Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 53 to 65 of 101
  1. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
    Dude, that was Mr. Obama's own words--he said in an interview that he'd have plenty of political capital to spend on immigration reform next year, and that this health care would not reduce that capital significantly.
    Try denying this-- Immigration reform in the majority of Democratic positions is amnesty for those who are here. And yeah, that's right, you get Dubya back on that one. Happy birthday.
    Well man, if you can point out in the current version of the health reform bill a provision granting illegal immigrants the same health benefits as U.S. citizens, then I will rethink Wilson's outburst. This would also apply to any policy statements made by Obama.


    Hell, the one thing Dubya got right was his immigration reform policy. I give him full credit for that. Too bad the reactionaries in his own party felt it more politically expedient to pander to the base rather than work on a realistic solution.

    Thanks for the B-Day wishes.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  2. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaT View Post
    "From Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller

    In an acknowledgment that the Department of Education provided lesson plans written somewhat inartfully, surrounding the President Obama’s speech to students next Tuesday, the White House today announced that it had rewritten one of the sections in question.

    President Obama will talk to students from Pre K thru 12th grade about personal responsibility and the importance of staying in school, White House aides said.

    As one of the preparatory materials for teachers provided by the Department of Education, students had been asked to, "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. “

    There's more available at ABC's website."


    This is from a news source that I would need to go back and get the details as I did not copy that part. However, I'm sure it's not necessary for the following reasons.

    The Department of Education was given a copy of his original speech so teaches could see it last week. In it were the word consisting of "what can you do for the president" among a few other phrases suggesting loyality to the president by these kids.

    This was followed by an uproar by much of John Q. Public. The original copy has been removed from the Department of Educations web site, interestingly enough..

    In the following days the next speech given to the Department of Education for the teachers by The White House did not include that phase along with other objectional language.

    Now the talk is how wonderful his speech was as if he never written the first speech.

    This is a pattern of his.

    What's most interesting is that you act as if you didn't know this took place. What an interesting method to escape dealing with this issue. Yet you will quote and proclaim connections, understandings and knowledge of Obama in everything he does or does not do.

    I gave you credit for being informed and wanted to hear your point of view as to why you follow this gentleman and what you see in him so I may see for myself. Perhaps I'm missing something.

    However you have followed the same path as the Obama supporters that I have equally asked questions of regarding their devotion to this person.

    And you say we never come up with any facts or information.

    I see Obama as someone who is weaving a web or lies and deciete ( I miss-spelled deceit on purpose so that you can nulliby this post since I miss-spelled that word and a few other). This will save you time in looking for an excuse as it's evident of how your thought process works.

    We are truly being divided by this person who is in the White House.
    http://factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-speech-to-schools/

    White House spokesman Tony Vietor told us that the speech itself had not been suvstantively changed.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  3. #55
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Houston Texas
    Posts
    6,316
    Just saying:

    By Ellen Carmichael

    The Hill newspaper has reported today that there have already been 23 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives who have publicly proclaimed that they will not support a government overhaul of the health care industry as proposed by President Barack Obama and liberals in Congress.In the article “Already, 23 Dems Have Said They Will Vote ‘No’ on Healthcare Reform,” Mike Soraghan and Michael M. Gleeson outline the opposition of these Democrats, explaining that they justify their “nay” vote by pointing out the imposition of new taxes on individuals, the creation of fines on businesses who fail to provide insurance for their employees and the staggering price tag of the proposals. For some, these concerns are only exacerbated by the legislation’s provision for a mandatory abortion subsidy.

    The Hill lists the following Democrats as those who have indicated they would vote against Obamacare:

    John Adler (N.J.)
    Jason Altmire (Pa.)
    John Barrow (Ga.)
    Dan Boren (Okla.)
    Rick Boucher (Va.)
    Allen Boyd (Fla.)
    Bobby Bright (Ala.)
    Travis Childers (Miss.)
    Jim Costa (Calif.)
    Henry Cuellar (Texas)
    Parker Griffith (Ala.)
    Frank Kratovil (Md.)
    Betsy Markey (Colo.)
    Eric Massa (N.Y.)
    Jim Matheson (Utah)
    Charlie Melancon (La.)
    Walt Minnick (Idaho)
    Tom Perriello (Va.)
    Earl Pomeroy (N.D.)
    Heath Shuler (N.C.)
    Bart Stupak (Mich.)
    John Tanner (Tenn.)
    Gene Taylor (Miss.)
    A few Congressional Democrats have become especially outspoken critics of the proposals, including Congressman Gene Taylor (D-MS) and Congressman John Adler (D-NJ). Some are definitive.

    There’s Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), a Blue Dog who is one of the most conservative members of the Democratic Caucus. He told a town hall meeting last month, “I would hope by now that everyone in this room knows that I am not going to vote for the healthcare plan.”

