Can they see Russia from their house?
Posted By: nm on 2008-10-22
In Reply to: Yes I do - sm
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
Russia
Was wondering what you all thought of Russia's response to President-elect Obama. Are any of you concerned about that guy more so now than before?
I have always been worried about Russia
There was a great quote from 40 or 20 years ago, from a Russian professor, I'll have to search for it. But, basically it said something like, "We will bring them in with good will and kindness, and then we will crush them with our iron fist!"
However, the issue with Russia doesn't raise any concerns over Obama with me. Maybe he can use a little diplomacy instead of just trying to bomb everything off the map, lol!
Yes, I am worried about Russia.
I do not mean to sound churchy, but I have been brought up that it states in the Bible that Russia (known as another name in Bible, but shows it on a map where Russia is) to be very worried. When the country Russia comes into play, need to worry about Amargeddon, The End Times. Not the countries of Iran, North Korea, etc., but Russia. Yes, I am concerned about Russia.
Russia's opinion
We never believe a word they say unless it somehow coincides with our own opinions, huh?
I brought up Russia............sm
because it was an example of basically an exact opposite from what America is. You seem to want to live completely opposite than Americans have lived for the 150 (give or take) years before Madelyn Murray O'Hare started raising Cain (no pun intended) about prayer in schools, etc. While I realize atheists did exist prior to her time, for the most part, they pretty much "lived and let live" much as Christians did with respect to co-existing with them. That is more what I would call "tolerance" rather than getting all up in arms because God's name appears on the currency that puts a roof over your head, food on your table and clothes on your back.
As to the issue of Christian gays and lesbians, I really feel that is a subject more for the Faith forum and would happily discuss it with you there sometime as I have opinions on that as well. (are you surprised? LOL)
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman period. Unless you are married to a woman, then of course I feel your marriage is valid and certainly not worthless. You are really stretching the limits of common sense on this subject with your suppositions.
Your next to last statement is absolutely correct. There is only one way for true Christianity and that is based solely on the teachings in the Bible. People who do not believe the Bible do see it as divisive and intolerant, but like Paul said "the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who do not believe." Again, another fascinating subject for the Faith forum, but I would state that it is not Christians who seek to divide this nation but unbelievers who do because of their unbelief.
With all that said, JtBB, I will say this. I find you a very interesting person and really enjoy debating issues with you and hope you realize that just because our opinions clash some, okay most, of the time does not mean that I don't like you. :o)
Based on what is going on right now with Russia and georgia...
I would say looking in his eyes and seeing KGB is pretty much on the mark. McCain knows who and what Russian "management" are. You can see what they think about negotiations. Basically told the world up yours, if we want Georgia back we are going to take it. Why doesn't Obama go visit them like he did Germany and give a speech about how he is a citizen of the world and see how far it gets him. Sigh....Careful what YOU ask for.
It ain't Russia I'm immediately worried about...
xx
These remarks from Iran and Russia may not
RE: Response to Obama's election by Iran: What I see here is an opening for dialog in the recognition that there is a capacity for improvement of ties, not exactly the "Death to America" sentiments expressed in the past, this despite Obama's statement directed at those who would tear the world down (we will defeat you). I also see several implied preconditions. After all, preconditions are a two-way street:
1. I would be curious to have Aghamohammadi expand on what he means by Bush style "confrontation" in other countries. He is the spokesperson for the National Security Council in Iran, has been involved with the EU, Britian, France and Germany as a nuclear arms negotiator and would be directly involved in any dialog with the US on the subject of nuclear arms nonproliferation. We hardly have a leg to stand in this arena with our current "do as I say, not as I do and never mind the nuclear stockpiles in Israel we financed" approach. My guess would be he is condemning military invasion and occupation, hardly a radical position for any sovereign nation to take. In his own capacity, he should understand the US has unfinished business in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, so it is impossible to know in the absence of dialog what alternatives to military invasion may be possible. It might be worth a look-see.
2. His implied request for the US to "concentrate on state matters" might be seen by some as a little progress, especially since, at the moment, we do not even have an embassy in Iran. This also implies a possible opening to US business interests there (which were abundant under the Shah), a staging ground for diplomacy and establishing an avenue for articulating US foreign policy within their borders.
