Oh, he knows. "You elect me", I will find
Posted By: a way to get money to you -disgusting.nm on 2009-02-05
In Reply to: Yeah, it's ridiculous. - Me
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
I don't know about "you all" but
I don't judge people by what they wear. I don't shop at Neiman or Saks and I'm not overly impressed by those who do. I wouldn't care if she did her shopping at Good Will if I thought she had enough brains to turn this country around. With her foreign policy knowledge being that Russia flies over Alaska and she can see Russia from her front porch on a clear day, The odds are highly in favor of her running this country at some point if McCain is elected.
"You better" ....
:)
The "you's" are the judiciary committee....
never meant to imply anyone else. And I frankly don't care how many are exposed, be they Republican, Democrat or polka-dotted. What I think would happen is that there would be a lot of people exposed, a lot of ties between people that might shock people, and that it will never get to the impeachment process. Ever think that it might be to the advantage of professional politicians tha America stays split? The end result, "we the people" will be more disgusted with politics than ever and with both parties. Of course there will still be the hard-liner tunnel-visioned on both sides who won't believe what comes out anyway if it does not fall in their belief system that the Democratic party (or the Republican party) can do no wrong. Some things never change. Sigh.
And there is that segment of the population, the professional politicians, who who don't really believe anything other than what it takes to advance their power base. As I have said ad nauseam, I only register as a Republican in primary years because I HAVE to in order to vote in them. Otherwise, independent because neither of the major parties interest me in the least and it is getting worse by the day.
And no, I don't necessarily think more republicans would come home to roost than democrats in republican administration. Especially since this republican administration kept over so many from the Clinton administration (so much for trying to bipartisan and reach across the aisle. He kept more people over from the last admin in his first term, I think, than any other Pres has. Most of them clean house when they come in). And not much of that went well (Armitage, Tenet, and how many others?). I think anyone honest can say a lot of the problems we face today were in part brought about by those very folks. They at the very least had both hands in it.
And when I said I wanted to know the truth...I meant that. I said the same thing during the Clinton impeachment...and everyone who watched any of that knows the man is guilty of both perjury and obstruction, no matter what he was lying under oath ABOUT, And THAT congressional montage let him walk. So I don't have faith, personally, in ANY professional politician. It is all about power and keeping it.
However, if all this ranting and raving and posturing does inadvertently prove that both parties were involved perhaps this two-party system we have basically been forced into will finally get shaken up enough to listen to "we the people" because they have not in a long time.
Piglet, I think this is a political exercise and I think those starting it have no interest in justice, just like those who started against Clinton had no interest in justice. If they had, they would have convicted him. It was an exercise, this is an exercise. But it has gotten so hatefully, bittery partisan that maybe some of them may not see that they perhaps would be hammering nails into their own political coffins (save Pelosi and a few others who are trying to keep it from happening). And by they, I mean any and all of the resident politicians in DC.
So I say let them have at it. And when the dust settles, we might actually have enough disgusted rank and file in America that who might get elected at that point? Ron Paul? I am at the point now where the whole thing is just ridiculous.
Pelosi is using her power the only way she knows how...in an effort to KEEP it. That is what they are ALL about. If she cared about the truth or justice and really felt in her heart of hearts that anyone in the administration was guilty of impeachable offenses she SHOULD go forward. The fact that she does not, and even tries to keep her fellow Dems from going forward, tells me all I need to know.
That being said...I have not had faith in much of any congressional montage period since Clinton walked and not only walked, continued as President. And even if WE the people push for it, we are not going to see anything done unless the professional politicians weigh the pro's and con's and if they think it will help insure winning the White House, they will go forward. If they think it will not, or will in any way hinder that goal, they won't. That is, sadly, the bottom line and because of that, we may never know the truth. It is in their best interest to just have the innuendo out there...because seeking the truth sometimes finds it, and that might not be the most opportune thing for getting the White House back. Politics.
