pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 25 Jan 2009 08:40:18
From: johnny_t
Subject: Obama's first 100 hours...


REGULATIONS

The Bush Record: In his final months, the Bush administration issued a
series of “midnight regulations” that gutted safeguards protecting
health, safety, the environment, and the public’s general welfare.

Obama’s Clean Break: Hours after his inauguration, Obama ordered a
freeze on new regulations at all government agencies and departments and
the withdrawal of all final or proposed regulations not yet published in
the Federal Register.

IRAQ

The Bush Record: After using false intelligence to launch the war, Bush
“surged” 30,000 troops to Iraq in 2007 and vetoed all attempts to end
the war.

Obama’s Clean Break: Two days into his presidency, Obama called on U.S.
military leaders to start to plan for a responsible withdrawal.

DIPLOMACY

The Bush Record: In his first term, Bush — in contrast to President Bill
Clinton — “generally avoided robust efforts” to resolve the Middle East
conflict. Bush demeaned diplomacy with “terrorists and radicals,”
likening it to the “appeasement” of Nazi Germany.

Obama’s Clean Break: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejected the
“rigid ideology” of Bush and pledged to exercise “smart power.”
Stressing diplomacy, Obama and Clinton “appointed high-level emissaries
to handle the Arab-Israeli issue and Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

TORTURE

The Bush Record: Torture began with the drafting of a secret legal memo
holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate anti-torture
laws. Bush’s senior-most officials approved torture that, in some cases,
lead to death.

Obama’s Clean Break: Obama signed executive orders ending the CIA’s
secret prisons and ending torture by requiring interrogations to abide
by the Army Field Manual.


GUANTANAMO

The Bush Record: Bush created the “legal black hole” that is Guantanamo
Bay. He called the harsh treatment of detainees there “an absurd
allegation” and was rebuked time and again by the Supreme Court.

Obama’s Clean Break: On his first day, Obama signed an executive order
closing Gitmo in one year and suspended all military tribunals for six
months.

TRANSPARENCY

The Bush Record: Two out of five FOIA requests filed in 2006 were not
processed. The number of exemptions increased 83 percent since 1998.

Obama’s Clean Break: Obama issued new orders instructing all agencies to
“adopt a presumption in favor” of FOIA requests. Obama is developing an
“Open Government Directive” over the next four months.

REVOLVING DOOR

The Bush Record: Many former Bush officials “joined the ranks of the
companies they once regulated where they are highly compensated. In many
instances, they have helped their new employers obtain lucrative
government grants and contracts.”

Obama’s Clean Break: Obama laid out stringent lobbying limits that will
ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave
his staff and will ban gifts from lobbyists to anyone in the administration.

WOMEN’S RIGHTS

The Bush Record: Bush reinstated the Global Gag Rule, which prohibited
aid from going toward any organization that mentioned abortion as an
option in family planning. Sixteen countries lost access to birth control.

Obama’s Clean Break: Obama overturned the Gag Rule on Jan. 23.




 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 07:27:48
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 25 2009 11:40 AM, johnny_t wrote:

LOL

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

------- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 14:34:09
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"johnny_t" <nobodyis@home.com > wrote in message
news:006873f7$0$10072$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
>
> REGULATIONS
>
> The Bush Record: In his final months, the Bush administration issued a
> series of “midnight regulations” that gutted safeguards protecting health,
> safety, the environment, and the public’s general welfare.

Bullshit.
>
> Obama’s Clean Break: Hours after his inauguration, Obama ordered a freeze
> on new regulations at all government agencies and departments and the
> withdrawal of all final or proposed regulations not yet published in the
> Federal Register.

Obama appointed a tax cheat to head the IRS and a Secretary of State whose
husband has been taking monetary gifts and kickbacks from foreign countries.
He appointed a Secretary of Commerce who had to withdraw because he got
caught taking kickbacks from businesses in exchange for state contracts.
Obama took some of the same kickback money but will never be investigated by
the liberal press. He was caught lying about having conversations with
disgraced Democrat Gov. Blago regarding filling his vacant Senate seat.

>
> IRAQ
>
> The Bush Record: After using false intelligence to launch the war, Bush
> “surged” 30,000 troops to Iraq in 2007 and vetoed all attempts to end the
> war.