3. Concentrating on removing the American people's concerns would imply a desire on his part to repair and improve Iran's image abroad.
A well thought out response to these implied preconditions would be a logical place for Obama to start when speculating on his own preconditions.
RE: Russia's recent behavior and rhetoric is worrisome on many levels to more than a few countries in the region. Cold war with Russia is in NOBODY'S interest, including Russia's I fail to see how turning our backs, isolating ourselves or ratcheting up bellicose rhetoric toward them would do anything except give them a green light to proceed. It's an ugly world out there and Obama will inevitably be taking either a direct or an indirect diplomatic role in addressing this issue. Russia has expressed that same expectation.
I agree with you and find humor in the remarks from Sudan. Anyway, wait and watch is all we can do at this point. It certainly beats the heck out of prognostications of failure or defeat.
That is the modus operandi of Russia....
and probably one of the early tests Biden was talking about. I don't think it came as a surprise to him. I am not concerned about Russia's response...I am concerned about Obama's response to them, but we will have to wait awhile to find that out, I am assuming, since he has not formally taken the job yet.
I do think, however, that Russia's response to a McCain win would have been different. They don't need to test him...they already know where he stands (I looked in his eyes and saw KGB).
The commend from Russia was directed at the new...
administration, not the current one. So it is not Bush's problem. Bush admin reacted the way they should have to the aggression in Georgia...and yes, I think Georgia was aimed at the election. Do you not remember Joe Biden going over there because he "friends" with the Georgian President? Came back denouncing the invasion. How long after that was he pegged for VP? Yeah, I would say the Russians were doing a little water testing.
I wish I shared your optimism about Obama. In sincerely wish I did. I sincerely wish he would take a look at Russia and realize that Marxist socialism does not work. But every torchbearer of Marxism that has come down the pike really believes that he will be the one to make it work. Sigh. Those who do not learn from mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
All that being said...again. I wish I shared your optimism. But history should tell you, Russians are not interested in diplomacy. They are interested in world domination and they want to see if Obama will allow them to swallow it up, one little piece at a time. We shall see.
Venezuela and Russia are going to hold
military manuevers near Venezuela.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457106,00.html
This is what Russia thinks will happen
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457550,00.html
Because of our economy, United States will be split: The Pacific area, The South, Atlantic area, etc. As for Alaska? Could be Russia's for the taking.
What is amazing to me about Alaska is Palin. Palin was not to be our next VP, but it sure shows Russia who she is and how she tries to fight for Alaska. Of all states, Alaska came out of no where during the election and shows what Alaska has to offer including Palin who will fight for her state against Russia.
You might find Russia more to your liking......... sm
I'm sure they don't have a church on every corner, "in Gdo we trust" isn't on their money, and if you are lucky enough to even have a TV then I doubt there is a preacher on it. Can't say for sure if their leader knows his anatomy from that of Mother Earth's or not, though.
As for what the right is sacrificing, how about our children being taught in school that homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle, that it is just as acceptable as a heterosexual lifestyle and not an amoral, sinful lifestyle. Or how about having to tell you daughter 'no' when she wants to buy a 'toy' out of those vending machines so thoughtfully placed in every gas station restroom across the country and then have to explain to her why she can't have one. We have to explain to our children what they are seeing when the news runs a story about 2 men or 2 women getting "married" and why it is not acceptable to us.
If gay people want some kind of legally binding union, fine. Let them have it. I'm not the one who has to answer for it, but please don't parade it around on television for the rest of us to have to look at and please don't call it a "marriage." Call it a civil union or domestic partnership or whatever other PC term you want to call it.
Russia's laughing at us, too. Thanks, Obama!
So much for those hopes of Obama 'repairing our image' in the world.
China's laughing at us.
France and England are scolding us.
And Russia's already written our obituary.
"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people."
"The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe."
Here's a link to the article in Pravda:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/
I heard this morning russia is buying up
iceland's debts, guess they are in real trouble. supposedly could be a change in the balance of power (not a good one if you know what I mean)...?
More Czars than Russia...or The King and his Court.
The disturbing thing about these "czars" is that they are not answerable to anyone other than Obama himself, and yet are positioned to usurp some of the powers of the Congress, who did not approve their appointments.
You're looking at a man who is concentrating power in his own hands and setting up a banana-republic type of dictatorship.
