Falling for O's promises, just like Jimmy Carter
Posted By: tried. You can choose to believe O, I dont. nm on 2008-09-06
In Reply to: All who oppose your party extreme? I put US first. - O puts us first. He get my vote, hands down. nm
nm
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
Yes, but they are and it's the left that's doing it. Jimmy Carter even said so. nm
.
Does anyone know what happened to Jimmy Carter's eye?
I'm just wondering, I'm watching the democratic convention and it looks really bad! Is it an infection or something??
Ever heard what Jimmy Carter has to say on this issue -
Obama has not said much of anything in light of this recent development. Looks like he may be keeping an open mind and may be exercising alternative options once he takes office.
Jimmy Carter tries to rewrite history...
December 1, 2006 by Lee Green
Jimmy Carter Distorts Facts, Demonizes Israel in New Book
Former President Jimmy Carter has written an egregiously biased book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and is currently doing numerous interviews to sell the book and its ideas. Carter is attempting to rewrite history, and in his alternate universe, Arabs parties are blameless and Israel is at fault for almost all the conflicts in the world. One gets the feeling after reading just a few pages that if he could have blamed Hurricane Katrina on Israel, he would have. His main messages are that Israel is badly mistreating the Palestinians and that the cause of the conflict is Israel's refusal to return to what he calls its "legal borders" (sic), the pre-67 armistice lines.
Because the Palestinian Arabs have been offered a viable state of their own numerous times, including with the same borders that Carter desires, but turned it down since it meant recognizing Israel's legitimacy and permanence and ending the conflict, Carter either ignores or mischaracterizes the offers. He never lets the facts get in the way of his "must blame Israel" theories. In Carter's twisted universe, it is the Arabs who have always been eager for peace, with Israel opposing it at every turn.
Almost every page of Carter's book contains errors, distortions or glaring omissions. The following list is just a small portion of the many problems in the book:
• Carter claims Israel has been the primary obstacle to peace, that Arab leaders have long sought peace while Israel preferred holding on to "Palestinian land" over peace, and that if only Israel would "[withdraw] to the 1967 border as specified in the U.N. Resolution 242...", there would be peace.
Aside from his obviously questionable opinions, Carter is factually wrong when he asserts that U.N. Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice line that was in place until 1967. He has repeated this serious falsehood in many interviews, such as on the November 28 PBS NewsHour:
"The demand is for them to give back all the land. The United Nations resolutions that apply, the agreements that have been made at Camp David under me and later at Oslo for which the Israeli leaders received the Nobel Peace Prizes, was [sic] based on Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories."
He mischaracterizes UN resolutions and apparently has forgotten what he himself signed as a witness to the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which states in Section A1c: "The negotiations [concerning the West Bank and Gaza] shall be based on all the provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements."
To claim now that the very agreement he witnessed and signed specifies withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines is outrageous. [While the 1979 Camp David document again mentions UN Resolution 242, it makes no further mention of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. It instead deals with Israeli-Egyptian relations, and includes a map of the Israel-Egypt International Boundary (Annex II). Tellingly, no maps demarcating any boundary between Israel and the Palestinians are appended to the Camp David documents, Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords, or the "road map".]
UN Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the land to the "1967 border", since there is no such border. The "green line" is merely the 1949 armistice line and the drafters of 242 explicitly stated that this line was not a "secure border" -- which 242 calls for.
The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."
The American UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that, "The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and the 'June 5, 1967 lines' ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." This would encompass "less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure."
The reasoning of the United States and its allies at the time was clear: Any resolution which, in the face of the aggressive war launched in 1967 against Israel, required complete Israeli withdrawal, would have been seen as a reward for aggression and an invitation to future aggression. This is assuredly not what the UN voted for, or had in mind, when it passed Resolution 242.
For more details on the meaning of 242, click here.
- Many media outlets have corrected erroneous characterizations of 242 (prompted by CAMERA), including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The corrections clarify that 242 does not require Israel to give all the land acquired in the 67 War to the Palestinians. For example:
Correction (New York Times, 9/8/00): An article on Wednesday about the Middle East peace talks referred incorrectly to United Nations resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Middle East War, calls for Israel's armed forces to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," no resolution calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territory, including East Jerusalem, occupied in the war.
