32 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Send it to him anyway
It will be a great thing to have for the elections coming up.
RE: Another signal to Reid to pocket it????
What's with the question marks?...Starting to doubt that Reid will pocket the bill?
You think Reid would spoil Obama's day by not letting him veto it?
No fun being President when you don't get to do stuff you really enjoy.
Finally, a liberal who admits it
BO's Presidency is and always has been about his agendas and his EGO.
ALL agendas come with EGOs
any President that doesn't have an agenda....shouldn't be President.
Finally, a liberal who admits it
No fun being President when you don't get to do stuff you really enjoy.
We've all see worse examples.
White House reporters from news organizations far and wide have packed their bags and gone to Crawford, Texas. That's where President Bush will spend the next five weeks or so on what the White House is calling a working vacation. This is the president's 49th trip to his Texas ranch since taking office. So far, he's spent 320 days, or about 20 percent of his presidency, in Crawford. And one of the people who's been there with him is CBS Radio News reporter Mark Knoller. He's known for keeping better records of presidential travel than the White House itself.
And, Mark, is that correct? We have our figures straight? Is it 320 days?
Mr. MARK KNOLLER (CBS Radio News): Actually not. I have updated them since those numbers came out. This is now the 51st visit by the president to his ranch here in Texas since taking office. And counting today, he has now spent all or part of 325 days at his ranch.
BRAND: So he's just 10 days shy of the record that President Reagan set--back when he spent his time at Santa Barbara--of 335 days?
KNOLLER: If you're trying to compare numbers, yeah, that would be correct. But that was a number for eight years in office, and President Bush is only in the fifth year of his presidency.
beg the press corps(e) to recognize/acknowledge his birthday?
I SAY, I SAY...How dare he.....
THAT is egregious, HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.
The President was attempting to end the press conference when reporters began yelling out questions.
Obama said, "I thought you guys were going to ask me how I was going to spend my birthday. What happened to the happy birthday thing?"
When reporters loudly protested the president replied "You're not that pent up. I've been giving questions lately," and he proceeded to answer two more question before ending the event.
so you admit
that BO's ego is bigger than Bush's and that it was more important to BO to have his birthday acknowledged than it was to get more important questions from the press corps(e)? Good
He was trying to get out of the room
without being abrupt with them....he could have just said...I'm done in this thread.
Aren't YOU going to ask me how I'm going to spend MY birthday?
So it is worse to talk about his birthday
than taking 325 days vacation in just five years? Very interesting.
No more so than
taking time away from actual crises to fund raise....including right after receiving the bodies of four killed in Benghazi and lying to the families' faces about the infamous 'video'..........
This presidency has been and will continue to be all about him....nothing else.
There were two attacks on embassies during Bush
where 9 American contractors and one ambassador were killed. There were 9 other attacks on embassies where other people were killed but no Americans.
Were you just as outraged at those two attacks and dwell on the continually like Benghazi?
BTW Bush went on tons of fund raisers and made up national business at those cities so the PAC wouldn't be charged especially during his last year. Of course, during that last year a lot of Republicans didn't want him near them.
And how many
embassies were hit with a few hundred dead during Clinton's administration, Diana? With a few opportunities to get OBL and either bring him here or Gitmo or even kill him (last opportunity was the day before 9-11) and Clinton did nothing, including the USS Cole hit.
The President's first and really the ONLY job he has is to protect the American people.........Clinton didn't do it, and neither has BO....if anything both Dem Presidents have made it worse because they just don't have the stomach for the job at hand.
Because of Iraq, Bush didn't do much, if any, fundraising during his last two years............even with a tremendous number of actual scandals going on around him, BO has done nothing BUT fundraise.
Bush didn't do such a great job either
of protecting the American people.
You're right. I don't remember Clinton being vilified about the terrorist attacks, only on his infidelity. Wonder why?
So the last two Presidents didn't get attacked for this, why this one for one incident?
