Oh my god!

[ArlJim78]

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/


Now Obama has dissed another one. He apparently does not know who the president of France is because he sent a letter to Jacques Chirac stating that he was looking forward to working with him for the next four years. Only one problem, Sarkozy is the current President of France.





US President Barack Obama has indirectly praised former French president Jacques Chirac's fierce opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq, the online edition of the daily Le Figaro reported on Thursday.



In a letter described by Chirac as 'very nice,' Obama wrote, 'I am certain that we will be able to work together, in the coming four years, in a spirit of peace and friendship to build a safer world.'

The use of the word 'peace' was taken to be an indirect reference to Chirac's stance against the US intervention in Iraq, which Obama had also opposed as senator.




Jimmy Carter must be ecstatic these days just knowing that it won't be long no until he is no longer considered the worst president ever. The current buffoon will have earned that title before this year is over.

[boxcar]

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/


Now Obama has dissed another one. He apparently does not know who the president of France is because he sent a letter to Jacques Chirac stating that he was looking forward to working with him for the next four years. Only one problem, Sarkozy is the current President of France.





US President Barack Obama has indirectly praised former French president Jacques Chirac's fierce opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq, the online edition of the daily Le Figaro reported on Thursday.



In a letter described by Chirac as 'very nice,' Obama wrote, 'I am certain that we will be able to work together, in the coming four years, in a spirit of peace and friendship to build a safer world.'

The use of the word 'peace' was taken to be an indirect reference to Chirac's stance against the US intervention in Iraq, which Obama had also opposed as senator.




Jimmy Carter must be ecstatic these days just knowing that it won't be long no until he is no longer considered the worst president ever. The current buffoon will have earned that title before this year is over.












Ahh...you're being picayune. Minor detail. :rolleyes:

Did I not say, though, early on during the Obama campaign that this empty suit was an Affirmative Action poster boy? If the people of this country knew what a dunce he truly is the blacks in this country who voted for him in droves would be so humiliated and embarrassed by this buffoon they would probably publicly disown him.

No wonder at all his college records have never been released for public consumption and scrutiny, is it?

Just watch how this gaffe will get covered in the mainstream media. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

What a pathetic website that is. :sleeping:

[PaceAdvantage]

What a pathetic website that is. :sleeping:I thought the video that showed what Iran was like before Jimmy Carter took office was interesting.

I'm sure it is some sort of propaganda piece...what did you think of it?

And why is that site pathetic? Because it is partisan?

[DrunkenHorseplayer]

Carter has already been surpassed by Bush II as the worst; Obama's legacy will be tied solely to the performance of the stock market.

[cj's dad]

Let's see:

[cj's dad]

Let's see:

1)- rushed the most massive spending bill in the history of the nation through Congress
2)- walked into a window he thought was a door
3)- appeared on the "Jay Leno" show and insulted Special Olympics participants
4)- did not know the current President of France
5)- escalated the war in Afghanistan
6)- nominated numerous unqualified people for Cabinet posts

[kenwoodallpromos]

BO better get a secretary who knows who's who!LOL!!
He don't know and Bush didn't care!!

[DJofSD]

I guess Hillary forgot to tell him.

[JustRalph]

he spent 3 times the cost of the Iraq war in his first 60 days.............

enough said

[toetoe]

cj's dad,

I liked it blank, as in:

"Let's see:" ______________________________________ ... :lol:

[ArlJim78]

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/03/23/obama-writes-letter-to-chirac-blogosphere-goes-crazy/

they are now saying that the Obama letter was a reply to a letter from Chirac.
and that the part about working together was in reference to Chirac's foundation.

"With his help we found out that another French newspaper, the New Observer, explained that Obama was merely replying to a Chirac letter who was writing him as the head of his foundation — the Jacques Chirac Foundation for sustainable development and cultural dialogue."

It makes more sense now but I still wouldn't have responded so kindly to Chirac who stabbed us in the back, and was put of the oil-for-food scandal. Any foundation that he is a part of I would assume is a scam.

[Dahoss9698]

LOL, that's twice in a few days. Maybe we shouldn't get our news from blogs......just a thought.

[cj's dad]

LOL, that's twice in a few days. Maybe we shouldn't get our news from blogs......just a thought.

Driving to work this morning, it was reported on local radio also.

[Greyfox]

Is Dan Quayle advising him too?

[ddog]

nah, that's the typical scamerican way, don't check anything , just link whore through life.

if it's on the inter tubes it must be sensible.


most have no context anymore -- even the original complaint drawn from the post made no sense and was open to completely different interpretation.

One question - WHO took the word peace to have the "meaning" ascribed??
Actually - who said that ?????

"The use of the word 'peace' was taken to be an indirect reference to Chirac's stance against the US intervention in Iraq, which Obama had also opposed as senator."

So, anytime Bush or Bama used/uses the word "peace" in the context of working with another ,there was/is a "coded" message behind it that one must descramble?


Talk about your conspiracy kooks........

off the rails -- totally.

[ddog]

Driving to work this morning, it was reported on local radio also.



Hope you were driving as slow as the post indicates you should.

Where do you imagine they got it from! The Carter Center ???
:lol:


for goodness sake.

really.


i don't know if you are trying but you make my ribs hurt sometimes!!!
:lol: :lol:
have a nice one.

[ArlJim78]

LOL, that's twice in a few days. Maybe we shouldn't get our news from blogs......just a thought.

The source was Le Figaro, it's not a blog. Its a French newspaper that has been around since 1826.

[ArlJim78]

also, the other link I posted that supposedly refutes the original story is rather weak as well. Its only a blogger who speaks French who mentions that they saw another story in another paper that tells a different story than the Le Figaro piece.
However, they didn't link to that story or provide a translation. So do we just blindly believe that blog? To me it means that we don't know the truth at this point, not that it is conclusive one way or the other.

[Dahoss9698]

Driving to work this morning, it was reported on local radio also.

It was on local radio? It must be true then.

[Dahoss9698]

The source was Le Figaro, it's not a blog. Its a French newspaper that has been around since 1826.

Uh, no. You linked us to a blog. Then, you highlighted something taken from monsters and critics, which is also a blog. Then we were presented with "translations" from europumas :rolleyes: and Free Republic :rolleyes: of something posted in the online version of Le Figaro.

Which is my point. Getting your news from blogs is risky at best. But, why should the truth get in the middle of some good whining?

