Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Democrat hasn't won the presidency yet.

Posted By: Can't wait until they do, though. sm on 2008-09-04
In Reply to: Afer 8 years of W, nation deserves good chuckle. - Good times, too. As we saw at DNC...sm

Mostly because I can't wait to see what you all have to say when the country is still in shambles with a Democrat behind the wheel. I can't believe you all actually think a Dem in office will help. Entire Congress is Dem right now. What has it done lately?

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

What would an Obama Presidency Mean?

What Would an Obama Presidency Mean?

by Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr.

The Democrat Party has for years given lip service to the African-American community. They have talked about prominence without fulfilling the promise. They patronize without empowering. Worst of all, this unholy bond has done more to decimate and deplete our community than slavery and Jim Crow laws ever could have accomplished. This allegiance has destroyed millions of our children; children created but denied access to the American dream, children aborted.

The Democrat Party has been a major contributor to the African American slippery slide down the slope of depravity. It has caused our community to deny the God of our Fathers and ignore the counsel of His Word. This Word brought us up and out of Egypt. This Word broke the chains of a terrible bondage and established us in the path of upward mobility and prosperity.

Our loyalty to this political regime has vexed our leaders and organizations. Institutions that were birthed to advance the causes of Afro-Americans, now in their ignorance, lobby for our decline. NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, Rainbow Coalition, Urban League, the list goes on and on. All of these were once heralded groups with anoble past and great historic accomplishment. Today, they are stymied by this ungodly tie. Rev. Jessie Jackson, AL Sharpton, Julian Bond, Joseph Lowery are all allied in party and, in the process, have lost their souls. What happened to the God of Dr. Martin Luther King?

Despite this deplorable behavior of our perceived leadership, the winds of change have begun to blow. Pastors and leaders in the Black community have begun to remember their roots and realize they are chained to mediocrity and complacency. There has been a consistent flow of Afro-Americans making their way back to freedom. This has sent shock waves through the present Democrat leadership. While we are yet somewhat in a vacuum of solid Afro-American leadership with true integrity (there are many on the horizon not yet recognized), we are once again being wooed by the oppressor’s ploys to stay on the plantation. Staying where there is little reward and where our lives and votes are taken for granted. Once again it is someone of our own ethnicity, our own race being used. The Democrats have deployed a new pied piper in a desperate attempt topreserve their self serving party.

New face, same tune. The song being played is from the movie “The Culture of Death.” The goal is to fill the seats with Afro-Americans in the theater of apostasy. Why? Because if the current trend continues the Democrat party could soon be performing in their final act.

Enter Sen. Barack Hussein Obama (D-Ill), who is truly turning out to be one of the greatest performers of all times. Obama’s biggest act is that he calls himself a Christian.

Howard Dean, Chair of the Democrat National Committee, scripted most of the scenes in this production starring Obama. Dean outlined an approach that will emphasize outreach to evangelicals. He said, “People of faith are in the Democratic Party including me.”

Listen to this line. Obama stated, “As I travel around this state, I don’t get asked about gay marriage, I don’t get asked about abortion, I get asked ‘How can I find a job that allows me to support my family?’ I get asked, ‘How can I pay those medical bills without going into bankruptcy.’” (Taken from a reply to questions asked during the Ill. Senate campaign)

We are deeply troubled, but not surprised at the Senator’s remarks. One would only have to look at Obama’s consistent support and advocacy for the gay agenda and the abortion industry to understand. As a longtime activist for children in the womb (the most discriminated against segment of our society) and proponent for family values, I am horrified at this man’s voting record. Anytime Planned Parenthood gives you a 100% rating, all Americans should cringe in fear because they are the leading abortion provider in the nation.

Each day, 1452 African Americans are murdered by abortion, 4,000 children over all.

There have been over 15 million African American children dismembered in the womb by the abortion holocaust and as many women victimized.

As an elected official, should anyone have to ask you about abortion to make it your concern?

Marriage, since the 1970s, is down 17% in America and in the African Community it’s down 34%, which is twice the national average.

Should Barack Hussein Obama again have to wait until someone asks him about the fundamental building block of all society? Shouldn’t he protect the sanctity of marriage? The truth is, someone has asked and how he has answered the question wasabysmal.

The question was asked of Obama, should the heinous act of partial birth abortion be outlawed in America? Twice Sen. Obama answered no! When he was asked if a child, who might miraculously survive the sentence of death by abortion, be protected from an abortion doctor after surviving? Sen. Obama said no! (See Born Alive Victims Protection Law.) Has he no conscience? Is he misinformed on the facts of these barbaric practices? His response to these questions is not indicative of the Black community’s beliefs, and certainly shows a low degree of conscience and moral fiber.

