Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[HandBall]

Three days into the new administration and the first actual actions by the Messiah are now more than simply words of hope and change.

His first action was to sign an Executive Order to close Guantanamo within 12 months.  This decision was made despite a Pentagon briefing that 61 enemy combatants held and released from Guantanamo have reentered the War on Terror against the civilized world, and just as information was made public that Said Ali al-Shihri, suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen's capital, is now the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch.  Al-Shihri was once held and released from Guantanamo into the custody of the Saudi government, under pressure from Democrats and their liberal base to prevent this government from holding enemy combatants.  This first action also was made with no plan whatsoever to where the prisoners currently held in Guantanamo will go once this high-security facility outside the United States is closed.  Consider the false, but repeated charges against Bush of no exit strategy in Iraq?  Bush has won that war, if Obama doesn't screw it up, and exit from Iraq is being calculated in months now, and not the decades that Democrats falsely charged in the campaign.  So where is Obama's exit strategy once Guantanamo is closed?  Does an exit strategy matter now to  his supporters, or is that a standard only applied to Bush?

The next priority of Obama has been apparently to respond to the pro-abortion forces that were among his greatest election allies.  Today Obama is to sign another Executive Order that will authorize use of taxpayer money, with our without our consent, to fund training and execution of abortions overseas.  In simpler terms, without congressional action, the Messiah has approved the use of my tax dollars and yours to terminate the lives of unborn human beings.  No vote.  No debate.  Just the signature of the new agent of change and hope.  I would argue that the killing of unborn children offers those children little hope, unless of course an unborn child can hope to be killed?

So just three days into a new administration we have some real actions that will result in real change.  The first real actions anyone can probably cite from Obama?  A prison to hold the worst of America's enemies in the War on Terror will be closed with no plan to deal with these terrorists, and pro-abortion advocates are being handed taxpayer money to promote their destruction of life worldwide.

Have pro-life, pro-national security citizens of the United States given Obama sufficient time to "make the change we can believe in"?  For this American, these acts alone have ended the honeymoon.

I know some of Obama's advocates here have moved on; happy with the outcome and simply waiting to get a check or some miracle that they can't articulate.  But it would be interesting here to have some of the Obama supporters on this forum return and argue the merits of these two executive orders.  I doubt it will happen, as issues didn't mean anything before the election.  But if you've read this far, then at least you may be thinking about good change versus bad change.

[lugnut]

OK, this really isn't a challenge.  Let's forget the Supreme Court rulings against holding these people and that the “enemy combatants” were all released by the Bush administration, the entertaining part is that you still believe this is all President Obama's fault on his 3rd day at work!

First, what Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell stated was "The new numbers are, we believe, 18 confirmed and 43 suspected of returning to the fight. So 61 in all former Guantanamo detainees are confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight."

However, Seton Hall University School of Law professor Mark Denbeaux has disputed the Pentagon's figures, asserting: "Once again, they've failed to identify names, numbers, dates, times, places, or acts upon which their report relies.  Every time they have been required to identify the parties, the DOD has been forced to retract their false IDs and their numbers."

Want more?  In March 2007, the New York Times report that Defense Secretary Gates “repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantánamo would be viewed as illegitimate, according to senior administration officials. He told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.”


Regarding the 2nd item, you are missing a bit of history.  The policy in question prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that even talk about abortion if there is an unplanned pregnancy.  This was a Reagan policy overturned by Clinton, which in turn was overturned by Bush.  All of these were done by executive order, and President Obama signed the order on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade.  Which, you may recall, made abortion legal.

[sissy]

Agree or disagree, I love the discussions/debates.  You can't just talk about this stuff every 4 years.

Welcome back HandBall

[EWSoccer64]

>>>> All of these were done by executive order, and President Obama signed the order on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade.  Which, you may recall, made abortion legal.<<<

A case made even more famous because the woman wanting the abortion later admitted to lieing the entire time.

