PDA

View Full Version : Obama does not remember the Oath he swore...



eg8r
03-03-2010, 11:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: boortz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">THE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT
By Neal Boortz @ March 3, 2010 8:49 AM Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (0)
Barack Obama was in Savannah, Georgia yesterday touting his HOMESTAR (sorry, couldn't stop myself from linking to that -ww) program. This is where he wants to offer $1,000 rebates to reward people who buy energy-saving equipment for their homes. These are the types of programs that Obama genuinely believes is going to turn the tide of this economy and create jobs for the millions who are out of work. Actually ... it goes further than that. Obama now seems to feel that his primary job as president is to make sure that people have jobs. Here's what Obama had to say in Savannah yesterday: (And for those of you who can't listen to the audio ... here's the transcript.)

"When it comes to domestic policy, I have no more important job as president than seeing to it that every American that wants to work and is able to work can find a job."

Now, correct me if I am wrong but it is NOT the president's job to make sure that Americans can find a job. In fact, Obama's job as president is to defend the Constitution of the United States. At least, that is what he swore to do when taking the oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That's it, pal. Protect and defend this country and our Constitution - our rule of law. It is not your job, and it is not the government's job to see to it that every American can find a job at some illusive "living wage."

Back to Savannah, that's not all Obama had to say. He goes on to say, "That was my focus last year and that is my focus this year ... to lay a foundation for economic growth that creates jobs."

What the hell? Did Mr. Changey Hopey actually say that his focus last year was to focus on economic growth that creates jobs? If so, why did he spend the entire year scaring the absolute hell out of the small businessmen and women in this country who are responsible for most of our jobs with threats of tax increases, fines, penalties, increased regulations, government control of wages and benefits - not to mention threats of takeovers. No .... Obama's focus wasn't on jobs. Obama's focus was on one thing .. expanding and empowering government. This man walked into the White House believing that America's greatness came from government, and determined to make America greater (in his eyes) by making government bigger and stronger. How to accomplish this? By seizing control of almost one-fifth of the American economy .. health care.

PrezBO, by the way, was in Georgia yesterday telling saps who know no better that his wonderful stimulus plan has put 300,000 people to work in Georgia on various transportation projects. Then, a few yours later, we learn that Georgia has lost another 140,000 plus jobs in February. In case you haven't already figured this out, Obama lies; and when it comes to inflating the numbers of jobs "created or saved" by his free spending habits he lies more intensely than usual.

That's it. Year one was totally and completely dedicated to the cause of nationalized health care. Jobs? You've got to be kidding. The only jobs that Obama really cares about are government unionized jobs.

I simply cannot believe that there is any significant number of Americans out there who are still buying this man's nonsense.
</div></div>

Even if jobs were his number one priority last year, all that tells us is when Obama puts his mind to it he can drive unemployment just as low as Carter ever did. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

eg8r

pooltchr
03-03-2010, 01:26 PM
If his number one priority during the first year in office was jobs, and during that time, unemployment went from 4.5% to 10%, maybe we can understand why his approval ratings are tanking.
He is a failure!!!


Steve

LWW
03-04-2010, 06:26 AM
Obama is the worst failure as POTUS in my lifetime.

LWW

Qtec
03-04-2010, 06:45 AM
First of all jobs are still being lost as a result of the PREVIOUS negligence of the last Admin.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What the hell? Did Mr. Changey Hopey actually say that his focus last year was to focus on economic growth that creates jobs? If so, why did he spend the entire year scaring the absolute hell out of the small businessmen and women in this country who are responsible for most of our jobs <span style='font-size: 17pt'>with threats of tax increases, fines, penalties, increased regulations, government control of wages and benefits - not to mention threats of takeovers. No .... Obama's focus wasn't on jobs. Obama's focus was on one thing .. expanding and empowering government. This man walked into the White House believing that America's greatness came from government, and determined to make America greater (in his eyes) by making government bigger and stronger. How to accomplish this? By seizing control of almost one-fifth of the American economy .. health care.</span>
</div></div>

A lot of hot air and NOTHING to back it up. What a surprise.
ie, Just another RW nutjob making a buck by FEAR MONGERING..!...
..and you LAP IT UP like the brainless Emu[ head in the sand ] you are. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Geez.........Quoting Boortz ????????.......sadly, also not a surprise.

Q

pooltchr
03-04-2010, 07:25 AM
Q.
Unemployment was at 4.5% when Obama got won the election. It is now at 10%.
Why aren't businesses hiring? They are afraid to see what Obama is going to do to them with increased taxes, and the whole healthcare insanity.
Uncertainty causes business to close ranks and ride out the storm. A businessman would be a fool to add more employees without knowing how much those employees are going to cost him.

Steve

Qtec
03-04-2010, 07:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q.
Unemployment was at 4.5% when Obama got won the election. </div></div>

A simple yes or no this time.

Was Obama elected before the credit crisis and the collapse of major US banks?
Isn't it true that when Obama took office the US economy, including jobs, was in a freefall with no end in sight?
The present crisis was handed to him.

Lets not forget. GW Bush inherited a surplus and claimed he could afford - his own words- to spent trillions in $s in tax cuts.
In 2009 he gave Obama the keys to the WH and the first thing he had to do was call the fire brigade because the WH was on fire.

Q

pooltchr
03-04-2010, 09:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Lets not forget. GW Bush inherited a surplus

Q

</div></div>

Q. There never was a surplus!!!


Steve

Qtec
03-04-2010, 10:09 AM
And what about the rest of my post/ No reply? Too scared to give an answer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was Obama elected before the credit crisis and the collapse of major US banks?</div></div>

WELL?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Isn't it true that when Obama took office the US economy, including jobs, was in a freefall with no end in sight? </div></div>

WELL?

No answer?

Q

Stretch
03-04-2010, 10:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And what about the rest of my post/ No reply? Too scared to give an answer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was Obama elected before the credit crisis and the collapse of major US banks?</div></div>

WELL?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Isn't it true that when Obama took office the US economy, including jobs, was in a freefall with no end in sight? </div></div>

WELL?

No answer?

Q </div></div>

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, it hasn't been this quiet for a long time! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif St.

pooltchr
03-04-2010, 11:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And what about the rest of my post/ No reply? Too scared to give an answer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was Obama elected before the credit crisis and the collapse of major US banks?</div></div>

WELL?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Isn't it true that when Obama took office the US economy, including jobs, was in a freefall with no end in sight? </div></div>

WELL?

No answer?

Q </div></div>

You are pathetic, Q. I ask you a simple question and you side step it, but demand that I address every bit of drivel you post.

LOL

Man up and answer the question I asked you, then we can talk. It works both ways.

What part, which republicans, and when????????????????????

Dont bother to post anything elst to me until you answer.

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-04-2010, 03:31 PM
LOL, it's called copping out. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif Diversion and distraction. Denial combined with ignorance of the subject matter, doesn't cut it in a debate.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

pooltchr
03-04-2010, 03:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, it's called copping out. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif Diversion and distraction. Denial combined with ignorance of the subject matter, doesn't cut it in a debate.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif </div></div>

And yet, you continue to practice this tact ad-nausium.

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-05-2010, 03:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And what about the rest of my post/ No reply? Too scared to give an answer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was Obama elected before the credit crisis and the collapse of major US banks?</div></div>

WELL?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Isn't it true that when Obama took office the US economy, including jobs, was in a freefall with no end in sight? </div></div>

WELL?

No answer?

Q </div></div>

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, it hasn't been this quiet for a long time! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif St. </div></div>

Not a surprise.

Q is, after all, attempting to debate with Republican Voters, providing facts for those whom their own party leaders already know, and have stated quite cleary, are fearful, reactionary, and ego driven.

AT least the GOP knows their beasts,... uh base.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
03-05-2010, 03:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And what about the rest of my post/ No reply? Too scared to give an answer?

<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>plan divides Republican donors into two main categories: small donors who are "visceral," "reactionary" and motivated by <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"fear,"</span> and large donors who are "calculated," "ego-driven" and motivated by "access."

</span> </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was Obama elected before the credit crisis and the collapse of major US banks?</div></div>

WELL?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Isn't it true that when Obama took office the US economy, including jobs, was in a freefall with no end in sight? </div></div>

WELL?

No answer?

