W puts money in blind trust It's been 8 yrs since
Posted By: he spoke to the trustees jj on 2009-01-14
In Reply to:
but claims he lost money in the meltdown. Guess economics was/is not his strong suit. This makes me wonder if his economic advisors were ever able to dumb down their reports enough for W to be able to understand them. Just 6 more days, praise the Lord.
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
Cant trust anything Moore puts out there
nm
At least McCain's wife puts her money into
I haven't seen anything on that. I see where she helps her own race. I haven't heard anything about her helping children with health problems like Mrs. McC.
If anyone has any proof that Mrs. O does help others, I'd seriously like to know about it.
not as badly as Obama...don't trust him at all...Mccain maybe a couple of degrees more trust...sm
Not much, but just a little. I will not condone someone (Obama), who makes my "crap detector" go off every time I see and hear him.
Don't trust a word he says.....he is bad, bad news bears.
It puts you
at the top of my list of level-headed Christians from whom the rest of the party/religion could learn a thing or two, & that is no lie.
I am quite reassured to know that there are some very religious people out there who still manage to separate church & state. I wish there were more of you, or at least, more who were willing to insist that this view be part & parcel of the Republican party. If there were, I'd still be a Republican, but I left the party long ago because of its exclusionary principles.
Still, nobody puts a gun to their heads
and makes them sign on the dotted line. You can always change your phone number and address.
Personaly, I don't believe much of that crap you're posting is true. I know recruiters can be persistent, but all this conspiracy theory is just that, conspiracy.
Bush puts name to everything...sm
|
|
|
|
|
Bush puts name to everythingBy Tim Reid
|
|
|
President Bush has become the longest-sitting President since Thomas Jefferson — who occupied the White House between 1801 to 1809 — not to exercise his veto, surpassing James Monroe.
Monroe had been in office for 1,888 days before he vetoed his first Bill on May 4, 1822. Jefferson, America’s third president, never exercised his veto.
Yesterday was Mr Bush’s 1,889th day in office. Congress has sent him 1,091 Bills and he has signed them all. His refusal to wield the veto has angered fiscal conservatives. They have become dismayed by his failure to block legislation stuffed with “pork barrel” special interest projects, at a time of growing national debt and runaway spending.
Last month Mr Bush threatened to veto legislation aimed at blocking a sale of US port operations to a Dubai company. He was saved from a showdown after the company sold that part of its interests to a US entity.
Ronald Reagan vetoed 78 Bills, and Bill Clinton 36.
|
|
|
|
|
I will bet that he puts his pants on one
DH does! He really is JUST A MAN, his s**t stinks just like the homeless beggars hanging around DC. He really is JUST A MAN. This isn't even humorous any more, just beyond anything I have ever heard. He will never be "one of us", he has himself on too high a podium to drop to some peon's level.
That puts you in the 26% range...(sm)
according to a recent poll asking the question of whether or not Americans felt safe with Obama.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/13/cnn-poll-obama-not-making-us-less-safe/
Looks like you're still in the minority, a rather small one at that.
That puts you in the 26% range...(sm)
according to a recent poll asking the question of whether or not Americans felt safe with Obama.
[Exert] "Seventy-two percent of those questioned in the poll released Monday disagree with Cheney's view that some of Obama's actions have put the country at greater risk, with 26 percent agreeing with the former vice president."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/13/cnn-poll-obama-not-making-us-less-safe/
Looks like you're still in the minority, a rather small one at that.
I don't think that puts his reputation on the line
If Obama gets elected and he is truly as bad as we think, then we will know God has brought the judgment on us. Serves us right too.
God rarely answers when you try to bargain with him. Praying "prove to me by doing such and such" doesn't seem to bear much fruit from what I've seen. It should be "your will be done"
Flame away.... ;)
This how he puts his campaign coffers to their best use,
oh brother
It is words. When he puts that into action....
I will begin to trust him. His actions will dictate what he meant by that...and if it was just words or sincerity. Since almost everything he is for I am against, I don't see how he could hear my voice, with all due respect. But time will tell. His actions will determine what he meant.
As long as SP puts herself out there and threatens to
she will draw volleys from the firing squad. Truth is that this relentless criticism is the best thing that can happen for the GOP, who needs to turn their eyes in a MUCH different direction when it comes to the leadership void. If they cannot move themselves more toward the center, they are doomed to fail again.
Voucher Program Puts D.C.
