Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The first 100 days in one sentence, "I won...I trump you."

President Barack Hussein Obama campaigned on being a better person than Washington was used to. He essentially claimed that he would put an end to childish bickering. He said that he'd pool everyone's thoughts and ideas and promised to open up the White House to the public, making this the most transparent administration, thus far. Well, he did, sort of. If you count exposing anything that Obama thinks will be damaging to the previous administration, National Security be damned. He was going to be truly bipartisan, welcoming all ideas...and he does, so long as they are in step with his own. He has token republicans in his cabinet, although that is about as bipartisan as he gets. He was going to stamp out lobbyists influence, until he started appointing them. He actually signed into law, on his first day as POTUS, an executive order stating that lobbyists could not serve in positions directly related to their prior employer for two years. What he neglects to advertise is that this same law has a HUGE loophole which essentially nullifies it. If the administration wishes to appoint a lobbyist, there is a waiver for that. So basically this law is in place to look pretty. It makes people think we're keeping the lobbyists out of power, while making sure that the powers that be are able to put the lobbyists into positions of power.

He has let Republicans come to the table, just long enough to snap a photo for the MSM. Who really cares what they have to say, right?

In one of his erroneous statements, our President said, "In eighth grade math, we've fallen to ninth place." Well we are in ninth place, but considering we were in 28th in 1995, climbed up to 19th by 1999, and in 2003 we were up to 15th place. By all accounts then, 9th place is something to be applauded. Typical of his administration though, Obama chose to use a fact that most American citizens wouldn't dig deep enough into to realize that the actual statement was a falsehood. Don't believe me, my liberal friends, just check politifact.com. This is an example of the idea that it truly doesn't matter WHAT Barack Hussein Obama actually says, but what is significant and memorable to his flock is HOW he says it. They have given him an artistic liberty, if you will. He's free to take any factual statement and twist and distort it to suit his needs. Much like the way he dismissed his prior pro-abortion voting record where he claimed "there was already a law on the books that addressed the issue." All the while knowing that the public doesn't generally actually go back and READ the laws that were on the books. If he says there was a law, there was a law, right? Wrong. There was a law on the books that dealt with protections if an infant was born alive, but that law left it up to the abortionist, who by the way was being PAID to perform the abortion, to determine whether or not the child he would abort would warrant any of those protections. Most writers that I've seen who reference his deceptions regarding the "old Illinois law" simply paraphrase that law for you. I commend them for at least doing that much, someone had to. But then again that takes into account the possibility that you aren't already enamoured with Obama and might actually listen to reason. If you are one of those who simply brushes off these FACTS as "spin" then click the link above. This IS the actual "law on the books." It's quite long, and it is quite hard to find, so I wanted to make it as easy as kindergarten. All you have to do is click and read. Pay particularly close attention to section 6, subsection 2 (a). That's the part that Obama is pretending doesn't exist. Obama lied--Ahh, I just heard him on the news in his latest speech as I typed this..."Thank God for 'change.'" Yes, that is most definitely what The One has brought us, isn't it?

Speaking of photo-ops, what a great photo op the government had in NY yesterday! Terrified citizens running for their lives all the while jets are scrambling in a way that is remniscent of the days of lore. What was that song? "Have you forgotten?" Obviously, the powers that be have forgotten. Just like Obama seems to have forgotten many of his tag lines from the campaign days. There is a very clear reason for that though, the POTUS seems to have forgotten that he is not still campaigning. When the going gets rough, up there in Washington, the latest modus operandi is to launch a whirlwind media blitz. They don't actually take any real action, they just make one-liners and have a few staged questions from audience plants. Bada bing! They've got instant public approval!

Obama promised transparency all throughout the campaign. He promised to shine sunlight on Washington. He stated that all "non-emergency" bills would not be signed without giving the American public--that's you and me--an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days. This was an out and out lie. But hey, in all fairness, Mr. Obama did take the transparency idea somewhere. He doesn't want you to see what he or his administration is doing, per se. But he has no qualms about shining sunlight on what the blame-it-on-Bush administration did. Let's get real though, it's the first trick any magician learns. Keep their eyes trained on this hand so that they have no idea what is going on behind your back in the other hand. With one hand, he's allowing the tactics that kept you and I safe since September 11, 2001, to be shared with our enemies--thereby undermining our national security. With the other hand, he's breaking promises right and left...pushing through bill after bill with the utmost haste.