Correction (Wall Street Journal, 5/11/04): United Nations Security Council resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied" in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, but doesn't specify that the withdrawal should be from all such territories. An International page article Friday incorrectly stated that Security Council resolutions call for Israel to withdraw from all land captured in the 1967 war.
• Similarly, Carter repeatedly errs when he asserts that the West Bank is "Palestinian land," rather than disputed land whose (likely) division and designation will be decided through negotiations (as per Resolution 242).
For example, Carter said on the Nov 28 Newshour:
"And I chose this title very carefully. It's Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians' territory, not Israel."
• In his book, Carter almost always presents Israeli leaders in a negative light, and they are frequently described as trying to impede the peace process. In contrast, Carter describes despotic Arab leaders in glowing terms, quotes them at length, without any comments about the accuracy of their statements. He writes, for instance,
"When I met with Yasir Arafat in 1990, he stated 'The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel.' "
Carter fails to note that Arafat and the PLO have frequently called for the destruction of Israel and that the destruction of Israel is a key part of the PLO Charter (most explicitly in Articles 15 and 22):
"Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence..." (from Article 22).
Arafat regularly called for violence against Israel. In a speech to Palestinian Arab leaders from Hebron, broadcast on official PA Television on January 26, 2002, Arafat urged:
"Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad!"
Carter follows up the absurd quotation from Arafat by describing the PLO in admiring language, without mentioning the terror so central to their agenda.
• Carter spends much of the book conveying Arab grievances against Israel, while rarely providing any context from the Israeli perspective. When he does, it is perfunctory and brief. While terror against Israel is mentioned, it is rare and sharply minimized.
• The vicious incitement against Israel and Jews by the Arabs is treated as a trivial complaint rather than as the fuel that keeps the flame of bigotry and violence alive. The only time Carter mentions incitement is to complain that the Israelis insisted on cessation of incitement against Israel, "but the Roadmap cannot state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians."
Since there is no state-sponsored anti-Arab incitement in Israel, and incitement against Arabs is actually a crime in Israel, it would have been misleading to include a proscription against it in the Roadmap. That would have made it seem that incitement in Israel was comparable to the massive, systemic incitement in Palestinian society.
As for his reference to "Israel must cease violence...against the Palestinians," he appears to morally equate Israeli counter-terror measures with Palestinian terror against Israeli civilians.
• In describing what led to the conflicts this year between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and Hezbollah, Carter continues his pattern of minimizing Arab violence, thereby placing Israel's military responses into question due to the lack of context. Carter mentions the abduction of the Israeli soldiers, but fails to inform his readers about the rockets from Gaza that were being fired daily at Israeli civilians in southwest Israel and omits that Hezbollah did much more than abduct 2 soldiers; before the abduction, they fired missiles at Israeli communities in northern Israel.
• Carter obfuscates important aspects of history. Here's how he describes the British giving almost all of Mandate Palestine—78 percent—to Emir Abdullah after World War I to create Transjordan (later renamed Jordan): "Another throne was needed, so an emirate called Transjordan was created out of some remote desert regions of the Palestine Mandate ..." [emphasis added]
• He writes of various Arab leaders accepting the two-state solution, and sometimes mentions that they also require the so-called right of return (of the millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel, as opposed to the future state of Palestine). But Carter doesn't explain that due to the high Arab birthrate, the so-called right of return would quickly turn Israel into another Arab state, transforming the two-state (Arab and Jewish) solution into a two-Arab states solution. While he writes of the many items he feels are unreasonable deal-breakers demanded by Israel, he never addresses the Arab demands that are deal-breakers for Israel.
• In his conclusion, Carter accuses the American government of being "submissive," claiming that due to "powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Israel dominate in our media ..."
Carter's claim that "voices from Israel dominate in our media" is especially ironic at a time when Carter himself is all over the media spreading his anti-Israel message. And since Carter is prone to demonizing Israel, it likely never occurred to him that perhaps our politicians don't frequently criticize Israeli government decisions because Israel shares our values of democracy, pluralism and the sanctity of life, and its decisions are, on the whole, fair and just.
• Apparently admiringly, Carter writes: "At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan." That Carter apparently feels this is a more realistic, helpful worldview is revealing.
