Run,Run, Run, The Republicans are Com...
ILAL

Bronx, NY

#1299 Feb 20, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: "I STILL got nuthin'- and never have."
Translation: " I'm still a Drama Queen - always was, always will be."
ZCS

Bronx, NY

#1300 Feb 21, 2013
RUN!!!!!!!!!!

Mccain RUN!!!!!!!!!!

The mother of a victim of the Aurora, Colo. movie theater massacre confronted Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) at a town hall Wednesday, urging him to support a ban on assault weapons.

"My 24-year-old son Alex was murdered in a movie theater in Colorado," Caren Teves said, according to KTVK. "These assault rifles allow the shooter to fire many rounds without having to reload. These weapons do not belong on our streets."

McCain responded:“I can tell you right now you need some straight talk. That assault weapons ban will not pass the Congress of the United States." McCain added that he is working on legislation that would keep guns out of the wrong hands while preserving the Second Amendment.
Just In

Bronx, NY

#1301 Feb 21, 2013
Approval ratings from the latest Bloomberg Poll:

Obama, 52%

GOP, 35%
talk about crazy

Bronx, NY

#1303 Feb 21, 2013
Post # 1302.

What planet do these nuts come from?
Logic

United States

#1304 Feb 22, 2013
MalbaCACfudgepackers wrote:
<quoted text>bavarchis, jbs, jcs, yys, p5s, ams, tas, jms, cdbs, rds, bbs, pms, Leveque Destroyers and all other FAGgogotes, PAEDOs, FUKINGAYHOMOSEXUAL SPASTIC FUCKTURD PHAGGOT SHEMALEs, F*CKWITs, IDENTITY THIEves, PLAGIARIZERs, ROBBERs, IMPOSTORs, AGITATORs, TROUBLEMAKERs you have all been sussed.
Your DUMBASS SPAMalot TOPIX PAID TROLLs and MODERATORS, SPAMMERs, REAL AGITATORs, ANARCHISTs Real Indian PoonJABiSikh Muzzie IndoMauritianPONG LascarCACA, Lamerde Nibiruan HINDUSTINKs hide my ASS! game is up.
Barbaric, savage, uneducated, illiterate, scumbag, liars, fakes, deceivers, fraudsters, frauds and CACA eaters, worthless vermin scumbags and VERMIN FOOK OFF back to the villages and slums of your SHITHOLE STINKCESSPOOL HINDUSSTENCH CACAMOTHERLAND.
THIS IS A CACA EATING, RAT CURRY IDIOTIC avatuvaman, murkh, scum, filth, black dalit, coolie, chharchhobi, chamberpot, Pilon Bumchod Indomauritian Balmiki Bhangi BABOON Gaand marau Ghondoos SUAR KA BACHCHA BHOJAN KEEDAA JALI NAKALI DHONGI FUCKTURD FREE ZONE.
23.6500s 146.6333e" is that your IP address?
Follow these simple instructions:
1.- Log out.
2.- Go to your registered user panel / setti<quoted text>
With "peniis" like that you be best to stay off line, sIndian.
Fixed
MalbarCACA Poofters, Benders, sIndians, Levis, Adelaideans, McPoos...
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T7... if there is one.
3.- If there are any preferences listed choose Unhide my location.
4.- Delete all Hometown entries.
4.- You may now log back in.
5.- Never again post from a hidden or masked location.
bavarchis, jbs, jcs, yys, p5s, ams, tas, jms, cdbs, rds, bbs, pms, Leveque Destroyers and all other FAGgogotes, PAEDOs, FUKINGAYHOMOSEXUAL SPASTIC FUCKTURD PHAGGOT SHEMALEs, F*CKWITs, IDENTITY THIEves, PLAGIARIZERs, ROBBERs, IMPOSTORs, AGITATORs, TROUBLEMAKERs you have all been sussed.
Your DUMBASS SPAMalot TOPIX PAID TROLLs and MODERATORS, SPAMMERs, REAL AGITATORs, ANARCHISTs Real Indian PoonJABiSikh Muzzie IndoMauritianPONG LascarCACA, Lamerde Nibiruan HINDUSTINKs hide my ASS! game is up.
Barbaric, savage, uneducated, illiterate, scumbag, liars, fakes, deceivers, fraudsters, frauds and CACA eaters, worthless vermin scumbags and VERMIN FOOK OFF back to the villages and slums of your SHITHOLE STINKCESSPOOL HINDUSSTENCH CACAMOTHERLAND.
THIS IS A CACA EATING, RAT CURRY IDIOTIC avatuvaman, murkh, scum, filth, black dalit, coolie, chharchhobi, chamberpot, Pilon Bumchod Indomauritian Balmiki Bhangi BABOON Gaand marau Ghondoos SUAR KA BACHCHA BHOJAN KEEDAA JALI NAKALI DHONGI FUCKTURD FREE ZONE.
23.6500s 146.6333e" is that your IP address?
Follow these simple instructions:
1.- Log out.
2.- Go to your registered user panel / setti<quoted text>
With "peniis" like that you be best to stay off line, sIndian.
Fixed
You are a perfect example of a brain burnt out by drug use.
Logic

