The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[cartman]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

3) Seriously? You're named after the three headed dog from hell. Are you really worried about damage to your brand name?

Pure awesome

[Edward64]

Got my weapon today. Talking to a guy at the register as we were going thru background check (< 15 min BTW). He bought same model as me. He said "the candle has been lit" and I agree. Something like below will happen.

Obama's push on gun violence begins to take shape - First Read

President Barack Obama would actively support an impending proposal next year to reinstate a ban on assault weapons as part of the wide-ranging effort the president promised to initiate in response to mass shooting incidents this year.

The contours of Obama’s plan to address mounting gun violence begun to take shape in the nation’s capital as the White House started to outline some of the specific measures the administration would favor as part of its new initiative.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that Obama supports the thrust of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's forthcoming legislation to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004. Carney said that the president was additionally willing to consider limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines and closing a loophole allowing individuals to purchase firearms at gun shows without a background check.

[Edward64]

Obama is person of the year.

TIME Person of the Year is President Obama - TODAY Celebrates

President Barack Obama is TIME magazine’s iconic Person of the Year, managing editor Rick Stengel revealed Wednesday as he unveiled the 2012 cover on TODAY.

“He’s basically the beneficiary and the author of a kind of a New America, a new demographic, a new cultural America that he is now the symbol of,” Stengel said.

Obama became the first Democratic president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to win two consecutive re-elections with at least 50 percent of the vote, despite the highest unemployment rate in seven decades.

Stengel said Obama won support from a core group of voters who “actually don’t care about politics” and felt the president ignored partisanship to do his job.

“Using the coalition of the ascendant young voters, millennials, Hispanics minorities, he’s creating a new alignment, a kind of realignment like Ronald Reagan did 40 years ago,” he said.

This is Obama's second time on the cover with the iconic title. He also secured the title the last time he won election — in 2008, just after he became the first African American elected president.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

He said "the candle has been lit" and I agree.

It'll also light a candle for sales, the manufacturers are almost certain to see a big boost in sales just like they did when BO was first elected.

[sterlingice]

I suspect we'll get a lot of hoopla and a gun control bill that has so many exceptions it doesn't restrict anything. But both sides will be excited about how they supported their base.

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I suspect we'll get a lot of hoopla and a gun control bill that has so many exceptions it doesn't restrict anything. But both sides will be excited about how they supported their base.

SI

Yep. I don't consider myself too passionate about this issue on either side but when I read the proposals I thought to myself this is nothing. Obviously the gun side is going to say this is the beginning of the end and the gun control side is going to claim a major victory "For Newton". Politics as usual.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yep. I don't consider myself too passionate about this issue on either side but when I read the proposals I thought to myself this is nothing. Obviously the gun side is going to say this is the beginning of the end and the gun control side is going to claim a major victory "For Newton". Politics as usual.

But maybe it will set the gun control side up for the next high profile shooting, where they might have the political will to take another step. I think deep down the sides know that these steps now are meaningless on their own, it's all about momentum and what direction we're going in.

But I think the reality is, violent crime will continue to decrease regardless of the presence or absence or retraction of gun control legislation, just like it has since 1991 or so, even through the implementation and then expiration of the assault weapon ban. Culture and the local communities will drive our fate here, not politicians and lobbyists spending billions for tiny meaningless changes back and forth in the battle for that momentum. For them it's just a part of the game of power and campaign contributions.

[Passacaglia]

the first Democratic president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to win two consecutive re-elections

That's a bold prediction there.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

That's a bold prediction there.

LOL - that's the reality of the sad state of journalism today.

[ISiddiqui]

Sad work.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Obama is person of the year.

TIME Person of the Year is President Obama - TODAY Celebrates

Was pretty amused by some of the characterizations in that article. Pretty clear which side of the fence that magazine sits.