He promised he would sit down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Well, that hasn't happened yet, but he did write him a letter. *crickets chirping*

We all remember the praise that Obama got during the debates for stating that he would go "line by line" to root out earmarks. Is that another instance where if he says he did that, it must be true? Because in actually reading the bills, which he did not do, I'm finding that to be another flat out lie.

The administration actually orchestrated a dramatic confrontation between an outspoken talk radio host and members of the Republican party, and then reveled in the results. If you haven't been paying attention, this is yet another example of the magician's trick. Keep looking at the feuding Republicans, and pay no mind to the man behind the drapes.

In the most shocking turn of events, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report labelling peaceful, concerned citizens as potential domestic terrorists. Fortunately all of the protestors and picketers who have views in line with the administration escape this sort of "profiling." It is perfectly acceptable to assemble, to be staunchly "pro-choice," to be anti-Bush, or any number of leftist ideologies, in this day and age. But the second a group of conservatives actually finds their voice, they are villified. Lord help us and hope that no crimes are committed against any who fall under this category of "potential domestic terrorists" because our government was so irresponsible with their labelling. I guess they think they are covered as far as vets go since Napolitano clumsily "apologized" for offending the veterans. Somehow I missed her statements of apology to the conservative soccer moms of America for causing many to think that we might just snap at a moment's notice and start stockpiling AK-47s.

I'll leave you with an Obama quote, as shown on politifact.com.



"Make no mistake: We need to end an era in Washington where accountability has been absent, oversight has been overlooked, your tax dollars have been turned over to wealthy CEOs and the well-connected corporations," Obama said at an Oct. 1 campaign stop in Wisconsin. "You need leadership you can trust to work for you, not for the special interests who have had their thumb on the scale. And together, we will tell Washington, and their lobbyists, that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. You have. They will not run my White House. You'll help me run my White House."

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Listen to HOW I say it, don’t bother with WHAT I’m actually saying.

Not too long after this statement, he was quoted as saying, "I won. I think on this one, I trump you." What? Did he think he was above using the schoolyard phrase as so many of us are used to hearing it? He would have scored more points with third graders if he'd have just broken out in a round of, "We won, we won, we shot the b.b. gun! You lost, you lost, you ate tomato sauce!" In short, the Obama administration's first 100 days has been chock full of partisan attacks, veiled threats against private citizens exercising their collective first ammendment right to peaceably assemble, and flat out lies. Gee, I can't wait to see what they have in store for us next!




20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another Natalie post....

Long on opinion and woefully short on any substance or fact. Should please the echo crowd in here, but honestly, at some point shouldn't you actually do some research?

Obama's poll numbers are good, people are starting to think the country is going in the right direction, the Republican party is diminishing in numbers, and the remaining - you - are the laughing stock of the world.

But yeppers, we are all foolish zombies.... Keep it up, the more you speak, the more people join our cause.

Peace.
Rick Beagle

Natalie said...

LOL Rick. You crack me up.

Please point out which items are lacking in factual backing. Not just general notions, but actual statements made.

"Shouldn't you actually do some research?" That's funny, that's the same sentiment I have for you and your ilk. However it's only warranted for one of us. Have a good night.

Dinah said...

Rick,

Your the only laughing stock. Obama can't even complete a thought on camera without his teleprompter Do a search for his most recently blunder a couple of nights ago). In case you haven't noticed, more people are jumping off your bandwagon as Obama's polls are good, true, but they have DECREASED significantly since he took office.

I voted for McCain, my husband voted for Obama. About two weeks ago, he finally openly admitted that he now regrets his vote because he feels betrayed by Obama in that he has already gone against so many of his campaign promises, and the way he is lowering our defenses has him down right scared.

Bash the people here all you want, afterall it is your right. But remember this, playing semantics, mixing words and statements and avoiding the hard questions that are asked, do not support your cause, it only shows ignorance which you have displayed here on several occassions.

Terrific observation Natalie, do not let the insults of ignorant get to you!

Anonymous said...

Natalie,
I was going to give you a line by line blow about how terrible this article is by you, but honestly, what is the point? So rather than waste my time with that monstrous effort let me try and be a bit more succinct.
If you are going to write, organize your thoughts, and where possible provide relevant links so that people who are unfamiliar with the subject can get up to speed with your comments (not to mention would help eliminate some of your more glaring factual errors).
Keep your paragraphs short and focused. Provide an introduction to the piece, followed by supporting material and ending with an inescapable conclusion.
Your article is a rambling piece of semi-truths, and fiction interspersed with some real elements of worthy criticism.