[HandBall]

OK, this really isn't a challenge.  Let's forget the Supreme Court rulings against holding these people and that the “enemy combatants” were all released by the Bush administration, the entertaining part is that you still believe this is all President Obama's fault on his 3rd day at work!

That would be which justices on the court?

First, what Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell stated was "The new numbers are, we believe, 18 confirmed and 43 suspected of returning to the fight. So 61 in all former Guantanamo detainees are confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight."

Yup, that makes the issue go away!  Maybe only 18 returned to killing Iraqis and Americans, maybe more.

However, Seton Hall University School of Law professor Mark Denbeaux has disputed the Pentagon's figures, asserting: "Once again, they've failed to identify names, numbers, dates, times, places, or acts upon which their report relies.  Every time they have been required to identify the parties, the DOD has been forced to retract their false IDs and their numbers."

Good one.  I'm sure he's a Bush supporter too. 

Want more?  In March 2007, the New York Times report that Defense Secretary Gates “repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantánamo would be viewed as illegitimate, according to senior administration officials. He told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.”

So years of media and Democrat attacks on the safest facility outside our borders to hold enemies of America is forcing us to release these monsters or make communities targets of terrorism by putting them in domestic facilities?  is that your argument?

Regarding the 2nd item, you are missing a bit of history.  The policy in question prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that even talk about abortion if there is an unplanned pregnancy.  This was a Reagan policy overturned by Clinton, which in turn was overturned by Bush.  All of these were done by executive order, and President Obama signed the order on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade.  Which, you may recall, made abortion legal.

Not missing a thing, but I tend to not try to befuddle the reader with irrelevant details.  If you want to argue that my tax dollars, and yes, I am one of those Americans in the shrinking class who pays all the taxes, are not going to fund an overseas abortion, go right ahead.  But you can't.  The use of federal dollars for anything is a legislative matter, and when bureaucrats attempt to spend money where it is not appropriated, it is the duty of the president to defer to the legislative branch and our constitutional process.  Clinton violated that first after Reagan halted it.  Bush was forced to halt it again, and now the Messiah has decided that my tax dollars are appropriately used to kill unborn babies.

Now we get from Obama economic adviser Lawrence Summers that Obama has reversed himself again and will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010.  For those of you who voted to get a check from the Messaih paid for with other peoples' money, that will be $500 more in taxes for every child you have.  But don't worry, despite Obama being so worried about the deficit that he's going to kill these tax cuts that stimulate the economy, he's ready to further bankrupt America with a quick trillion in more unfunded spending in checks to those that will pay off credit card debt, blow it on cheap Chinese goods, or music downloads for their iPod.

Here's a rare tough question for an Obama adviser on Meet the Press:

MR. GREGORY: "Well, let me just press you on this point. You say we can't afford to let those Bush tax cuts expire later, but we can afford to, to spend up to $700 billion for the tax cut that you like?"

DR. SUMMERS: "We can--we--it's a good question. We certainly can afford to do what is necessary now to stimulate this economy, to put money--frankly, when you put money into the hands of middle-class families, history and experience suggest that they spend a substantial part of it, pushing the economy forward. When you put money into the hands of those with very high incomes, only a much smaller fraction of it is spent and so you derive much less benefit in terms of pushing the economy, in terms of pushing the economy forward."

For the record, tax cuts to wealthy lead to investment and job creation.  Tax cuts to business lead to capital investment, growth, and expansion.  Tax cuts to the "Middle Class", defined to mean those that don't pay taxes to Obama, leads to little or nothing of economic value, and is little more than a down-payment on their vote in the next election.

[poolboy]

handball dude- your good. i ain't gona mess which you ever.

[EWSoccer64]

>>>>Military Judge Denies Obama Request to Suspend Hearings at Guantanamo<<<<

Looks like one of the first 3 executive orders by the biggest executive order president in history has already been partially overturned.   Boy, that was quick.

I wonder if the Dems in Congress will start calling for his impeachment because of it?

