All the House GOP and the President - what an unfair advantage!!!

[Liability]

Has anyone yet figure out that Obama really didn't say anything?

Probably.

But libs will never admit it.

 

[Sarah G]

Has anyone yet figure out that Obama really didn't say anything?

That isn't true, he was all over every issue they threw at him. It's really simple, he was the one prepared, not the Rs.

The Rs were like the R posters here thinking they are so much smarter than Obama. They really aren't. They may want to coast to the elections in November but the president doesn't seem ready to allow that.

He was excellent and you would do well to watch the thing if you haven't. It's probably on Youtube.

 

[Liability]

Like clockwork.

 

[Bfgrn]

And I watched as Rudy Giuliani's Conservative principles changed NYC from a crime infested, Third World Calcutta shithole where my co worker was mugged at gunpoint on the corner of 51st and Madison into a world class city where violent street crime in all but non-existent and the value of the real estate has increased by at least an order of magnitude.

Sheriff Rudy, crime fighter?
The true story of policing in New York under Mayor Giuliani is less flattering than he would have us believe.

Did crime decrease rapidly during the years after Giuliani entered City Hall on Jan. 1, 1993? As is well known, the number of homicides and other serious crimes fell throughout the decade, and continued to decline after he left office in 2002. Less well known is the indisputable fact that New York's crime rate started to fall almost three years before Giuliani took office.

Why crime suddenly dropped in New York as well as other cities across the country around 1991, and continued to fall, remains a hotly disputed question among police experts and academics. As economist and "Freakonomics" coauthor Steven Levitt pointed out in a lucid paper on urban crime rates, every large city in America enjoyed decreases in homicides and other major crimes almost simultaneously. While New York topped the list for some indicators, other cities like San Diego, Seattle and Austin, Texas, ranked close behind, and by some measures surpassed New York. (For an exhaustive assessment of Giuliani's claims read Wayne Barrett's 2000 forensic tour de force "Rudy! An Investigative Biography.")

Many believe that one of the most important factors in New York's crime drop was the addition of thousands of new officers to the NYPD -- a policy decision costing a billion dollars that was made by David Dinkins, the predecessor whose mayoral record Giuliani often derides. While Giuliani kept hiring more cops, nearly half of those added to the force during his first term were financed by a tax surcharge that Dinkins demanded and won. But the city's first African-American mayor is usually blamed for a crime wave that rose well before he took office and rarely wins any plaudits for his role in stemming the criminal tide.

If Giuliani doesn't deserve sole credit for hiring more police officers, doesn't he at least win points for implementing the brilliant policing strategies he mentions so often? These days, he often talks about "Compstat," the computerized statistical tracking system that his administration used to force improvements in police performance at the borough, division and precinct levels. The claimed achievements of that strategy and others, such as community policing and suppressing minor crimes like fare beating, remain controversial. Levitt is not the only economist who has examined the statistics and come away unconvinced.

Yet the improvements in police management that undoubtedly occurred on Giuliani's watch had little to do with him. Those innovations were created by the late Jack Maple, a former transit cop, and implemented by William Bratton, who now serves as the police commissioner of Los Angeles. Unfortunately Bratton barely had time to establish Compstat or any other reforms because Giuliani drove him out of office within three years after appointing him. "I observed the slow strangulation of my ability to run the organization," the commissioner explained after he left. The mayor, he said, "created a situation in which I had no choice but to resign."

Bratton's strange departure was extraordinary for a public official who had become a subject of veneration not only in New York newspapers and magazines but in the national media, too. He signed a lucrative book contract and in January 1996 appeared in a trench coat on the cover of Time magazine. The notoriety surrounding his police commissioner infuriated Giuliani, especially because polls showed that an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers regarded the police commissioner, not the mayor, as responsible for making the city safer.

So Bratton had to go. There simply wasn't room for more than one hero in Rudy's city. The next police commissioner was a longtime Giuliani pal named Howard Safir, who was eventually succeeded by that ultimate loyalist, Bernard Kerik.

Seeking to excuse his choice of Kerik, freshly indicted for a variety of alleged offenses, Giuliani now falsely attributes the enormous drop in crime during his mayoralty to the disgraced former commissioner. The true history of crime and policing in Giuliani's New York -- from the exile of Bratton to the elevation of Kerik -- reveals much about the judgment of the former mayor and would-be president.

It just isn't as flattering a story as Rudy would like us to believe.

 

[Sarah G]

Like clockwork.

Would you prefer we just sit here and let you spin your version of the facts?

 

[Liability]

Like clockwork.

Would you prefer we just sit here and let you spin your version of the facts?

No no, Sarah!

I enjoy you proving me right.

I also enjoy your creative fiction.

 

[Sarah G]

Like clockwork.

