Obama's first of many "read my lips" moments

Post by Mike/Speeed
As was fully expected AND predicted by ME, Obama has gone back on the first
one of many of his *big* campaign promises.
Obama claimed he would absolutely not allow any earmarks in any of the
legislation he signed, but damn, he just *has* to sign this bill, right?
Now he's going to blame this on the premise that this legislation was penned
before his time? LOL Right.
Here's a clue for you, Obama: JUST DON'T SIGN IT.
Send it back, make them remove the earmarks, THEN SIGN IT.
Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Why, yes, it would.
"CHANGE IS COMING" LOL. Suckers.

Of course, the situation is not as cut and dried as you've stated.

Had Obama sent the spending bill back, the Republicans would have
forced a government shutdown. Politically, it's a no-win situation for
Obama, which is why he tried to make the most of the situation by
keeping government going in a time of crisis, instead of insisting Ron
Paul remove his almost $100 million in earmarks.

You may sit and cheer all you want at what you perceive as a failure,
but once you think about it, what would be better for the country? Once
the Republican party decides it's better to work for the good of the
country instead of playing politics with Obama and fighting amongst
themselves, they will find themselves with a viable political party again.

jon

Mike/Speeed

2009-03-12 20:51:40 UTC

Of course, the situation is not as cut and dried as you've stated.
Had Obama sent the spending bill back, the Republicans would have forced a
government shutdown. Politically, it's a no-win situation for Obama, which
is why he tried to make the most of the situation by keeping government
going in a time of crisis, instead of insisting Ron Paul remove his almost
$100 million in earmarks.
You may sit and cheer all you want at what you perceive as a failure, but
once you think about it, what would be better for the country? Once the
Republican party decides it's better to work for the good of the country
instead of playing politics with Obama and fighting amongst themselves,
they will find themselves with a viable political party again.

The sad thing about it is that it *is* as cut & dry as that.
Are you telling me that Obama couldn't have seen this scenario playing
itself out while he was campaigning, or did he say anything just to get
elected?
Obama could have stood on principle, stood by his word, and did what he said
he would do.
He didn't.
Strike one against Obama.

Jon Milliren

2009-03-16 13:18:01 UTC

Of course, the situation is not as cut and dried as you've stated.
Had Obama sent the spending bill back, the Republicans would have
forced a government shutdown. Politically, it's a no-win situation for
Obama, which is why he tried to make the most of the situation by
keeping government going in a time of crisis, instead of insisting Ron
Paul remove his almost $100 million in earmarks.
You may sit and cheer all you want at what you perceive as a failure,
but once you think about it, what would be better for the country?
Once the Republican party decides it's better to work for the good of
the country instead of playing politics with Obama and fighting
amongst themselves, they will find themselves with a viable political
party again.

I agree with you that Obama could have seen this coming. Perhaps he did
see this coming, and picked his spot.

Post by Mike/Speeed
Obama could have stood on principle, stood by his word, and did what he
said he would do.
He didn't.

Why do you suppose that he didn't? I'm trying to be as thoughtful as I
can about this, and the reason I see is that the country is facing
enough problems without having to add a government shutdown on top of
that. You pick your spot.

Can you honestly tell me what you would say or do if he did stand his
ground here, and the government shutdown? Would you admire the fact that
he stood on principle, or would you decry another failure.

Post by Mike/Speeed
Strike one against Obama.

Obama can't win with you, can he?

jon

Mike/Speeed

2009-03-16 21:13:18 UTC

Of course, the situation is not as cut and dried as you've stated.
Had Obama sent the spending bill back, the Republicans would have forced
a government shutdown. Politically, it's a no-win situation for Obama,
which is why he tried to make the most of the situation by keeping
government going in a time of crisis, instead of insisting Ron Paul
remove his almost $100 million in earmarks.
You may sit and cheer all you want at what you perceive as a failure,
but once you think about it, what would be better for the country? Once
the Republican party decides it's better to work for the good of the
country instead of playing politics with Obama and fighting amongst
themselves, they will find themselves with a viable political party again.

I agree with you that Obama could have seen this coming. Perhaps he did
see this coming, and picked his spot.

Post by Mike/Speeed
Obama could have stood on principle, stood by his word, and did what he
said he would do.
He didn't.

Why do you suppose that he didn't? I'm trying to be as thoughtful as I can
about this, and the reason I see is that the country is facing enough
problems without having to add a government shutdown on top of that. You
pick your spot.
Can you honestly tell me what you would say or do if he did stand his
ground here, and the government shutdown?