We already have a census czar. The logical next step is an "elections czar" - whose position will be justified on the basis of "problems" in past elections. He will "help" us "get it right" this time.
When you see that, folks, the end is near.
Russia against sanctions for Iran and North Korea. Therefore:
U.S. and Russia to Enter Civilian Nuclear Pact
Bush Reverses Long-Standing Policy, Allows Agreement That May Provide Leverage on Iran
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 8, 2006; A01
President Bush has decided to permit extensive U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia for the first time, administration officials said yesterday, reversing decades of bipartisan policy in a move that would be worth billions of dollars to Moscow but could provoke an uproar in Congress.
Bush resisted such a move for years, insisting that Russia first stop building a nuclear power station for Iran near the Persian Gulf. But U.S. officials have shifted their view of Russia's collaboration with Iran and concluded that President Vladimir Putin has become a more constructive partner in trying to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations for nuclear weapons.
The president plans to announce his decision at a meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg next Saturday before the annual summit of leaders from the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, officials said. The statement to be released by the two presidents would agree to start negotiations for the formal agreement required under U.S. law before the United States can engage in civilian nuclear cooperation.
In the administration's view, both sides would benefit. A nuclear cooperation agreement would clear the way for Russia to import and store thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors around the world, a lucrative business so far blocked by Washington. It could be used as an incentive to win more Russian cooperation on Iran. And it would be critical to Bush's plan to spread civilian nuclear energy to power-hungry countries because Russia would provide a place to send the used radioactive material.
At the same time, it could draw significant opposition from across the ideological spectrum, according to analysts who follow the issue. Critics wary of Putin's authoritarian course view it as rewarding Russia even though Moscow refuses to support sanctions against Iran. Others fearful of Russia's record of handling nuclear material see it as a reckless move that endangers the environment.
You will have all the anti-Russian right against it, you will have all the anti-nuclear left against it, and you will have the Russian democracy center concerned about it too, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Since Russia is already a nuclear state, such an agreement, once drafted, presumably would conform to the Atomic Energy Act and therefore would not require congressional approval. Congress could reject it only with majority votes by both houses within 90 legislative days.
Administration officials confirmed the president's decision yesterday only after it was first learned from outside nuclear experts privy to the situation. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the agreement before the summit.
The prospect, however, has been hinted at during public speeches in recent days. We certainly will be talking about nuclear energy, Assistant Energy Secretary Karen A. Harbert told a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event Thursday. We need alternatives to hydrocarbons.
Some specialists said Bush's decision marks a milestone in U.S.-Russian relations, despite tension over Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure on neighbors. It signals that there's a sea change in the attitude toward Russia, that they're someone we can try to work with on Iran, said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Energy Department official in the Clinton administration who now directs the Carnegie Moscow Center. It bespeaks a certain level of confidence in the Russians by this administration that hasn't been there before.
But others said the deal seems one-sided. Just what exactly are we getting? That's the real mystery, said Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Until now, he noted, the United States has insisted on specific actions by Russia to prevent Iran from developing bombs. We're not getting any of that. We're getting an opportunity to give them money.
Environmentalists have denounced Russia's plans to transform itself into the world's nuclear dump. The country has a history of nuclear accidents and contamination. Its transportation network is antiquated and inadequate for moving vast quantities of radioactive material, critics say. And the country, they add, has not fully secured the nuclear facilities it already has against theft or accidents.
The United States has civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with the European atomic energy agency, along with China, Japan, Taiwan and 20 other countries. Bush recently sealed an agreement with India, which does require congressional approval because of that nation's unsanctioned weapons program.
Russia has sought such an agreement with the United States since the 1990s, when it began thinking about using its vast land mass to store much of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Estimating that it could make as much as $20 billion, Russia enacted a law in 2001 permitting the import, temporary storage and reprocessing of foreign nuclear fuel, despite 90 percent opposition in public opinion polls.
But the plan went nowhere. The United States controls spent fuel from nuclear material it provides, even in foreign countries, and Bunn estimates that as much as 95 percent of the potential world market for Russia was under U.S. jurisdiction. Without a cooperation agreement, none of the material could be sent to Russia, even though allies such as South Korea and Taiwan are eager to ship spent fuel there.
