Ok, how do you think the administration will handle this
Posted By: Just me on 2009-01-15
In Reply to:
I knew it was a mistake to pick Clinton for SOS. The person who said she had no problems obliterating Iran if they didn't do what she wants (or something like that). How do you think the current administration to include Hillary will handle this one.
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE50E3QB20090115
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
Ok, how do you think the administration will handle this
I knew it was a mistake to pick Clinton for SOS. The person who said she had no problems obliterating Iran if they didn't do what she wants (or something like that). How do you think the current administration to include Hillary will handle this one.
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE50E3QB20090115
Hey MT why are you using a different handle?
Wished you dead? By your posts, I realize now who you really are, MT. You read into things that arent there and the one other person who has done that consistently is MT. So, welcome back MT. Wish you dead? Oh please, I couldnt care less about you and I most certainly would not put negative energy on myself wishing anyone dead, MT. Now hurry up run back to your conservative board, MT, as it is time to bash liberals once again.
can't handle it?
Wow... I mean I haven't been here that long, but from what I've seen she only responds to what is talked about, i have seen no "attacks" by Sam, I can only assume you are referring to her disagreements with you, and can only look at this post as a desperate call for help cause you can't debate her points. That is what this board is for right? I mean, that is what a debate is, back and forth right? To call Sam out is interesting considering I've never seen personal attacks from her (i haven't read all her posts though) but I have seen plenty of crap come out of the liberals' mouths (keyboard) on this board... why dont you email her yourself and have it out rather than seriously asking the moderate to give her her own space. Last time I checked, we live in America and there is free speech. If you dont like what she has to say, IGNORE IT! (i do it all the time with some of the nonsense put out!)
You can't handle someone
opposing your opinion with facts? Yeah....I could see where that would annoy you. Sheesh. This whining about sam is ridiculous. Sam writes very well and more often than not has facts to back up her opinion. That is a heck of a lot more than I can say for some other people on this board. So grow up, stop whining to the moderator, and either ignore her posts or show some facts to back up your opinion like she does.
How to handle it
Hi,
I tend to vote conservative, but most of my friends are diehard Democrats. You just have to learn to agree to disagree. We all love each other, we just have different views.
I would like to say one thing, though, because not a lot of people know this. Back when Kerry was running, he was vocal about not sending our jobs overseas; however, behind the scenes, his biggest contributor, George Soros, actually bought two MT companies, which I won't name here, and those companies shipped half of their jobs to India. So don't let the Dems tell you that the Repubs are sending all the jobs offshore, because it is absolutely NOT SO.
Back to the point, though..you just have to learn to separate politics from friendship. You can have friendly debates, and if your friends get ugly, just explain to them we can debate this, but we need to agree to disagree for the sake of our friendship. If they are your true friends, they will agree.
i bet she will handle it
have ;)
Maybe she can't handle it when someone
points out her mistakes.
Will somebody else handle this one?
I'm just too tired to take it on, and it needs to be.
LOL. I'm sure they can't handle the video anyway.sm
The link works only for those who have the ability to think on their own.
I only post under one handle....
unlike others, that was put to rest last night. Let's just let that die, shall we? Apparently the moderator agrees.
She will handle herself just fine....
better than O, at the very least as well. And she is the #2 person...not the #1. We elect him, we get him day 1, and all the experience (limited though it is) is #2 on your ticket.
I will be happy to handle this...
The original poster makes a lot of valid points and should be commended for an intelligent, thoughtful post. What a breath of fresh air it would be if more people on this forum were as perceptive as the original poster.
I think he would handle it just fine...(sm)
However, I don't believe a man should be measured solely based on his ability to fight. I'll take brains over brawn any day.
Trying to get a handle (no pun intended)
on all this. The acts committed by gay couples are 'abnormal'. If those aame acts are committed by a heterosexual couple, do they become 'normal'? I mean, they don't led directly to procreation, so what's permissible? Really need to know how to plan my evening.
Wow, I guess repubs really can't handle a little
You would prefer the rovian style of of GWB & DC dishonest fearmongering to fact? O is not offering up some mushroom cloud ultimatum of do it his way or face doom. He is simply proffering that things are probably going to get worse before they get better, which is also what any reputable economist is saying. There is no quick fix for what we have allowed to happen to our country.
I agree, all are entitled to handle grief in their own way.
It does seem that the grieving parent who chooses not to let his loss become a big public issue deserves just as much tolerance and respect as one who does. I don't think smearing or degrading any parent who's had such a loss is appropriate. We've heard for years now from families who have had losses and still support Bush and support the current war, and to my knowledge no one on the left has made a huge effort to discredit their motives or drag them through the mud or call their behavior "politically motivated." That just wouldn't be respectful and I know I would be against any such effort.
