100 days in.....
thegladhatter
04-23-2009, 04:25 PM
Are you impressed?
I'm sure not.
100 days: What Obama wants you to read
By JIM VANDEHEI & JOHN F. HARRIS | 4/23/09 4:23 AM EDT
One of the Washington media’s most time-honored rituals is starting to flower, with the blossoms at peak for the next week or so.
April 29 will be the 100th day of Barack Obama’s presidency.
The “100 days” concept has had mythical status since the days of the New Deal, when Franklin D. Roosevelt made history with a blizzard of bold federal actions. And reporters have been addicted to stories around this milestone in every administration since.
White House senior adviser David Axelrod calls the 100th day a “Hallmark holiday,” an essentially artificial event with no genuine significance. But he and his colleagues also know the reality: The early-verdict stories are going to be written, creating both a challenge and opportunity for the new president.
So senior White House aides are playing the game with relish, doling out made-to-order anecdotes and what-it-means analytical insights to help reporters write their 100 days pieces. You can already see the results in a spate of stories that — thanks to competitive pressures — editors are deciding to publish before the actual 100th day.
Full disclosure: POLITICO plunged in with our furrowed brow appraisal of Obama’s first 100 days, which will be published on Friday in a special glossy 100 Days magazine.
For that story, we spoke to top White House officials. So it’s with some authority that we can offer this user’s guide to 100 days stories.
Here are seven things the White House wants reporters to write:
Obama is a promise-keeper.
The White House is pushing back against what it realizes is a dangerous perception that Obama may be trying to do too much, too fast — and cynically exploiting the economic crisis to push through unrelated agenda items. Aides are urging reporters to reread his campaign speeches, dating back to 2006, to see that Obama was upfront with voters on his big ambitions. They are basically right.
Of course, there was never talk of a $787 billion stimulus plan or a $3.6 trillion budget or $1 trillion-plus deficits during those campaign speeches. Look for the 100 days stories to be loaded with full-throated defenses of Obama’s swing-for-the-fences approach.
Obama is a game-changer.
The White House is worried that the public does not sufficiently grasp Obama’s view that his ideas fit together in a coherent strategy to force massive change in government, the financial sector and, ultimately, people’s lives. Obama took a crack at telling this story himself in a recent speech at Georgetown.
The press didn’t really bite. The Wall Street Journal’s Jerry Seib last week wrote a column on how that was the objective of the speech. But there have been few stories that have detailed the president’s broader vision. The obsession with the 100 days milestone is a perfect opportunity for the president’s message-framers to try again.
The rest of the article is at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21605.html
I'm sure not.
100 days: What Obama wants you to read
By JIM VANDEHEI & JOHN F. HARRIS | 4/23/09 4:23 AM EDT
One of the Washington media’s most time-honored rituals is starting to flower, with the blossoms at peak for the next week or so.
April 29 will be the 100th day of Barack Obama’s presidency.
The “100 days” concept has had mythical status since the days of the New Deal, when Franklin D. Roosevelt made history with a blizzard of bold federal actions. And reporters have been addicted to stories around this milestone in every administration since.
White House senior adviser David Axelrod calls the 100th day a “Hallmark holiday,” an essentially artificial event with no genuine significance. But he and his colleagues also know the reality: The early-verdict stories are going to be written, creating both a challenge and opportunity for the new president.
So senior White House aides are playing the game with relish, doling out made-to-order anecdotes and what-it-means analytical insights to help reporters write their 100 days pieces. You can already see the results in a spate of stories that — thanks to competitive pressures — editors are deciding to publish before the actual 100th day.
Full disclosure: POLITICO plunged in with our furrowed brow appraisal of Obama’s first 100 days, which will be published on Friday in a special glossy 100 Days magazine.
For that story, we spoke to top White House officials. So it’s with some authority that we can offer this user’s guide to 100 days stories.
Here are seven things the White House wants reporters to write:
Obama is a promise-keeper.
The White House is pushing back against what it realizes is a dangerous perception that Obama may be trying to do too much, too fast — and cynically exploiting the economic crisis to push through unrelated agenda items. Aides are urging reporters to reread his campaign speeches, dating back to 2006, to see that Obama was upfront with voters on his big ambitions. They are basically right.
Of course, there was never talk of a $787 billion stimulus plan or a $3.6 trillion budget or $1 trillion-plus deficits during those campaign speeches. Look for the 100 days stories to be loaded with full-throated defenses of Obama’s swing-for-the-fences approach.
Obama is a game-changer.
