Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic - Political Tidbits

Seeing this shit all over the place will either drive me from this board or place a LOT of people on ignore. I fucking hate all of the political bullshit.

Hawg Ass wrote:

Seeing this shit all over the place will either drive me from this board or place a LOT of people on ignore. I fucking hate all of the political bullshit.

Exactly why it was bad to delete that entire section. Hova, BabyMc and Jimmy should have been put in the penalty box for a week or so.

He can.

All I know is this. Jimmy Reardon was in clear violation of #12 of bigfan's "rules" in the welcome section, yet he has not been banned or suspended as far as we know. He can run the board as he see fits. But I think that if he is going to post something as part of the rules, it should apply to all posters. There are 2 glaring instances where this has not been the case; Jimmy Reardon and Juggs. People have been banned and pruned for far less. I think that is total bullshit.

Author:	BD [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:53 am ]
Post subject:	Political Tidbits - 03/19
Campaign News Romney Trounces Rivals In Puerto Rico GOP Primary, Wins All 20 Delegates Mitt Romney romped to victory on Sunday in Puerto Rico's GOP primary, winning the support of 83% of those casting ballots. Rick Santorum finished second with 8%, followed by Newt Gingrich with 2% and Ron Paul with 1%. Because Romney won with over 50% of the vote, he collected all 20 of the commonwealth's delegates to the national GOP convention. The New York Times reports that Romney "hailed his victory on Sunday in the Puerto Rico primary as another step in a slow march to the Republican presidential nomination, a winning streak he is aggressively working to" duplicate "in the Illinois primary on Tuesday." Stumping Sunday evening in Vernon Hills, IL, Romney said, "Those people who think Latinos won't vote for a Republican need to talk to the people of Puerto Rico. I intend to get Latino voters to vote Republican and take back the White House." Politico reports that with his win in Puerto Rico on Sunday, Romney "has now made a clean sweep of all US territories to vote thus far in the GOP primary, including the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam." Of the outcome in Sunday's contest, "Romney senior strategist Eric Fehrnstrom tweeted: 'Santorum suffers huge loss in Puerto Rico; he campaigned there and said he was known in Congress as 'Senador Puertorriqueño.'" The Los Angeles Times reports that while Santorum had stumped in Puerto Rico in the days ahead of the primary, the former Pennsylvania Senator's "campaign effort there was dominated by his statement that speaking the English language would be a condition for admitting Puerto Rico to the union as the 51st state. ... Romney has said he would support Puerto Rican statehood if that was the will of the people." CNN reported on its website that, including the 20 delegates he picked up in Puerto Rico's primary, "CNN's latest delegate estimates show Romney with 518 delegates to Santorum's 239. Gingrich is 100 delegates behind Santorum, and Paul...has 69 delegates. To secure the nomination, 1,144 delegates are needed." Romney, Santorum Exchange Barbs Ahead Of Illinois Primary The Chicago Tribune reports that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum "spent Sunday laying the groundwork for a furious if not acrimonious final push for votes heading into Tuesday's Illinois primary." The Romney camp sought "to raise doubts about" the "conservative credentials" of Santorum, pointing to the former Senator's backing moderate then-Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter in the 1996 GOP presidential race. Santorum, meantime, responded "to Romney's accusation that the former senator is an 'economic lightweight.' 'If Mitt Romney's an economic heavyweight, we're in trouble,' Santorum said, citing Romney's tenure as governor of Massachusetts." McClatchy reports, "Concerned about Illinois, the Romney camp added weekend campaign stops and is spending millions on ads," despite holding "a built-in advantage," as "54 convention delegates are at stake, but...Santorum only filed slates in 14 of the state's 18 congressional districts," meaning "he can only vie for 44 of the delegates. The Romney folks see a major, and perhaps even decisive, win as a plus for his candidacy, which has seen a string of victories that includes Florida, Ohio and Michigan. But a loss would raise fresh questions about his political strength." On its front page, the New York Times reports, "Illinois has been known for choosing Republicans of a moderate brand. ... So for Mitt Romney, who has had to defend himself against the moderate label elsewhere," Illinois' GOP contest "would seem a welcome, natural fit." However, despite holding "a crucial strategic advantage for gaining delegates on Tuesday and an overwhelming list of establishment Republicans on his side, Illinois is not shaping up to be" an "effortless romp" for Romney. The Times adds, "Some Republicans say" Illinois' "political inclinations are simply shifting, giving a more conservative bloc a far louder voice and leaving them wondering whether that old Illinois stalwart, the middle-of-the-road Republican, is obsolete." Under the headline "Illinois Race Muddled By State's Move Right," the Wall Street Journal offers a similar report, saying that while it has long been favorable territory for moderate Republicans, Illinois' rightward shift in recent years has boosted the clout of conservatives within the state, which is reflected in the closeness of the Romney-Santorum primary contest. Romney Says Obama Has Mismanaged Afghan Conflict Mitt Romney on Sunday criticized President Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan, saying he has mismanaged the conflict and relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Romney, on Fox News Sunday, claimed that "what's happening right now" in Afghanistan "is an example of failed leadership." Romney went on to criticize the President for having "put out a specific timetable for withdrawal of our troops, a timetable for the end of combat operations." Asked, "would you accelerate the withdrawal," Romney responded, "The timing of withdrawal is going to be dependent upon what you hear from the conditions on the ground, that you understand by speaking with commanders there." The Wall Street Journal reports that Romney also told Fox News Sunday that by publicly setting timetables for the US to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Obama has undercut the war effort and relations with Karzai. Romney said, "This is leading Mr. Karzai to take action that's self-preservation in nature," adding that Obama "needs to be more engaged and interacting with not only our commanders there but also with leadership in Afghanistan." Romney said he would work more closely with Karzai and would consult with him on a day to day basis. McCain: Obama Talks About Withdrawal From Afghanistan Too Often On NBC's Meet The Press, Sen. John McCain claimed that from "a pure military tactical standpoint, we are winning, but what the president keeps talking about is how quick we're going to withdraw. ... Instead of saying, 'we're going to win this war,' what President Obama said in 2008, it was the quote 'good war that we must win,' instead, all we hear about is 'plans for withdrawal,' 'plans for withdrawal,' how quick the withdrawal will be. How about a commitment to victory?" Gallup Poll: Gingrich Backers Would Split Evenly Between Romney, Santorum USA Today reported in its "On Politics" blog that were Newt Gingrich to end his bid for the GOP presidential nomination, his "supporters apparently would flock to both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, according to the Gallup Poll . The findings suggest Santorum would not gain a huge advantage if he gets into a