Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[hedge]

"Sure I could have used a different word."

I wish your mom had used a different word the night you were conceived. Something along the lines of "No"...

[Big Orange Junky]

Umm, nothing is for certain at these things. I mean, I knew Romney would hold his own against Oprama, but not many thought it would be the thumping that it was. Now, everyone is expecting Biden to be his typical doofus self, but Ryan likes to talk....too much and he could be the one to say something damaging.

That is a very good point.

Add that to the fact that if Biden says something stupid it will be buried and if it is Ryan it will run every day as a headline in the MSM until election day or they can find something else to hammer the more conservative candidate on.

[puterbac]

Well also the debate is on during Thursday nite NFL.

And I will be in Nashville hopefully watching Chris Johnson run wild, but the Steelers still win.

[puterbac]

Classic stuff...bitching about something that was patently false and that he voted against...can't make it up...

Phony in Chief

By Thomas Sowell - October 9, 2012

When President Barack Obama and others on the left are not busy admonishing the rest of us to be "civil" in our discussions of political issues, they are busy letting loose insults, accusations and smears against those who dare to disagree with them.

Like so many people who have been beaten in a verbal encounter, and who can think of clever things to say the next day, after it is all over, President Obama, after his clear loss in his debate with Mitt Romney, called Governor Romney a "phony."

Innumerable facts, however, show that it is our Commander in Chief who is Phony in Chief. A classic example was his speech to a predominantly black audience at Hampton University on June 5, 2007. That date is important, as we shall see.

In his speech -- delivered in a ghetto-style accent that Obama doesn't use anywhere except when he is addressing a black audience -- he charged the federal government with not showing the same concern for the people of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina hit as they had shown for the people of New York after the 9/11 attacks, or the people of Florida after hurricane Andrew hit.

Departing from his prepared remarks, he mentioned the Stafford Act, which requires communities receiving federal disaster relief to contribute 10 percent as much as the federal government does.

Senator Obama, as he was then, pointed out that this requirement was waived in the case of New York and Florida because the people there were considered to be "part of the American family." But the people in New Orleans -- predominantly black -- "they don't care about as much," according to Barack Obama.

If you want to know what community organizers do, this is it -- rub people's emotions raw to hype their resentments. And this was Barack Obama in his old community organizer role, a role that should have warned those who thought that he was someone who would bring us together, when he was all too well practiced in the arts of polarizing us apart.

Why is the date of this speech important? Because, less than two weeks earlier, on May 24, 2007, the United States Senate had in fact voted 80-14 to waive the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans, as it had waived that requirement for New York and Florida. More federal money was spent rebuilding New Orleans than was spent in New York after 9/11 and in Florida after hurricane Andrew, combined.

Truth is not a job requirement for a community organizer. Nor can Barack Obama claim that he wasn't present the day of that Senate vote, as he claimed he wasn't there when Jeremiah Wright unleashed his obscene attacks on America from the pulpit of the church that Obama attended for 20 years.

Unlike Jeremiah Wright's church, the U.S. Senate keeps a record of who was there on a given day. The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007 shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 Senators who voted against -- repeat, AGAINST -- the legislation which included the waiver.

When he gave that demagogic speech, in a feigned accent and style, it was world class chutzpah and a rhetorical triumph. He truly deserves the title Phony in Chief.

If you know any true believers in Obama, show them the transcript of his June 5, 2007 speech at Hampton University (available from the Federal News Service) and then show them page S6823 of the Congressional Record for May 24, 2007, which lists which Senators voted which way on the waiver of the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans.

Some people in the media have tried to dismiss this and other revelations of Barack Obama's real character that have belatedly come to light as "old news." But the truth is one thing that never wears out. The Pythagorean Theorem is 2,000 years old, but it can still tell you the distance from home plate to second base (127 ft.) without measuring it. And what happened five years ago can tell a lot about Barack Obama's character -- or lack of character.