The White House is worried that the public does not sufficiently grasp Obama’s view that his ideas fit together in a coherent strategy to force massive change in government, the financial sector and, ultimately, people’s lives. Obama took a crack at telling this story himself in a recent speech at Georgetown.
The press didn’t really bite. The Wall Street Journal’s Jerry Seib last week wrote a column on how that was the objective of the speech. But there have been few stories that have detailed the president’s broader vision. The obsession with the 100 days milestone is a perfect opportunity for the president’s message-framers to try again.
The rest of the article is at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21605.html
thegladhatter
04-23-2009, 04:43 PM
Obama’s leap to socialism
By Dick Morris
Posted: 04/21/09 05:21 PM [ET]
President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our country’s banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.
This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.
Obama is dressing up the idea of the switch to common stock by noting that the conversion would provide the banks with capital they could use without a further taxpayer appropriation. While this is true, it flies in the face of the fact that an increasing number of big banks and brokerage houses are clamoring to give back the TARP money. Goldman-Sachs, for example, wants to buy back its freedom, as do many banks. Even AIG is selling off assets to dig its way out from under federal control. The reason, of course, is that company executives do not like the restrictions on executive pay and compensation that come with TARP money. It is for this reason that Chrysler Motors refused TARP funds.
With bank profits up and financial institutions trying to give back their money, there is no need for the conversion of the government stock from preferred to common — except to advance the political socialist agenda of this administration.
Meanwhile, to keep its leverage over the economy intact, the Obama administration is refusing to let banks and other companies give back the TARP money until they pass a financial “stress test.” Nominally, the government justifies this procedure by saying that it does not want companies to become fully private prematurely and then need more help later on. But don’t believe it. They want to keep the TARP money in the banks so they can have a reason and rationale to control them.
The Times story did not influence the dialogue of the day. People were much more concerned with the death of 21 horses at a polo match. Much as we will miss these noble animals, we will miss our economic freedom more.
Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their best-selling book, Fleeced, go to dickmorris.com.
The Times dutifully dressed up the Obama plan as a way to avoid asking Congress for more money for failing banks. But the implications of the proposal are obvious to anyone who cares to look.
When the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) intervention was first outlined by the Bush administration, it did not call for any transfer of stock, of any sort, to the government. The Democrats demanded, as a price for their support, that the taxpayers “get something back” for the money they were lending to the banks. House Republicans, wise to what was going on, rejected the administration’s proposal and sought, instead, to provide insurance to banks, rather than outright cash. Their plan would, of course, not involve any transfer of stock. But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) undercut his own party’s conservatives and went along with the Democratic plan, ensuring its passage.
But to avoid the issue of a potential for government control of the banks, everybody agreed that the stock the feds would take back in return for their money would be preferred stock, not common stock. “Preferred” means that these stockholders get the first crack at dividends, but only common stockholders can actually vote on company management or policy. Now, by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.
And whoever controls the banks controls the credit and, therefore, the economy. That’s called socialism.
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-leap-to-socialism-2009-04-21.html
By Dick Morris
Posted: 04/21/09 05:21 PM [ET]
President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our country’s banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.
This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.
Obama is dressing up the idea of the switch to common stock by noting that the conversion would provide the banks with capital they could use without a further taxpayer appropriation. While this is true, it flies in the face of the fact that an increasing number of big banks and brokerage houses are clamoring to give back the TARP money. Goldman-Sachs, for example, wants to buy back its freedom, as do many banks. Even AIG is selling off assets to dig its way out from under federal control. The reason, of course, is that company executives do not like the restrictions on executive pay and compensation that come with TARP money. It is for this reason that Chrysler Motors refused TARP funds.
With bank profits up and financial institutions trying to give back their money, there is no need for the conversion of the government stock from preferred to common — except to advance the political socialist agenda of this administration.
Meanwhile, to keep its leverage over the economy intact, the Obama administration is refusing to let banks and other companies give back the TARP money until they pass a financial “stress test.” Nominally, the government justifies this procedure by saying that it does not want companies to become fully private prematurely and then need more help later on. But don’t believe it. They want to keep the TARP money in the banks so they can have a reason and rationale to control them.
The Times story did not influence the dialogue of the day. People were much more concerned with the death of 21 horses at a polo match. Much as we will miss these noble animals, we will miss our economic freedom more.
Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their best-selling book, Fleeced, go to dickmorris.com.
The Times dutifully dressed up the Obama plan as a way to avoid asking Congress for more money for failing banks. But the implications of the proposal are obvious to anyone who cares to look.
