Was asked for PROOF and I gave them the footage of Obama going door to door and then approached by the plumber. They have the facts but then they get very quiet and have nothing to spout off about,'cause they know deep down this guy is a crook. SOCIALIST!!
The best they can do then is start some silly nonsense about Palin. That's all they got! They've never been able to refute the facts which seems to make them nastier.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database Wow, I posted this yesterday and...
Today there are no comments? Fascinating. I thought surely someone would leap to McCain's defense and/or find a way to justify his behavior.
As I posted yesterday -
Obama did not change his numbers to 120,000 - it was clearly a misspeak on the part of that Richardson guy, as earlier in the day he had said it correctly on a radio show.
After our rather heated debate tonight, I went off in search of answers to the questions of Obama's qualifications to be POTUS, and here is what I found.
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
US Code Title 8,1401 states the following as a qualification of a natural-born US citizen. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html). This is the only qualification that Obama actually passes to qualify to be POTUS, but one is all that is needed as all the qualifications listed are exclusive of each other.
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
Since this does not specify a particular time frame in which the US citizen parent must live in the US prior to the birth of the child, it must be assumed that any one-year residency would satisfy the requirement.
Somehow crow for Thanksgiving dinner just isn't quite what I had in mind. Please make sure it is well done with lots of BBQ sauce. I posted a similar question yesterday. sm
I asked what exactly their beef was about O's speech? The silence on this is deafening. I for one felt extremely proud of my country yesterday while listening to that speech. Finally, a president that has the gonads to not only stand up and be firm, but be willing to admit that we have made mistakes as well and at the same time be respectful of another's culture and it's okay that we don't cram democracy down everyone's throat like Bush wanted to do. And the US has made numerous mistakes and it's okay to accept responsibility in that -- yet O gets lamblasted by the right for making apologies. SO WHAT? It takes a lot of class and maturity to admit to being wrong, and guess what you get in return -- something this country has not gotten in a long time -- RESPECT! He now has the daunting task of trying to mend 8 years of damage done by a cocky, swaggering cowboy who did not know the first thing about showing respect for anyone else and this whole country should be behind him 100% in his efforts in this instead of constantly browbeating him and criticizing EVERYTHING he does!!
I only posted one story. sm
And the subject, to me, is Ward Churchill has his deception, not AIM. I would think as an OP, you would be more in tune to what the OP publications are saying about him.
I posted the story above....about the firing...
check it out.
Well, she is going to be second chair with limited experience...not first chair. She has one term governing a state...which gives her more governing experience than Obama. I saw his campaign said that McCain had put a person with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Well, his campaign is putting a guy in the first chair who has very little foreign policy experience. To me, that is the pot calling the kettle black big time. They would do well now to just leave the experience thing alone.
As to pro life and pro death penalty...can't answer that for her. How can you be pro choice and against the death penalty? It goes both ways. Killng is killing. I know many pro choicers who are against the death penalty. A good many of them. Frankly, I don't see a convicted murderer the same way I see an innocent child whose only crime might be Down's. That being said, I do not myself support the death penalty, a personal decision. The Bible does say that basically you should follow the law of the land...which is why most Christians don't do anything illegal against abortion. And while we have an abortion law on the books, we also have capital punishment laws on the books. I can't speak for Governor Palin; I don't know what her rationale is for supporting the death penalty.
This could have easily been avoided had you posted on the correct board.
The response from another poster to not post political viewpoints on this board was becuase you posted it on the Main board.
You skated around it and then posted a cut and pasted story.....
Who cares about spelling? Why is it people always point out spelling errors when they have nothing else to do. Or call people names, that's another ploy. However, having said that, you are an idiot. G'Day.
I posted this on the other board...
seeing as how they are all so gung ho the war and all; I honestly thought maybe we could agree on something over there but not a peep out of anyone...so I'll post it here.
Here is a positive and really good idea and one I believe we can all agree on. I hope this ends the American Indian thread on a positive note. When I was down in Seminole country this past weekend I picked up a copy of The Seminole Tribune and found this article. I think this is so wonderful I can't hardly stand it. Believe me when I say this would mean SOOOOO much to the Indians serving in Iraq or anywhere for that matter.