[lugnut]

>>>>Military Judge Denies Obama Request to Suspend Hearings at Guantanamo<<<<

Looks like one of the first 3 executive orders by the biggest executive order president in history has already been partially overturned.   Boy, that was quick.

I wonder if the Dems in Congress will start calling for his impeachment because of it?

I did like the Military Judge's observation that his obligation was to uphold the law as it is written now, not one that might written later.

[kevchenko]

pick a thread please this is too confusing.........

[EWSoccer64]

Well, there he goes again.............

Another Obama cabinent nominee is in trouble because of (lack of) ethics.   First there was Richardson who bowed out after word of the "pay for play" investigation leaked out.   Then there was Geitner who "forgot" to pay his taxes until he was nominated.   And now former Senate Majority Leader Tom "I need a limo" Daschle is in trouble for the exact same thing!   

Yes, this is a change from the Bush years, but not one that America wanted..........

[cheese]

Well, there he goes again.............

Another Obama cabinent nominee is in trouble because of (lack of) ethics.   First there was Richardson who bowed out after word of the "pay for play" investigation leaked out.   Then there was Geitner who "forgot" to pay his taxes until he was nominated.   And now former Senate Majority Leader Tom "I need a limo" Daschle is in trouble for the exact same thing!   

Yes, this is a change from the Bush years, but not one that America wanted..........

I am still a Bush fan but in Obamas defense.....Bush had issues with some of his picks also. 
No one is perfect.

The problem here is they pick Politicians......They're all crooks.

[EWSoccer64]

>>>>Quote from: EWSoccer64 on Today at 07:29:32 PM
Well, there he goes again.............

Another Obama cabinent nominee is in trouble because of (lack of) ethics.   First there was Richardson who bowed out after word of the "pay for play" investigation leaked out.   Then there was Geitner who "forgot" to pay his taxes until he was nominated.   And now former Senate Majority Leader Tom "I need a limo" Daschle is in trouble for the exact same thing!   

Yes, this is a change from the Bush years, but not one that America wanted..........

I am still a Bush fan but in Obamas defense.....Bush had issues with some of his picks also. 
No one is perfect.

The problem here is they pick Politicians......They're all crooks.<<<


I know that Bush had some political trouble with his judicial picks.   But I can't remember any with his cabinent selections?  What I have forgotten?   Was there a "nannygate"??

[Jumbalaya]

Well, there he goes again.............

Another Obama cabinent nominee is in trouble because of (lack of) ethics.   First there was Richardson who bowed out after word of the "pay for play" investigation leaked out.   Then there was Geitner who "forgot" to pay his taxes until he was nominated.   And now former Senate Majority Leader Tom "I need a limo" Daschle is in trouble for the exact same thing!   

Yes, this is a change from the Bush years, but not one that America wanted..........

I am still a Bush fan but in Obamas defense.....Bush had issues with some of his picks also. 
No one is perfect.

The problem here is they pick Politicians......They're all crooks.

Step back guys and think.....The real issue here is partisan politics! If we can really find a way to bridge the gap we all win!!!!! If we all continue to find fault in the "other" camp, it's business as usual and we all lose!

[HandBall]

Step back guys and think.....The real issue here is partisan politics! If we can really find a way to bridge the gap we all win!!!!! If we all continue to find fault in the "other" camp, it's business as usual and we all lose!

Nice thought, but if you have one party that is pushing for Socialism, isolationism, protectionism, more power to the unions, more abortions, expansion of government, suppression of the opposition, restrictions on freedom of speech, turning the courts into activists, higher taxes, and growing the government dependency class, how do find a compromise when the other side believes in free market capitalism, engagement, competition, less abortions, reduction in government, openness and transparency in government, freedom of speech and religion, appointing judges that will not legislate from the bench, lower taxes, and helping people achieve the American dream and independence from government dependency?

In the real world we have the haves and the have-nots.  The achievers and the failures.  The educated and the ignorant.  We have two principle groups of people arguing at these two extremes, where one group wants to achieve and be rewarded for their efforts.  The other simply wants to be taken care of, and chooses not to make the effort.  One group is parasitic, while the other is the provider of everything.  One will destroy itself before it understands the consequences of its actions, while the other will work to avoid being destroyed.

