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




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Obama is rich in his own right - not just the presidency -

Posted By: Amanda on 2009-06-04
In Reply to: Petty? Why not to a movie, but - Broadway? And he tells us to watch our money?

he can spend money any way he pleases. Believe me, if I had that kind of money, I would be going to broadway too!


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

What would an Obama Presidency Mean?

What Would an Obama Presidency Mean?


by Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


That sounds pretty definitive to me.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


God help us to be a thermostat.


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


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


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


Looking Ahead to the Obama Presidency.....sm


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




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

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

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

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

"Blueprint for Change"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expanding the UN

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

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

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

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

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

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





http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/543-looking-ahead-to-the-obama-presidency
Celebrate Obama's presidency!

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


Here are the 7 promises.


1. Make government open and transparent.


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


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

4. No more secrecy.


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


6. You’ll know what’s in it.


7. We will put every pork barrel project online.


What is the one thing you want an Obama presidency to accomplish?

Mine is curbing illegal immigration.


Obama is a rich fat cat as well! You are being
nm
Obama is rich, and
The Kennedys and plenty of philanthropists are rich.  Look, it shouldn't be trickle down economics.  It should be trickle up for a change.  Let's not wait for the crumbs and I'm sorry but anyone who is an MT is probably not rich.
Obama's definition of rich

Being so hateful and against Hillary all these months (and for Obama), after finding this article I now am rethinking my decision as to why I thought he was the better of the two.  


Obama's Scary Definition of "Rich"


I was a bit alarmed last night when during the debate Obama said that people who earned $97K a year are not part of the middle class and therefore should have their payroll taxes raised. Good grief, if this guy gets in the White House, hide your wallets.

If Obama thinks someone making $97K a year is in some way "rich" and not part of the middle class, I hesitate to think what tax hikes he has in store for people who make $250K or more.

I worry when I find myself agreeing with Hillary, but I found myself nodding when she responded by pointing out that in some states such a salary is definitely middle class, and that in New York school superindents, school principals, fire department chiefs, etc., etc. earn more than $97K and yet certainly can't be considered "rich."

Mike Griffith
------------------------------------------------------------
"Maintain peace, friendship, and benevolence with all the world. . . . I feel it to be my duty to add . . . a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public
service. . . ." -- John Adams, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1797


Yeah those nasty old rich. Well, after 4 years of Obama...
there certainly won't be those anymore...except those closest to him, and you won't be a bit better off than you are right now. And when the rich aren't there anymore, who is going to pay for your health care then? You might want to have a contingency plan, because if Obama doesn't have the rich to tax anymore, how is HE going to pay for your health care? Another thing to think about...they will all move to Europe before they allow him to bleed them dry. Survival of the fittest. Where do you think you will fall in that food chain?

Just asking.
Many rich are rich because they too are hard
xx
One heartbeat away from the presidency.,,,,,,,,
Very scary indeed for a candidate with a 4-year degree in journalism
Democrat hasn't won the presidency yet.
Mostly because I can't wait to see what you all have to say when the country is still in shambles with a Democrat behind the wheel. I can't believe you all actually think a Dem in office will help. Entire Congress is Dem right now. What has it done lately?
Senator versus presidency
Sure, I can see where a lot of this would be overlooked while running for a senate position versus president of our country. The higher the position, the more you look into someone's history and that is what separates the boys from the men....
Bush's "Active/Negative" Presidency
Bush's Active/Negative Presidency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Hello President McCain, and VP Palin!
your msg. "American Presidency is an exec. role"
nm
Bush Presidency - eight years in eight minutes

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28699663


 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," he said.
I'm just voting for him because he is the lesser of the two evils who are running for presidency
x
And you think that terrorist attack was planned in just a few months during his presidency?
nm
LOL, this is rich! sm
Patrick Buchanan who the liberals labeled "certifiable" during his last presidential bid but not that he is saying what you want to hear, he's a great guy!  That's okay, because Zell Miller said just the opposite of Patrick.  Up is down and down is up!
This is rich.

Since when is it UnAmerican to want to know the TRUTH?  Why are you people so ANTI-TRUTH?  Wouldn't surprise me if this administration goes down in history as much more corrupt than Nixon.


In the middle of a "war"??!!  Bush should be protected because we're stuck in HIS war that HE started based on HIS LIES?  At the very least, it would show the entire world that not ALL Americans condone lying, attacking and occupying sovereign nations for no reason.  I personally hope they FRY him and hold him and all those involved in his administration accountable for every single EVIL thing they have done.


Your theory that we shouldn't do this while we're in the middle of a war is like the guy who killed both his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he's an ORPHAN.