These six things the lord hates, yea seven are an abomination unto him, a proud look, a lying tongue and hands that shed innocent blood. (Proverbs 6:17)

There is no candidate running for the office of the presidency with a worse record than Sen. Barack Hussein Obama. His hands have aided and abetted the abortion industry’s slaughter of the innocent and no other community is affected by it more than the African American community. It’s an industry that targets Afro-Americans for profit at the expense of our children’s lives and the pain of Black women.

This charade has been quite a production. It is now playing and coming to a theater near you!

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his letter from a Birmingham jail, “The early church put an end to such evils as infanticide (infant killing).”

From a jail in Birmingham, AL, without any other source of reference but his heart and the Bible, Martin wrote to some Bishops and Pastors who were not in favor of the demonstrations he was leading. They felt that it was counter productive and not in the best interest of the Negro people. Martin Luther King, Jr. felt quite differently, he chided church leaders for their reluctance to join him in the struggle for freedom. King’s reference to infanticide pointed to the legality of infant killing under Roman law in the first century. Martin Luther King, Jr. pointed to the practice of Christians to rescue babies left on the side of the road to die, because their parents did not like their complexion, eye color, hair color or viewed the child as an inconvenience (sound familiar?) First century Christians rescued those babies and raised them as their own children.

The early Church defied unjust laws even when the consequences could have meant their own death for doing so. Oh, if that kind of love and courage could be demonstrated today by our leadership, it would begin to heal our land.

Sen. Obama has written, “I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters ashospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex – nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the sermon on the mount.”

Sen. Obama, did you say obscure? That would tend to lead unlearned listeners to believe that the Bible is vague or obscure on the subject of homosexuality.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Nearly half of the 32 verses in the first chapter of the New Testament book of Romans were dedicated to warning the early church about sexual perversion. The Apostle Paul warned that perverse thinking and the habits they create were due to the fact that “they did not want to retain God in their knowledge.” That verse truly reflects much of the cast in the Democrat Party.

I would like to ask Sen. Obama the question, “How obscure is this verse?”

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with woman kind: it is an abomination.

That sounds pretty definitive to me.

It would appear to me that Sen. Obama as well as many others shun and ignore the obvious and cloak the true causes of our problems.

African Americans make up 12% of the population, but account for over 50% of all new cases of HIV. African American women account for a staggering 68% of all newly diagnosed HIV positive women in the United States. These women primarily contracted HIV from heterosexual sex. Now, with that said, 60% of all new AIDs cases in America will be the result of the violation of Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:27 (men having sex with men).

Martin Luther King, Jr., who never marched one step for “Gay Rights,” said, “The contemporary church is often a weak ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power of the average community is consoled by the churches silent and often vocal sanctions of things as they are.”

You have heard my review of this masterful political production concerning Sen. Obama and a few of his cast. There is undoubtedly more to come.

Suffice it to say, the prospect of Sen. Barack Hussein Obama becoming President of the United States poses a real threat to African Americans.

Cathy Cohen, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, conducted a survey tracking the attitudes of nearly 1,600 young people of all races nationwide. The professor did one of the most comprehensive studies with the focus on African Americans 15-25 ever performed.

The survey shows that young African-Americans are more conservative than their white counterparts when it is comes to same-sex marriage and abortion. There has been consistent data that shows African-Americans are pro-life and oppose same-sex marriage. An Obama presidency would certainly not reflect Afro-American youth or the nation he’d be leading. In fact, his position on these issues would be ensuring their present destructive trend.

Black Enterprise magazinedid a survey in which 58% of its participants viewed the NAACP’s pro-choice stance as wrong. As a role model, Barack Hussein Obama would be stirring the cauldron of confusion and mixed emotion. Many people would be happy for his success, because he is black, but vexed by his immoral position on the critical issues.

Obama’s use of the presidential bully pulpit would be a boost for the culture of death and the homosexual agenda.

As President, there would also always be the threat of a veto of any significant pro-life or pro-family legislation. Additionally, Obama would undoubtedly nominate pro-abortion justices to the US Supreme Court, which could etch Roe v. Wade into stone for generations.

Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Any success achieved at the expense of our children is no success.” I and many other African-Americans long to see the day of an African-American President, but not at the expense of our children and our values.

Remember, all significant social change which empowered and eradicated injustice has come from the Church not congress, from Pastors not the president. Politicians often join in the cause later, but social reform always starts in the Church. To keep this better in mind I will close with another quote from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter from a Birmingham Jail:

There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced as they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.

God help us to be a thermostat.

Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr. is the Senior Pastor of New Calvary Baptist Church in Montclair, NJ. He hosts “The Urban Prophet” which takes the pro-life, pro-family message into the urban areas.

Rev. Childress is the author of “No Shepherd’s Cry.” Pastor Childress and his book were recently featured on the 700 Club hosted by CBN’s Pat Robertson.

Pastor Childress is joyously married to Regina Childress and has four children: Clenard, Thomas, Tonya and Tia.

One heartbeat away from the presidency.,,,,,,,,
Very scary indeed for a candidate with a 4-year degree in journalism
Senator versus presidency
Sure, I can see where a lot of this would be overlooked while running for a senate position versus president of our country. The higher the position, the more you look into someone's history and that is what separates the boys from the men....
Looking Ahead to the Obama Presidency.....sm

Looking Ahead to the Obama Presidency
Written by John F. McManus
Wednesday, 26 November 2008 00:40

Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's own records and agendas show the direction they have in mind for the nation.

Without doubt, the election of Barack Obama is historic because he is the first Black American selected by voters for the highest office in the land. Indeed, the election of an African-American to the presidency by a nation with a majority white population may be unprecedented, and the fact that this is possible should be a source of pride for all of us, regardless of whether Obama himself was a good or bad choice.

An articulate and confident young man, Obama's presence in the White House will be welcomed by many. Along with his oratorical skills and appealing vitality, his family will remind older Americans of the John F. Kennedy era when a telegenic and appealing wife and two charming youngsters accompanied the newly elected president into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

What will the Obama presidency be like? Throughout a campaign stretching back for almost two years, the Illinois senator regularly employed the word "change," and the word even morphed into "change we can believe in." The posters, oratory, television ads, and pronouncements of several Obama staffers repeatedly issued unspecified pledges that this new and different candidate would alter the course America was following.

"Blueprint for Change"

But how would America's course be altered? Even though the American people could have read online what an Obama-Biden administration promised, most failed to do so. Much of the agenda, albeit without a lot of detail, is contained in Blueprint for Change, the 83-page document subtitled "Plan for America" issued by the Obama-Biden team. As we shall see, the "change" envisioned by the Blueprint includes more government at home and a continuation of our interventionist foreign policy abroad.

Of course, America has been moving in the direction of more and bigger government for decades, regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat has been in the White House. Obama hopes to move us even further in the big-government direction. What kind of change is that?

Even many Americans who recognize that Obama will push for more government at home believe that he will end our interventionist foreign policy because of the opposition he has expressed to the Iraq War. But this conclusion flies in the face of his proposal to transfer troops to Afghanistan (in essence transferring the Iraq War to a different theater) and his support for international arrangements, including expansion of NATO.

Please consider the following positions as they appear in the pages of the revealing "blueprint" document and judge for yourself how much change there will be and whether the recommended "change" would be a good thing. (Comments following each quoted item are ours.)

• "Emergency Economic Plan to Inject Immediate Relief into the Economy." Both Obama and Biden voted for the $700 billion bailout (along with John McCain). More bailouts will likely follow.

• "Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families." Government giving money to everyone, as was done with the 2008 rebate, doesn't solve any problems. These funds either have to be printed (the root cause of inflation) or borrowed, likely from China, which puts our nation's neck in a noose. The interest that is compounding on our already enormous debt is a toxic time bomb. The government will eventually resort to massive inflation to pay the debt or collateralize the debt with American assets; in which case, those now holding our bonds will end up owning America.

• "Invest in the Manufacturing Sector." America's manufacturers need relief from the stifling array of taxes and regulations, and from the steady erosion of the dollar brought on by debilitating inflation, not government handouts that are always followed by government control. A 2006 study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute entitled "Ten Thousand Commandments" found that the federal regulatory burden on U.S. businesses amounted to $1.13 trillion. This burden is killing American businesses, productivity, innovation, and jobs.

• "Create 5 Million New Green Jobs." This will be done, says the Blueprint, by investing "$150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy," etc. In other words, politicians and bureaucrats would create government jobs and subsidize private-sector jobs that should be financed by the private sector (and would be if they were economically viable). Government should get out of the way and let free Americans create jobs.

• "Create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank." This promise includes an infusion of $60 billion more in federal spending.

• "Give the Federal Reserve Greater Supervisory Authority." The Federal Reserve, which already wields enormous, unconstitutional powers, is a destructive engine of inflation and should hardly be given greater authority. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman has recommended, it should be abolished, not enhanced.

• "Pressure the World Trade Organization to Enforce Trade Agreements." Granting the UN's WTO even more authority is another step toward global governance. The WTO is already exercising judicial jurisdiction over sovereign nations, overruling national laws and legislatures, including the laws and the Congress of the United States. Congress and President Bush have weakly protested these usurpations — and then meekly accepted them.