[ArlJim78]

Uh, no. You linked us to a blog. Then, you highlighted something taken from monsters and critics, which is also a blog. Then we were presented with "translations" from europumas :rolleyes: and Free Republic :rolleyes: of something posted in the online version of Le Figaro.

Which is my point. Getting your news from blogs is risky at best. But, why should the truth get in the middle of some good whining?
i guess i over estimate sometimes the comprehension level of some, as in the ability to ascertain the source's source from a blog story.

All the translations including the one I highlighted were a direct translations from Le Figaro.

you're hypocritical to give advice about not getting news from blogs when it seems that you have already deemed the un-documented story in the Monitor as "The Truth". :rolleyes:

please, without a good whine, you'd have zero message board posts.

[cj's dad]

Hope you were driving as slow as the post indicates you should.

Where do you imagine they got it from! The Carter Center ???
:lol:


for goodness sake.

really.


i don't know if you are trying but you make my ribs hurt sometimes!!!
:lol: :lol:
have a nice one.

if I heard on the radio/TV that the WTC had been attacked by terrorists, I should drive to NY and see for myself-

[NJ Stinks]

I thought the video that showed what Iran was like before Jimmy Carter took office was interesting.

I'm sure it is some sort of propaganda piece...what did you think of it?

And why is that site pathetic? Because it is partisan?

It's a hate liberals/Democrats blog pure and simple.

I didn't watch the video.

[Dahoss9698]

i guess i over estimate sometimes the comprehension level of some, as in the ability to ascertain the source's source from a blog story.

All the translations including the one I highlighted were a direct translations from Le Figaro.

you're hypocritical to give advice about not getting news from blogs when it seems that you have already deemed the un-documented story in the Monitor as "The Truth". :rolleyes:

please, without a good whine, you'd have zero message board posts.

I haven't deemed anything as truth. I just pointed out this is the second time in a few days that you might have been a bit too overzealous in your crusade. Which is why I suggested getting your news from blogs, especially blogs that lean significantly one way might not be the best option. Do you disagree?

[Dahoss9698]

Idiot II

Thanks man!

[cj's dad]

Thanks man!

Considering your asinine post it was well deserved I think.

[Bubba X]

if I heard on the radio/TV that the WTC had been attacked by terrorists, I should drive to NY and see for myself-


LMMFAO. A bit harsh, no?

Loosen up. It ain't all that. Relax. Maybe try having a salad for lunch some day too!

[Dahoss9698]

Considering your asinine post it was well deserved I think.

I respect your son too much to trade jabs with you. But considering the original post, I thought it was well played. I'm biased though.

[ArlJim78]

I haven't deemed anything as truth. I just pointed out this is the second time in a few days that you might have been a bit too overzealous in your crusade. Which is why I suggested getting your news from blogs, especially blogs that lean significantly one way might not be the best option. Do you disagree?
i just posted a trivial story that was making the rounds. I didn't call it breaking news and i am not a reporter. as soon as i saw that there was perhaps another side to it, I added that to the thread.

but with that said, i don't know why you have made the leap to imply that i only get my news from blogs that lean a certain way.

in any case, please give me the list of blogs, newspapers, magazines, TV/Cable news, whatever, that don't lean a particular way. where do you go for the truth?

[Dahoss9698]

i just posted a trivial story that was making the rounds. I didn't call it breaking news and i am not a reporter. as soon as i saw that there was perhaps another side to it, I added that to the thread.

but with that said, i don't know why you have made the leap to imply that i only get my news from blogs that lean a certain way.

in any case, please give me the list of blogs, newspapers, magazines, TV/Cable news, whatever, that don't lean a particular way. where do you go for the truth?

I love the I'm not a reporter stuff. As soon as something anti Obama/liberal is published in a blog, newspaper, magazine, etc, you guys have a race to see who can post it on here. True/false it doesn't matter. You're not writing it, but you're passing it along. I'm just suggesting that passing along blogs as news is risky. That's all, and you're smart enough to realize why.

[ArlJim78]

I love the I'm not a reporter stuff. As soon as something anti Obama/liberal is published in a blog, newspaper, magazine, etc, you guys have a race to see who can post it on here. True/false it doesn't matter. You're not writing it, but you're passing it along. I'm just suggesting that passing along blogs as news is risky. That's all, and you're smart enough to realize why.
total BS as usual. what exactly is the risk?

[Lefty]

dahoss, you mean like the libs on this board did when they used to post stuff from Kos and the Huffington Post? Not to mention Frontline the lib TV show.

[The Judge]

has clouded your judgement and made you look silly. Instead of questioning how this was unlikely to be true you spread the silliness without hesitation. Can you imagine the mistakes that would have had to be made for that story to be true?

[Dahoss9698]

total BS as usual. what exactly is the risk?

The risk is it might not be factual (isn't this thread a good example of that?). As I said, I realize the facts are second nature here. It's more important to just get the "story" up so the good ol' boys can take their turn wacking. You honestly don't see why trusting a blog piece as news is risky? You might be worse off than I thought.

[ArlJim78]

The risk is it might not be factual (isn't this thread a good example of that?). As I said, I realize the facts are second nature here. It's more important to just get the "story" up so the good ol' boys can take their turn wacking. You honestly don't see why trusting a blog piece as news is risky? You might be worse off than I thought.
you mean some of what is posted on message boards may not be factual?
who knew?

[Tom]

See Post #34.

The standard was set previously.

[Dahoss9698]

You guys are the best. Obviously the truth isn't important. One guy excuses his passing off incorrect info because it's a message board. The other guy excuses it, because they did it first. That's rich.

[cj's dad]

You guys are the best. Obviously the truth isn't important. One guy excuses his passing off incorrect info because it's a message board. The other guy excuses it, because they did it first. That's rich.

Allright dammit- I'll admit I'm doing it because I don't like having a Haitian president !!

There, I said it !!

[ArlJim78]

You guys are the best. Obviously the truth isn't important. One guy excuses his passing off incorrect info because it's a message board. The other guy excuses it, because they did it first. That's rich.
yeah right, one story is false and suddenly the truth doesn't matter. Did you forget I'm the one that corrected the story? why would I do that if the truth doesn't matter?

no what's rich is guys like you who come on all hot and bothered about one false story, but sit on their hands and never weigh in on the other 99% of what goes on. Come on, put on your big boy pants take a stand on an issue sometime. All you do is drone on and on about other peoples posts. I normally never reply to you because you're not a serious person and are only interested in childish board banter.

