205 replies to this topic

[PhillyB]

I am truly sorry to all the sensabilities I disturbed by calling our current president the Campaigner of the US. I was playing to his only strength they way I saw it. I think it is just the passive agressive nature I have developed here in the Huddle. I am thankful to all the gracious mods for not banning me for use of the word campaigner and promise to mend my ways. My humble apologies to all.

do it all you like, but know you bear the mark of those who peruse incredibly partisan forums/news sites/dialogue contexts where calling michelle "moochelle" and saying "communist-in-chief" is regarded as an earnest exchange of ideas and why can't the durn ivory tower LIEberals and DEMONcrats realize this and stop being such internet queens and stuff

i check out sites like drudge and national review all the time to keep a balanced perspective on what people are thinking and honestly it's a methodology specific to those sites and probably another great example of how tea party vegetables have become the ideological voice that's caused the accelerated demise of the GOP as we know it

[stirs]

Well, if you stick with what I say, rather than brand me with what others say, then we will get along just fine. Liberals is my favorite "namecalling" here on the Huddle. I don't use Moochelle or Demoncrats or whatever, I don't even say Murica like you guys love to do, but I am certain that you will call out all the others for their Teabaggers statements and all the other crap. You lose credibility when you bark about how you are the champion of discourse but then attribute others statements to me so you can call me out while leaving all on the left to get your "pie"

I do think that the president is a great campaigner and after that.......

[cookinwithgas]

Gee stirs, I don't know how to break it to you, but being a great campaigner is important if you want to get your ideas across.

And according to all the polls, the public agrees with his ideas a lot more than your guys, and in return they are fading into the woodwork, considered as lunatics, while Obama seems like a reasonable sensible guy in comparison.

In essence all you have is sour grapes, so you want to consider that everyone who voted for him considers him a messiah so the rest of your rants might make some sense. But you lost everyone right off the bat because you have absolutely zero sense of perspective and minimal knowledge of how things really work in the world. Your miserable attempts at trolling do bring to mind the rest of the crazies who rely on Facebook memes to get their facts so I can see why you are lumped in with the rest of the people that the nation is quickly learning to ignore.

[stirs]

Then we agree, he is a great campaigner, but after that, an empty suit. Glad you and the "polls" have spoken. At least the polls change as often as the wind blows

[cookinwithgas]

See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself.

[stirs]

Last day of work for 100,000 at the Pentagon, 40,000 teachers, myriads of first responders and TSA agents. All you guys with kids will be finding new childcare tomorrow and there will be no headstart for them in school. Military is already being effected and Obama has opened the prison doors in a preemptive move just to show us what tomorrow holds.

Been nice knowing all of you, see you on the other side.

Unless, of course, the president has been "campaigning/lying/exaggerating/demonizing/dodging responsibility,etc". Then, tomorrow will come and go and the world won't end.

[teeray]

I have to say. It is refreshing to hear Republicans finally admit that steep cuts to the military isn't the end of the world. That seems to be the new strategy on the sequester stuff. Maybe they finally turned a corner.

[stirs]

I have to say. It is refreshing to hear Republicans finally admit that steep cuts to the military isn't the end of the world. That seems to be the new strategy on the sequester stuff. Maybe they finally turned a corner.

Not new at all, been in the sequester deal all along. Part from the military and part from other programs. Remember way back in the debates? Remember Obama saying, "it is not gonna happen"?

Been there all the time

[teeray]

Not new at all, been in the sequester deal all along. Part from the military and part from other programs. Remember way back in the debates? Remember Obama saying, "it is not gonna happen"?

Been there all the time

The sequester isn't new. The Republicans attitude toward it has changed. Since Obama has told people why this would be a bad thing, I guess the Republicans, who during the entire presidential campaign lauded this as terrible and a disastrous thing for the country, now seem to have the attitude "Meh. Whatevs." Just because Obama is pressuring them to actually do something about it that includes additional revenue from the wealthiest Americans.

Obama has a plan (not a great plan IMO, but it is a starting point), and has asked Congress repeatedly to come up with a balanced counter proposal to cut 1.2 trillion.

The Republicans have tried to pin blame on Obama because the White House came up with the idea to force Republicans to the negotiating table. Republicans are so jaded they can't even do it. They just have to protect the rich.

