He is not supposed to attend since he's only the President-elect.

• Obama not going to attend economic - summit.......too busy for our economy?
  • He is not supposed to attend since he's only the President-elect. - Backwards typist
  • Nope...(sm) - Just the big bad
    • huh, I actually agree with you on something...sm - ms
    • That's the best excuse you have for the - incoming president? pleeeze
      • If customary deference to a sitting president by president elect - is an excuse, then yes....sm
      • No doubt there will be thousands more excuses - for him as well.........NM
        • What part of one president at a time - do you not get? sm
          • That's funny....he didn't seem to mind sticking - his nose where it didn't belong
            • You mean the tour McC goaded him into? How about McC - with the Dali Lama? sm
    • then why is he sending people to represent him? - cj
      • One would imagine so he can get bipartisan 1st-hand info - from people whose judgment he trusts. sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_president_elect_/2008/11/10/149643.html

Obama Invents 'Office of the President-Elect'

Monday, November 10, 2008 12:54 PM By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size   Barack Obama has created a stir by proclaiming that he heads “The Office of President-Elect” — an office that does not officially exist. At his first news conference on Nov. 7, Obama stood at a podium bearing a sign that read: “Office of the President-Elect. Also, his Web site, Change.gov, bears the words “Office of the President-Elect” at the top of its home page. Writer Larry Anderson referred to the “made-up little title” on the American Thinker Web site, and declared: “I nearly busted a gut ... “Once again, [Obama] can’t wait to invest himself with the trappings of office.” Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin wondered: “What other make-believe offices are they going to invent between now and Inauguration Day? I can’t ever recall in my lifetime any mention of such an office.” Technically speaking, Obama may not even be the President-elect, according to the American Sentinel Web site. “Megalomaniac Obama’s ego grows even more insufferable,” a weekend posting reads. “Yes, he will be [president-elect]. But he’s not officially yet, until the Electoral College votes. “The Constitution provides that on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, electors convene in their respective state capitals. It’s then that they formally elect the President of the United States, based on the general election results.” The Nov. 7 news conference did not mark the first time Obama has created controversy with a podium. Back in June, he spoke at a podium bearing a new seal that altered the official presidential seal. The seal did include the American bald eagle clutching arrows and an olive branch, but the Latin phrase “E Pluribus Unum” was changed to “Vero Possumus,” a rough translation of the Obama campaign slogan, “Yes we can.” Obama’s seal also removed the shield over the eagle’s breast, representing the president’s oath to defend the Constitution, and replaced it with the letter “O,” presumably for Obama, and the image of the rising sun. © 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

If you pay attention to what Obama is doing right now this might make sense.  Obama is filling his cabinet not only with people who agree with him, but also people who disagree with him.  Presumably he's following the lead of Lincoln who did this with his cabinet members.  The conclusion I come up with is that just because Rahm said it doesn't necessarily mean it will be law.

our conscience guide us politically?

I'm sorry, that is a separation I cannot make.  My faith and religious convictions are part of the whole person that I am.  I vote my conscience.  I want political leaders who reflect my morality.  I also happen to believe there are many Christians out there like me.  There is no "separation" of church and state for me, which by the way was a concept (nowhere specifically mentioned in the constitution) meant to protect the church from the government more so than the government from the church.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that commercial.  There are condom commercials, "personal" lubricant commercials, and penis and sexual performance enhancing commercials -- why would anyone be offended by a pro-life commercial?  The fact that anyone would be offended is a testament to just how twisted society has become!

Not bad for a town whose population is 70,000 people.

http://news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080921/NEWS0107/80921022

Some  the people who voted for O did it because of his promises. Three-quarters of the people  voted for him because of his color.  That's not fabricated, it's the truth.

I, for one, did not vote for him and it was not because of his color. I couldn't care less what color he is. If I did, I'd start posting about how he is half white. That's not the point. I don't know why some people on this board spout racisim just because someone did not vote for him.

I didn't vote for him because of his promises. Like all politicians, he made promises that are impossible to keep. He won the election because most of the voters thought he was sincere and would turn this country around in a heartbeat. I believe there are a lot of voters who will be the first to gripe when it doesn't happen. But then, again, that's just my opinion.  I am willing to give him a chance but I surely don't like being called a racist just because I did not vote for him.

People have to start looking at RECORDS of the people they are voting for; i.e., voting records, any bills they sponsor and why, etc., etc.,  not listening to the spiel. I learned that quite a few years ago and I will not vote for someone who blind sides the public with glorious ideas without a thought as to what could happen down the road.

A president and/or any respresentative of the people has to hold the constiuents thoughts in mind when they are voting. I haven't seen that happen since before Carter. People have to GET INVOLVED in their government by writing to their reps. Otherwise, the reps think everything is honkey-dorey. I, myself, write to my reps a lot.  Sometimes I get a canned reply, sometimes I get a "I will be looking into this" type letter.

Well, I see I just tried to give a lecture, so I'll get off my soap box for now....but remember this: Government is only as good as the people. Keep quiet and they will keep doing the same old, same old. Understand what I'm saying?

Could this mean some things are back on the table? 

Democrats defy Pelosi, elect Hoyer House leader
Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:01 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A week after winning back control of the U.S. Congress, divided Democrats in the House defied incoming speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday and elected Steny Hoyer to be majority leader, a Democratic Party aide said.

Pelosi, a California liberal, had endorsed Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who helped lead the charge against the Iraq war that was a key factor in races for the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The aide said the vote behind closed doors was 149-86.

But Democrats embraced Hoyer, a Maryland moderate who has been Pelosi's deputy while she served the past three years as minority leader. The two have had a somewhat strained relationship.

Pelosi, as expected, was officially nominated to be the first woman speaker of the House.

Now THAT's tripe.........or should I say, our country has been disemboweled and that's why Obama won the election......no matter who voted for him in the MAJORITY.

to distinguish you in particular as not being a pub when you use no moniker? 

pay for all the spending his administration is doing?  I hope this is the final nail in his coffin so to speak.  Remember when Bush #1 said read my lips...no new taxes and he went back on the promise and wasn't re-elected.  Well....let us hope that the 95% of Americans that he professed to not have ANY kind of taxes raised on them will get p!ssed and we can say goodbye to Mr. Obama in 2012. 

Obama outlines the mission to his military leaders, relies upon their input, and, if in his judgment the plan sounds good, he says "okay."

During the last eight years, Bush (who had his "mission" in mind long before 9/11 happened) insisted on invading and occupying Iraq, and every single military leader that advised AGAINST Bush's plan was fired by Bush, right down to Rumsfeld at the very end.   This is NOT how it's supposed to be.  The Bush way was the wrong way, which is one of the reasons people were (still are) so upset with him.