Peace.
Rick Beagle

Anonymous said...

Dinah.
Love that you are posting, but you are erroneous in your assertion that Obama's numbers are falling. Quite the contrary, his are sitting quite nicely in the mid to high sixties. And insofar as I can tell he has done quite well with regards to his campaign promises. I would love to hear how he betrayed you and your husband - so please share.
Funny you mentioned McCain, Rush stated today that he wished Sen. Arlen Specter would take Sen. McCain with him. I, of course, refer to Senator Specters defection from the Republican party over to the Democrats (that puts us at 59). Seems like Rush thinks McCain isn't a real Republican....
As if this wasn't depressing enough, the Republicans got caught this week withholding funds from the Stimulus to help prepare us for a pandemic (like the swine flu) and playing politics with the Secretary (and staff) tasked with combating a disease like this. Thanks to your fine party, yet more people are going to die due to their politics. I will spare you the links....
Is it no wonder that such a small number of people consider themselves Republicans (lowest in 25 years)?
Yeppers, I am the clueless one here....

Peace.
Rick Beagle

PS GREAT conversation on torture here.

Dinah said...

Oh, let's not forget that he would not take the time to visit the graves at Normandy because it was not "logistically possible", or better yet, he didn't want to offend anyone.

But on the same oversea's trip, he took the time to "visit a landmark mosque in Istanbul", oh and ofcourse bowed down to the king of Saudi Arabia.

Basically, this man is affraid to offend everyone, except Americans, and will show respect to just about anyone, except Amercians.

Can't wait to see what the 12 year old (Mr. Beagle) has to say about this.

Dr. Dave said...

Once again, Rick, the "commenter," is instructing the "writer"...translation...the "non-doer" is attempting to govern the "doer."

That pretty much sums up the entire platform of the Socialist Party (why even bother to call them Democrats anymore)? We do all the work, pay all the taxes, chronicle all the facts while they sit back and tell you how to do everything, steal your money, and twist the truth and rewrite history to fit their agenda.

Some of my most memorable moments of the first 100 days:

1. The "I won" comment, the remark of an elitist, and a child. My 5-year-old knows better.
2. The pressure from Zero to get Porkulus passed, and then his subsequent weekend vacation in Chicago, putting off signing such an "important" document until the following week. Then acknowledging it's not a "perfect bill" but claiming it contains no pork barrel projects whatsoever.
3. ALL teleprompter moments (occurring daily on a youtube video near you) because, well, TOTUS is the real POTUS.
4. Fuzzy math of "halving" the deficit by doubling, then tripling it.
5. Zero playing golf when swine flu hits the U.S.
6. Flying an airplane over lower Manhattan. Nice move. "It'll never happen again." Why do we keep hearing that statement from him (via TOTUS, of course)?
7. Bowing to the Saudi king. (It would have been even better if he'd fallen over and kissed his feet.)
8. Nearly tongue-kissing murderous Hugo Chavez.
9. Offering no response while murderous Daniel Ortega verbally skewers the U.S.
10. Sending Hamas and Iran love notes.

An exemplary 100 days indeed.

Natalie said...

Rick,

Thank you for yet again dodging the actual question. I specifically opened myself up, asked you to point out any instances where my opinions are not based on the facts, as I have researched and observed them. Your response? "I was going to give you a line by line blow" but I don't like your writing style and that's that.

Well Rick, if you don't like my writing style, I'll go back to the same question that keeps coming up when we encounter one another, "Why aren't you here?" You are here criticizing the thoughts, ideas, and opinions of others, yet you offer none of your own. Insults don't necessarily qualify. Children can have a war of words.

Your lame attempt at insulting me is laughable. I asked for which items, specifically, you were disputing and rather than list those, you attack my writing style. Wow, ya got me there. I make no apologies for my writing style. Some are going to love it and relate to it. Others are going to be polarized by it--I think that's where you come in.

I am writing for a blog. When I feel the need to attach a link, or any media, I do so. If you are intrigued by something you read, you are free to delve further into it to prove or disprove what I have written. You can be certain that in the future, when you see "Another Natalie post..." it will likely be equally as long on opinion, as blogs are by design. If reading them offends you, then by all means, divert your eyes. However if you do wish to read further and comment, you do so at your own risk.

Anonymous said...

Dinah,
When I visited France, I didn't swing by Normandy either. So sorry, maybe next time.
And the bow... rofl, I won't even start that again.
He visited a mosque in Istanbul? Good for him.
Still not sure how he betrayed you, but fine whatever....