[Buccaneer]

I agree with this. Some of the most effective ways of measurably reducing violence has been in local communities reaching out gangs and for police to offer amnesty and guns for cash. They also organize Stop the Violence campaigns and raise their profile in schools, news and gatherings. None of this can come federal legislation and their lobbyists so quit looking towards Washington and your state capital for solutions when better solutions are right in your communities.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Was pretty amused by some of the characterizations in that article. Pretty clear which side of the fence that magazine sits.

I guess it was also pretty clear when W won twice, Gingrich won, Bush Sr won, Reagan won twice, etc.?

Since the inception of the award, every single two term president has won the award twice (even Nixon, who is the only back to back winner), no matter what party they belong to.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I agree with this. Some of the most effective ways of measurably reducing violence has been in local communities reaching out gangs and for police to offer amnesty and guns for cash. They also organize Stop the Violence campaigns and raise their profile in schools, news and gatherings. None of this can come federal legislation and their lobbyists so quit looking towards Washington and your state capital for solutions when better solutions are right in your communities.

Vigilance is critical too. I read two stories yesterday about students who were detained (one arrested, one committed to a mental facility), for making threats and generally scaring everyone. Maybe they wouldn't have been so vigilant last week. There's a risk of going overboard, sure, but identifying the risks and actively dealing it with is at that level is so much more effective than making sure lightly-enforced federal law doesn't allow certain types of weapons, but broadly permits others.

[miked]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I guess it was also pretty clear when W won twice, Gingrich won,
Bush Sr won, Reagan won twice, etc.?

Since the inception of the award, every single two term president has won the award twice (even Nixon, who is the only back to back winner), no matter what party they belong to.

STOP USING FACTS TO COMBAT IDIOTS!!!

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I guess it was also pretty clear when W won twice, Gingrich won,
Bush Sr won, Reagan won twice, etc.?

Since the inception of the award, every single two term president has won the award twice (even Nixon, who is the only back to back winner), no matter what party they belong to.

Originally Posted by miked

STOP USING FACTS TO COMBAT IDIOTS!!!

Or, use responsive facts at least. I didn't read the article but Mizzou B-ball fan's post clearly said "characterizations in that article", not their decision who to give the award to. I know the combination of "liberal media" and "Mizzou B-ball fan" makes you guys dizzy and angry, but c'mon. Just from the blurb posted here though, I had the same thought about them saying Obama was the symbol of a "a new cultural America" and that he "ignored partisanship to do his job."

Edit: Also, I wish we could retire the schtick of yelling at nobody in particular in all caps, but if we can't, I'm going to try it.

EVERY NEWS SOURCE IS EITHER EXACTLY IN THE MIDDLE OR EVL RIGHTIES LIKE FOXNEWS!!

Actually, that was kind of fun.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I agree with this. Some of the most effective ways of measurably reducing violence has been in local communities reaching out gangs and for police to offer amnesty and guns for cash. They also organize Stop the Violence campaigns and raise their profile in schools, news and gatherings. None of this can come federal legislation and their lobbyists so quit looking towards Washington and your state capital for solutions when better solutions are right in your communities.

There is some evidence that reducing lead levels in the air and lead abatement have made in difference in violent behavior.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Or, use responsive facts at least. I didn't read the article but Mizzou B-ball fan's post clearly said "characterizations in that article", not their decision who to give the award to. I know the combination of "liberal media" and "Mizzou B-ball fan" makes you guys dizzy and angry, but c'mon.

Edit: Also, I wish we could retire the schtick of yelling at nobody in particular in all caps, but if we can't, I'm going to try it.

EVERY NEWS SOURCE IS EITHER EXACTLY IN THE MIDDLE OR EVL RIGHTIES LIKE FOXNEWS!!

Actually, that was kind of fun.

Yes, they picked someone as person of the year and wrote a glowing article on him. Because that person is a Democrat does not make them liberally biased. I see the characterizations in the article as directly tied to the person being chosen.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

Or, use responsive facts at least. I didn't read the article but Mizzou B-ball fan's post clearly said "characterizations in that article", not their decision who to give the award to. I know the combination of "liberal media" and "Mizzou B-ball fan" makes you guys dizzy and angry, but c'mon. Just from the blurb posted here though, I had the same thought about them saying Obama was the symbol of a "a new cultural America" and that he "ignored partisanship to do his job."