When the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) intervention was first outlined by the Bush administration, it did not call for any transfer of stock, of any sort, to the government. The Democrats demanded, as a price for their support, that the taxpayers “get something back” for the money they were lending to the banks. House Republicans, wise to what was going on, rejected the administration’s proposal and sought, instead, to provide insurance to banks, rather than outright cash. Their plan would, of course, not involve any transfer of stock. But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) undercut his own party’s conservatives and went along with the Democratic plan, ensuring its passage.
But to avoid the issue of a potential for government control of the banks, everybody agreed that the stock the feds would take back in return for their money would be preferred stock, not common stock. “Preferred” means that these stockholders get the first crack at dividends, but only common stockholders can actually vote on company management or policy. Now, by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.
And whoever controls the banks controls the credit and, therefore, the economy. That’s called socialism.
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-leap-to-socialism-2009-04-21.html
thegladhatter
04-23-2009, 04:55 PM
Some find him flat out boring!
Barack-a-Bye Baby -- Obama Advisor Nods Off
Posted Apr 23rd 2009 3:01PM by TMZ Staff
Barack Obama wants change -- his top economic advisor just wants a nap.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/media/2009/04/0423_larry_summers_snoozing_bs.jpg
Just moments ago, Lawrence Summers, Director of the White House's National Economic Council, was caught dozing off during a meeting with credit card officials.
Looks like someone needs a more stimulating stimulus plan...
http://www.tmz.com/2009/04/23/barack-a-bye-baby-obama-advisor-nods-off/
Barack-a-Bye Baby -- Obama Advisor Nods Off
Posted Apr 23rd 2009 3:01PM by TMZ Staff
Barack Obama wants change -- his top economic advisor just wants a nap.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/media/2009/04/0423_larry_summers_snoozing_bs.jpg
Just moments ago, Lawrence Summers, Director of the White House's National Economic Council, was caught dozing off during a meeting with credit card officials.
Looks like someone needs a more stimulating stimulus plan...
http://www.tmz.com/2009/04/23/barack-a-bye-baby-obama-advisor-nods-off/
ericn1300
04-25-2009, 11:10 PM
The Dick Morris? The get on all four and bark for me Dick Morris? I haven't heard of him for years, did his mistress let him off the leash?
Shortbus
04-26-2009, 12:39 AM
100 days in = 100 days of failure so far IMO
BNaylor
04-26-2009, 01:15 AM
Not according to the latest AP poll. :lol:
Source: AP
AP Poll: After Obama's 100 days, US on right track
WASHINGTON – Millions of people jobless. Billions of dollars in bailouts. Trillions of dollars in U.S. debt. And yet, for the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is on the right track.
In a sign that Barack Obama has inspired hopes for a brighter future in the first 100 days of his presidency, an Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe the United States is headed in the right direction — compared with 44 percent who disagree.
The "right direction" number is up 8 points since February and a remarkable 31 points since October, the month before Obama's election.
Link to Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama100_days_ap_poll)
I can tolerate Obama and he can talk fluff all he wants as long as he doesn't screw with the U.S. Military.
Source: AP
AP Poll: After Obama's 100 days, US on right track
WASHINGTON – Millions of people jobless. Billions of dollars in bailouts. Trillions of dollars in U.S. debt. And yet, for the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is on the right track.
In a sign that Barack Obama has inspired hopes for a brighter future in the first 100 days of his presidency, an Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe the United States is headed in the right direction — compared with 44 percent who disagree.
The "right direction" number is up 8 points since February and a remarkable 31 points since October, the month before Obama's election.
Link to Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama100_days_ap_poll)
I can tolerate Obama and he can talk fluff all he wants as long as he doesn't screw with the U.S. Military.
HotZ28
04-27-2009, 10:20 PM
Obama Loosed 'Dogs of War' on CIA
Former Senator, TV star and presidential candidate Fred Thompson tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is revealing his “naivete, ineptitude and arrogance” as he deals with matters of national security.
The Tennessee Republican, who now hosts a radio show on Westwood One along with his wife Jeri, also said the “dogs of war have been loosed” over left-wing attempts to single out Bush-era officials for prosecution relating to the treatment of detainees.
Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella cited the announcement that the Defense Department is going to release many pictures showing alleged abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked Thompson what purpose that might serve. “None, other than to serve as propaganda tools for our worst enemies,” Thompson said.
See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle - Click Here Now (http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V3683937)
“This was set in motion when the president first decided to release” CIA memos on interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects, Thompson told Newsmax. “There was no purpose in doing that except to make him look good internationally and to the left wing here at home,” he said. “It did a lot of damage.