It is a native tradition that when a warrior went into battle he would wear new moccasins. The new moccasins were to bring him home safely from the battle or to ease his transition into the next life. With the number of American Indian troops currently stationed in harm's way the National Native American Veterans Association (NNAVA) has undertaken to send a new pair of moccasins to each of our native troops deployed. Each pair of moccasins is hand made in the traditional way, wrapped in red flannel (all things of a spiritual nature are wrapped in red, flannel, trade cloth, wool, whatever) and then shipped to the addresses of our deployed troops. The cost to make and ship each pair of moccasins is only $21 due to the number of volunteers who are donating their time and money to this project.
Contributions can be mailed to Project Moccasin Fund C/O National Native American Veterans Association, P.O. Box 891973, Oklahoma City Oklahoma 73189-1973. For any more info, call Sherry A. Girty, NNAVA, Secretary of Counseling Services Center at 785-749-9445.
Source is posted on the C board. sm
But a lot of the MSM has picked it up. They were high school sweethearts, been married 28 years. BTW, he's a staunch Democrat, so it isn't political. He is probably sick of her using their dead son as a political tool, which is what she is doing. Her SURVIVING son has begged her to come home. But she is enjoying her day in the sun. And losing everything else. I guess that's Bush's fault too.
I posted this on this board on 11/05/2008. SM I won't flame you! I totally agree. Obama as president only weakens -
this country and makes us ripe for the end. He does not support Israel. Keep your eyes on Israel. I look for them to bomb Iran before Bush's term is up because they know Obama will not suport them. (2008-11-05)
So they didn't attack Iran, they invaded the Gaza Strip, but they made their move before Mr. Bush's term was up. I also posted Biden's own words regarding Obama - "Mark my words, it will not be six months for the world tests Barak Obama...."
Looks like Obama's test has begun. I hope he's ready, but I know he is not. He doesn't support Israel and that will be a huge mistake!
*I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy :) :)*
This is tacky at best and only an IDIOT would ride around with this on their car. Seems to me the cons are making a bigger deal out of the shooting accident more than liberals.
You publicly post on the other board that you *try not to visit the bog of eternal stench.*
Well, doesn't look like you are trying all that hard. Or is that another example of Conservative honesty, like your buddy on the other board lies 3 times before suddenly deciding to be *up front* (in her own words) about the whole bogus line of crap she was spouting.
You and your 2 friends don't respect anyone unless they're a member of your little club, think exactly as you think, belong to the same political party as you belong, and believe in the very same little narrow SUBsection of one particular religion.
That's what I interpret from YOUR WRITTEN WORDS. Your posts don't show respect. They only show twisted *facts*, ignorance, anger and hatred.
You can't be *respectful* on your own board but suddenly, when you come here - HERE - the place YOU call *the bog of eternal stench* you suddenly discover some respectability during your mouse click from there to here?
Please. Some of us aren't as stupid as you think we are.
You're becoming quite a bore. You and your friends stated you don't want us on your board, but you're not happy unless you're picking a fight. You and your *gang* told us to leave and not to post on *your* board. Maybe that should work both ways.
Out of ALL the problems with radical Conservatives, maybe the most annoying thing is that you don't believe in equality at all. You believe in SUPERIORITY. Somewhere along the line, someone made you think you were special and above everyone else. Sheesh! You're not happy unless you're dictating to everyone else in the country what they're allowed to do in their own personal lives regarding life, death, science, etc. You even think YOUR GOD IS BETTER than everyone else's.
You want to make the rules, censor people and tell them which boards they can and cannot post on, but YOU want to invade them all and spew your ignorance and hatred.
In my heart, I believe there are sincere, honest, intelligent Conservatives out there who are capable of a sensible debate. I've seen them. (I hope you don't chase them away, too.) But and your crew don't fall in that category, and this will be the last of your inane posts I will subject myself to.
Can we get the political board back to the true purpose of this board – to share opinions of why we like our candidate.Not bash and cut down others because they don’t agree with you.