In general, Carter holds Israel to an unreasonably high standard of almost pacifist behavior, while holding the Arabs to no standard at all. In his world, the terror against Israel has been minimal, hardly worth mentioning and certainly not important enough for Israelis to respond to or for the world community to condemn. The Arabs should suffer no consequences for continuing to attack and terrorize Israel, for continuing to indoctrinate their population to see Jews as sub-humans who deserve to be murdered. Carter advocates having the Arabs' maximalist demands rewarded. It is Israel who must make all the concessions and sacrifices. The Arabs' bigotry and supremacist attitudes regarding non-Muslims and the west - attitudes central to the conflict -- are entirely ignored by Carter.
Since Carter is a former president, and because he is well known for his work on Habitat for Humanity, interviewers are for the most part being entirely deferential to him, while rarely pointing out that his book and statements are filled with inaccuracies and distortions. But Carter should not be allowed to rewrite history and erase decades of Arab bigotry, rejectionism and terror, while inventing Israeli intransigence and opposition to peace.
Yeah and #2 is Jimmy Carter and #3 Michael Moore. So what? SM
Wow, you are easily amused.
Lee Green did not monitor the elections, Jimmy Carter did.
Lee Green is the director of CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy on Middle East Reporting) which is a Pro-Israeli American Media Monitor. I prefer to read a book and make up my own mind and certainly am not surprised that Zionist critics would hate Carter and the truths he exposed in his book. They can protest to their heart's content, but they can't turn lies into truth.
Not the worst...Jimmy Carter holds that dubious honor....
Mr. Democat Jimmy Carter. Check out the economy while he was in office...and what Obama is doing will make that look like a walk in the park. Oh, but the rest of the world will love us....LOL. Ya kill me. LOL.
I think that it was Jimmy Swaggert that
the poster was referring to. He indeed did seek out prostitutes for awhile there; however, he admitted it and apologized to his congregation which I thought was commendable, even though his personal delivery of **the good news** is a bit too theatrical for me. You can't be forgiven if you show no remorse.
So Jimmy Buffet does a benefit concert for Obama.
How is this a division of the races? There are all different races in this country ya' know.
If he does not keep his promises, I will not...sm
vote for him the next time. Very simple.
promises, promises
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxeFMHyOx3I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgn2g4NKhZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM
Not exactly what he promises
There is a lot of debate on his whole tax plan. It doesn't exactly pan out like he promises. On the other hand, the president is not all-powerful, so for much of what any of them promise during their campaign, their hands are tied.
Here's a link.
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/the-folly-of-obama2019s-tax-plan
The Carter Doctrine.....
hmmmm. Very, very interesting article. I'm not sure I agree with some of the broad unsubstantiated statements but all in all, a very interesting article. Thanks for posting!
Get used to broken promises
And squeezing money out of "the middle class".
Campaign promises
I didn't vote for Obama, but didn't really like McCain much better. I feel that too many politicians say whatever it takes to get elected and then do whatever they want once getting into office. This goes for Congress, too, and I agreed with the other poster that said Congress is a big part of not letting presidents fullfill thier campaign promises. But it is a combination of both because they all promise basically the same things.
It would be interesting to see if Reagan kept his promises - I was just a young'un then and didn't really pay too much attention to politics - I see a research project! =)
By the way, I doubt you hear it enough, but thank you for being a part of our military and for your service overseas. Our men and women in the military are our country's greatest asset and are definitely people for our country to be proud of.
Broken promises.
Obama Breaks Pledge to People Making Under $250K
Today, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) condemns the recent passage of the Waxman-Markey energy/climate bill which passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last night, 33-25, with four Democrats opposing,. ATR is calling on President Obama to keep his pledge.
All of this comes without a peep from President Obama, who promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 per year. Even House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) says that he has “40-45 votes” to take down the over $600 billion climate tax bill that will cost jobs and increase energy prices.
President Obama said on September 12, 2008 in Dover, New Hampshire:
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
He repeated that pledgeon October 22nd in Richmond, VA:
The concerns are still the same; this bill increases the price of energy and taxes all American families, not just those making over $250,000 as President Obama promised:
-Direct energy costs will go up $1,500 per year for the typical family of four.
-Even with a 26% reduction is use, electric bills will be $754 higher in 2035 than in the absence of Waxman-Markey, and $12,200 higher in total from 2012 to 2035.