I appreciate that someone was paying attention to the content of my response rather than posting a knee-jerk reactionary response.

The other one that I noticed that you didn't list was the comment that 'Obama won support from a group of core voters who don't actually care about politics'. I find that to be a strange and misguided characterization of those voters and voters in general. It's not that they don't care about politics. It's that they don't care for the partisan antics that currently characterize the political forum. There's far too many disinterested voters who are voting for what they believe is the lesser of two evils in our presidential elections. There's a reason they don't 'care', but it has little to do with them not being interested in politics or what happens in our government.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I appreciate that someone was paying attention to the content of my response rather than posting a knee-jerk reactionary response.

The other one that I noticed that you didn't list was the comment that 'Obama won support from a group of core voters who don't actually care about politics'. I find that to be a strange and misguided characterization of those voters and voters in general. It's not that they don't care about politics. It's that they don't care for the partisan antics that currently characterize the political forum. There's far too many disinterested voters who are voting for what they believe is the lesser of two evils in our presidential elections. There's a reason they don't 'care', but it has little to do with them not being interested in politics or what happens in our government.

I think the quote is accurate, if you add a single word: 'Obama won support from a group of core voters who don't actually care about HIS politics'. Like you say, to my eyes, the great majority of folks voted for the party they support and the generic values those parties are supposed to represent, without all that much consideration for either of the actual candidates or their records, simply because the candidates themselves both represented their core pretty poorly.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If there is no deal on debt ceiling increases the White House should jump off the cliff. As long as the GOP is committed to risking the credit of the USA there isn't any reason to make a deal. They'll just renig in a few months when the debt ceiling needs to be lifted.

I like how it's the GOP that is committed to risking the credit of the USA. Increasing debt (and debt ceiling) without a real plan to pay for it-and start paying it down-is risking credit. The left seems to forget this fact.

[JPhillips]

That's a battle for budget negotiations. Deciding not to pay the bills the government has committed to is reckless and only one party is willing to do that.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's a battle for budget negotiations. Deciding not to pay the bills the government has committed to is reckless and only one party is willing to do that.

Hold on, so passing legislation you have no idea how to pay for, is perfectly fine, because that's for the budget battle.

BUT, refusing to fund that legislation is reckless...

Gotcha...

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's a battle for budget negotiations. Deciding not to pay the bills the government has committed to is reckless and only one party is willing to do that.

Both parties are guilty of this.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's a battle for budget negotiations. Deciding not to pay the bills the government has committed to is reckless and only one party is willing to do that.

Both parties are guilty of this. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

[JPhillips]

No. The Democrats have voted against a debt limit increase in the past, but have always provided enough votes to make sure it passed. The GOP has and is threatening to deliberately refuse to pay the bills those same congressmen authorized earlier.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Hold on, so passing legislation you have no idea how to pay for, is perfectly fine, because that's for the budget battle.

BUT, refusing to fund that legislation is reckless...

Gotcha...

If the budget has passed, refusing to pay the bill is indeed reckless. Would you say that running up a bill on the credit card, but refusing to pay it off isn't reckless?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Democrats have voted against a debt limit increase in the past, but have always provided enough votes to make sure it passed.

??? So they voted just enough to make a point, but not enough to actually do anything?

[molson]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

??? So they voted just enough to make a point, but not enough to actually do anything?

"Just enough to make a point, but not enough to actually do anything" - I think they actually put that on a T-shirt they hand out at conventions.

FWIW, every Dem Senator (including Obama) voted against raising the debt limit during the Iraq War, as did a few Republicans.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I like how it's the GOP that is committed to risking the credit of the USA. Increasing debt (and debt ceiling) without a real plan to pay for it-and start paying it down-is risking credit. The left seems to forget this fact.

Neither side has a plan to pay for it. And both sides want to increase debt. I mean Romney's plan was to cut taxes 20% and increase the defense budget.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's a battle for budget negotiations. Deciding not to pay the bills the government has committed to is reckless and only one party is willing to do that.