• "Guarantee Affordable, Accessible Health Care for Every American." Healthcare costs have risen dramatically because of already existing government intervention. A national healthcare system would swell the cost while making healthcare hard to obtain, as such plans have done everywhere they have been instituted.

• "Barack Obama has fought for comprehensive immigration reform." Ultimately, what this means is amnesty for as many as 20 million illegal aliens in our nation.

• "High Quality Zero-to-Five Education." The Obama plan actually calls for "early care and education for infants in a Zero to 5 Plan," more government for K-12, federal support for afterschool programs, and more grants for those who move on to college.

• "Double our annual investment in foreign assistance ... to $50 billion.... Invest at least $50 billion [annually] by 2013 for the global fight against HIV/AIDS." With record deficits and a soaring National Debt, America is, in effect, giving away borrowed money.

The above constitute only a sampling of the pledges for more programs, more spending, and more government powers contained in the 83 pages of the Blueprint for Change. And the official Obama-Biden Internet website provides several hundred more pages of details, all pointing toward plans for a vast expansion of the federal government. Less than a week after the election, Georgia Congressman Paul Broun (R) told an audience in his district the president-elect shows "signs of being a Marxist." Perhaps Broun had read the Obama-Biden Blueprint, a rather obvious call for socialism in the United States. And perhaps Broun knows that, in addition to Marx's well-publicized association with communism, Karl Marx is also the godfather of socialism.

Although he didn't mention his own party, we should point out that Rep. Broun's criticism of Obama's apparent Marxist bent applies also to many Republicans. In fact, in October, President Bush and many Republican members of Congress rolled out the Socialist Express to push through the bailout package. Take it from Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, a self-proclaimed socialist, who congratulated Bush for joining the socialist club, and then chided him and his allies for applying a double standard. "How many times have they criticized me for nationalizing the phone company?" he asked. "They say, 'The state shouldn't get involved in that.' But now they don't criticize Bush for having nationalize[d] ... the biggest banks in the world. Comrade Bush, how are you?"

Expanding the UN

The United Nations Association of the United States is the most determined promoter of the UN within our nation. Early in 2008, its leaders sent a questionnaire to all presidential candidates. Barack Obama displayed his strong commitment to the world body and to its various sovereignty-compromising programs in his responses, some of which follow:

• "No country has a greater stake in a strong United Nations than the United States."

• "I have pledged to create a [UN-promoted] cap on carbon emissions in the United States."

• "I fully support the [UN] Millennium Development Goals."

In the year 2000, the 189 member nations of the UN adopted the Millennium Development Goals, a program of eight goals to aid developing countries. Our share of funding these goals could total hundreds of billions of dollars in just a few years. Senator Barack Obama introduced S. 2433 in 2007. Labeled the "Global Poverty Act," this proposal seeks to require our nation to "achieve the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of the people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than one dollar per day." Five months later, Senator Biden offered minor amendments to the bill as he co-signed it. Obviously, these two senators — and the handful of others they have enlisted to back their proposal — believe the American people should pony up enormous sums of money sought by the UN in another program that would empower the world body and further enrich corrupt foreign dictators while doing little to improve the plight of the world's poor.

Based on their stated positions and track records, it is reasonable to expect that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the team they will select to staff the new administration won't even consider less government and a mind-your-own-business foreign policy to be options. Their agenda, if implemented, would speed the growth of the federal government, accelerate the surrender of America's independence, and hasten our nation down the path toward submergence in what internationalists euphemistically refer to as "global governance" by various supranational institutions, of which the UN, the WTO, and the IMF are among the most noteworthy. For more information about the power brokers who have helped formulate Obama's agenda and who will be running the Obama-Biden administration, see "Behind the Obama Agenda."

Celebrate Obama's presidency!

In "celebration" of this stimulus and a month of his presidency, let's see if Obama has lived up to his promises. I will let you score your president.

Here are the 7 promises.

1. Make government open and transparent.

2. Make it "impossible" for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.

3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)

4. No more secrecy.

5. Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.

6. You’ll know what’s in it.

7. We will put every pork barrel project online.

Obama is rich in his own right - not just the presidency -
he can spend money any way he pleases. Believe me, if I had that kind of money, I would be going to broadway too!
Bush's "Active/Negative" Presidency
Bush's Active/Negative Presidency

Recent events provide an especially good illustration of Bush's fateful - perhaps fatal - approach. Six generals who have served under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have called for his resignation - making a strong substantive case as to why he should resign. And they are not alone: Editorialists have also persuasively attacked Rumsfeld on the merits.