And in the end...I am wondering if THAT matters, because we knew the truth about Bill Clinton and it didn't matter..he still was not convicted though they all knew he was guilty. Not of multiple affairs, against which there is no law, but lying under oath before a federal grand jury. There is no question he did it, we all saw him do it on national television. So it is not a question of guilt. The perjury automatically proved the obstruction count, he lied to keep from being caught, thereby obstructing "justice." And he not only walked on perjury and obstruction, he remained President. The Arkansas Bar Association knew he was guilty...said so and disbarred him. I believe that soured me (not because it was Bill Clinton...sheesh...but because the law should be applied equally to ALL and certainly that should include the President of the United States no matter what party he is a member of). And those same people who bemoan Clinton being impeached are thirsting for impeachment of someone else for the SAME crime. I don't understand that. I do not understand the incapability of some to grasp the concept of equality under the law. I thought that was a founding concept of America. Equal application of the law to all, no matter how high up the chain it goes. Guess that is just asking too much of people, to put down partisan politics and just look at the facts, guilty or not guilty. Didn't happen with Clinton. I don't have much faith that it will happen this time either, though the same people who want to excuse Clinton want to fry Cheney and use that to jump start frying Bush. They really don't care if it is true or not. Sigh. Almost laughable.
And I think that the powers that be in Washington just don't want us to know everything that would come out in impeachment hearings. Which are televised, so it would be HARD, HARD, HARD to spin. And the American people, I believe, are in a place where certain kinds of information would have very long-reaching effects. because I think there are more people toward the middle of the spectrum that the hard right or hard left.
So, I still say bring it on, have the hearings if they think they have the goods, and let it all come out. If the evidence points to guilt of Cheney, them impeach him, and if it is proven he is guilty, then remove him from office. And if others are in the process found to have committed crimes, then prosecute them and throw them in the cell next to Libby. Be they Dem, Repub, or polka-dotted. Let's try to get it right this time. Put the criminals in jail, not back in the White House. We can't go back and put Clinton in jail where he belongs, but we can get it right this time (yeah right, like that will happen, but one can hope).
If I sound disgusted, I am. As disgusted as kam but in a totally different way.
"you're" oops.
i hate spelling errors! :)
It should be "you're welcome" not "your welcome"
oh my
"You're answer"
If you don't want discussion and/or argument, don't post. Simple as that. If I know something related to someone's post, I'm gonna post a reply.
And you never argue on this forum, do you?
I am not one of what you call "you people."
I didn't state any number or any guesstimate of how many people attended tea parties. I can speak for my town, which is a small town, and there were about 300 people at our court house yesterday.
Final counts aren't in from some of the larger cities, but even that won't be a fair representation of the numbers because of small towns like mine that might not be added in the mix - those numbers do add up.
All I was wondering from you is why you chose to quote a Canadian article - you answered that it was because it would be an unbiased source. However, it would be a biased source because they would really have no first-hand knowledge of how many parties there were, where they were, how many people attened, etc.
Personally, I attended not because I'm a conservative or republican or anything like that. And it wasn't a front for some big corporation so the rich could keep their taxes low (and I'm far from being rich!) I attended because I don't think Congress is doing a very good job spending my money. When people like Chuck Schumer stand up there and say things like the American people don't care about the pork, that's when I get upset. And for them to get all up in arms about the AIG bonuses, only to find out it was all right there in black and white in the stimulus package, but none of them even bothered to read it, that's when I get upset! If you and I did something like that in our jobs, we'd be fired on the spot!
This sort of thing should have happened years ago because the spending in DC has been out of control, even when the republicans were in charge (that's when I started voting democrat for a while.)It just makes my blood boil to hear the republicans in DC spout off about all the spending the democrats are doing - why weren't they doing anything about it 8 or 10 years ago? But it makes me madder still to hear them all (republicans and democrats) DEFEND spending all this money now and then leaving our children to have to pay for it later.
I just don't think it's right for the government to think that it can live by one set of rules while the rest of us have to live by another.
Okay, enough of a book, just needed to get that off my chest.
I am not one of what you call "you people."
I didn't state any number or any guesstimate of how many people attended tea parties. I can speak for my town, which is a small town, and there were about 300 people at our court house yesterday.
Final counts aren't in from some of the larger cities, but even that won't be a fair representation of the numbers because of small towns like mine that might not be added in the mix - those numbers do add up.
All I was wondering from you is why you chose to quote a Canadian article - you answered that it was because it would be an unbiased source. However, it would be a biased source because they would really have no first-hand knowledge of how many parties there were, where they were, how many people attened, etc.
Personally, I attended not because I'm a conservative or republican or anything like that. And it wasn't a front for some big corporation so the rich could keep their taxes low (and I'm far from being rich!) I attended because I don't think Congress is doing a very good job spending my money. When people like Chuck Schumer stand up there and say things like the American people don't care about the pork, that's when I get upset. And for them to get all up in arms about the AIG bonuses, only to find out it was all right there in black and white in the stimulus package, but none of them even bothered to read it, that's when I get upset! If you and I did something like that in our jobs, we'd be fired on the spot!