Like President Bill Clinton before him, Bush refused to consider it as long as Russia was helping Iran with its nuclear program. In the summer of 2002, according to Bunn, Bush sent Putin a letter saying an agreement could be reached only if the central problem of assistance to Iran's missile, nuclear and advanced conventional weapons programs was solved.
The concern over the nuclear reactor under construction at Bushehr, however, has faded. Russia agreed to provide all fuel to the facility and take it back once used, meaning it could not be turned into material for nuclear bombs. U.S. officials who once suspected that Russian scientists were secretly behind Iran's weapons program learned that critical assistance to Tehran came from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.
The 2002 disclosure that Iran had secret nuclear sites separate from Bushehr shocked both the U.S. and Russian governments and seemed to harden Putin's stance toward Iran. He eventually agreed to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council and signed on to a package of incentives and penalties recently sent to Tehran. At the same time, he has consistently opposed economic sanctions, military action or even tougher diplomatic language by the council, much to the frustration of U.S. officials.
Opening negotiations for a formal nuclear cooperation agreement could be used as a lever to move Putin further. Talks will inevitably take months, and the review in Congress will extend the process. If during that time Putin resists stronger measures against Iran, analysts said, the deal could unravel or critics on Capitol Hill could try to muster enough opposition to block it. If Putin proves cooperative on Iran, they said, it could ease the way toward final approval.
This was one of the few areas where there was big money involved that you could hold over the Russians, said George Perkovich, an arms-control specialist and vice president of the Carnegie Endowment. It's a handy stick, a handy thing to hold over the Russians.
Bush has an interest in taking the agreement all the way as well. His new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions promoting civilian nuclear power around the world and eventually finding a way to reprocess spent fuel without the danger of leaving behind material that could be used for bombs. Until such technology is developed, Bush needs someplace to store the spent fuel from overseas, and Russia is the only volunteer.
The Russians could make a lot of money importing foreign spent fuel, some of our allies would desperately like to be able to send their fuel to Russia, and maybe we could use the leverage to get other things done, such as getting the Russians to be more forward-leaning on Iran, Bunn said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701588.html?sub=new
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Piglet: Kasparov calls Russia's elections...s/m
meaning the recent Putin reelection.....the *dirtiest* in their history.....
http://newsfromrussia.com/news/russia/03-12-2007/102126-kasparov_elections-0
Foreign investors. China and Russia insisted on Fannie Mac bail out.
dd
Our house........
Is a 600 sq ft cottage. The best part about it is the HUGE fenced in yard (for our dogs). It was all we could afford when we were house hunting. It needs work, I would love just a small addition, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. I guess I have to be happy with the fact that we are not drowning in heat bills.
Our old house
was a 24x32 bungalow, 2 bedrooms, 1 bath. Try squeezing 3 boys, a cousin, and a friend in that. We had just finished remodeling the whole thing when we got flooded out. Then we started building the one on higher ground, but the foundation of the old one started caving in from the undermining of the flood water. The floor and the walls spread 3 feet apart. But we lived like that for 3 more years trying to get the new place done. We finally couldn't wait any longer.
I believe the Democrats will take the House
and pick up seats in the Senate enough to make it very even. When Lieberman is elected as an Independent, I predict he will change his party to Democrat when he gets into the Senate, a direct slam at the Democrats who failed to support him. Lieberman, the only Democrat with a spine, will be the big winner. I am not gnashing my teeth about any of this. Democrats are the one who do the teeth gnashing. They have been gnashing since Bush won the first election and their bitterness and sore loser attitudes have eaten away like a cancer all these years. Democrats have no plan for keeping America safe, or winning the war against the fanatics. They have opposed most of the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance methods. They have opposed aggressive interrogation tactics designed to get information to protect us, including opposition to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where detainees are treated better than they could expect if they were detained in their homelands... The terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere don’t speak of timetables for withdrawal or bringing their fighters home. They’re in it for the long haul. They believe we are not. A victory by Democrats will validate their view and encourage them to fight harder. Republicans have been far from perfect in this war. They have barely approached mediocrity in their handling of domestic issues. But to change horses and leaders mid-war is a prescription for a longer engagement, because this is a confrontation that will end only in victory or defeat for one side or the other. That’s why the Republicans need to keep their majority and conservatives need to keep the pressure on them to get back to the original GOP principles that brought them that majority. That’s a better strategy than Republicans acting like Democrat-lite. Unfortunately, I think it is too late this time around. But there is always next time. God Bless our troops.