United States

#1305 Feb 22, 2013
Just In wrote:
Approval ratings from the latest Bloomberg Poll:
Obama, 52%
GOP, 35%
That's right!
President Obama!
Right Power!
ZCs

Bronx, NY

#1306 Feb 23, 2013
Run Republicans!!!

Run!!!!!!!!!!

The big GOP talking point about sequestration, the looming across-the-board budget cuts, was a simple one: It was all Barack Obama’s idea in the first place, and therefore his fault. There’s been a lot of discussion of how honest this idea was (not particularly), and how effective it’s likely to be if sequestration actually happens (not especially), and even why they likely settled on it (because if there’s one thing that everyone in the Republican Party can agree on it would be bashing Barack Obama). But what I don’t think anyone has pointed out is what’s really wrong with this talking point: It actively undermines any current negotiations. Again.

That’s because Republicans are doing everything possible to remind Barack Obama, and other Democrats, that Republicans are at least as interested in using negotiations as an opportunity to generate material for future ad campaigns as they are in striking deals.

Go back, for a minute, to the negotiations that produced the Budget Control Act and produced the sequester that is now scheduled to go into effect in a few days. Recall that Republicans were demanding huge spending cuts, and refusing to raise the debt limit unless they got them. The White House was willing to agree on the size of deficit cuts, and both sides were willing to agree to put off the debate for a while on how exactly to do deficit reduction. The problem was that Republicans wanted some assurances that when negotiations started up again the default would be cuts, not status quo; the White House suggested automatic cuts by a certain date unless the deficit cuts were deep enough.

Claiming now that this constitutes “Obama’s sequester” isn’t just a stretch. The debate over whether Obama was “really” the author of it isn’t very interesting.

What does matter, however, is that using that supposed authorship against him suggests that Republicans feel that any proposal Obama makes in any negotiations is fair game for attack ads. Even if they agreed to it. Even if it was a counter-proposal that was milder than a Republican proposal.

It’s particularly corrosive in budget deficit reduction negotiations because the inherent nature of deficit reduction is that the goal involves (unpopular) spending cuts and (unpopular) tax increases. At best, public opinion might support tax increases on the rich and spending cuts on a handful of tiny budget items, but that’s about it. Everything else is going to be unpopular. So for negotiations to run smoothly at all, both sides need to have some confidence that they can, well, negotiate. Obviously, the initial public demands from both sides are entirely legitimate targets at the time and into the future. But counteroffers? Make those fair game, and you just won’t get them.
ZCs

Bronx, NY

#1308 Feb 27, 2013
Run!!!!!!!!!!

CNN business correspondent Ali Velshi slammed Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) for likening the federal budget to family spending and suggesting that the Obama administration should not spend more than the government takes in.

