Obama's strength is his control. I give your post the ' thumbs down'..nm
Posted By: () on 2009-06-21
In Reply to: I am registered pub but only 1 time - Backwards typist
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
Most significantly out of control post of the day award goes to gt. Geesh! nm
Thumbs up!
//
King Bush thumbs his nose at the Constitution...again
House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass?
RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday March 15, 2006
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.
Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The full text of the letter follows:
March 15, 2006
The Honorable Andrew Card
Chief of Staff
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Card:
On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.
I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.
Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]
I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.
I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.
The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.
I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member
Enclosure
[1] See Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 14, 2006).
[2] See Letter from CBO Acting Director Donald Marron to Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2006).
[3] U.S. Constitution, Article I, � 7.
Conservatives are for control over their own children and less control by govt
you want it both ways, it is dem fault with control, and when they had no control
it was their fault as well. yes GB did not get anything done, no deregulation, no war, no shift of power to the corporations, nothing.
so you are saying he was utterly incompetent?
How about if some of us are using birth control to be responsible and control.......sm
the size of our families, as almost every family has to do? And believe me, I tried the "rhythm" method, and I have my beautiful son, Alex, as a response. And I adore him, and thankfully we found ways to afford him, care for him in every way, etc., but some sexual aides and birth control are actually used by Christian couples who have been married for 28 years, gong on 29 in May. sex is also important in a loving marriage, not just to "do whatever feels good." There is nothing shameful in married, committed sex.
Control? If you mean, control of putting our country
nm
President Bush's strength of character.....sm
was tested this weekend, when two shoes were hurled at his head in fast succession, while the owner of said shoes, (size 10, by the way, per our prez), had hoped they would hit him, not to mention embarass with the intended podiatric insult.
However, President Bush showed great strength of character in the aftermath of said attack, calling off the secret service, and making light of the matter.
And not to mention, lightning quick reflexes.
Kudos to you, Mr. President. I salute you.
LOL! "Bush's strength of character", now that's funny.
x
There is strength in diversity. Makes life interesting.
-----
35 years, experience, strength, command of issues.
nm
Don't agree. We trust God for Wisdom, Strength, and health in our govenment.....sm
BUT that does not mean that there should not be a separation in church/state. We can trust in the Lord and pray for our nation, but is is up to us, as keepers of this nation, to work hard, to strive to appoint the right people, to try to defend the constitution, not just in war, but in peace. By becoming a UNITED nation once again, because we are being destroyed more quickly from within....the terrorist are loving it and will not have to do much to make this nation fall, if we do not use wisdom, discernment, and love, once the whole economy has collapsed and there is more and more crime, chaos, despair, etc., there won't be much the terrorists will have to do for our downfall...and there won't be much to gain from this country, either, if it sinks that low, IMHO
Then Obama better give himself
nm
BTW, what about where Obama said he'd give IC tax rebates
still waiting on that one
Attitudes like this give Obama more appeal.
!
Give me a break! It is okay if it was Bush, but not okay for Obama!
Guess it will never be okay to make fun of the chosen one.
Obama wants to give small businesses tax relief not...sm
raise their taxes. He wants taxes raised on large corporations who are making record profits, paying their executives millions in salaries and perks per year. Also you will find that most companies offshore to countries where they pay pennies on the dollar to workers rather than pay Americans a living wage. These countries are happy not to charge them high taxes because those few pennies feed their people.
The 'it' factor: Let's give Obama a change, at least...
the last 8 years were not good years.
Isn't charisma and attractiveness in all fields of life a major component for success? Besides all other qualifications?
When Obama said we can't give up our ideals for safety... they showed Bush's embarrassed face
His lame patriot act was being referred to.
This post really makes me WANT to vote for Obama. I am undecided, but this pushes me closer to Obama
...Thanks for the info!
I did say in my post that Obama was no
different, maybe you missed that part. So yes I know Biden's son is or was a lobbyist. I just don't see how McCain can put that statement out there when he has all of them working for him, and expect us to believe in it. Do you believe everything he says or can you see that he does lie, or stretch the truth?