Bush house
That neighborhood was pricey 50 years ago.
Is this what the US needs in the White House?
??????
I think NOT.
That's where we really need the house cleaning - sm
In the senate & house (congress or whatever that place is where all the politician vote on issues). All of them should be recalled, fired, whatever (and not be sent back to their home state where they can continue with the damage). Pelosi, Dodd, Franks should be the top 3 to go and then quite a few more. People should get more involved in what it is their senator is voting for and if it is not for the good of the people there needs to be a march or something and these so called senators asked to leave. And if they don't leave we need some bouncers to go in and literally remove them from the position. If you have a worker that is fired they are removed immediately from the premises and that should be the way it works with politicians too.
A house divided...
Unfortunately, until we can get over ourselves, we won't. I just wonder how bad it will have to get before we wake up.
I guess we'll find out soon.
A house negro? What?!...sm
I have never even heard that term before. What is a "house" negro supposed to mean anyways?
In the White House, someone who has kept the
nm
I sure wish I could afford to buy a house right now!
Almost 1/3 of the houses in my small town that are for sale are foreclosed. They're all cute little Victorians, and I'd just LOVE to have any one of them.
That's how he bought his house......
With the money paid on his book deals.....yes, frugal by choice and probably habit. If I got that much of an advance on my books, the first thing I'd do is buy a gorgeous house in a nice neighborhood to raise my kids.
My house has been broken into, as well...
a far cry from a war on our soil.
Yes, yes. I have 1/2 mile from my house.
x
Considering what we got in the white house, that's all
xx
we already have a racist in the white house
George Bush does not like black people
Mr. Bugliosi went before the house judiciary...
committee when they discussed impeachment, and they were not impressed enough, even with a Democratic majority, to start impeachment proceedings. What I read about that tells me all I need to know. How a seemingly rational human being can think that one man could so manipulate not only this government but foreign governments as well who said the intelligence was real, and ignore the fact that the Clinton Administration was talking regime change in Iraq, even authored the Iraqi Liberation Act...and still think that Bush all alone and by himself lied to the world (these same people who call him a bumbling ignoramus today) and made them all believe it...you can honestly tell me that he was intelligent enough to pull off that kind of hoax with all the checks and balances of this government and in the world...and you really believe that? It is not that I am a Bush fan...because he has done a lot of things I certainly don't agree with. But to try to blame the Iraq war on one man...and lay absolutely NO blame at the feet of the intelligence agencies, the head of the CIA that he inherited from Clinton, or at Congress for voting for it...makes absolutely no sense to me, and I would be saying the same thing if it were a Dem president people were trying to railroad.
Okay, I won't say anything about someone wanting to sell books, since I have not read Bugliosi's. However, as far as brisk sales, I believe "Obama Nation" went straight to #1 on the New York Times best seller list and may still be there. Have you read that one? And "The Case Against Barack Obama" debuted at #5. Just in case you are interested. I am about halfway through that one, and I am putting it to the test...I am independently verifying every point made (amazing what you can find in public record on the internet). Maybe I am not the only one that needs to move out of my "comfort zone" maybe? Perhaps you should too. You might be surprised at what you find, to coin your words.
Frankly, I am not that interested in Bush. He is on his way out. Like I said...I have several problems with him. But, as much as many people would like to, it is just not logical to blame him alone for the war in Iraq. Any more than it would be to blame Obama if he were in the same set of circumstances, or anyone else. I believed Clinton when he said Iraq had WMD and tortured and killed his own people, and I believed Bush when HE said the same thing.
In Bristol's house, choice was never
Who know's? If she had felt comfortable enough to come to her mother about birth control, she may not now be in the position to (In Palin's own word) "grow up faster than we had ever thought." Furthermore, this begs the question of sex education taboos, both in the household and in the schools, parental controls over acess to education, the judgment involved in making these decision about access to education and birth control and so forth. Guess Plain was having a bit of difficulty balancing her priorities while governor. Of course, lost in the shuffle is the fact that no one will ever know how Bristol feels about her siutation, the decisions that she may or may not have made herself and the national spotlight she now finds herself in. This coming out of the ethics-housekeeper's own house. Unwittingly, she has really shone a brand new light on herself and the issues at hand. Way to go, Palin. John McCain probably knows by now that maybe he should have done a bit more homework before he got himself and his party into this pickle.