Q </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
03-05-2010, 03:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: boortz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">THE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT
By Neal Boortz @ March 3, 2010 8:49 AM Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (0)
Barack Obama was in Savannah, Georgia yesterday touting his HOMESTAR (sorry, couldn't stop myself from linking to that -ww) program. This is where he wants to offer $1,000 rebates to reward people who buy energy-saving equipment for their homes. These are the types of programs that Obama genuinely believes is going to turn the tide of this economy and create jobs for the millions who are out of work.

<span style="color: #000066">Deceitful low blow, and not true. It is just one of many actions to turn the economy around. The guy is lying. </span>


Actually ... it goes further than that. Obama now <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"seems to feel" <span style="color: #000066">now he's inside the president's feelings. LMAO</span></span>that his primary job as president is to make sure that people have jobs.

<span style="color: #000066">Exaggeration, taken out of context. It is one of the president's jobs, as we all know, to try to create the economic platform for job growth. Obama's main disaster when taking office was to try to lower the overwhelming job losses which were already accumulating uder the Bush impending depression.</span>


Here's what Obama had to say in Savannah yesterday: (And for those of you who can't listen to the audio ... here's the transcript.)

"When it comes to domestic policy, I have no more important job as president than seeing to it that every American that wants to work and is able to work can find a job."

Now, correct me if I am wrong but it is NOT the president's job to make sure that Americans can find a job.

<span style="color: #000066">OK, you're wrong, that is NOT true. </span>


In fact, Obama's job as president is to defend the Constitution of the United States. At least, that is what he swore to do when taking the oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That's it, pal.

<span style="color: #000066">Mr. Bortz, you're absurd, pal. That is not the ONLY job of a president. You really need to study the histry books, or STFU! Part of protecting the country is about being a watchdog of it's economic circumstances.</span>

Protect and defend this country and our Constitution - our rule of law. It is not your job, and it is not the government's job to see to it that every American can find a job at some illusive "living wage."

<span style="color: #000066">Again, the president never said this, Mr. Bortz, your fantasies are not reality. </span>

Back to Savannah, that's not all Obama had to say. He goes on to say, "That was my focus last year and that is my focus this year ... to lay a foundation for economic growth that creates jobs."

What the hell? Did Mr. Changey Hopey actually say that his focus last year was to focus on economic growth that creates jobs? If so, why did he spend the entire year scaring the absolute hell out of the small businessmen and women in this country who are responsible for most of our jobs with threats of tax increases, fines, penalties, increased regulations, government control of wages and benefits - not to mention threats of takeovers.

<span style="color: #000066">Another big lie, Mr. Bortz, as polls prove that Americans are optimistic about the future. </span>



No .... Obama's focus wasn't on jobs. <span style="color: #000066">Lie. </span> Obama's focus was on one thing .. expanding and empowering government.

<span style="color: #000066">Lie. </span>

This man walked into the White House believing that America's greatness came from government, and determined to make America greater (in his eyes) by making government bigger and stronger. How to accomplish this? By seizing control of almost one-fifth of the American economy .. health care.

<span style="color: #000066">BWA HA HA HA! This man walked into the White House and inherited the worst recession in forty years, with warnings that the economy was "On The Brink" on total collapse, and a decade long depression was possible. Mr. Bortz, YOU LIE. </span>

PrezBO, <span style="color: #000066">Disrespectful of you, BortzBOO. </span> by the way, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>was in Georgia yesterday telling saps </span>who know no better that his wonderful stimulus plan has put 300,000 people to work in Georgia on various transportation projects. Then, a few yours <span style="color: #000066">?????, can't
spell, Mr. BoprtzBOO? Can't edit your work, either. What a "Journalist"</span> later, we learn that Georgia has lost another 140,000 plus jobs in February. In case you haven't already figured this out, Obama lies;
<span style="color: #000066">No YOU LIE, and TWIST, and Rearrange the facts to suit your low life agenda, Mr. BortzBOO. Georgia would have lost tripple that number of jobs without the President's GOVERNMENT SPENDING, APPROPRIATE SPENDING TO THWART A BUSH DEPRESSION, AND SAVE JOBS SO THAT THE COUNTRY COULD FUNCTION THROUGH BUSH"S IMPENDING DEPRESSION. </span>

and when it comes to inflating <span style="color: #000066">THe CBO doen'st inflate their reports on the number of jobs saved and created. </span> the numbers of jobs "created or saved" by his free spending habits <span style="color: #000066">IT WAS REPIGBLICANS WHO HAD THE FREE SPENDING HABITS! </span> he lies more intensely than usual.

<span style="color: #000066"> NO YOU LIE INTENSELY, YOU BIG BLOWHARD PUTZ!</span>

That's it. Year one was totally and completely dedicated to the cause of nationalized health care.

<span style="color: #000066">More incredible lies from you Bortzboo. Are you so uninformed that you are unaware of daily meetings with financial experts, and economic policy conferences which our president attended around the world? Gee, Bortzboo, you really should watch the news, once and a while! </span>


Jobs? You've got to be kidding. The only jobs that Obama really cares about are government unionized jobs.

<span style="color: #000066">More lies. The automobile industry jobs are not federal jobs, nor unionized by the government, and the country cannot be without teachers, policeman, firemen, and emergency responders, and still function, all of which could not get any pay after Bush's Economic Crash, the baniks wouldn't lend, and the states were going bankrupt. GET REAL BORTZBOO! </span>

I simply cannot believe that there is any significant number of Americans out there who are still buying this man's nonsense.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">And I simply cannot believe there is any significant number of Americans who read your BS! </span>

Even if jobs were his number one priority last year, all that tells us is when Obama puts his mind to it he can drive unemployment just as low as Carter ever did. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

eg8r </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066"> The job losses were set in stone before this president took over, Ed.

In fact, they would have been far worse, without the actions he took.

Bush had already set the wheels in motion, as we well know, and was hemmoraging jobs to the tune of over 700,000 a month. History shows us what happens when we begin to lose jobs at an extremely high rate every month, it's like a freight train, and picks up momentum as it goes.

This pundit is so absurd, I can't believe that you would even use such an obviously slanted, unrealistic piece of trash "journalism" if one wishes to call this crap journalism!

When a new president has to follow an administration who robbed the treasury for eight years, borrowed us into oblivian, while Wall Street robbed everyone and pushed the country into a severe economic crash, things don't turn around over nsight, especially job losses, which are always the last economic element to recover.

YOu see, while under the unwatchful eye of a Republican Federal Reserve Chairman, who thought that Wall Street corruption, was allowed in a free market, and held unrealistically low interest rates, which fueled the predatory mortgage market, all under Bush's thrust for the "OPWNERSHIP SOCIETY" bankers and loan sharks got the signal, "It's a free for all guys!" Another Republican free for all, for corporate pigs!

What did you expect to happen to the economy after Bush indebted us to the tune of trillions of dollars, for the OIL CEO's, and the defense contractors, which were breaking all records in profits, while our young people were dying in Iraq for their F-ing no bid contracts!

While Greenspan ignored unprecedented warnings about the illegal activities going on on Wall Street in the financial sector. And then Paulson, and the rest of the so called watchdogs, allowed it to excellerate into an all out crash, rather than hold up Bush's "Ownership Society"....It all tanked, under BUSH.

This current president has saved millions of jobs by his actions, after Bush lost millions with his spending, warring and borrowing, while ignoring the economic threat which he was warned was on it's way, just as he ignored the coming threat on 9/11, he did nothing to prevent either crash from arriving, after unprecedented warnings.

On who's watch did 9/11 occur?


On who's watch did the global crash occur?

On who's watch did this government grow into a mammouth pig?

On who's watch did we accumulate more debt than all previous administrations combined!

Intelligent people knew that this economic mess left by Bush was coming, and intelligent people knew it wasn't going to go away quickly, right from the first signs of it.

Obama has diverted Bush's decade long Depression.

Bortz, BTW is a real A-hole!

</span>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's what Obama had to say in Savannah yesterday: (And for those of you who can't listen to the audio ... here's the transcript.)
"When it comes to domestic policy, I have no more important job as president than seeing to it that every American that wants to work and is able to work can find a job."

Now, correct me if I am wrong but it is NOT the president's job to make sure that Americans can find a job. In fact, Obama's job as president is to defend the Constitution of the United States. At least, that is what he swore to do when taking the oath of office:
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">LOL, this guy is a joke, takes a sentence out of context, changes the meaning entirely, then uses it against the president.

Obama didn't say anything at all about the Constitution, and the word, "No more important job" in no way signal nor state that he is saying it's his ONLY job.

The author proves his own deceit, not the president's. An elementary attempt, at that.

