Bill Clinton Nominates Obama For Re-Election At Dnc

[Ulysses G.]

You've got it backwards. Most states already have an ID requirement. The democrats are trying to get rid of it for extra votes. In the US, you can not go to the library, rent a room, vote in a union election, cash a check, fly or get in the DNC without one.

It only makes common sense to show an ID to confirm that you have the right to vote.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[TheWalkingMan]

You've got it backwards. Most states already have an ID requirement. The democrats are trying to get rid of it for extra votes. In the US, you can not go to the library, rent a room, vote in a union election, cash a check, fly or get in the DNC without one.

It only makes common sense to show an ID to confirm that you have the right to vote.

I have not heard about the Democrats trying to get rid of any law for extra votes. Everything I have seen in the news has been how the Republicans are pushing for a photo ID and how the Republicans are counting on these people to be barred from voting in order to win the election.

BTW - Did you read that document? It is interesting.

[Ulysses G.]

You must be watching MSNBC. The ID laws are already there. The democrats are trying to get rid of them.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[TheWalkingMan]

You must be watching MSNBC. The ID laws are already there. The democrats are trying to get rid of them.

Can you send me a link to some articles please. I am looking but I cannot find anything to support your statements. Maybe my googling is subpar tonight. Or maybe just old age is kicking in.

[Scott]

A fair amount of off-topic discussion would best be handled by PM.

[Chicog]

I understood it was the DoJ trying to repeal Republican-introduced state laws on the basis that they violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Naturally the Republicans are unhappy about this, because it means they can't wipe Democratic votes off the roll.

Politically motivated? Surely, but so were the laws under investigation.

[KKvampire]

Don't count your chickens... Have you seen this months dismal employment report yet?

90,000 more jobs? another Repub who doesnt like positive news for "their"? country

[Ulysses G.]

90,000 jobs is terrible. It is less than half of what it takes to keep up with population growth.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A dismal new snapshot of jobs in America shadowed the presidential campaign yesterday, testing the voter patience that will save or sink President Barack Obama’s re-election bid.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2012/09/08/jobs-report-bad-news-for-obama.html

Edited September 8, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

I understood it was the DoJ trying to repeal Republican-introduced state laws on the basis that they violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Naturally the Republicans are unhappy about this, because it means they can't wipe Democratic votes off the roll.

Politically motivated? Surely, but so were the laws under investigation.

Who runs the Justice Department and who does that individual report to?

[Ulysses G.]

I understood it was the DoJ trying to repeal Republican-introduced state laws on the basis that they violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court already ruled that the ID laws were legal.

UPDATES: Opinion here. Justice Stevens, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, found no showing of an undue burden on various voters who challenged the voter ID law on its face.

[jbrain]

90,000 jobs is terrible. It is less than half of what it takes to keep up with population growth.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A dismal new snapshot of jobs in America shadowed the presidential campaign yesterday, testing the voter patience that will save or sink President Barack Obama’s re-election bid.

http://www.dispatch....-for-obama.html

90.000 jobs may be terrible in normal times, but I'm sure that voters understand that after what J.W.Bush left behind to be rebuild, that it's a real achievement

[Ulysses G.]

Not really. Even the New York Times says that it is dismal. Here is a new thread on Thai Visa that says the same thing.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/582987-us-jobless-rate-drops-to-81-as-people-give-up-searching-for-work/

Edited September 8, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

Don't count your chickens... Have you seen this months dismal employment report yet?

90,000 more jobs? another Repub who doesnt like positive news for "their"? country

The number that should be focused on is 88,921,000.

Forget the 90,000 jobs created when there were 119,000 fewer Americans employed in August than there were in July.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Record 88,921,000 Americans ‘Not in Labor Force’—119,000 Fewer Employed in August Than July

By Terence P. Jeffrey

September 7, 2012

The number of Americans whom the U.S. Department of Labor counted as “not in the civilian labor force” in August hit a record high of 88,921,000.

The Labor Department counts a person as not in the civilian labor force if they are at least 16 years old, are not in the military or an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home, and have not actively looked for a job in the last four weeks. The department counts a person as in “the civilian labor force” if they are at least 16, are not in the military or an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home, and either do have a job or have actively looked for one in the last four weeks.

http://cnsnews.com/n...yed-august-july

[Ulysses G.]

I'm sure that voters understand that after what J.W.Bush left behind to be rebuild, that it's a real achievement

THat was four years ago. President Barack Obama said in February 2009 that his presidency would be "one-term proposition" if the economy did not recover in three years.

[jbrain]

I'm sure that voters understand that after what J.W.Bush left behind to be rebuild, that it's a real achievement

THat was four years ago. President Barack Obama said in February 2009 that his presidency would be "one-term proposition" if the economy did not recover in three years.

Exactly, he said recover, not that it would be the same as before J.W.'s 8 year lasting era of destroy.It is well know that to rebuild something takes much longer than to destroy it.

[Ulysses G.]

The economy sucks. It has not recovered and that is why the job numbers are so low.

