You would prefer he not have staff on day 1? Or have a plan of action? sm
Posted By: In all seriousness on 2009-01-20
In Reply to: Obama didn't wait for his term to legally begin, he started on Nov. 5th. - .
He has done nothing that previous Presidents-elect have not done in the days between election and inauguration.
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
Americans prefer O tax plan
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/27/despite-cnn-distortion-americans-prefer-obama-tax-plan/
who said it is staff?
I saw that one week was for 7th and 8th graders that were hosted for a black history month affair, then one night was congressman, etc. (I think they were they ones that did the conga line; I don't think anywhere I have read did it say that it was for staffers.
On HC and other staff appointees...
I will reserve comment momentarily on the "increasing number of former Clinton staff," to see if you have further comment on my OP. To some extent, I share your concern about HC, but my feelings about her are pretty mixed. Her behavior during the primary was predictably brutal and I am sure she still has her own political aspirations for the future. SOS position would be a definite feather in her cap toward that end IF she meets the expectations as laid out during Obama's campaign in terms of troop withdrawal from Iraq, a more surgical focus on the Afghanistan/Pakistan front, A 2-state solution in the Palestine/Israel conflict and more open diplomacy overall.
Should she "go rogue" on Obama in this regard, she would be doing herself more harm than good. The SOS serves at the behest of the president and what the president giveth, the president can taketh away. Case in point, Colin Powell. In terms of Obama's strategy, I truly believe Obama the fox is in charge of that decision. As a senator. HC has the potential to affect policy on a much BROADER range than she does has SOS. In any case, there seems to be a log-jam of sorts over the vetting of HC in terms of conflict of interests with Bill's financial dealings, so this is still in the wait and see mode.
Again, will reserve comment on the staff picks to see what you have to say after reading the OP. On the economy, I want a little bit of both. I think it would be wise for Obama to select people who are innovative and open to new approaches and even sweeping systemic reforms. I agree with your observations about the current cronies. So far, there is not much to say about this since the only economy-related selection so far has been Orszag, who did serve on the Council of Economic Advisors under Clinton during years that were not exactly disastrous in that respect. In fact, a balance budget was achieved then and in that respect, he probably tried to err on the safe side with this pick.
I think you may be selling Obama a bit short on the cabinet/administration relationship. It is not a foregone conclusion that the cabinet runs the leader. I believe Obama's style will be more or less the "iron fist in the velvet glove." That too remains to be seen. You may want to consider that even former CLINTON people may be interested in propelling themselves into the future world and shaking these types of perceptions. I also do believe there is plenty of room for those fresh faces that we both would like to see step forward, but it is not difficult for me to understand his focus on experience and name recognition in these top key posts. HC has some of the former and much of the latter. If she is not as experienced as some of the other potential picks, it could just be that she would be less independent in this capacity and, by necessity, would have to look to her boss for guidance.
When he was WH Chief of Staff...
he said he knew nothing about ML servicing old Billy boy under the desk....right under his nose. Just think how he'll run the CIA! He's either a fool or a look the other way kinda guy, take your pick!
Obama staff will say cu l8r 2 IM
In W.H., Obama staff will say cu l8r 2 im
By: Ben Smith
January 17, 2009 09:16 PM EST
Barack Obama may get to keep his Blackberry, but David Axelrod is losing his IM.
The lawyers broke the bad news to Obama aides at a briefing Friday morning convened by incoming Deputy White House Counsel Cassandra Butts: Not only are they leaving the modern world to enter a White House where some of the clunky desktop computers still run Windows 2000 but—worst of all—they'll be forced to surrender a form of communication staffers have relied on for the last two years to communicate with each other, outside allies, and the press.
From Axelrod, the chief campaign strategist, down to junior staffers in the press office, Obama's campaign relied heavily on software many of them began using in high school—AOL Instant Message and Google Chat. Instant messaging, though little mentioned, is—perhaps as much as email—deeply woven into contemporary politics and media, whose fabric is the constant, quick, gossipy transmission of spin and information. But a calculus that's perhaps one part security, one part law, and two parts politics, has long barred instant messaging from the White House.
"They just told us flat out we couldn't IM in the White House," groused one senior staffer Friday.
"It sucks. It's really going to slow us down," complained another, saying that lawyers had warned that, along with Instant Messaging, White House software will restrict users to a range of sites roughly "like your average grade school."