But then....
We have to consider who he is playing to, the Republican "Base" as defined by the Republican party leaders, will jump on this ridiculous article, as confirmed by their own strategy for votes.
</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">plan divides Republican donors into two main categories: small donors who are "visceral," "reactionary" and <span style='font-size: 20pt'>motivated by "fear," </span>and large donors who are <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"calculated," "ego-driven" and motivated by "access."</span>
</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

eg8r
03-05-2010, 02:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: boortz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, correct me if I am wrong but it is NOT the president's job to make sure that Americans can find a job.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, you're wrong, that is NOT true. </div></div></div></div>Actually you are wrong. He is correct. It is not the President's job to make sure Americans find a job. If you disagree prove it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr. Bortz, you're absurd, pal. That is not the ONLY job of a president. You really need to study the histry books, or STFU! Part of protecting the country is about being a watchdog of it's economic circumstances. </div></div>Mighty big words for someone talking to a computer screen. Why don't you call his show and try those out?

Obama's focus has NEVER been about jobs. If it has he has proven he SUCKS at whatever he puts his mind to. His FOCUS has been on HEALTHCARE REFORM and he cannot even get that correct. He has neglected jobs and 9.7% unemployment is further proof.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ?????, can't
spell, Mr. BoprtzBOO? Can't edit your work, either. What a "Journalist"</div></div>Of all people do you really want to go this route? Boortz HAS NEVER EVER referred to himself as a journalist. He is a lawyer and a talk radio personality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Georgia would have lost tripple that number of jobs without the President's GOVERNMENT SPENDING, APPROPRIATE SPENDING TO THWART A BUSH DEPRESSION, AND SAVE JOBS SO THAT THE COUNTRY COULD FUNCTION THROUGH BUSH"S IMPENDING DEPRESSION. </div></div>No one is interested in your guessing. You really don't know anything about Georgia or their job market let alone be able to forcast probabilities.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The job losses were set in stone before this president took over, Ed.</div></div>Yep and if we were to believe our President they would be capping out around 8% right. Well, I tell you, I sure am glad Obama made it his focus to shoot higher and go for 10%. Pathetic.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact, they would have been far worse, without the actions he took.
</div></div>I cannot wait for you to provide your forcast models on this.

Thank goodness we have people like Boortz out there calling it like it is and willing to have people like Gayle call in and chat with him. Please let us know when you are going to call his show so we can make sure to listen. I cannot wait to hear you "slay" the giant.

eg8r

eg8r
03-05-2010, 02:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First of all jobs are still being lost as a result of the PREVIOUS negligence of the last Admin.</div></div>Wow, wasn't that the most pathetic "first". Really, is that how you want to start? The post is about Obama saying jobs were his focus. He told us don't worry 8% max. Well ever since he put his mind to it, Obama has actually done better and got the number to 9.7%. He is not up to the job.


eg8r

eg8r
03-05-2010, 02:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was Obama elected before the credit crisis and the collapse of major US banks?</div></div>Would it have mattered since those started back under Clinton's watch?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-05-2010, 03:52 PM
I don't have to forecast the models, Ed. Every economist stated way back before Obama ever took office, that this would be a deep, long lasting, recession, and now we are seeing how very impotent our country was left by George Bush, who dug this ditch we're in.

The trouble with the right, is the usual trouble, they deny the damage they do, and attack with insults and slander, when they are losing the battle.

It's their method to accuse the opposing party, of their own indiscretions. I've been watching them far longer than you.

Jobs, are always that last to recover, and given that we were hemmoraging them to the tune of 7 to 8 hundred thousand a month under Bush, you, and your co-hearts, are and were incredibly unrealistic, to think they would improve for sure, any more than they have.

Obama, and his people, surely didn't want to scare everyone any more than necessary about the prospects on job losses, but what they did with the stimulus, has worked, and worked as well as anyone could expect. The drop in losses has been remarkable, and most economists are pleased, and surprised, just as they were when they announced the recession was over as soon as it was.

Economists were equally surprised that retail sales were up more than they've been since 2007.

Housing starts, have also shown gains.

We are seeing a number of sings of recovery.


So he said he thought he could keep them down to around 8%, and they are still at 9.7%, nothing is for sure, and I really don't think anyone knew just how long it would take to start to see gains, instead of losses, but we are seeing the losses leveling off, and the Bush Depression didn't hit, so I believe we will soon begin to see some gains, and in plenty of time for elections. This Bush Recession, is, after all, the worst since the Great Depression.

So cheer up, things are on the rise, obviously. By election time, we will be well on our way.

Then, what are you folks going to say?

LOL....

BTW, bortz is an A**hole! I'll take him on anyday, as long as he doesn't have all of the control. I have taken on a slew of Republicans in my time, on the air. They end up with red faces everytime. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

G.

sack316
03-05-2010, 04:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> but we are seeing the losses leveling off, so I believe we will soon begin to see some gains, and in plenty of time for elections.
</div></div>

Actually, I must admit you are half right here. Given the current trends and economic growth (though I will have to research where the growth number came from to give a true forecast)... but given the apparent momentum and barring an unforeseen circumstance, unemployment will eventually level off and decline.

But by the elections? Highly doubtful except for the possibility of good timing. Unemployment is measured by using the unemployed as a percentage of the workforce. Problem #1 comes from population in general. Let's say that hiring begins to pick up steam, and employers show a net gain of jobs of 150,000 (which is a very good number under any conditions). That figure would only keep pace with population growth (i.e. statistically over time the unemployment number would 'hold steady' right where it is at, due to new entrants). Problem #2 is re-entry to the workforce. During the recession, the labor force shrunk by about 2 million (i.e. 2 million people that weren't working that didn't count in unemployment numbers). This is due to perhaps severance packages, frustration, etc. At any rate, as we see these improvements, many of those 2 million will again begin actively seeking a job once again... hence again have to be counted in the unemployment equation.

So the reality is, we are likely to see perhaps even a short term improvement in these numbers... but there will first be another rise in the unemployment rate before the long term significant improvement of that figure comes. I personally would roughly estimate another 4-8 years before we see anywhere around 5-6% unemployment again (may amend that as I do more research, but that's my first look quick estimate).

Please don't take that as me disagreeing here. Truth is that numbers for the economy and jobs are looking good. As I said before, when it happens I'd give credit where credit is due. And I do believe this admin (whether one agrees with their policies or not) has busted their butts to try to improve this, and are indeed showing results. Not only with their own original thoughts, but even also swallowing some pride and continuing some necessary and good Bush policies (where there were any).

So I don't take any issue with your positive outlook here... unless I turn up something funny in further research. But did want to point out that as far as a layman's viewpoint looking at the unemployment %, hoping for Joe Everyman to see good things that they understand by election time is extremely optimistic, statistically at least. Unfortunately for this admin, improvement is a double edged sword, considering re-entry and new entrants. Even a net gain of 1.2 million jobs between now and October, would possibly roughly leave the figure at 9-9.5% at that time. So even though that would be a drastic, if not miraculous, improvement... those that don't know how to look inside the numbers will look at it as no change.

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-05-2010, 05:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> but we are seeing the losses leveling off, so I believe we will soon begin to see some gains, and in plenty of time for elections.
</div></div>

Actually, I must admit you are half right here. Given the current trends and economic growth (though I will have to research where the growth number came from to give a true forecast)... but given the apparent momentum and barring an unforeseen circumstance, unemployment will eventually level off and decline.

But by the elections? Highly doubtful except for the possibility of good timing. Unemployment is measured by using the unemployed as a percentage of the workforce. Problem #1 comes from population in general. Let's say that hiring begins to pick up steam, and employers show a net gain of jobs of 150,000 (which is a very good number under any conditions). That figure would only keep pace with population growth (i.e. statistically over time the unemployment number would 'hold steady' right where it is at, due to new entrants). Problem #2 is re-entry to the workforce. During the recession, the labor force shrunk by about 2 million (i.e. 2 million people that weren't working that didn't count in unemployment numbers). This is due to perhaps severance packages, frustration, etc. At any rate, as we see these improvements, many of those 2 million will again begin actively seeking a job once again... hence again have to be counted in the unemployment equation.

So the reality is, we are likely to see perhaps even a short term improvement in these numbers... but there will first be another rise in the unemployment rate before the long term significant improvement of that figure comes. I personally would roughly estimate another 4-8 years before we see anywhere around 5-6% unemployment again (may amend that as I do more research, but that's my first look quick estimate).

