PDA

View Full Version : Obama regains the initiative



Qtec
10-17-2012, 08:21 AM
The foreign non-partisan press.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<u>Obama regains the initiative to win second presidential debate</u>

President more confident and combative, with Mitt Romney committing a series of gaffes over Benghazi attack and women


Barak Obama secured the comeback he desperately needed in the second presidential debate against Mitt Romney, finishing the night on top after a series of fierce clashes in which the two made no attempt to hide the extent of their personal hostility.

At one point in the 90-minute debate, watched by tens of millions of Americans, the two squared off, only a few feet apart, talking over one another, jabbing fingers at one another and accusing each other of lying.

Deriding Romney for what the Obama campaign sees as a belated shift to the centre, Obama portrayed him as more extreme than George W Bush on social issues, particularly women's rights.

Obama needed a big performance after his dismal failure in the first presidential debate in Denver. That 3 October debate was dominated by Romney and started the president's poll slide, leaving the two in a dead heat less than three weeks from election day.

Obama will have lifted Democratic morale and may have done enough to slow or even arrest the crisis.

It will be several days before the first reliable polls appear but a snap poll by CNN awarded the debate 46% to Obama and 39% to Romney, while CBS put it as 37% Obama to 30% Romney.

Obama, listless in Denver, was transformed in the second debate: focused, animated and combative. The president grew in confidence in the later stages of the night, while Romney, confident at the start, began to fade.

Obama's campaign team said Obama turned in the peformance it had expected him to produce two weeks ago.

The former White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, reinstated to the Obama team as an adviser, said: "The president knew he did not do well two weeks ago. He knew he had to step up his game tonight and <u>Mitt Romney was left looking uncomfortable</u></div></div>


link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/17/obama-win-second-presidential-debate)

...and there were loads of lies that Obama didn't have the time to correct Mittens on!

eg,.....Mittens said that Obama inherited a deficit of 500 B when it was actually 1.1 Trillion!

Q

Q

Gayle in MD
10-17-2012, 08:44 AM
The president smashed R0mney good!

Romney prove he is emotionally unstable, and disrespected the POTUS, and hence, the Office of the Presidency of the United States.

Romney proved again, that his plans would be so offensive to the American People, that he will not give any details beyond his absurd claims, which economists agree are irrational.

Romney proved again, that he is a misogynistic pig, who showed no respect for the female moderator, nor for the president.

Romney proved AGAIN, that he is a colossal liar, who would be a total disaster for this scountry.

The president was fabulous! ANd he continues to tell the truth, that in order to turn around American's loss of economic power, he will continue to invest in education, re-building our crumbling infrastructure, holding china off by continuing to increase exports, and moving them away from cheating, and destroying our foreign threats.

This economic Repiglican created mess is not one that should be taken on by a former REpiglican governor who performed miserably as Governor, and whose successes as a busines man, were totally linked to massively outsourcing American Jobs, and hiding his money offshore, totally unpatriotic, and completely without honor.

G.

Soflasnapper
10-17-2012, 09:23 AM
There is a reason Myth barely talks about his time as Mass. governor, besides Romney/Obama care.

The people that knew him best, that trusted him with the leadership of that state, gave him a job approval in the 30%s at the end of his term, George W-massive f-up territory when he re-set the bar that low for presidential job approval. So he couldn't run for re-election, and the memories are good enough that he's now polling at a 20% or so disadvantage there to the president.

Just like Rudy in NYC. At the end of his term, the people there gave him a job approval similarly in the 30%s, and he stunningly won either 0 or 1 delegate to the GOP convention when he ran although he spent millions of dollars. Rudy may have broken the record of expensive futility previously set by John Connally when he ran.

LWW
10-17-2012, 09:36 AM
Actually it was $0.16T.

Qtec
10-17-2012, 10:07 AM
LINK.

Q

eg8r
10-17-2012, 10:15 AM
According to ABC <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">final fiscal 2008 deficit of $458.6 billion.</div></div> Now if you want to add in the $700 billion then you will surely be willing to to add in all the increased deficits that arise for decades after Obamacare goes in full swing. Obama's deficit increases will go on until that is killed but you aren't man enough to admit it.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-17-2012, 11:59 AM
You have no clue.

The $700 billion was immediate authorization that applied in that very year.

Whereas ObamaCare reduces the deficit by CBO scoring. Over a 10 year time frame, and continuing more deficit reduction after that.

As against that well-known CBO scoring that says the opposite of your claim, what can you bring as evidence that you're right and they're wrong? Right wing talking points from college dropout mental midget political liars and bloviaters?

LWW
10-17-2012, 12:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LINK.

Q </div></div>

It's been given to you countless times.

The last Bush/republican congress was $160T ... that is what Obama and the demokrooks "INHERITED" in 2008.

Although Bush is certainly to blame or signing the FY 2008 and FY 2009 ... both f those budgets initiated in a demokrook kontrolled house and were approved by a demokrook kontrolled senate of which Obama was a member.

He also supported the FY 2008 and FY 2009 budgets ... and beotched that we weren't spending enough.

HERE YOU GO ... AGAIN. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls)

Perhaps you might consider perusing it.