-Even with a 15% decrease in gas consumption – prices will still go up! A family of four will still pay $596 more in 2035 and $7,500 more in total from 2012 to 2035.
-From 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $22,800.
-On average, employment will be lower by 1,105,000 jobs per year. In some years, cap and trade will reduce employment by nearly 2.5 million jobs.
-Waxman-Markey will drive up the national debt 26 percent by 2035. This represents an additional $29,150 per person, or $116,600 for a family of four.
Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform said, “It would be very helpful if President Obama would keep just one of his campaign promises and oppose this massive tax hike. If not – we have him on record and he is clearly breaking his ‘pledge’.”
The Sky is Falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
The collapse of the economy has been coming for longer than 2 years, it is just convenient to blame it all on the republicans.
Also, last I checked, we live in a Republic (lots of folks think we live in a democracy, but we do not) and one person isn't going to change our entire government, although it really does need some major changing.
Go out and talk to "Joe sixpack", the lower middle-class, the poor, etc. A socialist country doesn't seem like such a bad thing to them right now. At least they would have healthcare, lol!
The closer we get to the election, the more scare tactics we see. Relax, its just an acorn, lol.
THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING
OMG. How did you deduce that from what he said? So you think medical transcriptionists are UNSKILLED? Not only do you insult an intelligent method of handling the companies that ship our work overseas, but you also insult yourself and everyone else on this board. MT is NOT unskilled labor.
THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING...
Why don't you give the guy a chance before you start deciding if things could get worse or better? He has already stated that the mess is so huge that he inherited, it isn't going to be an overnight solution.
Why do you feel free to judge his entire presidency based on 60+ days so far?...days of putting out MAJOR fires left by the last administration, I might add. Why don't you wait until Obama actually can get to his own agenda before you decide that things are going to be worse under him.
Typical right wing over reactionism and drama queenism!
THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING...
Why don't you give the guy a chance before you start deciding if things could get worse or better? He has already stated that the mess is so huge that he inherited, it isn't going to be an overnight solution.
Why do you feel free to judge his entire presidency based on 60+ days so far?...days of putting out MAJOR fires left by the last administration, I might add. Why don't you wait until Obama actually can get to his own agenda before you decide that things are going to be worse under him.
This kind of right wing over reactionism and drama queenism really undermines any valid points you might make.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling! (nm)
:o
The sky is falling, the sky is falling
I am amazed how many rightwingers are scared out of their pants. Why not find some other country to hide in? Your posting is laughable.
Carter and Clinton snooped on you too
I bet you weren't screaming about this..
Drudgereport.com
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Name a pres that kept all his campaign promises?
I don't expect him to keep all his promises. In actuality, he really can't. None of the other presidents in my memory have been able to either. That is an unrealistic expectation. They say what they need to say to get elected.
Unemployment isnt even down to the Carter
nm
Obama Tax Promises Up In Smoke
Obama plainly, clearly, and unequivocally promised "not one dime" of tax increase on the workers of America.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1
...and the point here is NOT whether you smoke or not. Even if you think that forcing the poor to quit smoking is a beneficial thing, the questions are:
1. Should Obama be held to his tax promises or not?
2. If he can raise these taxes, by what stretch of the imagination do you believe other increases will not follow?
3. Should the government use the power of taxation to enforce policies that it happens to think are beneficial? If you think so, how about taxing the next package of hamburger you buy a couple of bucks a pound unless it has less than 14% fat? And your next loaf of bread a buck or two unless it has 0% transfat? Or the next dozen eggs maybe five bucks for the cholesterol? After all, far more people in this country are obese than smoke.
If I were President, I'd hit every parent with a $10 per day tax if their kids forget to brush their teeth before going to bed (and I'd send jack-booted bed-tooth-inspectors to every house, too!). Now that would raise some serious coin, and improve the nation's dental health. Vote for me.
The ends is near, the sky is falling.
If you look throughout history, many people thought that their century would have been the end of the world. What do I think? As a believer, I truly do believe that there are signs out there that do lead toward Christ's return. Please no flaming me as this is my personal opinion.
As to when this might happen....no one knows. As a believer in God, it is written that no one knows.....not even the angels in Heaven know. Is the end getting closer.....yes....I think it is. Will it happen in my lifetime? I don't know.