“In one stroke of a pen he declassified top-secret documents that people would otherwise go to jail for releasing. It gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a blueprint as to the outer limits of our interrogation techniques.
“We have to remember that [the techniques were used] in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress was briefed on these techniques. Some of them asked if they were really going far enough to get what they needed to get, and it was approved at high levels in the administration. “They carefully crafted them as best they could to not go too far, and to provide safeguards when they were carrying out these admittedly rough techniques on these people who had this vital information.
“So now we’re really talking about a war crimes tribunal, which this country has never done. We’ve never brought to criminal court prior administrations in this country. “Harry Truman could have been accused of war crimes, I suppose, for dropping the bombs. President Obama authorized the killing of those three [pirates] in the Indian Ocean not too long ago. Prosecuting these people under these circumstances is something you hear about in banana republics and third-world countries, not the United States of America.
“The president’s opened up a terrible Pandora’s Box and there’s going to be a price to pay before this thing is ended.” Martella asked if the Obama administration was acquiescing to its far-left base when it released the CIA memos on interrogation techniques. “I think in this case, in all probability, they thought that they could cater to their left wing, appease their demands, by releasing these memos and then it might not go any further,” Thompson said. “Because surely they were able to see that this was bad for them the way it’s going to be bad for the country. “This is going to have ramifications that are far-reaching. They thought they could put the genie back in the bottle after they opened it, and of course appeasement never works that way. “There was a firestorm. The attorney general’s received 250 names in a petition to urge the appointment of a special prosecutor for this. The left-wing blogs went nuts. They started running television ads and so forth.
“And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience.
“We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now he’s cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before. “We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.” Martella noted that Rep. Peter King of New York has said that if Democrats do go ahead and attempt to prosecute Bush administration CIA interrogation lawyers, the Republicans should “go to war” with them.
“That just gives you an example of the atmosphere on Capitol Hill today,” Thompson observed. “People are angry. People are upset. You’ve got people on the left, you’ve got the Democrats talking about truth commissions, talking about investigations and Congressional hearings and urging prosecution. They’re fighting among each other on the Democratic side as to just how they should go and how far they should go.”
Some of these Democrats are “the same people who were briefed on these techniques back in 2002,” Thompson said, “including Nancy Pelosi, who’s not telling the truth now, who’s trying to parse words and trying to get around the fact that she knew what was going on, as others did back when this happened.
“That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.”
Source (http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/fred_thompson_obama_cia/2009/04/26/207563.html?s=al&promo_code=7EB4-1)
Former Senator, TV star and presidential candidate Fred Thompson tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is revealing his “naivete, ineptitude and arrogance” as he deals with matters of national security.
The Tennessee Republican, who now hosts a radio show on Westwood One along with his wife Jeri, also said the “dogs of war have been loosed” over left-wing attempts to single out Bush-era officials for prosecution relating to the treatment of detainees.
Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella cited the announcement that the Defense Department is going to release many pictures showing alleged abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked Thompson what purpose that might serve. “None, other than to serve as propaganda tools for our worst enemies,” Thompson said.
See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle - Click Here Now (http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V3683937)
“This was set in motion when the president first decided to release” CIA memos on interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects, Thompson told Newsmax. “There was no purpose in doing that except to make him look good internationally and to the left wing here at home,” he said. “It did a lot of damage.
“In one stroke of a pen he declassified top-secret documents that people would otherwise go to jail for releasing. It gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a blueprint as to the outer limits of our interrogation techniques.
“We have to remember that [the techniques were used] in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress was briefed on these techniques. Some of them asked if they were really going far enough to get what they needed to get, and it was approved at high levels in the administration. “They carefully crafted them as best they could to not go too far, and to provide safeguards when they were carrying out these admittedly rough techniques on these people who had this vital information.
“So now we’re really talking about a war crimes tribunal, which this country has never done. We’ve never brought to criminal court prior administrations in this country. “Harry Truman could have been accused of war crimes, I suppose, for dropping the bombs. President Obama authorized the killing of those three [pirates] in the Indian Ocean not too long ago. Prosecuting these people under these circumstances is something you hear about in banana republics and third-world countries, not the United States of America.
“The president’s opened up a terrible Pandora’s Box and there’s going to be a price to pay before this thing is ended.” Martella asked if the Obama administration was acquiescing to its far-left base when it released the CIA memos on interrogation techniques. “I think in this case, in all probability, they thought that they could cater to their left wing, appease their demands, by releasing these memos and then it might not go any further,” Thompson said. “Because surely they were able to see that this was bad for them the way it’s going to be bad for the country. “This is going to have ramifications that are far-reaching. They thought they could put the genie back in the bottle after they opened it, and of course appeasement never works that way. “There was a firestorm. The attorney general’s received 250 names in a petition to urge the appointment of a special prosecutor for this. The left-wing blogs went nuts. They started running television ads and so forth.
