President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

Off Topic Babble. The really important stuff...

Moderator: Andrew

Postby Rick » Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:54 am

Fact Finder wrote:
conversationpc wrote:
Rick wrote:Dude, I applaud him for striking back. Rush is going to get find himself looking for a job soon. Mark my words.


The only way that's going to happen is if he dies or if our free speech rights are taken away.


For some reason Rick thinks silencing Rush and taking $400 Million out of the economy is a good thing. :cry:


You must be dizzy with that spin. :lol:
I like to sit out on the front porch, where the birds can see me, eating a plate of scrambled eggs, just so they know what I'm capable of.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16722
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby Fact Finder » Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:04 pm

Rick wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
conversationpc wrote:
Rick wrote:Dude, I applaud him for striking back. Rush is going to get find himself looking for a job soon. Mark my words.


The only way that's going to happen is if he dies or if our free speech rights are taken away.


For some reason Rick thinks silencing Rush and taking $400 Million out of the economy is a good thing. :cry:


You must be dizzy with that spin. :lol:


Well then, what exactly are you saying for me to spin it so wrong? Correct me.
Only $5 Million more and I'll be a Greedy One Percenter.
User avatar
Fact Finder
MP3
 
Posts: 12201
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Postby Rick » Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:21 pm

Fact Finder wrote:
Rick wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
conversationpc wrote:
Rick wrote:Dude, I applaud him for striking back. Rush is going to get find himself looking for a job soon. Mark my words.


The only way that's going to happen is if he dies or if our free speech rights are taken away.


For some reason Rick thinks silencing Rush and taking $400 Million out of the economy is a good thing. :cry:


You must be dizzy with that spin. :lol:


Well then, what exactly are you saying for me to spin it so wrong? Correct me.


Fact Finder wrote:For some reason Rick thinks silenceing Rush and taking $400 Million out of the economy is a good thing.


Not sure if this is a spin, but it's an outright lie. You misspelled 'silencing' btw.

Suck that up, big boy. :lol:
I like to sit out on the front porch, where the birds can see me, eating a plate of scrambled eggs, just so they know what I'm capable of.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16722
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby Fact Finder » Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:48 pm

Better spelling police than thought police....
Only $5 Million more and I'll be a Greedy One Percenter.
User avatar
Fact Finder
MP3
 
Posts: 12201
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Postby Rick » Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:51 pm

Fact Finder wrote:Better spelling police than thought police....


Mine are mine, and yours are yours. No policing necessary. We'll just continue to be divergent.
I like to sit out on the front porch, where the birds can see me, eating a plate of scrambled eggs, just so they know what I'm capable of.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16722
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby Fact Finder » Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:57 pm

Rick wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:Better spelling police than thought police....


Mine are mine, and yours are yours. No policing necessary. We'll just continue to be divergent.



Sounds fun.
Only $5 Million more and I'll be a Greedy One Percenter.
User avatar
Fact Finder
MP3
 
Posts: 12201
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Postby Fact Finder » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:50 am

No Comment from Reid on Obama’s Executive Order Funding Abortions Abroad


(CNSNews.com) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would not comment Friday on President Obama’s reversal of the Mexico City Policy, which had prohibited U.S. tax dollars from going to organizations that promote or perform abortions abroad.

The executive order means that abortions around the globe will now be paid for by federal funds. While Obama was expected to issue the order sometime Friday, he did not actually do so until around 7:00 p.m. that night--when weekly news coverage is at a minimum.


“That’s not SCHIP,” Reid responded to CNSNews.com when asked about the move to have the United States government fund abortions in other countries. Reid was speaking at a press conference at the Capitol on Friday afternoon in support of legislation to provide health insurance for children paid for by states and the federal government.

“We can talk about that some other day,” Reid said.

Obama promised during his presidential campaign that he would reverse the Mexico City Policy that was orginally put in place by President Ronald Reagan during a 1984 international summit in Mexico City.

President Clinton reversed the policy on his second day in office in 1993--on the 20th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court 's Jan. 22, 1973 opinion legalizing abortion throughout the United States.

President George Bush reinstated the policy on Jan. 22, 2001, on his second day in office.

