people.

Just so we're clear, by the way, you're not suggesting that wages earned through government employ constitutes welfare, right?

[slucero]

The 47% remark was pretty dumb, but it was refreshingly honest for Romney to admit that he only needs to worry about 10% or so to sway-- that's a political reality for any candidate.

I need to know why some people think it was dumb? It was brutally honest and refreshing as you said, but I will never understand why a basically true statement can be dumb or a bad political move. Maybe he had a percentage or two off or whatever but the fact remains that there are record numbers of Americans on the dole and more are added everyday. Can we all agree that this has to stop or at least be curbed. We can argue over how to do it, but it has to stop one way or another or we'll all be on the dole.

It was a broad and imprecise remark about a large number of people, no different from when any other group demonizes another.
What was refreshing was Romney acknowledging that partisans aren't likely to vote against their party of choice and that the presidency tends to swing on those ~10% of moderates.

As far as the dole goes, it's inarguable that there exists an epidemic of welfare abuse in this country, but not everyone on the dole is lazy, entitled, and lacking a sense of personal responsibility.

Actually Romney underestimates the sad reality of America's transition to a welfare state.

The rough math:

107 million Americans already receiving some form of means-tested government welfare, to the
46 million seniors collecting Medicare and
22 million government employees at the federal, state and local level,

175 million people, a clear majority of the 308 million Americans counted by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010, are at least partially dependents of the state.

Not disputing (or discussing, really) the number of people who are completely or semi-dependent on government welfare, I'm taking issue with what was said about those people.

Just so we're clear, by the way, you're not suggesting that wages earned through government employ constitutes welfare, right?

Nope... more along the lines that they are just as dependent on the state (as the welfare recipients) for the money they receive (earned or otherwise).

[Gideon]

Ok, good.

[Rick]

The 47% remark was pretty dumb, but it was refreshingly honest for Romney to admit that he only needs to worry about 10% or so to sway-- that's a political reality for any candidate.

I need to know why some people think it was dumb? It was brutally honest and refreshing as you said, but I will never understand why a basically true statement can be dumb or a bad political move. Maybe he had a percentage or two off or whatever but the fact remains that there are record numbers of Americans on the dole and more are added everyday. Can we all agree that this has to stop or at least be curbed. We can argue over how to do it, but it has to stop one way or another or we'll all be on the dole.

You have to admit that it was a stupid thing to say when you're running for president. It's an inaccurate statement to begin with, and then you're alienating a lot of people that, either find it personally offensive, or find it inaccurate. Horribly stupid thing to say.

Obama doesn't even need to show up at the debates to win this one.

I really don't think the Republican's care if they win this one. They're going to groom Jeb for the next run, who will lose to Hillary. That's my prediction. The Republican party and their ideals are NOT what the majority of the voting public care about.

[slucero]

The 47% remark was pretty dumb, but it was refreshingly honest for Romney to admit that he only needs to worry about 10% or so to sway-- that's a political reality for any candidate.

I need to know why some people think it was dumb? It was brutally honest and refreshing as you said, but I will never understand why a basically true statement can be dumb or a bad political move. Maybe he had a percentage or two off or whatever but the fact remains that there are record numbers of Americans on the dole and more are added everyday. Can we all agree that this has to stop or at least be curbed. We can argue over how to do it, but it has to stop one way or another or we'll all be on the dole.

You have to admit that it was a stupid thing to say when you're running for president. It's an inaccurate statement to begin with, and then you're alienating a lot of people that, either find it personally offensive, or find it inaccurate. Horribly stupid thing to say.

Obama doesn't even need to show up at the debates to win this one.

I really don't think the Republican's care if they win this one. They're going to groom Jeb for the next run, who will lose to Hillary. That's my prediction. The Republican party and their ideals are NOT what the majority of the voting public care about.

Hillary won't be running, especially when this comes out...