“Every family has to balance their budget, isn’t allowed to spend more than they need, every business is more efficient, tighten their belt. The reality is it can be done,” Jindal said in remarks outside of the White House on Monday, following a meeting between the National Governor’s Association and President Obama. He added that the administration can implement the automatic across-the-borad sequestration cuts that are likely to go into effect on March 1 “without jeopardizing the economy” or “critical services” by focusing on “wasteful spending.”

Velshi rejected Jindal’s comparison as “misleading”“nonsense” and pointed out that businesses and families routinely borrow money to invest in their futures, reasoning that an investment made today in college education or a new equipment can lead to greater returns down the road:

VELSHI: It’s 3% of a small part of the federal budget which makes it a very big part of some major agencies. It’s misleading stuff Bobby Jindal is saying, number one. Number two when he says families understand they have to live within their budget. I don’t know a lot of families who buy a house with cash. Buying a house on a mortgage, is that living within your budget or not living within your budget? You would have to be 80 years old to be able to buy a house with cash. We have an understanding in our society, it may be flawed, that we borrow money based on our future earnings potential. All people do that, companies do that and governments do that. There’s a point at which you can say, we’ve gone too far with that or we’re too much of a risk of not paying back so we’ll end up paying a higher interest rate. When you borrow too much money, your personal interest rate goes up, credit cards go up. But to suggest within your means and balanced budget nonsense is just misleading. That is not how families live. It’s not how businesses conduct themselves.
ZCs

Bronx, NY

#1309 Feb 27, 2013
Run American Voters!
Run!!!!!!!!! The Republicans are Coming! Run!!!!!!!
They are trying to take your voting rights away.
Run!!!!!!!!!!
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, the monumental statutory achievement of Congress in the last century, is under attack this week in the Supreme Court by Shelby County, Alabama, backed by much of the legal infrastructure of the American right.
When Chief Justice Roberts and his fellow “color blind” arch-conservatives take up the ominous Shelby County v. Holder1 on Wednesday, hold your breath. Despite the painstaking rejection of Shelby County’s arguments below in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the far right is salivating because Chief Justice Roberts, in a near-miss decision on the same subject in 2009, has already expressed the sentiment of his colleagues in the majority that the Act now “raises serious constitutional questions.”2 Of course, John Roberts was never much of a fan--as a lawyer, he tried to kill the implementation of a “results” test for voting rights violations under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when it came up for reauthorization in 1982.
Today, the whole conservative movement is gunning for the pivotal Section 5 of the Act, which requires covered states and jurisdictions to “pre-clear” changes affecting voting with the Department of Justice or the federal district courts in Washington.3 Justice Clarence Thomas has already written that he would strike down Section 5 as unconstitutional. Right-wing ideologues at the Cato Institute who think that widespread disenfranchisement is “ancient history” and hardball Republican activists who seek to do nothing more subtle than depress the minority vote and reclaim their edge in completely or partially covered states with fast-changing demographics, like Virginia, Florida and Arizona, all agree that this case is their best chance to take down the most effective part of the strongest pro-democracy law in American history.
The case against Section 5 turns on neither constitutional text nor precedent nor the facts of political life on the ground, but on political and constitutional myth. Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment clearly gives Congress the “power to enforce” voting rights “by appropriate legislation,”4 and the Court has four times—in South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966),5 Georgia v. U.S.(1973),6 City of Rome v. U.S.(1980),7 and Lopez v. Monterey County (1999)8—rejected invitations by recalcitrant states to declare Section 5 as outside of Congress’ powers under the 14th and 15th Amendments. The lower courts in this case reviewed more than 15,000 pages of Congressional findings and testimony demonstrating the continuing need for preclearance to deal with the ingenious disenfranchising and diluting schemes in the covered areas, including voter photo ID laws, tightening restrictions on registration and at the polls, and racist gerrymanders.
ZCs

Bronx, NY

#1310 Feb 27, 2013
Continue.