Then we have the third group of people that some call "moderates".  These folks would like everyone to get along.  Their frustration stems from a general misunderstanding of the two other groups, and a general misunderstanding of the realities, issues and solutions proposed by the other two groups.  They wish for a nation where everything is good and everyone is happy.  But the reality is that the world views of the other two groups are not founded in the same facts, reason, or logic.  So perhaps instead of a vague desire for compromise, a constructive argument would be to outline that compromise in our current political environment?  And in that environment where our new president is promoting fear, highlighting the negative, promoting abortion, redistribution of wealth, and taking steps to make us less secure, while fostering the expansion of the divide between these two basic groups in Americans with an economic plan that does virtually nothing that it is being advertised to do, when you outline such a strategy you may find that you're not as much in the middle as you think.

[Kow Tow-N]

Hey great job of reguritating the narrative of the Buchanan /Rollins/ Atwater/ Rove years. One problem. That narrative preaches to a shrinking choir because it has not delivered on any of it's promise (trickle down)  and the fear it mongers has alienated enough of us centrist, hard working, tax paying, taking our kids to soccer "parasites" that we won't vote R in the foreseeable future. Good luck with that approach and keep it coming, you are only helping your ideological opponents!

[HandBall]

Hey great job of reguritating the narrative of the Buchanan /Rollins/ Atwater/ Rove years. One problem. That narrative preaches to a shrinking choir because it has not delivered on any of it's promise (trickle down)  and the fear it mongers has alienated enough of us centrist, hard working, tax paying, taking our kids to soccer "parasites" that we won't vote R in the foreseeable future. Good luck with that approach and keep it coming, you are only helping your ideological opponents!

So how do you define a "centrist"?  What does a centrist believe in?  I would imagine the combination of positions and issues are nearly infinite, huh?  Here are your options.  Pick a side, or share with us your view of centrism or compromise, and build your list that will provide something substantial beyond allegations.  What are your ideological views?  Brave enough to put them out there?

Democat:
Socialism, isolationism, protectionism, more power to the unions, more abortions, expansion of government, suppression of the opposition, restrictions on freedom of speech, turning the courts into activists, higher taxes, and growing the government dependency class

Repbulican:
Free market capitalism, engagement, competition, less abortions, reduction in government, openness and transparency in government, freedom of speech and religion, appointing judges that will not legislate from the bench, lower taxes, and helping people achieve the American dream and independence from government dependency

[kevchenko]

Do you really boil Democrats and Repulicans down to this?  It is so black and white, good vs. evil.  You are obviously speaking of "ideals" vs practice as there are several large holes in your agruments on execution of those "ideals".

[EWSoccer64]

Kevchenko,

I think that was a pretty accurate sumation of the two parties positions.   If you think it is black and white, then perhaps it is.   

[kevchenko]

Kevchenko,

I think that was a pretty accurate sumation of the two parties positions.   If you think it is black and white, then perhaps it is.   

EW, you know I respect you but I just don't see things in that light personally.  I guess I will agree with Otto Von Bismark on this one, "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."  Politics are a messy business for everyone. 

[EWSoccer64]

Kevchenko,

I think that was a pretty accurate sumation of the two parties positions.   If you think it is black and white, then perhaps it is.   

EW, you know I respect you but I just don't see things in that light personally.  I guess I will agree with Otto Von Bismark on this one, "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."  Politics are a messy business for everyone. 

Well, I guess that I never should have expected to reach agreement with a Rangers fan.

GO CELTIC!!!

[kevchenko]

Kevchenko,

I think that was a pretty accurate sumation of the two parties positions.   If you think it is black and white, then perhaps it is.   

EW, you know I respect you but I just don't see things in that light personally.  I guess I will agree with Otto Von Bismark on this one, "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."  Politics are a messy business for everyone. 

Well, I guess that I never should have expected to reach agreement with a Rangers fan.