My crusade as you call it is against a president that I feel is ruining the country. What exactly is your crusade?

[boxcar]

has clouded your judgement and made you look silly. Instead of questioning how this was unlikely to be true you spread the silliness without hesitation. Can you imagine the mistakes that would have had to be made for that story to be true?

Yeah...probably right on the order of his 57 states gaffe and which states border on his home state of IL. Don't you think? Your phony incredulity is unwarranted due to these and other gaffe precedents already set by this buffoon.

Boxcar

[The Judge]

you all sound like the buffoons. The 57 states you had on tape what do have on this one. NOTHING, but that doesn't matter.

How could a person who doesn't know how many states there are, and is such a bafffoon beat the socks off your canidate? I can hear it now it was the liberal press, they were not "my" canidates ,yeah on and on excuse after excuse. The American public was tired of doom and gloom Republicans check out the post you and you buddies put up on this board and you can see what I mean.

People like him and he is doing a better job then the last guy.
Put on your big boy pants and wait until you have something to report before you go shooting off. Now that doesn't seem like too much to ask you adults.

[ArlJim78]

speaking of getting your news from blogs, I just now remembered that at The Saviors first primetime press conference, sitting in the front row in the press gallery was someone from the Huffington Post! and he called on them for a question.:lol:

maybe tonight we'll see someone from Daily Kos get the honors.

[Greyfox]

maybe tonight we'll see someone from Daily Kos get the honors.

Tonight America's "Idol" is bumping "American Idol."
He just can't stop campaigning. Of course March Madness goes on as he's a b'buff.

[Tom]

People like him and he is doing a better job then the last guy.

:lol::lol::lol::faint:


You are on fire! Seriously, I'm calling Leno.....you should be shared with the world!

[Tom]

Tonight America's "Idol" is bumping "American Idol."
He just can't stop campaigning. Of course March Madness goes on as he's a b'buff.

Can we vote him off?

[boxcar]

you all sound like the buffoons. The 57 states you had on tape what do have on this one. NOTHING, but that doesn't matter.

How could a person who doesn't know how many states there are, and is such a bafffoon beat the socks off your canidate?

Hey, Judge, is this the best you've got? The answer is simple: Because this country is filled with buffoons like you who voted for Hopey and Changey, even though you didn't (and still don't!) have the first clue as to what we're supposed to be hoping for, specifically, and what specific changes BO promised. And as stated previously, more than a few people voted for this Affirmative Action poster boy because he is black and they wanted to see history made. And, finally, you got one part right: The mainstream media helped him tremendously. (I suppose one out of three should be considered a passing grade for you.) :rolleyes:

In short...we had had a bunch of jackasses vote this jackal in. Unfortunately, this is one of the big flaws to a democratic republic.

Boxcar
I think your take on "doom and gloom" republicans is an ironic riot, considering that BO has been telling us these last 2+ months that we've had to deal with one crisis after another -- and he's only getting warmed up. His entire presidency will be marked with dire crises. Mark my words.

[DJofSD]

BO -- the first OTJ president.

[ArlJim78]

Tonight America's "Idol" is bumping "American Idol."
He just can't stop campaigning. Of course March Madness goes on as he's a b'buff.

he should just turn the press conference into a comedy show, that's the way he's heading anyway. do away with the podium, just a mic on a stand, and of course the trusty prompter. he can do 5 minutes of stand-up then sit down on a couch and take some questions.

[The Judge]

he won because he was black and Americans love affrimative action. What cave have you been in, both of those are reasons to LOSE the race for the presidentcy of the United States, NOT WIN IT!

The Republican party had done such a poor job of running this country he won anyway. The country is tired of the war mongering right and lthy let you know it.

You guys got thrown out of every office there was to be thrown out off. Mayor, Governor, Congress, you name it you lost it. Explain that ( we already know about the liberal press) what else. It couldn't be you lack of leadership and lack of programs for the majority of the people could it.

[Marshall Bennett]

You guys got thrown out of every office there was to be thrown out off. Mayor, Governor, Congress, you name it you lost it. Explain that ( we already know about the liberal press) what else. It couldn't be you lack of leadership and lack of programs for the majority of the people could it.
The brainwashing of simple minds . They voted in droves and made the difference . Plain & simple .

[The Judge]

elections did the Republicans brainwash anybody? Gee why not? Must not be so simple to do even with simple minds to work with.

[ArlJim78]

if you win 52% of the vote there can be no criticism. gotcha.

[sandpit]

Obama was in the right place at the right time, plain and simple. The ebb and flow of politics is just like the economy's; people get sick of the same thing after a while, and it will swing back in the Republicans favor at some point.

Obama took advantage of a perceived weakness, right or wrong, of his political opposition and exploited it to his advantage. Blaming the MSM, in this case, is a farce. In today's world, and the future, the voting populace is and will be much more affected by the internet and other social media much more than tv, radio or the newspaper. Obama's people realized that and used it to their advantage. Virtually no one under 30 reads the paper, and less and less of them are watching television...and none of them listen to the radio, at least not for political insight. They want info and entertainment right now: the hyper-microwave generation.

And I'm not saying Republicans don't realize this, just look at John McCain's daughter. They just to embrace it a little sooner if they were gonna have a chance in '08.

[Dahoss9698]

yeah right, one story is false and suddenly the truth doesn't matter. Did you forget I'm the one that corrected the story? why would I do that if the truth doesn't matter?

no what's rich is guys like you who come on all hot and bothered about one false story, but sit on their hands and never weigh in on the other 99% of what goes on. Come on, put on your big boy pants take a stand on an issue sometime. All you do is drone on and on about other peoples posts. I normally never reply to you because you're not a serious person and are only interested in childish board banter.

My crusade as you call it is against a president that I feel is ruining the country. What exactly is your crusade?

First off Jim, thanks for replying to me this time. You have no idea how much it hurts me that you normally don't. I appreciate you taking time out of your busy day to shoot the sh.it with simpletons like myself.

But who's hot and bothered (besides yourself of course)? I'm not upset at all, I find it actually humorous that this is the second time in a few days that you have had to go back and correct yourself. My point was and still is, that when you trust a blog as a news source, you are taking the risk that the info that you are trying to spread around might not be the truth. Especially a blog that is so obviously biased. That was it. No one has disputed that. You tried to twist it around, but I haven't seen one person disagree with my point.

