Topic: Obama: GOP will be "run out of town" if they fail to get behind his "jobs plan"

[ttomm46]

I consider myself a Christian but I hate this bastard like no other!!!dirty MF!

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defiant and frustrated, President Barack Obama aggressively challenged Republicans Thursday to get behind his jobs plan or explain why not, declaring that if Congress fails to act "the American people will run them out of town."

http://home.suddenlink.net/news/read.php?ps=1011&rip_id=%3CD9Q6T5E00%40news.ap.org%3E&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS

REDACTED

[Damn_Lucky]

Double Ditto

REDACTED

[ttomm46]

Double Ditto

Amen brother!!!

REDCATED

[IronDioPriest]

Look at this thread.

A link, and then worthless posturing.

I'm going to redact it and then send you guys PMs.

[LadyVirginia]

Obama made no apologies for his decision to abandon seeking compromise with Republicans in favor of assailing them, sometimes by name. He contended that he'd gone out of his way to try to work with the GOP since becoming president, reaching hard-fought deals to raise the government's borrowing limit and avert a government shutdown, and had gotten nothing in return.

He is sooo full of it.  I heard a snippet of him this morning and he keeps referencing "Americans" who are tired of what Congress is doing.  I'd like to know what Americans he means.  The ones mobbing Wall Street?  Those people have never been productive members of society.  Which contingent of Congress? I'm sure he means the republicans.  It's like the Dems don't have any part in this.  The republicans he thinks are blocking him are doing that precisely because their voters want them to!  He's insulting those voters.   I'm tired of his verbage portraying his small base of malcontents and game-changers as Americans while the vast majority of American citizens are fearful for the future of this country as it was defined over 230 years ago.

[benb61]

I consider myself a Christian but I hate this bastard like no other!!!dirty MF!

I think that since he has openly broken at least 1 of the big 10 (commandments), and is definitely not repentant, you are within your rights to not like him.  That commandment is to "bear false witness", I consider lying to be included in that.

[Janny]

The AP eviscerates Obeyme with their fact-checking:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNL_SMfPlqh5WekXRVN2zu8qI5-A?docId=6840687314124a66b3fb506c2cb2b518

Oh, Barry and His White House Thugs are not going to like this one.

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press – 2 hours ago 
WASHINGTON (AP) — In challenging Republicans to get behind his jobs bill Thursday, President Barack Obama argued Republicans have supported his proposals before, demanded that they explain themselves if they oppose him, and challenged others to come up with a plan of their own. The rhetoric in the president's quick-moving press conference dodged some facts and left some evidence in the dust.
OBAMA: "If it turns out that there are Republicans who are opposed to this bill, they need to explain to me, but more importantly to their constituencies and the American people, why they're opposed, and what would they do."
THE FACTS: While Republicans might not be campaigning on their opposition to Obama's plan, they've hardly kept their objections a secret.
In a memorandum to House Republicans Sept. 16, House Speaker John Boehner and members of the GOP leadership said they could find common ground with Obama on the extension of certain business tax breaks, waiving a payment withholding provision for federal contractors, incentives for hiring veterans, and job training measures in connection with unemployment insurance.
They objected to new spending on public works programs, suggesting instead that Congress and the president work out those priorities in a highway spending bill. And they raised concerns about Obama's payroll tax cuts for workers and small businesses, arguing that the benefits of a one-year tax cut would be short-lived. The memo also pointed out that reducing payroll taxes, which pay for Social Security, temporarily forces Social Security to tap the government's general fund. And it opposed additional spending to prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and other public workers.
___
OBAMA: "Every idea that we've put forward are ones that traditionally have been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike."
THE FACTS: Obama proposes to pay for his jobs bill by raising taxes, something traditionally opposed by Republicans and, in the form Obama proposed it, even some Democrats. Senate Democrats were so allergic to Obama's approach, which relied largely on limiting deductions that can be taken by individuals making over $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000, that they're eliminating it and replacing it with a new tax on millionaires.
In claiming bipartisan support for the components of his proposal, the president appears to be referring just to what the plan would do, not how it's paid for, but that's a crucial distinction he doesn't make.
Some of tax-cutting proposals offered by Obama have received significant Republican support in the past. But some of the new spending he proposes has received only nominal Republican backing. Evidence of bipartisanship provided by the White House includes legislation last year that provided $10 billion to prevent teacher layoffs. It won the support of only two Republican senators — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine and among the most moderate Republicans in Congress. Another example cited by the White House was proposal last year to offer tax breaks to businesses that hire new workers — it passed the House 217-201 with six Republican votes.
___
OBAMA: "The answer we're getting right now is: Well, we're going to roll back all these Obama regulations... Does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy?"
THE FACTS: Well, yes, some think it will. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last month submitted a jobs proposal to Obama that included a call to ease regulations on businesses. It specifically called for streamlining environmental reviews on major construction projects and to delay the issuance of some potentially burdensome regulations until the economy and employment have improved. In the letter, Chamber President Thomas Donohue also called on Congress to pass legislation that would require congressional approval of major regulations. The chamber did not indicate how many jobs such regulatory changes could create, but it said: "Immediate regulatory relief is required in order to begin moving $1 trillion-$2 trillion in accumulated private capital off of the sidelines and into business expansion."