I really hope that the house does not approve...sm
the bill from the senate with all the addendums. Why can't we have a clean bill without things being added on? The house vote is our last chance and I hope they don't cave without making changes. I am proud to say that one of my senators, Bernie Sanders-I voted against it, and he IS the most liberal senator, not Obama.
With all the Christians in the house, we can't muster up
Wow. Class act, I must say.
Say goodbye to your beach house
It will be gone if the O has anything to say about it.
White house butler guy.....you can't be serious.
He will be one of Obama's top advisors. You can't be that naive.
As to the Chicago political machine...google it. The Daleys of Chicago...crooked as a dog's hind leg comes to mind...you don't remember the current Mayor daley's dad?
Can't believe you never heard of the Chicago political machine. Obama was part of it, and he is bringing it with him to the White House. Yeah, that concerns me...and last time I looked, I have a right to be concerned.
The White House Butler guy
Ever see One Life to Live. Remember Asa Buchanan's butler, Nigel? Nigel knew more about Asa than his own family. OF COURSE, I understand what a Chief of Staff is. The position still sounds like a great big butler to me...one who sees all and knows all, exercises great discretion and is trusted by his employer.
To begin, I live in a parallel universe from you. I have no reason whatsoever to Google Chicago politial machine. I have seen the term thrown around here and there in paranoid rants and I am also acutely aware of how Chicago politics has been depicted by the right-wingers ever since the 60s...my mom being my prime source on that one (a Goldwater republican). I do not share this world view. When I think of Chicago politics, I think in terms of ideology, but that is a different story from this.
I was simply trying to get you to explain YOUR take on it and also why it is that you find so much fault ALREADY with Rahm Emanuel. He certainly will not be Obama's only advisor. As a matter of fact, Obama is bound to surround himself with many, many advisors from both sides of the aisle who represent a very WIDE variety of viewpoints, all of which he will listen to, consider, draw conclusions, formulate plans and policy initiatives and execute what he feels best. That's my thing. I was simply trying to get you to explain yours.
Humor police in the house....(sm)
The intent of the post was not to compare an embryo to a turkey, but rather simply a joke saying that she would take up one cause but not the other. If you read the posts below you might understand the joke.
However, since you mentioned it, I'm sure I could make that comparrison. Our ideas of when life begins are obviously not the same.
Maybe you should e-mail the White House and
tell them GP wants to know!
Fair Pay Act passes in House
Bet SP and Coulter have their drawers in an uproar of this one.
Bush is out of the White House.
This has nothing to do with Bush. My whole point of this was not to worship Bush here. My whole point was that I was blindsided by our government and I refuse to sit back and not be informed with Obama as president. I want to stay in the know so I can make my own decisions and keep tabs on things. I just think that President Obama has made A LOT of promises already and the man hasn't even been pres for a whole week yet and he has already broken some of his promises. I am going to hold this president and any future president's feet to the fire from now on. I don't care if they are dem, pub, or whatever......
House passes Obama
The stimulus package passed by a vote of 244-188. Eleven Democrats voted against the measure, while no Republicans supported it.
Nice to see the WH being used as a party house - NOT
I can hear founding fathers rolling over in their graves. Who knew that we'd have someone who thinks the white house is his own little party houses with Wednesday night Conga lines. And hey, who needs music awards anymore, their being given away behind closed doors at the WH. If it's going to be a party house maybe they should have the decency to take down the pictures of our founding fathers. What a disgrace!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_en_ot/obama_the_entertainer_2
Just because they live in the White House....(sm)
doesn't mean they're dead. They have the right to entertain at their residence just like you do. Get over it. I like the idea of having a president with a social life.
parties at the White House
President Kennedy http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/The+Kennedy+White+House+Parties.htm
President Clinton http://mediamatters.org/items/200502190003
President Bush http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/13/letter_ed3__5.php
And I found many, many more hits - just too many to post!
Ok sorry, Animal House parties - is that better?
x
Obama in his white house.
//
|