This sort of thing should have happened years ago because the spending in DC has been out of control, even when the republicans were in charge (that's when I started voting democrat for a while.)It just makes my blood boil to hear the republicans in DC spout off about all the spending the democrats are doing - why weren't they doing anything about it 8 or 10 years ago? But it makes me madder still to hear them all (republicans and democrats) DEFEND spending all this money now and then leaving our children to have to pay for it later.
I just don't think it's right for the government to think that it can live by one set of rules while the rest of us have to live by another.
Okay, enough of a book, just needed to get that off my chest.
Meant like "YOU GOT BEHIND BUSH"
nm
Olbermann: "You owe this country an apology." sm
Another great special comment from Keith Olbermann.
"You're not forced to read this" is what I was
nm
What part of "you don't have a choice" don't you understand
"Obama will call on citzens of all ages to serve America" My God!!!! Don't you hear this. Don't you question this. Don't you know what the germans when through with Hitler????
Forced is forced. You can put any fancy name on it you want. It is still the same as military service. Once in you don't have a choice of what you do. I was in the military, I lived with a german couple who went through the holocaust and heard many stories. I KNOW the military. What starts out as civil service turns into military service. Heck call it the country club service if it makes you feel more important than the military. The truth is this is forced and you don't have a choice. This is how the Hitler youth started (by feeling more important than those who weren't in the Hitler youth). They then went on to be the SS and finally the Gestapo. Sure the Hitler youth felt very "patriotic" and wanted to serve the Fuhrer. They were made to feel privilaged and would receive things (i.e. tuition to college, etc). It later turned out to be a much different story and unfortunately they had no choice. You cannot just leave whenever you want to. I don't want to see my nieces and nephews have to go through that. I blame all who voted for the O for that.
P.S. - NOT voluntary! What part are you not understanding. Mandatory and forced do not mean you have a choice. Just wait til the uniforms come. It's going to be slow but when it happens maybe you'll remember what I said. But then again the parents of the Hitler youth's wanted their children to enter the Hitler youth so they too would feel privaleged and patriotic. I just can't believe people are buying into it without a second question. That is what is so "disgusting" about that!!!!
who are "you guys". I'm a democrat and ashamed of
xx
Who are "you guys">>>>I couldn't care less about Ewards
00
"She" made it easy for "you" to lose control of yourself? sm
and end up writing that trash you wrote?
Only you are responsible for how low you sink. Anyone can see that.
OMG! Are you serious? Go ahead, elect O
nm
I think that what a president-elect does ......
does in the first days of his president-elect days, is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than the 10000 series of the soap opera 'Days of our lives', or whatever......
He's not even president elect yet
So it's just posturing. Oooohh....he's assembled a panel. I'm impressed.
Not.
Actually he's not president-elect yet
I know it's odd to think of it, but he has not yet been nominated by the electoral college, therefore is still just a citizen. Once the electoral college votes on Dec 13th, then in January the congress votes. Then if he is elected then he will be president elect. Until then he is still just a citizen. This is why they are trying to clear up whether or not he is elegible to become present. There are many many lawsuits, several in many states who are filing a lawsuit because he won't show proof of his eligibility. So until the congress votes in January Obama is still just a citizen and not president elect yet.
Never before has a president-elect...sm
Sought to elevate himself to POTUS status before actually occupying the Oval Office. Obama has put himself in the media forefront by trying to enact policy before taking office, therefore making himself a target for criticism. As Bush said in his last press conference, he knows there are people who dislike him and people who disagree with him; it's just part of the job. No President in history has been able to escape the slings and arrows of his constituents simply because of the nature of his job and the fact that people will always find something to complain about; it's just in their nature. Obama will be under scrutiny, yes, but I doubt it will be any more critical an examination than Bush has had to endure.
You mean "proud of your pres-elect" (nm)
well, if you elect Obama and he raises...
capital gains taxes you sure won't have to have a card reader....your 401K is going to sufferrrr. lol.
Office of the President Elect...
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_president_elect_/2008/11/10/149643.html
Obama Invents 'Office of the President-Elect' |
Monday, November 10, 2008 12:54 PM
By: Jim Meyers |
Article Font Size ![](http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/minus.jpg") ![](http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/plus.jpg") |
Barack Obama has created a stir by proclaiming that he heads “The Office of President-Elect” — an office that does not officially exist.
At his first news conference on Nov. 7, Obama stood at a podium bearing a sign that read: “Office of the President-Elect. Also, his Web site, Change.gov, bears the words “Office of the President-Elect” at the top of its home page.