Please don't take that as me disagreeing here. Truth is that numbers for the economy and jobs are looking good. As I said before, when it happens I'd give credit where credit is due. And I do believe this admin (whether one agrees with their policies or not) has busted their butts to try to improve this, and are indeed showing results. Not only with their own original thoughts, but even also swallowing some pride and continuing some necessary and good Bush policies (where there were any).

So I don't take any issue with your positive outlook here... unless I turn up something funny in further research. But did want to point out that as far as a layman's viewpoint looking at the unemployment %, hoping for Joe Everyman to see good things that they understand by election time is extremely optimistic, statistically at least. Unfortunately for this admin, improvement is a double edged sword, considering re-entry and new entrants. Even a net gain of 1.2 million jobs between now and October, would possibly roughly leave the figure at 9-9.5% at that time. So even though that would be a drastic, if not miraculous, improvement... those that don't know how to look inside the numbers will look at it as no change.

Sack </div></div>

You may be right about that, but I think the thing that is going to make a big difference, and in time to bring those numbers down, is that retail sales are up, which is a result of higher consumer confidence, and along with that, housing starts, both of which will enrich the jobs market.

Also, don't forget, even though there isn't a lot of discussion about it right now, there are big plans in the works for re-building our infrastructure, and it is so shappy, it will take years to do so.

Also, there is still a good deal available from the stimulus money.

The most important thing is to wind down in the Middle East, if we could just GTF out of there, we'd be way ahead financially. Imagine what we could accomplish, with an extra 12 billion a month.

All in all, he's done a remarkable job, given what the dire predictions were, and how terribly iffy the whole situation was.

Don't know if I mentioned this but in the last two weeks, I've heard four different economists, and including former T.Secretary, Paulson, state that without both the Tarp, and the stimulus, unemployment would be at 25%.

Things could have been far worse.

Another thing, and this is just something called feminine intuition, but this is a very strong feeling, from a dream I had the other night.

I think this president is going to get bin Laden. Really going out on the limb here, as the trolls will ridicule this little nugget, like crazy, but what the hell, I don't read their stuff anyway, and, my premonitions are famous among my friends. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

The last time I got one l;ike this in a dream, my Dad, (deceased now since 1997) was screaming at me, "Go get that Mammogram!" and we know how that turned out. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

G.

pooltchr
03-05-2010, 05:16 PM
Sack, you may not be too far off. I heard one estimate on the news today that it takes over 100,000 new jobs just to keep unemployment steady.

About the only people hiring these days are the temp services. Businesses who need help still are afraid to hire anyone because they don't know what the impact of Obamacare is going to have on them. So they use temps. Of course, most temp agencies don't offer benefits, or if they do, they are certainly not the best packages. And if a temp works a week, and then doesn't get another assignment for a week, they don't get benefits if they aren't on an active assignment.

Steve

pooltchr
03-05-2010, 05:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
The most important thing is to wind down in the Middle East, if we could just GTF out of there, we'd be way ahead financially. Imagine what we could accomplish, with an extra 12 billion a month.

G. </div></div>

Didn't your guy promise to have that little item handled by now?

Steve

sack316
03-05-2010, 05:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You may be right about that, but I think the thing that is going to make a big difference, and in time to bring those numbers down, is that retail sales are up, which is a result of higher consumer confidence, and along with that, housing starts, both of which will enrich the jobs market.</div></div>

You are indeed correct here. The consumer confidence index (factor) is the domino that can start a sweeping trend both for better or worse. As of this moment, that is showing caution hesitation... but with a slight trend in the positive direction. And sort of on that note, if any positive comes from a recession, it is that companies are leaner and meaner in order to survive it. As things improve, their projections and figures can shoot through the roof due to their current lower overheads. This could be a tasty treat for investors, and get money circulating again. I know you're not a big fan of that sort of investing, but in the overall economic picture, that spike will allow a quicker recouping of losses that retailers (for example) suffered during contraction. That will allow a quicker 'beefing up' of staff and hiring as compared to them recovering through increased sales alone (which is a slow long process). So from that perspective, there is indeed a possibility of rapid job growth in certain sectors that would be quicker than the norm.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, don't forget, even though there isn't a lot of discussion about it right now, there are big plans in the works for re-building our infrastructure, and it is so shappy, it will take years to do so.</div></div>

I again don't disagree with the positive factor in this. Fact is, we need it and people do need jobs. I am hesitant to use that in projections/estimates of true job growth due to the temporary nature of such work, though. But hey, if it can have some people working for a few years that otherwise couldn't, it could hopefully at least be a band-aid over the next few years as other industries and jobs become more readily available. So best case, it's a perfect fix as long as everything else recovers and comes back strong. Worst case is that as projects are completed, each of those people are again out of work. For the 'right now' I agree it is a necessary and 'good' thing, I just have a little hesitation in counting it as true long term job creation is all (on it's own merits)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think this president is going to get bin Laden. Really going out on the limb here, as the trolls will ridicule this little nugget, like crazy, but what the hell, I don't read their stuff anyway, and, my premonitions are famous among my friends. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif</div></div>

I'll be rooting for you to be right as always on this one!

Sack

Qtec
03-05-2010, 06:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was Obama elected before the credit crisis and the collapse of major US banks?</div></div>Would it have mattered since those started back under Clinton's watch?

eg8r </div></div>

OMG .............its Clinton's fault! LOL

The Bush Admin never existed. LOL
Q

Qtec
03-05-2010, 06:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Of all people do you really want to go this route? Boortz HAS NEVER EVER referred to himself as a journalist. He is a lawyer and a talk radio personality. </div></div>

And we know how smart you have to be to be a lawer..!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Early life & education

Boortz was born in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, which was his mother's home. Neal's father was a World War II pilot in the Marine Corps. Describing himself as a "military brat", Neal lived in many locations throughout the country (most notably, in the small community of Thrall, Texas).[4] Boortz spent his first two years of High School at Tustin Union High School in Tustin, California. The family then moved to Florida where he attended Pensacola High School, graduating in 1963 <span style='font-size: 20pt'>with a C- average. </span>He attended Texas A&M University from 1963 to 1967. Boortz states "I was in the Corps of Cadets. Fighting Seagram's Seven, to be exact, Ed Zatopek, C.O."[5][6] Boortz then attended John Marshall Law School, in Atlanta, Georgia where he earned a Law Degree.[7] </div></div>

The guy is a brainless moron and you think he is good......what a surprise.

Q

Qtec
03-05-2010, 06:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"When it comes to domestic policy, I have no more important job as president than seeing to it that every American that wants to work and is able to work can find a job."

Now, correct me if I am wrong but it is NOT the president's job to make sure that Americans can find a job. In fact, Obama's job as president is to defend the Constitution of the United States. At least, that is what he swore to do when taking the oath of office: </div></div>

Every POTUS has to abide by the US CON, except GW Bush, that's a given.
Obama was elected to help those who need help, ie everyone NOT working for Wall St or getting billions of $ in hand out Govt contracts, like Boeing, etc etc /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

The POTUS has a right to help those AMERICANS ion need within the bounds of the US CON.............is that so difficult to understand?
He is there to represent the interests of the people who put him in office.


Q

pooltchr
03-05-2010, 06:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"When it comes to domestic policy, I have no more important job as president than seeing to it that every American that wants to work and is able to work can find a job."

Now, correct me if I am wrong but it is NOT the president's job to make sure that Americans can find a job. In fact, Obama's job as president is to defend the Constitution of the United States. At least, that is what he swore to do when taking the oath of office: </div></div>

Every POTUS has to abide by the US CON, except GW Bush, that's a given.
Obama was elected to help those who need help, ie everyone NOT working for Wall St or getting billions of $ in hand out Govt contracts, like Boeing, etc etc /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<span style="color: #FF0000"> No, Obama was NOT elected to help those who need help. Our country has plenty of people to do that, but the POTUS job description does not include helping people find jobs. National Defense? Yes. Protect our boarders? Yes. Help Johnny find a job? Nope!</span>

The POTUS has a right to help those AMERICANS ion need within the bounds of the US CON.............is that so difficult to understand?

<span style="color: #CC0000">Yes, he does have the right to help, but it is not his job. He is welcome to help in any way he can. I have a job and the job description does not require me to help people. That doesn't mean I can't do it, only that it isn't my job, and I can't do it at the expense of my duties at work.
His job is to create an environment where business can grow and create jobs to strengthen the economy. His job is NOT to create jobs.
The last time I checked, the wording was to "Promote" the general welfare, not to "Provide" it.</span>

He is there to represent the interests of the people who put him in office.