Obama reversed the policy on Jan. 23, 2009.

Pro-life reaction to the order was pointed.

Alveda King, neice of Martin Luther King Jr., spoke out against President Barack Obama's pro-abortion policies at a press conference on Friday in front of the White House. (CNSNews.com/ Penny Starr) Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who works with the pro-life group Priests for Life, held a press conference in front of the White House on Friday, in anticipation of Obama's executive order.

“Over 45 years ago, my uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., wrote from a Birmingham jail cell that ‘injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,’” King said in a prepared statement. “Today, there is no greater injustice than that suffered by the 4,000 babies, 1,400 of them black, who die on any given day at the hands of abortionists.”

King said she wanted to “testify to President Obama that while he is living his dreams, those babies will be dying horrible deaths because of the policies he supports.”


Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, issued a statement Friday criticizing Obama’s decision.

“Here we have a black president taking money from the taxpayers in a time of economic crisis and giving it to organizations—many of which are anti-Catholic—so they can spend it on killing non-white babies in Third World nations,” Donohue said.

In a statement on Friday, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action said, “What a terrible way to begin a new administration: with an abortion business bailout that will exploit women in developing countries for political ends. We should not export the tragedy of abortion to other nations, and we certainly shouldn’t do so via the hard-earned dollars of American taxpayers.”

But the president’s order is being hailed by pro-abortion groups, including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the largest recipient of Title X federal family planning funds--more than $300 million a year--and the largest abortion provider in the United States, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Dr. Gill Greer, director general of the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation, released a statement praising Obama’s then-pending decision.

“The gag rule has done immense harm and caused untold suffering to millions around the world,” Greer said. “It has undermined health systems and endangered the lives and health of the poorest and most vulnerable women on the planet by denying access to life saving family planning, sexual and reproductive health and HIV services and exposing them to the dangers of unsafe abortion.”

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, went even further in spelling out what she hopes the new Democrat-controlled Congress and the Obama administration will do for pro-abortion causes.

“While repealing the global gag rule is a critical step in recognizing that women's health must be a priority, it's just a first step,” Richards said in a petition drive letter on Planned Parenthood’s Web site. “The fight for access to health care and rights is an uphill one, and there is serious work to be done to rectify nearly a decade of bad policies not just in the U.S. but around the world.

“In the short term, restoring funding for UNFPA (United Nation’s Population Fund); removing abstinence-only requirements in AIDS funding; and increasing foreign assistance for reproductive health, including $1 billion for family planning, will move us in the right direction,” said Richards.

But King said on Friday she wants Obama to remember the millions of babies that will not have the chance to make history.

“I see the pride on African-American faces everywhere, pride in the tremendous breakthrough President Obama represents,” King said. “But I also can close my eyes and see the millions upon millions of young black, white, red, and yellow faces who never had the chance to live, overcome, or witness history.”

Only $5 Million more and I'll be a Greedy One Percenter.
User avatar
Fact Finder
MP3
 
Posts: 12201
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Postby Fact Finder » Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:23 am

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 581564.ece

From The Sunday Times

January 25, 2009

Barack Obama asks Gordon Brown for more soldiers

David Leppard
PRESIDENT Barack Obama has asked Britain to supply up to 4,000 extra frontline troops to help a planned American surge of forces in Afghanistan, defence sources say.

The request poses a dilemma for Gordon Brown because the Ministry of Defence (MoD) believes it can only spare 1,700 extra troops.

Obama has identified the Afghan conflict as an American priority and wants Britain to be a key partner. The new US strategy is likely to test the “special relationship” between the two allies, putting Brown under pressure to show commitment to the Afghan conflict by announcing an increase in troop numbers.

Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP for Newark and chairman of the Commons counter-terrorism subcommittee, said he understood defence planners had concluded that the army was too overstretched to provide a full brigade.

Only $5 Million more and I'll be a Greedy One Percenter.
User avatar
Fact Finder
MP3
 
Posts: 12201
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Postby Lula » Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:45 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Lula wrote:complete bs! i'm sure there are others that can do the same job that don't have the lobbyist title attached. i also don't like tim geithner for the treasury. he made a mistake... okay and tell me why we should trust him to run the country's finances? again, i'm sure there are others that can do the job.


