Why doesn't Obama come clean about socialism?

• A quote by Obama - Kaydie
  • The Obots need to read up on his friend... - onlyinamerica
    • Who cares? - HaHaHa
      • sad - NM - IMT
      • Actually, it is. Contrary to what O would say... - onlyinamerica
      • So, you don't care. -exactly the problem with O - supporters. We may all have to pay for that.nm
    • If the LA Times would release their tape... - sam
      • Thank you, Sam. I hadn't heard of that... - makes me sick to say the least.
      • I heard about it - dispicable to say the least (nm) - Kaydie
        • None of the repubs can spell..!!! It's "despicable." nm - Adeline
          • Um, excuse me, NO spelling police here - read the - rules.
          • thank you for pointing that out - IMT
      • More on Khalidi.... - sam
  • What about McCain, Kaydie? - Stardust
    • How is this bashing Obama? - LRS
    • Why doesn't Obama come clean about socialism? - sam
      • Come clean? LOL. O cant come clean because he - would lose the election!. nm
        • I am not sure ANYTHING would dissuade some... - sam
          • I agree, Sam. Next, you will hear that socialism is - the new "patriotic". they're hopeless.nm
            • A Kaydie clone just spoke! - Stardust
              • Hey, Stardust, are you not the one who accused - Kaydie of racism? lay off people.nm
              • Stop insulting posters! - Just me
                • Calling someone a Kaydie clone was - certainly not an insult...
            • you got the suffix wrong - it's hopeful - nm
              • "Hopeful" for what? socialism? No, they are - hopeless and not REALLY waking up yet.nm

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

He said he has visited 57 states in this country, had 2 more to go.  Now, if this had been Hillary or a reb candidate, the media would still be dragging this through the mud.   Maybe it was just a freudian slip?  Organization of the Islamic Conference?

A little curious.

for the job.  It just means he's good with deception.  Talk about smoke and mirrors! 

I don't know who or what Obama is and I don't know what role he will play in the years to come.  What I do know is our days are number and he will set the stage for certain prophesy to be fulfilled.  Watch and see.

Is Obama The Antichrist?  I don't know.  But the spirit of the antichrist is already in this world.

in order to win over a "moderate muslim" because they are by definition open to Western ideas regarding politics and general ideas.  They embrace a sort of liberal Islam in sharp contrast to the extremist or fundamentalist muslims who have zero tolerance and believe in and embrace the concept of Jihad against the infidels. 

I'm not just talking about muslims who live in the U.S., but muslims around the world.  For example, President Karzai of Afghanistan has been deemed a moderate muslim because of his political ideas which is why he fears violence against him from the extremists in his country.

Get it?  Obama saying that he wants to "win over" moderate muslims is akin to a MTSO saying they want to "win over" Indian MTs to work with them.  It won't be hard and will take very little convincing.  Not to mention King Obama is the "world's president."  Like I said, he's just posturing of the media.  The liberal media loves him and his pretty speeches.  Journalists have become babbling idiots since O burst on the scene. 

for the rich -- and "rich," by the way, is anyone earning more than a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Obama wants to give tax CREDITS to businesses that keep jobs in the USA, instead of exporting them out of the country.

These huge greedy corporations may be creating jobs, but they're not creating American jobs.  Obama wants to try to slow that down and wants to reward companies who don't turn their backs on Americans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090510/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_correspondents

At the bottom of this article, there's a link to watch the video - it's a hoot!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090510/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_correspondents

At the bottom of this article, there's a link to watch the video - it's a hoot!!!!

Our troops are stretched so thinly worldwide that homeland security is compromised.  Ya gotta hear some of the older vets talking strategy...    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiJk6MeBx54

Why?

How the Wikipedia entry of Republican vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin was mysteriously scrubbed clean in the hours before John McCain revealed his running mate

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/culture-tech/2008/09/usa-vote-palin-wikipedia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127_pf.html

Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.

The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.

New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling a major victory for clean air and public health and a rejection of a flawed policy.

It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants, Spitzer said.

In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time.

Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they celebrated the ruling.

Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day, said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give.

President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.

Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their operations.

The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an industrial facility modification, because that is what triggers the federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the exception of routine maintenance.

EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this exemption by asserting that routine maintenance is any activity that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.

EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic, Rogers wrote. Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view.

The other two judges on the panel were David S. Tatel and Janice Rogers Brown.

The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said the decision is tantamount to the court burying the rule six feet under, where before it was just in a casket.

Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad news for consumers and the environment, he said. We believe it is a step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States.

My, must be nice. Trying to pass a bill for clean energy and who is going to profit from this? T. Boone Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels. Nancy and her husband bought #50K-$100K worth of stock in May 2007. No wonder she's pushing it. It means a fortune for her.

Another site states her husband bought the shares alone, but she lives in CA where it's share and share alike.

http://selfinvestors.com/tradingstocks/news/the-pelosi-pickens-profit-plan-with-clean-energy-fuels-clne/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72225

In a story that appeared in the Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers told a reporter while promoting his memoir "Fugitive Days": "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."