We just went to number 7 in global competiveness and we were number 1 pre-Obama.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

You people do not seem to realize the so called Bush recession was declared officially over in June 2009. The recession began in December 2007.

Now remind me, when did the Democrats gain control of both Houses of Congress again? Oh, that's right...January 2007.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘Great Recession’ over, research group says Downturn lasted 18 months; longest recession since World War II

At least, that's the word from the private, nonprofit research organization that calls the beginnings and endings of recessions, the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The NBER said Monday that the recession which began in December 2007 ended in June 2009, which marked the beginning of an expansion. The announcement rules out the possibility of a so-called “double-dip” recession, because any new downturn would be seen as a brand new recession.

The source is MSNBC, an Obama campaign affiliate: http://www.msnbc.msn...ch-group-says/#

[beechguy]

I'm sure that voters understand that after what J.W.Bush left behind to be rebuild, that it's a real achievement

THat was four years ago. President Barack Obama said in February 2009 that his presidency would be "one-term proposition" if the economy did not recover in three years.

Exactly, he said recover, not that it would be the same as before J.W.'s 8 year lasting era of destroy.It is well know that to rebuild something takes much longer than to destroy it.

GW's years look pretty good to me except for the last of couple of months as he was leaving office. But no need to let the facts get in the way, it doesn't seem to matter to Clinton or Obama either.

http://data.bls.gov/...ies/LNS14000000

Edited September 8, 2012 by beechguy

[koheesti]

I'm sure that voters understand that after what J.W.Bush left behind to be rebuild, that it's a real achievement

THat was four years ago. President Barack Obama said in February 2009 that his presidency would be "one-term proposition" if the economy did not recover in three years.

What? So now all of a sudden we should believe him? I know I don't.

[Chicog]

The bankers nearly managed to bring the world economy crashing down. If they got their chance, they'd do it all over again and f*** the American people even harder up the jacksy.

And since Republicans gleefully support this kind of financial rape, I for one hope to God they don't get in again (and I'm an atheist).

[Jingthing]

I'm sure that voters understand that after what J.W.Bush left behind to be rebuild, that it's a real achievement

THat was four years ago. President Barack Obama said in February 2009 that his presidency would be "one-term proposition" if the economy did not recover in three years.

What? So now all of a sudden we should believe him? I know I don't.

Not sure we should believe ANY politician but at least the values of the democratic party are much more admirable than the values of the republican party. And that man they put up, Romney, while classically handsome in looks, is not attractive.

[moe666]

If Mitt does get elected and as he runs up the deficit another 5 trillion with tax cuts to the wealth, what will our defenders of the republican faith be saying, it is Obamas fault. Republicans do not have a very good record on balancing the budget, mostly talk about it but not much action as we saw under George Bush the second.

A question to ChuckD and Ulysses, and answer without Google Who was the last Republican President to Balance the budget.

[KKvampire]

If Mitt does get elected and as he runs up the deficit another 5 trillion with tax cuts to the wealth, what will our defenders of the republican faith be saying, it is Obamas fault. Republicans do not have a very good record on balancing the budget, mostly talk about it but not much action as we saw under George Bush the second.

A question to ChuckD and Ulysses, and answer without Google Who was the last Republican President to Balance the budget.

Exactly, Trickle down By giving tax cuts to wealthy the Repubs Believe (or trying to con the public to believe) the economy will revive. It never worked under Bush , Tax rates in the US are the lowest since the 1950;s and The Repubs answer to everything , Infact thats their only economic policy 'CUT TAXES to the wealthy, Maybe Romney wants it so he can bring back more of his offshore funds

Edited September 9, 2012 by sbk
lets drop the name calling

[snarky66]

GW's years look pretty good to me except for the last of couple of months as he was leaving office. But no need to let the facts get in the way, it doesn't seem to matter to Clinton or Obama either.

http://data.bls.gov/...ies/LNS14000000

Compared to this fellow they have in there now Jimmy Carter is starting to look pretty good.

[koheesti]

If Mitt does get elected and as he runs up the deficit another 5 trillion with tax cuts to the wealth, what will our defenders of the republican faith be saying, it is Obamas fault. Republicans do not have a very good record on balancing the budget, mostly talk about it but not much action as we saw under George Bush the second.

A question to ChuckD and Ulysses, and answer without Google Who was the last Republican President to Balance the budget.

Presidents don't balance the budget. Congress approves appropriations and the President signs them.

Many leading Democrats in Washington these days like to point to the fact that the federal budget was balanced for part of the time that President Bill Clinton was in office. What they do not mention is that those balanced budgets occurred only when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

In fact, according to the historical data published by the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama White House, no Congress in which the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate has balanced the federal budget since fiscal 1969--more than 40 years ago.

http://cnsnews.com/node/62793

[koheesti]

If Mitt does get elected and as he runs up the deficit another 5 trillion with tax cuts to the wealth, what will our defenders of the republican faith be saying, it is Obamas fault. Republicans do not have a very good record on balancing the budget, mostly talk about it but not much action as we saw under George Bush the second.