He should have stood his ground and I would be the first one to stand up and
cheer.
These are hard times and what we need is a man who will stand by his word
and make the tough decisions. Covering his ass with this "I don't like this,
but I have to sign this" crap is just that: CRAP.
He could have easily secured temporary emergency funding to run the
government.

9000 earmarks<<<<<<<

Would you admire the fact that

Post by Jon Milliren
he stood on principle, or would you decry another failure.

Post by Mike/Speeed
Strike one against Obama.

Obama can't win with you, can he?

Not when he continually acts as I predicted he would.

Jon Milliren

2009-03-17 14:10:41 UTC

Of course, the situation is not as cut and dried as you've stated.
Had Obama sent the spending bill back, the Republicans would have
forced a government shutdown. Politically, it's a no-win situation
for Obama, which is why he tried to make the most of the situation
by keeping government going in a time of crisis, instead of
insisting Ron Paul remove his almost $100 million in earmarks.
You may sit and cheer all you want at what you perceive as a
failure, but once you think about it, what would be better for the
country? Once the Republican party decides it's better to work for
the good of the country instead of playing politics with Obama and
fighting amongst themselves, they will find themselves with a viable
political party again.

I agree with you that Obama could have seen this coming. Perhaps he
did see this coming, and picked his spot.

Post by Mike/Speeed
Obama could have stood on principle, stood by his word, and did what
he said he would do.
He didn't.

Why do you suppose that he didn't? I'm trying to be as thoughtful as I
can about this, and the reason I see is that the country is facing
enough problems without having to add a government shutdown on top of
that. You pick your spot.
Can you honestly tell me what you would say or do if he did stand his
ground here, and the government shutdown?

He should have stood his ground and I would be the first one to stand up
and cheer.
These are hard times and what we need is a man who will stand by his
word and make the tough decisions. Covering his ass with this "I don't
like this, but I have to sign this" crap is just that: CRAP.
He could have easily secured temporary emergency funding to run the
government.

9000 earmarks<<<<<<<

Ok, I can't argue with you there.

Well, I could but it would mostly be pointless comparisons of things
that haven't been done and men who have not done them. I respect your opin

jon

Post by Mike/Speeed
Would you admire the fact that

Post by Jon Milliren
he stood on principle, or would you decry another failure.

Post by Mike/Speeed
Strike one against Obama.

Obama can't win with you, can he?

Not when he continually acts as I predicted he would.

Mike/Speeed

2009-03-16 21:13:18 UTC

Of course, the situation is not as cut and dried as you've stated.
Had Obama sent the spending bill back, the Republicans would have forced
a government shutdown. Politically, it's a no-win situation for Obama,
which is why he tried to make the most of the situation by keeping
government going in a time of crisis, instead of insisting Ron Paul
remove his almost $100 million in earmarks.
You may sit and cheer all you want at what you perceive as a failure,
but once you think about it, what would be better for the country? Once
the Republican party decides it's better to work for the good of the
country instead of playing politics with Obama and fighting amongst
themselves, they will find themselves with a viable political party again.

I agree with you that Obama could have seen this coming. Perhaps he did
see this coming, and picked his spot.

Post by Mike/Speeed
Obama could have stood on principle, stood by his word, and did what he
said he would do.
He didn't.

Why do you suppose that he didn't? I'm trying to be as thoughtful as I can
about this, and the reason I see is that the country is facing enough
problems without having to add a government shutdown on top of that. You
pick your spot.
Can you honestly tell me what you would say or do if he did stand his
ground here, and the government shutdown?

9000 earmarks<<<<<<<

Would you admire the fact that

Post by Jon Milliren
he stood on principle, or would you decry another failure.

Post by Mike/Speeed
Strike one against Obama.

Obama can't win with you, can he?

Not when he continually acts as I predicted he would.

Jon Milliren

2009-03-12 19:11:39 UTC

Post by Mike/Speeed
Obama claimed he would absolutely not allow any earmarks in any of the
legislation he signed, but damn, he just *has* to sign this bill, right?

I'd also ask you to fact check this statement. Obama during the
campaign (in the first McCain debate) said he would reform the earmark
process. He never said he would eliminate earmarks, or absolutely not
allow any earmarks.

jon

Mike/Speeed

2009-03-12 22:58:35 UTC

Post by Mike/Speeed
Obama claimed he would absolutely not allow any earmarks in any of the
legislation he signed, but damn, he just *has* to sign this bill, right?