“And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience.
“We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now he’s cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before. “We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.” Martella noted that Rep. Peter King of New York has said that if Democrats do go ahead and attempt to prosecute Bush administration CIA interrogation lawyers, the Republicans should “go to war” with them.
“That just gives you an example of the atmosphere on Capitol Hill today,” Thompson observed. “People are angry. People are upset. You’ve got people on the left, you’ve got the Democrats talking about truth commissions, talking about investigations and Congressional hearings and urging prosecution. They’re fighting among each other on the Democratic side as to just how they should go and how far they should go.”
Some of these Democrats are “the same people who were briefed on these techniques back in 2002,” Thompson said, “including Nancy Pelosi, who’s not telling the truth now, who’s trying to parse words and trying to get around the fact that she knew what was going on, as others did back when this happened.
“That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.”
Source (http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/fred_thompson_obama_cia/2009/04/26/207563.html?s=al&promo_code=7EB4-1)
03cavPA
04-28-2009, 12:16 PM
Fred said:
“That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.”
Let the witch hunts begin in earnest now. :headshake
“That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.”
Let the witch hunts begin in earnest now. :headshake
wafrederick
04-28-2009, 08:08 PM
I am not impressed with Obama and he lied,he said he would not take guns away.He lied about this,proposed a gun ban which I sent a card in to get his administration not to forward this.Stock up on ammunition,a tax on ammuntion which is very high being proposed
BNaylor
04-28-2009, 11:05 PM
Didn't Obama decide not to pursue the assault weapons ban? Of course that doesn't mean this issue won't come up again later in his term. :runaround:
Source: Chicago Tribune
Obama puts gun-control issue on back burner
Earlier this month, Obama suggested he does not believe the re-authorization of a federal ban is politically viable now. While he said he still believes the ban "made sense," he expressed greater interest in stricter enforcement of existing gun laws and efforts to more widely distribute gun-tracing information to local law enforcement.
Link to Article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-gunsapr27,0,5634133.story)
Source: Chicago Tribune
Obama puts gun-control issue on back burner
Earlier this month, Obama suggested he does not believe the re-authorization of a federal ban is politically viable now. While he said he still believes the ban "made sense," he expressed greater interest in stricter enforcement of existing gun laws and efforts to more widely distribute gun-tracing information to local law enforcement.
Link to Article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-gunsapr27,0,5634133.story)
thegladhatter
04-29-2009, 04:23 AM
Didn't Obama decide not to pursue the assault weapons ban? Of course that doesn't mean this issue won't come up again later in his term. :runaround:
[/i]
Of course it will come up again. In a marxist state it makes perfect sense!
[/i]
Of course it will come up again. In a marxist state it makes perfect sense!
HotZ28
04-29-2009, 11:23 AM
Here is one that you will not see reported in the main stream media! :screwy:
Obama Declines Iran Offer of al-Qaida Members
Click Here (http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_iran_al_qaida/2009/04/28/208184.html)for the full story :frown:
Obama don't have a clue! :uhoh:
Obama Declines Iran Offer of al-Qaida Members
Click Here (http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_iran_al_qaida/2009/04/28/208184.html)for the full story :frown:
Obama don't have a clue! :uhoh:
thegladhatter
04-29-2009, 12:32 PM
Obama don't have a clue! :uhoh:
ditto!
ditto!
HotZ28
04-29-2009, 09:00 PM
Take a tour from end-to-end of the first 100-days!! Click Here (http://www.newsmax.com/100days/jan_20.html)
Shortbus
04-29-2009, 09:12 PM
BNaylor
04-30-2009, 01:10 AM
Take a tour from end-to-end of the first 100-days!! Click Here (http://www.newsmax.com/100days/jan_20.html)
Do I really have to Bo? :sleep:
:lol:
Do I really have to Bo? :sleep:
:lol:
thegladhatter
04-30-2009, 09:47 PM
100 days.....100 screw-ups.... http://m.nypost.com/ms/p/nyp/nyp/view.m?id=23772&storyid=166177
wade623
05-16-2009, 01:46 PM
he already raised taxes on tobacco its like 8.50 a pack in az
HotZ28
05-20-2009, 09:58 PM
he already raised taxes on tobacco its like 8.50 a pack in azIn addition, now the liberals want to raise taxes on Coca Cola products to help pay for health care :wtf:
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025