Yet Bush's defense of Rumsfeld was entirely substance-free. Bush simply told reporters in the Rose Garden that Rumsfeld would stay because I'm the decider and I decide what's best. He sounded much like a parent telling children how things would be: I'm the Daddy, that's why.

This, indeed, is how Bush sees the presidency, and it is a point of view that will cause him trouble.

Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the presidency commands is the power to persuade. Presidents have their bully pulpit, and the full attention of the news media, 24/7. In addition, they are given the benefit of the doubt when they go to the American people to ask for their support. But as effective as this power can be, it can be equally devastating when it languishes unused - or when a president pretends not to need to use it, as Bush has done.

Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider.

Bush is following the classic mistaken pattern of active/negative presidents: As Barber explained, they issue order after order, without public support, until they eventually dissipate the real powers they have -- until nothing [is] left but the shell of the office. Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all followed this pattern.

Active/negative presidents are risk-takers. (Consider the colossal risk Bush took with the Iraq invasion). And once they have taken a position, they lock on to failed courses of action and insist on rigidly holding steady, even when new facts indicate that flexibility is required.

The source of their rigidity is that they've become emotionally attached to their own positions; to change them, in their minds, would be to change their personal identity, their very essence. That, they are not willing to do at any cost.

Wilson rode his unpopular League of Nations proposal to his ruin; Hoover refused to let the federal government intervene to prevent or lessen a fiscal depression; Johnson escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam while misleading Americans (thereby making himself unelectable); and Nixon went down with his bogus defense of Watergate.

George Bush has misled America into a preemptive war in Iraq; he is using terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans.

Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted.

And this may be his only option: With Bush's limited rhetorical skills, it would be all but impossible for him to persuade any others than his most loyal supporters of his positions. His single salient virtue - as a campaigner - was the ability to stay on-message. He effectively (though inaccurately) portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as wafflers, whereas he found consistency in (over)simplifying the issues. But now, he cannot absorb the fact that his message is not one Americans want to hear - that he is being questioned, severely, and that staying on-message will be his downfall.

Other Presidents - other leaders, generally - have been able to listen to critics relatively impassively, believing that there is nothing personal about a debate about how best to achieve shared goals. Some have even turned detractors into supporters - something it's virtually impossible to imagine Bush doing. But not active/negative presidents. And not likely Bush.

The Danger of the Active/Negative President Facing A Congressional Rout

Active/negative presidents -- Barber tells us, and history shows -- are driven, persistent, and emphatic. Barber says their pervasive feeling is I must.

Barber's collective portrait of Wilson, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon now fits George W. Bush too: He sees himself as having begun with a high purpose, but as being continually forced to compromise in order to achieve the end state he vaguely envisions, Barber writes. He continues, Battered from all sides . . . he begins to feel his integrity slipping away from him . . . [and] after enduring all this for longer than any mortal should, he rebels and stands his ground. Masking his decision in whatever rhetoric is necessary, he rides the tiger to the end.

Bush's policies have incorporated risk from the outset. A few examples make that clear.

He took the risk that he could capture Osama bin Laden with a small group of CIA operatives and U.S. Army Special forces - and he failed. He took the risk that he could invade Iraq and control the country with fewer troops and less planning than the generals and State Department told him would be possible - and he failed. He took the risk that he could ignore the criminal laws prohibiting torture and the warrantless wiretapping of Americans without being caught - he failed. And he's taken the risk that he can cut the taxes for the rich and run up huge financial deficits without hurting the economy. This, too, will fail, though the consequences will likely fall on future presidents and generations who must repay Bush's debts.

For the whole article go to: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060421.html

"The wisdom of the Clinton Presidency..."
ohhhhh to quote reville guffaw guffaw GUFFAW guffaw lol
Excuse me....the Presidency is an executive position...
Palin is the only one of the four who has executive appearance. She is as ready to lead right now as Obama is. Obama has zero international experience other than one trip to talk to the Germans in a political speech.

And I would think the fact that your #1 has less experience than McCain's #2 you would stay away from the experience thing...?

He picked her because she shares his ideals..wants change in washington. Obama wants that too. McCain picked a REAL Washington outsider. Obama didn't. Soooo..they are saying some of the same things Obama is saying, but when Obama says it is good, when they say it, it is bad?

Hello President McCain, and VP Palin!
your msg. "American Presidency is an exec. role"
What is the one thing you want an Obama presidency to accomplish?

Mine is curbing illegal immigration.

Bush Presidency - eight years in eight minutes

I watch Olbermann.  Sometimes I agree with him.  Sometimes I don't.

However, last night he hit it into the park with his attempt to review what Bush did in the last eight years into eight minutes; he ran over time a little bit because there was so much to say.