Soflasnapper
10-17-2012, 01:06 PM
So with a GOP Senate minority far larger than after the 2008 election found seated in 2009, AND a very strong veto power in the hands of the GOP president, the GOP was STILL absolutely unable to impose any of its priorities, and with such weak powers as the veto and the filibuster, they were forced to go along fully with the bad Democrats' plans which they adamantly opposed.

Wait, that makes zero sense. Clearly enough, the GOP Senate and the GOP president did not oppose those things enough to care to use their powers, which they most certainly had. The GOP Senate had far greater ability to muster a 40 no vote to block anything the Democrats wanted to do in the Senate than they had in 2009-2012, when they forced cloture votes more than 160 times.

They didn't do that. Why? Because there was nothing the Democrats proposed or passed that wasn't close enough to the GOP program to gain their opposition.

eg8r
10-17-2012, 01:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have no clue.
</div></div>LOL, so says the guy with his head shoved up Obama's rear. Obamacare will never reduce the deficit however you will never understand this sort of common sense. I love how you refer to the CBO but refuse to acknowledge that their numbers are static and do not take into account any sorts of shifts in reality. Just like the idiot lefties think raising taxes on the rich will solve their problems yet forget that the rich who pay these taxes move their money to places that cannot be touched. LOL, you telling anyone else they don't have a clue is just hilarious.

eg8r

eg8r
10-17-2012, 01:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AND a very strong veto power in the hands of the GOP president, the GOP was STILL absolutely unable to impose any of its priorities, and with such weak powers as the veto and the filibuster, they were forced to go along fully with the bad Democrats' plans which they adamantly opposed.</div></div>It is so funny how lefties start running their mouth and forget the situation they are in. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-17-2012, 02:02 PM
When the facts are on your side, you could pound the facts. When the law is on your side, you could pound on the law. When neither are on your side, you pound the table puerishly and resort to coarse and crude language.

We all see the situation you're in, and how you respond. An ugly scenario.

eg8r
10-17-2012, 02:40 PM
LOL, you guys had all the same power and blamed everything on the Reps. It is hilarious how quickly you ignore your own words.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-17-2012, 02:47 PM
You. Know. Nothing. (I say that affectionately, as it's almost endearing how pitifully under-informed you really are. Almost.)

When the Democrats mildly tried filibustering a half dozen Bush appointees to the federal bench, the Republicans cried Constitutional crisis and threatened the nuclear option. (Eliminating the Senate rule allowing it on a simple majority vote after an appeal to the parliamentarian.) The so-called 'gang of six' (or seven or eight, can't remember) intervened, and the Democrats agreed to only use such blunt force tactics in very rare cases (i.e., not at all).

Democrats do not believe in minority rule in the Senate by use of the filibuster or forcing cloture votes. They ceased doing it even for life-time appointments to the bench, and only tried it briefly on a handful of nominees.

The GOP loves that tactic, and always sets records for it whenever there is a Democratic president or a Democratic majority in the Senate. (Cf: the Clinton terms, and the Obama term numbers.)

eg8r
10-17-2012, 02:54 PM
LOL, You. Wish. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-17-2012, 03:30 PM
For example, there is no head of the ATF, since the GOP won't allow that to come to a vote.

They refused to allow votes on the several deputy level officials at Treasury.

They refused to allow enough members of the National Labor Relations Board to form a quota to take any action at all. (Prompting Obama's recess appointments, and great howling of illegal power grabs, when the opposite was true.)

The GOP's tactics are like Sherman's scorched earth march to the sea, and the Democrats' all too often remind us of Gen. McCelland's.

LWW
10-17-2012, 04:45 PM
It makes no sense to you because you insist upon viewing it through a prism of nonsense.

Soflasnapper
10-18-2012, 08:35 AM
Yes, we are forced to look through the nonsense that is the GOP's shaky grasp of reasonable governance, as they slip back into extortion and blackmail.

"Nice little credit rating you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. Let me tell you what you're going to do now!" -- GOP Mafia

LWW
10-18-2012, 09:52 AM
My credit score was 811 the last time I checked ... how many credit scores have ben severely diminished since January, 2007?

Does it matter ... or are these folks just collateral damage in defense of your godking?

Soflasnapper
10-18-2012, 11:03 AM
I am obviously discussing the downgrade of the US credit rating from AAA, caused by the dysfunction of the GOP and their little Tea Party rump caucus.

How can we be so sure they are dysfunctional? Because their own god-king Ryan will require scores of debt ceiling increases for the next 30 years until he balances his budget they all voted for and love and swear fealty to. Just as Reagan also required, and just as their erstwhile god-king, the codpiece wearing George W., also required.

LWW
10-18-2012, 04:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am obviously discussing the downgrade of the US credit rating from AAA, caused by the dysfunction of the GOP and their little Tea Party rump caucus. </div></div>

Been drinking the Maryland swamp water?

hondo
10-29-2012, 05:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am obviously discussing the downgrade of the US credit rating from AAA, caused by the dysfunction of the GOP and their little Tea Party rump caucus. </div></div>

Been drinking the Maryland swamp water? </div></div>

No attacks on larry from Hondo here.