The taking a stand stuff is cute though. That's all I do is take stands. I'm very opinionated as you know and I almost never sit on my hands if I have something to say. But there is no discussion here. There is no exchange of ideas. No one is changing their minds about anything. Come on back to reality, you could use it.

All of your crusading before the election, where did that get you? Oh yeah, the guy you guaranteed would win was trounced. So where is all of your crusading going to lead to now? You guessed it, it's all going to be a complete waste of time. But hey, as long as you feel like you're actually doing something other than having the world's biggest and most disgusting circle-jerk, go for it. Stay gold Jim, stay gold.

[ArlJim78]

no dahoss, I've never seen you take a stand. its only stupid comebacks like stay gold, circle jerk, nah nah your guy got trounced, etc. that's why you're a waste of time.

[PaceAdvantage]

I love the I'm not a reporter stuff. As soon as something anti Obama/liberal is published in a blog, newspaper, magazine, etc, you guys have a race to see who can post it on here. True/false it doesn't matter. You're not writing it, but you're passing it along. I'm just suggesting that passing along blogs as news is risky. That's all, and you're smart enough to realize why.Sounds just like what I went through when Bush was prez for eight years...who would rush here first to post the latest blog baloney. Would it be hcap, Secretariat, ljb, 46zilzal, etc. etc.?

[PaceAdvantage]

A lot of your guys (on both SIDES of the issue) need to TONE IT DOWN.

Seriously.

[Dahoss9698]

no dahoss, I've never seen you take a stand. its only stupid comebacks like stay gold, circle jerk, nah nah your guy got trounced, etc. that's why you're a waste of time.

:(

[hcap]

if you win 52% of the vote there can be no criticism. gotcha.The country criticized the repugs Electorally big time.

Electoral votes......

Obama/Biden 365 McCain/Palin 173

[Tom]

hcap, the electoral college hardly represents the people.

[Lefty]

The country was misled by the mainstream media, BIG TIME.

[hcap]

You guys would rather believe the few bush/rethug/neo/cons die-hards here on an off-topic horse racing board are more representative of THE PEOPLE? than the Electoral vote? Or that the people were brainwashed and the same few whiners here were not by the rethugs/bushies? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :bang: :bang: :sleeping:

[Tom]

The popular vote - much closer than the electoral vote - is the ONLY one the represents the people's choice. You know that.

[cj's dad]

I do seem to remember that back in the 2000 election, there was quite the uproar from the libs that Al (If only I could have won in Tennessee) Gore had won the popular vote. I even recall that there was talk of revamping the electoral process. Then again I could be mistaken! Nahhhh !!!


Funny how times change !!

[rastajenk]

Interesting role reversal in these previous two posts. When a Republican wins the White House but loses the popular vote, for the Repubs the Electoral College represents the will of the peoples of this country, to the Dems its the vote count that counts.





Whoa, Daddy-O, you beat me to it; good thing I scrolled down. You've had your coffee this morning, I'm sure.

[hcap]

The popular vote - much closer than the electoral vote - is the ONLY one the represents the people's choice. You know that.In 2000, Gore won the popular vote. You gentlemen went with the finagled ENABLED Supreme Court Electoral. Of course it was a squeaker then. This time Obama won an overwhelming Electoral vote and a substantial popular vote of over 9,000,000. Bush won THEORETICALLY by a few hundred in Floriduh

In addition the rethugs lost Governors, local state and federal Congressmen and local state and federal Senators. The country has turned away from your policies, and is super Blue. Of course you gentlemen are well aware of exactly how badly you did in November 2008. That's why 90% of the off-topic Pa high-fiver whining threads are ranting and raving endlessly All sore losers bitching over and over.

Get over it already

[boxcar]

In 2000, Gore won the popular vote. You gentlemen went with the finagled ENABLED Supreme Court Electoral. Of course it was a squeaker then. This time Obama won an overwhelming Electoral vote and a substantial popular vote of over 9,000,000. Bush won THEORETICALLY by a few hundred in Floriduh

In addition the rethugs lost Governors, local state and federal Congressmen and local state and federal Senators. The country has turned away from your policies, and is super Blue. Of course you gentlemen are well aware of exactly how badly you did in November 2008. That's why 90% of the off-topic Pa high-fiver whining threads are ranting and raving endlessly All sore losers bitching over and over.

Get over it already

You say, "sore losers"? You do recall the '00 and '02 elections? Do you recall all the whining and incessant complaints over the outcomes?

Where you err, sir, is that essentially we're not whining about the outcome of the last election because I think the vast majority of us "complainers" weren't exactly enthralled with McCain either. But what we are concerned about is the path BO is putting this country on since taking office. We're concerned about WHAT this man is -- what he represents -- what he stands for. Big difference from whiners such as yourself.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Sore losers????

No one here is saying the vote was rigged, like in 2000.
Mot of us have come and said the repubs deserved to lose.
Sore losers?

More like sore winners! :D


hcap, we have all passed the election, you should too.
There is much failure going on today, who needs to go back to November! :D

[ddog]

sure you are , Pa and the "others" say it was rigged, a coverup by the media.

enough of your fellow countrymen were duped by the lamestream so that the bama clones won a media-rigged game.

And that's before we get to the Chicago machine+Acorn(the gang that can't shoot straight if ever that existed) went around and voted the dead and crossed state lines via bus caravans to vote in all 50 states and brought Wiley Coyote onto the rolls.

Add to that the affirmative action policies forced on the REAL America so as to make them guilty and thus HAVE to vote for the bama and well , it seems as if the universe may have been rigged against the real americans.

It's sad when the whiners can't keep straight in their own minds what they were moaning about.

:lol:

[Lefty]

Can you point to one story the mainstream did on Obama's connections to Rev wright or Bill Ayres before Hannity broke the stories? Hell, is there even any after Hannity broke them?
How many negative stories on Obama in mainstream press as opposed to negative stories about Mcain?
Onward and upward. doggy, do you think Obama's policies are good for the country?

[ddog]

sorry lefty, please stop this one , every post you and the "others" make just serves to put the proof on my post.

[Tom]

Translate - Lefty, stop hitting me with facts.

[ddog]

Translate - Lefty, stop hitting me with facts.


seems you are in serious need of the TOTUS now.


in the past if couldn't have hurt either.