I stayed away from this board for the past couple days because anyone who had anything positive to say about Sarah Palin got slammed, bashed, kicked down, etc. After awhile I found it all too draining, and was not seeing any reason to come.Yes, I did see some of it towards people who favored Barack Obama, but if you read the posts again it is mostly towards anyone who favored Sarah Palin/John McCain.
I thought the political board was for posting information regarding politics and candidates.What I have seen for the past few days is that it has been an attack board.Especially if you have anything positive you want to share about Sarah Palin.You say something good about her and you get attacked, you answer back, and you get attacked more, and then when you get mad and pretty much say stop attacking me, they come back with this “Geez, I’m allowed to have an opinion”.
Another thing I am tired of seeing is the slanderous, hate filled, really off the wall comments about Sarah Palin.The latest was something about her daughter actually had her baby.Talk about just bizarre comments.I thought what’s next, she’s an alien from another planet?The more I kept reading the more the comments were getting just really weird and bizarre.Of course nobody ever having any proof of any of these allegations.I then came to realize that the posters were just trying to get a fight going.
I also saw posts that had nothing to do with politics but attacking a poster named Sam.Again, probably trying to get another fight going for no good reason and on things that have nothing to do whatsoever with politics.I’ve read “Sam is like an annoying nat that you sway away”, “Sam, please let me know where you work” or “she must have her quota” or “sam is to the politics board as oracle is to the”This childish rhetoric is getting old.I’m not defending sam she is a big girl and I can see by her posts she can take care of herself, but my point is that this has nothing to do with politics.If you want a fight maybe you could request that the administrator create a separate “fight and degrade” section.
I’ve read the administrators post a couple different times called Beware of Flaming.She/he said as long as we realize that not everyone is going to agree we shouldn’t wear our feelings on our sleeves and a little more oversight on here would be good.Let people express his or her opinion and move on.If you don’t like someone just ignore that person. “It’s not rocket science, you know” (I liked that statement)
I consider posting on this board a privilege and not a right.If you don’t agree with something and you post that you don’t agree and state the facts why (and are civilized about it) that’s one thing, but when you bash and degrade others without showing proof and just want to start fights and belittle others it just seems a bit juvenile to me.
I come to the politics board to hear ideas and stuff (facts) about the candidates.That is how I’m learning about each one, but I don’t want to read people attack other posters for no good reason. I'd like to hear about Obama/Biden & McCain/Palin, but I want to hear facts.
If you like to fight so much why don’t you pick on people that you can fight to face to face.
Matt Cooper pretty much spelled it out. You might not like it, though, because it still holds your boys accountable for their actions. So by all means, read at your own risk.
MSNBC.com
Transcript for July 17
Matt Cooper, John Podesta, Ken Mehlman, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein
NBC News
Updated: 1:57 p.m. ET July 17, 2005
PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."
Sunday, July 17, 2005
GUESTS: Matt Cooper, White House Correspondent, Time Magazine; John Podesta, President and CEO, "Center for American Progress" and Former Chief of Staff, President Bill Clinton; Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee; Bob Woodward, Washington Post and author, "The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat" and Carl Bernstein, former Washington Post Watergate Reporter
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert, NBC News
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: the investigation into the leak which identified Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. This Time magazine reporter says his source released him from his pledge of confidentiality, allowing him to avoid jail by testifying on Wednesday. What did he say to the grand jury? He'll discuss it for the first here this morning. Our guest: Matt Cooper.
Then Newsweek magazine quotes Karl Rove as saying it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency, who authorized the trip." What now for President Bush's deputy chief of staff? With us, Rove's former deputy, now chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, and President Clinton's former chief of staff, John Podesta.
And 33 years ago, another famous source, Deep Throat, provided information which brought about the resignation of Richard M. Nixon. His identity has now been revealed and his story now chronicled in a new book: "The Secret Man." With us, Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
But, first, joining us now is Matt Cooper of Time magazine. Welcome.
MR. MATT COOPER: Morning, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the cover of your magazine: "Rove on the Spot," subtitled "What I Told the Grand Jury," by Matthew Cooper. And here is an excerpt from your article, which will be available tomorrow in Time magazine.
"So did [Karl] Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him?"--to Niger. "Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency' on `WMD'?"--weapons of mass destruction. "Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know."