And I hope God puts some love and
//
Printing money we dont have? Borrowing money
nm
Prosecutor Puts Bush in Spotlight
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/washington/11leak.html?hp&ex=1144728000&en=cfd85f2bec48b42b&ei=5094&partner=homepage
April 11, 2006
White House Memo
With One Filing, Prosecutor Puts Bush in Spotlight
WASHINGTON, April 10 — From the early days of the C.I.A. leak investigation in 2003, the Bush White House has insisted there was no effort to discredit Joseph C. Wilson IV, the man who emerged as the most damaging critic of the administration's case that Saddam Hussein was seeking to build nuclear weapons.
But now White House officials, and specifically President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have been pitched back into the center of the nearly three-year controversy, this time because of a prosecutor's court filing in the case that asserts there was a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to undermine Mr. Wilson.
The new assertions by the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, have put administration officials on the spot in a way they have not been for months, as attention in the leak case seems to be shifting away from the White House to the pretrial procedural skirmishing in the perjury and obstruction charges against Mr. Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr.
Mr. Fitzgerald's filing talks not of an effort to level with Americans but of a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson. It concludes, It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish Wilson.'
With more filings expected from Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor's work has the potential to keep the focus on Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney at a time when the president is struggling with his lowest approval ratings since he took office.
Even on Monday, Mr. Bush found himself in an uncomfortable spot during an appearance at a Johns Hopkins University campus in Washington, when a student asked him to address Mr. Fitzgerald's assertion that the White House was seeking to retaliate against Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Bush stumbled as he began his response before settling on an answer that sidestepped the question. He said he had ordered the formal declassification of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in July 2003 because it was important for people to get a better sense for why I was saying what I was saying in my speeches about Iraq's efforts to reconstitute its weapons program.
Mr. Bush said nothing about the earlier, informal authorization that Mr. Fitzgerald's court filing revealed. The prosecutor described testimony from Mr. Libby, who said Mr. Bush had told Mr. Cheney that it was permissible to reveal some information from the intelligence estimate, which described Mr. Hussein's efforts to acquire uranium.
But on Monday, Mr. Bush was not talking about that. You're just going to have to let Mr. Fitzgerald complete his case, and I hope you understand that, Mr. Bush said. It's a serious legal matter that we've got to be careful in making public statements about it.
Every prosecutor strives not just to prove a case, but also to tell a compelling story. It is now clear that Mr. Fitzgerald's account of what was happening in the White House in the summer of 2003 is very different from the Bush administration's narrative, which suggested that Mr. Wilson was seen as a minor figure whose criticisms could be answered by disclosing the underlying intelligence upon which Mr. Bush relied.
It turned out that much of the information about Mr. Hussein's search for uranium was questionable at best, and that it became the subject of dispute almost as soon as it was included in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
The answer to the question of whose recounting of events is correct — Mr. Bush's or Mr. Fitzgerald's — may not be known for months or years, if ever. But it seems there will be more clues, including some about the conversations between Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.
Mr. Fitzgerald said he was preparing to turn over to Mr. Libby 1,400 pages of handwritten notes — some presumably in Mr. Libby's own hand — that could shed light on two very different efforts at getting out the White House story.
One effort — the July 18 declassification of the major conclusions of the intelligence estimate — was taking place in public, while another, Mr. Fitzgerald argues, was happening in secret, with only Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby involved.
Last week's court filing has already led the White House to acknowledge, over the weekend, that Mr. Bush ordered the selective disclosure of parts of the intelligence estimate sometime in late June or early July. But administration officials insist that Mr. Bush played a somewhat passive role and did so without selecting Mr. Libby, or anyone else, to tell the story piecemeal to a small number of reporters.
But in one of those odd twists in the unpredictable world of news leaks, neither of the reporters Mr. Libby met, Bob Woodward of The Washington Post or Judith Miller, then of The New York Times, reported a word of it under their own bylines. In fact, other reporters working on the story were talking to senior officials who were warning that the uranium information in the intelligence estimate was dubious at best.
Mr. Fitzgerald did not identify who took part in the White House effort to argue otherwise, but the evidence he has cited so far shows that Mr. Cheney's office was the epicenter of concern about Mr. Wilson, the former ambassador sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to determine what deal, if any, Mr. Hussein had struck there.
Throughout the spring and early summer of 2003, Mr. Fitzgerald concluded, the former ambassador had become an irritant to the administration, raising doubts about the truthfulness of assertions — made publicly by Mr. Bush in his State of the Union address in January of that year — that Iraq might have sought uranium in Africa to further its nuclear ambitions.