The clunky technology is standard issue for government offices, but the bar on instant messaging is particular to the White House. Legal and security experts say it is dictated by the fear of embarrassment if IMs were to be disclosed. The Presidential Records Act requires White House documents to become public five years after a president leaves office, and most lawyers think it would apply to any instant messages discussing government business.
"People have to be conscious that when you put something on paper you think it through," said former Clinton White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum. With IM, he said, "you think you're talking but you're really writing."
The Bush Administration has been rebuked by federal courts for the apparent destruction of emails sent by political aides on non-governmental accounts, and Obama's aides are intensely aware that any instant messages written must be preserved, and will become part of the permanent record, which may not be desirable.
"They're going to realize, once you go inside the bubble, it becomes much more difficult to maintain contact with the outside world," said Reginald Brown, a former associate White House counsel for President Bush. "IMng encourages a kind of casualness in conversation that will be the bane of the lawyers down the line. The reality is that if you want to engage in the equivalent of IMing, you have to pick up the phone."
Brown noted that, along with entering the permanent record after the presidency, the IMs could become public sooner in response to Congressional subpoenas or lawsuits.
"These lawyers - [incoming White House Counsel] Greg Craig in particular—come out of a law firm environment and knows how onerous e-discovery has been for clients," he said.
Instant messaging—like email—also brings security concerns, though Beryl Howell, an lawyer who specializes in cyber-security, said it would be "feasible" to encrypt IM and block potential avenues for viruses.
Others called the policy a reasonable, and perhaps even helpful, way to avoid public embarrassment—and even to inspire more sober thinking.
Hillary Clinton's former chief strategist, Howard Wolfson - who exchanged pleasantries with Axelrod on IM even in the heat of the primaries - emailed that the ban is "probably a blessing. Less distractions."
The instant message ban is just part of a maze Obama's lawyers are preparing to enter, as the 1978 record act faces up to contemporary technology. Lawyers believe, for instance, that any government-related content Obama's aides put on social-networking sites like Facebook and Twitter will be covered by the act and must be preserved.
And the difficulty of Obama having email isn't just that he will have to be careful about what he writes; any message, however embarrassing, that
is written to him must be preserved.
Many veterans of the Bush White House—who have been accused of channeling compromising political conversations to outside email accounts, which they deny—say they've found it intensely frustrating.
"Did you all think the White House just didn't know that Facebook at Twitter existed?" asked Almacy, blaming the lawyers for the archaic feel of White House web operations.
A current Bush aide said the law didn't contemplate the shift of hallway conversations to instant message and email.
"Do you really want every one of those hallway conversations preserved for the official record?"
But the controversy over the Bush emails, and Obama's promise of transparency, make it unlikely that the new president and Congress will pass legislation lowering the veil of secrecy over new technologies. So for now, Obamas aides will have to cope with telephones and email alone, a shift that will afflict Axelrod—whose habit of using punctuation and complete sentences in his IMs amuses young staffers—as much as any.
Asked by email about the impending technological downgrade, he emailed: "I will reply to this by registered mail."
"I don't' think it was necessarily a national security issue—I think it had mostly to do with the records act," said David Almacy, the former Bush White House Internet Director, who noted that to keep IM, a White House would probably have to "work with an external contractor to preserve all that communication in real time."
Obama's lawyers told staff Friday they'd be reviewing current White House information security policy, and the IM ban drew mixed reviews from outside experts, with some saying that could cast the staff into some of the same isolation that Obama, by insisting on keeping his Blackberry, is seeking to avoid.
"Does there really need to be a trade off here? The net effect is that the president and all of his top staff are going to be put into a bubble," said Tom Blanton, the director of the National Security Archvie. "There should be ways for the President's staff to take advantage of the latest IM technology—otherwise they're living in the hothouse, and strange plants grow in hothouses."
Hard to believe the White House is still using Windows 2000!
Chief of Staff or Enforcer?...
Here are a few thing I've found just after a short search about Mr. Emanuel:
Mr. Emanuel, who received training in ballet as a boy, has shown no lightness of step in his political career: would-be enemies are advised to heed the story of a pollster who wronged him and promptly received a large, decomposing fish in the mail.