For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove?
MR. COOPER: That's correct.
MR. RUSSERT: And when Karl concluded his conversation with you, you write he said, "I've already said too much." What did that mean?
MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure what it meant, Tim. At first, you know, I thought maybe he meant "I've been indiscreet." But then, as I thought about it, I thought it might be just more benign, like "I've said too much; I've got to get to a meeting." I don't know exactly what he meant, but I do know that memory of that line has stayed in my head for two years.
MR. RUSSERT: When you were told that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, did you have any sense then that this is important or "I better be careful about identifying someone who works for the CIA"?
MR. COOPER: Well, I certainly thought it was important. I wrote it in the e-mail to my bosses moments later that has since leaked out after this long court battle I've been in. You know, I certainly thought it was important. But I didn't know her name at the time until, you know, after Bob Novak's column came out.
MR. RUSSERT: Did you have any reluctance writing something so important?
MR. COOPER: Well, I wrote it after Bob Novak's column had come out and identified her, so I was not in, you know, danger of outing her the way he did.
MR. RUSSERT: You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."
Did you interpret that as a confirmation?
MR. COOPER: I did, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: No, he didn't say that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you said it to him?
MR. COOPER: I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: And that she worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: I believe so.
MR. RUSSERT: The piece that you finally ran in Time magazine on July 17th, it says, "And some government officials have noted to Time in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger..."
"Some government officials"--That is Rove and Libby?
MR. COOPER: Yes, those were among the sources for that, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Are there more?
MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into it, but it's possible.
MR. RUSSERT: Have you told the grand jury about that?
MR. COOPER: The grand jury knows what I know, yes.
MR. RUSSERT: That there may have been more sources?
MR. COOPER: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: The big discussion, Matt Cooper, has been about your willingness to testify...
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...before the grand jury. And let's go through that. This was Wednesday, July 6, Matt Cooper talking to the assembled press corps.
(Videotape, July 6, 2005):
MR. COOPER: This morning, in what can only be described as a stunning set of developments, that source agreed to give me a specific, personal and unambiguous waiver to speak before the grand jury.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Now, Karl Rove's attorney has spoken to The Washington Post. "[Karl Rove's attorney, Robert] Luskin has said that he merely reaffirmed the blanket waiver by Rove ...and that the assurance would have been available at any time. He said that [Matt] Cooper's description of last-minute theatrics `does not look so good' and that `it just looks to me like there was less a desire to protect a source.'"
MR. COOPER: Well, can I back up a little bit, Tim? For two years, you know, I have protected the identity of my sources. As you know, I was in a rather infamous court battle that went through all the courts in Washington, right up to the Supreme Court, and we lost there with a special prosecutor trying to get me to disclose my source. My principle the whole time was that no court and no corporation can release me from a pledge of confidentiality with my source. And so even after Time magazine, over my objections, handed over my notes and e-mails, which included, really, everything I had and identified all my sources, I still believed that I needed some kind of personal release from the source himself.
And so on the morning of that clip you just saw, my lawyer called me and had seen in The Wall Street Journal that morning Mr. Rove's lawyer saying, "Karl does not stand by any confidentiality with these conversations," or words to that effect, and then went on to say, "If Matt Cooper's going to jail, it's not for Karl Rove." And at that point, at that point only, my lawyer contacted Mr. Rove's lawyer and said, you know, "Can we get a kind of personal waiver that applies to Matt?" And Mr. Luskin and he worked out an agreement and we have a letter that says that "Mr. Rove waives confidentiality for conversations with Matt Cooper in July 2003." So it's specific to me and it's personal, and that's why I felt comfortable, only at that point, going to testify before the grand jury. And once I testified before the grand jury, then I felt I should share that with the readers of Time.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Luskin, Rove's attorney, is suggesting that you had the same waiver throughout the last two years, and only when you were confronted with going to jail did you, in effect, decide to compromise your source or not protect your source.
MR. COOPER: Well, I protected my source all along. I don't maintain that I haven't. I have all the way along, and that's why we went to the Supreme Court. That's why I stood by the source even after Time had disclosed my documents. We went to Rove only after seeing his lawyer, in some sense, invite us to, in that quote in The Wall Street Journal. My lawyers and the editors at the time did not feel it was appropriate for me to go and approach Rove about some kind of waiver before then.