I would strongly urge anyone who is not too busy whining, moaning, groaning, hating and raging about Obama -- anyone who is truly interested in the future of America -- to watch this, from beginning to end -- especially at the end (since this is done chronologically, not by matter of importance).

THESE are the reasons people voted for Obama.  THESE are the reasons that Obama supporters cannot understand why Bush worshippers still support him and reject the man who might undo the wreckage of Bush.

BUSH is the man who claimed to have a direct line to GOD.  Obama never claimed anything of the sort; if he had, I probably would not have voted for him for that very reason -- because it creeped me out so much when Bush did it.  So the assertion that Obama supporters are "worshippers" is ridiculous, when, in fact, it seems that those who still support Bush (the closest thing to the Anti-Christ that I'VE ever seen) are the ones who seem to think Bush is some sort of god.

Please watch every single SECOND of this video.  It will give you just a taste of the grueling task ahead of Obama in trying to correct all the damage that Bush has done.  We may, in fact, never know the full extent of the damage because Bush (as is mentioned in the video) has "exempted" himself from the Presidential Records Act.

THIS is why every truly honest, patriotic, honorable American who voted for Obama is so relieved he won.  Not so much "happy" -- but RELIEVED -- hoping (yes, HOPING) that our country may once again resemble the USA that once held respect throughout the world, the USA where hard work was once rewarded, the USA where families could afford to feed their children, and the USA where one's ability to obtain something as basic as healthcare wasn't only limited to the wealthy.  I'm not naive enough to believe this can all be fixed in four (or even eight) years, because Bush has been like a four-year-old sociopath that was armed with Daddy's credit card, an AXE and an arrogant giggle, each of which he used to its full capacity, and that's a LOT to clean up.



This will be a very effective presidency! This is GREAT !!! read more sm
President Obama just announced that the pay of top White House employees is being frozen. The Associated Press says it will affect those in positions paying more than $100,000 a year.

"All of you are committed to building a more responsible government," Obama told top staff at a meeting now underway at the White House.

"Families are tightening their belts and so should Washington," Obama added.

The president also announced he's about to sign new ethics rules designed to restrict lobbying by current staff after they leave the administration.

Update at 2:55 p.m. ET: The White House just put out this statement about the actions the president took today.

Update at 1:31 pm. ET: "What a moment we are in," Obama also said. "What an opportunity we have to change this country."

Update at 1:28 p.m. ET: The AP adds that about 100 White House aides will be affected.

Update at 1:25 p.m. ET: Obama also announced he is directing federal agencies to be more open, in part by returning to pre-Bush administration policies regarding the Freedom of Information Act.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," he said.
I'm just voting for him because he is the lesser of the two evils who are running for presidency
And you think that terrorist attack was planned in just a few months during his presidency?
Exactly, hasn't shown us one way to pay for any
At least she hasn't EVER put down her country
SO far he hasn't proven anything
Yes, why hasn't anything been mentioned about that?
She had the meeting yesterday with them. I didn't hear a thing about it.
What makes you think he hasn't?
He hasn't been officially charged

so it's all just hearsay at this point.  This is all a witch hunt pure and simple, however, everytime dems open up Pandora's box they are the ones who really get burned by it.

I'm not saying people who do something illegal and are found guilty shouldn't be punished Dem. or Rep. alike, but when people start opening up other people's closets they better be darn sure their's are squeaky clean....

How do you know the recruiter hasn't been to Iraq?
How do you know where he has been?  As punishment, he should be sent to war.  In other words, off with his head!  My, the mask is off now, isn't it. You know the mask.  The one where you pretend to hate the war but support the troops. 
Hasn't McCain only been in Congress also?
What executive experience does he have? From your answer, Palin seems more qualified than McCain even.
blaming someone you know nothing about for something that hasn't happened
Good question...why hasn't he? However,
adopted by a Kenyan man which makes him a Kenyan by law and because this man was Muslim, he was also Muslim, even though we already knew that because his mother brought him up Muslim. ANyway, he cannot be a citizen of this country after being adopted by this man from Kenya. He then has to go through immigration dept and their entire process to apply for US citizenship, which he has no papers to prove that either.