The intense, eventually successful campaign took a serious toll on him. Colleagues reported that amid a discussion over a celebratory dinner about which political figures had earned the new president's enmity, Mr. Emanuel became so enraged that he grabbed a steak knife, stood up and began reciting a list of names, plunging the knife into the table and shouting "Dead! Dead! Dead!" after each one.
Reflecting on his own foul-mouthed, attack-dog style, Mr. Emanuel has said: "I wake up some mornings hating me too." Commentators have suggested that Mr. Obama, who ran a lofty campaign based on national unity and bipartisanship, has recognized the need to employ a tough enforcer to push through his policies.
There is no defending this action. SM
But what makes you think this guy is a conservative? Did he say that. I read this and I don't see him making a statement. Your signs don't even begin to measure up to mine. I would have thought the cesspool DU could have come up with better than that.
would much rather see action that hoping a
action speaks louder than words, they say
Oh, BTW, you mean that Affirmative Action
that also protected you (I'm presuming) as a woman? Is that the one you mean?
Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff disturbs you how?
could you please expand on your concept of the Chicago political machine? I must have missed those posts in the past.
The President's Chief of Staff is basically an administrative coordinator who oversees the white house staff. He manages the president's schedule, Under his supervision are his own deputy, White House Counsel and the White House Press Secretary. Sounds like an executive butler to me. He has experience as a political staffer and advisor, a successful campaign director and fundraiser on both the state and national levels. Senior advisor to Bill Clinton on political affairs, policy and strategy. Returned to the House of representatives from the 5th district in Illinois 4 times. He must be doing something right.
Though he had expressed his interest in staying in the House and possibly aspiring to Speaker of the House, he has now decided to leave the legislative branch and become part of the executive branch. He seems to be imminently qualified for the job and does not have any direct legislative powers. Please tell us what it is you find so foreboding about the appointment of this White House butler guy.
Bush Chief Of Staff To Obama...Put On Your Jacket
On Wednesday night former Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card told "Inside Edition" that he's not pleased with President Obama's lax Oval Office appearance. (Obama has instituted an even more relaxed weekend dress code.) According to the Inside Edition website:
"There should be a dress code of respect," Card tells INSIDE EDITION. "I wish that he would wear a suit coat and tie."
Card is the first member of the Bush administration to bash Obama, and he's going after him for forgoing a coat and tie.
"The Oval Office symbolizes...the Constitution, the hopes and dreams, and I'm going to say democracy. And when you have a dress code in the Supreme Court and a dress code on the floor of the Senate, floor of the House, I think it's appropriate to have an expectation that there will be a dress code that respects the office of the President."
Card continued, "I don't criticize Obama for his appearance, I do expect him to send the message that people who are going to be in the Oval Office should treat the office with the respect that it has earned over history."
MSNBC dissected the dress code controversy on Thursday morning, and pointed to a similar fashion "faux pas" by President Clinton while in office:
Video
Unfortunately for Card, the New York Times dredged up this picture:
It seems the former Chief of Staff is as wrong as he is bitter.
Link
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.
you do know what Affirmative action is dont you?
My father, the most qualified (HE WAS TOLD) was passed over for the job and it was given to a minority...
dont be so blind that this doesn't happen...
talk about fair. yea how far is that.
If you are not pro-military action in Iraq (which lead to war)...sm
Then we are on the same side of this debate.
Spreading the wealth in action...love it!
nm
I am telling you the action is on the Faith Forum
The election is over and Christmas is probably not coming. They are all getting ready for the end and it is very interesting. I myself hoard spam just in case, and water, and cat liter, but not much else. Good Luck!
Insanity is performing the same action repeatedly
and expecting different results. What makes you think the Supreme Court is going to find any differently than every other court... He was born in Hawaii & is a citizen, and nothing is going to change that no matter how many stars you wish upon.
People's United Means Action
I had heard it before but didn't know what it meant.
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
(Almost five years after 9/11, just how committed is Bush to keeping Americans safe?)
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press WriterFri Aug 11, 5:56 PM ET
While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.
Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.
Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course, Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.
The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security, the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.
Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.
They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using, Sabo said.
Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new leader, former Navy research chief Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, and there is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the future.
I don't have any criticisms of anyone, said Kip Hawley, the assistant secretary for transportation security. I have great hope for the future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior management of this department to make this area a strength.
Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.
The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.
The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.
The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives.