:eek: :lol:

[hcap]

It's sad when the whiners can't keep straight in their own minds what they were moaning about.
:lol: :lol: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

You say, "sore losers"? You do recall the '00 and '02 elections? Do you recall all the whining and incessant complaints over the outcomes?
If I recall correctly, bush VS Gore was controversial big time. The election hung on a manipulated thread.There was bitterness on both sides. The difference here in 2008, is that IT WAS NOT CLOSE !!!!!!! There is NO WAY in hell any one can contest this election. That is without bogus nonsense like the eternal quest for Obamas' REAL birth certificate.

How's that going box? :lol:

[ddog]

Can you point to one story the mainstream did on Obama's connections to Rev wright or Bill Ayres before Hannity broke the stories? Hell, is there even any after Hannity broke them?
How many negative stories on Obama in mainstream press as opposed to negative stories about Mcain?
Onward and upward. doggy, do you think Obama's policies are good for the country?


Are you kidding or just in total denial?

No stories on Rev Wright after hannity broke it??
Really, let's see you back up that silly charge since you made it.

maybe totus tom can help you in the research......

Oh and as to the whole point of the postings here, YOU are still doing it , right in the post i quoted above.

See when you are really deep in the koolaid you lose any ability to understand what used to be your own thoughts.

Recall those old player piano with the tunes punched in the scroll?

Well , you are exactly like that, you just keep on playing the same old tune year after year post after post example after example until now you are a parody of who you used to think you were.

player pianos don't really have an onward and upward function built in lefty.

[Lefty]

doggy, right when you're stumped just go in deflection mode. We are talking about the mainstream and they're reporting on Obama. Don't you find it strange that a talk show guy, Sean Hannity broke the story on Rev Wright. All these poweful papers and tv news agencies and they didn't know about Rev Wright? Sure they did, but it was Hannity that broke the story. And there were loads more negative stories about M'Cain than Obama. Now you can do one of 3 things: Prove me wrong, be quiet or stay in deflection mode.
But we got Obama, so how's he doing so far? Hmmm...

[Bubba X]

doggy, right when you're stumped just go in deflection mode. We are talking about the mainstream and they're reporting on Obama. Don't you find it strange that a talk show guy, Sean Hannity broke the story on Rev Wright. All these poweful papers and tv news agencies and they didn't know about Rev Wright? Sure they did, but it was Hannity that broke the story. And there were loads more negative stories about M'Cain than Obama. Now you can do one of 3 things: Prove me wrong, be quiet or stay in deflection mode.
But we got Obama, so how's he doing so far? Hmmm...

What a crock of sh-t.

Hannity broke the story? Funny.

O'Reilly also said he broke the story. Just as funny.

These idiots both claimed in March 2008 they were the ONE who saved America from the "mainstream press bias" by disclosing Rev Wright.

The only thing wrong is that the NEW York Times did a LENGTHY, DETAILED story on Obama-Wright in APRIL 2007. That's right, 11 months before these FOX moron panderers "discovered" the story.

The only reason people paid attention to those freaking fools on FOX is that someone sold them a cell phone video. FOX viewers, who apparently can't freaking read, had a picture to look at so they could understand.

If you truly believe Hannity broke the story, you are all the way gone.

Apparently, a feature story the New York Times does not meet the definition of Main Stream Media held by you and the rest of this forum's barbarian horde of bitching, whining losers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

[Tom]

Apparently, a feature story the New York Times does not meet the definition of Main Stream Media held by you and the rest of this forum's barbarian horde of bitching, whining losers.

Try acting like an adult here, ok?

[Lefty]

bubba, pretty sure Hannity broke the story first. And hannity stayed on it and criticized Obama for staying in Wright's church for 20 yrs. Did the Times stay on this story like they did Abu Graeb? Hmmm?
O'reilly came to the story many months after Hannity. Did ABC, NC or CBS ever criticize Obama for his affliations with Wright and Ayres/ did they break the stoty of the shady way he bought his house with Tony Retzco helping him out? Only Fox stayed on these stories. So much for objective mainstream reporting. And Bubba, you can throw a hissy fit, and call all the names you want but you can't change the facts.
But tell me, what do you think of a guy that says he's gonna be fiscally responsible while spending 10 trillion dolllars?

[mostpost]

hcap, the electoral college hardly represents the people.

Wrong again Bunky. The electoral college reflects the will of the voter much more than your congressman or Senator. Members of the electoral college vote on only one matter; who should be President. Electors pledge to vote for the candidate which has received the majority of votes in their particular state. (Or Congressional district in the case of Maine and Nebaska) Since these electors are ussually party regulars, it is unlikely, once they are elected that they would not do so. 24 states have laws detailing punishments for electors who fail to live up to their pledge. There have been very few instances of an elector not voting for the candidate who received the majority of votes in his state.
On the other hand, your Congressman or Senator, once elected can vote any way he/she wants. (Of course you can vote him out)

[mostpost]

The popular vote - much closer than the electoral vote - is the ONLY one the represents the people's choice. You know that.

In 2008: 53% Obama.....45% McCain popular vote
The only presidential election in the last 32 years with an appreciably bigger margin was Reagan in 1984.

Oops, we win again

[Lefty]

Well, I want to keep the electoral vote. If we ever went to the popular vote, then CA and NY would elect every president.
I can still heare ALGORE , Hillary and various other dims whining after 2000 that we should go to the popular vote. ah, those, dims, they're a riot.

[mostpost]

I do seem to remember that back in the 2000 election, there was quite the uproar from the libs that Al (If only I could have won in Tennessee) Gore had won the popular vote. I even recall that there was talk of revamping the electoral process. Then again I could be mistaken! Nahhhh !!!


Funny how times change !!

Nahhhh !!!
The problem in 2000 was not popular vote versus electoral vote. The problem was that the Supreme Court interfered in a legitimate election and stopped an ongoing recount before it was completed. And their reasons for doing so were so convoluted and specious that even they specifically said they could never be used as a precedent.

[PaceAdvantage]

You guys would rather believe the few bush/rethug/neo/cons die-hards here on an off-topic horse racing board are more representative of THE PEOPLE? than the Electoral vote? Or that the people were brainwashed and the same few whiners here were not by the rethugs/bushies? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :bang: :bang: :sleeping:You do realize that "the people" are fickle and have short attention spans these days, do you not?