As to your thoughts about McCain and Obama. I really do not think that either of them have the appropriate plan for our country and I really do feel sorry for the next president because he will have A LOT on his table. However, I truly feel that Obama's plan will hurt our economy more than help it. I believe that our country is in a recession and the blames goes to government....PERIOD. I'm not even going into the dems vs pubs. They are all to blame. They all had their greedy little hands in on this. After being screwed over by the government, do I want them to have more control over things? HECK NO! Government spending has gotten WAY out of hand and, IMO, that is the key to this whole crisis. Cut government spending. You can't raise taxes during a recession. It will weaken the economy and head us straight for a depression.
An interesting thing I heard on TV last night. China noticed their economy take a little dip, nothing like ours, and guess what they are doing......they are lowering taxes. Not raising them.
The people that say 95% won't be taxed....I'm sorry but even putting the whole welfare allegations aside....it isn't possible. There aren't enough rich people to take from to come up with the money Obama wants to spend. He will have to increase taxes on the rest of us as well and that includes the middle class that he professes to be looking after.
Increasing taxes on companies will result in a higher job loss than a job creation. People say that the companies make enough and can absorb that.....you obviously don't run a business and let me tell you....my husband does and he is sweating this BIG time. It ain't pretty ladies and gentlemen. The companies who can afford to "absorb" this tax increase will pass it along to us by jacking up the prices of their products. So who pays for that increase....WE DO PEOPLE!
I don't have anything personal against Obama. I will admit that his judgment in associations are a bit concerning, but putting that all aside.....Obama's plans for this country will fail. Is it change? Yes it is.....but it will be a change for the worse.
Can't come out of the Fox hole.....THE SKY IS FALLING.....nm
x
Falling all over the place.
What is happening with those repubs?
Clinton & Carter DID NOT ORDER any such things.
Do you lie on purpose to emulate your God Bush or are you just so lacking in common sense and intelligence that you unquestioning believe everything ANY neocon says?
Either way, YOU'RE SPREADING LIES. In case you haven't noticed lately, AMERICANS ARE GETTING FED UP WITH LIARS....especially UNDEREDUCATED, ILLITERATE, HATEFUL, JUDGMENTAL liars.
CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?
- the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers. Translation: You can't search American citizens.
- and there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person. Translation: You can't search American citizens.
- Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. Physical searches, as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.
CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter's turn:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Here, Carter refers to electronic surveillance, rather than physical searches like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:
- the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
- there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law.
It's called check and balance!
No, I think Carter was the worst president in history.
nm
Carter = worst president ever...yes, I agree with you.
Nixon = Carter; Bush = Obama
It looks as though both of these democrats were handed a huge bag of flaming s*it that they were/are expected to clean up in a nanosecond. No, I'm not a democrat, either. But I am fed up with the label "liberal" being used like an expletive. Liberal means "free thinking," and I am honored to be a liberal. I don't need to walk in lockstep so others can do my thinking for me. I want our country to prosper and survive and I'm placing my trust in Obama's hands. I pray he succeeds.
All the promises made by President Obama.
President Barrack Obama has made a huge list of promises. As you can see, some promises he has already broken and we aren't even into his presidency a whole week yet.
Foreign Policy
Domestic Policy
President Obama campaign promises
I hope our new President does go to work for our jobs, meaning all American jobs, as he promised. I did hear him make that promise, but it is not necessarily looking good at this point. To see his offshoring comments, can be seen at www.loudobbs.com.
Was one of the songs free falling? If so...
I think I have seen it.
Maybe they're falling because Coke is better.
nm
This is not about race whatsoever. You are falling
nm
A "fool" would be Americans falling for O
nm
Clinton 65% - Bush 28% and falling!
Bill Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating. George W. Bush has an approval rating of 28% and still falling.
Period! 
You forgot Paulsen the-sky-is-falling
no-time-to-read, eve-of-destruction, just-sign-here, no-questions-asked, just-trust-your savior arm-twisting at the helm.