Because as Obama told the Pubbies yesterday in the stimulus meeting, "I won, and on that, I think I trump you."

Now O is telling us Pubbies not to listen to Rush Limbaugh. :shock:

Rush has already kicked his ass and Monday should be fun as hell. I will be listening as will millions of others, as Rush tears O a new asshole. Not smart to tick off Rush and the Catholic Church in the first 4 days of your admin O. :lol:


it is up to congress to confirm this guy. the "i won" comment was on his tax policy. as for rush limbaugh..... i gotta go with whatever, he's a hypocritical drug addict who evaded his own policy on addicts. he is as popular as his listeners make him. don't think for a minute he is as powerful as the office of the president- be it man, woman, republican, democrat, or other. rush is a mouth piece spewing poo poo!
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Michael Leigh » Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:23 am

Michigan Girl wrote:The only complaint I have, thus far, is the amount of money
spent on the inauguration events considering the state of our
economy....funds should've been cut, somewhere!!! :( :wink:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inaugura ... 946&page=1


OK, so I may not be a "regular poster" here, but I have been reading the boards since the "AOR/Hard Rock Hot Spot" days. and I couldn't agree more with Michigan Girl's post.
When I first registered to vote, I registered as a democrat, since my family have been lifelong dems. I found that most of the time, I didn't agree with their policies and agendas (the same as I didn't agree with republicans a lot of the time as well),so I became an independent in 92 (I voted for Perot).

There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides. Case in point, compare some of the headlines between Obama's Inauguration and Bush's 2nd Inauguration.

Headlines On Inauguration Day Date 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration whilei troops die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Headlines on Obama Inauguration Day:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

The other point is why is there such an uproar over Limbaugh's comments?
MSNBC has 2 anchors (Olberman and Matthews) that are flat out Obama supporters, and EVERYONE knows this.
Why should Obama give a rat's ass what Limbaugh has to say, when their are just as many in the media that are supporters of him.
In fact, didn't his own Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, say during the Bush Administration
"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration". Why is this situation any different.

I also think the "Fairness Doctrine" is unfair. This is America, shouldn't we be allowed to voice our opinions and say what we want? If you don't like what is being said or broadcast on radio or tv, shouldn't you just change the dial? This is the major reason that Howard Stern and other broadcasters went to Satellite Radio, for the freedom to say what you want.

The bottom line is that supporters of both partys in this country, are going to side with their party 95% of the time.
Any broadcaster or political commentator with ANY integrity will call out their party's leadership when they are wrong (which for the most party I see neither side do).
People should vote on candidates stances on issues( be them Dem or Repub),not because of party loyalty.
I have voted for both Dems and Repubs in my lifetime.
I truly wish there where viable Independent candidates to choose from. Unfortunatley, most of the indy's have turned out to be crack pots.
I think there should be a 3rd party called the "common sense" party. In my opinion, that's what this country really needs.

The bottom line is, their is bias and hypocrisy on both sides. One side of a political party is just as guilty as the other.
Michael Leigh
45 RPM
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:14 pm

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:51 am

Michael Leigh wrote:OK, so I may not be a "regular poster" here, but I have been reading the boards since the "AOR/Hard Rock Hot Spot" days. and I couldn't agree more with Michigan Girl's post.
When I first registered to vote, I registered as a democrat, since my family have been lifelong dems. I found that most of the time, I didn't agree with their policies and agendas (the same as I didn't agree with republicans a lot of the time as well),so I became an independent in 92 (I voted for Perot).

There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides. Case in point, compare some of the headlines between Obama's Inauguration and Bush's 2nd Inauguration.

Headlines On Inauguration Day Date 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration whilei troops die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Headlines on Obama Inauguration Day:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"


Funny.
In all your post-partisan posturing, you conveniently left out the fact that much of the above is copied verbatim from a debunked right wing chain email.
Nice try tho...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/d ... ost_4.html

Michael Leigh wrote:The other point is why is there such an uproar over Limbaugh's comments?
MSNBC has 2 anchors (Olberman and Matthews) that are flat out Obama supporters, and EVERYONE knows this.