Natalie,
"President Barack Hussein Obama campaigned on being a better person than Washington was used to. He essentially claimed that he would put an end to childish bickering."
Not true. He stated that he would reach across the aisle, and he has.

"He said that he'd pool everyone's thoughts and ideas and promised to open up the White House to the public, making this the most transparent administration, thus far. Well, he did, sort of."
He did sort of? What the heck does that mean?

"He was going to be truly bipartisan, welcoming all ideas...and he does, so long as they are in step with his own. He has token republicans in his cabinet, although that is about as bipartisan as he gets."
President Obama has been fairly accommodating to the opinions and suggestions of the Republican party, when they are given. Unfortunately, the Republican party has stopped providing any useful ideas, and without ideas the discussions are generally one sided (I point to the recent budget discussions). Secretary of Defense Gates is not a token Republican by any measuring stick.

"He was going to stamp out lobbyists influence, until he started appointing them. He actually signed into law, on his first day as POTUS, an executive order stating that lobbyists could not serve in positions directly related to their prior employer for two years. What he neglects to advertise is that this same law has a HUGE loophole which essentially nullifies it. If the administration wishes to appoint a lobbyist, there is a waiver for that. So basically this law is in place to look pretty. It makes people think we're keeping the lobbyists out of power, while making sure that the powers that be are able to put the lobbyists into positions of power."
The exception clause was made for that token Republican Secretary of Defense Gates.

"He has let Republicans come to the table, just long to snap a photo for the MSM. Who really cares what they have to say, right?"
No, doesn't take that long to get down.... Okay, that was a cheap shot, but it was fun.

"By all accounts then, 9th place is something to be applauded. "
Have you lost your mind?

"He's free to take any factual statement and twist and distort it to suit his needs."
Nope, not true. We are just pleased that he generally gets it right, but politicians are still politicians.

As to your rant about abortions, no idea what the heck you are talking about, and really don't care.

"Thank God for 'change.'" Yes, that is most definitely what The One has brought us, isn't it?"
No where ever has the Left embraced Obama as the "One", that is a "spin" by the Right to explain away his legendary crowds.

"Just like Obama seems to have forgotten many of his tag lines from the campaign days. There is a very clear reason for that though, the POTUS seems to have forgotten that he is not still campaigning. When the going gets rough, up there in Washington, the latest modus operandi is to launch a whirlwind media blitz. They don't actually take any real action, they just make one-liners and have a few staged questions from audience plants. Bada bing! They've got instant public approval!"
That is a pretty heady comment, where exactly are you getting this information from? Specifically, I want to know about the staged questions from audience plants.

"Obama promised transparency all throughout the campaign. He promised to shine sunlight on Washington. He stated that all "non-emergency" bills would not be signed without giving the American public--that's you and me--an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days. This was an out and out lie. "
Again, where are your specifics for this claim?

"With one hand, he's allowing the tactics that kept you and I safe since September 11, 2001, to be shared with our enemies--thereby undermining our national security. With the other hand, he's breaking promises right and left...pushing through bill after bill with the utmost haste."
You do realize that the memos were released by court order right? ACLU lawsuit thing? And what bill have you had less than five days to review it? Two blatant lies.

"He promised he would sit down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Well, that hasn't happened yet, but he did write him a letter. *crickets chirping*"
He never ever promised to sit down with Ahmadinejad in the first one hundred days. Blatant lie.

"We all remember the praise that Obama got during the debates for stating that he would go "line by line" to root out earmarks."
This was McCain's comments, not Obama. He has stated that he would like to see them curbed. Congress has the last say on the matter as they actually own the budget. Sorry Natalie, but this is another lie.

"The administration actually orchestrated a dramatic confrontation between an outspoken talk radio host and members of the Republican party, and then revelled in the results."
Blatant untruth. This is so absurd, I don't know where to begin. The head of the RNC apologizing to Rush for calling him an entertainer kind of sums it up. This mess is entirely Republican created, but I do agree that the Dems are enjoying it a bit too much (pointing and laughing is not the same as orchestrating).

"I guess they think they are covered as far as vets go since Napolitano clumsily "apologized" for offending the veterans. "
Another blatant lie.

"Somehow I missed her statements of apology to the conservative soccer moms of America for causing many to think that we might just snap at a moment's notice and start stockpiling AK-47s."
Another absurd inflammatory comment with no basis in fact.

