Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

President Barack Obama/Vice-President Joe Biden Re-elected to 2nd Term Thread


@DCGoldPants

Recommended Posts

obama_youth_04-16815-20090906-20.jpg

We've had threads dedicated to Newt, Mitt, Santorum, Perry, Bachmann and Paul.....but nothing on Obama.......who reelection campaign while not in full swing is also overshadowed by the primaries right now.

So, there have been a few items I wanted to post and there wasn't really a single thread I found. So......now is as good a time as any.

Obama gives blessing to a super PAC

Fearing a tide of spending by outside conservative groups, President Obama is giving his blessing to a pro-Democratic Party “super PAC” that will work to help his reelection, his campaign said late Monday.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a message to supporters that “our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it stands,” which he said gives a large financial advantage to Republicans and their allied groups. Messina said Obama will throw his support to Priorities USA Action, a super PAC founded by two former White House aides that until now has been unable to match its conservative competitors in fundraising.

More from the link

and......

Obama campaign to return donation from brothers of Mexican fugitive

President Obama’s reelection campaign said Monday it will return more than $200,000 in contributions raised by two men, the brothers of a Mexican casino magnate who fled drug and fraud charges in the United States nearly two decades ago.

The move followed a report posted late Monday by the New York Times detailing fundraising efforts by the brothers of Juan Jose “Pepe” Rojas Cardona, who jumped bail in Iowa in 1994 and has since been linked to violence and corruption in Mexico.

Two of the fugitive’s brothers, Carlos and Alberto, both of the Chicago area, had emerged as top fundraisers for the Obama campaign, helping to raise more than $200,000, the Times report said.

“On the basis of the questions that have been raised, we will return the contributions from these individuals and from any other donors they brought to the campaign,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

The newspaper did not identify any donations from Pepe Cardona. But it said that as recently as January 2011, Carlos Cardona had enlisted the help of a Democratic Party official in Iowa to request a pardon, which was not granted.

More from this link too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My look-a-like urges are kicking in. I can't decide which is closer...

x x x x x x x x x x x Kid Creole (of Kid Creole and the Coconuts fame):

x x x x x x x x x x x kid_creole_and_the_coconuts_8.jpg

or Lou Bega (of "Mambo Number 5" fame)

Lou_Bega---MAIN.jpg

Anyway, carry on with Obama news....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama's largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees on their investments in renewable energy projects that went bust?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577206980068367936.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

would a ban on political donations from those recieving federal loans be a good idea?

who is watching the watchers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama's largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees on their investments in renewable energy projects that went bust?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577206980068367936.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

would a ban on political donations from those recieving federal loans be a good idea?

who is watching the watchers

Oh that would be awesome, and this is in no way an attempt to excuse this payback or incentive payments, but this has been the way politics has worked since as long as any of us have been alive. The major problem is that unless we go to public funding of elections and eliminate any special interest funded advertizing...in other words fundamentally change the way elections are run, then this is going to be the way both parties continue to operate for a very long time.

I'd go so far as to block loans and legislation from being written sponsored and supported by elected officials who have campaign ties to those who stand to benefit from legislation being passed, after all judges have to recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest, why shouldn't our elected be held to the same standard across the board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Spearfeather
My look alike urges are kicking in too:

:D

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Yeah.....mine too.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRtu7HuA810ZldcZsIwwsCauyYAdX5ymKSo1PNLWSMKFESm-dkX4A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried :), but I can't get aggravated about this super PAC stuff. I think you can be opposed to something, but acknowledge that it's a necessary evil until the laws are changed.

That being said, this president has been the exact opposite of what I expected...great militarily, but a disaster here at home. My main gripes:

1) Obamacare, and my pending fines.

2) No tax credit for fathers paying child support. (One of the main reasons I supported him.)

3) Lip service to getting off of ME oil, but consistent actions to the contrary.

4) Throwing money away on green energy failures. (I like green. We all do. But be responsible with funding it.)

5) Desire to raise taxes on small and medium sized business; the ones that are leading the recovery.

6) Ensuring class warfare, then criticizing others for doing so.

7) Including me in the "wealthiest Americans" because I received the Bush tax cut. (And in all likelihood, so did EVERYONE who will read this. Congratulations on your massive wealth!)

8) The bailouts. I don't care that GM was saved. Ford had a better business model, and deserved that market share.