Whatever happened to "The truth will set you free"?  Why are you people HATE the truth so much?


that 5% rich...
he is among them. wonder how much comes out of his pocket and how much o his own wealth he has been redistributing??
If you were rich, would you be saying that?
I know I wouldn't, especially after I had worked so hard to get the money I earned. Unfortunately, I'm not rich by any standards, but I'm infuriated and insulted by Obama's thinking that I need a hand out from those with more money! If we take money from those who have it and give it to those who don't, where's the motivation for those that don't have it to get it for themselves? Why would they want to go to school to get a better paying job or go for that promotion at work if they know that first of all, they can sit back and get it for free and second of all, if they do start making more money, they'll just have to turn around and give it to someone that doesn't have it! How is it that the American Dream has turned into the American Entitlement?
who hates the rich?
Just another broad generalization of how **we people** believe/feel/think..Rich people?  I dont hate people I dont know..be them rich, poor or in between.  I have loved and cared for the best and the worst..I could write a book (smile).  To say we dont like or hate the rich..another broad generalization and bigoted statement by a neocon.  I dont judge a person by their riches, I judge them by what they are giving back to this earth and when they pass, will the earth be a little bit better off for them being here..
Who knows any rich people???? nm
nm
never said rich were evil
I never said the rich were evil.  I said there are many who dont care about the working class and yet you defend them.  As an example, I just read a news article earlier this week that Dr. Phil pays his transcriptionists $7.00 to $8.00 an hour!!!!!!!!!  Have you ever seen Dr. Phil's house in LA?  I have passed it a few times..OMG!!!!  Let me tell ya, the guy can afford to pay his transcriptionists better than that.  If it wasnt for Oprah, he would still be working in Texas and not a celebrity but does it even make him realize, hey, I got a stroke of good luck thanks to Oprah, maybe I should take care of my staff better.  Obviously he is one of the rich who does not get it.  Sure there are some who care and give back, as they realize how lucky they are and there but for the grace of God go I.  I have seen personally some rich give back greatly, some volunteering at jobs every one else would be paid for, giving to charities and so much  more.  The good ones realize they  must give back, cause that is  just the way it should be in a moral caring upright society.  The others, they cant get enough money.  Their religion is money.  The more millions they have, they are worrying about how to make millions more. 
The rich ARE the democrats
Look back over time. Who benefitted from tax breaks Clintons 2% of the richest people. Everyone makes it sound as though only republicans are rich. The democrat party has some of the richest people and they aren't paying their fair share. With the Democrats I've always had to pay more taxes. With the republicans I received refunds every year.
Ain't that rich! - see link

Did George Bush serve his country???????  I'd say Obama served his country right on our shores by working with the impoverished in Chicago. GW wouldn't dirty his hands and neither would McSame.


McWayne looks like a corpse with too much makeup on. One heartbeat away from the presidency? JC...............It is God's will we are in Iraq? W?








 


No Bailout for the rich
Say no to the bailout.  The FBI is investigating all of these companies for criminal mortgage fraud.
Rich does not mean corrupt........
xx
maybe sam's one of them rich oil pubs
well-being of the rest of us.
Exactly......since when is RICH supposed to be
xx
What problem do you have with being rich?
Not sure what you call rich but you seem to be very bitter towards anyone who has more than you. MOST RICH in this country have worked their butts off to get where they are. They educated themselves and work more hours than most to get where they are. They have sacrificed a lot and they should not have to pay for those that sit on their butts and do nothing for a living, except walk to the mailbox the 3rd of every month to get their check.

I can guarantee you if you were rich, whatever number you consider that to be, you would be keeping your mouth shut because you would not appreciate some socialized nut job coming in and telling you to give more than half of what you make to some lazy bum on the street and pay for all their needs while yours go unmet.

Get a reality check!!
There's plain ol' rich, and then there's
Like yer Wall Street execs, bank CEO's, etc. Even worse our this nation's spoiled, mollycoddled pro athletes.

Does any of their wealth trickle down to us? Nope. The more tax breaks and loopholes they get, the more we have to take up the slack and fill in the gaps.

If they can pay a football player $38 million to play a stupid game, then I think those of us who actually work for a living should at least get a few more cents per line.
You seem to have struck it rich in a
x
Why don't the mega rich..........
toss down some billions to help their country out? It's a tax write off......wait until their houses get robbed, their cars get keyed and their yachts get pisd on. Don't think for a minute their hired help won't be getting even in some nasty, discreet way......I think I want to be a CHEF!
That's rich, JTBB....lol...nm

would you have a problem with being rich?
nm
'Rob from the rich,
give to the poor' is unamerican.  'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need' is unamerican. 'You poor fellow, lemme give you some of that guy's money' is also unamerican.   'Give me liberty or give me death' is American. 
Oh, this is rich. You accuse me of drinking and then cry when it happens to you. SM
Typical liberal double standards. 
To those who think the rich should pay their FAIR taxes..
Bad news for Democrats: Top 5% of taxpayers paid 53.8% of all indiv. income taxes...




Okay, this is the one area Democratics leaders always try to mislead the American public on:

The rich get major tax breaks.
The rich get all of the Bush tax cuts.
The rich pay no taxes.