"Not too long after this statement, he was quoted as saying, "I won. I think on this one, I trump you." What? Did he think he was above using the schoolyard phrase as so many of us are used to hearing it? He would have scored more points with third graders if he'd have just broken out in a round of, "We won, we won, we shot the b.b. gun! You lost, you lost, you ate tomato sauce!""
Quote not in context. While not a lie, it is intentionally misleading.

There you go. I skipped a few parts, but typing all of this into a little box its hard to keep the threads straight.

Peace.
Rick Beagle

JoyFull said...

Natalie, again your articulation and research astounds me. You are saying things that mirror my own thoughts and I am grateful.

I am still staggered by the planes over New York!! There should be accountablility for that and not apologies.

Again, as with his "I was unaware" comment and belittling his fellow Americans who had a legitimate voice, he just put that little flying incident aside with a "won't do that again" comment.
And likewise, it shows that apparently he doesn't keep up with what one hand of his government is doing! At least that is what he says...don't they have to run a presidential plane fly by by him first???

I love your analogy to the magic tricks because the art of illusion has been the platform of the past 100 days. Pushing agenda after agenda and to heck with what Americans say.

At any rate, you said it and wrote it well and I thank you for the research.

Dr. Dave said...

A poll Mr. Beagle will not like, not one little bit.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps, but Arlen Specter kind of says it all quite nicely.

I mean, he didn't leave your party because he valued the Democrats stance so very strongly, but rather he swapped sides to get elected again. For those of you who don't understand that comment, it means Pennsylvania is tracking Blue (it used to be a die hard Red state).

We shall see in 2010 won't we?

BTW, the Coleman challenges are nauseating at this point. At what point do we get disgusted at a candidate for clearly abusing the legal system to prevent another candidate from taking his rightful place in the senate (number 60 baby)?

Gloat over.
Peace.
Rick Beagle

Natalie said...

Rick,

I've got to run out for a few hours to run an errand. I didn't want you to think that I was dodging your accusations. I'll be back in a bit and will address each and everyone of them. While I'm gone, it might serve you well to do some research of your own and you'll see where I'm getting the "claims" from. They are public knowledge, and I did cite the source in the piece, so it ought to be easy for you. I hate that I have to leave because I'd so love to do this now but alas, I have other responsibilities.

Anonymous said...

Natalie,
Not a problem... I am third shift and in all honesty my head will probably be gracing our pillow in a few. Sooooo, if I don't respond to you please don't think that I am ignoring you either! :-)

G'night.
Rick Beagle

Olympia said...

Another poll Mr. Beagle will not like. He sure seams to be full of "unsupported" facts, doesn't he? lol

Sorry, I am a little to old to be very computer savy, but to find the polls, in which SOME of the data is listed below, go to the Rasmussen Report and search for the "Obama Approval Index History". Again, here is some of it...I didn't want to post it all because it would really make Mr. Beagle look like a 3rd grader can research better than him. lol



04-28-09:
Presidential Approval Index: +5
Strongly Approve: 36%
Strongly Disapprove: 31%
Total Approve: 56%
Total Disapprove: 43%

01-12-09:
Presidential Approval Index: +28
Strongly Approve: 44%
Strongly Disapprove: 16%
Total Approve: 65%
Total Disapprove: 30%

Even you, Mr. Beagle, should be able to see that his approval rating is showing a downward trend in every catagory. You cited the New York Times, a very leftest media outlet. However, just about every media outlet, mainstream and cable, cites the Rasmussen Reports as The Standard" when it comes to statistical data, with regards to accuracy and fairness.

Again, your research and source citing is laughable!

The ironic thing here is this, the only person here who seems to give you some sort of credit, is the same one you like to bash the most. Typical Liberal.

Dr. Dave said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr. Dave said...

I removed my previous post because of a misspelling. Corrected version follows:

Rick, I'm from PA. I have family in PA. I have interests in PA. You have no idea what you're talking about.

It was never a "diehard" Red State. A strong union presence still runs deep, dating back to the coal mines. Grandpa was a Democrat; Dad was a Democrat; Son and Daughter are Democrats.

The cities are liberal, which is only natural...most cities in America trend liberal.

But PA has that bizarre "Reagan Democrat" thing, where, for years, they'd never vote completely blue candidates into federal office, usually going for Republican Congresscritters and Senators and a Democrat for the White House.

It's only become a recent trend that PA is turning true blue.

Would you like to know why? PA's high taxes, aging population, and truly little economic growth chases all of its younger people away, leaving mostly voters needing entitlements, brought to you by...OF COURSE!...the Zombiecrats.