MR. RUSSERT: In your piece, as I mentioned, you said "some government officials," and you said it may be more than just Rove and Libby. Did you get waivers from those additional sources when you testified before the grand jury?
MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into anything else, but I don't--anything I discuss before the grand jury, I have a waiver for.
MR. RUSSERT: Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief...
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...of Time magazine, authorized the release of your e-mails and notes to the prosecutor. Pearlstine said this: "I found myself really coming to the conclusion that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do." Do you agree?
MR. COOPER: In part. I mean, I think Norman Pearlstine made a very tough decision. I spent a lot of time with him and I admired the way he made it. I disagreed. I thought we should have at least, you know, gone forward, gone into civil contempt. I would have been willing to go to jail. I think we should have, you know, held on a little longer, but that's a reasonable, you know, disagreement between people.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, he came to Washington, Pearlstine, and some other editors from New Work and met with the Washington bureau of Time magazine.
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: At least two correspondents produced e-mails saying, "Our sources are now telling us they will no longer confide in Time magazine. They will no longer trust us to protect our sources." Is that going to be a long-term problem for your magazine?
MR. COOPER: Well, I think, you know, Time will have to, you know, reassure confidential sources that we're going to continue to rely on them and continue to protect them. You know, this--Tim, I think the important thing is here that one aberration in this case was it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and it was then--you know, Time did decide in this case to turn over the notes. Now, Pearlstine has said that in other cases he might not. I think the important thing to remember here is that, you know, the reporters of Time will keep their word. I kept my word for two years. I didn't feel like any court or corporation could release me from that confidence, and I kept my word and so only spoke with the grand jury after I received that written personal waiver from my source.
MR. RUSSERT: You are going to testify this week before Congress for a shield law. Explain that.
MR. COOPER: Sure . Well, Tim, you know, this is the 12th day, I believe, of my colleague Judith Miller from The New York Times being in jail in this investigation because she did not get a waiver that she feels comfortable with and she's protecting her sources. There's incredible aberration, Tim. Forty- nine states have some kind of protection for journalists and their confidential sources, but there is no protection at the federal level. And so in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats have put forward legislation in Congress to create some kind of protection for whistle-blowers and confidential sources and other people who want to come forward to the press so there'd be some kind of federal law, too.
MR. RUSSERT: What's your biggest regret in this whole matter?
MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure I have that many. I mean, I believe the story I wrote was entirely accurate and fair, and I stand by it. And I think it was important because it was about an important thing that was going on. It was called A War on Wilson, and I believe there was something like a war on Wilson going on. I guess I'd be a little more discreet about my e-mails, I think. I'm an object lesson in that, you know, e-mails have a way of getting out.
MR. RUSSERT: Will this affect your career as a journalist?
MR. COOPER: I don't think it should, Tim. I kept my word to my source. I only spoke after I got a waiver from that source. That's what other journalists have done in this case. I don't think it should.
MR. RUSSERT: How did you find the grand jury?
MR. COOPER: I was surprised, Tim. You know, I'd heard this old line that grand jurors are very passive, that they'll indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells them. I thought this grand jury was very interested in the case. They--a lot of the questions I answered were posed by them as opposed to the prosecutor. I thought they were very involved.
MR. RUSSERT: Where do you think it's heading?
MR. COOPER: You know, I really don't know, Tim. I've been, you know, involved in this case as anyone, I guess, for a couple of years now, and at times I think it's a very big case, at times I think it's, you know, politics as usual and not going to be that big a case at all. I just don't know.
MR. RUSSERT: And we'll find out. Matt Cooper, we thank you very much for joining us and sharing your views.
I think it used to be that we were asked to post links, so as to save disk space for the MTStars website, something like that.
That way, we can click over to read what is posted. Also, it gives you backup to your posts for verfication. Much better to see who's point of view it is, and from what website in your link.
Does anybody know if this rule still exists under the new management??