I don’t fall into the sky is falling category
nm
Yeah, why yell...'the sky is NOT falling'?
x
Either side can fail to deliver on promises. My only hope and prayer is that
I'm honestly not 100% sure either one of these candidates can do it so where do people like me fit into the picture? I'm not even sure I will be able to vote for either one, and that's based on my personal values. I don't feel Barack is the man, like many seem to, but I don't feel McCain is, either. I know I'm not alone. I don't believe socialized insurance is the answer, I believe in going after insurance companies that dictate what patients can have done and set premiums too high for people to afford and pharmaceutical companies that pay people off to push their drugs, whether it be doctors, groups, etc. I'd like to see all with tax cuts, not just big companies. Wonderful if they get a break for keeping jobs in the US, but that should be just one of many tax cuts for all, starting with taxes paid at the pump. What about public education? We pay fees and still have to buy extra books and other supplies for our kids' education, yet many children are less educated now out of public high school than ever before because they are too focused on the proficiency tests to actually teach a well-rounded fund of knowledge, so what are the proposals to fix that mess?
No matter who gets elected, they've got quite a job on their hands, and I sincerely doubt either will be able to live up to their promises. And no, I don't necessarily blame Bush for all the problems in this country, but rather I blame all presidents and congress, past and present. Somewhere along the way, it stopped being for the people, that's for sure, and more for their pocketbooks (both Dems AND Repubs). Since so many seem to see Barack as the second coming, I certainly pray that you are right, but I really doubt it. He's had zero experience so who is to say he won't buckle under the load once he realizes what he's gotten into? And McCain isn't my idea of perfection, either, so don't reply by bashing Republicans. I want to hear facts that aren't based on party views but honest-to-goodness facts on who has the best plan in line for these things. And how do you know who is being sincere and who is just making empty campaign promises?
Is it true that Obama's website has scrubbed his 25 campaign promises? sm
I heard they are no longer there, and have been scrubbed off. I looked and can't find them.
Any thoughts on this, or am I looking in the wrong place?
Some Obama campaign promises are put on hold as the economy sinks
More doom and gloom, and more campaign promises will not be kept.
Is it just me, or does our President Elect look less and less, with each passing day, like the man that so many put into this office....and more and more like the rest of knew him to be?
Some Obama campaign promises are put on hold as the economy sinks
BY CELESTE KATZ
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Sunday, January 11th 2009, 4:00 AM
Tackling the troubled economy is going to require Americans to sacrifice - and it means some campaign promises will have to be put on hold, President-elect Barack Obama says.
"Everybody's going to have to give. Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game," Obama said on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" set to air this morning.
Obama's comments came as the President-elect, who takes office Jan. 20, responded to a new national unemployment report by saying in his weekly address Saturday that he'll save or create 3 million to 4 million new jobs.
"Our challenge is going to be identifying what works and putting more money into that, eliminating things that don't work and making things that we have more efficient," Obama said on ABC. "I want to be realistic here. Not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped."
Obama agreed that his administration is going to involve some version of a "grand bargain" - changes in areas like tax reform, Social Security and Medicare will come at a cost.
Addressing the nation as his team released figures on the job situation, Obama said in his weekly radio and video address that 90% of the jobs will be created in the private sector. The remainder are "mainly public sector jobs" such as teachers, cops and firefighters.
The report released by Obama's team Saturday projected the creation of 678,000 new construction jobs and 408,000 manufacturing jobs by next year under an estimated $775 billion stimulus plan.
Among the sources of the new jobs Obama cited: designing more efficient cars and building solar panels, infrastructure roles such as repairing roads and bridges, and jobs in the health care and education sectors.
Obama said economists predict that if Congress doesn't agree on a large-scale stimulus plan, the U.S. will shed as many as 4 million jobs before the recession comes to an end.
Obama also vowed to procure "bipartisan extensions of unemployment insurance and health care coverage" and a $1,000 tax cut for 95% of working families.
"Given the magnitude of the challenges we face, none of this will come easy. Recovery won't happen overnight, and it's likely that things will get worse before they get better," Obama warned.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/11/2009-01-11_some_obama_campaign_promises_are_put_on_-1.html
Interesting to read the promises Roosevelt made when SS was created.
It's just like farm subsidies and so many other things that government gets into and then makes a mess out of.
The promises, incidentally, were basically "our older citizens will not have to live in poverty". Now, SS is nothing more than institutionalized poverty for anyone who has nothing else.
And, incidentally, some of the rhetoric around the time SS was created dealt with the objections some had to the withholding by saying "This way, you won't have to put money into risky stocks because this is guaranteed". In other words, the implication was that you didn't have to provide otherwise for your retirement. The message was very powerful for a generation that had seen the Crash of 29 and the market's performance throughout the Great Depression. Stocks risky! Social Security safe!