Why would I want to live in a state that eats its young when I can do better for my family somewhere else?

And Sphincter? He switched parties out of self-preservation...plain and simple...when just two weeks ago he said (on record, btw) he'd remain Republican because he believed in the two-party system and that he had a role to play to block crazy Zombie legislation via filibusterer in the Senate.

Then Pat Toomey announced he was running, and Sphincter was immediately down 21 points among his own party.

We don't want him. We don't need him. Good riddance.

amomx4 said...

Natalie,

Great piece! Contrary to one, I thoroughly enjoyed it. If it weren't for blogs like yours and Jeff Schrieber's, my frustration with our current administration might boil over. Thank you for echoing my concerns in respectful manner. I don't know how you keep your cool.

P.S. I ordered a SGP cap for my daughter's bday...raising four Christian conservatives.

Natalie said...

"President Barack Hussein Obama campaigned on being a better person than Washington was used to. He essentially claimed that he would put an end to childish bickering."
Not true. He stated that he would reach across the aisle, and he has. And I counter your “Not true” with another “not true.” Just because you claim he reaches across the aisle doesn’t make it so. Saying that he is open to Republican views and then telling them, “I won, on this, I think I trump you” in the middle of one of those “reaching across the aisle” meetings simply is not reaching across the aisle. It’s childish bickering, as I stated before. However this is my opinion and I did not claim it to be a fact. I cannot prove that something is bickering, and you cannot disprove it. My observation based on the facts is that he has not been bipartisan as promised."He said that he'd pool everyone's thoughts and ideas and promised to open up the White House to the public, making this the most transparent administration, thus far. Well, he did, sort of."
He did sort of? What the heck does that mean? You got me there. I left out a complete thought. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, just that I’m human and I screwed up. My intention in the later paragraph pertaining to transparency in the government was to say that Obama has been transparent, when it was convenient for him, ala releasing the “torture memos.” Any effort that can be made to be transparent if it will “expose” Bush ala Blame-it-on-Bush, has been made. All claims to let the sun shine into the White House rang hollow."He was going to be truly bipartisan, welcoming all ideas...and he does, so long as they are in step with his own. He has token republicans in his cabinet, although that is about as bipartisan as he gets."
President Obama has been fairly accommodating to the opinions and suggestions of the Republican party, when they are given. Unfortunately, the Republican party has stopped providing any useful ideas, and without ideas the discussions are generally one sided (I point to the recent budget discussions). Secretary of Defense Gates is not a token Republican by any measuring stick. Hey, you and I agree on something. Secretary of Defense Gates is not a token Republican. He is an Independent who happened to have been appointed under a Republican president. Before you scream, I am aware that he recently said that he “considers himself a Republican” he also considered himself apolitical for his entire military career, and his reasoning for considering himself Republican is that all of his major appointments were by Republicans. The Republican party has provided alternatives, and they have been shot down and/or ignored. The fact that the liberals didn’t like the ideas provided doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist. You and I not agreeing doesn’t mean that the argument is one-sided. I have my side and you have yours. You point to the recent budget discussions? The ones where the Republicans submitted this alternate budget http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2007/pr20090401legtext.pdf ? The “token Republicans” are Ray LaHood, Transportation Secretary and Judd Gregg was tapped to be the other, but he wised up and withdrew his nomination. He didn’t want to be a part of politicizing the Census which Obama took away from the list of responsibilities he would have covered."He was going to stamp out lobbyists influence, until he started appointing them. He actually signed into law, on his first day as POTUS, an executive order stating that lobbyists could not serve in positions directly related to their prior employer for two years. What he neglects to advertise is that this same law has a HUGE loophole which essentially nullifies it. If the administration wishes to appoint a lobbyist, there is a waiver for that. So basically this law is in place to look pretty. It makes people think we're keeping the lobbyists out of power, while making sure that the powers that be are able to put the lobbyists into positions of power."
The exception clause was made for that token Republican Secretary of Defense Gates. That statement is untrue. The exception clause was made as Obama’s way of proving that he was anti-lobbyist. The first waiver was issued at the request of Gates, but not to keep Gates’ appointment as your statement could lead someone to believe. The waiver was issued to William Lynn."He has let Republicans come to the table, just long to snap a photo for the MSM. Who really cares what they have to say, right?"
No, doesn't take that long to get down.... Okay, that was a cheap shot, but it was fun. I have no idea what “doesn’t take that long to get down” means. You say it was a cheap shot, so maybe you snuck one in. I don’t think it counts if people don’t know what you mean, but I’ll take your word that it was a cheap shot. I’m glad you had fun."By all accounts then, 9th place is something to be applauded. "