We were talking about this yesterday...sm
....and thinking it will take years to implement, but still.....we should all be preparing for a career change eventually. I have by branching out into general transcription.
Thanks sam - was just thinking about you yesterday
We miss you here. We need people to post with knowledge and sanity (and links that back up things they say). All I'm reading are nasty hate-filled posts and its quite nauseating. Especially when they don't have facts.
O'Reilly yesterday
Did you see O'Reilly yesterday, it was hysterical watching Joys face and hand motions
There were rumors yesterday
that there was a fight of some kind after the show with Elizaeth and Joy. They said today it wasn't true. When Whoopie was talking about off-shore drilling, Joy made a disgusting remark about Palin's pregnant daughter and drilling.
As of yesterday, Chrysler and GM were still
Today's news about cash flow evidently took that off the table pronto.
The EC voted yesterday......... sm
but those votes will not be counted until 1/6/2009 when both houses will convene to certify the votes. One can only hope and pray that there is still at least 1 Senator and 1 Representative with the intestinal fortitude to challenge that certification should it go in favor of Obama.
Just a side note. I was in a bookstore yesterday browsing the books when I came across a book cover designed to look like Time magazine with Obama's picture and the caption President Obama. How's that for audacity?
Thank you for the link!! Why just yesterday.....
The families were kicked off the white house grounds and they all hated Obama and............where do they get this shtik?
More from yesterday's debate
McCain:This is not a bipartisan agreement. This is three Members of the Senate--none on the House side--who have joined Democrats for a partisan agreement. It is unfortunate that has happened because we are now committing an act of generational theft. We are robbing future generations of Americans of their hard-earned dollars because we are laying on them a debt of incredible proportions. We have already amassed over a $10 trillion debt. Apparently, we will pass this legislation, which is another, when you count the interest, about $1.1 trillion dollars.
The House is about to take up a $400 billion Omnibus appropriations bill. It has been put off until tomorrow, probably wisely. The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Geithner, is going to recommend somewhere around $ 1/2 trillion to $1 trillion for another TARP package. So we are talking about trillions of dollars.
This morning, one of my colleagues, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, said: ``Why quibble over $200 million?''
I am not sure the American people would agree.
What has been the result of this compromise? Ten out of hundreds eliminated items: $34 million to renovate the Commerce Department; $100 million for government-wide supercomputers; $14 million for cyber security; $55 million for historic preservation; $20 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs; $5.8 billion for prevention wellness programs, $870 million for pandemic flu; $16 million for school improvement programs, construction; $3.5 billion for higher education facilities; $2.25 billion for a neighborhood stabilization program. Ten have been eliminated from the hundreds which totals $12.6 billion of the $140 billion being touted as having been cut from the more than $900 billion bill. What we have done is, we have eliminated 10 items, reduced others, which will probably be restored, reaching basically the same level, a ``compromise'' of about $827 billion which is a little more than that passed by the House of Representatives. The total is over a trillion dollars.
Both the distinguished majority leader and the Senator from Montana have emphasized the need for speed, that we have to act quickly, right away. We will, I am sure, because a seminal moment was when the two or three Republican Senators announced they would vote for this package. So it is a matter of time.
Last week, the overseer of TARP I announced there had been $76 billion wasted in paying for assets over their actual value. We acted in speed, with haste, and it cost the taxpayers $76 billion.
Again, this is an unusual circumstance we are in. These circumstances we all appreciate. We appreciate the fact that millions of Americans are without a job, without health insurance, without the ability to educate themselves and their children, and without the ability to stay in their homes. We need to act. We need to act responsibly.
It is being said that every economist says we need to adopt this package. That is not true. I even hear one of my advisers during the campaign, Marty Feldstein's name, being mentioned as being for this package.
The Washington Post op-ed is entitled ``An $800 Billion Mistake.'' Martin Feldsteinand many other economists believe this is an $800 billion mistake.
On the spending side, the stimulus package is full of well-intended items that, unfortunately, are not likely to do much for employment. Computerizing the medical records of every American over the next 5 years is desirable, but it is not a cost-effective way to create jobs. Has anyone gone through the long list of proposed appropriations and asked how many jobs each would create per dollar of increased national debt?