GO CELTIC!!!

Now you've gone an done it......... I actually have friends in America that are Celtic Fans......I also had Celtic friends in Northern Ireland too, but that involved personal risk, so this is why I love America! I guess I have seen society from the poles and didn't like it. 

[EWSoccer64]

Ah yes, more Change.   The first Presidential trip by Bush was to visit US Army soldiers.   The first by CLinton was to have a town hall meeting.  Obama?   He's having the government pay half a million or more for him and the Dem Leadership to go off to a ritzy resort.   Gotta love that Change!




>>>>President Obama, fresh off his first Washington apology tour, grew combative Wednesday, asserting that America voted for him, not the other guy, and demanding that lawmakers "put aside politics" -- well, Republican lawmakers, anyway.

A day before he headed to a luxury resort to meet behind closed doors with Democrats, the Harvard graduate lectured the less economically astute, ridiculing the Reaganomics Doctrine held dear by Republicans, who prefer tax cuts to new spending to bounce America out of its financial mess.

"Now, in the past few days I've heard criticisms of this plan that echo the very same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems," the president said at the White House. "I reject that theory, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."

 
The statement, the first of its kind in public, was reminiscent of what Mr. Obama said in private just days after taking office. In the White House's Roosevelt Room, he told a Republican senator who opposed an element of the stimulus package that "I won. I will trump you on that."

Mr. Obama, beaten bloody for weeks over his nominations of high-powered lobbyists and tax scofflaws that have rapidly drained his political capital, is no longer making any pretense of seeking to change the tone of Washington, as he repeatedly vowed to do when campaigning. The politics of mirage continued Wednesday in full force, with mixed signals coming out of the White House, from Capitol Hill, and, of course, from beleaguered Tom Daschle, who saw his nomination to head the Health and Human Services Department scuttled for failure to pay his taxes.

A day after banning corporate executives from earning more than $500,000 a year via taxpayer bailouts, Mr. Obama on Thursday will head to a Democratic retreat that has burned through half a million dollars in taxpayer cash for annual retreats at luxury resorts.

While President Clinton's first trip as president was to Detroit, where he held a town hall meeting with average Americans to talk about how to fix the economy, and President Bush flew to Fort Stewart, Ga., to visit soldiers in the 3rd Infantry Division, Mr. Obama's first trip aboard Air Force One will take him to a luxury resort in Williamsburg.

"Well, I'd -- you know, I'd -- Williamsburg is -- has a lofty place in our country's history," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, when asked if there was any special significance to the president's choice. "I don't know that there's any great symbolism in this one in particular," he added at Wednesday's briefing off the West Wing.

Mr. Obama will head to Kingsmill Resort and Spa in the historical Virginia city to start a three-day planning session. The resort boasts multiple championship golf courses, a full-service spa and six restaurants, noted the Hill newspaper, which broke the story about the Democratic retreats.

Democrats will ride together to the resort on a chartered Amtrak train at a cost to taxpayers of about $70,000, the Hill reported. Taxpayers will also foot the bill for security helicopters to fly above the train. The caucus will spend thousands: In 2003, for example, they spent $11,200 on food and $6,900 on entertainment, the paper said.

The trip comes after several Democratic lawmakers criticized American International Group Inc. executives for spending nearly $500,000 at a company retreat in California just days after the federal government bailed the company out with $85 billion in taxpayer funds. In addition, Wells Fargo & Co., which received $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money and recently announced a $2.3 billion loss for the last quarter of 2008, canceled its planned 12-night junket to expensive hotels in Las Vegas for events that included a luxurious four-day employee sales conference.

Mr. Gibbs said the Vegas trip "didn't happen because of the diligent work of many in the reporting of these and the outcry that ensued." But no one in the briefing room Wednesday asked about the expensive Democratic retreat.

Meanwhile, Mr. Daschle's politics of mirage emerged as he fades into the shadows from whence he came.

"Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter," he said in 1998 during a debate on a bill reforming the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. Obama's nominee to head the HHS said he thought a chauffeured limousine provided by a wealthy Democratic donor was a free ride and simply didn't know that the limo should have been considered "imputed income." Even though he paid nearly $140,000 to the IRS, he could not survive the political heat that followed.

 
KATIE FALKENBERG/THE WASHINGTON TIMES President Obama apparently is moving away from being apologetic and becoming more combative as he reminds lawmakers in Congress that Americans "voted resoundingly for change" in November.

Just Tuesday, the president made the rounds on every TV network to apologize for abandoning what he called the highest ethical standards ever enacted in any administration. But living up to that pledge has been trying from the start, and the White House said on Wednesday that it fully expects to fail in the future to meet that threshold.

"I don't doubt that there are times that we might not live up to those lofty standards," Mr. Gibbs said, licking his upper lip. "I think that's safe to say. ... He asks us every day to meet them. There are days that we won't."

"Are there lessons learned here?" a reporter asked the spokesman Wednesday.

"Well, as I said - I mean, you know, we - the president didn't think that we were going to come in here and change everything about the way Washington worked in such a short period of time. You can rest assured that we understand that we've not yet marked off all of our to-dos."

• Joseph Curl can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes<<<

[sissy]

Ah yes, more Change.   The first Presidential trip by Bush was to visit US Army soldiers.   The first by CLinton was to have a town hall meeting.  Obama?   He's having the government pay half a million or more for him and the Dem Leadership to go off to a ritzy resort.   Gotta love that Change!




>>>>President Obama, fresh off his first Washington apology tour, grew combative Wednesday, asserting that America voted for him, not the other guy, and demanding that lawmakers "put aside politics" -- well, Republican lawmakers, anyway.

A day before he headed to a luxury resort to meet behind closed doors with Democrats, the Harvard graduate lectured the less economically astute, ridiculing the Reaganomics Doctrine held dear by Republicans, who prefer tax cuts to new spending to bounce America out of its financial mess.

"Now, in the past few days I've heard criticisms of this plan that echo the very same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems," the president said at the White House. "I reject that theory, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."

 
The statement, the first of its kind in public, was reminiscent of what Mr. Obama said in private just days after taking office. In the White House's Roosevelt Room, he told a Republican senator who opposed an element of the stimulus package that "I won. I will trump you on that."

Mr. Obama, beaten bloody for weeks over his nominations of high-powered lobbyists and tax scofflaws that have rapidly drained his political capital, is no longer making any pretense of seeking to change the tone of Washington, as he repeatedly vowed to do when campaigning. The politics of mirage continued Wednesday in full force, with mixed signals coming out of the White House, from Capitol Hill, and, of course, from beleaguered Tom Daschle, who saw his nomination to head the Health and Human Services Department scuttled for failure to pay his taxes.

A day after banning corporate executives from earning more than $500,000 a year via taxpayer bailouts, Mr. Obama on Thursday will head to a Democratic retreat that has burned through half a million dollars in taxpayer cash for annual retreats at luxury resorts.

While President Clinton's first trip as president was to Detroit, where he held a town hall meeting with average Americans to talk about how to fix the economy, and President Bush flew to Fort Stewart, Ga., to visit soldiers in the 3rd Infantry Division, Mr. Obama's first trip aboard Air Force One will take him to a luxury resort in Williamsburg.

"Well, I'd -- you know, I'd -- Williamsburg is -- has a lofty place in our country's history," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, when asked if there was any special significance to the president's choice. "I don't know that there's any great symbolism in this one in particular," he added at Wednesday's briefing off the West Wing.

Mr. Obama will head to Kingsmill Resort and Spa in the historical Virginia city to start a three-day planning session. The resort boasts multiple championship golf courses, a full-service spa and six restaurants, noted the Hill newspaper, which broke the story about the Democratic retreats.

Democrats will ride together to the resort on a chartered Amtrak train at a cost to taxpayers of about $70,000, the Hill reported. Taxpayers will also foot the bill for security helicopters to fly above the train. The caucus will spend thousands: In 2003, for example, they spent $11,200 on food and $6,900 on entertainment, the paper said.