A post for the ages......

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

??? So they voted just enough to make a point, but not enough to actually do anything?

That's been the bipartisan plan since Reagan, and you can criticize that all you want, but that's a far cry from actually refusing to pay the bills for the things you voted to buy.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

A post for the ages......

So you agree that the government should agree to buy things and then refuse to pay the bills?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's been the bipartisan plan since Reagan, and you can criticize that all you want, but that's a far cry from actually refusing to pay the bills for the things you voted to buy.

Nobody's refused to pay any bills though. Just threats and votes from both parties, over the years. (Edit: And Obama has changed his mind on this since 2006, he says he regrets his vote and it was way too risky to go all-in on voting to refuse to raise the debt ceiling without knowing for sure how many Republicans would go along with it.)

[JPhillips]

This GOP is the first party to ever threaten to stop paying the bills. That decision played a major role in lowering the nation's credit rating.

[Edward64]

Heads have rolled ... but at the assistant level.

3 State Dept. Officials Resign Following Benghazi Report - NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — Three State Department officials resigned on Wednesday after an independent panel severely criticized the “grossly inadequate” security arrangements at an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in an attack.

The officials who resigned were Eric Boswell, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security; Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary responsible for embassy security; and Raymond Maxwell, a deputy assistant secretary who had responsibility for the North Africa region, an administration official said.

The report left unscathed some more senior officials who oversaw those bureaus, including Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary for management. Mr. Kennedy has vigorously defended the State Department’s decision-making on Benghazi before Congress.

Thomas R. Pickering, the former ambassador who led the independent review, told reporters at a news conference Wednesday that most of the blame for what happened in Benghazi should fall on officials in the bureaus of diplomatic security and Near East affairs.

“We fixed it at the assistant-secretary level, which is, in our view, the appropriate place to look, where the decision-making in fact takes place — where, if you like, the rubber hits the road,” Mr. Pickering said.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This GOP is the first party to ever threaten to stop paying the bills. That decision played a major role in lowering the nation's credit rating.

Ever?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Ever?

At least since the debt limit was imposed in 1917.

[Edward64]

And the game of chicken continue. I have a feeling if we go over the cliff the next 4 years will be the most partisan we've seen yet.

Boehner defies White House, says chamber will pass 'Plan B' to avert tax hikes | Fox News

House Speaker John Boehner declared Wednesday that his chamber will approve a so-called "Plan B" to avert a crush of tax hikes just 13 days away, despite President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowing to oppose it.

The move came as talks between Boehner and Obama suddenly hit a standstill. Boehner's decision on Tuesday to put forward the "Plan B" -- which would raise taxes only on those making over $1 million, and preserve current rates for everyone else -- angered the White House. On Wednesday morning, the White House issued a formal veto threat, as the president urged Republicans during a press conference to "peel off the partisan war paint."

In response to the president's criticism and resistance, Boehner called a press conference -- which lasted less than one minute -- to declare the House was moving forward and put the onus on the president to get Democrats on board.

"Tomorrow, the House will pass legislation to make permanent tax relief for nearly every American," Boehner said. "Then the president will have a decision to make. He can call on the Senate Democrats to pass that bill or he can be responsible for the largest tax increase in American history."

[Buccaneer]

So proposing a permanent tax relief for most Americans is considered partisan war painting but opposing such is not?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So proposing a permanent tax relief for most Americans is considered partisan war painting but opposing such is not?

In Washington D.C.? Yes.

If this had been proposed by democrats, it would be the next best thing to sliced bread. Just like had Romneycare had been passed by the republicans, it would have been the next best thing since free beer at ball games.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Edward64

And the game of chicken continue. I have a feeling if we go over the cliff the next 4 years will be the most partisan we've seen yet.