It simply astounds me that you honestly believe Democrats will be in power from now until the end of time.

I imagine Republicans during the Reagan years thought the same...but...eventually, Bill Clinton came along...

And how funny is it that even with Clinton's popularity, you guys STILL lost (to Bush no less).

So, you see, lots can happen in the span of a couple of years.

[PaceAdvantage]

Apparently, a feature story the New York Times does not meet the definition of Main Stream Media held by you and the rest of this forum's barbarian horde of bitching, whining losers.Where were you when I posted my NYT article from six years ago? The one that told us all that Bush wanted sweeping changes on Fannie and Freddie but Barney Frank and the Dems said nothing was wrong with Fannie and Freddie?

New York Times baby...

Also, if you don't like it here (barbarian horde of bitching, whining losers), why continue to participate?

I take great offense to your description of our patriotic board members as bitchy and whiny.

They are, in fact, doing their PATRIOTIC DUTY. How do I know? You and folks like you TOLD ME SO many moons ago.

They are now the watchdogs...the ones that will post every single negative story, negative blog piece, negative photo that ever eminates out of the Obama administration.

You know, like you guys did from 2001-2008.

[Lefty]

mostpost, you have a fauty or selective memory. Katherine Harris sanctioned the election and Bush won. Then Gore whined and the FL State Supreme Court gave the election to him. Then the Supreme court took it up and gave the election back to the winner. Say it straight.

[ddog]

doggy, right when you're stumped just go in deflection mode. We are talking about the mainstream and they're reporting on Obama. Don't you find it strange that a talk show guy, Sean Hannity broke the story on Rev Wright. All these poweful papers and tv news agencies and they didn't know about Rev Wright? Sure they did, but it was Hannity that broke the story. And there were loads more negative stories about M'Cain than Obama. Now you can do one of 3 things: Prove me wrong, be quiet or stay in deflection mode.
But we got Obama, so how's he doing so far? Hmmm...


lefty , if your contention is after the story broke that the MSM didn't report it and you are not just poking fun, then there is no amount of "facts" that could convince you.

I don't follow the MSM as much as many on here it seems, but during the period after wright "broke" and for months there were endless print stories and tv stories on it.

Every babbling head on radio/tv had endless rounds of blabber over it.

it went on for months and was debated/shown over and over in every time slot.

Let me try to return you to some type of sane world......


Do you qualify the MSM as including campaign spots run on all stations during the election cycles???


If so, how does your statement on the wright deal make any sense at all??

If not , what are they exactly and why if they don't work do both parties pay for them?

[Lefty]

My bigger and much more salient point is that the MSM Didn't break the story. They had to know the story but they didn't break it. A talk show host did. And when they did allude to it after the cat was out of the bag, what was their tone? Can you point to any negative story the MSM did about Obama and Wright, or did they bring out the excuses?
Conservatives did the ads, not MSM, we're talking about reporting, and you hafta be pretty naive to think the MSM was not heavily biased towards Obama.

[ddog]

Where were you when I posted my NYT article from six years ago? The one that told us all that Bush wanted sweeping changes on Fannie and Freddie but Barney Frank and the Dems said nothing was wrong with Fannie and Freddie?

New York Times baby...

Also, if you don't like it here (barbarian horde of bitching, whining losers), why continue to participate?

I take great offense to your description of our patriotic board members as bitchy and whiny.

They are, in fact, doing their PATRIOTIC DUTY. How do I know? You and folks like you TOLD ME SO many moons ago.

They are now the watchdogs...the ones that will post every single negative story, negative blog piece, negative photo that ever eminates out of the Obama administration.

You know, like you guys did from 2001-2008.


Pa

I am going to do you a favor , since you seem to have a fetish that has grown out of control regarding this 6 year ago "story" give me a minute and i will post something a little before that to see where us experienced ones have it over you younguns.

Like RR said to paraphrase , I won't hold your youth and inexperience against you in these matters.


of course we both know you are just blowing smoke, but anyway.......there are customs and all.

[ddog]

My bigger and much more salient point is that the MSM Didn't break the story. They had to know the story but they didn't break it. A talk show host did. And when they did allude to it after the cat was out of the bag, what was their tone? Can you point to any negative story the MSM did about Obama and Wright, or did they bring out the excuses?
Conservatives did the ads, not MSM, we're talking about reporting, and you hafta be pretty naive to think the MSM was not heavily biased towards Obama.

or i guess you could say the pugs had to be pretty stupid to not use it earlier to kill him off??

I guess they didn't know it either???

they were saying they wanted clinton, well why didn't the pugs get clinton.

i would say you have made another factual assertion that you and so far NO ONE has made or proved, that the MSM all knew it and kept it secret.

rubbish and if you could stop and think you would see it as that.

[ddog]

New YAWK TIMES baby!!!
in what was it 1998, nah some of us couldn't be that far ahead of the curve, no wwaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!
:lol:

'Mere size is no sin,'' William Howard Taft is supposed to have said, refuting the trustbusting philosophy of his predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt. (At the time of the apocryphal remark, Taft weighed 300 pounds.)

When a big bank on the West Coast decides to merge with a big East Coast bank, that doesn't bother me. All the stuff about synergies and cost-saving layoffs and global reach will be meaningless soon enough; future banking will be done on the Internet, every home a branch, and today's giants will be undercut by speedy cyberbankers unencumbered by overhead.

Far more troubling is the kind of marriage proposed by Citibank and the Travelers Group of insurance companies and stock brokerage. That would require changing the law that keeps banks -- where individual deposits are insured up to $100,000 by the Federal Government -- separate from other enterprises.

With remarkable chutzpah, these companies have embarked on a course that blithely assumes that change in law.

They think they can count on Republicans in Congress who say that the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act is a Depression-era relic. Fears that a market collapse could affect banks are old hat, these descendants of Dr. Pangloss insist. Break down the fire wall and let the Federal Reserve keep a benign eye on everything financial; we don't even have to fear fear itself.


i understand it's painful for you but new yawks got more at the LINK

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/16/opinion/essay-don-t-bank-on-it.html

[ddog]

My bigger and much more salient point is that the MSM Didn't break the story. They had to know the story but they didn't break it. A talk show host did. And when they did allude to it after the cat was out of the bag, what was their tone? Can you point to any negative story the MSM did about Obama and Wright, or did they bring out the excuses?
Conservatives did the ads, not MSM, we're talking about reporting, and you hafta be pretty naive to think the MSM was not heavily biased towards Obama.

which adds were ran night and day on every media for months.

i am not debating the msm one way or the other as it doesn't matter.

according to you and pa i guess they were for gore and kerry but bush won.


hmmmmmmmmmmm. maybe you lost because the R really was turned
into the KOD by your hero and you just can't get over your BLIND support which in the end hurt you more than helped politically.

say you took one for the team and give it up, it's unbecoming.