These cuts are so bad that even Boehner said:

"Boehner told the House Republican leadership and other key members not to worry about the sequester … ‘Guys, this would be devastating to Defense,’ he said. ‘This would be devastating, from their perspective, on their domestic priorities. This is never going to happen.’ "

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/sep/21/mitt-romney/obama-blame-defense-sequestration-says-romney-ad/

And I don't know this, but I believe that Boehner would just assume get something done, but the Tea Party branch of his caucus is holding him hostage. According to reports they have told him that they will replace him as Speaker of the House if he agrees to any new revenue.

[stirs]

The balanced approach is already one sided as Obama got his tax increase. Now he is balking on wanting cuts. Woodward has called him out on deceipt. You are still carrying the water for him however. Continue on,

[g5jamz]

Woodward is now in the crosshairs of Obama and his minions.

[chris999]

The Left-Right paradigm is ripping our country apart.

The Republicans stand for the 10% of the wealthiest people, and the Democrats stand for the bottom 15-20% of the poor(plus higher taxes for all). When the 70-75% of the people in the middle realize there is no one standing up for them we will finally be able to end this non-sense.

What we need is someone who will stand up for our individual liberties, and someone who will spend our tax dollars on 'us' instead of the globalist ambitions of the people behind the curtain who have everyone fighting with each other instead of bringing us together. 53 percent of our tax dollars go to building the Military Indusrial Complex, and the money that is being thrown around by the lobbyists has too much control over our representatives.

Quit participating in partisan politics. We have to unite as a people before we can make any real progress. As long as people continue to vote straight ticket politics in these 'gerrymandered' zones, we continue to reward these same career politicians who have gotten us into this position to begin with.

Real change starts at the bottom. Look at us. Why are we fighting each other instead of for change. Open a history book and give me one example of a divided populace that ever accomplished anything... In fact, they usually end up conquered or their nation split in two. I think that is where we are headed if we dont turn the TVs off and start participating with our neighbors, then our communities and then the states... Next thing you know, we will be rebuilding our nation instead of getting robbed.

Start to demand representation for your taxation.

[teeray]

The balanced approach is already one sided as Obama got his tax increase. Now he is balking on wanting cuts. Woodward has called him out on deceipt. You are still carrying the water for him however. Continue on,

He isn't proposing new income tax laws.

He wants to close loopholes. For instance, a hedge fund manager making millions and millions of dollars and only paying 15% in taxes.

It is just making sure that everyone pays their fair share. Isn't that what republicans want??

It s amazing how Republicans find it despicable that someone would game the unemployment or welfare benefits but when rich people game the system through tax loopholes it is, "Derp, that is because they are smart and know how to work the system... derpa derpa"

It isn't just about the rich. Simple yes or no question. Do you think it is fair for someone making 1 million dollars through payroll should have to pay more taxes than someone else making a million dollars through a hedge fund?

Do you think one millionaire should pay more taxes than another millionaire? And if so, why?

[g5jamz]

The sequestration was a deal Obama made to get the debt limit increase. Obama's making this about tax revenues now just after getting the largest tax increase in history. That's why the Senate doesn't want to do anything...they can't. Tax REVENUE bills cannot originate in the Senate, that's the house. Sequestration is about spending cuts....ONLY.

President proved he's incapable of doing what needs to be done when he balked at being responsible for choosing where the cuts should be.

[g5jamz]

He isn't proposing new income tax laws.

He wants to close loopholes. For instance, a hedge fund manager making millions and millions of dollars and only paying 15% in taxes.

It is just making sure that everyone pays their fair share. Isn't that what republicans want??

It s amazing how Republicans find it despicable that someone would game the unemployment or welfare benefits but when rich people game the system through tax loopholes it is, "Derp, that is because they are smart and know how to work the system... derpa derpa"

It isn't just about the rich. Simple yes or no question. Do you think it is fair for someone making 1 million dollars through payroll should have to pay more taxes than someone else making a million dollars through a hedge fund?

Do you think one millionaire should pay more taxes than another millionaire? And if so, why?

Closing loopholes has nothing to do with spending cuts.

Want to close loopholes? Have at it...but it has nothing to do with sequestration. Like I said...Reid cannot propose that because it's not the Senate's authority. Enough of the tax fairness crap. That's another discussion entirely.