It has been nasty, hasn't it? On both sides...
McCain certainly would not have been my first choice either, but I voted for the candidate that I thought was the better of the two--I actually prefer a more conservative candidate than McCain. I do think that it is a shame that everyone has become so mean. I have tried not to be that way to anyone, although I guess some people see me as "rabid." What can you do? I at least know that I am not a name-caller or a racist, regardless of what others might think. Perhaps it will cool down. At any rate, have a good night!
I agree. It is a disgrace that he hasn't done it before now! nm
Yeah, or he just hasn't got a clue!
How come it hasn't worked for the last 8 years?
Messiah of MT Stars - tells us oh revered and feared of the freak forum!
The big "O" aleady the worst and he hasn't been....
there a year yet. The next would be Jimmy Carter. Read up on the economy under HIM. Obama doesn't give two hoots about what "we" want. He is pushing through his personal agenda at lightning speed and the worst of it is he really believes this will work...kinda like Caesar fiddling while Rome burned around him. Well, they say ignorance is bliss and he must be one deliriously happy camper right about now.
Oh, please. She hasn't been drawn and quartered.
Including smart Republicans who absolutely do NOT want to see her as president.
Of course in your book it's old news; he still hasn't
Joe Biden hasn't had invasive melanoma...

McCain has.  And you think McCain's mind is still sharp?  If it is, it hasn't been coming across that way lately, especially last week.  He better come across as sharp this week and at the debates.  Speaking of McCain's health, I'm going to post something up at the top about that. 

Respectable? Hah! He hasn't even earned trust yet!

Give it a few months for the media orgy/love fest to end then the scandals will begin (quite a few already).The dems are already at each other throats....this is gonna be good!

Hasn't healthcare been "unionized" for decades (sm)

now?  It's been used as a bargaining chip by unions when negotiating a new contract.  Just imagine how discontinuing healthcare from employers would help everyone!  Vendors could sell their products for less.  The insurance obligation would be placed somewhere else, maybe someplace it belongs, and the employees wouldn't have to pay a "co-pay" to their insurers.

Like Obama, I believe that if you like the healthcare you have, then you can keep it.

I've been very ill for 3-1/2 years now, and not only do I NOT qualify for regular health insurance, I also don't qualify for Mediaid.  When my social security disability claim comes through, I believe I'm not eligible for Medicare for something like 2-1/2 years after being approved.  So that's 2-1/2 YEARS to deny someone who was approved based on ILLNESS!  Isn't that kind of crazy?

If the option of an insurance plan that I can afford is "on the table," then I'd snatch it up as quickly as I could, while being perfectly agreeable with you keeping your own policies.

Some of us are falling through the cracks.

Because so far I'm still allowed to express my honest opinion. He hasn't taken that away from us

Those are his words, and what is scary is that I think he believes it. It's bad enough we've got enemies who believe they're in a religious war. With each passing day, I'm starting to think HE believes he's in one, too. If that's the case, we're in more trouble than anyone could have thought.

My post was about HIM, not about you. But it isn't the first time a Bush groupie has PERSONALLY attacked a poster for expressing their opinion about BUSH. Now, how do you think that makes YOU look? Maybe it's YOU who should grow up or at least WAKE up and see what he's doing, not just to us but to the entire WORLD.

As long as we all still have freedom of expression, I'll continue to express my views, whether you like them or not.

And I hope you keep posting. Nobody can prove my point for me like a Bush groupie, and I do appreciate the help!!

my 401K from a previous employer hasn't lost much
but it's in low risk investments, a lot of bonds, and so when things get better, it probably won't rise as quickly as other 401k's. I'm a chicken.
thanks, Marmann, I miss JTBB, hasn't post since yesterday evening, you o.k?..nm
Thank you Democrat
you are right. I'm wasting my time here.
Well said, Democrat! Well said.


Thank you, Democrat
My fingers are crossed too, Democrat...I hope and pray for all of us that our country can repair itself..I have always been an optimist in life, until the last few years..Yes, I will think optimistically..with hope in my heart..Thank you for your post..you are so kind..
Same to you, Democrat!
Hope you had the best day ever! 
Thanks, Democrat.
I've been following this case and have written to the Governor in protest.  Someone has to care about America's children.  It's obvious this particular judge doesn't.
Thanks, Democrat.

He raises some very interesting points, doesn't he?  I'm glad, too, that he wasn't fired.  I wish somebody like him (or he) WOULD run for President because I'd vote for him, as well.  After our invasion of Iraq, how DO other countries know they won't be next, and why wouldn't they want to protect themselves from an unwanted, uncalled-for American invasion? 

We need someone who can straighten out America and make it a much better place and lead by example so other countries WANT to be like us, rather than having our form of *freedom* forced upon them.

No, actually that was DEMOCRAT.

You really need to stop obsessing on me, Nina.  You've made your hatred of me known, but it's starting to get spooky.  Please find another hobby.  You're beginning to resemble a stalker. 

At the very least, you might want to scan the board before accusing me of saying things I didn't.  It will only take you a second, and you will appear to at least have some common sense and credibility if you do so.  Right now, I seem to be your target, and your hateful obsession is quite transparent.