Monica's revenge: Lewinsky 'to publish secret love letters to Clinton revealing his insatiable desire for threesomes and how he trashed Hillary'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l?ITO=1490

Former White House intern, now 39, 'will detail encounters in new book'
She 'will describe how he went on about his desire for threesomes'
Clinton 'said he thought Hillary was also looking for love outside marriage'
Lewinsky will also detail pain of ending pregnancy during scandal
She is 'writing book out of revenge as she has struggled with relationships and jobs after the scandal while Clinton escaped unscathed'

Monica Lewinsky is reportedly set to write a tell-all book about her affair with Bill Clinton - including her intimate love letters to the ex-president and how he had an insatiable desire for threesomes.

The former White House intern, 39, reportedly wants revenge on Clinton, who she believes escaped unscathed while she has never been able to shake the disgrace of their Oval Office trysts.

Friends claim publishers are scrambling to get their hands on the book, and after holding meetings, she has learned she could get as much a $12 million if she recounts every tawdry detail.

While she has not yet secured a book deal, her apparent attempts to cash in on the affair could rattle the Clinton marriage - and wreck Hillary's bid for the presidency in 2016.

Where BillyJeff is right now.. he just felt his nuts tighten up...

[slucero]

worth the watch....


Former Supreme Court Justice Souter on The Danger of America's 'Pervasive Civic Ignorance'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... WcVtWennr0

[steveo777]

So what exactly did Romney say about 47%?

The truth,.. that's why so many people got their panties in a wad.

I came up with 47 million alone on food stamps. Actually, the number was 46,650,000. I rounded up. The 47% is a real figure if people would drill down a bit and figure out what he meant. There is an echelon of society that has lived that way for generations. They will vote for a black president, no matter what his politics are. Romney knows this and also knows he will not change their vote. Obviously he couldn't say too much at the risk of saying what is obvious to most.

[Monker]

The 47% remark was pretty dumb, but it was refreshingly honest for Romney to admit that he only needs to worry about 10% or so to sway-- that's a political reality for any candidate.

I need to know why some people think it was dumb? It was brutally honest and refreshing as you said, but I will never understand why a basically true statement can be dumb or a bad political move. Maybe he had a percentage or two off or whatever but the fact remains that there are record numbers of Americans on the dole and more are added everyday. Can we all agree that this has to stop or at least be curbed. We can argue over how to do it, but it has to stop one way or another or we'll all be on the dole.

You have to admit that it was a stupid thing to say when you're running for president. It's an inaccurate statement to begin with, and then you're alienating a lot of people that, either find it personally offensive, or find it inaccurate. Horribly stupid thing to say.

Obama doesn't even need to show up at the debates to win this one.

I really don't think the Republican's care if they win this one. They're going to groom Jeb for the next run, who will lose to Hillary. That's my prediction. The Republican party and their ideals are NOT what the majority of the voting public care about.[/quote

Geez, I love how John Stewart repeats things I've already said here...as in tonight:

After going through the calculation to show the Romney paid only 13.9% in income tax in 2010...and calling the difference between what he should have paid and what he DID pay a "government subsidy of 4.5million dollars...or enough money to feed Mr. Romney on food stamps through the year 4870.""...a much better "to the point" example then what I did above:

"The biggest problem with the denisons of Bullshit Mountain is they act like their shit don't stink. If they have success, they built it. If they fail, the government ruined it for them. If they get a break, they deserved it. If YOU get a break, it is a handout and an entitlement. It's a baffling, willfully blind, cognitive dissidence, best summed up by their head coach in what is probably my favorite sound byte of all time..."

Cut to video of Craig T. Nelson saying, "I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No."

Yes, it was a dumb thing to day because he writes off %47 of the vote. But, beyond that, he is putting other citizens beneath him...as if they are not important, they don't matter, and he does not want to represent them. That is how I hear his comments. That is not how ANYONE elected to government should be talking. Even if you are a Republican, how could you vote for somebody who writes off almost half the nation? That's just ridiculous,. How can you expect this guy to get anything done when he writes off those thoughts and ideas of those in congress that represent that %47?

Then the response to that is to pull some clip from 14yrs ago of Obama speaking? The way Republicans are running this campaign is truly baffling. Idiots.