You mean the same Chris Mathews who loved Fred Thompson's English leather aqua velva manly musk, and couldn't get enough of Bush's Lincoln-like "sunny nobility"?
I don't remember anyone in an uproar when Mathews was rooting for the other team.

Michael Leigh wrote:I also think the "Fairness Doctrine" is unfair. This is America, shouldn't we be allowed to voice our opinions and say what we want? If you don't like what is being said or broadcast on radio or tv, shouldn't you just change the dial?


When did Barack Obama say he supports the Fairness Doctrine?
There is zero movement on this issue in Congress.
The only reason this has become a tinderbox issue is because restoring the Doctrine would threaten the goliath station monopolies that Clinton and the Republican Congress facilitated in the 90s.
Heaven forbid the public airwaves actually serve the public and not Clear Channel's bottom line.

Michael Leigh wrote:This is the major reason that Howard Stern and other broadcasters went to Satellite Radio, for the freedom to say what you want.


Howard Stern was run off the airwaves on a rail for far less than Rush Limbaugh.
Last edited by The_Noble_Cause on Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12396
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:00 am

conversationpc wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:Here's a good one for you followers of O. Just yesterday he signed an exectuvive order banning lobbyist from working in his Administration, in fact, that was one of his campaign pledges. But today he broke his own promise. I see some of the libs on the MSNBC board are not happy with this...


I heard about this earlier this morning...He signs the freakin' order and not more than a day later and he's already making exceptions. :roll:


Bush had power for eight years.
With his proclivity for signing statements, you would think he could have been bothered to ban lobbyists with the stroke of a pen like Obama did, right?
He did, however, find time to lower meat safety standards on lunch meat and hot dogs. :roll:
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12396
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby conversationpc » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:22 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
conversationpc wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:Here's a good one for you followers of O. Just yesterday he signed an exectuvive order banning lobbyist from working in his Administration, in fact, that was one of his campaign pledges. But today he broke his own promise. I see some of the libs on the MSNBC board are not happy with this...


I heard about this earlier this morning...He signs the freakin' order and not more than a day later and he's already making exceptions. :roll:


Bush had power for eight years.
With his proclivity for signing statements, you would think he could have been bothered to ban lobbyists with the stroke of a pen like Obama did, right?
He did, however, find time to lower meat safety standards on lunch meat and hot dogs. :roll:


I'm pretty sure I didn't mention Bush in that statement but nice deflection there...We're talking about what Obama is doing, not what Bush did. Try again, please. :roll:
My blog = Dave's Dominion

Image
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17812
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby Fact Finder » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:54 am

We're talking about what Obama is doing, not what Bush did. Try again, please.


That's right, Bush is sooo last Monday....on to todays news..


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090125/ap_ ... hanistan_1

Biden warns of higher US death toll Afghanistan

Sun Jan 25, 11:52 am ET

WASHINGTON – Vice President Joe Biden says the nation should expect more U.S. military casualties as the Obama administration plans to send additional troops to Afghanistan.

Pentagon officials say they plan to send up to 30,000 additional troops to the Afghan war, where the Taliban is resurgent and violence has been on the rise. The request for more troops from military commanders was endorsed by the Bush administration and has been favored by the Obama government, too.

Biden said Sunday that additional U.S. forces will be engaging the enemy more. Asked if that means the U.S. public should expect more American casualties, the vice president said: "I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick."

Biden spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Only $5 Million more and I'll be a Greedy One Percenter.
User avatar
Fact Finder
MP3
 
Posts: 12201
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:33 am

conversationpc wrote:I'm pretty sure I didn't mention Bush in that statement but nice deflection there...We're talking about what Obama is doing, not what Bush did. Try again, please. :roll:


The news that no lobbyist will serve in this administration is a win-win for Americans, lib and con alike.
Rather than giving credit, you now want to feign outrage over Obama backtracking and letting one fox into the hen house.
Big deal.
You do realize for the past eight years nearly every critical oversight post was occupied by a lobbyist who formerly advocated for that very industry, right?