    Rep. John Adler (D-N.J.), a vulnerable Democrat, was equally blunt. He told a group of constituents last month, “The bill that’s coming through the House, with or without the public option, isn’t good for America.”

    Still, there are some Democratic lawmakers who remain undecided on their stance, weighing the consequences of scathing public sentiment and partisan solidarity.

    Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), who unseated an incumbent in 2008 by a scant 745 votes, said at a town hall meeting, “I am a ‘no’ now, but I really want to get to a ‘yes.’ ”

    And plenty of others aren’t ready to take a position.

    “I’ll do the best I can, but I don’t know what’s the right thing to do yet,” Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) told the Los Angeles Times after a town hall meeting. “I don’t know what I’m going to do. I don’t even know what we’re going to be voting on.”

    Moreover, there are some Democrats who reject the bill “in its current form” but do not appear to rule out other reform initiatives. It seems that they perceive the public option as a widely unpopular proposal and have voiced their disapproval of this particular bill as a means to shield themselves from unhappy constituents as they work towards passage of alternative legislation.

    Others, such as Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), say they can’t support the bill “in its current form.” The bill is widely expected to change before it goes to the House floor, but if Pelosi keeps the public option in the bill, many centrists will see it as a left-leaning bill.

    Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), who unseated an incumbent in 2008 by a scant 745 votes, said at a town hall meeting, “I am a ‘no’ now, but I really want to get to a ‘yes.’ ”

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) expressed that she is unconcerned with these dissenters within her party, arguing that their votes would not be necessary to pass the sweeping forms that progressives desire.

    The Pelosi camp, for its part, sees no reason to be discouraged.

    “The Congress will pass and the president will sign this year health insurance reform that will lower costs, retain choice, improve quality and expand coverage,” said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

    Pelosi has vowed to include in the bill a government-run insurance plan, commonly called a “public option,” to compete with private insurers.

    It is apparent that this hardline approach to health care reform is meant to appease far-Left lawmakers, special interests and media. With members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), pro-Obamacare special interests and liberals in the blogosphere demanding a public option, Speaker Pelosi must answer to their call for single-payer philosophy to dictate the legislation produced.

    But deleting the public option won’t make life easier for Pelosi.

    At least 60 liberal Democrats have pledged to vote against a healthcare bill with no public option, which they view as watered-down reform.

    Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) has said dropping the public option completely would lose 100 Democratic votes.

    If moderate Democrats hold out on the public option and liberal Democrats block a “compromise” measure, such as a co-operatives system or “trigger” phase-in, what choices remain for Congress? Certainly, Speaker Pelosi, despite being far more liberal than nearly all of her colleagues in the House, has achieved enormous success in agenda-setting and ensuring the passage of progressive legislation since she assumed her leadership role in 2007.

    Even Pelosi’s critics and skeptics have to concede that she has almost never lost in the House since becoming Speaker. The main exception is the first vote on the $700 billion bailout package requested by the Bush administration, which later passed.

    She twisted arms one by one in July to pass a climate change bill despite deep skepticism among centrists and Democrats from manufacturing states. But some of the public backlash from that has frightened and angered centrist and vulnerable members.

    Health care reform might be the exception. The Hill asserts that if all Republicans vote against the proposals, Speaker Pelosi “can afford to lose only 38 members of her 256-member caucus and still pass the bill.”

    The Blue Dog Coalition, made up of 2 members, has already issued several statements that indicate their group opposes health care reform legislation as it is currently presented by their liberal colleagues and the Obama Administration.

  4. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    7,748
    So you send me back the same information that I showed to you verifying that Obama did change his wording once the public objected?

    I had a dog once that had two tails. One was on his nose and one on his butt. His right legs were also shorter than his left legs so when he went for a walk all he did was go in circles.

    For those that didn't click on his link, here is a large part of the main body of the response:

    From Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller

    In an acknowledgment that the Department of Education provided lesson plans written somewhat inartfully, surrounding the President Obama’s speech to students next Tuesday, the White House today announced that it had rewritten one of the sections in question.

    President Obama will talk to students from Pre K thru 12th grade about personal responsibility and the importance of staying in school, White House aides said.

    As one of the preparatory materials for teachers provided by the Department of Education, students had been asked to, "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. “

    Today, after Republicans accused the White House of trying to indoctrinate school children with liberal propaganda the White House and the Department of Education changed the section to now read, "Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short‐term and long‐term education goals.”

    “We changed it to clarify the language so the intent is clear,” said White House Spokesman Tommy Vietor.

    The idea, Vietor said, was that students should think of how they could help the President in terms of reducing the national dropout rate.
    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public's own money.
    - Alexis de Toqueville, 1835

  5. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaT View Post
    So you send me back the same information that I showed to you verifying that Obama did change his wording once the public objected?