Then, in the middle of this, I read Gallup saying unemployment is down to 7.9%. Republicans are so screwed.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Well Slucero, I I don't think that "love it" is a description of my emotional reaction to this. More like saddened by it. This whole mess was avoidable if we would have gotten out of the habit of papering over bad debt and bad decisions with government debt and endless monetary expansion, money printing, and crazy policies by the Fed. Problem is it started with Hoover's government interventionism in 1930 and has been more or less building since then.

He's right about this one, we are finally going to get to the point where we face bankrupcy.

Out of Romney's own mouth comes the true end-game...

Gin & Tonic will love this one... :lol,

Romney: [The] former head of Goldman Sachs, John Whitehead, was also the former head of the New York Federal Reserve. And I met with him, and he said as soon as the Fed stops buying all the debt that we're issuing—which they've been doing, the Fed's buying like three-quarters of the debt that America issues. He said, once that's over, he said we're going to have a failed Treasury auction, interest rates are going to have to go up. We're living in this borrowed fantasy world, where the government keeps on borrowing money. You know, we borrow this extra trillion a year, we wonder who's loaning us the trillion? The Chinese aren't loaning us anymore. The Russians aren't loaning it to us anymore. So who's giving us the trillion? And the answer is we're just making it up. The Federal Reserve is just taking it and saying, "Here, we're giving it." It's just made up money, and this does not augur well for our economic future. You know, some of these things are complex enough it's not easy for people to understand, but your point of saying, bankruptcy usually concentrates the mind.

[Behshad]

Obama calls for 'democracy with a small d'

Unearthed video reveals politician pushing society based on collectivism, 'common good'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... sobm33ATC0

NEW YORK – A 1995 video depicts Barack Obama calling for “democracy with a small ‘d,’” while pushing a society based on collectivism and “common good.”

In the video unearthed by KleinOnline, Obama hails unions and collective bargaining as encapsulating the societal “common good” of which he speaks.

Obama urges society to collectively move “forward” – a word that would later serve as his 2012 campaign slogan.

Obama was speaking in an Aug. 11, 1995 interview pushing his just published book, “Dreams From My Father.” At the time, Obama was a community organizer planning to launch a political career.

Obama tells the interviewer the “best part” of the dream of his “African father and white American mother,” was the “notion that we collectively can decide on our fate.”

He continued: “That things like technological change, things like mass media, things like the market are all subject to our control. That we can make decisions for better or for worse and continue to move forward and progress.”

Obama was asked whether the collective meant “us” or “those of us who own the major media and other corporate entities.”

He replied, “You know, I think in the end it does have to be a broad us. It has to be democracy with a small ‘d.’”

Obama explained what he meant by democracy, laying out a “common good” that includes unions.

“I think that recapturing the spirit that existed not just in the civil-rights movement but in the union organizing movement, in the populous movement. I think there is a running thread; one of the better angels of our nature in this country which has been the notion that, you know, we can sit around the table and find common ground and make democracy work in the way that it should be working.”

He continued, “It’s not popular right now to say that, and to believe in sort of a common good, but I think that notions of a common good are the glue that hold our society together and make democracy possible.”

The interviewer then asked Obama whether he is “willing to stake your political career on your common ground?”

“That’s the core of my faith,” Obama replied.

Is Marty McFly trying to help you with your articles ?
You get mad at the media when Romney is caught with his pants down during election year, yet sharing videos from 1998 and 1995 ?

[Behshad]

Well as long as we are going back in time, lets go back to 1960s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9URgSaq ... re=related


0:53

George Romney, Mitt Romney's father, was on welfare early in his life, A mexican refugee according to a 1962 video of an interview with Mitt Romney's mother as George Romney was running for Governor. See the clip (the welfare comment is at :55 ish): It seems that much was left out of Mitt Romney's biopic...first, he forgot to mention that his father's family moved to Mexico so that George Romney's grandfather could marry his fifth simultaneous wife, a move that was illegal in Utah when Utah became a state. He also failed to mention that during a Mexican revolution, Mitt Romney's grandfather lost his property and land, and as an immigrant to this nation, qualified for assistance that was passed by the federal government to help refugees escaping political strife.

So as a young immigrant, George Romney's family took federal funds to get back on their feet.