[mostpost]

mostpost, you have a fauty or selective memory. Katherine Harris sanctioned the election and Bush won. Then Gore whined and the FL State Supreme Court gave the election to him. Then the Supreme court took it up and gave the election back to the winner. Say it straight.

Not exactly. Katherine Harris "Certified" the Election. Gore challenged on the basis that the mandated recount had not been completed (or had been improperly conducted..I don't remember which) The Florida state Supreme court agreed and the recount resumed. Bush appealed and the US Supreme Court handed down its decision which ended the recount before its completion. The results which were used were those of the most recent COMPLETED count, which showed Bush as the winner.

[Lefty]

As I remember, Gore only wanted to recount certain districts. And also, further recounts were conducted and Bush won every one. But that's real old news. What do you think about Obama spending 10 trillion of our bucks? How do you feel about Cap and Trade which will boost everyones energy costs. And what do you thinkl of the new language of this admin? You can't call terrorists terrorists. You can't call this a war on terror. And you can't call an enemy combatent an enemy combatent. Slick new sanitary terms for all those. Shades of Orwell's 1984.

[Lefty]

What about the ads? My point, that you want to set aside, is the mainstream media had no interest in vetting obama. They had no interest in questioning Obama on anything. An ad is not the same as reporting. You think an ad from the right carries the same weight as Brokaw, or Curic or any mainstream reporter actually doing an objective story on Wright and Ayres and Resko and actually asking pointed questions? The mainstream has abrogated its journalistic responsibility.

[hcap]

Apparently, a feature story the New York Times does not meet the definition of Main Stream Media held by you and the rest of this forum's barbarian horde of bitching, whining losers.

Try acting like an adult here, ok?Holy sh*t, Bubba nails it and you still don't get it do you?

Since Obama won, this board has descended into neocon hell and denial.

"bitching, whining losers"

[hcap]

hcap, the electoral college hardly represents the people.
Wrong again Bunky. The electoral college reflects the will of the voter much more than your congressman or Senator. Members of the electoral college vote on only one matter; who should be President. Electors pledge to vote for the candidate which has received the majority of votes in their particular state. (Or Congressional district in the case of Maine and Nebaska) Since these electors are ussually party regulars, it is unlikely, once they are elected that they would not do so. 24 states have laws detailing punishments for electors who fail to live up to their pledge. There have been very few instances of an elector not voting for the candidate who received the majority of votes in his state.
On the other hand, your Congressman or Senator, once elected can vote any way he/she wants. (Of course you can vote him out)Tom would have us believe THIS BOARD represents the people. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Thanks for sharing your dream with us, mostpost, but if you actually read the decision, you will why the ruling was what it was.

But hey, why let facts get in the way.

BTW, how is old President Gore doing these days? :lol:

[Bubba X]

[QUOTE=PaceAdvantage]Where were you when I posted my NYT article from six years ago?

I take great offense to your description of our patriotic board members as bitchy and whiny.

QUOTE]

1. I was in either Denver or Chicago six years ago, depending on the month.

2. Sorry you are greatly offended. I wasn't offended when you started a thread that included the passage, "... These Dems (and the morons who voted for them)...." I guess I'm just a bit less sensitive perhaps.

The pure fact is the NYT did a long story on the Obama-Wright relationship, far before FOX got hold of the cell phone video. It has never been a secret Wright's church strongly ascribes to Black Theology, nor what Black Theology encompasses.

[The Judge]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I am pretty sure you can call them what ever you want to. So can anyone else that's not working directly for Obama, which leaves at least a few hundred million people in the U. S alone a few billion world wide thats not enough for you.

[Lefty]

judge, that's the point. The GOVERNMENT that we elected to protect and defend is not willing to call a terrorist a terrorist! The implications don't bode well for this country.

[Rookies]

[QUOTE=PaceAdvantage]I take great offense to your description of our patriotic board members as bitchy and whiny.

They are, in fact, doing their PATRIOTIC DUTY. How do I know? You and folks like you TOLD ME SO many moons ago. QUOTE]

The old "patritoic duty " chestnut. Is this as old as you are now Pace:lol: (small joke inserted) ? But seriously are you going to trot this same statement out in virtually every heavily political thread ? Just like your other statement about how the left dominated every thread here, naturally called out & unproven.

What is true is, that the tide goes in and out for virtually every political party. It's obviously out for the Republicans for the next two years. It's certainly out for conservatism whose fundamental tenet has been the less government intervention- the better. It is precisely the areas with an absence of regulation of capitalism that have been those most FUBARed. Although this is a conservative philosophy and the tide rolled in with Uncle Ronnie, it still carried on through a variety of Presidents and Congresses, especially under Newt. Getting rid of stupid regulation is always appropriate; eliminating fundamental safeguard watchdogs where highpriced, white collar, thieves and crooks can abscond with billions of the populaces' life savings was insanity.

So absolute control, given the titanic like proportions of these crises will be the flavour of this presidency for a long while. It will be aided and abetted by a President who clearly will be speaking to all manner of various American sub populations a la FDR and virtually every day. (As an aside, one thing that struck the wife and I about Bush, was that we didn't recall hearing from him on any matters of substance in public for weeks on end. Perhaps, that was due to his speaking agility. And I'm not talking about the past two years when he was scorned and spurned around the world. )

On top of that, as I mentioned close to election night, Obama has martialled the digital technologies to reach many more Americans, including those, of course, who due to age demographics may be most prone to receive his message. (e.g. The on line Q&A session he's set up today) And, notwithstanding the Boxcars of the world, the hope and change message is still a powerful one. It's his strongest card and will play well to a Latino population very soon. One side note, if you have noticed, Obama stresses the "WE" , not the "I" when speaking about himself, his policies and Admin. I could be wrong, but I don't recall that from prior Presidents.