I've forgotten the exact age, but I think when SS was formed the average life expectancy was 60 or less. In other words, it counted on most recipients dying off before they collected much if anything!
Well...you can add it up for yourself. We have people living much longer than SS had ever anticipated. We have a climate where you can't reduce benefits and you can't increase withholdings. And we have not allowed people (other than federal employees!) to opt out of SS so they could invest the withholdings in things that might have performed much better. (Notice how right this minute YOU are probably thinking about our own crash, but the fact is that SS has not even done that well).
I agree that it sounds good to introduce means-testing so wealthy people aren't receiving benefits, but on other grounds I can't go along with what would just be another example of treating some people differently than others.
Yeah. We'll be falling right into the leadership shortly
nm
McSocialist promises to SHARE THE WEALTH from offshore drilling revenues
At least he and SP seem to be on the same page today. SP: "...and Alaska - we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs"....boasting to a reporter of having been able to send a check for $1,200 to every man, woman and child in the state since, quote "Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources.”
Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective..sm
Election 2008: Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective
By Liz Peek
Financial Columnist
Today we will almost surely elect Barack Obama President of the United States. A new generation will vote for Mr. Obama –- a generation that has grown up with the Internet. This new crop of voters has access to more information than any that came before, and yet has swallowed Obama’s impossible campaign promises and contradictory policies just as trustingly as those who in earlier times looked for a chicken in every pot.
Welcome to the disillusionment of another generation. I don’t anticipate this inevitable consequence of today’s election with any glee, believe me. To see young people turning out in droves to vote for this eloquent, attractive young man is inspiring. To hear them buy into his promises, though, is sobering.
For instance, we are told that the image of the United States has suffered mightily under George Bush, and that Obama is going to usher in a veritable global love-fest. Would those falling over themselves to herald our new president include the peoples of South Korea and Colombia –- allies both — whose much-needed free trade agreements with the U.S. Obama has opposed?
How about our neighbors in Canada or Mexico; will Obama’s promised re-write of NAFTA endear them to the U.S.? Is it possible that Obama’s opposition to free trade demonstrates his gratitude to labor unions –- groups that aroused his ire by donating to the Clinton and Edwards campaigns but suddenly were much more warmly welcomed when they began shifting funds his way?
Over a year ago I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column defending the status quo against the pressing demand for “Change” writ large. While politicians of all stripes were heralding new directions, they were ignoring, for example, that the U.S. has been blessed for many years with low inflation. Voters in their 30s and 40s could not be expected to remember the devastating inflation of the 1970s. They couldn’t be expected to understand how double-digit price hikes threw the fear of God into retirees on fixed incomes and created the same kind of paralysis in lending that we are witnessing today.
They might not connect the dots between Obama’s enthusiasm for the Employee Free Choice Act, a resurgence of unionization, and wage-driven inflation. They might not realize that restricting trade with China, re-writing NAFTA and barring adoption of free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea will indeed drive prices higher.
The United States has also enjoyed a period of stable employment. The new generation has never seen serious unemployment. True, they have witnessed shifts in employment as manufacturing jobs have been lost to lower-priced locales. But they have never seen unemployment rates go much above 6%, where it is now. In 1982, when unemployment reached 9.7%, Obama was 21 years old. I doubt he was much focused on the dismal state of the economy. Voters, however, were focused, and gave Ronald Reagan a mandate to set the country on a new course –- one which encouraged growth through lower taxes, expanded trade and deregulation.
That program was adopted by both Democrats and Republicans because it worked. People in their thirties and forties cannot imagine that raising taxes on successful people might harm the economy. That’s because they weren’t around to witness the exodus of talent from England –- a country wherein punitive marginal tax rates squashed incentives and drove out anyone who could locate elsewhere. Margaret Thatcher didn’t just join the Reagan Revolution –- she clung to it for dear life.
What young voters have seen, and have responded to, is the collapse of Wall Street. Because bankers, politicians and speculators conspired to create the worst investment bubble in modern times, we are about to abandon the policies that brought millions of people around the world into the middle class. Policies that gave people real hope –- not just its rhetorical facsimile. This is a tragedy.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/04/lpeek_1104/#more-2415
|