<span style="color: #CC0000">Right. So when is he going to start??????? </span>


Q </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">I have to ask this question, as your posts here lead me to believe that you are clueless as to how things work here. Have you ever lived in the US, or even spent any extended amount of time here?

(Don't worry, I don't expect a straight answer)

Steve </span>

Qtec
03-05-2010, 07:35 PM
Where in the USCON does it say that the POTUS has the authority to wage war for personal reasons?

Bush gave the reason that he was protecting US citizens from terrorism, not the country. There was NEVER any suggestion that Saddam would invade the US.
If its the Presidents job to protect the US citizens from harm, why not from the HC parasites, the predatory lenders, the banks, etc etc.

No POTUS is elected with the sole promise to uphold the US CON.

Q

Gayle in MD
03-06-2010, 08:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where in the USCON does it say that the POTUS has the authority to wage war for personal reasons?

Bush gave the reason that he was protecting US citizens from terrorism, not the country. There was NEVER any suggestion that Saddam would invade the US.
If its the Presidents job to protect the US citizens from harm, why not from the HC parasites, the predatory lenders, the banks, etc etc.

No POTUS is elected with the sole promise to uphold the US CON.

Q </div></div>

Q,
You know more about the constitution and the presidential duties, than any of the dangerous RW radicals who post here.
Every president knows that two of the benchmarks for how his tenure will be rated in history are job creation, and the overall circumstance in which his policies leave our economy.

The radical RW just makes up their own stories, gets shot down left and right, and then walks away living in the dream world success. Bush, Cheney, Rove, all of them out there pretending that they kept this country safe!

LMAO!

The Republican Party is now the radical right. That's all that is left of that party. they know that their supporters are unbalanced radical people, and now we know for sure, since they have stated it themselves.

the afraid little putzes, praying to God to save them from their sins, and clinging to their assault weapons. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif Obama had their number right on!

As we've seen, over and over, their pundits foment violence with their lies and dangerous rhetoric.

This country has already awakened to that fact.

They are anachromisms, in the truest sense of the word.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
03-06-2010, 09:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Every president knows that two of the benchmarks for how his tenure will be rated in history are job creation, and the overall circumstance in which his policies leave our economy.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

If that is the criteria you use to judge presidents, Obama has been the biggest failure in recent memory!!!

Steve

eg8r
03-07-2010, 06:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Every POTUS has to abide by the US CON, except GW Bush, that's a given.</div></div>Well Obama is trying his best to sit alongside Bush.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He is there to represent the interests of the people who put him in office. </div></div>His poll numbers show that he is quite poor at this.

eg8r

eg8r
03-07-2010, 06:36 AM
No he has not lived here but he did think it was acceptable to work in an illegal casino when he was down and out.

eg8r

eg8r
03-07-2010, 06:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where in the USCON does it say that the POTUS has the authority to wage war for personal reasons?</div></div>I get it, you cannot stick to the subject so you want to switch it up.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: clueless qtip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No POTUS is elected with the sole promise to uphold the US CON.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oath sworn by Obama</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.</div></div> It does not matter what the President says on the stump, when he is sworn in this is the promise he makes to the country. Protection sure is not in his interests at all, but pushing a poor healthcare bill is taking all his time.

eg8r

eg8r
03-07-2010, 06:44 AM
Yes, all the Dems care about is "making history". You could hear it when Obama was begging the Dems who voted no to the crappy HC bill and you hear it here by Gayle. The heck with doing the right thing, doing what you were sworn in to do, it is more important to "make history".

I think it is hilarious that the two things gayle picks as most memorable for a President are the two things Obama is failing at miserably. His unemployment rate is almost at the Great Depression levels and the CBO came out yesterday saying that thanks to Obama's policies he should leave us about $10 trillion deeper in debt when he is done. My goodness I hope he is only around 4 years or it could be worse. How is that for "making history".

eg8r

eg8r
03-07-2010, 06:45 AM
How is your response any different than you acting like Obama's failures have never existed?

eg8r

LWW
03-07-2010, 08:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where in the USCON does it say that the POTUS has the authority to wage war for personal reasons?

Bush gave the reason that he was protecting US citizens from terrorism, not the country. There was NEVER any suggestion that Saddam would invade the US.
If its the Presidents job to protect the US citizens from harm, why not from the HC parasites, the predatory lenders, the banks, etc etc.

No POTUS is elected with the sole promise to uphold the US CON.

Q </div></div>

Read a history book.

LWW

Gayle in MD
03-07-2010, 09:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Every POTUS has to abide by the US CON, except GW Bush, that's a given.</div></div>Well Obama is trying his best to sit alongside Bush.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He is there to represent the interests of the people who put him in office. </div></div>His poll numbers show that he is quite poor at this.

eg8r </div></div>

His poll numbers are been better than any other president who served in times of a recession, better then Reagon's were, and a much more shallow recession.

It is absurd that anyone would be ridiculous enough to expect the recession to turn around overnight, after seeing the numbers from the last three months of the Bush Administration, completely NUTS!
The fact that the numbers are even improving on so many fronts, has already exceeded the expectations of the country's most respected economists.

You forget, we were teetering on the worst depression in history.

Expectations at best, even if the country did not slip into a depression, were a decade before things would really get back to where they were, Pre Bush!

You are still denying the facts, Ed. It all happened on Bush's watch, just as the first major attack on our country since Pearl Harbor, happened on Bush's watch.

In both cases, he knew what was coming, and did nothing at all in time to stop it.

Just as I predicted, Bush would destroy everything, and them the Democratics would have to come in and try to clean up all the messes. It never fails.

G.

Qtec
03-07-2010, 09:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No POTUS is elected with the sole promise to uphold the US CON.

Q </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully <span style='font-size: 14pt'>execute the Office of President of the United States</span>, <span style='font-size: 20pt'><u>and</u></span> will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States </div></div>

These days the Pres has more to do than just play US Con cop. Thanks to Bush, the Pres has more powers than ever. Obama is the Decider, get used to it. LOL

BTW, if you have anything on yout pc you shouldn't have, get rid of it. These days, thanks to Bush, the CIA/FBI can monitor you web usage, read your email, tap yours phone, break into your house and go through your most personal stuff and never tell you about it.......all on a hunch! No warrant required!

What did you say again about the duty of the POTUS?

Q

Tip of the iceberg.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FBI Tried to Cover Patriot Act Abuses With Flawed, Retroactive Subpoenas, Audit Finds

* By Ryan Singel Email Author
* March 13, 2008 |
* 11:04 am |
* Categories: Spooks Gone Wild, Sunshine and Secrecy, Surveillance
*

FBI headquarters officials sought to cover their informal and possibly illegal acquisition of phone records on <span style='font-size: 17pt'>thousands of Americans </span>from 2003 to 2005 by issuing 11 improper, retroactive <span style='font-size: 20pt'>“blanket” administrative subpoenas</span> in 2006 to three phone companies that are under contract to the FBI, according to an audit released Thursday.

Top officials at the FBI’s counter-terrorism division signed the blanket subpoenas “retroactively to justify the FBI’s acquisition of data through the exigent letters or or other informal requests,” the Justice Department’s Inspector General Glenn Fine found.

The revelations come in a follow-up report to Fine’s 2007 finding that the FBI abused a key Patriot Act power, known as a National Security Letter. That first reports showed that FBI agents were routinely sloppy in using the self-issued subpoenas and issued hundreds that <span style='font-size: 20pt'>claimed fake emergencies.</span>

With the flawed follow-up letters, the Counterterrorism division attempted to provide retroactive legal justification for telephone data the division had gotten on <span style='font-size: 20pt'>3,860 phone numbers,</span> gotten either through verbal requests to the companies or false emergency requests.

The letters are related to <span style='font-size: 20pt'>still-secret contracts the FBI’s Communication Analysis Unit has with AT&T, Verizon and MCI. </span>The contracts pay the companies to store subscribers’ phone records for longer periods of time and to provide faster service for FBI subpoenas. Those contracts began in May 2003, but the FBI refuses to release them.

At least one of the letters was signed by an assistant director and none were cleared with the FBI’s general counsel.

FBI agents issue tens of thousands of National Security Letters annually to get phone records, portions of credit histories, and track down IP addresses <span style='font-size: 20pt'>without getting a judge’s approval</span> in cases involving <span style='font-size: 20pt'>suspected</span> terrorism, computer crimes or espionage

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/03/fbi-tried-to-co/#ixzz0hYCECI4p
</div></div>


......and people wonder how Spitzer got caught!?

