• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Mitt Romney the next new leader of the free world!!!

Boehner Extends Olive Branch on 'Fiscal Cliff'
Published: Wednesday, 7 Nov 2012 | 4:40 PM ET
Text Size
By: Reuters




Twitter


162




LinkedIn


5



Share


House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order.

John Boehner
Getty Images
Speaker of the House John Boehner

"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."

Boehner said House Republicans are asking Obama "to make good on a balanced approach" that would including spending cuts and address government social benefit programs.

"Let's find the common ground that has eluded us," Boehner said while congratulating the president on winning a second term. (Read more: Obama Re-elected as Crucial Ohio Goes His Way.)


The Ohio Republican spoke a day after the president's clear re-election victory. He said conditions on higher taxes would include a revamped tax code to make it cleaner and fairer, fewer loopholes and lower rates for all.


The speaker noted that during one-on-one budget talks with the president in the summer of 2011, Obama had "endorsed the idea of tax reform and lower rates, including a top rate of lower than 35 percent," the present top rate.

"We're closer than we think to the critical mass needed legislatively to get tax reform done," he said. (Read more: Alarm on Wall Street Grows as 'Fiscal Cliff' Nears.)

Boehner did not specify what loopholes House Republicans might consider trimming. Nor did he take questions.
Your Money Your Vote - A CNBC Special Report


His comments were generally along the lines of proposals by vanquished Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney that also were vague on specifics. Still, the speaker's comments signaled a willingness to enter into talks. He suggested Congress could use its upcoming lame-duck session to get the ball moving on such a compromise.

"We can't solve the problem of our fiscal imbalance overnight...This is going to take time," he said.

RELATED LINKS
 
The fiscal cliff is better for Dems than Repubs. Far more tax increases than spending cuts. Let them think they have any fudging bargaining chips.
 
southstand1882 said:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...s-turns-out-to-be-terrible-idea-2012110748098

romney425.jpg


DEMANDING a square deal for America’s rapists is not a vote-winner, it has been confirmed.


Republican senatorial candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were soundly defeated suggesting voters are still not ready for their radical, pro-*struggle cuddle* message.


Meanwhile, presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who refused to disown Mourdock’s comments, lost the female vote heavily despite repeatedly pointing out that he was relatively handsome.


Republican strategist Todd Logan said: “So women are not keen on *struggle cuddle*? That’s a real a noggin-scratcher.”
Click to expand...

406826_10151302553281796_205581230_n.jpg


Boom.
 
Leeds Spur said:
Again. That's why I get offended when moderate conservatives like me are compared to Republicans
Click to expand...

But your views actually coincide with what traditional - and still most- Republicans believe. Guys like this were always the outliers, and since the Tea Party came to prominence in 2010 have been more at the fore. They'll phase away now since the Republicans have to do some serious soul-searching.
 
Leeds Spur said:
What happens to all the poor countries if the wealthy ones fudge them all off? No trade, no purchases of agricultural products or manufacture of cheap goods. fudge them?

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

It's a tremendous question.
I think it's a deep issue. We set the table and set the bar. Essentially, we have a duty to continue to support the Third World we help perpetuate, but equally, it would be fantastic if we could slowly shift a % of production back to our respective homelands whilst also encouraging a higher standard of living in said-countries so as perhaps they can advance. Yes yes 'socialist nutter' blah blah, but not really. IF living standards in the Third World increased as a direct result of western trade and employment, the fundamentalism we see growing, the disenchantment we see in these areas, would find it much harder to establish a foothold. The truth is it's a utopian idea and one which will never happen.
Because the truth is, people don't give a fudge.
Governments don't give a fudge.
There's money in poverty, there's money in 'cold war like' enemies and there's money in war. Big money. We know this.

It makes me laugh when I see everyone jumping up and down about getting spending under control and reducing the deficit. Good GHod, how on earth will it happen? Both parties compromise? Fat chance. It will-not-happen. There will be tokens but no-one will be allowed to push through the sort of radical change that is necessary (remember, we're talking about a place where some people still think 'socialism' is the same as 'communism'...

America is a wonderful country, a wonderful place with some fantastic thinkers and progressive ideas. Whatever anyone thinks of the candidates, if last night achieved nothing else, it made sure that anti-abortion, thoroughly anti-poor and disgracefully homophobic strains did not get a seat of power. I don't expect the fiscal crisis to alter too greatly, but at least I know there won't be government support for bigotry...

...did I just tangent?
 
Btw, I never understood how people who are pro-life could have an exception for *struggle cuddle* or incest. Their entire argument is that human life begins at conception and is sacred. Why is the life of a human conceived by *struggle cuddle* or incest any less of a life? I understand they make the exception for political purposes (because you look like a loon if you don't), but still, it's wholly inconsistent.

I'm pro-choice btw, so this isn't my view. I just never understood the inconsistency of pro-lifers.
 