Mr. Wilson's criticisms culminated in a July 6, 2003, Op-Ed article in The Times in which he voiced the same doubts for the first time on the record. He cited as his evidence his 2002 trip to Niger, instigated, he said, because of questions raised by Mr. Cheney's office.
Mr. Wilson's article, Mr. Fitzgerald said in the filing, was viewed in the Office of the Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president (and the president) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq.
Mr. Fitzgerald suggested that the White House effort was a plan to undermine Mr. Wilson.
Disclosing the belief that Mr. Wilson's wife sent him on the Niger trip was one way for defendant to contradict the assertion that the vice president had done so, while at the same time undercutting Mr. Wilson's credibility if Mr. Wilson were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism, Mr. Fitzgerald's filing said.
I think Lieberman puts Country first. -has guts.nm
nm
Thanks for the article, puts O in a good light really.
Told me how he is trying to rein in the lobbyists and get spending under better control and not things as usual in DC. I am Obama girl, thanks for posting!
Nice post Katie. It's the electorial vote that puts
the R or D candidate in the Big House, not "We The People" as stated in the Constitution.
Regarding your comment on "armed guards," it got me thinking.....maybe the men and women in the US military should be the deciding or only voters. After all, it is they who protect and defend us from harms way. I have nothing but the highest admiration for them for risking their lives each and every day...and who for? US-the people. That's a he11 of alot more than Congress or the entire presidential staff do, IMO.
It takes money to make money. nm
Well...if it puts Obama in a good light, it is probably owned by George Soros. nm
nm
We are blind.
We have become so successful that we have gotten a bit big for our britches here. Until 9/11, we thought nothing would happen on our own shores. Other countries hate us. When we declared war in Iraq, almost everyone turned their backs on us. Yet we continue to ship American jobs out of the country. We continue to buy food and products from other countries that may not have the best regulations. Here we have people's medical histories on our computer screens and the same information could very easily end up on someones computer screen in India to be typed. The outsourcing of transcription, in my opinion, is one of the dumbest things we have ever done. We are so arrogant that we often don't stop to see the big picture.
I love our country and I'm proud to be an American, but I am rather disappointed in how things are going in our country. We are in deep crap here and I hope and pray that we will get some people in Washington who have a brain and can change things for the best....granted....nothing can be a quick fix and I can't imagine things changing for a few years at least. I want a good change though. I won't vote for change just because it is different. What is the point of change if that change doesn't help in the long run?
You are so blind!
All you want to do is sit around and complain about things and point at one political party for the blame. You list issues like the war, economy, etc.....and yet when someone actually responds with information, you simply ignore it and say it is nonsense. What is nonsense is the fact that you never rebuttable with anything of significance. For once, post something of substance.
I'm not blind.
He has addressed the issues that are important to me personally.
John McCain and his cronies, on the other hand, only recently discovered there IS a middle class in the USA, you know, the "whiners."
you are so blind nm
There are none so blind as......... sm
those who will not see.
Personally, and bash away if you want, I feel that Bush did as good of a job as he could have with the hand he was dealt. I daresay no one on this board could have done a better job. If you want to bash me for that, get out the hammer, but I will not get into a shouting match with anyone here. Last time I checked, this was a free country (how much longer I will be able to say that remains to be seen) and I am entitled to my opinions.
I particularly liked this passage from this article and feel it speaks volumes of the climate in America today, not just on a national front but right down to the smallest governmental divisions, like small towns and schools.
"Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them."
There Is None So Blind As He Who Will Not See
If you choose to live in ignorance, it's up to you.
Wallow in it for all I care. Apparently you enjoy your intellectural oblivion, like all the other obamazombies.
And, seriously, 'babycakes?'
What are you, 9? Does your mommy know you're on her computer, dearie?
There are non so blind as those who will not see.
Personally, I hope you guys keep this up indefinitely since (as some of the GOP leaders have pointed out) it undermines the party's credibility and makes them all look like a bunch of fools.
How blind.........
First of all, O'Reilly has never ever suggested the man deserved what he got or anything close. That has even been talked about on his show with others saying he never suggested violence against this man, so quit regurgitating garbage you hear on liberal hate mongering outlets.....
Let's remember 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.... the man who killed Dr. Tiller should be prosecuted just like anyone else who takes another's life like that; however, keep in mind, Dr. Tiller has been murdering also by the thousands for many decades. He too was a murdered.