I guess eating and breathing toxic shit doesn’t fall under the rubric of protecting the homeland. :roll:
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12396
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby conversationpc » Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:16 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:The news that no lobbyist will serve in this administration is a win-win for Americans, lib and con alike.


Except that Obama wants to make exceptions already. Shucks! Gotta love that no lobbyist rule, huh?

Rather than giving credit, you now want to feign outrage over Obama backtracking and letting one fox into the hen house.


If it were Bush, you'd be all over it like a sexually frustrated rooster on a fertile hen.
My blog = Dave's Dominion

Image
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17812
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby Uno_up » Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:20 pm

Here's what I don't get...
On one hand, Obama comes out yesterday and criticizes Citigroup for planning to buy a new jet for 50M after the Gov. just gave them untold billions of taxpayer dollars...Good for him! But on the other hand, Obama is the same guy who just spent 170M of taxpayer dollars on four days of parties, parades and U2 concerts for his inauguration. Obama is also the same guy who supported 200M in spending on contraceptive distribution in inner city schools as well as subsidization for Planned Parenthood within his proposed 850B stimulus package. Now, regardless of how anyone feels about this issue, I think we can all agree that passing out condoms won't help generate jobs! Look...to me this is selective indignation. Either we are in a recession and wasteful Gov. spending won't be tolerated or we're not in a recession and we can spend billions at will like the last administration.

To me it's "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss".
Uno_up
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: north of you

Postby conversationpc » Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Uno_up wrote:Here's what I don't get...
On one hand, Obama comes out yesterday and criticizes Citigroup for planning to buy a new jet for 50M after the Gov. just gave them untold billions of taxpayer dollars...Good for him! But on the other hand, Obama is the same guy who just spent 170M of taxpayer dollars on four days of parties, parades and U2 concerts for his inauguration. Obama is also the same guy who supported 200M in spending on contraceptive distribution in inner city schools as well as subsidization for Planned Parenthood within his proposed 850B stimulus package. Now, regardless of how anyone feels about this issue, I think we can all agree that passing out condoms won't help generate jobs! Look...to me this is selective indignation. Either we are in a recession and wasteful Gov. spending won't be tolerated or we're not in a recession and we can spend billions at will like the last administration.

To me it's "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss".


I love how this package is being touted by Obama as a stimulus package but hardly any of it is actual money or work that is going to go into the economy and even some of that won't be for several years. Sounds more like an attempt at yet more corrupt federal politicians trying to get some more pie for themselves. It'll work about as well as the last stimulus bill. :roll:
My blog = Dave's Dominion

Image
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17812
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby Fact Finder » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:43 am

conversationpc wrote:
Uno_up wrote:Here's what I don't get...
On one hand, Obama comes out yesterday and criticizes Citigroup for planning to buy a new jet for 50M after the Gov. just gave them untold billions of taxpayer dollars...Good for him! But on the other hand, Obama is the same guy who just spent 170M of taxpayer dollars on four days of parties, parades and U2 concerts for his inauguration. Obama is also the same guy who supported 200M in spending on contraceptive distribution in inner city schools as well as subsidization for Planned Parenthood within his proposed 850B stimulus package. Now, regardless of how anyone feels about this issue, I think we can all agree that passing out condoms won't help generate jobs! Look...to me this is selective indignation. Either we are in a recession and wasteful Gov. spending won't be tolerated or we're not in a recession and we can spend billions at will like the last administration.

To me it's "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss".


I love how this package is being touted by Obama as a stimulus package but hardly any of it is actual money or work that is going to go into the economy and even some of that won't be for several years. Sounds more like an attempt at yet more corrupt federal politicians trying to get some more pie for themselves. It'll work about as well as the last stimulus bill. :roll:



From Drudge an hour ago:

$335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL

Wed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ET

Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!

The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called 'Booty Call' and 'Great Sex' put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.]

"Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.

Developing...
Only $5 Million more and I'll be a Greedy One Percenter.
User avatar
Fact Finder
MP3
 
Posts: 12201
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Postby bluejeangirl76 » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:46 am

Drudge wrote:$335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL

Wed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ET

Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!