    I had a dog once that had two tails. One was on his nose and one on his butt. His right legs were also shorter than his left legs so when he went for a walk all he did was go in circles.

    For those that didn't click on his link, here is a large part of the main body of the response:

    From Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller

    In an acknowledgment that the Department of Education provided lesson plans written somewhat inartfully, surrounding the President Obama’s speech to students next Tuesday, the White House today announced that it had rewritten one of the sections in question.

    President Obama will talk to students from Pre K thru 12th grade about personal responsibility and the importance of staying in school, White House aides said.

    As one of the preparatory materials for teachers provided by the Department of Education, students had been asked to, "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. “

    Today, after Republicans accused the White House of trying to indoctrinate school children with liberal propaganda the White House and the Department of Education changed the section to now read, "Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short‐term and long‐term education goals.”

    “We changed it to clarify the language so the intent is clear,” said White House Spokesman Tommy Vietor.

    The idea, Vietor said, was that students should think of how they could help the President in terms of reducing the national dropout rate.
    You didn't see the part about the speech was not substantively changed?
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  6. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaT View Post
    So you send me back the same information that I showed to you verifying that Obama did change his wording once the public objected?

    I had a dog once that had two tails. One was on his nose and one on his butt. His right legs were also shorter than his left legs so when he went for a walk all he did was go in circles.

    For those that didn't click on his link, here is a large part of the main body of the response:

    From Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller

    In an acknowledgment that the Department of Education provided lesson plans written somewhat inartfully, surrounding the President Obama’s speech to students next Tuesday, the White House today announced that it had rewritten one of the sections in question.

    President Obama will talk to students from Pre K thru 12th grade about personal responsibility and the importance of staying in school, White House aides said.

    As one of the preparatory materials for teachers provided by the Department of Education, students had been asked to, "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. “

    Today, after Republicans accused the White House of trying to indoctrinate school children with liberal propaganda the White House and the Department of Education changed the section to now read, "Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short‐term and long‐term education goals.”

    “We changed it to clarify the language so the intent is clear,” said White House Spokesman Tommy Vietor.

    The idea, Vietor said, was that students should think of how they could help the President in terms of reducing the national dropout rate.


    One approach, could include denial of all public assistance for family's with dropouts.


    Stay Gold,
    Conky
    AVATAR removed by Mod Staff

  7. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    7,748
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaT View Post
    Mike
    You seem to have a direct connection & understanding with Obama and his actions.

    Last week in his public presentation of his prepared School speech he used the words "What can you do for Obama" or something very close to that. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Lot's of shouting and heaving came from John Q. Public, especially parents to that. When he did speak his speach didn't come close to what he originally wrote the week previous.

    Did he change the words because he realized he could be or would be crossing a line that he shouldn't? Or did he modify his speech to make it look more acceptable?

    The changing of his words along with a lot of other past things such as attempting to push through the health care package before most anyone could read it just seems do disingenuous as with his modification to the words of his school childrens speech.
    In my serious and sincere attempt to communicate with you I am now quoting myself.

    I asked the above. Obama did change his speech when resistance was expressed.

    Seems I had to answer my own question.
    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public's own money.
    - Alexis de Toqueville, 1835

  8. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaT View Post
    In my serious and sincere attempt to communicate with you I am now quoting myself.

    I asked the above. Obama did change his speech when resistance was expressed.

    Seems I had to answer my own question.
    You may quote whatever sources you please but back it up with some evidence.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  9. #61
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Houston Texas
    Posts
    6,316
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    You didn't see the part about the speech was not substantively changed?
    We only have the administrations word that the speech was not changed. An administration that is well documented as being liars.

    Since all we have to go on is what was pre released and then changed we will never know the truth.

  10. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by bootlen View Post
    Really? So YOU know this and BO does not? And if he knows, why did he insist on speaking to them?
    Its good politics, if he can keep the right looking like a bunch of kooks then 2010 will be a very good year.

    BTW you are falling for it hook line and sinker, we on the left need more like you on the right bootlen.

  11. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by classical View Post
    We only have the administrations word that the speech was not changed. An administration that is well documented as being liars.

    Since all we have to go on is what was pre released and then changed we will never know the truth.
    So if there is no proof its a lie then it has to be one.

    I take it you get turned down for jury duty a lot?

  12. #64
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Houston Texas
    Posts
    6,316
    Obama has a marked propensity for lying he shows it in almost everything he says and does. Why would we believe otherwise in this instance.

  13. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by classical View Post
    We only have the administrations word that the speech was not changed. An administration that is well documented as being liars.

    Since all we have to go on is what was pre released and then changed we will never know the truth.
    Then you have no evidence.

    Frankly Al, this is such a petty issue, ranking right up there with the Obama is not a legal citizen, that it is hard to understand why so much bandwidth has been wasted on it.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event