But ideologues trying to cut out the heart of the Voting Rights Act skip over both law and facts in favor of this free-floating right-wing fallacy: that a nation which twice elects an African-American president simply cannot contain any states or counties where minority voters face actual barriers to participation. Backing up this non-sequitur intuition are constitutional myths: that Congress is not permitted to differentiate among the states because of Equal Protection principles and that the pre-clearance mechanism in the Voting Rights Act and its “coverage formula” impose far too high “federalism costs” on covered areas. All of these nebulous suggestions are supposed to lead the Court to find that Section 5 is no longer a “congruent” or “proportional” remedy, under either the Fourteenth Amendment or the Fifteenth Amendment, for threats to voting rights.
The arguments against Section 5 are as thin as the paper they are written on, but they appeal nicely to the long-suffering racial fatigue of Supreme Court arch-conservatives, who also seem set this Term to enlist Justice Kennedy in their drive to bring down the hammer on what is left of affirmative action in public higher education.
ZCs

Bronx, NY

#1311 Feb 27, 2013
Run!!!!!!!!!

There are almost 40 featured speakers at next month’s Conservative Political Action Conference, but one of the most popular Republican governors in the country has yet to receive an invite.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is “not being invited” to CPAC, according to a source close to the event who was not authorized to speak publicly. The source would not answer why Christie, who is widely thought to be interested in the 2016 presidential race, would not be invited to the confab of conservative activists.

The tough talking governor hasn’t been afraid to take on his own party in the past. Last month he blasted the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, specifically Speaker John Boehner, for adjourning without approving a $60 billion relief package for the victims of superstorm Sandy.(The money has since been approved).

Christie also angered some members of the Romney team, and other Republicans, when just one week before the presidential election he praised President Obama’s handling of the storm, which slammed into his state on Oct. 29.

Officially, CPAC says the schedule is still being finalized.

“We still have three weeks to CPAC and have several more announcements to go,” Communications Director Laura Keehner Rigas told ABC News.“I encourage everyone to hold tight.”

The conservative confab is being held outside of Washington, D.C., next month and will feature Mitt Romney’s first public appearance since his loss in November and almost 40 other featured speakers, many of them also thought to be interested in 2016, including former Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, and House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan.

Other big names include former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and former presidential candidates Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, among many others.

What is unclear is whether the “not inviting” will stand, now that the news has broken.
ILAL

Bronx, NY

#1312 Feb 27, 2013
ZCs wrote:
Run American Voters!
Run!!!!!!!!! The Republicans are Coming! Run!!!!!!!
They are trying to take your voting rights away.
Run!!!!!!!!!!
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, the monumental statutory achievement of Congress in the last century, is under attack this week in the Supreme Court by Shelby County, Alabama, backed by much of the legal infrastructure of the American right.
When Chief Justice Roberts and his fellow “color blind” arch-conservatives take up the ominous Shelby County v. Holder1 on Wednesday, hold your breath. Despite the painstaking rejection of Shelby County’s arguments below in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the far right is salivating because Chief Justice Roberts, in a near-miss decision on the same subject in 2009, has already expressed the sentiment of his colleagues in the majority that the Act now “raises serious constitutional questions.”2 Of course, John Roberts was never much of a fan--as a lawyer, he tried to kill the implementation of a “results” test for voting rights violations under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when it came up for reauthorization in 1982.
Today, the whole conservative movement is gunning for the pivotal Section 5 of the Act, which requires covered states and jurisdictions to “pre-clear” changes affecting voting with the Department of Justice or the federal district courts in Washington.3 Justice Clarence Thomas has already written that he would strike down Section 5 as unconstitutional. Right-wing ideologues at the Cato Institute who think that widespread disenfranchisement is “ancient history” and hardball Republican activists who seek to do nothing more subtle than depress the minority vote and reclaim their edge in completely or partially covered states with fast-changing demographics, like Virginia, Florida and Arizona, all agree that this case is their best chance to take down the most effective part of the strongest pro-democracy law in American history.
The case against Section 5 turns on neither constitutional text nor precedent nor the facts of political life on the ground, but on political and constitutional myth. Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment clearly gives Congress the “power to enforce” voting rights “by appropriate legislation,”4 and the Court has four times—in South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966),5 Georgia v. U.S.(1973),6 City of Rome v. U.S.(1980),7 and Lopez v. Monterey County (1999)8—rejected invitations by recalcitrant states to declare Section 5 as outside of Congress’ powers under the 14th and 15th Amendments. The lower courts in this case reviewed more than 15,000 pages of Congressional findings and testimony demonstrating the continuing need for preclearance to deal with the ingenious disenfranchising and diluting schemes in the covered areas, including voter photo ID laws, tightening restrictions on registration and at the polls, and racist gerrymanders.
These racist GOP A-holes want to turn back the clock to a time long past thinking that's going to give them an advantage in elections.
If they're so strong in their backwards beliefs, Why then do they need to cheat in order to win? they can't run on any of the bullsh!t they spew because they know American demographics have changed and their primitive, outdated message has fallen on deaf ears.
ILAL