Hawley said Homeland Security now is going to test the detector in six American airports. It is very promising technology and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years, he said.
Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said.
Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents and has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them.
Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual containers aren't suitable for wide deployment because they would bring security check lines to a crawl.
For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors — already in most American airports — to foreign airports to help stop any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto U.S.-destined flights.
A 2002 Homeland report recommended immediate deployment of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid was foiled in his attack in December 2001.
A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively, and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions.
Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.
It is not that expensive, said Fainberg, who retired recently. There was no resistance from any country that I was aware of, and yet we didn't deploy it.
Fainberg said research efforts were often frustrated inside Homeland Security by bureaucratic games, a lack of strategic goals and months-long delays in distributing money Congress had already approved.
There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy, he said.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, a senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said he urged the administration three years ago to buy electron scanners, like the ones used at London's airport to detect plastics that might be hidden beneath passenger clothes.
It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats, he said.
The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.
Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said.
Their House counterparts, Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Sabo, likewise rejected the request in recent days, Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Brost said. Homeland said Friday it won't divert the money.
___
Associated Press writer Leslie Miller contributed to this story.
Abramoff Attended staff-level meetings at Bush White House
White House Silent on Abramoff Meetings
WASHINGTON, Jan. 18, 2006
(AP) The White House is refusing to reveal details of tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits with President Bush's staff.
Abramoff had a few staff-level meetings at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House.
Since Abramoff pleaded guilty two weeks ago to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion charges in an influence-peddling scandal, McClellan has told reporters he was checking into Abramoff's meetings. I'm making sure that I have a thorough report back to you on that, he said in his press briefing Jan. 5. And I'll get that to you, hopefully very soon.
McClellan said Tuesday that he checked on it at reporters' requests, but wouldn't discuss the private staff-level meetings. We are not going to engage in a fishing expedition, he said.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, along with three other Democratic senators, wrote Bush a letter Tuesday asking for an accounting of Abramoff's personal contacts with Bush administration officials and acts that may have been undertaken at his request. The American people need to be assured that the White House is not for sale, they wrote.
McClellan has said Abramoff attended three Hanukkah receptions at the White House, but corrected himself Tuesday to say there were only two _ in 2001 and 2002.
McClellan said Bush does not know Abramoff personally, although it's possible the two met at the holiday receptions.
Abramoff was one of Bush's top fundraisers, having brought in at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney '04 re-election campaign and earning the honorary title pioneer. The campaign took $6,000 of the contributions _ which came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes he represented _ and donated it to the American Heart Association. But the campaign has not returned the rest of the money Abramoff raised.
Supreme Court will not take on BO's Birth certificate . Time for you to take action!
I stated in a previos post a few days ago that BO birth certificate case would not be heard by the Supreme Court. As many of you have said the judges and the Supreme Court are suppressing evidence as to the real situation that many of you do have extemsive, and true facts about. Clearly from your in depth knowledge about this situation, a cover up is occurring, not only by the Federal courts, but by the Supreme Court as will.
As in my previous post I strongly suggest that with the real evidence that you posses, that you most simplyt take action now, and save this country, not only ultimately disallowing Obama to be president, but to ultimately perform the ultimate patriotic duty for yourselves, as well as performing the highest civic duty that you likely will ever do in your lifetimes.
There is another current legal case in the works regarding this serious situation. Thus far the costs for persuing this matter are over $30,000 dollars. This can be found by doing a Google search, donations are badly needed, and if you people will make substantial donations regarding this, the higher the likelihood that the case will be placed in the hands of a federal judge.
The other possibility here is to start as a group, a collective case, pool your resourses to hire an attorney who speecialises in these matters, pay the retainer fees, the attorney's hourly fees regarding the case, and get the case filed in the Federal courts. The fees for doing this are not cheap, but you are MTs and make high paying salaries, so $20,000 to $30,000 should not be a problem here. Even the appeal process that is likely to occur is not out of your range as MTs, as it really only costs about double the amount of money to do so, as again the total expenses regarding filing an appeal would likely only be about $50,000 to $60,000 dollars,, and the beauty of the system is that if you are ultimately successful in winning the case, and you likely would be with the real facts at your disposal, the court costs are covered, and you would become true national hero's!!!!!
I don't understand that with the true information that you posses, why you are not persuing this instead of writing about on message boards.
