Whoever gets the position will have a whale of a job to clean up. sm
Posted By: cat on 2008-01-27
In Reply to:
Our troops are stretched so thinly worldwide that homeland security is compromised. Ya gotta hear some of the older vets talking strategy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiJk6MeBx54
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
She has put herself in this position
Don't blame the vultures for her mistakes.
You don't even know his position do you?
@!@
You are in an even worse position than I am...
at least my mortgage is a fixed rate mortgage with a reasonable interest rate - not as low as what is being offered to those who are defaulting, but not too bad in the grand scheme of things. So--good luck to you!!!
Sorry - you can't diagnose my position
I live in a blue collar neighborhood - those who lose their jobs - start scrapping metal or cutting wood or whatever they can do to earn a living. They do not sponge off of society. Their kids go without medical care as a result, but the whole family does. They also hunt to put meat on the table. I go into the cheap grocery stores to shop - rarely do I see food stamps being used. My husband is a white collar worker who was just laid off. Wehave to decide between COBRA and the mortgage. I have cancer, so I guess COBRA wins. Please research welfare and find out, REALLY, what a small percentage of our population is on the dole. Welfare is just another propaganda tool. I know - I went into social work.
Not in a position to give more
The problem is not everyone is in a position to give MORE but the government doesn't take that into acct. We will all be paying more to the government eventually. Who else will be paying this money back?
He was sworn into his current position
using a Koran, not the Bible. He refuses to honor our flag because it is against his religion. He will ruin this country from the inside out if elected. The phrase "One nation under God" will be removed from our Pledge of Allegiance. Think about that!
I stand by my position. Isn't that partly what
the VP is for. I am glad that McCain thinks he needs to be in DC, but let Palin take over for a few days.
Don't be ridiculous, of course the financial crisis is more important. But, why can't he do the debate 1 night. It is just 1 night. Let them debate the economy instead, I am sure Americans would love to hear what they have to say about it right now.
It's not an attack, it's a statement of position.
the concept I take exception to. I want my health insurance benefits to stay in the "pre-tax" column on my pay stub. In fact, I want all my benefits to stay in that column. Under McCain's plan, I would pay tax on my benefit out of every single paycheck and the US treasury gets the use of that money until filing time rolls around. I need my money to stay in my house, not theirs during the course of the year. I don't want a percentage of my health insurance benefits to be used to bail out predatory lenders (under McCain's new Resurence Plan) on subprime mortgages. I want it to be used to buy groceries, pay for gas and pay bills. The slippery slope comes into play the next time they need to go looking for another way to screw over taxpayers and they start to monkey with the 14% rate. Thanks but no thanks. No second grade math lession needed here.
Difference being if elected, SP will be in a position to
nm
For key cabinet position, just where would you suggest
One key element of bringing change to Washington in my estimation would be to take US leadership one step beyond the "old guard" of the Boomer generation. I can say this with impunity since I am referring to my own generation. In any case, this is a bit of a tricky proposition since that means Obama would need to focus on younger individuals born in the early to mid 1960s and beyond, with ages approximately 46-48 or younger. These individuals would have reached their adult years and started building their professional careers AFTER the Carter administration. How many democratic presidents have we had since the Carter administration?
With the selection of KEY positions, it is imperative that Obama appoint people with senior-level experience. Stop to ponder for a moment, the appointments that have been made thus far.
1. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, by all measures a "Clinton person."
2. Atty General Eric Holder served in the US Justice Dept during Ford, Carter and Reagan, who appointed him DC Superior court Judge in 1988, a post he held until 1993 before Clinton appointed him US atty in DC, later becoming Clinton's Deputy Atty General. In other words, 17 years of his experience was gained in service to the 3 former presidents prior to the Clinton appointments.
3. Director of the Office of Management and Budget - Peter Orszag, Director of Congressional Budget Office under W and served on Council of Economic Advisors under Clinton.
4. Senior Advisor Pete Rouse - Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton and W.
Holder served under 3 different presidents prior to Clinton, Orszag's onlyh appointed position was under W and Rouse servced under 5 other presidents before Clinton. My question then is why is it that all of these people are suddenly "Clinton people?" Even if they all were, where would you expect Obama to look for his cabinet appointees...retired officials from the Carter administation perhaps? Would Reganites deliver Change? How about those Bush people (I am so sure).
I have no doubt that there will be appointees with roots in the republican camp, but please note that we are talking about only 4 choices at this point in time, 3 of which DO have ties to administrations other than Clinton's. Besides that, the most key factor is that all of these appointees will be serving under a DIFFERENT leader with a strong mandate for change, equipped with favorable legislative bodies. Perhaps it would be wise to reserve judgment on ALL of this until AFTER they take office and actually start doing their jobs, ya think?