Gee that's funny READER, cuz I never saw your handle on here until the last few days. sm
So who are you Really? Why, I think you are a liar!
Guess we all handle things differently
If I were you I'd just let it go. Not worth the frustration.
Anyway...it's a beautiful weekend here (well if you call 50 degs and rainy beautiful), but it's the weekend and I'm going to enjoy it. Going to make myself a cup of hot cocoa and get warmed up. Hope you have a good weekend.
Yeah, and you cant handle hearing the truth.
nm
For those whose brains can only handle sound byte mentality
For the rest of us, we need a little substance and certainly cannot take wild accusations with no verifiable or credible source in sight and pointless juvenile name calling too seriously on any level whatsoever.
And yes, Lynn is my name, not a handle; geesh I guess another conspiracy in the making. nm
nm
Who would be silly enough to consult with him on how to handle a disaster? Nevermind, forget I asked
Nah, this administration isn't in bed with
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; A01
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate to my knowledge, and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.
Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that gave detailed energy policy recommendations to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is not noted in the document.
The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force, Lautenberg said.
Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on the document. She said that the courts have upheld the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality.
The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation to Congress.
Alan Huffman, who was a Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with Phillips, confirmed meeting with the task force staff. We met in the Executive Office Building, if I remember correctly, he said.
A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the chief executive, James J. Mulva, had been unaware that Conoco officials met with task force staff when he testified at the hearing. The spokesman said that Mulva was chief executive of Phillips in 2001 before the merger and that nobody from Phillips met with the task force.
Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts said the company stood by chief executive Lee R. Raymond's statement in the hearing. In a brief phone interview, former Exxon vice president James Rouse, the official named in the White House document, denied the meeting took place. That must be inaccurate and I don't have any comment beyond that, said Rouse, now retired.
Ronnie Chappell, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment on the task force meetings. Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for Shell, said she did not know whether Shell officials met with the task force, but they often meet members of the administration. Chevron said its executives did not meet with the task force but confirmed that it sent President Bush recommendations in a letter.
The person familiar with the task force's work, who requested anonymity out of concern about retribution, said the document was based on records kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex. This person said most meetings were with Andrew Lundquist, the task force's executive director, and Cheney aide Karen Y. Knutson.
According to the White House document, Rouse met with task force staff members on Feb. 14, 2001. On March 21, they met with Archie Dunham, who was chairman of Conoco. On April 12, according to the document, task force staff members met with Conoco official Huffman and two officials from the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Wayne Gibbens and Alby Modiano.
On April 17, task force staff members met with Royal Dutch/Shell Group's chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Shell Oil chairman Steven Miller and two others. On March 22, staff members met with BP regional president Bob Malone, chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham Barr and Deb Beaubien.
Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001? When there was no response, Lautenberg added: The meeting . . .
No, said Raymond.
No, said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.
We did not, no, Mulva said.
To be honest, I don't know, said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari, who came to the job in August 2001. I wasn't here then.
But your company was here, Lautenberg replied.
Yes, Pillari said.
Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since earlier this year, answered last. Not to my knowledge, he said.
Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Despite everything I know about this administration...
I am still stunned when I hear the next hairbrained scheme, the next faux pas, the next wrong-headed decision (a decision that is so blatantly flawed that my 10-year old neighbor can see and explain what is wrong about it), deliver the next we-will-do-whatever-we-want-and-don't- give-a -flip-about-what-you-people-think-Americans-or-anyone-else speech, then proceed to do it. The litany of wrongdoing surrounding this administration is growing exponetially; I don't know what to be more appalled at first. Last week Bush is offering help to the earthquake victims in Iran and this week he is going to nuke them...and pray tell, what is the rationale for this preemptive attack. WMD?, democracy for Iranians? or something else. I believe it is actually going to take a group of people, a coup, to just go in and remove these idiots from the White House...really. I agree with Harry Taylor, the guy in Ohio, I have never been so ashamed nor frightened of the administrators of my own country. God Help Us All and I cannot tell you how much I really really mean that.
Hug the former administration? I'm no
Bush supporter, but you can't blame Bush for this economic mess. Perhaps you should do a little more research before you go off like a screaming meemie. It was Bill Clinton who proposed everyone should have a mortgage in every pot, whether they could afford it or not, especially minorities, and the chickens came home to roost. Do a little research, kiddo.
LOL, you can't blame Bush for everything. I think the time is coming when all Americans will realize what a decent man he is, the last decent one we will have as a president. If Americans can vote in an illegal ursurper and think he is the Messiah, they sure won't vote for an honorable, Constitution-abiding successor, assuming we even have another election in this country with Comrade Obama in charge along with his Marxist cabinet.
and yet this administration is
going to make it harder for charities to get donations by not making donations tax exempt. They are going to tax people more and they will have less money to donate and contribute. It is sad really. The charities are already receiving less donations, etc. It will only hurt them more.
..and the Administration that has run the US into near insolvency
is any more credible? pleeze....
Yes, and in an Obama administration...
censorship, intimidation, and all the rest. He is already doing it and he doesn't have the job yet. Cannot BELIEVE all the people concerned about civil liberties can't see this....sigh.
With everything they have to say grace over, this administration
will need streamlined, efficient performance. He's sounds like a great pick.
Clinton Administration.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
Here is the link to this article
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Here is another one
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,432501,00.html
I was taught in school if the economy is doing bad now, it was due to the president 6-8 years ago. If the economy is doing well, it is also due to the president who was in office 6-8 years ago.
Since it's almost Income Tax time, here's some interesting facts about the Democrat and Republican tax policies. Just compare - and, while you're at it, use these facts the next time you hear that President Bush only "cut taxes for the rich". Looks to me like someone single and making $30K, or a couple making $60K, got a 46% tax break under the Republicans. That's what I would call taking care of the "middle class".
And remember, the truth only comes out when we refuse to be silent.... Source: www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
Take a gander at FDR administration. Hello.
before the winds of CHANGE blew us in a different direction. There is one thing for sure. Whatever we have been doing over the past 8 years AIN'T workin', and by the looks of things, it is going to take some bold, if not drastic measures to fix it. It is not going to be a walk in the park and most definitely will require us to put the bickering aside, come together and do our parts. When the storm has passed, we can sort it all out again, but from a personal standpoint, I will NEVER forget how we got here.
This is still the Bush administration.
There will be ZERO help for the average Americans who need it. It's like a reverse "Robin Hood." Take from the less fortunate and give to the wealthy.
This is Bush's policy (more like fascism than socialism), and we don't hear a whimper of protest, yet when Obama even hints at helping struggling Americans, everyone yells and screams SOCIALISM.
Bush can still do a lot of damage in the weeks he has remaining. That's what worries me more than anything.
Unlike our last administration....
at least Obama will not accept crooked politicians and they are on both sides of the aisle.
Sorry.........we got this garbage during the last administration
I support my President, now. I did not support Bush, torture, Vietnam II, failure to catch Bin Laden, the failure to protect our own country from natural disasters, Bush's attempt to appoint Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court and a host of other idiotic endeavors he tried to employ or, unfortunately, he did employ. I don't do stupid. IF YOU AIN'T WITH US, YUR AGAINST US! Remember that? Blow me is all I have to say to that.
We had a dictator with the last administration......nm
x
So, you want to try and justify THIS administration?
nm
It's not the past administration?
What color are your eyes? Brown? Thought so.
I know. The Obama administration (sm)
has gone out of its way to be FAIR to everyone (including Republicans), right down to Eric Holder (the Attorney General) taking a look at Republican Ted Stevens' case (prosecuted under the Bush administration) and dismissing the charges against this REPUBLICAN because of mistakes made by the Bush administration.
They're trying to reach out to everyone, but most Repubicans and their followers are returning his outstretched hand of conciliation with a clenched fist.
This is truly sad and does nothing to help strengthen our country. What is comforting is that the "party of no" and their followers represent the minority of Americans.
We became "extremists" with THIS administration....
--
To be fair to the present administration..
There hasn't been a SINGLE PRESIDENT willing to address the borders. I wish Bush would get off his duff about the border too, but if he did put a military clamp down on our border, you'd have a huge uproar from the civil liberties camp. You can never make everybody happy.
As for spending... Most Democrats never met a dollar they didn't want to spend. Wanna have your hair stand on end? Read a synopsis of The Big Dig in Boston, a la Kennedy and Kerry. Talk about a money pit at the taxpayers expense. If only it were a perfect world, but it never will be.
Buying of news..by this administration? Really? For sure!
Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal
Published: October 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.
In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated covert propaganda in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.
The contract with Mr. Williams and the general contours of the public relations campaign had been known for months. The report Friday provided the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.
Lawyers from the accountability office, an independent nonpartisan arm of Congress, found that the administration systematically analyzed news articles to see if they carried the message, The Bush administration/the G.O.P. is committed to education.
The auditors declared: We see no use for such information except for partisan political purposes. Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds.
The report also sharply criticized the Education Department for telling Ketchum Inc., a public relations company, to pay Mr. Williams for newspaper columns and television appearances praising Mr. Bush's education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act.
When that arrangement became public, it set off widespread criticism. At a news conference in January, Mr. Bush said: We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet.
But the Education Department has since defended its payments to Mr. Williams, saying his commentaries were no more than the legitimate dissemination of information to the public.
The G.A.O. said the Education Department had no money or authority to procure favorable commentary in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition in federal law.
The ruling comes with no penalty, but under federal law the department is supposed to report the violations to the White House and Congress.
In the course of its work, the accountability office discovered a previously undisclosed instance in which the Education Department had commissioned a newspaper article. The article, on the declining science literacy of students, was distributed by the North American Precis Syndicate and appeared in numerous small newspapers around the country. Readers were not informed of the government's role in the writing of the article, which praised the department's role in promoting science education.
The auditors denounced a prepackaged television story disseminated by the Education Department. The segment, a video news release narrated by a woman named Karen Ryan, said that President Bush's program for providing remedial instruction and tutoring to children gets an A-plus.
Ms. Ryan also narrated two videos praising the new Medicare drug benefit last year. In those segments, as in the education video, the narrator ended by saying, In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting.
The television news segments on education and on Medicare did not state that they had been prepared and distributed by the government. The G.A.O. did not say how many stations carried the reports.
The public relations efforts came to light weeks before Margaret Spellings became education secretary in January. Susan Aspey, a spokeswoman for the secretary, said on Friday that Ms. Spellings regarded the efforts as stupid, wrong and ill-advised. She said Ms. Spellings had taken steps to ensure these types of missteps don't happen again.
The investigation by the accountability office was requested by Senators Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats. Mr. Lautenberg expressed concern about a section of the report in which investigators said they could not find records to confirm that Mr. Williams had performed all the activities for which he billed the government.
The Education Department said it had paid Ketchum $186,000 for services performed by Mr. Williams's company. But it could not provide transcripts of speeches, articles or records of other services invoiced by Mr. Williams, the report said.
Uh.....what in the world does the administration have to do with recruitment?
Ya know, I am waiting for you to throw original sin in here any time.
WHy don't we check and see which administration started...
borrowing money from China. The Clinton administration took huge amounts of money from Chinese...remember the scandal? Ahem.
yeah, does get worse with each administration.
nm
Oh, I remember the Nixon administration
I think our woes go way farther back than just Bush. The politicians seem to just get worse and worse with each administration. I think in order to fix our government we might all do well to look back at previous administrations and evalulate their performance. I don't remember the Great Depression but I do remember that my parents and people I knew from their generation swore FDR saved the country.
NOBODY from Bill Clinton's administration.
They did enough damage.
Um . . McCain's "place" in this administration?
More than likely, his place will be a nice, large padded room, where he can wander aimlessly as he did during the debate, and not hurt himself as he bumps into walls.
I will blame the Obama administration of course.
If his policies lead us to that end, the blame will lie ultimately with him.
Oh, I see. You are one of the partisans. Sorry for trying to conduct a reasonable discussion with you. Have a nice day.
Sounds just like our current administration....
And the destruction they have wreaked on our country.......keep the mindset. The republican party will have a wretched time climbing out of the sewer from whence they came.
So, if you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country (the decider), steamrolled the constitution (the decider), and will have changed its landscape forever (the decider). If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about... Yes, GW, you will be just FINE.
It's not just our current administration and that's the problem.
There have been way too many leaders in the White House and in Congress that have been stirring up this pot of crap we're in right now for a long time. Now, I'm no fan of President Bush, but he only played a part in this whole production - there are a lot of other guilty players out there.
Yes, the republicans will have a hard time 'climbing out of the sewer', but it will happen because this country wasn't founded on just one mindset of ideas and one group having total control. It's about opposition and balance of power and that goes all the way back to the revolution. Did you know that some people in our early government were ready to make peace with George III and go back to England instead of continue the war? And after the war was won, some of them then wanted to crown George Washington King of America? See how well opposition worked even back then?
Everyone has a right to their opinions, but not all opinions are right for everyone. Even when things falter for one group for a while, they eventually come back - the democrats did after Jimmy Carter.
Feel sorry for the current administration
I feel the president is like the boy sticking his finger in the dyke to stop a flood, except there are too many holes and not enough fingers. While I was glad to see Paul Volcker admit that things are worse than they expected, I really wonder if this econimic slide can be stopped not only here but worldwide. You have to stop and ask yourself, if we were to see another depression like or worse than the Great Depression, what would you do?
|