9) The fact that candidate Obama and president Obama are two entirely different people. I realize that all politicians say what we want to hear to get elected. But the contrast with him is more stark than I've EVER seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with everything on your list HH, but that's a good post. Obama has been much weaker domestically than many of us hoped. He's proven incapable of managing his own party and it's led to some questionable legislation. I was hoping for more. We really needed a strong leader these past four years and Obama hasn't been that.

That said, I think he's going to get a second term. He is an excellent campaigner and I don't think any of the GOP candidates have the stuff to take him on (except maybe Gingrich, but he's got way too much baggage.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with everything on your list HH, but that's a good post. Obama has been much weaker domestically than many of us hoped. He's proven incapable of managing his own party and it's led to some questionable legislation. I was hoping for more. We really needed a strong leader these past four years and Obama hasn't been that.

One thing I TRY to do, is be reasonable about my complaints. I don't always succeed, of course, but I don't go looking for reasons to bang on the guy. I really do TRY not to be a hack. And like everyone else, I WANT him to succeed. If he succeeds, we all do.

It's most disappointing that he had literally had the support of planet earth, and really hasn't done much with it.

That said, I think he's going to get a second term. He is an excellent campaigner and I don't think any of the GOP candidates have the stuff to take him on (except maybe Gingrich, but he's got way too much baggage.)

Completely agree. He'll be re-elected by default. This crop of GOP candidates is an absolute joke. And it disappoints me thoroughly that the one legitimate candidate we had (IMO, anyway) didn't even get a look -- Jon Huntsman. I think that's quite an indictment of my party as it stands now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being said, this president has been the exact opposite of what I expected...great militarily, but a disaster here at home.

The reason you all are so surprised is because ya'll made him out to be the next Marx brother (not the funny one) and a limp wristed pansy defensively, and come to find out he wasn't either of those two things. While the Left is furious that he wasn't either of those two things. :ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason you all are so surprised is because ya'll made him out to be the next Marx brother (not the funny one) and a limp wristed pansy defensively, and come to find out he wasn't either of those two things. While the Left is furious that he wasn't either of those two things. :ols:

:ols:

Touche.

I didn't think he was going to be the wet noodle that most on my side did. But I didn't expect him to be so aggressive, nor successful, militarily.

The thing is, I voted selfishly for the first time in my life in 2008. I was really suffering financially, and I voted for the person who I thought would be best for ME. To that end, I've been severely disappointed. But then it's contrary to everything I alledge to stand for to expect that anyway. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think he was going to be the wet noodle that most on my side did. But I didn't expect him to be so aggressive, nor successful, militarily.

I never doubted his military chops, after all it isn't like he's the one drawing up the plans, he does have a small staff of people in a five sided building who seem pretty adept at handling those things.

The thing is, I voted selfishly for the first time in my life in 2008. I was really suffering financially, and I voted for the person who I thought would be best for ME. To that end, I've been severely disappointed. But then it's contrary to everything I alledge to stand for to expect that anyway. :)

Same here in part, I really wanted a public option......REALLY badly....and it seemed that in the haggling process that was Obama's opening offer, and when that happened I knew it was not going to happen, and that really ticked me off. (to the point where I almost punched my truck's radio when it was reported) But I don't think that voting for what will benefit you personally is all together out of the question, after all if you want what is best for the country doesn't that include you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried :), but I can't get aggravated about this super PAC stuff. I think you can be opposed to something, but acknowledge that it's a necessary evil until the laws are changed.

That being said, this president has been the exact opposite of what I expected...great militarily, but a disaster here at home. My main gripes:

1) Obamacare, and my pending fines.

Do you not have health insurance?

2) No tax credit for fathers paying child support. (One of the main reasons I supported him.)

Was this something he promised?

4) Throwing money away on green energy failures. (I like green. We all do. But be responsible with funding it.)

I don't think we've been irresponsible with funding it. I think the failures have been blown way out of proportion. Just keep in mind Congress set aside $10 billion to cover the losses on companies who were given loans that eventually went under. To my knowledge, we aren't close to even passing that threshold.

5) Desire to raise taxes on small and medium sized business; the ones that are leading the recovery.

I believe he has the opposite desire to what you state. He's been a major advocate of tax cuts for small and medium sized businesses and it's Republicans who have blocked any legislation put forward to actually help those businesses.

6) Ensuring class warfare, then criticizing others for doing so.

Asking the very rich to pay more in taxes is not class warfare. But I guess this is something we can disagree on.

7) Including me in the "wealthiest Americans" because I received the Bush tax cut. (And in all likelihood, so did EVERYONE who will read this. Congratulations on your massive wealth!)