I guess, perhaps, the taxpayers helped out Mr. Romney's family. And perhaps he owes everyone an apology for implying that the federal government didn't make him the man he is today. Without those assistance programs, that he ridicules in his ads, I wonder where his family would be today.

[Behshad]

* Pawlenty quits as Romney campaign co-chair

* Democratic Enthusiasm Swells in the Swing States, Nationally

[The Sushi Hunter]

47% of Obama voters that fit that specific category is probably pretty accurate, in which case why do people get all upset and pissed over it being said?

I’d like to see how many criminals who are incarcerated in the US prison system would vote democrat or republican. Those are the results I’d like to see. But it will never happen because releasing those numbers would piss off the dems just as much as Romney’s statement did.

[brandonx76]

Well as long as we are going back in time, lets go back to 1960s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9URgSaq ... re=related


0:53

George Romney, Mitt Romney's father, was on welfare early in his life, A mexican refugee according to a 1962 video of an interview with Mitt Romney's mother as George Romney was running for Governor. See the clip (the welfare comment is at :55 ish): It seems that much was left out of Mitt Romney's biopic...first, he forgot to mention that his father's family moved to Mexico so that George Romney's grandfather could marry his fifth simultaneous wife, a move that was illegal in Utah when Utah became a state. He also failed to mention that during a Mexican revolution, Mitt Romney's grandfather lost his property and land, and as an immigrant to this nation, qualified for assistance that was passed by the federal government to help refugees escaping political strife.

So as a young immigrant, George Romney's family took federal funds to get back on their feet.

I guess, perhaps, the taxpayers helped out Mr. Romney's family. And perhaps he owes everyone an apology for implying that the federal government didn't make him the man he is today. Without those assistance programs, that he ridicules in his ads, I wonder where his family would be today.

Jon Stewart has been on a role this week...the whole "Bullshit" mountain....HAHAHA!!!- funny we were able to call this out, prior to the Daily Show doing it...feel like this forum is really on the pulse:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-f ... ney-372387

[The Sushi Hunter]

Average brain size must be shrinking as well, compared to 50 years ago. Look at how well off the US was then compared to how it is now. That's the proof right there. You guys must have graphs and charts that we could compare how many people were republican and how many people were democrats 50 years ago compared to now. Now that's a figure I'd like to see, something authentic, none of this home made graph and chart bullshit ok.

[conversationpc]

Is Marty McFly trying to help you with your articles ?
You get mad at the media when Romney is caught with his pants down during election year, yet sharing videos from 1998 and 1995 ?

If Obama had repudiated his beliefs from back then and correspondingly backed it up by changing his views on policy, you'd have a point. The guy, however, was raised in an environment where just about all his adult role models were communists and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was also a communist. Then he, admittedly, hung out with those same types in college. He followed that up by attending a church where Black Liberation Theology was taught, a theology that is rich in Marxist principles. To me, it looks like he only put that stuff behind him {wink, wink} to get himself elected to office. One could argue similarly about Romney changing some of his views but his past is nowhere near as radical and markedly different from an American perspective as Obama's. Obama can argue about how Romney doesn't understand the average American, but he's lived a comparably far different experience from the average American than has Romney.

[Behshad]

Is Marty McFly trying to help you with your articles ?
You get mad at the media when Romney is caught with his pants down during election year, yet sharing videos from 1998 and 1995 ?

If Obama had repudiated his beliefs from back then and correspondingly backed it up by changing his views on policy, you'd have a point. The guy, however, was raised in an environment where just about all his adult role models were communists and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was also a communist. Then he, admittedly, hung out with those same types in college. He followed that up by attending a church where Black Liberation Theology was taught, a theology that is rich in Marxist principles. To me, it looks like he only put that stuff behind him {wink, wink} to get himself elected to office. One could argue similarly about Romney changing some of his views but his past is nowhere near as radical and markedly different from an American perspective as Obama's. Obama can argue about how Romney doesn't understand the average American, but he's lived a comparably far different experience from the average American than has <->>Romney.

The point is, FF has to go back 17 years to try to "dig up some dirt", just to get even with the media .