The trip comes after several Democratic lawmakers criticized American International Group Inc. executives for spending nearly $500,000 at a company retreat in California just days after the federal government bailed the company out with $85 billion in taxpayer funds. In addition, Wells Fargo & Co., which received $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money and recently announced a $2.3 billion loss for the last quarter of 2008, canceled its planned 12-night junket to expensive hotels in Las Vegas for events that included a luxurious four-day employee sales conference.

Mr. Gibbs said the Vegas trip "didn't happen because of the diligent work of many in the reporting of these and the outcry that ensued." But no one in the briefing room Wednesday asked about the expensive Democratic retreat.

Meanwhile, Mr. Daschle's politics of mirage emerged as he fades into the shadows from whence he came.

"Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter," he said in 1998 during a debate on a bill reforming the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. Obama's nominee to head the HHS said he thought a chauffeured limousine provided by a wealthy Democratic donor was a free ride and simply didn't know that the limo should have been considered "imputed income." Even though he paid nearly $140,000 to the IRS, he could not survive the political heat that followed.

 
KATIE FALKENBERG/THE WASHINGTON TIMES President Obama apparently is moving away from being apologetic and becoming more combative as he reminds lawmakers in Congress that Americans "voted resoundingly for change" in November.

Just Tuesday, the president made the rounds on every TV network to apologize for abandoning what he called the highest ethical standards ever enacted in any administration. But living up to that pledge has been trying from the start, and the White House said on Wednesday that it fully expects to fail in the future to meet that threshold.

"I don't doubt that there are times that we might not live up to those lofty standards," Mr. Gibbs said, licking his upper lip. "I think that's safe to say. ... He asks us every day to meet them. There are days that we won't."

"Are there lessons learned here?" a reporter asked the spokesman Wednesday.

"Well, as I said - I mean, you know, we - the president didn't think that we were going to come in here and change everything about the way Washington worked in such a short period of time. You can rest assured that we understand that we've not yet marked off all of our to-dos."

• Joseph Curl can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes<<<

Very scary times  :'( thanks for keeping us informed 64

[EWSoccer64]

CHANGE just keeps coming.

CEOs and their staffs of some of the largest companies in the World, Ford and GM, fly on their small business jets from Detroit to DC to testify before Congress.   That is official business.

Flying from DC (Actually, isn't Andrews AFB in Virginia?) to Virginia (right next door) requires going out to Andrews from the White House by copter or limo motorcade, getting on the airplane, flying about a 100 miles, getting off, another motorcade to the ritzy resort, and then the reverse the process to get back to the White House.

Flying a small two engine bizjet over a thousand miles for official business or flying the billion dollar fuel guzzling 747Special behemoth 100 miles for a political party meeting.  Which is more wasteful?   Particularly when the Prez could have gotten there alot faster by just taking the helocopter, Marine 1. 

It's nice to see the CHANGE in action.

[cheese]

CHANGE just keeps coming.

CEOs and their staffs of some of the largest companies in the World, Ford and GM, fly on their small business jets from Detroit to DC to testify before Congress.   That is official business.

Flying from DC (Actually, isn't Andrews AFB in Virginia?) to Virginia (right next door) requires going out to Andrews from the White House by copter or limo motorcade, getting on the airplane, flying about a 100 miles, getting off, another motorcade to the ritzy resort, and then the reverse the process to get back to the White House.

Flying a small two engine bizjet over a thousand miles for official business or flying the billion dollar fuel guzzling 747Special behemoth 100 miles for a political party meeting.  Which is more wasteful?   Particularly when the Prez could have gotten there alot faster by just taking the helocopter, Marine 1. 

It's nice to see the CHANGE in action.

But they did use the less expensive wine instead of the top of the line stuff.

Gotta cut back where they can. 