Well, since Mr. Feldstein wrote that column, the Congressional Budget Office did, indeed, go through the list. They found out it would increase between now and the bill then, which has been changed somewhat but basically will end up over a trillion dollars, it says it would increase employment at that point in time by 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs. At $885 billion, 1.3 million jobs would work out to $680,769 per job. And at 3.9 million jobs, the cost would be $226,923 per job.
Several of my colleagues have celebrated the reduced cost of the compromise from $885 billion to $827 billion. So let's do the math for that amount. It is only $636,154 per job for 1.3 million jobs, and $212,000 for 3.9 million jobs created. If you add the cost of interest to the total for the compromise, we have $1.175 trillion.
There are numerous policy changes which have nothing to do with jobs in this bill. This legislation was delivered to our office at 11 o'clock on Saturday night. My staff has been hard at work scrubbing this bill, 778 pages, I believe, for the changes. One of them that is very interesting, which has been added, is a new, far-reaching policy with respect to unemployment compensation. Specifically, the title is Unemployment Compensation Moderation. It would allow a person to collect unemployment insurance for leaving his or her job to take care of an immediate family member's illness, any illness or disability as defined by the Secretary of Labor. This was originally sponsored legislation in the 110th Congress and did not succeed. Each State would need to amend their unemployment insurance in order to receive $7 billion in funds.
Again, that may be a laudable goal to fundamentally change unemployment compensation. What in the world is it doing on what is supposed to be an economic stimulus package?
This is neither bipartisan nor is it a compromise. It is generational theft, because we rejected a proposal on this side to establish a trigger that when our economy improves, we would be on a path to a balanced budget and reducing spending. These spending programs will remain with no way of paying for them. What are we doing to future generations of Americans? We need a stimulus package. We need to create jobs. We certainly don't need to lay a multitrillion dollar debt on future generations of Americans, once our economy has improved.
I just heard yesterday that
Obama is cutting back funding for hydrogen technology on cars. WHAT!? GM is supposed to have a hydrogen car come out in the next 2-3 years and now Obama is cutting funding. I would much rather have a hydrogen car than a hybrid that you have to plug in. If everyone has a car they have to plug in, we don't have a big enough power grid for all that electricity and where does our electricity come from....duh!!! The exhaust from a hydrogen vehicle is water. I just don't understand this admininstrations thinking. I mean...if they want to go green, why are they cutting back funding for technology that will really cause us to go green eventually at least in the car industry? I'd much rather explore hydrogen than ethanol vehicles. Can you imagine how much corn will cost if we all drive ethanol vehicles....or how much it will cost for farmers to feed their animals if corn is scarce because we are all using it for our vehicles. Ethanol is not the way to go. You don't take a food source and use it for fuel. Like I said above, we don't have a big enough electric grid to handle everyone if we all had to plug in our electric cars. I just think it is ignorant to cut back on hydrogen vehicles.
I just heard yesterday that
Obama is cutting back funding for hydrogen technology on cars. WHAT!? GM is supposed to have a hydrogen car come out in the next 2-3 years and now Obama is cutting funding. I would much rather have a hydrogen car than a hybrid that you have to plug in. If everyone has a car they have to plug in, we don't have a big enough power grid for all that electricity and where does our electricity come from....duh!!! The exhaust from a hydrogen vehicle is water. I just don't understand this admininstrations thinking. I mean...if they want to go green, why are they cutting back funding for technology that will really cause us to go green eventually at least in the car industry? I'd much rather explore hydrogen than ethanol vehicles. Can you imagine how much corn will cost if we all drive ethanol vehicles....or how much it will cost for farmers to feed their animals if corn is scarce because we are all using it for our vehicles. Ethanol is not the way to go. You don't take a food source and use it for fuel. Like I said above, we don't have a big enough electric grid to handle everyone if we all had to plug in our electric cars. I just think it is ignorant to cut back on hydrogen vehicles.
I saw that yesterday and Beck actually
looked like the clown here. He was caught dead-handed with stretching the truth- he did go over to Fox, is that not right? Anyway, he told some big ones on his radio show, they had tape and Barbara and Whoopi both called him on the carpet. Barbara asked him did he not check his facts before throwing them out. He does work for Fox now, correct? I loved when Whoopi talked about that big pile.... Priceless.
