Name a pres that kept all his campaign promises?
Posted By: mtmtmt on 2009-01-25
In Reply to: You people have missed the whole point. - sm
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.
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
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.
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.
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
really wanna barf - guess who steps up as pres. if something awful happens to the pres and vp??? nm
....
Obama's campaign called McCain's campaign.
This was reported an hour or two before McCain had his little news conference. Shouldn't take to heart too much of what McCain says as he is a known liar.
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
Get used to broken promises
And squeezing money out of "the middle class".
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’.”
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.
Falling for O's promises, just like Jimmy Carter
nm
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
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?
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.
don't want either for pres.
Can we have her for pres instead of VP? LOL
.
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
Schwarzenneger for pres
x
First Pres younger than me
and though I love him (am definitely a kool aid drinker, I admit) he looks like he's in junior high and it will be sad to see him age. Maybe it won't be too bad. He seems to like stress.
Who was Pres on 09/11/2001?
Why would anyone give him credit for PROTECTING us?
Have they done that with previous pres?
If they have done this with previous presidents, I really couldn't care less. Anyone know the answer to this?
Pres just had a press conference..
listened very discernibly, heard nothing different from his other press conferences... Feel like I'm watching "Groundhog Day" starring Bill Murray, only Bill Murray is much more funny and quite a bit smarter! When will get some real leadership? We desparately need LEADERSHIP!!!
A little insight on Pres. Bush
I work in a very high profile media department, and part of my job is transcription of raw interviews. I have transcribed several transcripts of raw interview footage with Pres. Bush, and he is the most respectful, gracious, down-to-earth person behind the scenes you can imagine. It's not that fakey type of schmooze either. You can tell he's genuine. When there is a break in the interview process he's asking the crew about their families etc. He has a very kind heart.
Now, with that said I don't agree one hundred percent with all his policies. Some of the the things he has been for I have been totally against...amnesty for illegals is one of them.
I do not have one problem with people disagreeing with his policies but to personally say he's a bad person, compare him with Hitler and other evil people is not only beyond the pale it's just plain not true. I have also transcribed interviews of several members of the Bush family, and they are all warm loving people.
I could mention some people who are not gracious, but I'm not here to smear anyone's character on the basis of my professional knowledge, but I do feel I need to defend a person who is so unjustly character assassinated on a daily basis.
President Bush has very unfairly been painted to be evil by the media and the extreme left in this country. Again, nobody is forced to like him, but to say he's a bad evil person is just not right or factual, and I, for one will defend him on his character.
Discussion from Gab Board re Pres.
"First... I don't claim him. I think he's a tyrant to put it nicely and I think he is a warmonging hillbilly (and that's sad for the hillbillies because they are decent folk he gives a bad name). I told everyone not to vote for him last time... I tried to warn them. I didn't want him and he hasn't done anything to help me our my friends and family in the slightest, except make us look ridiculous on the international stage (which I can say because I live in Europe at the moment and I know how foolish they think us right now). Second, good for you. Maybe you should vote for McCain so that the pain (errr I mean pleasure) never ends. I bet the people that he's been against and not fought for (i.e., Katrina victims, Iowa flood victims, homosexuals, people with diseases that stem cell reasearch could help, innocent people in far off lands that lost family members and friends who were innocent victims) I bet they all share your same sentiments.. right? You can have him.. I bet right about now he's half price on the discount rack anyways! Third... you should be grateful she put "creatrue." Its probably how Bush spells and says it, so its a true representation. Fourth... I think the last time I checked it was a free country with free speech and allowed for people to have their own opinions. I have better names to call him than childish ones... but I won't use them since your so easily offended... are you his personal emotional filter? I doubt he cares what the American people call him... he's certainly proven he doesn't care what they think or how they feel... so why should we care about him? Thanks back atcha. I can have whatever opinion I want of the president and I can tell you, I am more the majority than you are."
Moving over here per Mod request.......
Of course you can have your opinion about President Bush. I was just saying that the names are uncalled for. Are you staying in Europe forever or are you planning on coming back to the U.S.? Just curious.
President Bush isn't perfect and there have been many mistakes, I do agree. I did vote for him and agree with the vast majority of his conservative views. I do plan on voting for John McCain in November. But, if Obama is our next president, as much as I disagree with his views, I wouldn't call him names; but that's just me I guess.
I do not envy anyone who is willing to take on the gigantic role of running the country. I would not want the job in a million years. I have respect for ANYONE, republican or democrat, who is ready and willing to take on this great responsibility.
I still would like to know what a creatrue is and President Bush is NOT retarded.
You mean "proud of your pres-elect" (nm)
Just watched him with Pres Bush and
Obama in the White House, definitely no droop, no change at all in his appearance.
has anyone changed Pres choice in
x
for new pres foremost, to keep us safe.
x
too bad i'm not the pres - i'm control freakish enough 4 it
:)
Oh, pul-EEEZE. Any pres., Pub or Dem, deserves a
night out on the town once in a while. And of COURSE it cost $20,000! It's not like they can just hop on public transit with no Secret Service, and cruise on down to the local burger shop.