race against Romney that he craves." According to the survey, "40% of Gingrich supporters name Romney as their second choice, and 39% say the same about Santorum. Ron Paul would pick up about 12% of Gingrich's voters. ... The findings are based on interviews March 8-15 of 1,947 GOP registered voters, including 290 Gingrich supporters." Washington News Romney Labels Chu, Salazar And Jackson The "Gas-Hike Trio" Emily Schultheis, in Politico , said Mitt Romney yesterday "accused" President Obama "of wanting higher gas prices, saying it's only an 'election year conversation' that has brought the president's concern to the issue. ... If Obama is really serious about wanting to bring gas prices down, Romney said, he should fire the 'gas hike trio' of Cabinet secretaries." Ben Geman, in The Hill , also reported that Romney was "ramping up attacks...over rising gasoline prices by calling for the firing of Obama's Interior and Energy secretaries and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency." German adds, "Administration officials including President Obama have strongly denied GOP claims that they've hatched a plot to increase prices." Romney, asked, on Fox News Sunday, "Do you believe President Obama is to blame for high gas prices?" answered, "When he ran for office, he said he wanted to see gasoline price go up. He said that energy prices would 'skyrocket'...and he has selected three people to help him implement that program -- the secretary of energy, the secretary of interior and the EPA administrator -- and this 'gas-hike trio' has been doing the job over the last three and a half years, and gas prices are up. The right course is they ought to be fired, because the President is apparently suffered election year conversion. He's now decided that gasoline prices should come down." President Urges Congress To Cut Oil Subsidies The AP reported over the weekend on the President's weekly radio address on Saturday in which he said "that Congress should kill tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and help develop alternative sources of energy." He explained that "he expected Congress to consider in the next few weeks ending $4 billion in tax subsidies," saying that "the vote would put them on record on whether they 'stand up for oil companies' or 'stand up for the American people.'" But "the measure is considered a long shot, given that Obama could not end the subsidies when Democrats controlled Congress earlier in his term." In the Republican response, Rep. Cory Gardner of Colorado said, "After spending money we don't have on what won't work - and overregulating what would - is it any wonder gas prices have more than doubled on the president's watch?" The Washington Times reports, "President Obama said Saturday he can't do much to lower gas prices," saying, "The truth is, the price of gas depends on a lot of factors that are often beyond our control." While, "the president didn't mention one of the few direct actions he could take to try to lower gas prices in the short term -- releasing oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve," and "a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service last year found that eliminating the subsidies would likely result in higher gas prices in the short term." Politico reports that the President "said he feels Americans' pain at the pump but his administration is limited in its ability to lower gas prices." Axelrod Defends Obama's "All-Of-The-Above Policy" David Axelrod, on CBS's Face The Nation, said, "When we are dependent solely on oil, we're affected by the rate shocks again and again and again. And what....the President...has enacted" is "an all-of-the-above policy so that we can break this dependence on oil, so, yes, we need to produce more oil domestically -- we're up twelve percent since he's been President...but we also have to explore other things. Renewable energy: we've doubled the use of renewable energy -- wind and solar, biofuels. And we have to save more. He's increased fuel efficiency standards for the first time in three decades in conjunction with the auto industry, that's saving a million barrels of oil a day, when they're fully implemented, 2.2 million barrels of oil a day." Ryan Set To Introduce New Budget Plan The Washington Post reports, "Congress is preparing to renew its bitter fight over government spending, as both parties eagerly await the arrival Tuesday of a new budget plan authored by" Rep. Paul Ryan. According to the Post, "Republican leaders believe it is critical to unify the often fractious House GOP around such a document, in part to contrast the Republican-led House with the Democratic-led Senate, which has failed to pass a budget, as required by law, in nearly three years. But Ryan may this year face a new headache: tea party conservatives in his party eager to slash spending more quickly than his proposal will advocate." Jake Sherman, in Politico (3/18, 25K), says, "For the second year running, Republicans are betting big on the budget. Despite getting hammered by Democrats last year, the GOP is gambling that going big and bold on their fiscal blueprint -- think major changes to Medicare and Medicaid -- will convince voters the GOP is the nation's responsible party, comprised of lawmakers attuned to the nation's fiscal woes." Israeli Officials Reportedly Believe Iran Has Yet To Decide If It Will Build Nuclear Weapon According to the AP , "Despite saber rattling from Jerusalem, Israeli officials now agree with the US assessment that Tehran has not yet decided on the actual construction of a nuclear bomb, according to senior Israeli government and defense figures. ... Several senior Israeli officials who spoke in recent days to the Associated Press said Israel has come around to the US view that no final decision to build a bomb has been made by Iran." Analysis: Debate Over War With Iran "Dominated" By "Hawkish Voices" The New York Times , in a front-page article titled, "Hawks Steering Debate On How To Take On Iran," reports, "Pro-Israel groups on all sides have mobilized to make their views" on Iran's nuclear program "known to the Obama administration," but it is "the most hawkish voices, like" the Emergency Committee for Israel, which is headed by The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol and evangelical leader Gary Bauer, "that have dominated the debate, and, in the view of some critics, pushed the United States closer to taking military action against Iran." According to the Times, "Among those advocating a more aggressive approach toward Iran are prominent Republicans in Congress, like" House majority leader Eric Cantor and Sen. John McCain; "the party's presidential candidates"; AIPAC; "the so-called 'neocons'...pro-Israel evangelical Christians...and many Democrats." Romney Claims Obama Waited Too Long To Impose Sanctions On Iran Mitt Romney, discussing the Iranian nuclear program on Fox News Sunday, said the President "should have put in place crippling sanctions from day one instead of waiting three and a half years," and "should have spoken out when the dissidents took to the streets in Tehran, instead" of remaining "silent." Romney went on to say the President "should be less worried about Israel taking military action to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon and more worried about Iran actually having nuclear weapon and having fissile material." Keller: Political Considerations Keep Obama From Considering Containment Option Bill Keller, in his column for the New York Times , writes, "The ultimate...question about Iran is, if sanctions and threats fail, could we live with a nuclear Iran? ... It's worth serious discussion, but while the idea of containment by deterrence is gaining ground in pundit-land, President Obama can't touch it; to do so would undermine the whole effort to halt Iran's program and, not incidentally, would be hazardous to his reelection."