Of course they never want to explain what an unproportional percentage the wealthy in this country pay to taxes. Now to the FACTS from the Department of the Treasury:

The latest data is from the 2002 taxes. The following incomes split levels from the IRS are (% of total individual income tax in parenthesis):

Top 1%: above $ 285,424 (33.71%)
Top 5%: above $ 126,525 (53.80%)
Top 10%: above $ 92,663 (65.73%)
Top 25%: above $ 56,401 (83.90%)
Top 50%: above $ 28,654 (96.50%)
Bottom 50%: below $ 28,654 (4.50%)

The President's Tax cuts actually increase the burden on the wealthy while providing greater relief to the bottom 50 (who are not contributing proportionally to the federal coffers).
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Public Affairs
March 2, 2005
FACT SHEET: Who Pays the Most Individual Income Taxes?

The individual income tax is highly progressive – a small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year.

• In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.


Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.



Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data

stop defending the rich
Either you are rich or a fool..Do you actually think the rich are defending us the way you are defending them?  We need to take care of the people who carry America on their backs, the middle class.  The rich could not care less about us.  They dont even know the workings of every day life.  I have an extremely well off friend..he does not use credit cards..pays with cash..told me I should just pay with cash for my new Jeep that I bought a few years ago instead of monthly payments..yeah, right, LOL..thanks for the advice...moon beam..he never even used an ATM..thinks being rich is justified cause they can show us Renoir paintings (as when Bellagio had Steve Wynns paintings on show), they can show the little people the beauty of life..Oh geez..the rich do not even realize that the middle class exists..other than to work at their companies and factories, so they can stay rich.
who trashed rich republicans?
My post referred to rich people, not rich democrats or rich republicans, there can be nasty out of touch rich republicans and rich democrats.  Where did you read that my post was putting down on rich republicans?  Once again, you conservatives amaze me..you read things that arent there or you pump up the information you have to fit your own agenda and bias.  Your post made no sense because no one from the posts I have read was trashing/putting down on republican rich. 
Me..tear people apart...that's rich!
I did not use phrases like keep your butt in your chair and *defecate. That was your class act.

If Lurker does not mind being grouped with you, far be it from me to care. You can champion whoever you like.

Are you as angry as you sound? ;-)
Republicans = The rich and the fools.
dd
That's rich....coming from the party who is trying to...
silence talk radio. So much for free speech. There is that nasty double standard again.
That's rich, isn't it? "No President is above the law..."
Bill Clinton ring a bell?
Rich slithering around the country....
Well, I do know several rich families. One in particular that is very well off. They have a son who voluntarily went into the military out of high school and then went on to college. He wanted to make the military his career but his wife saw otherwise, so he does reserves. Well, he has been sent to Iraq twice, watched friends blown up in front of him, barely made it back alive himself. Now, he is being redeployed to Afghanistan in a few weeks, leaving behind his wife and two small children. He is one who firmly believes he is doing the right thing, even though this is extremely hard on his family. His rich republican daddy didn't make that decision one way or the other for him, he did. His rich republican daddy is very proud of his son. He could have not entered the military, but he chose to. He is a very successful businessman in his own right and not because of his father. He has worked hard in his own career. And, shock of all shock, he is WHITE!!!! I cannot tell you how many republican whites in my church alone have been deployed over and over to Iraq and Afghanistan, so you need to stop your pity party and false accusations that just poor blacks/nonwhites are sent off to war. Remember, none of them had to sign up, they chose to, just like all the whites who put their name on the dotted line did. We have lost dozens of young men in our nearby communities to Iraq, and I can honestly say it wasn't more blacks/nonwhites to whites. You really need to stop spreading that kind of thinking. Just be grateful there is no forced servitude into the military (drafting), which is not what a free country should have in the first place. I don't want anyone fighting for my country who is being forced and not a willing participant.
What corporations and rich folks have done for you...
they already and have always paid the bulk of taxes that keep this country running. But you still want them to pay more? You really think it is fair for those who have been successful to redistribute their money to other people? Be punished for success? I do not get that mindset. Sorry.

As to the rich having more power...the remedy to that is getting someone in Washington that will address the under the table power brokering, under the table pork barrelling and under the table lobbying. McCain is the one who has a history of trying to do just that. With the veto pen, he can put his money where his mouth is.

And contrary to popular opinion, not all rich people are Republicans. If Obama thinks higher taxes on the rich are the answer and all his supporters think so, then let him tax all rich Democrats. Let them check that box on their income tax returns and just give more. Let HIM do that. They could have been doing this all along. Stop taking all the deductions they take. Put their money where their mouth is. Lead by example. And if they want to redistribute that to other Democrats, more power to them. Just leave we independents and republicans who do not want to participate out of it.

Works for me.
I'm surely NOT RICH and I want no part of it in my

country.  Like the other poster said, Cuba has real estate for sale.  How many Cubans (besides that little boy that was adrift and landed in the US) actually want to go BACK to Cuba??