Why should O'Reilly be accountable for anything? Remember FREE SPEECH? He can say whatever he pleases just like the liberals who love to back abortionists.
"Are anti-choice groups celebrating today? An abortion doctor is dead so women won't have unwanted pregnancies!
I personally never celebrate anyone being murdered, even this man, even though I find it hard to understand how he could even step foot in a church knowing he murders the very lives God put here. Very hypocritical to say the least. But that is now between him and God...
Too bad you're so worried about the anti-choice groups you BELIEVE to be celebrating this man's death but you show no compassion at all for the babies he murdered for decades! Where's your concern for those children?
How about the war on terror including people like this doctor who slaughtered near-term babies for decades.. what exactly would you call him?
You are so narrow minded that you don't even get that there are many people who are against abortion that do not consider themselves religious.... you seem to be stuck on the term "religious" for some reason...
What do you call groups that push for murder of these unborn children? They're not TERRORISTS?!! What a hypocrit!
I trust him
and I think we're all going to be very surprised at what comes out in the Libby trial, and I don't think the dems and their cohorts in the mainstream media are going to come out in a good light.
BTW, I love how you state your opinion as fact. You should get a job in the MSM. They would love you.
Trust
but Verify - Ronald Reagan considered a great pres by repubs. They don;t often mention the rest fo the statement "the cake will be there when you return."
trust
and what do you REALLY mean by your reply??
trust you?
dont' think so. I dont care what Obama's religion is or how he was raised. I dont care if his preacher did preach racist comments. That does not make it okay for you to be racist, or for me to be racist. Just because someone else may be ignorant doesnt make it okay for you to be ignorant. You talk about change, or doing something about prejudice, what are YOU doing? You arent trying to stop it by getting on here and BEING prejudice. So get over yourself please! I mean, come one are you 5? Didn't mommy teach you that just because someone does something mean to you, it's not okay to do it back? Grow up. And as far as Acorn is concerned, just because they slap some pictures of black people that are related to Acorn, doesnt mean that it is a racist group. Did they do something wrong with the votes? I believe so. Does it mean they are racist? NO. Geeze, people get a life.
I don't trust EITHER of them but
McCain flapping his wings and crowing about "when I was in the Hanoi Hilton," etc.etc, completely turned me off. Not that I didn't and don't respect his service to the country, I was already aware of it and his constant crowing made it sound a tad too much like bragging or tooting his own horn for my liking. Then when he appointed Palin as his running mate, that REALLY blew it.
Now about Palin. The fact that she has no "experience in Washington" is not a bad thing as far as I am concerned. I have called her an "airhead" and continue to do so. Is she really an airhead? None of us really know. Her speech at the Republican convention was obviously scripted. She delivered it well. Then they would not let the media at her for (wishfully) unscripted interviews until they had had at her for brainwashing. Then they set her out as a pit bull attacking Obama...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE. She continues with her pre-programmed speeches. She might be the sweetest cookie on the sheet but we'll never know. She ALLOWED herself to be programmed into what she is. A reformer? I think not. Had she have been a true reformer, once she was appointed, she might have come out swinging with something like, "look, folks, I'm running on the Republican ticket but I don't agree with them and I don't agree with the Democrat leadership either. Here is what I will TRY to do for you......" It would have given the RNC heart failure but I, for one, would have voted for her, not McCain. As I see it, Palin=McCain=Bush and we don't need 4 more days of Bush policies, much less 4 more years.
Who can you trust?
Weapons of mass destruction. Patriot Act. Wire taping. Abu Ghraib. Guantanamo Bay. Fannie and Freddie. Bernanke and Paulson. Bush and Cheney............
Trust me, he definitely did not want
tainly did not remain neutral, after all, he does report for CNN remember. It will definitely be one-sided.
Oh trust me....
our ball park is a smoke free area and there are still those smokers who think it is okay to smoke. When I'm anywhere near cigarette smoke my sinuses clog up and I get a major headache. It irritates me that I can't even watch my 5 y/o's T-ball games without a major headache from some inconsiderate twit who can't follow the no smoking rules.
Trust me....(sm)
It was not the LGBT community's idea to put this to a vote. Why would you think that they would do that when they are an obvious minority? That idea came from evangelicans, and the advertising before the vote was bought and paid for by the religious community.
Just keep in mind...if they had brought the subject of whether or not women had the right to vote in this country to a popular vote, it probably would not have passed.