Qtec
03-07-2010, 09:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> His unemployment rate is almost at the Great Depressio </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>US job cuts better-than-expected</span>

US employers shed fewer jobs than expected in February, cutting 36,000 jobs. This was better than the 50,000 analysts had been expecting.

Last month's unemployment rate stayed steady at 9.7%, the same as in January, and lower than December's rate of 10%.

Employment in the construction and government sectors fell, while there were more jobs for temporary workers.

The Labor Department said it was unclear how much the severe snow storms had affected hiring and firing.

US markets opened slightly higher at the opening, up 0.6% at 10,501.28

There are currently around 14.9 million unemployed people in the US and about 40% of these have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

The average number of hours worked in February slipped a little to 33.8 hours from 33.9 in January.

"There appears to be some semblance of underlying improvement, but it's wrong to say it's buoyant," said Philip Shaw, chief economist at Investec.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Since the start of the recession in December 2007,</span> employment has fallen by 8.4 million, but recent US economic data has been improving gradually.

On Wednesday the Federal Reserve's influential Beige Book report said <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the US economy had continued to grow at a "modest" pace</span> this year.

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>In the last three months of 2009, the US economy grew at an annualised rate of 5.9%.</span> </div></div>


Something to refresh your memory. This is BEFORE the Credit Crisis and the near collapse of the world wide banking system.

Read closely.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>September 6, 2008

U.S. Jobless Rate Rises Past 6%, Highest Since ’03</span>
By LOUIS UCHITELLE

The unemployment rate jumped to 6.1 percent in August, its highest level in five years, pushing the troubles of American workers to the center of the political debate as the presidential campaign enters its final weeks.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>For the eighth consecutive month, the nation’s employers shed jobs, 84,000 last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. In all, 605,000 jobs have been lost since January. The steady rise in unemployment, from 5.7 percent in July and 5 percent in April, is one that many economists associate with <u>recession</u>.</span>

<u>Both presidential candidates</u> — Senators Barack Obama and John McCain — said through spokesmen that t<u>hey would favor an economic stimulus package from Congress this fall.</u> </div></div>


I know, you don't see it. Very simply,
Under Obama,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">US employers shed fewer jobs than expected in February, cutting <span style='font-size: 20pt'>36,000 jobs</span> </div></div>

Ubder Bush,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the <u>eighth consecutive month</u>, the nation’s employers shed jobs, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>84,000 last month</span>, </div></div>

Even before the crisis, <u>the US was in a reccession, unemployment was going up and the numerous banks had already failed.</u>

Q........facts hurt don't they.

pooltchr
03-08-2010, 08:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
US employers shed fewer jobs than expected in February, cutting 36,000 jobs. This was better than the 50,000 analysts had been expecting.

</div></div>

Q. Very simple fact here. Last month the US lost 36,000 jobs.

That means we are not gaining jobs, we are still losing them.

That means things are not getting better, they are still getting worse.

The fact that they didn't get worse at a rate the "experts" had predicted means nothing. We still lost more freaking jobs.

It takes a twisted way of thinking to treat this as good news.

Obama has been in the whitehouse for 14 months, and things are getting worse, not better!

No matter how you try to spin it, the facts are right there.

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-08-2010, 08:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> His unemployment rate is almost at the Great Depressio </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>US job cuts better-than-expected</span>

US employers shed fewer jobs than expected in February, cutting 36,000 jobs. This was better than the 50,000 analysts had been expecting.

Last month's unemployment rate stayed steady at 9.7%, the same as in January, and lower than December's rate of 10%.

Employment in the construction and government sectors fell, while there were more jobs for temporary workers.

The Labor Department said it was unclear how much the severe snow storms had affected hiring and firing.

US markets opened slightly higher at the opening, up 0.6% at 10,501.28

There are currently around 14.9 million unemployed people in the US and about 40% of these have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

The average number of hours worked in February slipped a little to 33.8 hours from 33.9 in January.

"There appears to be some semblance of underlying improvement, but it's wrong to say it's buoyant," said Philip Shaw, chief economist at Investec.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Since the start of the recession in December 2007,</span> employment has fallen by 8.4 million, but recent US economic data has been improving gradually.

On Wednesday the Federal Reserve's influential Beige Book report said <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the US economy had continued to grow at a "modest" pace</span> this year.

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>In the last three months of 2009, the US economy grew at an annualised rate of 5.9%.</span> </div></div>


Something to refresh your memory. This is BEFORE the Credit Crisis and the near collapse of the world wide banking system.

Read closely.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>September 6, 2008

U.S. Jobless Rate Rises Past 6%, Highest Since ’03</span>
By LOUIS UCHITELLE

The unemployment rate jumped to 6.1 percent in August, its highest level in five years, pushing the troubles of American workers to the center of the political debate as the presidential campaign enters its final weeks.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>For the eighth consecutive month, the nation’s employers shed jobs, 84,000 last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. In all, 605,000 jobs have been lost since January. The steady rise in unemployment, from 5.7 percent in July and 5 percent in April, is one that many economists associate with <u>recession</u>.</span>

<u>Both presidential candidates</u> — Senators Barack Obama and John McCain — said through spokesmen that t<u>hey would favor an economic stimulus package from Congress this fall.</u> </div></div>


I know, you don't see it. Very simply,
Under Obama,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">US employers shed fewer jobs than expected in February, cutting <span style='font-size: 20pt'>36,000 jobs</span> </div></div>

Ubder Bush,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the <u>eighth consecutive month</u>, the nation’s employers shed jobs, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>84,000 last month</span>, </div></div>

Even before the crisis, <u>the US was in a reccession, unemployment was going up and the numerous banks had already failed.</u>

Q........facts hurt don't they. </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">They don't let facts get in the way of their fantasies, unfortunately.

If they refuse to admit these basic truths:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On who's watch did 9/11 occur?


On who's watch did the global crash occur?

On who's watch did this government grow into a mammouth pig?

On who's watch did we accumulate more debt than all previous administrations combined!

Intelligent people knew that this economic mess left by Bush was coming, and intelligent people knew it wasn't going to go away quickly, right from the first signs of it.

Obama has diverted Bush's decade long Depression.
</div></div>



Their opinions don't mean a thing. What I find so interesting about the right, is how devoid of compassion, empathy and realism they are in their rhetoric.

It is a fact that the other rich nations made a calculation of moral obligation, and decided that they did not want ANY of their country men, women and children to die, or lose everything they had worked for, because their health care, system was profit based, yet these supposed Christians, are the first ones to vote against every bill or ammendment which has a moral obligation included. Everything from allowing a young woman to sue corporate protected gang rapists, for kidnapping and raping her, to providing food for hungry children, and decent equipment and aid for our troops.

Part of it is because they do not read books, and also, they are under the mistaken belief that to admit something American, is not as good as is handled more successfully in another country, than it is here, must be denied.

Immediately, anyone who admits to America's failures, or atrocities, is called a hate monger.

If these Teabaggers, and Reagonites had been around in the Eisenhower administration, he would never have managed to apply the German model for our divided highway, non stop, cloverleaf cross country HWYS.

It is a fact, that free abortions, and sex education, combined with universal health care, are THE most efffective ways to reduce abortion.

Republicans, their followers and pundits, always reduce the debate to idiocy levels with their uneducated, emotional, knee jerk attacks on what would be effective, buying into the propaganda of the special interests, as they pretend the high moral ground, they end up actually causing more human suffering, killing, dying, spending frivolously on policies which do not work, but make everyting far worse. Example, torture, and unbridled stem cell research.

The moral obligation which other rich nations have embraced in order to provide better health care to all of their citizens highlights the fact that Republicans are always against progress, and immoral in their so called Christian, family values, BS.

Anachronisms personified, armed with assault weapons, and no facts.

Hence, it was the educated people in this country who are above the slimey ignoarnt rhetoric of Tea Party Bubbas, who voted for Obama.

They may not have the tiime, nor the inclination to paint up a bunch of insulting, hate mongering attacks, and make fools of themselves, and shame our country, and it's moral self-respect, but when the time is right, they rally to the cause with their votes and knowledge.

Elections have consequences. Americans want universal health care, and an end to pandering to special interests against the best interests of the masses.

Sooner or later some leader will step up to the plate, as was necessary in all of the other nations who embraced the moral obligation.

I hope this president, will be that person, and this Congress will do what is essential to our future, in the rhelm of health care, and in the rhelm of turning away from investing in oil, and invest instead in renewable fuels, which do not finance terrorists, and would create jobs which could not be outsourced.