His memory is no more 'selective' than the current Pres..
and his cronies...
I like your line of thinking. LOL. You should run for pres. You'd have my vote. nm
nm
When GW Bush became pres, I did give him a chance even though
amazin
Transcript: Democratic response to Pres. Bush's
Good morning. This is Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Majority Leader.
Over the past several months, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have negotiated a bipartisan extension of the highly successful childrens health insurance program known as CHIP - a program enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1997, with strong Democratic support, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
CHIP provides health insurance coverage for over six and one-half million American children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.
However, millions of other children who are currently eligible for this health insurance are not enrolled due to the programs limited resources.
To address this, our bipartisan legislation provides funding for approximately four million more children - ensuring that at least 10 million low-income children in our nation receive the health care coverage they need and deserve. Thats good for them and for our country.
This legislation does not change current eligibility guidelines. It simply strengthens CHIPs financing, covers more low-income children, and improves the quality of care they receive.
Sadly, on Wednesday, President Bush - in the face of bipartisan majorities in Congress, and contrary to the will of the American people - vetoed our bipartisan bill.
The President claims - wrongly - that this bill is fiscally irresponsible.
The truth is, this legislation is fully paid for. It does not add one nickel to the deficit or to the debt.
Furthermore, under the Presidents proposal more than 800,000 children who now receive coverage under CHIP would lose that coverage.
The President claims that this legislation would lead to a government takeover of health insurance. He is wrong.
The truth is, Americas largest private insurance lobbying group supports this bill - as do Americas doctors, nurses, childrens advocates, 43 governors, and, most importantly, 72 percent of Americans.
The claims made against this bill are simply wrong.
As Senator Pat Roberts, a senior Republican from Kansas, recently said: I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the federalization of health care. And if the Administrations concerns with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, Senator Roberts added: Bluntly put, they are not.
Most puzzling of all, perhaps, is the fact that the Presidents veto violates his own campaign promise.
In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the President promised (and I quote): In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs. We will not allow, he said, a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need.
But he has done just that.
But the Congress has done exactly what the President said he was going to do, if re-elected.
Yet today, the only thing standing between millions of American children and the health insurance they need and deserve is one person. The President is saying no to these children he promised to help.
This is a defining moment for this Congress.
In the words of Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, weve got to do what we can to try to override the Presidents veto.
In the days ahead, we will work to persuade many of our Republican colleagues, who insist on standing with the President, to instead join the bipartisan majorities in Congress - and Americas children - in overriding this veto.
I urge all of you: Contact your Member of Congress.
Ask them to support our children.
Ask them to do what the President promised to do when he sought re-election.
Ask them to vote to override the Presidents veto and ensure health care for our kids and for their future.
Thank you for listening. This is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
Lets put this nonsense to bed. Pres candidates born outside US
Here's the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
Here's the text. See. Isn't this EASY?
US presidential candidates born outside the US
"The constitutional wording has left doubts about whether those born on foreign soil are on an equal footing with those whose birth occurred inside the country's borders, and whether they have the same rights."[2] Though every president and vice president to date (as of 2008) has either been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, or else born in a U.S. state or Washington D.C.,[3] a number of presidential candidates have been born elsewhere.[4]
Barry Goldwater, who ran as the Republican party nominee in 1964, was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory. Although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully organized and incorporated territory of the United States.[5]
George Romney, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States in 1912. Romney was 32 years old when he arrived in Michigan.
Lowell Weicker, the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France and acquired his citizenship at birth through his parents. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general.[6]
John McCain, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and is the Republican nominee in 2008, was born at the Coco Solo U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Although the Panama Canal Zone was not considered to be part of the United States,[7] federal law states: "Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States."[8] The law that conferred this status took effect on August 4, 1937, one year after John McCain was born — albeit with retroactive effect, resulting in McCain being declared a U.S. citizen.[9]
The mere fact of Constitutional ineligibility has not deterred some minor parties from nominating candidates for President who could not possibly serve in the office. For example, although some states have blocked ballot access for such candidates, the Socialist Workers Party nonetheless successfully placed its candidate, Róger Calero, on the ballot in Mississippi in 2004. [10]
My husband and I were discussing is that the upside of Obama as pres it that we will probably
x
Isn't it wonderful to have a pres WHO DIDN'T STEAL THE ELECTION? AND WHO sm
won by such a large margin???? Poor Gore had to sit through Bush's inauguration knowing he had 500,000 more votes. This is WONDERFUL!
First thing is a Biography of Pres. Bush, then Welcome to Michael Moore...nm
x
Personally, I am disappointed in Pres Bush, but namecalling is really infantile.
I think it detracts from logical debate. Pointing out people's personal flaws is another really bad debate tactic. Need to rise above that high school behavior and stick to the opinons and there are plenty of bad things to say right now. Don't make it personal.