I do believe that the "other" major planks of his Administration (e.g. Socialized Medicine, Education reform) should be debated seperately. Some here believe that the politicians to whom these proposals will be sent will be incapable of understanding them. I share that as I think Congress and the Senate are more attuned to huge payoffs than doing the right thing for the American people. I am concerned that when the real debates get charged, it will be those VERY huge payolas that the AMA in conjunction with the Drug and Pharm coroporations will offer up as payola to keep the status quo.

After four years, Obama's philosophy will either be rejected or he will go on as one of the most capable Presidents of all time.

[Lefty]

So you have no problem with him spending 10 trillion of our dollars as long as he says "we"? How about sky high energy costs when Cap and Trade is implemented? I guess you are okay with Gethner asking for the power to take over any company he pleases and for govt to dictate salaries?
The French are lecturing him on his spending fer god's sake.
He won't call a terrorist a terrorist. That's scary.
Bush met terrorism head on and identified the "axis of evil" He kept the country safe, kept the country's economy humming until dim policies finally crippled the hell out of it.
I'll take a doer over a talker any ole day.

[Rookies]

So you have no problem with him spending 10 trillion of our dollars as long as he says "we"? How about sky high energy costs when Cap and Trade is implemented? I guess you are okay with Gethner asking for the power to take over any company he pleases and for govt to dictate salaries?
The French are lecturing him on his spending fer god's sake.
He won't call a terrorist a terrorist. That's scary.
Bush met terrorism head on and identified the "axis of evil" He kept the country safe, kept the country's economy humming until dim policies finally crippled the hell out of it.I'll take a doer over a talker any ole day.

I don't think any President WANTS to spend trillions of dollars. Obama is going on the best estimates to revive a situation which paralells thew 1930s in significance. It has come to pass, because for the past 10 years from the passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 ALL the financial cards were on the table and short fo the FDIC, it would appear all regulatory authoroities were neutered. Capitalist crooks had the opporunity to rape and pillage and they did so with relative impunity. Jail ? The Madoffs, Skillings and AIG heads should receive a public flogging !

As for Geithner runnings things. I am fine with that for a while- not indefinitely, of course, but until the markets are more bouyant. Bonuses/ Payoffs/ Payola- they should never have been included in any nogotitations beginning with Bush. Why ? Tax dollars made sure they had a company and job for god's sake.

I won't say Bush did zero on the home security front- POST 9-11, of course. But, when he had the hammer of a Republican majority congress and house, many, many security features weren't implimented. e.g. The safety and security of ports and the goods that go through them. And that southern wall ? Where the hell was it ? Not built.

Like several here, I believe Bush seriously damaged America's standing in the world. He chose the wrong war to go after the real terrorists- those responsible for 9-11. While those should still be pursued with great vigour, Obama also needs to build and consolidate America's friends and pursue a varied strategy of dealing with its mortal enemies. Speaking to them is simply one tool in the arsenal; although you won't be turning your back on them for a long time.

(On a personal note, how's the weather ? I'm arring in LV Sunday. )

[mostpost]

In post #95 Lefty said Gore only wanted to recount certain districts. Well Yeah.
If Bush felt he could gain votes in traditionally Republican areas then it is up to him to request recounts in those areas. Ours is an adversarial justice system.
It is up to the individual to look after his own interests.

[mostpost]

Thanks for sharing your dream with us, mostpost, but if you actually read the decision, you will why the ruling was what it was.

But hey, why let facts get in the way.

BTW, how is old President Gore doing these days? :lol:

I did read it. The court held by a 7-2 majority (Justice Ginsburg and Justice Stevens dissenting). That the recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, due to the fact that the different counties used different standards for determining which ballots should be counted.

The disagreement comes in how to resolve the dilemna. The Majority (Justices Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, O'Connor, and Kennedy, felt that Florida law dictated a date certain for all recounts to be completed and since that date had passed, they stopped the recount.
The Minority (Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Soutar) argued that fairness could be best served by going forward with the recount so that the total will of the voters of florida could be discerned. In his dissent Mr. Justice Stevens pointed to cases where state deadlines were extended in the interest 0f fairness, including a 1960 case in which Hawaii certified two sets of electors and Congress seated one on the basis of later election recounts.

"Old President Gore" is doing fine. At least as well as "Old President Dole" and "Old President McCain. Nice of you to ask!:lol: :lol:

[The Judge]

from my reading the term thats been dropped is "enemy combatants" you can still call them "terrorists" as can members of the administration. If this is true does that make you feel better or will you now argue that the term "enemy combatants" not terrorist should be used. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29681819/ .

This stems from a Judge wanting a definition of the term "enemy combatants" instead of giving said definition they dropped the term.

[GaryG]

BTW, how is old President Gore doing these days? :lol:Tom, we have the man who would be king here is the mountains today, speaking at East Tenn State even as we speak. Hope he brought his cast iron underwear.

[PaceAdvantage]

Since Obama won, this board has descended into neocon hell and denial.What are you talking about? We are mere patriots, doing our patriotic duty in providing the necessary dissent all democracies must have in order to thrive.

Would you rather we fall into lockstep with the Obamatrons, clipboards at the ready, indoctrinating people at every turn?

Sorry. No can do.

[PaceAdvantage]

1. I was in either Denver or Chicago six years ago, depending on the month.Oh, I get it, you're funnin' with me. The article is six years old, but I just posted it for the second time the other day. The first time I posted it was probably about four months ago or so....

[PaceAdvantage]

The old "patritoic duty " chestnut. Is this as old as you are now Pace:lol: (small joke inserted) ? But seriously are you going to trot this same statement out in virtually every heavily political thread ?I will continue to trot it out as long as people continue to post utter nonsense that dissent is now equal to whining and bitching, when during Bush, it was considered patriotic and necessary. YOU BETCHA!

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't think any President WANTS to spend trillions of dollars.This President certainly want to, if only to correct what he and the Dems perceive to be the short-changing of programs and policies near and dear to any red-blooded American liberal during the reign of Bush.

[Lefty]

h'cap, since obama won this country is going to hell and libs like you are in complete denial. You don't think 10 trillion is a bit much? Were you one that whined cause Bush spent too much? Now you're on board for 10 trillion like rookies? You don't think Cap and Trade will drive energy prices through your roof as well as the rest of us. If you could spend your way out of debt i'd spend 100 times more on my credit cards. If you think we can spend our way out of debt and stop a recession by raising taxes, then YOU are denial.