Have a lovely day, dear.

Thank you Democrat..
I have been trying to make 2 points about Churchill for 2 days but it is like free association here. I get everything and the kitchen sink back. As far as Coulter, I was just putting an article out there that I thought was humorous (intended only for liberals as it knew it would offend others and even the heading  I posted  was attacked) and somehow that morphed into I am attacking Coulter and defending Churchill. Talk about pretzel logic. Again, thanks for actually reading my posts and actually understanding what I said.
Thanks, Democrat.

I hadn't read the part where they included the US troops in the mix.  What I read was that the Iraqi Prime Minister wanted amnesty only for terrorists who killed American soldiers and NO amnesty for terrorists who killed Iraqis.  I felt this was a slap in the face to America, and that's the precise reason I'm so outraged over this.

It's interesting that you said that's what you *make of it.*  Every time I've read something on this issue, I walked away just kind of scratching my head because I was unable to grasp an understanding of most of it.  Even the bill itself that was voted on yesterday did nothing but express the *sense* of the Congress regarding this issue.  How can it be so important to take up Senate time, including the debate and vote, when the end result is that they are EXPRESSING THEIR SENSE?  Seems like a big waste of time to me and lends even more credibility to Harold Ford's view that it was nothing but a stunt.

What I don't understand is why 19 Republican senators would publicly place themselves in the position of voting their *sense* that they were in favor of letting terrorists off the hook when it comes to killing our soldiers, given that the majority of Iraqis think it's okay to kill Americans. 

I suppose some sense could be made of the reasoning behind it if we were dealing with terrorists/insurgents that could be trusted, but with 65% of the general Iraqi population thinking it's okay to kill Americans and 88% of the Sunni population believing so, I don't feel comfortable placing any trust in them.

I do not and did not excuse Mark Foley. He was wrong. What I have a problem with, is the same people who ask for his head are the same people who excuse the same behavior in Democrats who have done the same thing. Barney Frank...male prostitution ring out of his apartment. Not sure all of them were of legal age. Representative Studd. Had a sexual relationship (not internet) with a 17-year-old page. Not only not apologized for it, but accused critics of gay bashing and that his relationship, with a 17-year-old, mind you...was consensual. These are Democrats, and Democrats did not ask for their heads. But they ask for Foley's head. I am not excusing ANY of them. I find it odd that Democrats do not recognize a pedophile when he is a Democrat, but recognize him when he is a Republican.

No, extramarital affairs are not illegal. PERJURY is. In all 50 states. I didn't hear any Democrat, NOT ONE, asking for HIS head.

I can say without a doubt that they were ALL wrong, all morally corrupt, and all should pay for it. Clinton didn't, Studd didn't, Frank didn't. Foley IS. There is another BIG difference.

Same to you, Democrat! sm
Merry Merry Christmas and God Bless.
I am sorry, Democrat...I just don't get it....
You guys jump to champion Teddy when she has attacked me over and over, just like you claim some conservatives have attacked you...but it is okay for her, keep up the good fight. I am sorry, but that only tends to reinforce the feelings of most conservatives that liberals walk in lock step and support each other right or wrong. Please explain to me how it is okay for Teddy to call me a fool, tell me she cannot talk to someone who is mentally ill, has no common sense, that I defecated upon her...to name a few. Why is that okay for her, and you come along rah rah Teddy, and then complain when conservatives post similar, but not nearly as hateful...posts? Can you please explain to me why that is okay? Because, actually, in looking at your posts, you seemed a reasonable person and not prone to attacking anyone. Is it that same old well, I wouldn't do it myself, but if she wants to do it, I will support her thing?
Thanks Democrat..
Good to have yet another point of view. I have been reading Rabbi Kushner's Book, Overcoming Life's Disappointments. He uses the Old Testament (obviously) and Moses. What I really love about this guy is his working knowledge of so many faiths other than his own and how he can find, quite easily, the similarities...anyway, one thing I found interesting was that he said (and I certainly did not know) the Torah has 613 commandments and more of these deal with the poor (spiritually, physically, financially poor) than any other issue. Then along comes Jesus and what does he say??? My gosh, I think it is the same thing!!! I wish that some of the really right religious people (Dobson, Falwell, etc. could team up with Rick Warren, Al Sharpton, TD Jakes, Pope Benedict, Rabbi Kushner et al) and look at the issues that the Bible addresses other than abortion and same-sex marriage. The most mentioned virtue, it would seem, would be humility and the willingness to serve God by serving others, especially the least among us, no questions asked. In the Old Testament taking care of those in need was an obligation, not charity.