With the true facts that you posses it is quite likely that you will ultimately win the case, would have completed the highest of civic duties, and will be held in the highest of esteem for finally exposing a person who has committed a terrible fraud, not only to the election process, but also to the federal judicial system, and ultimately going as far as perpetrating that fraud up to and inc;luding the Supreme Court.
I laud you in advance for having the fortitude for persuing this, and look forward to saluting you as well all of of the other American people, for performing the highest civic and patriotic duty that one ever could. It's people like you, that never give up, and get to the bottom of such an important situation. You are the true American heroes.
Affirmative Action has served its purpose. There was a time and place
for it and that time is gone. Affirmative action leveled the playing field quite nicely, but now serves to tilt the scales and make white people the minority. It needs to be done away with. It has run its course.
I prefer Olive Oil myself. Anyone? NM
What term would you prefer? I am sure you have
nm
Neighborhood I would prefer
Well, the one I would prefer I can't afford but that ain't the rich guys fault. We live within our means and don't blame everyone else. I ain't a hate all rich people kind of person. Those RICH people you so detest employ people who actually work for a living. Who do you think the folks you know would be working for if not someone with money to start/open/run a business?
Would you prefer he receive a
declaration of war from these leaders? He can't possibly be responsible for RECEIVING letters from people. This is ridiculous and serves to do nothing but fan the flames of hate and fear. Please open the link I provided and look at the graphs. George W. Bush has completely destroyed any trust, respect or credibility the United States once had. The WORLD wants a leader they can trust. The WORLD simply doesn't trust the Republicans after eight years of Bush. Open the link and see for yourself.
And the thread you started above is simply false. Public service will NOT be mandatory. He's trying to bring back a "Peace Corps" style attitude to America and wants to REWARD those who CHOOSE to perform community service with help paying for their college tuition. The rich kids can still float through and don't have to do anything, but the poorer families -- and they are increasing in the USA every day with every job lost -- are offered a way to help pay for college tuition. That's hardly sinister.
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country" used to hold a positive meaning in this country.
Maybe some Americans have gotten too greedy and spiteful for those words to mean anything today, but they still hold meaning for many of us. 
I think I would prefer Germany,
Austria, Greece, or maybe even Moldova.
I would prefer to teach my
child about it and explain to them that even though this lifestyle is not acceptable, they are people too and we should not treat them poorly. If parents don't teach their children and they bully gay people, dorks, dweebs, smelly kids, etc........the school has every right to punish them for acting that way whether it be writing sentences over and over, calling the parents, etc. You do not have to single out homosexuality and teach this to children as an example of tolerance.
Besides, I said below that on the news they keep talking about how same sex marriage is more accepted by people.....particularly younger people and yet here you are saying that this should be taught in schools because younger people aren't tolerant? So which is it?
You're being rude and obnoxious and I prefer to not
who simply doesn't "get it."
If you feel that invading Iraq is protecting our borders with Mexico, then you are direly in need of a geography course.
Buh-bye.
I simply prefer not to post here. SM
I have a hectic and stressful enough life as it is, as many MTs do. I don't know anything about the other issue. I use to go to MTDaily and there was always trouble there with the ISP thing and their own prejudice. So I don't go there anymore. I suggest that might be an option for you if you feel the way you do.
I prefer to think of them as straight thinkers.
Because, unlike you and others on this board, they understand and realise the dangers we face and have chosen to not make it political. Theirs is not a blind Bush loyalty, much as yours is a blind Bush hatred. That virulent malignant hatred has put all of this fine country, not my own, but fine nonetheless, at great risk. Somehow, despite contrary facts that are palpably clear in the historic record, American and European leaders have managed to convince themselves and the world that the most terrible wars of the 20th century occurred because nations didn’t do enough talking to resolve their differences when, in fact, they occurred because shortsighted, peace-minded leaders (think Jimmy Carter) allowed good intentions and wishful thinking to take the place of an accurate assessment of the identity and intentions of their adversaries. Unless the West adapts more quickly than do canny Islamic terrorists in this constantly evolving war, cease your internecine fighting and stop forgetting what we’ve learned about our enemies—there will be disasters to come far worse than Sept. 11. Sometimes I believe you almost wish for it. I might also add that your incessant q/Bush lied/q mantra is no defense for your actions. But we do know, especially after events in Lebanon and the foiled British bomb plot, that we’re in a war in which failure is not an option and for which repeating ‘Bush lied’ is not a strategy. Americans will not put in power a party that accepts the proposition that global warming is a greater threat than terrorism, that thinks Wal-Mart is a plague on the poor and that wants to repeal the job-creating, economy-boosting and deficit-cutting Bush tax cuts. They will not put in power a party that thinks death is a taxable event and that success should be punished. They will not pass the reins to a party that denies us access to energy reserves offshore and in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and which thinks energy independence means building windmills and hugging caribou. If you want your party to win, stop the constant litany of complaints, with which this board is riddled, and do something constructive. A litany of complaints is not a strategy.