Your on the wrong board - you need to preach on the faith board
You just delivered a sermon (or quote). Either way it doesn't belong here. What does this have to do with politics. The democrat and republican party did not start up until after the 1800s. Socialism also wasn't created until the 1800s.
To me your post describes the way humans should treat other humans. This has nothing to do with politics - imho. This was reported on none other than Fox News yesterday.
I'd say if she's camping out in front of his house what would it hurt to peek his head out and talk with the woman? But then again, he probably has nothing to say other than, "We're making progress. War is hard."
She's obviously had time and enough grief to set in to do a 360. You know people handle grief differently.
I think he doesn't want to talk to her now because she's upset, and Bush does not do well in face-to-face adversial situations, so he probably wouldn't be able to help her by talking to her anyway.
Yesterday's cartoon collection
from Bob Geiger's site.
The site was launched yesterday am. There are currently
the ones that have been deemed inappropriate. They are still there, so nothing disappears. I have not had enough time to research precisely what "removal" means, but I am guessing it means that once the nays outstrip the yays by substantial margins, they are simply no longer up for rating, ranking or votes (whatever).
If you take the time to verify the content of the link you posted and actually inspect the site, it will become crystal clear WHY these questions are voted off and furthermore, how much more interest there is in actual issues on this site as opposed to scandal and smear.
The site was launched yesterday am. There are currently
the ones that have been deemed inappropriate. They are still there, so nothing disappears. I have not had enough time to research precisely what "removal" means, but I am guessing it means that once the nays outstrip the yays by substantial margins, they are simply no longer up for rating, ranking or votes (whatever).
If you take the time to verify the content of the link you posted and actually inspect the site, it will become crystal clear WHY these questions are voted off and furthermore, how much more interest there is in actual issues on this site as opposed to scandal and smear.
The latest one yesterday was from the chairman of...
the Democratic party of South Carolina. Hardly a "crazy."
That being said...it does happen on both sides. However, in being totally objective in looking at this board, the Democrats on this board are just as likely to attack the poster as they are to attack the candidate. That doesn't help. What happens on this board is exactly what happens in Washington and it just needs to stop. Congress and the administration need to drop the party line and do the people's business, not further their careers. It should be about SERVICE. Only one ticket is saying that. Only one ticket is eve interested in reaching across party lines and involving the other party and Independents in their cabinet. That is the ticket I am voting for...because until the party bickering first and country second ideology changes...we are doomed to loop the same old same old. It just needs to stop.
After seeing that McCain rally yesterday I am...sm
beginning to get very worried that there may be retaliation in some way. Those people were over the top!
Why didn't you post this yesterday?
Or the day before? Didn't feel the love until Obama got elected?
The Spheris CEO quit yesterday, too.
x
I heard on the news day before yesterday...sm
that Obama got a video from the second in command of AL Quada (I don't know how that is spelled.). He warned him about sending troops to Afganistan. Also is said to have called him the "N" word. Did anyone hear what Obama's reaction to this message was? I never did hear anything else.
Wait. I'm confused. Just yesterday we saw
NOTHING is more important from a president than - Natl Security. THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH. This appeared just three threads below this one.
What an event! Gives me hope that there are still plenty of us in this country who are not afraid to stand up and be counted.
Wow! I just love being called a "rich" person funded by Fox News as the only participants as CNN would have you believe who would show up. My tea party was strictly grass roots, funded by $5.00 contributions, not an event hosted by George Soros at $1500 or more a head.
I'm an MT. I sure as heck ain't rich. I work for a living, and I don't want to pay for your mortgage, your education, your health care, or helping your fanny reduce your carbon imprint. I want my grandchildren to have all the opportunities I have had in living in this country with the rights to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
I'm going to D.C. on July 4th. I love my country. I'm standing up. How about you?
It's time to take our country back and give the boot to Onuto.
He didn't look too messianic yesterday
He started repeating himself, got his tang all tungled up and generally looked just exactly like the carefully scripted Pelosi-puppet that he is.
marks the location of current message within thread