I don't believe everything Obama says and I have said many times that I am still undecided who to vote for, but even if I were voting for Obama I am objective enough to know that he can't follow through with everything he says, and stretches things/lies also.
it was a post about Obama
s
I agree with M Obama - here is my post
This is the message I said I would post here.
In reply to the Clinton’s had nothing to do with the last 8 years. This is absolutely correct, but the Clinton administration was just as bad before that. The Clinton years were the worst of my adult life (and my friends and family who are staunch democrats). So we’ve actually had 16 years of garbage for Presidents (20 if you consider Bush Sr.). Government grew and paychecks shrunk. Promises broken, tax increases (with the Clinton administration). The Clintons did nothing for the middle income people. Their “1% wealthiest” friends continued to receive more benefits. Our families friends were losing their houses and had to go back to living with their parents as they could no longer afford to live anymore. I think a lot of people forget the following:
Somalia – another unnecessary war
Kosovo – another unnecessary war
Elian Gonzales
Receiving money funded from china (treasonous tradeoffs I think it was called) for his re-election
Bill & Hillary stating they never heard of people (criminals who gave them money) when indeed they have pictures.
Hillary’s financial and other records sealed so nobody would find out the stuff she did (why?)
Monica Lewinski
Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Juanitta Broderick, etc, etc,
Vince Foster (untimely passing)
Ron Brown (untimely passing)
Hillary pulls Bill off of D. Morris as Bill is getting ready to punch him in the face yelling at him “Bill, think about what your doing”. Then walked around telling D. not to say anything to anyone.
Numerous times secret service had to pull Hillary of Bill
Hillary’s foul language
Hillary’s “female” relationships
Bill’s “female” relationships
Lying under oath
Impeached
Decimating our military within two weeks of being elected
Whitewater
Ban lifted on gays in the military
They destroyed and stole white house furniture and artifacts on their way out. Urinated on carpets, walls, etc. It was a real mess to clean up.
And those are only a few of the highlights of the Clinton administration. She wants to take credit for anything good that happened, then she better take credit for the bad too. Especially when she was running the show while Billy was off with his girlfriends.
They are both a couple of criminals and should have gone to jail for half the stuff they did. So while the last eight years have been bad, the previous eight were just as bad. - And all my MIL can say to me is.... "oh but he's so good looking".
and every post like this rains on Obama's....
what makes you think that all the families out there who vote by the way...have had this happen in their family or in the family of someone they know. Go ahead. Sink his campaign. Why do you think he asked his supporters to stop attacking her on this issue??
Geez. Why should I even care. Go ahead. Sink him. How unfortunate his own adoring throngs will help bring him down. Poor man. Bless his heart.
Did I mention Obama anywhere in that post?
can you even have a thought without him in it??
Obama the post turtle
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old PA farmer, whose
hand was caught in a gate while working the garden , the doctor struck up a
conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to
Obama and his bid to be our President.
The old farmer said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a 'post turtle'.' Not
being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post
turtle' was. The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a
country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced
on top, that's a 'post turtle'.'
The old farmer saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he
continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he
doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up
there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb a$$ put him up there!
Oh please. We just post articles of Obama
x
Post-Partisanship: The Obama Way...sm
The President is revealing who he really is, day by day.
It appears to be "The Obama Way" only. Sounds very dictatorial to me. The GOP are now being told who they can and can't listen to on the radio, or "we won't get along."
====================
Post-Partisanship: The Obama Way
By Adam Graham
January 23, 2009
Barack Obama in a display of post-partisanship went to House Republicans and listened to their concerns and responded with a post-partisan/healing/bring us altogether response that we expect from our new President:
During his private meeting with congressional Democrats and Republicans on Friday, President Obama ended a philosophical debate over tax policy with the simple declaration that his opinion prevailed because "I won."