Bronx, NY

#1313 Feb 27, 2013
ZCs wrote:
Run!!!!!!!!!
There are almost 40 featured speakers at next month’s Conservative Political Action Conference, but one of the most popular Republican governors in the country has yet to receive an invite.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is “not being invited” to CPAC, according to a source close to the event who was not authorized to speak publicly. The source would not answer why Christie, who is widely thought to be interested in the 2016 presidential race, would not be invited to the confab of conservative activists.
The tough talking governor hasn’t been afraid to take on his own party in the past. Last month he blasted the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, specifically Speaker John Boehner, for adjourning without approving a $60 billion relief package for the victims of superstorm Sandy.(The money has since been approved).
Christie also angered some members of the Romney team, and other Republicans, when just one week before the presidential election he praised President Obama’s handling of the storm, which slammed into his state on Oct. 29.
Officially, CPAC says the schedule is still being finalized.
“We still have three weeks to CPAC and have several more announcements to go,” Communications Director Laura Keehner Rigas told ABC News.“I encourage everyone to hold tight.”
The conservative confab is being held outside of Washington, D.C., next month and will feature Mitt Romney’s first public appearance since his loss in November and almost 40 other featured speakers, many of them also thought to be interested in 2016, including former Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, and House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan.
Other big names include former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and former presidential candidates Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, among many others.
What is unclear is whether the “not inviting” will stand, now that the news has broken.
Christie is not going along with lies put forth by the extremist wackjobs in the GOP.
He's not missing a thing, he 's got more important things to do than engage in a Republican clown show of gasbaggers.
Why would he participate with those morons, he's got more integrity than all of them combined.
Just Saying

Mineola, NY

#1314 Feb 28, 2013
ZCs wrote:
Run!!!!!!!!!!
CNN business correspondent Ali Velshi slammed Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) for likening the federal budget to family spending and suggesting that the Obama administration should not spend more than the government takes in.
“Every family has to balance their budget, isn’t allowed to spend more than they need, every business is more efficient, tighten their belt. The reality is it can be done,” Jindal said in remarks outside of the White House on Monday, following a meeting between the National Governor’s Association and President Obama. He added that the administration can implement the automatic across-the-borad sequestration cuts that are likely to go into effect on March 1 “without jeopardizing the economy” or “critical services” by focusing on “wasteful spending.”
Velshi rejected Jindal’s comparison as “misleading”“nonsense” and pointed out that businesses and families routinely borrow money to invest in their futures, reasoning that an investment made today in college education or a new equipment can lead to greater returns down the road:
VELSHI: It’s 3% of a small part of the federal budget which makes it a very big part of some major agencies. It’s misleading stuff Bobby Jindal is saying, number one. Number two when he says families understand they have to live within their budget. I don’t know a lot of families who buy a house with cash. Buying a house on a mortgage, is that living within your budget or not living within your budget? You would have to be 80 years old to be able to buy a house with cash. We have an understanding in our society, it may be flawed, that we borrow money based on our future earnings potential. All people do that, companies do that and governments do that. There’s a point at which you can say, we’ve gone too far with that or we’re too much of a risk of not paying back so we’ll end up paying a higher interest rate. When you borrow too much money, your personal interest rate goes up, credit cards go up. But to suggest within your means and balanced budget nonsense is just misleading. That is not how families live. It’s not how businesses conduct themselves.
I don't know any families with $17 trillion in debt. Do you?
Just Saying