I'd also ask you to fact check this statement. Obama during the campaign
(in the first McCain debate) said he would reform the earmark process. He
never said he would eliminate earmarks, or absolutely not allow any
earmarks.

I never "quoted" anything. You want a quote, I got a quote:
He said & I quote: "I will go line by line to make sure we are not spending
money unwisely."

Fact check that statement.

But by all means Jon, keep on making excuses for him. He expects you to do
just that. Hell, he's counting on it.

Jean Smith

2009-03-13 13:48:36 UTC

Post by Mike/Speeed
Obama claimed he would absolutely not allow any earmarks in any of the
legislation he signed, but damn, he just *has* to sign this bill, right?

They want to pin McCain's promises on BHO.

--
More Cowboys and Indians http://www.genocide.org.uk/genocide/
Bill Nye Boo'd In Texas For...The Moon Reflects The Sun http://budurl.com/6y4n
AARP Bulletin: Battling Superbugs: http://budurl.com/w3qv
Also Battling Superbugs http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200903061

Mike/Speeed

2009-03-16 21:17:03 UTC

He never said he would eliminate earmarks, or absolutely not

Post by Jean Smith

Post by Jon Milliren
allow any earmarks.

They want to pin McCain's promises on BHO.

Hmmmmm...................:
http://youtu.be/kU9Q3NEPqAk

Your ignorance is neither funny or acceptable.
Now go play in traffic or something.

Jean Smith

2009-03-17 00:37:20 UTC

Post by Jon Milliren
He never said he would eliminate earmarks, or absolutely not

Post by Jean Smith

Post by Jon Milliren
allow any earmarks.

They want to pin McCain's promises on BHO.

http://youtu.be/kU9Q3NEPqAk
Your ignorance is neither funny or acceptable.
Now go play in traffic or something.

McCain promised to eliminate earmarks, a power the president doesn't really have.
BHO has already changed the earmark process by making the earmarks visible. We
now need to pressure our legislators to stop skimming from the appropriations.

--
Justice Sandra Day O'Conner Project http://www.ourcourts.org/curriculum-builder
More Cowboys and Indians http://www.genocide.org.uk/genocide/
AARP Bulletin: Battling Superbugs: http://budurl.com/w3qv
Also Battling Superbugs http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200903061

Patrick Volk

2009-03-13 01:28:04 UTC

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:37:54 -0500, "Mike/Speeed"

No big suprise... For a line-item veto to be approved, it has to get
through congress. As much as I want to see that, never going to
happen.

With all due respect, this is low-hanging fruit. I wish he wouldn't
sign it, because I think if the non-earmark payouts get delayed, it
doesn't change anything. Like I said before, at least pork tends to
create jobs... sometimes not the most useful ones, but better than
soon-to-be-bankrupt Company A buying was-past-bankrupt Company B.

Mike/Speeed

2009-03-13 18:06:11 UTC

Post by Patrick Volk
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:37:54 -0500, "Mike/Speeed"

No big suprise... For a line-item veto to be approved, it has to get
through congress. As much as I want to see that, never going to
happen.
With all due respect, this is low-hanging fruit. I wish he wouldn't
sign it, because I think if the non-earmark payouts get delayed, it
doesn't change anything. Like I said before, at least pork tends to
create jobs... sometimes not the most useful ones, but better than
soon-to-be-bankrupt Company A buying was-past-bankrupt Company B.

The only thing that really bothers about this whole deal is that this is
only the first in a long line of broken promises. The Obama administration &
numerous key Dems touted the new "Stimulus" lol, legislation to be free of
earmarks to anyone who had a camera or microphone handy. If that bill being
passed without earmarks is so great & such a groundbreaking event, then in
turn, this should be viewed as an absolute slap in the face to all of those
who voted for him/them.
A striking majority of the Dems & libs however, won't say as much as a word
about it because deep down in their hearts, THEY LOVE PORK.
I realize that as many Dems who porked up the bill, there is an equal number
of Repubs who used that bill as their own personal "Baconator" as well.
Unfortunately, the only one who could stop the madness (who happened to be
on record claiming he would do just that), promptly ignored the whole thing
as if it almost had never happened - right on cue also, I must add.

Patrick Volk

2009-03-15 00:38:49 UTC

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:06:11 -0500, "Mike/Speeed"