More to read at the link!

[warpmine]

Stymie forgets that those repubs that would spend on anything were swept out of office to allow the fruit cake Nancy Pelosi the reigns. They were swept out just last year for pushing the country over the cliff financially speaking. The new House members are the ones tghat campaigned on TEA Party platform principles.

Is this asshat that disconnected from reality or just a flat out lying sack of                     s-h-i-t.
 

Incase anyone new wants a go at him, you have my permission to try, my admiration for trying and my deepest regrets if you fail. May God be with you!

[John Florida]

This son of a female dog has the balls to ask for something that not even his senators will vote on and blame the Repubs.Talk about needin to be run out of town.

[Libertas]

This is just a prelude.  This guy is trying to run the Truman playbook.  Too bad he has no clue who Truman was, what issues he faced, and the fact that he is so beneath his own pay grade illustrates to all his unsanity.

I say we let him keep talking.

[benb61]

I posted this somewhere else a long time ago,

If I can sue (and win) against a company that lies in an advertisement (truth in advertising), then why can I not sue a public official/canidate when he/she lies in campaign advertising, or just lies in a public forum?

Anybody.

[Libertas]

I posted this somewhere else a long time ago,

If I can sue (and win) against a company that lies in an advertisement (truth in advertising), then why can I not sue a public official/canidate when he/she lies in campaign advertising, or just lies in a public forum?

Anybody.

It used to be that a member of congress could not be charged with anything as a result of thier utterances while in session, it appears that exemption from law has been extended beyond the corridors of power.  I share your frustration, and it is amplified by the press who looks the other way for much that their bretheren on the Left do.  Also the FEC looks the other way for both parties, since it is populated with political critters.  People simply have to stop putting up with lies and challenge them in all venues.

[Alphabet Soup]

I posted this somewhere else a long time ago,

If I can sue (and win) against a company that lies in an advertisement (truth in advertising), then why can I not sue a public official/canidate when he/she lies in campaign advertising, or just lies in a public forum?

Anybody.

You actually answered your own question with your qualifier: (and win). It is said that (just about) anyone can sue (just about) anyone at (just about) any time and (just about) any place for (just about) any reason. Your chances of prevailing is another matter entirely. Unless you are referring to written mutual contracts, the chances of winning are pretty slim.

[Libertas]

Obama better run Nelson & Tester out of town, the helped defeat his non-jobs "jobs" bill!

 


The lack of suppport for Barry's plan is bipartisan!


 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/11/white-house-pushes-for-passage-job-bill-in-face-likely-senate-defeat/?test=latestnews

[John Florida]

Obama better run Nelson & Tester out of town, the helped defeat his non-jobs "jobs" bill!

 


The lack of suppport for Barry's plan is bipartisan!


 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/11/white-house-pushes-for-passage-job-bill-in-face-likely-senate-defeat/?test=latestnews

 With 23 democrats up for re-election now they can explain how they could vote for tax increases to their voters. That alone should hand us the senate.

[Libertas]

Obama better run Nelson & Tester out of town, the helped defeat his non-jobs "jobs" bill!

 


The lack of suppport for Barry's plan is bipartisan!


 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/11/white-house-pushes-for-passage-job-bill-in-face-likely-senate-defeat/?test=latestnews

 With 23 democrats up for re-election now they can explain how they could vote for tax increases to their voters. That alone should hand us the senate.

You're making one humungous assumption there John...don't get me wrong, in a sane world you would be dead on right...but assuming people today are logical is not a given.

[John Florida]

Obama better run Nelson & Tester out of town, the helped defeat his non-jobs "jobs" bill!

 


The lack of suppport for Barry's plan is bipartisan!


 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/11/white-house-pushes-for-passage-job-bill-in-face-likely-senate-defeat/?test=latestnews

 With 23 democrats up for re-election now they can explain how they could vote for tax increases to their voters. That alone should hand us the senate.

You're making one humungous assumption there John...don't get me wrong, in a sane world you would be dead on right...but assuming people today are logical is not a given.

 Logic and people,I forgot.