Mineola, NY

#1315 Feb 28, 2013
ZCs wrote:
Continue.
But ideologues trying to cut out the heart of the Voting Rights Act skip over both law and facts in favor of this free-floating right-wing fallacy: that a nation which twice elects an African-American president simply cannot contain any states or counties where minority voters face actual barriers to participation. Backing up this non-sequitur intuition are constitutional myths: that Congress is not permitted to differentiate among the states because of Equal Protection principles and that the pre-clearance mechanism in the Voting Rights Act and its “coverage formula” impose far too high “federalism costs” on covered areas. All of these nebulous suggestions are supposed to lead the Court to find that Section 5 is no longer a “congruent” or “proportional” remedy, under either the Fourteenth Amendment or the Fifteenth Amendment, for threats to voting rights.
The arguments against Section 5 are as thin as the paper they are written on, but they appeal nicely to the long-suffering racial fatigue of Supreme Court arch-conservatives, who also seem set this Term to enlist Justice Kennedy in their drive to bring down the hammer on what is left of affirmative action in public higher education.
Grow up. If you can show ID to buy beer or cigarettes,or get on a plane, you should have no problem showing ID to vote.
Just Saying

Mineola, NY

#1316 Feb 28, 2013
ZCs wrote:
Run!!!!!!!!!
There are almost 40 featured speakers at next month’s Conservative Political Action Conference, but one of the most popular Republican governors in the country has yet to receive an invite.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is “not being invited” to CPAC, according to a source close to the event who was not authorized to speak publicly. The source would not answer why Christie, who is widely thought to be interested in the 2016 presidential race, would not be invited to the confab of conservative activists.
The tough talking governor hasn’t been afraid to take on his own party in the past. Last month he blasted the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, specifically Speaker John Boehner, for adjourning without approving a $60 billion relief package for the victims of superstorm Sandy.(The money has since been approved).
Christie also angered some members of the Romney team, and other Republicans, when just one week before the presidential election he praised President Obama’s handling of the storm, which slammed into his state on Oct. 29.
Officially, CPAC says the schedule is still being finalized.
“We still have three weeks to CPAC and have several more announcements to go,” Communications Director Laura Keehner Rigas told ABC News.“I encourage everyone to hold tight.”
The conservative confab is being held outside of Washington, D.C., next month and will feature Mitt Romney’s first public appearance since his loss in November and almost 40 other featured speakers, many of them also thought to be interested in 2016, including former Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, and House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan.
Other big names include former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and former presidential candidates Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, among many others.
What is unclear is whether the “not inviting” will stand, now that the news has broken.
Why should a CONSERVATIVE organization invite a non-Conservative to a conference?
Just Saying

Mineola, NY

#1317 Feb 28, 2013
ZCs wrote:
Run Republicans!!!
Run!!!!!!!!!!
The big GOP talking point about sequestration, the looming across-the-board budget cuts, was a simple one: It was all Barack Obama’s idea in the first place, and therefore his fault. There’s been a lot of discussion of how honest this idea was (not particularly), and how effective it’s likely to be if sequestration actually happens (not especially), and even why they likely settled on it (because if there’s one thing that everyone in the Republican Party can agree on it would be bashing Barack Obama). But what I don’t think anyone has pointed out is what’s really wrong with this talking point: It actively undermines any current negotiations. Again.
That’s because Republicans are doing everything possible to remind Barack Obama, and other Democrats, that Republicans are at least as interested in using negotiations as an opportunity to generate material for future ad campaigns as they are in striking deals.
Go back, for a minute, to the negotiations that produced the Budget Control Act and produced the sequester that is now scheduled to go into effect in a few days. Recall that Republicans were demanding huge spending cuts, and refusing to raise the debt limit unless they got them. The White House was willing to agree on the size of deficit cuts, and both sides were willing to agree to put off the debate for a while on how exactly to do deficit reduction. The problem was that Republicans wanted some assurances that when negotiations started up again the default would be cuts, not status quo; the White House suggested automatic cuts by a certain date unless the deficit cuts were deep enough.
Claiming now that this constitutes “Obama’s sequester” isn’t just a stretch. The debate over whether Obama was “really” the author of it isn’t very interesting.
What does matter, however, is that using that supposed authorship against him suggests that Republicans feel that any proposal Obama makes in any negotiations is fair game for attack ads. Even if they agreed to it. Even if it was a counter-proposal that was milder than a Republican proposal.
It’s particularly corrosive in budget deficit reduction negotiations because the inherent nature of deficit reduction is that the goal involves (unpopular) spending cuts and (unpopular) tax increases. At best, public opinion might support tax increases on the rich and spending cuts on a handful of tiny budget items, but that’s about it. Everything else is going to be unpopular. So for negotiations to run smoothly at all, both sides need to have some confidence that they can, well, negotiate. Obviously, the initial public demands from both sides are entirely legitimate targets at the time and into the future. But counteroffers? Make those fair game, and you just won’t get them.
Obama got his tax increases, but didn't uphold his end of the bargain, namely, spending cuts. Even Bob Woodward called him out on it.
Just Saying