NY, I think you raise a very fair point when you speak about how the Ryans of the world have tainted the traditional republican values, which aren't nearly what the Tea Party and Neo-cons have been shoving down people's throats as the definitive republican viewpoint. Do you think they'd have stood a better chance at the polls with a more traditional platform/runner? And do you think Romney could've been that guy given his own behaviour at local level with regards to healthcare, etc? Do you feel he bent to the right to get the nomination, and in doing so sold his soul? If he really IS the moderate republican people are now saying he is, if he really did take on a 'role' as dictated by party steers such as Rove, then he is absolutely disgraceful beyond belief.
 
thfcsteff said:
NY, I think you raise a very fair point when you speak about how the Ryans of the world have tainted the traditional republican values, which aren't nearly what the Tea Party and Neo-cons have been shoving down people's throats as the definitive republican viewpoint. Do you think they'd have stood a better chance at the polls with a more traditional platform/runner? And do you think Romney could've been that guy given his own behaviour at local level with regards to healthcare, etc? Do you feel he bent to the right to get the nomination, and in doing so sold his soul? If he really IS the moderate republican people are now saying he is, if he really did take on a 'role' as dictated by party steers such as Rove, then he is absolutely disgraceful beyond belief.
Click to expand...

You don't become governor of a left leaning state like Massachusetts if you're not moderate. He allowed himself to be hijacked. fudge him.
 
Leeds Spur said:
You don't become governor of a left leaning state like Massachusetts if you're not moderate. He allowed himself to be hijacked. fudge him.
Click to expand...

I agree...was interested in NY's views.

I have few hard rules in life, but one of them was always as follows

Succeed on your own terms
Fail on your own terms

Whatever you do, it has to be YOUR decision.

Romney is, to me, the worst possible type of sell-out. But no-one is hurting more than him...because deep down, he knows he lost not on his own platform but on someone else's...that must be the worst type of defeat.
 
thfcsteff said:
NY, I think you raise a very fair point when you speak about how the Ryans of the world have tainted the traditional republican values, which aren't nearly what the Tea Party and Neo-cons have been shoving down people's throats as the definitive republican viewpoint. Do you think they'd have stood a better chance at the polls with a more traditional platform/runner? And do you think Romney could've been that guy given his own behaviour at local level with regards to healthcare, etc? Do you feel he bent to the right to get the nomination, and in doing so sold his soul? If he really IS the moderate republican people are now saying he is, if he really did take on a 'role' as dictated by party steers such as Rove, then he is absolutely disgraceful beyond belief.
Click to expand...

I truly hope that there will be a third party with some power in the near future. Bloomberg is the guy to do it, if he has the drive. Not saying he's the right candidate, but he has the funds, and he's an independent. Regardless, I think a more moderate Romney would have absolutely won this election. Obama didn't win this election because people still love him, he won because people thought he was the lesser of two evils. Sure, there are some idiots in this country that think Obama's done a great job, but I like to think (hope) that they are in the minority. No racial pun intended.

Romney was a victim of the system, and Leeds blames Romney for that, but I don't. The blame lies solely with the Republican party. Romney wanted to be the candidate, and the only way to be the candidate now is to pander. It's the way it is. You can criticize his character for it, but any politician with ambition (including Obama), would do what needed to be done.

That said, if Romney didn't have to go so far to the right to appease the evangelical Republican base to win the early primaries, he would have been able to stay more to the center. I saw polls that said that the majority of voters last night felt Romney was better equipped to handle the economic crisis than Obama. Yet, he still lost. And that's because you still have people voting on other issues, and frankly, the Republicans have gone too far right when it comes to social issues. They're going to have to reassess in a serious way, and I think, unless Obama and the Democrats work some magic by 2014, you're going to see the Republicans take more seats in the House/Senate, and win in 2016 with Christie or Rubio on the ticket (or both).
 
"The question is do [house republicans] want to, in a disciplined way, create a schedule and a program and include people who are not traditionally Republican? The difference between outreach and inclusion is outreach is when five white guys have a meeting and call you. Inclusion is when you’re in the meeting.”-Newt Gingrich on the future of the Republican Party
 
Lets see if they are as contrite in a months time. I doubt it. They think its all a big mistake an they can divide and conquer again.

The demographic bomb has exploded.
 
Leeds Spur said:
Lets see if they are as contrite in a months time. I doubt it. They think its all a big mistake an they can divide and conquer again.

The demographic bomb has exploded.
Click to expand...

We shall see. You can hate Rove and men of his ilk all you want, but they're geniuses (evil ones at that). They'll figure it out. There's no way the Republican party is dead forever in this country.
 
thfcsteff said:
I agree...was interested in NY's views.

I have few hard rules in life, but one of them was always as follows

Succeed on your own terms
Fail on your own terms

Whatever you do, it has to be YOUR decision.

Romney is, to me, the worst possible type of sell-out. But no-one is hurting more than him...because deep down, he knows he lost not on his own platform but on someone else's...that must be the worst type of defeat.
Click to expand...

Absolutely my personal enmity towards him was confirmed when you saw the amazing flip flopping. On every issue. Constantly. The man has zero conviction on any issue. fudge him.
 
NewYorkSpurs said:
We shall see. You can hate Rove and men of his ilk all you want, but they're geniuses (evil ones at that). They'll figure it out. There's no way the Republican party is dead forever in this country.
Click to expand...

Tell me how it isn't if Latinos, blacks, women and those under 44 don't vote for them? They need to change policies. Like the Tories did over here. Tell the religious nutters and racists and silly old ****s to fudge off.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back