What does this mean? Unless you make more than $250K, he's fighting to keep your tax cuts. In fact, under Obama's tax plan, your taxes would be lower compared to what the Republicans are offering.

8) The bailouts. I don't care that GM was saved. Ford had a better business model, and deserved that market share.

Ford lobbied Congress to pass the bailout, because without it, the supply chain Ford relies would have dried up had GM and Chrysler gone under. The car companies fold, so do their suppliers.

9) The fact that candidate Obama and president Obama are two entirely different people. I realize that all politicians say what we want to hear to get elected. But the contrast with him is more stark than I've EVER seen.

I sympathize with this, but the realities of governing are very different campaigning. He was naive to think that Republicans would actually work with him. I go back to the campaign of Hillary Clinton warning voters it would not work this way. He had better be ready to be pummeled by Republicans and to fight back. He was very late in recognizing this. I'll also add that he had an economy that collapsed in September, just two months before the election, dropped right into his lap. Any of the structural changes he wanted to make in Washington had to wait. And he used his political capital on shoring up the economy and health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sean Hannity Says If Obama Had His Way, Bin Laden Would Be Alive -- And He Can Prove It, With 'Tape'!

On last night's edition of his eponymous Fox News show, Sean Hannity briefly took a trip to his smile-time fantasy world when he had this conversation with Frank Luntz:

HANNITY: I know the president will say, 'Well, we got bin Laden.' Putting that aside...

LUNTZ: And the public gives him credit for that.

HANNITY: They do. The public does give him credit for that. But it wouldn't have happened if he had his way, and I think that can be proved as well on tape.

Oh, really? That would sure be interesting. You see, if President Barack Obama really didn't want to take out bin Laden, he sure had an odd way of showing it. The easiest way to avoid going after bin Laden would be to say something like -- I don't know ... bin Laden is "one person" and that you "really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you." Which isn't necessarily the height of awfulness, mind you, there's numerous ways to confront al Qaeda and the threat they represent.

But killing bin Laden, nevertheless, seems for all the world like something Obama was really into doing. As ABC News reported, the president "authorized the development of a plan for the United States to bomb bin Laden's compound with two B-2 stealth bombers dropping a few dozen 2,000-pound bombs" back in March. But when it became clear that this mission would preclude any possibility of obtaining physical evidence to attest to bin Laden's demise, the plan was scrapped in favor of what would become "Operation Geronimo" -- the riskier Navy Seals raid on the compound. And to that end, a replica of bin Laden's compound was erected at Bagram Air Force Base's "Camp Alpha." There, the Seals practiced the raid, making two dry runs in April ahead of the May mission.

More from the link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell is Hannity even talking about? What tape? I know he can be pretty out there and incredibly hypocritical when it comes to defending anything his side does and criticizing anything the other side does, but it sounds like he is really going to conspiracy theory land with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell is Hannity even talking about? What tape? I know he can be pretty out there and incredibly hypocritical when it comes to defending anything his side does and criticizing anything the other side does, but it sounds like he is really going to conspiracy theory land with this.

And yet, the anti-Obama crowd will consider it gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life is good

http://news.investors.com/Article/600452/201202080802/government-dependence-jumps-under-president-obama.htm

The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.

The conservative think tank's annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were "traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families."

The two-year increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.

The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life is good

http://news.investors.com/Article/600452/201202080802/government-dependence-jumps-under-president-obama.htm

The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.

The conservative think tank's annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were "traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families."

The two-year increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.

The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.

You don't think the economic collapse we're currently working our way out of had anything to do with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think the economic collapse we're currently working our way out of had anything to do with that?

of course not....no more than Obama had anything to do with that either.

he is simply present....and not responsible for anything before,during or after;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious how much of the increase is due to the addition of drug benefits for medicare...you know the one from Bush. I am also curious how much of it is driven by demographics as an agin population becomes increasingly elidgable for more of the social safety net including social security.

The article makes only passing reference to "The number of people dependent on the federal government shot up 7.5% in the past two years." My first take is please define dependance.

There is also some very vague wording with "The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found." So the medicaid increase was large, but i have a hard time believing the perscription drug addition had no real impact. What changes to the welfare system are counted? Rise in food stamps is probably directly attributed to the economy, and I haven't seen many politicians say the food stamp program should be cut much.

Do the tax breaks for home owners count as "housing subsidies?"

I have a hard time taking the article as much other than a political ad because it leaves me with more questions than answers whether they are about methodology used to produce hte numbers cited or the agenda of the writer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...