Boehner defies White House, says chamber will pass 'Plan B' to avert tax hikes | Fox News

I'm not enough of a legislative branch historian to know if its just always been like this but that kind of rhetoric Boehner uses there is what sickens me about Congress and politics. Boehner's making his offer, and now he's calling on Obama to just "get the Democrats to go along with it." Votes for national legislative office are meaningless. It's just two dudes, one of whom isn't even in the legislature, who have to agree to a way to go forward, and then when those two agree we'll have a deal. Maybe if we had more diverse views in congress, a third party, independents, there would be more legislative support based on crazy old ideas like that they think particular legislation is good or something.

If they go off the fiscal cliff my one-person meaningless protest will be to never vote for a big-2 party member for national legislature ever again (or until my change my mind, I did mention it would be a meaningless protest).

[Edward64]

Clintonesque speak. If this is true for the $1M and up, doesn't this mean the same thing for $400K and up ... not really a tax increase for them?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8BI19220121219

Norquist gave his blessing on Wednesday to House Speaker John Boehner's plan to avert the "fiscal cliff," concluding that despite complaints to the contrary, it would adhere to Republican lawmakers' pledges not to raise taxes.

But more than a dozen other conservative figures and groups, including the Tea Party Express and the Heritage Foundation, disagreed.

They urged lawmakers to oppose the plan when it comes up for a vote on Thursday in the House of Representatives.

Some even warned that legislators who back Boehner's plan, risk being voted out of office in 2014.

Technically, Boehner's proposal, which has been dubbed "Plan B," does not include a tax increase. What it does is prevent any tax hikes on annual incomes of up to $1 million, thus permitting tax increases on higher incomes.

That seemed to be enough of a distinction for Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform to say the plan does not violate its anti-tax pledge.

"Having finally seen actual legislation in writing, ATR is now able to make its determination," Norquist's group said in a one-page statement. "ATR will not consider a vote for this measure a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge."

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not enough of a legislative branch historian to know if its just always been like this but that kind of rhetoric Boehner uses there is what sickens me about Congress and politics. Boehner's making his offer, and now he's calling on Obama to just "get the Democrats to go along with it." Votes for national legislative office are meaningless. It's just two dudes, one of whom isn't even in the legislature, who have to agree to a way to go forward, and then when those two agree we'll have a deal. Maybe if we had more diverse views in congress, a third party, independents, there would be more legislative support based on crazy old ideas like that they think particular legislation is good or something.

If they go off the fiscal cliff my one-person meaningless protest will be to never vote for a big-2 party member for national legislature ever again (or until my change my mind, I did mention it would be a meaningless protest).

Boehner must have some unbelievable pressure right now from left and right but I feel little sympathy. IMO the majority of Americans have spoken clearly on this tax issue and he should concede. I don't know if he is one of the worst, most ineffective House Speakers but he personifies the party of "no".

[PilotMan]

Time Magazine Names Mitt Romney Man of the Year 1912 : The New Yorker

In a press release explaining its decision, Time’s editorial board wrote, “Even though his quest for the Presidency was unsuccessful, Mr. Romney’s ideas about foreign policy, taxation, wealth inequality, and women’s rights typified the year 1912 as no one else has.”

[molson]

The New Yorker should leave satire to the onion, that doesn't even make sense. I don't they even had an income tax in 1912. And saying Romney has 1912 views on women's rights is kind of like calling Obama a socialist. If you exaggerate the views of the left, its mean-spirited, if you exaggerate the views of the right, its hilarious satire (or worse, it's just taken as fact, like the "Republicans believe all Hispanics are illegals and moochers" poster. )

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

IMO the majority of Americans have spoken clearly on this tax issue and he should concede.

The makeup of the House of Representatives begs to differ.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The makeup of the House of Representatives begs to differ.

So how well Republicans were able to gerrymander ous what best represents there will of the people?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by mckerney

So how well Republicans were able to gerrymander ous what best represents there will of the people?

It represents what those people were elected to do.

And, to be honest, by any means necessary as far as I'm concerned at this point.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by mckerney

So how well Republicans were able to gerrymander ous what best represents there will of the people?

As much as a few percentages of popular vote represent a "landslide" and a "mandate" (for ANY election).