Trust me, .- aka ( ) aka P******
with a new e-mail address and a new monicker but the same disruptive style (which is getting pretty easy to recognize). She needs a new hobby, or a library card or something else to occupy her time. Maybe nobody else will play with her? I think the best way to handle this is not open her posts and definitel never respond to them.
You are cold, blind to yourself and obviously
My question for you would be the same as the question the OP asked Sam. Who do you hate more? Blacks, the poor or Dems? Unless you are truly interested in knowing exactly what happened there and why people could not get out, I will not dignify your post with my time, much less my comments, other than to say that people there did not refuse to leave....they could not get out. 1863 people died in that city behind broken levies.
Here's one issue you might consider. Funding for the levies/US Corps of Engineers who are responsible for their maintenance…repeatedly cut to fund Iraq and tax cuts for the rich, despite repeated warnings of the need to shore up, maintain and/or replace them. The literature is out there for those who are interested. Let me say this much loud and clear. By no means is this the only factor. It is one of many. You show no real interest in understanding this and therefore, I have no real interest in debating with this kind of uninformed rhetoric.
I have lived on the Gulf Coast all my life. When Katrina happened, I was paying close attention. To blame the victims of this horror IS cold-blooded. You want to be that way, fine. No problem. But I will not stand by and be silent when I see this kind of stupidity. Whether you care or not, besides the 1863 who died there, there are refugees from Katrina in the 10s of thousands from the incompetence and failures of FEMA, withholding of federal emergency funds to the most heavily stricken areas, either deliberate or as a result a president who does not know how to read a map. Declaring emergencies is his job. At the very least, take a look at this map and tell me there isn't something wrong with this picture.
And by the way, this is not just about what happened during the storm or its immediate aftermath. This is also about failures that were NOT local leadership that occurred over and over and over again over months and years in the aftermath.
http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/637/1/
map
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/01/AR2005090102261.html
Bush Undercut New Orleans Flood Control
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/blumenthal/2005/08/31/disaster_preparation/
No one can say they didn't see it coming
Blind faith.....
In a way it is. I have faith that God is there for me. That doesn't mean things are sugar and honey all the time, because they're definitely not.
Jesus ask of to just have the faith of a mustard seed. He is asking us to have no more faith than that of the size of a mustard seed, which is meniscule, and you will be surprised where that will take you. You know, we are asked to ask questions of God, to seek him, and ask Him to prove Himself. What better way for God to show us his love than to ask Him to prove himself?
You might just see great things happen in your life.
The only blind eye here was turned toward
nm
It is sad that people are that blind.
.
not blind or ignorant
I was going to vote for O but found that I just cannot due to the abortion issue. Do I like McCain. NO. So I am stuck. But not everyone that doesnt vote for O is a racist or stupid or blind. Just an FYI
Are you so blind as to what's happening in
this country that you truly still think McCain should've won? Do you not see what republicans do to our economy EVERY TIME? Are you enjoying this Bush Depression which is only just beginning? Our only hope is that Obama can at least slow it down, but Bush has already done the damage. Unemployment rates are soaring, homelessness is soaring, jobs are flying overseas with the blessing of republican corporate tax cuts and loopholes, the deficit is astronomical now, etc. etc. etc. The rich are getting richer & the middle class is getting poorer. It's a deja vu of the Reagan/Bush years. Get your head out of the sand & pay attention to what's happening economically to this country. I don't give a flying flip about this idiotic birth certificate argument or any of the other thousand fake issues Fox has invented to get it's viewers fired up. What I DO care about is the economy & Americans losing their jobs and homes because of republicanomics.
Plus PM Brown is going blind. nm
xxx
Hmm, I would say most do not trust government.sm
Fear and paranoia are a given, they instill it in us 24/7. Viewership of MSM outlets is way down, so I guess Fox would be #1 with just Bush supporters. I want truth and accountability from the media and our elected officials period. I dumped the Republican party because we are not getting truth or accountability. I will vote for the first candidate that does something about it.
Politicians - I don't trust ANY of them
Especially ones who will have anything to do with Clintons (both of them) or any of Clintons cabinet people.
Sure as h--- can't trust McPain.
He'll have the middle class in complete shambles, a war in Iran, forget an education for your kids, infrastructure will be in shambles as now, and oil will still be our staple. No change, just more BS.
I trust him to smile
charmingly when someone puts one of the silly distraction issues to him. He brushes it off and continues to work on plans for correcting the financial disaster brought about by McClain's deregulation legislation with Phil Gramm, ending the senseless war, and the dozens of other serious issues that we are facing.
|