Would you prefer we just sit here and let you spin your version of the facts?

No no, Sarah!

I enjoy you proving me right.

I also enjoy your creative fiction.

Ok then.

Wait..

 

[Liability]

Would you prefer we just sit here and let you spin your version of the facts?

No no, Sarah!

I enjoy you proving me right.

I also enjoy your creative fiction.

Ok then.

Wait..

Oh good. The fiction writing WILL continue.

I believe the outline says that you are obliged to tell the following story:

Once upon a time, the Obamessiah met with his political opponents. He kicked their asses! He actually said something, too. He was very very very Presidential! His opponents all sucked. When his opponents rudely ganged up on him, even without a teleprompter, he soundly slapped them (verbally, of course) in that very Presidential manner. And, oh yes, let us not forget that he also said something!​

​

 

[Sarah G]

No no, Sarah!

I enjoy you proving me right.

I also enjoy your creative fiction.

Ok then.

Wait..

Oh good. The fiction writing WILL continue.

I believe the outline says that you are obliged to tell the following story:

Once upon a time, the Obamessiah met with his political opponents. He kicked their asses! He actually said something, too. He was very very very Presidential! His opponents all sucked. When his opponents rudely ganged up on him, even without a teleprompter, he soundly slapped them (verbally, of course) in that very Presidential manner. And, oh yes, let us not forget that he also said something!​

​

You really did watch it then..

 

[NYcarbineer]

Has anyone yet figure out that Obama really didn't say anything?

He said plenty. That's why Foxnews went dark on it.

 

[Liability]

Ok then.

Wait..

Oh good. The fiction writing WILL continue.

I believe the outline says that you are obliged to tell the following story:

Once upon a time, the Obamessiah met with his political opponents. He kicked their asses! He actually said something, too. He was very very very Presidential! His opponents all sucked. When his opponents rudely ganged up on him, even without a teleprompter, he soundly slapped them (verbally, of course) in that very Presidential manner. And, oh yes, let us not forget that he also said something!​

​

You really did watch it then..

Not needed to predict your fawning fantasy-filled fictional prose.

I saw enough of it to know that the President did just an ok job. Nothing to write home about.

And the GOP participants did an equally flavorless job of it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I watched a good deal of it. The President was presidential. Where the Republicans talked about the good and welfare of the country openly and honestly, the President responded accordingly. Where they played politics, he slapped them into place.

Come on, Pubs, if we want to play, we gotta follow the rules. It's not hard, is it? Particularly if the other side controls the rule book right now, can change it on us, and make us look even more stupid than we do right now?

I trust there was an attack-Obama Plan B all ready to go in the event he turned down their invitation.

 

[Liability]

Has anyone yet figure out that Obama really didn't say anything?

He said plenty. That's why Foxnews went dark on it.

No. Darkwind was right. The President said nothing. He used quite a few words to get there, but when he got there, he was nowhere. Why? Because, getting past your partisan but dishonest spin, he actually didn't say anything.

FoxNews did cover it, but not in the same fawning manner as MSLSD. Thus, they were clear enough in their thinking to break away from the non-news story. By sickening contrast, MSLSD is still having ograsms. I don't think it's just a thrill running UP the leg of those hacks.

 

[EriktheRed]

And you're really that sure that self-identified "independents" are gonna see the same Pres. Obama that you say you did.

What is it that Socialist Democrats have to offer to Independents? He's failed already in delivering what he promised. He's misunderstood his supposed "mandate". He promised to "change the way Washington does business", to clean up the corruption. He promised a post-partisan, post-racial era of governance. And instead, he's doubled-down on EVERYTHING we already hated about Washington.

He and his Merry Band of Looters have demonized and demagogued. They've spent our money like kids in a candy store. And they have NO RESULTS to show from it.

So, what's the attraction for Independents? ...higher taxes and bigger deficits? ...a proposed growth in government to 24% of GDP? ...European-styled levels of permanent unemployment? ...higher energy bills? ...higher prices on goods and services? ...or is it just Obama's delightful, charming smile?

Is THAT what you're running on? Really?
I'd wish you luck, but we both know I wouldn't mean it.

That's not an answer to the question, that's a bunch of wingnut talking points.


I'm asking what makes you sure that independents will see the Prez as you did yesterday.

 

[Rinata]

Really??? I think that your mind was made up before you even saw it. And then when the prez was so well prepared and brilliant, it really pissed you off. Hence all of these comments attacking his character. Why can't you just admit that he held his own at this gathering?? That he was gracious and totally prepared??

I was wondering how George Bush would have done in the same situation!! OMG!! The late night comics would have had new material for the next year!!!

"Gracious and totally prepared"??