Have you lost your mind? Nope, I’ve got it right here. We were in 28th place in 1995. (I had a typo and said that it was 2005, but if you’ll read the rest of the sentence you’ll see that wasn’t logical since the dates got progressively later other than that one.) We’ve made great strides since then, which should be applauded. We still have work to do, however he was incorrect when he said, “We’ve fallen to 9th place,” as if we were number 1 before. The statement was meant to deceive, in my opinion. That fact is documented on politifact.com and I provided the link. It is a fact, whether you like the fact or not."He's free to take any factual statement and twist and distort it to suit his needs."
Nope, not true. We are just pleased that he generally gets it right, but politicians are still politicians. Again, refer to the previous revelations about the math scores statement. He took a fact that most people would take him on his word and twisted it to suit his needs. “Politicians are still politicians” is not acceptable. They only behave this way because people like you, and myself in the past, allowed them to get this way. They find it second nature at the moment, and they won’t change it until we hold them to higher standards—regardless of the side of the aisle we/they are on.As to your rant about abortions, no idea what the heck you are talking about, and really don't care. I’m well aware that you don’t care. Oddly enough, I didn’t have you personally in mind when I wrote this. There are many who do care and many who will care when they find out the facts. This was not a “rant about abortions.” This was a rant about Obama’s falsification of his voting record, which happened to be about abortions. He lied after the fact when it became a campaign issue. He spoke out against providing medical care to infants who were born alive as a result of botched abortions. That is where a child is delivered alive when they thought he or she would be dead. There was testimony before Congress of medical professionals who had seen living babies thrown in trash cans, dropped on the floor, wrapped in plastic bags, and worse. They were attempting to force the hospitals to give them at a minimum, comfort care until they died or by the grace of God recovered. Obama was the ONLY one to speak out against it. He claimed there was a law already on the books that provided that protection when people called him on his horrendous voting record. People hear “there was already a law on the books” and they take him at his word. There was a law, but it did not provide protections unless the abortionist (who was being paid to kill the child) decided that the baby might live. It was left solely up to the abortionist. Obama was deceptive. He lied. I provided the link to the actual “law on the books” so that people could read it for themselves. No bias, no rants, just facts, sir."Thank God for 'change.'" Yes, that is most definitely what The One has brought us, isn't it?"
No where ever has the Left embraced Obama as the "One", that is a "spin" by the Right to explain away his legendary crowds. I beg to differ. I would cite the documentary Media Malpractice as a prime example. I say that Obama is “The One” because he was chosen before the media cared to actually find out who he was. It has nothing to do with “legendary crowds.” This is a man. You realize, we’re not talking about The Beatles, don’t you?"Just like Obama seems to have forgotten many of his tag lines from the campaign days. There is a very clear reason for that though, the POTUS seems to have forgotten that he is not still campaigning. When the going gets rough, up there in Washington, the latest modus operandi is to launch a whirlwind media blitz. They don't actually take any real action, they just make one-liners and have a few staged questions from audience plants. Bada bing! They've got instant public approval!"
That is a pretty heady comment, where exactly are you getting this information from? Specifically, I want to know about the staged questions from audience plants. For one thing, until I had been on a television set myself with a “town hall” setting, I had no idea that they used audience plants. The production staffers were randomly seated in the audience and asked the questions the producers wanted to answer. This is based on my personal experience. Now for the actual facts, I’ll refer you to this article from The Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/27/obama_town_hall_questioners_we.html?hpid=topnews"Obama promised transparency all throughout the campaign. He promised to shine sunlight on Washington. He stated that all "non-emergency" bills would not be signed without giving the American public--that's you and me--an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days. This was an out and out lie. "
Again, where are your specifics for this claim? I did say several times throughout the article that these facts could be found at politifacts.com, as well as provide a few links to them. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/234/allow-five-days-of-public-comment-before-signing-b/ "With one hand, he's allowing the tactics that kept you and I safe since September 11, 2001, to be shared with our enemies--thereby undermining our national security. With the other hand, he's breaking promises right and left...pushing through bill after bill with the utmost haste."