G.




</span>

Gayle in MD
03-08-2010, 09:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: boortz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, correct me if I am wrong but it is NOT the president's job to make sure that Americans can find a job.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, you're wrong, that is NOT true. </div></div></div></div>Actually you are wrong. He is correct. It is not the President's job to make sure Americans find a job. If you disagree prove it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr. Bortz, you're absurd, pal. That is not the ONLY job of a president. You really need to study the histry books, or STFU! Part of protecting the country is about being a watchdog of it's economic circumstances. </div></div>Mighty big words for someone talking to a computer screen. Why don't you call his show and try those out?

Obama's focus has NEVER been about jobs. If it has he has proven he SUCKS at whatever he puts his mind to. His FOCUS has been on HEALTHCARE REFORM and he cannot even get that correct. He has neglected jobs and 9.7% unemployment is further proof.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ?????, can't
spell, Mr. BoprtzBOO? Can't edit your work, either. What a "Journalist"</div></div>Of all people do you really want to go this route? Boortz HAS NEVER EVER referred to himself as a journalist. He is a lawyer and a talk radio personality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Georgia would have lost tripple that number of jobs without the President's GOVERNMENT SPENDING, APPROPRIATE SPENDING TO THWART A BUSH DEPRESSION, AND SAVE JOBS SO THAT THE COUNTRY COULD FUNCTION THROUGH BUSH"S IMPENDING DEPRESSION. </div></div>No one is interested in your guessing. You really don't know anything about Georgia or their job market let alone be able to forcast probabilities.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The job losses were set in stone before this president took over, Ed.</div></div>Yep and if we were to believe our President they would be capping out around 8% right. Well, I tell you, I sure am glad Obama made it his focus to shoot higher and go for 10%. Pathetic.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact, they would have been far worse, without the actions he took.
</div></div>I cannot wait for you to provide your forcast models on this.

Thank goodness we have people like Boortz out there calling it like it is and willing to have people like Gayle call in and chat with him. Please let us know when you are going to call his show so we can make sure to listen. I cannot wait to hear you "slay" the giant.

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ]Now, correct me if I am wrong but it is NOT the president's job to make sure that Americans can find a job.
</div></div>


<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Make up your mind, Ed, you can't bash the president for job growth, and at the same time, support this idiot who contends that it is not the presidents job to create jobs!

In any emergency, it is the president's obligation to step in and assert his power, in the interest of the country.

To expect more job creation than we have had thus far, is to admit that one was unaware of the alarming facts of the depth of the Bush Recession, which could easily have led to another Great Depression, predicted to last as long as a decade, BY BUSH!

One would have to be totally out of touch with the facts of this Bush economic disaster, to think that in fourteen months, jobs should have made a come-back. NO ONE predicted, THAT!

G.</span> </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
03-08-2010, 10:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[ Americans want universal health care, </div></div>

This is just wrong. 58% of Americans opposed the bill as it is in the house or Senate version. Only 24% want this bill to pass.

Your opinion that you want the bill does not reflect American's opinion. You are in a very small minority!

With good reason!!!

Steve

eg8r
03-08-2010, 02:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His poll numbers are been better than any other president who served in times of a recession, better then Reagon's were, and a much more shallow recession.</div></div>His poll numbers flat suck.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-08-2010, 02:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His poll numbers are been better than any other president who served in times of a recession, better then Reagon's were, and a much more shallow recession.</div></div>His poll numbers flat suck.

eg8r </div></div>

His poll numbers are just fine, Ed, under the conditions prevailing, the best of any president, better than REagan, or Bush one, during their recessions.

The majority of people in this country still approve of the President.

G.

eg8r
03-08-2010, 02:17 PM
qtip, Obama's unemployment rate is gaining ground on the Great Recession. Maybe you need to quick googling for what you WANT to see and just read all the news.

eg8r

eg8r
03-08-2010, 02:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If they refuse to admit these basic truths:
...On who's watch did 9/11 occur?</div></div>Who refuses to believe this? I would have been scared to death if it was Clinton or Obama that had to deal with it. What is most surprising is all you Dems who don't take credit for allowing the planning of it to happen under your watch. It is quite hard to stop it from happening when all the intel you get is that "something could happen on a plane". Maybe when W got that crystal clear intel he should have just grounded every plane till his time was up.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On who's watch did we accumulate more debt than all previous administrations combined!
</div></div>Keep on going because the CBO came out and said Obama will be leave us an additional $10 trillion in debt. Who would have thought W would be superceded that quickly. What W did in 8 years Obama will trump in 4.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-08-2010, 02:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If they refuse to admit these basic truths:
...On who's watch did 9/11 occur?</div></div>Who refuses to believe this? I would have been scared to death if it was Clinton or Obama that had to deal with it. What is most surprising is all you Dems who don't take credit for allowing the planning of it to happen under your watch. It is quite hard to stop it from happening when all the intel you get is that "something could happen on a plane". Maybe when W got that crystal clear intel he should have just grounded every plane till his time was up.


<span style="color: #000066">How much trouble is it to call in all of the experts, and listen to what they know?

He didn't even do THAT! He contiinued on his vacation. The intelligence, btw, was crystal clear that Saddam was no threat, but that didn't sink in either.

I'm surprised, that you would defend that worst president in our history, and refuse to admit that Iraq has been a total disaster for this country. IT WAS A GROSS MISTAKE! AND WE ARE STILL PAYING FOR IT! </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On who's watch did we accumulate more debt than all previous administrations combined!
</div></div>Keep on going because the CBO came out and said Obama will be leave us an additional $10 trillion in debt. Who would have thought W would be superceded that quickly. What W did in 8 years Obama will trump in 4.

eg8r </div></div>

The CBO did not say that.

LOL, "WILL?????" Most of our current debt is Bush's debt, not the president's.

Now, back to the point, who borrowed more money than all previous administrations, COMBINED????

G.

eg8r
03-08-2010, 02:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How much trouble is it to call in all of the experts, and listen to what they know?

He didn't even do THAT! He contiinued on his vacation.</div></div>How about this past Christmas. You only give our current vacationing President a pass because the bomb failed. He did NOTHING to stop that bomb from going off and he had 3000 examples of a terrorist taking advantage of people trapped on a plane.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, "WILL?????" Most of our current debt is Bush's debt, not the president's. </div></div>The CBO is quite clear that the $10 trillion debt accrued by Obama is based on the policies he is trying to put forth. None of that money has to do with W.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, back to the point, who borrowed more money than all previous administrations, COMBINED????</div></div>Do you want to answer this twice or just wait 3 years and ask it once.

eg8r

pooltchr
03-08-2010, 03:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[]Do you want to answer this twice or just wait 3 years and ask it once.

eg8r </div></div>

At the rate he's going, I don't think we will have to wait that long for the answer.

The fuzzy math on healthcare is amazing. Collect taxes for 4 years before they start paying anything out, and claim they have the cost covered for 10 years. Don't ask them about the ten years after that!!!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-08-2010, 03:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How much trouble is it to call in all of the experts, and listen to what they know?

He didn't even do THAT! He contiinued on his vacation.</div></div>How about this past Christmas.

<span style="color: #000066">President Obama did not receive a eight month advance warning of the Christmas day attack, and in fact, he did not receive ANY warnings, from any government agencies. </span>


You only give our current vacationing President a pass because the bomb failed.
<span style="color: #000066">Dont try to compare apples to oranges, Ed. </span>

He did NOTHING to stop that bomb from going off and he had 3000 examples of a terrorist taking advantage of people trapped on a plane.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, "WILL?????" Most of our current debt is Bush's debt, not the president's. </div></div>The CBO is quite clear that the $10 trillion debt accrued by Obama is based on the policies he is trying to put forth. None of that money has to do with W.

<span style="color: #000066">Again, plese provide a link from the CBO????? </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, back to the point, who borrowed more money than all previous administrations, COMBINED????</div></div>Do you want to answer this twice or just wait 3 years and ask it once.

eg8r </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Ed, futuristic accounting is not a valid argument. Now if you want to get on facebook, and put blue paint all over your face, you can say these ridiculous things, but you'll have to learn to speak the language of the animated people from Avatar! </span>

pooltchr
03-08-2010, 03:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #000066">President Obama did not receive a eight month advance warning of the Christmas day attack, and in fact, he did not receive ANY warnings, from any government agencies. </span>


</div></div>

Sounds like the new president has failed to put together much of a safety net when it comes to national security. Why would his people not know this, and not warn him???