Democrats called it a light-hearted moment that drew laughs around the table. Republicans said there was laughter but couldn't recall if any of it came from their ranks.
Guys, could anyone imagine George W. Bush saying something like to Democrats in 2005? I can't. It's arrogance illustrated. And Keith Olbermann would name Bush "The Worst Person in the World" for it.
Also, Barack Obama had some interest in advising the GOP on their listening habits if they wanted good relations with the White House:
Washington -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
Thus we're beginning to see Barack Obama's big problem when it comes to bi-partisanship. He doesn't know where to begin. He has never worked with Republicans on substantive matters. During the year Republicans controlled the Illinois legislature, Obama was an irrelevant backbencher. In the Senate, the one issue he worked a Republican on was relatively minor (earmark transparency.) Comments like today's won't help. If Obama can't get serious Republican support for his stimulus plan, it could get it delayed, while vulnerable Democrats seek cover. If it doesn't work, Democrats could left holding the bag if it goes wrong.
Plus, what a difference a day makes. Or at least President Obama seems to think so. He was widely expected to lift the Mexico City Policy of funding International organizations that support abortions, yesterday on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Instead, he demurred and issued a tepid statement about the need to reduce abortions. It looked like he was saving his political capital and avoiding too quickly dwindling the good will he had from most Americans, so he waits one day, but still does it:
WASHINGTON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Friday lifted restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, reversing a policy of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush.
The Democratic president's decision was a victory for advocates of abortion rights on an issue that in recent years has become a tit-for-tat policy change each time the White House shifts from one party to the other.
When the ban was in place, no U.S. government funding for family planning services could be given to clinics or groups that offered abortion services or counseling in other countries, even if the funds for those activities came from non-U.S. government sources.
Ah, it's so good to know that my tax dollars now go to organizations that are sending abortion missionaries overseas to spread abortion around the world.
Did waiting until January 23rd help Obama any? Slightly. Obama did it at 5 PM ET, buried on a Friday which is good for limiting media coverage, but the folks who were going to learn about this decision and understand it were never going to hear about it from the mainstream press. Plus, not doing it on January 22nd means not being engaged with a fight on the same day as the March for Life, but Obama's still fighting the culture war on the left side of the equation.
However, realistically, this is a decision that could have waited much longer-at least until after the stimulus was passed. Most of these dollars have already been designated as to where they're going. Obama spent political capital that he could have saved for a few more weeks which makes the move a mis-step.
Obama had no choice to do it eventually. He had to pay off his supporters in the abortion rights movement, who like many other industries are looking for a bailout. However, they could have waited a little longer.
http://culture11.com/diary/36633
Read the post below that says what Obama said =
the bill is designed to protect people from violent acts -- not to take away freedom of speech.
I don't agree that we should protect a pedophile, I don't agree with a lot of other things listed in the OP's list, but that does not mean that I think people in America have the right to physically harm the people that practice those things, and if they are harmed, then the person doing the harm should be punished.
If you are talking about the Obama Nation post...
it was written by a black pastor and it is his opinion. He was not hired by nor affiliated with the McCain campaign. There are several black preachers who do not agree with black liberation theology. There was nothing in his post about hatred. He said homosexuality was a sin..it is. He didn't say he hated gays...just that the Bible says the ACT is a sin..and it is. Just like lying, adultery, murder, etc. It does have the distinction of being the one sin that God classified as an "abomination." All the preacher was pointing out was that when Obama said there was nothing specific in the Bible regarding homosexuality...he was wrong. Again...there is no hatred in that post. He just doesn't agree with Obama's philosophy. Where you get hate from that I don't know....did you even read the post?
And by the way....sniping and cattiness must be your strong suit? You seem to excel in that area. Can you just drop the cattiness and sniping (as you asked that I do) and go figure, as you told me to do? Thank you so very much.
Re-read my post....I was NOT talking about Obama himself...