[elephant slayer]

"QUOTE" Very scary times   thanks for keeping us informed 64 "END QUOTE"




Are you 'grownups' for real? Very scary times? How do you think the rest of America has felt for the last eight years. I have been scared out of my wits.
But now that we have a decent man in the white house all of a sudden all of the majority of white republicans are scared? This makes me laugh. You all are too precious with your ways.
But oh so obvious. I feel sorry for you all really, may God watch over you.
And for the rest of you being snide about change; Are for real? You would rather have the hell that we have had to suffer through the last two terms. Is this washington state or a redneck militia camp in idaho?

[Sage Dancer]

If only the Republicans would put forward a candidate who actively promoted the agenda you describe!

I might be considered a moderate, except for the fact that I am very liberal when it comes to social policy and very conservative when it comes to economic policy.  Mostly, I am against "big" as it seems to lead to corrupt - whether it be big government or big business.  You have probably guessed:  I am a non-Christian small business person, who believes that government has no place monitoring my communications, attempting to align civil law with Scriptural law, deciding who can form legal/social/emotional partnerships, interfering with my relationship with my doctor, or continuing to burden my small enterprise with overwhelming administrative, liability, and tax-collection responsibilities while I quietly go about supporting four households in addition to my own, as a by-product of working as hard as I can to provide service and accountability to my customers.

Sorry...should probably have posted in the Centrist thread...was responding to the definitions so beautifully articulated above.

Also, I keep reflecting on (I hope I have this right) Churchill's observation that at 20, anyone with a conscience will be liberal, but by 40, anyone with a brain will be conservative.  (Obviously) I don't see these two ideologies as polarized...more like a buffet line where one can pick and choose what makes sense to both the conscience and the brain. 

SD

[EWSoccer64]

Also, I keep reflecting on (I hope I have this right) Churchill's observation that at 20, anyone with a conscience will be liberal, but by 40, anyone with a brain will be conservative. <<<<SD

That's the way I remember it.

[HandBall]

"QUOTE" Very scary times   thanks for keeping us informed 64 "END QUOTE"
Are you 'grownups' for real? Very scary times? How do you think the rest of America has felt for the last eight years. I have been scared out of my wits.
But now that we have a decent man in the white house all of a sudden all of the majority of white republicans are scared? This makes me laugh. You all are too precious with your ways.
But oh so obvious. I feel sorry for you all really, may God watch over you.
And for the rest of you being snide about change; Are for real? You would rather have the hell that we have had to suffer through the last two terms. Is this washington state or a redneck militia camp in idaho?

Slayer, there is fear based on reality, and there is the fear used to coerce people to support a position and agenda.  Obama is today using that coercive type of fear to drive people into ignoring the contents of his socialism bill by suggesting that if we don't cover our eyes and support this 93% non-stimulus bill, then we may never recover.  That is totally unfounded fear-mongering, but where is the criticism from you?

I'm sorry that people were driven by the left into fearing Bush, Republicans, and the direction that has kept us relatively safe, relatively prosperous (until leftist social engineering killed the economy), and freed a couple nations along the way.  But supporting a new direction towards socialism because an ignorant majority of Americans gobbled up the lies and mis-information from the left is not a very strong argument.   6 out of 10 Obama voters didn't even know which party controlled Congress.

Half of us out here are crying when we read such nonsense from our fellow Americans. :'(

What is truly stunning is the arrogance of people, like you, who seem totally ignorant of the realities we are living within, but still feel comfortable to mis-characterize people who aren't drinking the Kool Aid.  We are simply rolling our eyes at the ignorance of the average Obama defender, and fearful that America can't survive.  And not because of economic problems, terrorists, or wars, but because of the growing ignorance and dependency of too many of our fellow Americans.

Why don't you describe the hell you've lived in the last 8 years?  Then ask yourself what responsibility you have as an American and a voter for how we got here?

For anyone not glued to the Obama media:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/ramped-up-obama-rhetoric-could-backfire/

[EWSoccer64]

>>>How do you think the rest of America has felt for the last eight years. I have been scared out of my wits. <<<

Why have you been scared for the last 8 years Monica?