They're doing it wrong. They should start with prevention of stimulation, and that will prevent the STDs. :lol: :twisted:
User avatar
bluejeangirl76
MP3
 
Posts: 13336
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:36 am

Postby S2M » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:48 am

bluejeangirl76 wrote:
Drudge wrote:$335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL

Wed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ET

Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!


They're doing it wrong. They should start with prevention of stimulation, and that will prevent the STDs. :lol: :twisted:


My question would be: Would Perry's nose be a good IUD? Just asking..... :lol:
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11816
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby bluejeangirl76 » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:50 am

StocktontoMalone wrote:
bluejeangirl76 wrote:
Drudge wrote:$335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL

Wed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ET

Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!


They're doing it wrong. They should start with prevention of stimulation, and that will prevent the STDs. :lol: :twisted:


My question would be: Would Perry's nose be a good IUD? Just asking..... :lol:


What kind of crazy shit are you smoking this morning? :shock: :shock: That's way out there, man. :!:
User avatar
bluejeangirl76
MP3
 
Posts: 13336
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:36 am

Postby Fact Finder » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:58 am

No crazier than this....


Food Stamps Will Stimulate the Economy More than Tax Cuts, Pelosi Says

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 By Ryan Byrnes

(CNSNews.com) – Food stamps and unemployment insurance will provide more economic stimulus than tax cuts, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday during a telephone press conference.

“(F)ood stamps and unemployment insurance, which affect the people in the states, are necessary at this time when funds are short and the economy is down, (and) actually have the most stimulative effect on the economy,” Pelosi said. “Food stamps first, unemployment insurance next, infrastructure after that, and it goes on from there.”

During the press conference, Pelosi laid out the contents of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is expected to be passed in the House Wednesday. employment insurance “have the most stimulative effect on the economy,” and as a result are given the greatest priority in the stimulus package.

“Actually, those investments bring a bigger return than the tax cuts,” she said, adding: “but tax cuts where we have them – to the middle class – we think will give us our biggest return.”

The 20-minute news conference also included Govs. Edward Rendell (D-Pa.) and Jim Douglas (R-Vt.).

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will devote $20 billion to “provide nutrition assistance to modest-income families and to lift restrictions that limit the amount of time individuals can receive food stamps,” according to a summary of the plan released last week by the House Appropriations Committee.



You can't make this shit up... :cry:
Only $5 Million more and I'll be a Greedy One Percenter.
User avatar
Fact Finder
MP3
 
Posts: 12201
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Postby Fact Finder » Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:00 am

Hey San Fran Nan.


"Imagine you're a Congressman and an Idiot...but I repeat myself."

Mark Twain
Only $5 Million more and I'll be a Greedy One Percenter.
User avatar
Fact Finder
MP3
 
Posts: 12201
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Postby Fact Finder » Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:03 am

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." __BHO





http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... Q2NGJmMjE=


Thursday, January 29, 2009



Tsk, Tsk [Andrew Stuttaford]



'Climate change' moralists are always talking about the need to take responsibility/set an example in the face of the imminent planetary apocalypse. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I read this:

WASHINGTON — The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat. “He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.




Thermostat down, coat on, Mr. President: the planet's in peril (or so you tell us).

01/29 10:33 AM





Just another empty suit.
Only $5 Million more and I'll be a Greedy One Percenter.
User avatar
Fact Finder
MP3
 
Posts: 12201
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:28 am

conversationpc wrote:Except that Obama wants to make exceptions already. Shucks! Gotta love that no lobbyist rule, huh?


If that's the limited trade-off for winterproofing the Treasury from sticky fingered K-street bandits, then I'm all for it.

conversationpc wrote:
Rather than giving credit, you now want to feign outrage over Obama backtracking and letting one fox into the hen house.


If it were Bush, you'd be all over it like a sexually frustrated rooster on a fertile hen.