He disqualified himself from the position by his own testimony.... sm
Didn't he? Or was that someone else talking?
Who can believe anything this guy says?
Any republican in his position would be run out of Washington.
Extremely poor judgment from President Obama on this one.
Had dog catcher been an elected position
I'm sure she would have run for it. Well, she's ''moved on up to the big house'' now. She is a co-sponsor of Card Check and a real party hack. This is my representative. Abandon all hope!
Hey you two down there....keep it clean
Get yourselves out of the gutter, and stop attacking in such vicious ways. You're using different names tonight, but still the same nastiness against certain conservative posters, so its obvious you're the same two people who do it every day, almost like clockwork.
There have been considerate posts from both sides all day, with thoughtful and civil discourse, with no vulgarity.... and it's been a nice breath of fresh air without you.
Keep it clean, please, or go elsewhere.
Come clean? LOL. O cant come clean because he
nm
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!
WHy is disagreeing with a position viewed as bullying?
Your response is much more bullying....self-righteous and pompous I think were your words...
It is not MY party. I am not a Republican. This country would be much better off if everyone, both sides, put country first and not the party.
That being said...it were an important issue to debate, it should not have had to have a pregnant 17-year-old girl "spark it." All I am saying is, regardless of that, it is a choice whether to continue to bring into the spotlight a candidate's child for political fodder.
The point is...it was not an issue before 17-year-old pregnant Bristol. But now it is, a way to keep that constantly in the forefront. That is the choice some on the left have made.
All I am saying is...while I am sure you think it is justified, there are many who will not. And that is ALL I am saying.
Wow, is this the type of person we want in a position of power? (nm)
xx
And where is that written, if you are conducting the job or position for which you ran with integrit
where is it written that you give away your right to privacy? Are you kidding? I am so sick of the media mentality that just because someone has chosen a profession, such as politics, acting, the arts, etc., that EVERYTHING is fair game, you can never have a private moment in your entire life (or term), you may be hunted, haunted, treated like an animal in a zoo.....yes, you are a public figure, but still a human being with rights, and that means a right to privacy. To think otherwise is mercenary, cold, and totally out of touch with humanity. Actors play parts to entertain us, give us pleasure, help us escape, but they can never ever escape the papparazzi at any time, when off camera??? What a cruel and voyeuristic society we have become!!!!
Clean your shoe, why don't you.
Because obviously, that smell is following you around.
There is no Air America scandal and certainly nothing you can(reasonably, although we know you don't take that seriously)blame Rachel Maddow for. Air America's former CEO made some bad decisions (gee, that never happens does it?) because he had connections with the charity in question and the fledgling AA was in trouble. However, that was HIS mistake and he is no longer at AA (yes, some people actually get rid of poor performers, unlike our WH). AA didn't do anything wrong and there are no charges against them because there's nothing to prosecute. DESPITE that they have acknowledged that they feel badly about the entire affair and have offered to repay the money even though they are not obligated to do so. I'd say that's far from scandalous - and very much unlike anything you'd see a NeoCon do - they don't pay back ANYBODY even when it IS their fault. Why, here you have the Republican governor of Kentucky under investigation and he declares he's going to use the power of the office to PARDON HIMSELF. Nice schtick if you can get it, huh.
And when are you going to give up and admit defeat anyway? Still waiting for Karl Rove to flood the airwaves with his particularly sour mutilation of the truth? You can't win this one no matter how many radio stations you try to smear. You're all suddenly looking pretty sallow standing there in the spotlight all by yourselves. Face it - Bush will never live this down. His appointments will never live this down. They did wrong, the whole world has seen it. Even Shepard Smith and Geraldo have seen it. Even Newt Gingrich has seen it! Incredible huh? It hardly matters what they do now. The damage is done. Americans who actually care will save as many as they can from here on out and the news is only going to get worse for you and your conning stormtroopers. A lot of those people will survive. A lot of them will talk. It's not only Democrats who are enraged over this egregiously horrible bumbling. If I were you I'd just slink off into the shadows and not make it any worse for myself. For once Democrats and real Republicans are united against this deplorably out of touch and elitist bunch of Washington money-suckers. Don't blame us for the political mileage - that's just a sad side effect. We'll take it but we'd rather thousands more people had lived instead of having their corpses nibbled by rats in the filthy flooded streets. We owe them. So just stand down - this one is NOT SPINNABLE.
Lead by example and clean up
nm
Just want to clean up the environment.
nm
Keep it clean now. Obama was
x
"squeaky clean" -LOL. You cant be serious about
nm
Hardly "squeaky clean".........sm
That is but one thing that really bothers me about him........how nothing thus far seems to stick. I think I will call him the Teflon President.
You and me both. We need a clean sweep of
government. Our senator from PA that was killed in a car accident (RIP-I really liked him) now has his SIL running for his seat. There will be a special election in February and I'll vote for the one I think is the best.