Obama's true believers may not want to know the truth. But there are millions of other people who have simply projected their own desires for a post-racial America onto Barack Obama. These are the ones who need to be confronted with the truth, before they repeat the mistake they made when they voted four years ago.

//
Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

[bluetick]

Tick and BOJ are arguing semantics.

The law is clear that if layoffs or plant closings occur that would have triggered a WARN notification you better have issued the WARN notification. Otherwise you are liable.

So with something as clear cut and foreseeable as the cuts coming Jan 1st 2013 any company affected is going to send out the notices to cover their ass. This was in process when the admin intervened and told the companies involved that they would cover their liability.

Why would they offer to cover their liability costs if there was no requirement to issue a WARN notice in the first place? C'mon tick.

BOJ said the law was clear about POTENTIAL layoffs. I reprinted the regulation verbatim and it clearly stated "is laying off" - not POTENTIALLY laying off. There's nothing semantical about that particular untruth. Don't wiz on my leg and tell me it's raining.

The administration said companies should not send out notices based on speculation...pointing out that sequestration could be voided between now and the end of the year. Failing that, the administration can delay the layoffs for affected workers and still give the defense contractors time to issue the pink slips if sequestration does kick in. Failing ALL of that, the federal government will back the contractors for legal costs - a small possibility, but one oprama is willing to take in these politically charged times. heh

[hedge]

puter was having a semantic argument with himself over the meaning of "semantics". Interestingly enough, even arguing with himself, he lost...

[sardis]

[Youtube][/Youtube]

[billy bob bocephus]

what do YOU have to say about that?

[Dr. Strangelove]

20 glorious minutes of Mitt Romney lying, flip-flopping, and reversing himself.

God, the ring-wing railed this guy in 2008

[youtube]W_pgfWK3sxw[/youtube]

[sardis]

Instead of John Kerry, Oprama should get Dan Akroyd to coach him.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/2306

[puterbac]

Tick and BOJ are arguing semantics.

The law is clear that if layoffs or plant closings occur that would have triggered a WARN notification you better have issued the WARN notification. Otherwise you are liable.

So with something as clear cut and foreseeable as the cuts coming Jan 1st 2013 any company affected is going to send out the notices to cover their ass. This was in process when the admin intervened and told the companies involved that they would cover their liability.

Why would they offer to cover their liability costs if there was no requirement to issue a WARN notice in the first place? C'mon tick.

BOJ said the law was clear about POTENTIAL layoffs. I reprinted the regulation verbatim and it clearly stated "is laying off" - not POTENTIALLY laying off. There's nothing semantical about that particular untruth. Don't wiz on my leg and tell me it's raining.

The administration said companies should not send out notices based on speculation...pointing out that sequestration could be voided between now and the end of the year. Failing that, the administration can delay the layoffs for affected workers and still give the defense contractors time to issue the pink slips if sequestration does kick in. Failing ALL of that, the federal government will back the contractors for legal costs - a small possibility, but one oprama is willing to take in these politically charged times. heh

It could be voided by the end of the year, but it takes action for that to occur. All the employees could win the lottery also.

A company has to go by what the law is not by what it might be months from now. If they do nothing, and nothing changes they are fucked as they would be violating the law by not having issued the notice if they have to lay people off when all the money goes away. And how can the admin delay the layoffs? Are they in control of the companies? Where would this magic money paying for a companies liability come from?

[puterbac]

Ftr I voted for Romney in 2008 primary

[puterbac]

Btw looking at RCP with no swing states and it's 294 to 244 oprama. That is with oh and va for oprama. Simply flip those two and its 275 to 263 for Romney.

Is that really that far fetched?

What is crazy if you flip va and oprama keeps oh you could end with a 269-269 tie if Romney were to win nv and iowa.

But it won't happen. Shit is gonna break one way or another and in the end if Romney wins he will break 300 in the ec. I think if oprama pulls it out It will be in the 280's or 290's.