A question to ChuckD and Ulysses, and answer without Google Who was the last Republican President to Balance the budget.

Exactly, Trickle down By giving tax cuts to wealthy the Repubs Believe (or trying to con the public to believe) the economy will revive. It never worked under Bush , Tax rates in the US are the lowest since the 1950;s and The Repubs answer to everything , Infact thats their only economic policy 'CUT TAXES to the wealthy, Maybe Romney wants it so he can bring back more of his offshore funds

So, tax cuts for the "rich" - people who own businesses, start businesses, invest in businesses and create things will not help the economy...but giving more free taxpayer money to poor people will. Nah, I'd rather the rich guy, he's more likely to hire me than the poor guy walking around in new $150 Reeboks.

[koheesti]

From the DNC. This is worth watching just to see the chairman squirm.

Oh my that was painful to watch.

This makes it much easier...Jon Stewart takes on Clinton's speech and the roll call fiasco.

From the September 6, 2012 airing of Comedy Central's Daily Show with host Jon Stewart.

Stewart also talks about the God and Jerusalem controversy at yesterday's convention.

http://www.realclear...ying_stuff.html

As Stewart says, "...on the bright side, we've finally uncovered an example of the Democratic voter fraud the Republicans are always talking about" after showing the teleprompter had "preordained" the outcome of the roll call vote passing by 2/3 vote. And we are supposed to trust these same people when they say asking for a photo ID to vote is not necessary. Seriously?

I'm sorry, but has there ever been anyone in more denial than the DNC Chairman (with the exception of course of Nancy Pelosi)? Here he is speaking out, defending that embarrassing disaster of a roll call vote...

Villaraigosa defends vote revising DNC platform on Jerusalem, God

“It was a lot of ado about nothing,” the mayor said Friday. Villaraigosa said that when reporters told him after the vote that they did not clearly hear two-thirds support, he responded, “That’s nice to know. I was the chairman and I did, and that was the prerogative of the chair.”

I can tell you this — the president of the United States said, ‘Wow.’ The president said, ‘You showed why you were speaker of the California Assembly,’” Villaraigosa said. “The president, the vice president, Mrs. Obama, all of them acknowledged the decisive way I handled that.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-antonio-villaraigosa-god-jerusalem-20120907,0,3647028.story

[moe666]

If Mitt does get elected and as he runs up the deficit another 5 trillion with tax cuts to the wealth, what will our defenders of the republican faith be saying, it is Obamas fault. Republicans do not have a very good record on balancing the budget, mostly talk about it but not much action as we saw under George Bush the second.

A question to ChuckD and Ulysses, and answer without Google Who was the last Republican President to Balance the budget.

Presidents don't balance the budget. Congress approves appropriations and the President signs them.

Many leading Democrats in Washington these days like to point to the fact that the federal budget was balanced for part of the time that President Bill Clinton was in office. What they do not mention is that those balanced budgets occurred only when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

In fact, according to the historical data published by the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama White House, no Congress in which the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate has balanced the federal budget since fiscal 1969--more than 40 years ago.

http://cnsnews.com/node/62793

But you need a President to go along with it there is such a thing as a veto. I still ask when was the last time a Republican president balanced a budget

Edited September 8, 2012 by moe666

[moe666]

If Mitt does get elected and as he runs up the deficit another 5 trillion with tax cuts to the wealth, what will our defenders of the republican faith be saying, it is Obamas fault. Republicans do not have a very good record on balancing the budget, mostly talk about it but not much action as we saw under George Bush the second.

A question to ChuckD and Ulysses, and answer without Google Who was the last Republican President to Balance the budget.

Exactly, Trickle down By giving tax cuts to wealthy the Repubs Believe (or trying to con the public to believe) the economy will revive. It never worked under Bush , Tax rates in the US are the lowest since the 1950;s and The Repubs answer to everything , Infact thats their only economic policy 'CUT TAXES to the wealthy, Maybe Romney wants it so he can bring back more of his offshore funds

So, tax cuts for the "rich" - people who own businesses, start businesses, invest in businesses and create things will not help the economy...but giving more free taxpayer money to poor people will. Nah, I'd rather the rich guy, he's more likely to hire me than the poor guy walking around in new $150 Reeboks.

So if all of these rich people getting tax cuts are going to create jobs then where are the job at this moment corportations and the rich are setting on trillions of dollars and they are not createing jobs. By the way you are the one who brought up giving money away. I am all for balanceing the budget. Mitts and Ryans proposed busgets with tax cuts donot balance the budgets until 2030, after they are long gone and the country is still in debt.

[moe666]

You've got it backwards. Most states already have an ID requirement. The democrats are trying to get rid of it for extra votes. In the US, you can not go to the library, rent a room, vote in a union election, cash a check, fly or get in the DNC without one.

It only makes common sense to show an ID to confirm that you have the right to vote.

Yes many states have ID requirements what the demos are pushing back aganist is strick photo ID requirements which at present only 5 states require. More republican twisting the truth just a bit there U. heheh and by the way I have no problrm with id checks