Err, yes they were. Better clean off those specs and
Please refer to my other "Err" post above.
She has 12 months in an executive position, actually running a government...
Obama does not. She is going to be 2nd chair, not 1st. If either of them is going to be training on the job, better it be 2nd chair. She also served as mayor, which is also executive work. She has more experience to be President now (and that is not the position she is running for) than he does. Just fact, based entirely on experience. And the only reason I posted that at all is that is the first criticism of her that surfaced here. Personally, with Obama's limited experience going into the first chair, not the second chair...I would think his campaign and his followers would want the conversation to avoid that...that make an issue of it. Just an observation.
Her position was not eliminated - it says she is on unpaid leave of absence. nm
x
So sad...so true.. clean-up-hitter.
nm
Thank you Clean-up Hitter and Sam for your posts below
I was so afraid I was going to get slammed/bashed for that one (the day is still early though HA HA). I find it is true though. My MIL - she is a true dem all the way. When DH points something wrong on their side she will deny, deny, deny, but in an instant will talk about some rumor or false thing she heard about the pubs. When talking to her (which I don't anymore about politics) but the only think I can think of is that line from the Harry Potter movie that Harry Potter said to Ron Weezely "that's totally mental". HA HA But talk about wanting to pull your hair out. Too frustrating. After last nights convention I am so psyched to listen tonight.
Okay, better get my work done now so I can watch later. Thanks again.
Who Scrubbed Palin Clean?
Why?
How the Wikipedia entry of Republican vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin was mysteriously scrubbed clean in the hours before John McCain revealed his running mate
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/culture-tech/2008/09/usa-vote-palin-wikipedia
Wiki was also scrubbed clean,..
when Palin was picked. Imagine that! They scrubbed what they could without being TOO obvious.
It's not my party. Clean up your own mess....
oh...what am I thinking. You don't see any mess. Got it.
Don't have a range rover; 6 cylinder jeep. No leather. don't smoke, never have.
Class envy is really ugly.
Give it up, B. Come on out of the cesspool back to the clean air! NM
Why doesn't Obama come clean about socialism?
And if you wanted to know what McCain wants to do for the country you could go to his website and read it if you have room in your brain for anything not Barack Obama.
He is so squeaky clean, hence the fictional garbage. nm
.
blame it on businesses who won't clean up their trash..................NM
x
Court rules Bush violated Clean Air Act
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127_pf.html
Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.
The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.
New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling a major victory for clean air and public health and a rejection of a flawed policy.
It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants, Spitzer said.
In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time.
Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they celebrated the ruling.
Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day, said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give.
President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.
Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their operations.
The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an industrial facility modification, because that is what triggers the federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the exception of routine maintenance.
EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this exemption by asserting that routine maintenance is any activity that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.
EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic, Rogers wrote. Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view.
The other two judges on the panel were David S. Tatel and Janice Rogers Brown.
The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said the decision is tantamount to the court burying the rule six feet under, where before it was just in a casket.
Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad news for consumers and the environment, he said. We believe it is a step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
You can put lipstick & a clean dress on trailer-trash,
;p
Clean Energy Fuels and Nancy Pelosi
My, must be nice. Trying to pass a bill for clean energy and who is going to profit from this? T. Boone Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels. Nancy and her husband bought #50K-$100K worth of stock in May 2007. No wonder she's pushing it. It means a fortune for her.
Another site states her husband bought the shares alone, but she lives in CA where it's share and share alike.
http://selfinvestors.com/tradingstocks/news/the-pelosi-pickens-profit-plan-with-clean-energy-fuels-clne/
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72225
Why would you call people who just want a nice clean commentary on a board...sm
a bunch of bullies? I'm amazed at you. How are we the losers when someone else calls us names all night long and we only ask for common civility?
Your logic seems backward. It was a bully of one, directed at us.
And if you really want to talk about a bully pack, look to yourselves. The dems pile on sam to no end some days, nasty nasty stuff, when it's just her on. Why is it okay for you to do it to her with meanness, and we only ask for civility and common courtesy, and yet we're the bad guys?
We're all Americans here. Why do you continue to divide us? We're more alike than you care to admit, in a lot of ways.
But the big one that separates us, from the media, down to the people on blogs, is that liberal dems are mean and downright nasty to republicans. If we don't agree with your point of view, on almost any subject, you treat us as less than nothing. I just don't understand it.
I was trying to be helpful last night, and point out that she really should try to get along. But she didn't want to. Sally actually has some good posts occasionally, hidden in between her icky ones. I look for them sometimes, and feel she should be here, as is anyone's right. But no one should have to be subjected to vulgarity.
That's the big difference too. Dems don't want to get along with anyone, most often. You only get along with yourselves.
Very, very sad.
|