I would prefer her as HIS running mate, but...
I would be fairly happy with either! I have mixed feelings about Hillary, but like I've said, I'm sure she would do a fine job. I just happen to reeeeally prefer Obama.
and you would prefer what, that he say, yes, I am a rock star
x
I'd prefer someone less prone to lying.
Not saying that MO doesn't either. Just saying I would like the First Lady to be more truthful.
I said I prefer to wait for the investigation and
Letting an official process play itself out is what open-minded, objective people do before they make judgments.
I prefer Muslims to Christians!
I find the Muslims I know to be well educated, polite, family oriented, and very gentle people. I cannot say the same for the Christians I have met. This is based on my own personal experience, so there is no need for flaming from the right-wing Christian fanatics.
I would prefer that the government not tear down
even dishonest citizens.
I'd sure prefer lobster to crow. LOL n/m
I prefer my jokes to be funny.
Nothing funny about that post. The only way to describe it is pathetic.
Most of us grownups would prefer to skip the HM
get down to business.
and I prefer the ganja green tea.....nm
x
I prefer Ron Paul..........over Obama or anyone else
__
Would you prefer Obama's arena be less than it was in Germany?
The guy has a great audience and my only fear was he would take on the black agenda when our country if falling apart - There is so much to do.
Yeah, give the man a stage that at least is proportionate to foreign countries' stage given to an American politician. Geesh.
I didn't see crowds gather for anyone else. When a crowd that size gathers for a person, they can have any darn stage set they want. As they deserved it.
Not 'spoiled & lazy' just prefer not to live in their
I prefer the definition of economic meltdown.
Ignore it and your campaign will go down in flames.
I prefer to strengthen the Independent Party
nm
I prefer to keep my focus on the positive measures
give the process a chance to unfold. Had enough of the prophets of doom.
Perhaps you would prefer the "original" I got prior to my editing.....
The Little Red Hen called all of her Democrat neighbors together and said, 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
'Who will help me reap my wheat?' asked the little red hen.
'Out of my classification,' said the pig.
'I'd lose my seniority,' said the cow.
'I'd lose my unemployment compensation,' said the goose.
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did.
At last it came time to bake the bread.
'Who will help me bake the bread?' asked the little red hen.
'That would be overtime for me,' said the cow.
'I'd lose my welfare benefits,' said the duck.
'I'm a dropout and never learned how,' said the pig.
'If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,' said the goose.
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, 'No, I shall eat all five loaves.'
'Excess profits!' cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
'Capitalist leech!' screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)
'I demand equal rights!' yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)
The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)
And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, 'You must not be so greedy.'
'But I earned the bread,' said the little red hen.
'Exactly,' said Barack the farmer. 'That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.'
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, 'I am grateful, for now I truly understand.'
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.
Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared...so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for.
Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.
Hillary got $8 million for hers.
That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.
IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?
I prefer the Dorothy Parker version
(Look it up, they prolly would not let me use the words here....)
If you prefer your pols to speak AND THINK in sound bites, then W's your man!
you've gotten exactly what you deserve. It's unfortunate for the rest of us -- those who can process whole ideas -- that we got what you deserve as well.
Al Gore is a brillliant, articulate, experienced politician who speaks the truth. This oountry is a train wreck. Intelligent, thoughtful public discourse has been replaced by jingoism. A president spouting platitudes and repeating the same refrains over and over again in answer to serious issues brought us the debacle that is Iraq and the tragic spectacle of the Superdome after Katrina.
I'm pretty sure that what I have to say is going to go over the heads of some of the posters on this board, because it's your fear of real ideas that got us where we are.
I prefer watching re-runs of Colin Powell's
nm
|