I think Bush
did a great job on protecting the American people.....especially when you consider two facts....9-11 might not have happened had Clinton done something ahead of time about OBL rather than just give vague intel to Bush 8 months prior to the hit as he walked out the door. Bush was still organizing his cabinet and making a huge adjustment to the office and wasn't personally looking at a possible attack coming. It actually takes a little while to get up to speed on such situations, Diana.....BO didn't bother to get up to speed on anything when he took office. He was too busy implementing his massive stimulus and getting Obamacare going.
As for BO being 'attacked' regarding Benghazi....I really believe it more his lies and total callousness about it and continues to be callous, calling it a 'fake scandal' to this day. He didn't appear and still doesn't appear to have any compassion for the families that were affected by HC's complete and utter disregard for human life (the very 'friend' that SHE appointed) that she was ABLE to protect and didn't. She had many opportunities prior to that attack because of all the warnings and signals that were being given ahead of time, including an attack just a month before the killings, the Red Cross and England pulling people out because it was so dangerous, the begging for more security and being denied, pulling out the very security they already had, and the chance to pull the Ambassador out of there, but instead she ordered him to go back to that consulate for some ridiculous meeting that could have been postponed. Then her infamous "what difference does it make" statement.........
BO needed to cover her and himself and both have continued to do so at the expense of the families and never communicating with any of them since Dover, when the caskets came home.
Wasn't talking about 9/11
Wasn't even talking about Iraq. Was talking about the embassies that were attacked under both presidents.
And I was also talking
about the embassy attack that happened under BO and HC on 9-11 and killed four people
there were earlier attacks
and one in particular I remember was in the parking garage of WTC.
Do you know why he would veto it?
The riders would stop the dream act which would allow illegals that were brought here by their parents and grew up here to have a two-year waiver (we are deporting kids that are winning engineering contests back home rather than keeping them here where they are really needed) and striking down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program which Bush passed.
Boehner tried to separate them from the immigration bill into another bill but the tea party wouldn't have it.
That is why Boehner wants Obama to pass the bill as an executive order while he's suing the President for passing executive orders.
Boehner was being sarcastic
regarding that statement.....if you had actually SEEN it publicly, it would be evident since just a printed statement can't show the sneering tone.
He also doesn't want to strike down the DACA program....he wants it rewritten or amended to include the C.Am. people to be treated the same as those from Mexico and Canada. If it does get repealed somewhere down the road, it won't be with this bill.
The Dream Act was done by BO under another EO in 2012 because even his own Democrats in the Congress wouldn't pass what he wanted......it should have never happened in the first place, and it is what has caused the last two years' worth of kids pouring into this country.
Correction for both of us:
The DACA program was actually the 'dream act' EO that BO implemented in 2012 and YES....the House wants to gut that. And have Bush's law amended.
who wants to help build a nation
that is undercutting the future of their children by allowing unfettered immigration to come streaming across the border to claim it for themselves? Ilegal immigration is a gunless war on this nation.
Obama announced months ago that he would sign the
Senate Republican version of the Bill, which the Congressional Republicans refused to bring to the floor. Then the Congressional Republicans came up with a ludicrously underfunded and stupidly worded plan which would have penalized the Latin Americans. Obama called it what it was, utter rubbish, and assured that if it was passed by both houses, he would veto it, as is his right and duty as the President.
There has been an acceptable bill to Democrats, some Senate Republicans, and the President for something like 3 years. The Teapublican extremists in Congress have refused it and blocked it for just as long.
You can't start screaming "There's a solution" when 1. it hasn't been passed by both Houses, and 2. There's a better solution which the Teapublicans have been blocking and refusing to consider for 3 years, and then turn around and vilify the President as the road-block just this week, or late last week. Well, I know YOU can, Toni, but ordinary, rational people with a memory longer than 5 minutes can't do that without feeling guilt and shame and hypocrisy when they start to utter patent falsehoods which even they know are lies.