I am talking about his followers. And yes, it is more like followers than supporters, and a great many of them, including on this board, turn into a snarling, snapping, pack attack on anyone who posts anything negative or unflattering about him. I cannot believe you can say that no one can make you hate. We all have the capacity within us to hate. But no one hates spontaneously and it most certainly can be taught. do you think Islamic terrorists were born hating? Of course not. But they are taught it, and they learn it. Just the way a lot of kids were taught racism. THey werren't born hating, it was taught to them until they thought that was the way it was supposed to be. They didn't even know it was hate. Louis Farrakhan preaches hate. The I disagree totally that hate comes from within and that no one can make you hate. Oh yes they can.
All that being said...I did not say that by design Obama makes his followers that way...I said I didn't know. But the fact remains, those are the traits they exhibit.
And I never said, not one time, that Obama was a hater. Did not say that at all. All I said was he inspired that kind of emotion in many of his followers.
Good post! I was very pro-Obama in the beginning (sm)
of the race. But he does have me feeling more and more scared of what will happen if he is elected. Thank you so much for being so clear.
It's your reply to the post about Obama Aunt from
You always have a way of posting a view (on illegal immigration) with which I disagree, but always am able to better understand because you have that uncanny ability to strip away all the fluff and get down to the nitty gritty...sort of like Lou Dobbs, who I actually like to listen to except for his illegal immigration crusade, in spite of the fact that I am a left-wing commie!
Obama Haters will hate this post.
Remember Rush I-hope-he-fails Limbaugh?
All they want is fodder to support their ridiculous claims. They don't want to hear that he is actually succeeding better than expected.
OMG, I hope my post didn't look like I thought Obama did it
I know he didn't. He's a very decent person and respectful and when something is wrong he'll say so (and will have words with his people if they cross the line). I wasn't sure who did it. The news said they were going to tell us who is responsible but they never did (go figure). I just think its a horrible thing to happen to anyone and DH and I were talking tonight about when did all the nasty things like this start happening. I'm sure 100 or so years ago it wasn't bad like this. I just think it's a horrible world when someone is running for an office and people think its okay to do this. How low will they go?
Democracy Obama-style! Great post. Thanks.
.
Didn't the Washington Post back Obama?
My math isn't wrong. Gov. Blago+Mrs. Blago (real estate agent, or did you forget?)+Rezko=Obama. Can I make it any clearer?
Obama to create Iran outreach post...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/19/obama-will-create-iran-outreach-position/
Don't find Obama worship any creepier than this post. nm
and he wants to control it all.....
the banks, the insurance industry, the automotive industry, the health care industry, the finance sector, and our entire lives. You call that strength. I call that dictatorship.
Gun Control
John Lott, Jr., a Yale social economist, did the largest study on gun control laws covering all 3000 counties in the US. His findings astounded the author himself, who had reviewed many other studies - all of which had been extremely small - that suggested guns don't deter crime.
The title of Lott's published study tells his findings in a nutshell: "More Guns, Less Crime". It's an exhaustive book filled with much more data than most of us would ever care to see, but the findings were unequivocal: the more guns there are in the hands of law-abiding citizens, the lower the rate of gun crimes committed against them.
On the strength of what he found, Lott, who had never even owned a gun or fired one except one time at a summer youth camp - purchased a handgun and got a license to carry it. Consequently, the gun-banning crazies who howled bloody murder at his research (but who haven't been able to mount a single credible counterargument in the intervening years) called him a "gun nut".
Pro birth control....s/m
I'm definitely not pro abortion, but am pro choice in, what should be, the rare event of unexpected pregnancy, and in that case I think that the woman herself should be the one to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or not, and if so, it should remain a safe, and legal option. It's an extremely emotional, and difficult decision for most women to have to make in that situation.. I did a quick look and see that the abortion rate in the US has declined from 1996 to 2002. I'm going to look for statistics from 2002 to the present when I have more time. I think the key in the main is stressing birth control measures, and also making those measures affordable to all women across all socio-economic groups.
Birth control is....
used to prevent pregnancy......not kill an innocent child AFTER it is conceived. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!! How do you people sleep at night?
You are correct...he wants to control...
the situation, questions asked, etc, because he knows he couldn't come up with any anwers on the fly without knowledge of them first. He told Bill O to his face after one of the debates that he would come on his show after the primaries...hmm, so much for Michelle stating in her speech that he was a man of his word. Anyone who can't answer the tough questions without being prepped and coddled is not ready to lead this country.
Yes indeed. Lot of RNC damage control going on.
How do the Pubs turn Gustav into a political advantage? We already see them shameless working all the angles and considering their options, but let's face it. They need all the help they can get now that Gustav has blow the wind out of the sails of their copy-cat showcase celebrity VP pick. It's just as well. A 48-hour ride on that boat was just about all the excitement JM could stand at one time.
Any political capital the RNC is trying to get out of Gustav is doomed to fail. What's a party to do? The collective sigh of relief they all are breathing over the Bush and Cheney speech cancellations to go put on their compassionate conservative hats and polish up their leadership image is producing wind gusts up to a Category 10. How can they celebrate the debut of their golden girl on a split screen they share with the drowning of New Orleans Part II and hold their collective breaths at the same time and pray those levies don't break again? One would think they would have the sense to postpone the event until all the ruckus dies down, but if they did that, people might actually start expecting the Prez and VP to deliver their speeches again. They can't have that, now can they?
The dems will not be too worried about Bush/Cheney speech cancellations one way or the other. The RNC opening night and the leadership image role down south are equal opportunities for Bush and Cheney to show their true colors and there is no way the media is going to be polite enough not to be reminding us all about the screw ups last time around, no matter how presidential they try to appear. It's a lose/lose situation no matter how you look at it.
Must have skipped over all the sam control,
nm
As far as birth control....I have not seen anything about...
people wanting to remove birth control. Just because an individual elects not to use it does not mean they do not want anyone else to have access. With this permissive society liberals have created there is really no choice but to provide it.
Yes, there are natural causes for miscarriage. That is leaving it up to God. For us to put the life of an innocent child totally in the hands of someone else to choose whether it lives or dies, just as a personal choice, I believe is wrong. Just as those in these orphanges murdered children...it is murder. Killing an innocent for no reason other than "oops" is wrong.
What overturning Roe vs. wade would do is put it back in the hands of legislators who, by the constitution, are the only ones who can enact laws. The Supreme Court should not be enacting laws. They are to interpret...not legislate. I believe it should be overturned because it is unconstitutional. Then put it to a state-by-state vote. Some states would outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or life of mother. Some would outlaw it, period. Some would allow it in all forms. But at least it would be the will of the people.
Why do you think congress has never tried to pass an abortion law? Even when the democrats had control? Even before Roe vs. Wade? The truth is in the pudding.
Republican control
Excuse me but aren't the House and the Senate Democrat controlled since 2006? They haven't helped this country one bit since they took control, in fact it has gotten worse. By your own reasoning you are wrong about why this country is in such bad shape, it's not the Republicans alone. And the Democrafts do not concern themselves at all about the middle class, just the people who have no pride and can't get off their asses and work, only lip service in election years. Heaven forbid the lazy class take on a part time job when things get rough. I'm sick of carrying the lazy class on my back...
Look where out-of-control capitalism got us.
Hello...tightening gun control is not a ban.
out of hands of criminals and gun-free zones (that already exist, such as federal buildings, airports, etc) do not threaten your precious pistols. AK-47 assault rifles REALLY necessary for hunting and protection? If you are not a criminal, you have nothing to fear. For heaven's sake, ever hear of compromise?
Bush has no control over this. This is
Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, and Paulson's baby. They're the ones who calls the shots on how this money is to be given out and used. They were the ones with the first bright idea for this bailout.
Even yesterday, Frank decided he would give the automakers $25K with governments ownships of the automakers. Yet last night, I hear it's only a loan to them to be paid back. So, which is it?
|