Except Bush didn't make any attempts to bar the money changers from the temple.
As a simple point of fact, he undid the keyboard combination and had fresh baked milk and cookies waiting.
When you're ready to debate reality again, let us know.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12396
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby conversationpc » Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:32 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
conversationpc wrote:Except that Obama wants to make exceptions already. Shucks! Gotta love that no lobbyist rule, huh?


If that's the limited trade-off for winterproofing the Treasury from sticky fingered K-street bandits, then I'm all for it.


Gee...What a surprise. Double standard...Something that Democrat and Republican party sycophants are really good at.

Except Bush didn't make any attempts to bar the money changers from the temple.
As a simple point of fact, he undid the keyboard combination and had fresh baked milk and cookies waiting.
When you're ready to debate reality again, let us know.


Obama's barring of the money changers argument doesn't hold much water if you're just going to let them in the back door anyway. That's the reality you're looking for.
My blog = Dave's Dominion

Image
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17812
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:54 am

conversationpc wrote:Gee...What a surprise. Double standard...Something that Democrat and Republican party sycophants are really good at.


If Obama has to feed the military-industrial beast by allowing ONE defense lobbyist run the Pentagon, in exchange for banning ALL lobbyists, then that’s a win for America.

conversationpc wrote:Obama's barring of the money changers argument doesn't hold much water if you're just going to let them in the back door anyway. That's the reality you're looking for.


Who’s "them"?
To date, there is only one, and the fact that we know who he is and the position he will occupy, speaks volumes about this administration’s commitment to transparency.

I’m glad you’ve discovered your inner-Lou Dobbs populist streak, Dave.
Too bad it’s eight years too late. :roll:
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12396
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby conversationpc » Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:01 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
conversationpc wrote:Gee...What a surprise. Double standard...Something that Democrat and Republican party sycophants are really good at.


If Obama has to feed the military-industrial beast by allowing ONE defense lobbyist run the Pentagon, in exchange for banning ALL lobbyists, then that’s a win for America.


It's one now but who knows how many later.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
conversationpc wrote:Obama's barring of the money changers argument doesn't hold much water if you're just going to let them in the back door anyway. That's the reality you're looking for.


Who’s "them"?
To date, there is only one, and the fact that we know who he is and the position he will occupy, speaks volumes about this administration’s commitment to transparency.

I’m glad you’ve discovered your inner-Lou Dobbs populist streak, Dave.
Too bad it’s eight years too late. :roll:


Yeah, it's only one but then again, we're only just a bit over a week into Obama's administration and he's already making exceptions. It doesn't lead me to believe that he'll live up to it in the future. Anyway, I couldn't give a flying crap about Dobbs or any stupid populist rhetoric. That doesn't have anything to do with this subject anyway.
My blog = Dave's Dominion

Image
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17812
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby Fact Finder » Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:35 am

Ok gang...where in the hell are the President and more importantly FEMA. Millions of homes in Ark,Mo,Ky,Oh and Indiana are without power due to the MAJOR ICE STORM on Tuesday and Wednesday. Utilities are saying it may take a week or more to restore power and meanwhile people are freezing and dying of CO2 Poisoning and the President is no where to be seen. Nary a word of help seems to be coming from the Fed Gov. and Pres. Obama. One week into office and O has a national catastrophe at hand and he has vanished. He did pledge $20 Million dollars to the Palestinians today and he's working hard at this economic boondoggle yet today, millions of Americans are suffering. How in the world can you guys defend this behavior from our President towards his own Countrymen?


These were the power outages reported this morning.

• Arkansas: 350,000
• Illinois: 6,500
• Indiana: 89,000
• Kentucky: 542,000
• Missouri: 120,000
• Ohio: 128,000
• Oklahoma: 20,000
• Tennessee: 14,600
• West Virginia: 35,000

• TOTAL: 1.30 million

205,000 in Louisville without power
A massive ice storm that knocked out electricity today to more than a half million homes and businesses across Kentucky and Southern Indiana could leave Louisville residents without power for seven to 10 days, officials warned.

:evil:
Only $5 Million more and I'll be a Greedy One Percenter.
User avatar
Fact Finder
MP3
 
Posts: 12201
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

PreviousNext

Return to Death By Stereo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests