This administration is putting USA security in
Posted By: total jeopardy. Unforgivable. nm on 2009-04-25
In Reply to: Well, if they spoke, that means I drop - Browsing through
nm
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
What "Natl Security Policies"? THIS administration
nm
Not as much as putting out an ad from your campaign...
with stamp of approval on it. That says more, in my opinion.
As far as Jewish people...Sarah Palin is going to the protest but on by Jewish leaders protesting Ahmadinejad addressing the UN...so McCain's campaign is supporting Jewish people there in a very public way. That also says a lot.
that's putting it lightly
Putting lipstick on a pig is like saying there's more than a hair's difference between a socialist and a communist. At least a few of us around here get it. Why they refuse to believe that the company one keeps is relevant is beyond me. If I showed up to dinner with Charles Manson or similar, gee, what would that say about me?
The Dems are so used to having govt make decisions for them from cradle to grave. No thanks, BHO, I'm a big girl and can make my own decisions. Frankly, I can't afford those decisions of his, nor can any of the rest of the country.
Have you noticed that this place mirrors the far-left loons like HuffPo, Kos, & moveon? I'm not talking generic Dems. I'm talking Michael Moore, Babs Streisand, etc. Unbelievable!
if he was putting country first, he would have
pick a more qualified VP candidate. That pick was to help him with the base. In the whole country, he believed she was the MOST qualified? Lieberman was his personal choice. But Lieberman certainly would not have gotten him the Christian vote.
Why are u putting blame elsewhere.
I hate to say it, but could be because he is black or arab african.
Well gee - excuuuuuze US, for not putting it
=
how about for putting this country in sm
the worst economic mess it has ever seen and doing it in a matter of less than 5 months? That would be a great start!
But then I guess folks with your mentality can't see the obvious.
You are putting that out of context, Democrat. SM
In fact, the conversation was very polite and respectful at all times. Wow, how two people can remember things so differently. Says a lot.
Great post!! Thanks for putting this up. nm
nm
I don't call that putting down her country....she
_
Perhaps when putting yourself out as an immigration law expert,
x
Scary is putting it mildly.
My 16-year-old is NO WAY going to a barrack to learn civil defense or civil service. I do not mind community service, she does that now, but no way in heck is she going to a barrack for 3-4 months.
I did not ask for this stupid crazy change. I want my ole United States back. It was not perfect, but this has gone too far. Rahm is nothing but scum between my toes and to think of a creation of his Marxist youth corps is %^&&*(*.
The next you know, we are all going to have to get "THE MARK" SOON ON YOUR FOREHEAD OR HAND AREA which we all know is the 666. LOOK OUT COUNTRY HERE IT COMES, YOUR NEW CHANGE. Yes I can, yes I can, yes I can. What for? CHANGE. What kind of change? Heck if we know.
Will never last. Obama is putting us in debt we may
nm
You are putting apples with oranges.,
this has nothing to do with that.
You're putting words in her post.sm
Take it at face value.
PLEASE. I did not say *a lot*. Stop putting words in my mouth! nm
It is all OUR business because we are putting our country's welfare in this...sm
governor/mother/grandmother's hands.
She will eventually have to face those questions of how she can perform such an important job and tend to the needs of her daughter, her daughter's baby and her own baby.
Putting her political ambitions above Bistol
nm
McCain sounds like he is putting his country first...sm
And Obama probably wishes he would have thought of it first.
I just saw Obama on TV just now, and he sounds rather childish about the whole thing, making accusations. Poor Obama.
He lost out on this one, and now he just plain looks bad. Not very presidential at all, I'm afraid.
It is called putting aside partisan politics for the
.
Getting serious means putting blame where it belongs.
Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. All of them had a hand in bringing this country to its knees.
Of course its going to take a long time to get our country out of this mess. This is not instantaneous, and the messes go way back to before Bush Jr. even got in the office. So with that said, it is time to stop blaming past presidents and start looking to the future. Yeah, it would be nice if magic could be spun. But it can't. Going back to Obama's campaign slogan "hope". We have to hope he can pull us out or at least get us started back on the right track. Truth is, he's not off to a good start.
So, time to put down to kool-aid and get a cup of coffee and come back to reality here with the rest of us.
Oh, sure, baby steps.. like putting us trillions
nm
They're always putting out this sort of thing, actually.
...just round-file it.
I answered you, sam. You are putting words in Obama's mouth
show me where O said he would give rebates to people w/o income and show me where he said they would get a tax break. This question has been answered already. Read the previous post BEFORE you throw out another dodge to my still unanswered question about progressive tax system being socialist, the rebate and your outlandish claims about what you think Obama said.
Police putting names of activists on terrorist lists. sm
Dissent is patriotic. I wonder how many people are on these lists. It's creepy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245_pf.html
Putting together job programs in order to get people back to work....sm
able to perhaps save their homes and families, able to pay taxes, which will in turn pay for social programs, support the infrastructure, and then when folk are back to work they will feel secure in perhaps purchasing again, which will help businesses....FDR did it, it takes time, it is not a quick fix, it won't make Obama into Merlin, it took 8 LONG YEARS to get into this bottomless pit, can we give this administration at least a year or two to try to get things moving upward again? I may not support every social program included therein, but work is being done, adn will continue. I used to cross the desert on occasion when I lived in CA, and I am starting to see vultures on the side of the road again circling and not even waiting to pounce and pull apart the government. Why? Just my opion.
Yup, Biden has a hard time speaking without putting a foot in his mouth.
He's like that crazy family member everyone has that they always try to keep under wraps.
Also, because we are white middle class and have a house, we are putting kids through college, ever
nm
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.
Exactly! Look what they did to Soc. Security.
nm
..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. 
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
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
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....
--
O is smarter than JM on nat'l security.
Just for starters, here are a few concepts that would tend to argue in favor of inernational diplomacy...and hes got a brilliantly inspired plan.
2nd clue: He knows that US cannot be a leader in a world that it has alientated.
3rd clue: He understands the concept of common purpose. It is in the best interest of all modern, civilized nations to defeat terrorism.
3rd clue: Understands that securing, destroying and stopping spread of WMDs can only succeed as a a global effort, i.e., we can't be everywhere at once.
4th clue: Recognizes value in renewing and constructing old alliances to meet common challenges and threats.
5th clue: Foreign aid aimed at constructing foundations of sustainable democracies; strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, rule of law, civil society, free press and honest police force.
6th clue: Knows his geography. Appropriage military initiatives against AL Quaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, their home base.
7th: Securing nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states.
8th: Energy Security.
9th: Obama on diplomacy: "The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough — it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. Reagan did this with Gorbachev, who posed a much greater immediate threat (i.e., "We are going to wipe you off the face of the earth") than Iran, Venezuela or Cuba does (for example). He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead."
10th: Obama: "The United States should have the courage and confidence to talk to its adversaries. Demanding that a country meets all your conditions before you meet with them, that’s not a strategy. It’s just naive, wishful thinking."
I realize this is a bit much for the scorched earth disciples, so it really serves very little purpose to really go to far beyond these basic principles, they way that he has. This is was real leadership looks like.
Well they should have the same security clearance
if they are a threat, as Obama is supposed to be. Okay if he gets in, then the FBI can do their thing and he can get thrown out of office, put in jail? or what? What has he done that is illegal??? Do not get it.
We are screwed with McCain also. Face it.
isn't that social security?
We already pay 7.5 of income to social security and employers pay an additional 7.5%. An IC pays the full 15% themself. Is this 5% in addition to that, replacing that or what? Can you provide additional information or a source for such?
|