Mineola, NY

#1318 Feb 28, 2013
ILAL wrote:
<quoted text>
These racist GOP A-holes want to turn back the clock to a time long past thinking that's going to give them an advantage in elections.
If they're so strong in their backwards beliefs, Why then do they need to cheat in order to win? they can't run on any of the bullsh!t they spew because they know American demographics have changed and their primitive, outdated message has fallen on deaf ears.
You actually have the nerve to claim the Republicans cheat in order to win elections, given the massive voter fraud prevalent in Democratic election wins in recent history? You're really hysterical, you should do stand up.
ZCs

Bronx, NY

#1319 Mar 8, 2013
RUN!!! The Republicans and CPAC are coming!!!

RUN!!!!!!!!!!

With less than week to go before conservatives of all stripes gather for the 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at Washington, D.C.’s Gaylord Resort and National Convention Center, it can be said without equivocation that the run up to the gathering has been just about as dysfunctional as the Republican Party itself.

While rebranding, rebooting, repositioning and the coalescing of the various competing factions within the Party might have been the main order of pre-CPAC business, instead tweets, email, texts, blogs, and radio rants have focused on who has or hasn’t been invited to speak, and which groups have been excluded.

A parade of the usual suspects (Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich), and wannabees (Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan) will grace the stage. NRA President David Keene and its Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre are also scheduled speakers.

The Tea Party’s influence on CPAC will be writ large, according to Devin Burghart, the vice president of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights. In a piece titled “Tea Party Dominates CPAC 2013 Agenda,” Burghart pointed out that CPAC13 will be dominated by Tea Party leaders, Tea Party organizations, and Tea-Party-supported politicians.

Just how Tea Party-driven is CPAC13?“Tea Party and Tea Party-aligned groups make up a sizable majority of the partners and sponsors for the event, and a big percentage of the co-sponsors and exhibitors. Four different Tea Party national networks have a presence,” Burghart reported.
ZCs

Bronx, NY

#1320 Mar 8, 2013
Just Saying wrote:
<quoted text>You actually have the nerve to claim the Republicans cheat in order to win elections, given the massive voter fraud prevalent in Democratic election wins in recent history? You're really hysterical, you should do stand up.
I Don't recall any Democrats who were trying to block Romney supporters from voting for him with made up B.S.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

New York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 4 min American League L... 319,403
Time to go? 10 min Citizen 2,579
News Cutting of pastor's role called 'vindictive' (Oct '08) 14 min Bruser 8,005
News 1 man dead, 5 people wounded in shootings acros... 21 min Progressive Commi... 3
Poll Who weighs more? 22 min jimi-yank 71
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 59 min spocko 310,368
Volunteer Teaching Opportunity in New York (NYC... 1 hr CSNYNJ 1
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 1 hr TMShyster 36,437
HILLARY will be THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Dec '14) 2 hr DBWriter 5,744
More from around the web

Personal Finance

New York Mortgages