Writer Larry Anderson referred to the “made-up little title” on the American Thinker Web site, and declared: “I nearly busted a gut ...
“Once again, [Obama] can’t wait to invest himself with the trappings of office.”
Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin wondered: “What other make-believe offices are they going to invent between now and Inauguration Day? I can’t ever recall in my lifetime any mention of such an office.”
Technically speaking, Obama may not even be the President-elect, according to the American Sentinel Web site.
“Megalomaniac Obama’s ego grows even more insufferable,” a weekend posting reads.
“Yes, he will be [president-elect]. But he’s not officially yet, until the Electoral College votes.
“The Constitution provides that on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, electors convene in their respective state capitals. It’s then that they formally elect the President of the United States, based on the general election results.”
The Nov. 7 news conference did not mark the first time Obama has created controversy with a podium.
Back in June, he spoke at a podium bearing a new seal that altered the official presidential seal.
The seal did include the American bald eagle clutching arrows and an olive branch, but the Latin phrase “E Pluribus Unum” was changed to “Vero Possumus,” a rough translation of the Obama campaign slogan, “Yes we can.”
Obama’s seal also removed the shield over the eagle’s breast, representing the president’s oath to defend the Constitution, and replaced it with the letter “O,” presumably for Obama, and the image of the rising sun.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved. |
|
|
|
do u realize he is actually not even "president elect" yet?
.
God did not elect Obama. The people did.
Some the people who voted for O did it because of his promises. Three-quarters of the people voted for him because of his color. That's not fabricated, it's the truth.
I, for one, did not vote for him and it was not because of his color. I couldn't care less what color he is. If I did, I'd start posting about how he is half white. That's not the point. I don't know why some people on this board spout racisim just because someone did not vote for him.
I didn't vote for him because of his promises. Like all politicians, he made promises that are impossible to keep. He won the election because most of the voters thought he was sincere and would turn this country around in a heartbeat. I believe there are a lot of voters who will be the first to gripe when it doesn't happen. But then, again, that's just my opinion. I am willing to give him a chance but I surely don't like being called a racist just because I did not vote for him.
People have to start looking at RECORDS of the people they are voting for; i.e., voting records, any bills they sponsor and why, etc., etc., not listening to the spiel. I learned that quite a few years ago and I will not vote for someone who blind sides the public with glorious ideas without a thought as to what could happen down the road.
A president and/or any respresentative of the people has to hold the constiuents thoughts in mind when they are voting. I haven't seen that happen since before Carter. People have to GET INVOLVED in their government by writing to their reps. Otherwise, the reps think everything is honkey-dorey. I, myself, write to my reps a lot. Sometimes I get a canned reply, sometimes I get a "I will be looking into this" type letter.
Well, I see I just tried to give a lecture, so I'll get off my soap box for now....but remember this: Government is only as good as the people. Keep quiet and they will keep doing the same old, same old. Understand what I'm saying?
Get over it. He is the president elect by a majority vote. nm
.
He is not supposed to attend since he's only the President-elect.
This summit is for leaders of the country, not leaders that will be.
Rahm Emanuel is not the president-elect....(sm)
If you pay attention to what Obama is doing right now this might make sense. Obama is filling his cabinet not only with people who agree with him, but also people who disagree with him. Presumably he's following the lead of Lincoln who did this with his cabinet members. The conclusion I come up with is that just because Rahm said it doesn't necessarily mean it will be law.
Sorry - we didn't elect him to bow to the leader of another country
If he's an american citizen he should not be bowing to the Saudi leader, or the Queen. He doesn't bow to G. Brown, or the leader of France, Italy, or any of those other country. You bow to someone if you are a servant to them.
He is not doing what we elected him to do and we certainly didn't elect him to bow. I feel sorry for you.
If you elect Obama....you are giving the power to the party...
who are largely responsible for the "mess" we currently find ourselves in.
PRESIDENT ELECT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ! ! ! ! ! !
x
Get it right...President-elect Barack Obama stated it
was people's choice if they chose to have an abortion. Nevertheless, you live in america and he is your president as well, just go ahead and face the fact. It does not matter whether you trust him or not, he is your president, RESPECT him as such!!!!!!!
find out. I find sam's posts to the point
nm
technically not even president-elect until electoral college meets. nm
.
Dems defy Pelosi and elect Hoyer House Leader sm
Could this mean some things are back on the table?