Steve

Qtec
03-08-2010, 06:01 PM
Denial.

Q

Qtec
03-08-2010, 06:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q. Very simple fact here. Last month the US lost 36,000 jobs.<span style="color: #CC0000">So!</span>

That means we are not gaining jobs, we are still losing them.<span style="color: #CC0000">Yeah.</span>

That means things are not getting better, they are still getting worse. </div></div>

No they ARE getting better. Geez that's what the evidence I have just show indicates.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It takes a twisted way of thinking to treat this as good news.</div></div>

If Obama took out evey Al Q operative you would still call it bad news.

Q

eg8r
03-08-2010, 08:03 PM
LOL, whatever helps you sleep at night Gayle. The majority of the people like him as a person, but as a leader of the country his ratings suck.

eg8r

eg8r
03-08-2010, 08:04 PM
Yes you have finally admitted it. Good job.

eg8r

eg8r
03-08-2010, 08:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Obama did not receive a eight month advance warning of the Christmas day attack, and in fact, he did not receive ANY warnings, from any government agencies. </div></div>That isn't going to work. He had 8 YEARS of notice. What, did you think that once attacked by a plane it could never happen again?

I don't need Facebook (glad you know what it is now), I can come right here and say whatever I want. As far as looking at expected spending, I agree not always a good idea. Just looking at the piss poor ability of the current administration at estimating this is really clear. That is why I don't look at the White House budget office for an honest answer and believe the CBO is close to the truth.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-09-2010, 06:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Obama did not receive a eight month advance warning of the Christmas day attack, and in fact, he did not receive ANY warnings, from any government agencies. </div></div>That isn't going to work. He had 8 YEARS of notice. What, did you think that once attacked by a plane it could never happen again?

I don't need Facebook (glad you know what it is now), I can come right here and say whatever I want. As far as looking at expected spending, I agree not always a good idea. Just looking at the piss poor ability of the current administration at estimating this is really clear. That is why I don't look at the White House budget office for an honest answer and believe the CBO is close to the truth.

eg8r </div></div>

LMAO, what makes you think I didn't know what Facebook is?

Now, I can tell you are getting pissed...you're getting more unreasonable, that's what you generally do when you don't have a leg to stand on.

I have seen nothing from the CBO that affirms your statements.

As far as your statement about the president being on vacation during christmas, and the guy who almost hurt some people, there is absolutely no comparison between that, and Bush, Rice, and Cheney, ignoring for four wight months emergency requests for meetings from our own Counter Terrorist CZAR, and failing to do a damn thing about memos that clearly stated that there was good reason to expect an attack.

The Intelligence was alrady clear at that time, that al Qaeda sought to use planes as misiles, and also that they were committed to finishing the jobs of bringing down the WTC.

It is absurd for you to attempt any comparison, and you know it.

G.

eg8r
03-09-2010, 07:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LMAO, what makes you think I didn't know what Facebook is? </div></div>There was a glaring incident not too awful long ago when a Facebook poll was mentioned and you were completely clueless about it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, I can tell you are getting pissed...you're getting more unreasonable, that's what you generally do when you don't have a leg to stand on.</div></div>What would you be referring to? You telling us about Bush having 8 months noticed of an incredibly ambiguous event, or Obama having 8 years and 3000 innocent victims as proof of a trajedy by plane?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as your statement about the president being on vacation during christmas, and the guy who almost hurt some people, there is absolutely no comparison between that, and Bush, Rice, and Cheney, ignoring for four wight months emergency requests for meetings from our own Counter Terrorist CZAR, and failing to do a damn thing about memos that clearly stated that there was good reason to expect an attack.
</div></div>We have been at war for quite a few years, don't you think that was a good reason to expect an attack by a muslim extremist? Obama had 8 years notice on that one and he screwed it up. Who needed the intelligence agency to let us know about a possible plane bombing after 9/11?

eg8r

pooltchr
03-09-2010, 11:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
As far as your statement about the president being on vacation during christmas, and the guy who almost hurt some people,
G. </div></div>

When you say "guy who almost hurt some people", are you talking about the terrorist with a bomb who attempted to blow up a US passenger aircraft in flight? That "guy who almost hurt some people"???????

It was a terrorist attack that, fortunately, failed, through no action by our government.

Your attempt to trivialize the event is sad.

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-10-2010, 07:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LMAO, what makes you think I didn't know what Facebook is? </div></div>There was a glaring incident not too awful long ago when a Facebook poll was mentioned and you were completely clueless about it.

<span style="color: #000066">Sounds like one of your assumptions, to me. My extended family has been meeting on Facebook for several years. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, I can tell you are getting pissed...you're getting more unreasonable, that's what you generally do when you don't have a leg to stand on.</div></div>What would you be referring to? You telling us about Bush having 8 months noticed of an incredibly ambiguous event, or Obama having 8 years and 3000 innocent victims as proof of a trajedy by plane?

<span style="color: #000066">LOL, Ed, I have to hand it to you, you are a master at twisting reasonable information into something beyond recognition. Regarding 9/11, the ambiguity existed BECAUSE BUSH REFUSED TO MEET WITH EXPERTS WHO HAD BEEN ASKING FOR EMERGENCY MEETINGS FOR MONTHS~! It was a RESULT, of his incompetence, not a result of lack of actionable information.

While there is some information which indicates that some of our agencies were not sharing information as well as they could have, who better to pull the directors of those agencies all together to form a clear picture, than the president. You are ignoring the fact that the Counter Terrorist Czar, and others of high national security positions, have testified before the Senate, that they did everything but jump up on the desks, trying to get Bush's undivided attention. Emergency meetings were requested, people jumping into their cars, speeding to the National Security Advisor's office, (Rice). This went on for months.

There is no question, the intelligence was there, including the WTC being a target, AND including using air planes as misiles, one of the many lies which Rice told, and which was exposed as a lie in dozens of books, which you, IIRC, sloughed off as just some guy trying to make a buck, writing a book.

Then you turn around and try to compare these unprecdedented warnings, with solid actionable intelligence, to one rogue nutcase, on a airplane, who failed?

One simple conference phone call to the NTA, CIA, FBI, ALEX UNIT, and 9/11 would have never happened. One damn phone call! Every one of those "Saidi Arabian" attackers were known. Tightened Security at all of our airports beginning over that summer, would have prevented those attacks.

LMAO! I rest my case on this one....</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as your statement about the president being on vacation during christmas, and the guy who almost hurt some people, there is absolutely no comparison between that, and Bush, Rice, and Cheney, ignoring for four straight months, emergency requests for meetings from our own Counter Terrorist CZAR, and failing to do a damn thing about memos that clearly stated that there was good reason to expect an attack.
</div></div>We have been at war for quite a few years, don't you think that was a good reason to expect an attack by a muslim extremist?

<span style="color: #000066">LAMO, we do expect an attack, at every airport, on every flight, and evidence showed this guy slipped though the safety net. That's a bit different than nineteen known terrorists, four flights, four months of requests for emergency meetings, (the CTZ was asking from day one, eight months!) actionable intelligence on the intended weapon, and NO RESPONSE!

President Obama was not alerted to anything.

Twist it around all that you wish, Ed, you just prove your refusal to accept realistic thinking, and factual information. </span>



Obama had 8 years notice on that one and he screwed it up. Who needed the intelligence agency to let us know about a possible plane bombing after 9/11?

eg8r </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">BWA HA HA HA....yep, he really should clone himself, and have atleast one Obama standing at every single check point, in every single airport, all over the world!

What a crock, and then you righties on here have the nerve to talk about other people wearing blinders. LMAO!

G. </span>

pooltchr
03-10-2010, 08:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
he really should clone himself, </div></div>

GOD FORBID WE HAVE MORE THAN ONE OF HIM!!!!!!!!!

Steve

wolfdancer
03-10-2010, 12:58 PM
Gayle, you and Ed are having a tete a tete...and you forgot to invite tchr???
...wait..it looks like he invited himself....again /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
I'm still trying to figure out why, if you are the one stalking him, as he claims, his posts end up behind yours?

pooltchr
03-10-2010, 01:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle, you and Ed are having a tete a tete...and you forgot to invite tchr???
...wait..it looks like he invited himself....again /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
I'm still trying to figure out why, if you are the one stalking him, as he claims, his posts end up behind yours? </div></div>

The same way your posts end up behind mine....even in the threads you said you never read.
Posting in the blind, now???????????????????

Steve