You just can't help yourself
regarding your insistence on insulting me with nearly every post, Rob....
As for the history of your timetable........The Senate version of the bill does NOTHING to secure the border and Republicans in BOTH Houses of Congress have always insisted that the border be secured FIRST. Just because a couple of old party hacks also voted with the majority Dem controlled Senate doesn't mean that it was acceptable to anybody BUT them. I've read that Senate bill and it's a joke so it's no surprise to me that the House wouldn't even consider it.
The funding that the House just passed was not ludicrously underfunded....it just wasn't what BO wanted by a drastic amount.....and it would have been plenty enough to resolve the issues that are being dealt with RIGHT NOW. It's supposed to be a SHORT-TERM solution in order to secure the border, get the kids the health care they need, and SEND THEM HOME....in order to prevent MORE from coming while true immigration reform is pounded out. BO wants what he wants and he wants it now, no matter what, and both he and the Dems (especially those running in November) are perfectly happy with getting their hands on another couple of billion dollars to spend and to give green cards to another 5 million illegals.
This is exactly the kind of crap they handed Reagan....give us money and amnesty to 5 million illegals and we'll secure the border and do what you want 'later'....HE got screwed by liars. It's not going to happen again.
You also seem to forget that BO was initially, less than three weeks ago, agreeing with Republicans to amend the Bush law of treating the C.Am. people the same as Mexico and Canada and turn them away at the border/deport them....until he got pressure from HIS left and pivoted and refused to accept that as part of the package. It doesn't fit that far left narrative, so it has to be discarded even if it's the 'right thing to do' to quote BO from so many of his speeches.
The President asked for 3.7 billion
and the House offers 35 million to border governors and that isn't underfunded I want to see what you call underfunded.
The $35M would solve
the immediate problem.....including border security and quickly processing the illegals to get back to their parents in their own countries. How much money do you think BO really needs to immediately take care of 50K new people?
Underfunded.....our military gutted and handing out pink slips to warriors on the battlefield who are all the most experienced at knowing how to protect those under them. If we need to start at the top to cut jobs, I suggest we go further up the food chain.
That's what happens when wars wind down
Thousands of soldiers were sent home after Viet Nam and after WWII tens of thousands just got off the boats and went home.
But they are gutting
the most experienced...........that doesn't seem to bother too many of our politicians, especially with so many 'bad' spots in the world happening right now. And NONE of those who were sent home during those wars were given their pink slips while they were still fighting for their lives, Diana.
But they are gutting the most experienced
The plan has been defended as 'a balanced approach that maintains readiness while trying to minimize turbulence within the officer corps,' by military officials.
So they are reducing numbers from 520,000 to 450,000...a cut of 70,000.
2,600 will be Captains and other officers.
2,600 / 70,000 * 100 = 3.7%
Look at it as a management cut.
Reduce lower ranks and NOT have a cut in management? Wouldn't that make the military top heavy? TOO many officers(bosses) and TOO few troops (workers). Everyone knows how you hate government waste...try and look at the military as a branch of government.
It would be easy to do that IF
we had a President that actually believed in and had faith in the military HE commands......he has so much disdain for it, along with other liberal Democrats, that he has no problem breaking his oath to defend our country (and that's actually the ONLY job he is required to maintain as President).
We are in a far worse situation globally and along our borders than we have ever been since WWII and yet we have a military that will be at the lowest point of readiness since that date....seventy years ago. That's not anything to be proud of and yet he and others are. Even his own military advisers have told him that reducing our military this much is dangerous............but typical BO, he is listening instead to 'czars' and the far left because they believe the same way he does.
And NONE of the money he's saving by reducing the military as drastically as he has done is going to pay down our national debt, is it? In fact, from the pie chart I showed in an earlier post today, our national debt by the time he leaves office will top off at over $22 Trillion. And he called BUSH un-American, unpatriotic, and irresponsible with his spending???????
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)