Democrats defy Pelosi, elect Hoyer House leader
Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:01 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A week after winning back control of the U.S. Congress, divided Democrats in the House defied incoming speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday and elected Steny Hoyer to be majority leader, a Democratic Party aide said.
Pelosi, a California liberal, had endorsed Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who helped lead the charge against the Iraq war that was a key factor in races for the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The aide said the vote behind closed doors was 149-86.
But Democrats embraced Hoyer, a Maryland moderate who has been Pelosi's deputy while she served the past three years as minority leader. The two have had a somewhat strained relationship.
Pelosi, as expected, was officially nominated to be the first woman speaker of the House.
So, it was okay for the uber-right-wing neocons to elect Bush and nominate McPalin?
Now THAT's tripe.........or should I say, our country has been disemboweled and that's why Obama won the election......no matter who voted for him in the MAJORITY.
I found a Freudian slip too - present elect Clinton (not president erect)
HA HA HA - but then if the shoe fits. HA HA HA
I couldn't find that one but I did find this
S.Amdt.4170: To protect families, family farms and small businessees by extending the income tax rate structure, raising the death tax exemption to $5 million and reducing the maximum death tax rate to no more than 35%; to keep education affordable extending the college tuition deduction; and to protect senior citizens from higher taxes on their retirement income, maintain U.S. financial market competitiveness, and promote economic growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividents and capital gains.
NAY: Biden and Obama YEA: McCalin
I.E., this is in the voting record in the public records. There are not too many voting records there for the O since he started his campaign and most of those he voted NAY or say Not Voting.
Well, then, please find me one that you find to be racist.
If customary deference to a sitting president by president elect
for the rest of us who understand such concepts as respect and traditional protocol, it would qualify as a darned good reason.
Find it yourself...
I used to answer all of these posts requiring that I go back and find the names and dates and places of anything that I posted to prove what I was saying. What usually happened was that it would still be discounted for some reason or another as biased, meaningless or just untrue so I have stopped reresearching for the nonbelievers. I read papers. I watch news shows. I watch senate proceedings. David Gergen, Ed Gillespie, William Buckley, Susan Collins, Peter King, Bill Bennett are a few off the top of my head but if you need proof, you do the legwork. I assure you it is out there. C-SPAN is a good source. You can see and hear them in action.
You know what I find to be
OFF-THE-WALL mindboggling about the king's apologists/cultists is that they shriek about illegal immigration with *They're breaking the LAW!*....hmmm, so they don't hold their king to the standard they expect from noncitizens of this country? It's hard work drinking all that Kool-Aid!
Meanwhile, Cheney claims he hasn't seen the senate report re: no connection between Osama and Saddam, and Rice insists there WERE ties and it was all Tenet's fault. HUH?! So now I'm wondering, does this mean Tenet has to return his medal of freedom? After all, it's not like he said he was pressured to manufacture the intelligence to suit Bush and Co.
Took me a while to find this....
And Clinton is a serial rapist. So what is your point? sm
[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Conservatives]
Posted By: Brunson on 2006-05-03,
In Reply to: Hitchens is a public and private severe alcoholic - Mind
Everyone knows that Hitchens is an alcoholic. You are adding nothing to this conversation. Act like an adult or leave.
I cannot find it
but I have also seen a picture where Obama is standing on a platform with other people who are pledging allegiance to our beautiful flag with their hand over their hearts, and Obama is just standing there. This is the picture that really made me wonder what this guy is made of, where he is coming from, and where he wants to take us!
I find it odd.....
I find it odd that people won't follow the constitution written about 200 years ago by our founding fathers (people we know what they looked like). They say it's old and archaic and has no place in today's world - times have changed.
Yet...they will follow the bible word for word that was written around 1500 to 400 BC. - which by the way was written by men keeping in the parts they wanted to and not putting in other parts they didn't want to.
Where is the sanity?
why can't they find them?
They have to put the info into a computer somewhere? Why can't it just tell them that it is invalid - my local office was able to tell me within 24 hours that I was okay to vote this year.
Where did you find this?
xx
Once again, you only want to find something to
X
Won't be able to find you and your ilk. You;ll be
living under the same rock you crawled out from under. Bye-Bye, sad Brad.
If you can't find them...well (sm)
you obviously have a problem already. Sources I've used include a direct link to the US Senate, factcheck.org (an organization that even Fox uses), going to bills/legistation directly....etc.
We can find these all day...
long, but until you actually look at McCain's voting record, posts like this (including the one below) are nothing but opinion.
http://vetsforobama.org/
|