Author:	Terry's Peeps [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:13 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Political Tidbits - 03/19
Wrong Section.

Author:	Urlacher's missing neck [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Political Tidbits - 03/19

Author:	Hawg Ass [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Political Tidbits - 03/19
Seeing this shit all over the place will either drive me from this board or place a LOT of people on ignore. I fucking hate all of the political bullshit.

Author:	Urlacher's missing neck [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Political Tidbits - 03/19
Hawg Ass wrote: Seeing this shit all over the place will either drive me from this board or place a LOT of people on ignore. I fucking hate all of the political bullshit. You make an excellent point.

Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Political Tidbits - 03/19 https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=68369	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:07 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Political Tidbits - 03/19
Hawg Ass wrote: Seeing this shit all over the place will either drive me from this board or place a LOT of people on ignore. I fucking hate all of the political bullshit. Exactly why it was bad to delete that entire section. Hova, BabyMc and Jimmy should have been put in the penalty box for a week or so.

Author:	SomeGuy [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Political Tidbits - 03/19
Frank Coztansa wrote: Hawg Ass wrote: Seeing this shit all over the place will either drive me from this board or place a LOT of people on ignore. I fucking hate all of the political bullshit. Exactly why it was bad to delete that entire section. Hova, BabyMc and Jimmy should have been put in the penalty box for a week or so. Yeah, kinda like burning a house down to kill a few flies inside or whatever. But, it is BigFans board and he may do as he pleases. There might be parts of the story we don't know.

Author:	Hawg Ass [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:18 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Political Tidbits - 03/19
Hopefully Big Fan does what he says he was going to do and deletes all political threads.

Author:	SomeGuy [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Political Tidbits - 03/19
Frank Coztansa wrote: He can. All I know is this. Jimmy Reardon was in clear violation of #12 of bigfan's "rules" in the welcome section, yet he has not been banned or suspended as far as we know. He can run the board as he see fits. But I think that if he is going to post something as part of the rules, it should apply to all posters. There are 2 glaring instances where this has not been the case; Jimmy Reardon and Juggs. People have been banned and pruned for far less. I think that is total bullshit. So.....Juggs and JimmyReardon are untouchable, eh? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/