Well, I can't say I'm surprised that you liberals would see it that way. You never seem to expect any actual answers from him. His august presence appears to hold you enthralled, awed beyond competent logic. And let's face it... as a group, you're not best known for your manners. His must seem gloriously refined in comparison.

Of course we expect answers from our president. You say it as though that's something unreasonable and strange. Open your eyes and make sure you see that the president is Obama. And don't try to read minds. Maybe a past prez enthralled and awed you, but I've never experienced that.

I like the current prez because he's extremely intelligent and thoughtful. And he is trying to help this country get back on track.

I'm afraid I do not have to face anything, as you stated. Where do you get the nerve to say Dems do not have the best manners??? That remark right there tells me you are just making things up and throwing them out there because of the hate you have for the party and the president. You had better face it, Mr. There are plenty of unruly Dems, but the far right of the Republican party is taking that party down. Why?? Because what the fringe of that party is doing is exhibiting a lot more than bad manners or being unruly.

 

[EriktheRed]

I feel like I must've saw a different event than what our resident libs witnessed. What I saw was a guy who was utterly condescending in his manner, arrogant, and evasive. By the last question, he was so visibly angry, the tip of his nose was turning red.

This guy thinks he's King. He treated our ELECTED representatives with the disrespect of one who believes he has authority when in actuality he has none. The legislative branch is not his to chastise, just as night before last, the judicial branch was not his to chastise.

Barack Obama has no history of real bipartisanship. Even during his short stint as a U.S. Senator the only bipartisan effort he made was on nuclear proliferation, not exactly a monumentally divisive subject.

His lip service to bipartisanship is just that... unless and until it's supported by REAL ACTION. And while I hate to be a wet blanket for people who are celebrating the fact that Obama didn't trip over his own tongue off-prompter as he usually does... he's no winner. The "Party of No Ideas" meme died today. The denial that Republicans have presented ideas won't fly anymore. It's been exposed for the lie it was.

Further, HE is not the one who gets to decide if those ideas have merit or not. That's for the legislative branch to DEBATE. His arrogance and impertinence at making pronouncements from upon high regarding what will work and is therefore worthy of debate and what will not is exposed.

Really??? I think that your mind was made up before you even saw it. And then when the prez was so well prepared and brilliant, it really pissed you off. Hence all of these comments attacking his character. Why can't you just admit that he held his own at this gathering?? That he was gracious and totally prepared??

I was wondering how George Bush would have done in the same situation!! OMG!! The late night comics would have had new material for the next year!!!

BINGO!

 

[Bfgrn]

Has anyone yet figure out that Obama really didn't say anything?

He said plenty. That's why Foxnews went dark on it.

No. Darkwind was right. The President said nothing. He used quite a few words to get there, but when he got there, he was nowhere. Why? Because, getting past your partisan but dishonest spin, he actually didn't say anything.

FoxNews did cover it, but not in the same fawning manner as MSLSD. Thus, they were clear enough in their thinking to break away from the non-news story. By sickening contrast, MSLSD is still having ograsms. I don't think it's just a thrill running UP the leg of those hacks.

Do you really believe Fox would pass up an opportunity to embarrass President Obama?

Fox broke away for one reason...the President was exposing that Republican rhetoric was based on right wing propaganda and Frank Luntz talking points, but little or no substance.

 

[EriktheRed]

You must have watched this on Fox, because they only showed the questions and played commentary over any Obama answers. Then, after 40 minutes, they changed to Glenn Beck.

Before I go, I've just got to say... This preoccupation with Fox and the left's complete hysteria over it is not just a source of amusement to me... but a source of real hope.

It means that you'll continue along the path of political disaster, never understanding that it's your POLICIES which are objectionable. And rather than change them, you'll continue to point fingers and insult voters.

Keep up the good work. We'll be free of you yet.

I'll bet you said stuff like this in '06 and '08, too.

 

[EriktheRed]

Has anyone yet figure out that Obama really didn't say anything?

That isn't true, he was all over every issue they threw at him. It's really simple, he was the one prepared, not the Rs.

The Rs were like the R posters here thinking they are so much smarter than Obama. They really aren't. They may want to coast to the elections in November but the president doesn't seem ready to allow that.

He was excellent and you would do well to watch the thing if you haven't. It's probably on Youtube.

Apparently Mike Pence is supposed to be one of their brighter bulbs, too. Pathetic, huh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The great majority of the electorate was very impressed with how the President acted with the Pub congressmen. That a very few wingnuts are dissatisfied is both natural and irrelevant. The era of unilateral neo-conservatism is over, the era of bi-partisanship is natural. We are the minority party now, and we will have to act like it. If any believe that the electorate is going to replace the Democrats in Congress for a Republican majority is smokin, tokin, and dopin. Sober up!