[innocentbystander]

Ftr I voted for Romney in 2008 primary

as did I

[10ac]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/09 ... latestnews

[Toemeesleather]

Well well well.....now the lies that say they didn't lie in the first place are coming out....Even NBC finally gave it prime billing on the Today show this a.m. Not good timing for the foreign policy debate coming up.



The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.

But asked about the administration’s initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, ‘‘That was not our conclusion.’’ He called it a question for ‘‘others’’ to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.

The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, featuring prominently in Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s latest foreign policy address on Monday. He called it an example of President Barack Obama’s weakness in foreign policy matters, noting: ‘‘As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists.’’

The administration counters that it has provided its best intelligence on the attack, and that it refined its explanation as more information came to light. But five days after the attack, Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, gave a series of interviews saying the administration believed the violence was unplanned and that extremists with heavier weapons ‘‘hijacked’’ the protest and turned it into an outright attack.

She has since denied trying to mislead Congress, and a concurrent CIA memo that was obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi ‘‘were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo’’ and ‘‘evolved into a direct assault’’ on the diplomatic posts by ‘‘extremists.’’

According to an email obtained Tuesday by the AP, the top State Department security official in Libya told a congressional investigator that he had argued unsuccessfully for more security in the weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs were killed. But department officials instead wanted to ‘‘normalize operations and reduce security resources,’’ he wrote.

Eric Nordstrom, who was the regional security officer in Libya, also referenced a State Department document detailing 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012 that demonstrated the danger there to Americans.

Nordstrom is among the witnesses set to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. According to the panel’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and the head of a subcommittee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the State Department refused repeated requests to provide more security for U.S. diplomats in Libya.

‘‘This was a significant part of (the diplomatic) post’s and my argument for maintaining continued DS (diplomatic security) and DOD (Department of Defense) security assets into Sept/Oct. 2012; the GoL was overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection.

‘‘Sadly, that point was reaffirmed on Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi,’’ he added.

Nordstrom said the incidents demonstrated that security in Libya was fragile and could degrade quickly. He added that Libya was ‘‘certainly not an environment where (the diplomatic) post would be directed to ‘normalize’ operations and reduce security resources in accordance with an artificial time table.’

[Toemeesleather]

The enablers are still trying to protect Obozo, even with the truth finally coming out.....here's the headline in the Washington Post.


Benghazi attack may cloud Clinton’s legacy



Dang, you just can't make this shite up!

[puterbac]

Very interesting...Suffolk University calls nc, fl, and va for Romney.

Suffolk Calls NC, VA, FL For Romney, Will No Longer Poll States

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... tates.html

[bluetick]

Very likely the best strategy of them all...better than anything the dirty tricksters or rovians ever conceived. The Koch brothers and their minions are trumping them all.

Voter Suppression 2012

http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/c ... ssion-2012

The voter ID crusade is nothing but an organized attempt to steal an election by patting down any voter who doesn't look or feel like a likely Republican vote. The movement itself has been exposed, over and over again, as the real fraud.

The GOP should junk it and try to win the election with actual ideas.

--The St. Louis Dispatch

[puterbac]

Very likely the best strategy of them all...better than anything the dirty tricksters or rovians ever conceived. The Koch brothers and their minions are trumping them all.

Voter Suppression 2012

http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/c ... ssion-2012

The voter ID crusade is nothing but an organized attempt to steal an election by patting down any voter who doesn't look or feel like a likely Republican vote. The movement itself has been exposed, over and over again, as the real fraud.

The GOP should junk it and try to win the election with actual ideas.

--The St. Louis Dispatch

What a friggin joke. So someone that doesn't have an id is a democrat?

You have to have an ID to buy alcohol, cigarattes, cash a check, to get on a plane, and the states all offer one FREE of charge. Yet the integrity of elections rate less than cigarettes?

It is not an undue burden as it is free. Dems bus people all over hell and back to vote. Bus them to go get the FREE ID and then what is their issue? Answer nothing.