You do realize that the memos were released by court order right? ACLU lawsuit thing? And what bill have you had less than five days to review it? Two blatant lies. For the 5 day rule I’ll refer you to the link in the last paragraph from politifacts. The SCHIP bill is one that comes to mind. The stimulus bill was “called” an emergency, and just had to have it rushed through before anyone could read it, and then he decided to go out of town before signing it. Ahem, yeah, that sounded very emergent, didn’t it? As far as the suit the ACLU brought seeking the release of the memos…the documents were NOT released “by court order” as you claim. The court order stated that the documents either had to be released, OR the government had to explain why they could not be released (state secrets, national security, etc)."He promised he would sit down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Well, that hasn't happened yet, but he did write him a letter. *crickets chirping*"
He never ever promised to sit down with Ahmadinejad in the first one hundred days. Blatant lie. Blatant lie? I didn’t say that he promised to sit down within the first 100 days. That wasn’t my critique at all. I was commenting on the fact that he wrote him a letter, and we were laughed at, as a nation. We were viewed as weak. I stated that he promised this, and that it has not happened yet, although this has. Please find that blatant lie in there for me. You are reading into my words what you want to see."We all remember the praise that Obama got during the debates for stating that he would go "line by line" to root out earmarks."
This was McCain's comments, not Obama. He has stated that he would like to see them curbed. Congress has the last say on the matter as they actually own the budget. Sorry Natalie, but this is another lie. Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/mar/03/obamas-promise-go-after-earmarks-line-line/ Regardless of who “owns the budget,” Mr. Beagle, Obama did not go line-by-line, which is what I stated, therefore he did lie when he made that promise. You are aware that he is the boss, and the policies of his administration, even the budget, fall onto his lap, don’t you?"The administration actually orchestrated a dramatic confrontation between an outspoken talk radio host and members of the Republican party, and then reveled in the results."
Blatant untruth. This is so absurd, I don't know where to begin. The head of the RNC apologizing to Rush for calling him an entertainer kind of sums it up. This mess is entirely Republican created, but I do agree that the Dems are enjoying it a bit too much (pointing and laughing is not the same as orchestrating). "Do they [Republicans] want to see the president's economic agenda fail? You know, I bet there are a number of guests on television throughout the day and maybe into tomorrow who could let America know whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend." http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-fires-back-at-rush-limbaugh-2009-03-02.html"I guess they think they are covered as far as vets go since Napolitano clumsily "apologized" for offending the veterans. "
Another blatant lie. This is a blatant lie? The sentence begins with “I guess.” It is obviously an opinion. However, the opinion is based on the fact that Napolitano DID apologize for offending veterans, and in many minds, that attempt was clumsy."Somehow I missed her statements of apology to the conservative soccer moms of America for causing many to think that we might just snap at a moment's notice and start stockpiling AK-47s."
Another absurd inflammatory comment with no basis in fact. Inflammatory comment, quite possibly, however it is absolutely based in fact. There was no apology to the people like me who were offended by being labeled as potential domestic terrorists. This is a fact."Not too long after this statement, he was quoted as saying, "I won. I think on this one, I trump you." What? Did he think he was above using the schoolyard phrase as so many of us are used to hearing it? He would have scored more points with third graders if he'd have just broken out in a round of, "We won, we won, we shot the b.b. gun! You lost, you lost, you ate tomato sauce!""
Quote not in context. While not a lie, it is intentionally misleading. This quote is in context, in a meeting with Republicans who disagreed with him, he stated, “I won. I think on this one, I trump you.” It was widely reported, which is I guess the only reason you agreed that it was not a lie. It is not misleading. Obama used that sentence to shoot down Republican voices of dissent. I thought it was childish, hence the schoolyard taunt.There you go. I skipped a few parts, but typing all of this into a little box its hard to keep the threads straight. And there you go. This will be my last post on the topic. I just wanted to address anything that you attempted to say was a lie or incorrect.

Anonymous said...

Olympia,
What are you babbling on about? You found a link on a partisan site and you want to share? Tell you what, since I have seen this already (ala your other post) I will comment over at the shorter one. Just as an FYI I will show you how to embed a link there as well.

Someone showed that to me on this site a long time ago, and I am just passing along the favor.

Natalie,
There are a number of holes in your logic, but I am too tired to type them all out. The point I was trying to get across I think sunk in. But I warn you, I won't be so forgiving with your next post! :-)

Dr. Dave,
I have no idea who that other poster was and to be honest, I am a little unclear on their point. Thank you for trying to clear it up, and to whoever you are in Pennsylvania -welcome to the blog.

Peace.
Rick Beagle

Smart Girl Politics ©Template Blogger Green by Dicas Blogger.

TOPO