Pres. Bush holds completely stated "teleconference" with troops
Gads, I think he's a slow learner. This sort of stuff doesn't go over well, IMHO. Might make people think he is a big phony.
AP - 42 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution. This is an important time, Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you..
The problem is he says "world". If he wins he will be pres of the US, not the "world" n
x
He is still around, only with a new campaign. sm
See campaignforliberty.com. We have more than 100,000 members now and growing.
Even if they cannot vote for him, they should at least listen to what he has to say about the Fed and the economy, and people need to get involved. He is an economics genius. McCain did not even know what the PPT was when Dr. Paul asked him a question about it during one of the debates.
America has gone so far off track from what it is supposed to be and people are so uninformed, I honestly think they did not understand what he was trying to say. They labeled us as a fringe element for wanting to restore the Constitution. How pathetic is that? He was the thinking person's candidate.
Campaign
During my search for the Obama "messiah" discussion, I am just appalled at the nastiness of this campaign. As an INDEPENDENT, voting for Mr. Independent, my unbiased opinion is that the Republicans are running a nasty campaign based on half-truths and no truths. Just look at the nastiness on this board if anyone DARES speak a favorable word about Obama.
My intention this minute is to do a write-in vote for Lou Dobbs. Should it look as if McCain is going to win, I WILL switch and vote AGAINST John McCain and if that means a vote for Obama, well, so be it. I have already stated my objections to Obama and got myself in a peck of trouble for doing it!
This campaign
You know, I have never been so concerned about our election or our country in all my life. This really weighs heavy on me and I so hate seeing people on this board and others as well as people I come in contact every day so biased one way or the other they won't even begin to listen to any questions about their candidate. There are plenty of things about both candidates that really concern me. One thing that has been overlooked is that Congress plays a big part in what a president can and cannot do, although both the Republican led Congress and the present Democrat led Congress are failing the American people. It is my feeling they should have put the brakes on George W. Bush on many different occasions but instead they have given him free reign.
I agree with Lou Dobbs almost 100%. I agree that I'm for LEGAL immigration but ILLEGAL is quite another thing. Our wages are going down and our cost of living is going up, in large part due to the influx of illegals overloading our schools, our ERs and other public services. This is particularly true here in my part of the country where there are big businesses that demand the low-wage workers and our senator and representative vote against the will of the majority of citizens because the big biz is who owns them. I wonder if Lou Dobbs were elected president, what kind of president would he be. I was hoping he would run. At least we have a news commentator who tells it as it is on both sides.
It really concerns me that posters on this board are so busy fighting over the candidate they can't even discuss the issues. I always thought MTs were of above average intelligence but reading some of the posts here, I'm starting to rethink that thought. I've been out and around all day and came home looking forward to seeing what was new and danged if the fighting, backbiting and nastiness here isn't worse than it was this morning.
Do you really want to get into campaign fraud?
You really don't want to, because the left has a corner on that market One example is the DNC registering dead people in Detroit. You know, we could tit for tat all day long about these things, but the conspiracy that elections are fixed is just that, a conspiracy.
Your energies would best be served by trying to help the the schizophrenic Democratic party finding a unified vision and an action plan other than dissing the Republicans. It's not our fault you're losing it's yours. The article you posted proves that energies are being wasted on the wrong things. But really, I don't care if you lose just so you do.
I know his campaign is in big trouble.
Seems to me he thought he found something and before confirming it, he started appearing on talk shows. At the most, he knowingly lied and wanted to tell his base what they wanted to hear.
At the least, he's reckless and sloppy in his approach to things.
I suppose the true test of his character will be if he comes clean and admits he was wrong.
Other than that, I find it increasingly difficult on a daily basis to understand why some of these politicians do what they do, both Republican and Democrat alike.
sorry...I was repeating what his campaign was saying...
only of course they said African American, not black. Yes, I am fully aware he is biracial. But he himself identified himself as "black." Remember the "oh by the way he happens to be black" comment. He does not view himself as biracial. And whether or not he is black or biracial or white does not matter to me. Your opinion and mine differ. I do not think he is capable. There is a difference in running the country and showing up and voting present most of the time. I am not bashing him. It is just a fact...he has absolutely no foreign policy experience, and while Biden does, is he going to take Biden with him when he meets leaders of other countries? It IS a legitimate concern. Forget it is Obama. Think of him as Joe Blow from Kokimo. He doesn't have the experience, and being a great orator in prepared speeches will not get him far in the foreign policy area. And in the state this world is in now...we need someone with that experience...not in the second chair. In the FIRST chair. Just my opinion.
Wow....you should be in Barack's campaign...
you took one sentence out of what I said and spun it so hard I'm dizzy. LOL. How you got that I made an assumption that noncaucasian nonchristian people are incapable of thinking for themselves. You are the one who suggested that anyone who hates does so by choice because they won't think for themselves...?
|