And this strategy put America well on it's way to winning in Iraq. Had it
been left to Obama, America would have retreated and surrendered and Iran
and al queada would now control Iraq and its oil fields,
>
> Obama’s Clean Break: Two days into his presidency, Obama called on U.S.
> military leaders to start to plan for a responsible withdrawal.

Bush had already negotiated a responsible troop withdrawal plan with the
Iraqi government. If Obama pulls out too soon, as part of his cut-and-run,
retreat-and-surrentder strategy, he will have succeeded in snatching defeat
from the jaws of victory.
>
> DIPLOMACY
>
> The Bush Record: In his first term, Bush — in contrast to President Bill
> Clinton — “generally avoided robust efforts” to resolve the Middle East
> conflict. Bush demeaned diplomacy with “terrorists and radicals,” likening
> it to the “appeasement” of Nazi Germany.


There are many effective ways to negoitate with an enemy and the CIA and
other government agencies are well aware of them. Bush believed in
negotiating but not with the full office and authority of the President of
the United States, the most powerful position on the planet. When Obama
agreed to personally meet with any terrorist leader, without pre-conditions,
he diminished the office of the president and gave these terrorists groups a
huge propaganda victory.
It was an incredibly naive, arrogant and stupid thing to do.
>
> Obama’s Clean Break: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejected the
> “rigid ideology” of Bush and pledged to exercise “smart power.” Stressing
> diplomacy, Obama and Clinton “appointed high-level emissaries to handle
> the Arab-Israeli issue and Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

Hillary Clinton's husband has taken monetary gifts and kickbacks from many
of the countries she is supposed to be negotiating with. President Bush had
a host of people working on Arab-Israeli, Pakistan and Afghanistan issues.
He had the leaders of these countries to the White House for meetings and
discussions on numerous occassions. Because of Obama spending 20 years in a
church that preached anti-Semitic ideaology, and his proposed retreat and
surrender approach to terrorism in the middle east, he is not trusted by the
Israelis. This greatly increases the threat of a shooting war between
Israel and Iran.
>
> TORTURE
>
> The Bush Record: Torture began with the drafting of a secret legal memo
> holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate anti-torture
> laws. Bush’s senior-most officials approved torture that, in some cases,
> lead to death.

More bullshit.
>
> Obama’s Clean Break: Obama signed executive orders ending the CIA’s secret
> prisons and ending torture by requiring interrogations to abide by the
> Army Field Manual.

The army field manual was written for the average soldier in the field, not
highly trained CIA operatives and counter-terrorist interragators. It
basically says that you cannot do any thing that makes a captured terrorist
uncomfortable. There are many aggressive and highly effective
interrorgation techniques that do not involve torture. Obama has now
unilateraly taken these away from our agents. He has also announced to all
terrorist organizations that he has totally handcuffed our operatives which
makes it much easier for them to train their new recruits in how to exploit
that situation. This, combined with the fact that Obama has put a totally
unqualified, far left wing liberal in charge of the CIA will demoralize our
agents and greatly reduce their effectiveness. No one is going to risk
their life, or take a chance in the line of duty, when they know they've now
got a boss who is just looking for an excuse to hang them.


> GUANTANAMO
>
> The Bush Record: Bush created the “legal black hole” that is Guantanamo
> Bay. He called the harsh treatment of detainees there “an absurd
> allegation” and was rebuked time and again by the Supreme Court.

Bullshit. Terrorists at Gitmo have d better living conditions and more food
than they had when they were killing American soldiers and civilians.
>
> Obama’s Clean Break: On his first day, Obama signed an executive order
> closing Gitmo in one year and suspended all military tribunals for six
> months.

He closed Gitmo without a clue about what to do with the 250+ existing
terrorists detained there or the terrorists we may capture in the future.
If we throw these terrorists in to our civilian court system it will further
clog the system, drag out for decades and cost the tax payers tens of
millions of dollars. So now when an American soldier is in a firefight with
a terrorist, he has the added burden of reading the guy his Miranda rights.
Again, Obama just handed the terrorists another huge propaganda victory.

>
> TRANSPARENCY
>
> The Bush Record: Two out of five FOIA requests filed in 2006 were not
> processed. The number of exemptions increased 83 percent since 1998.
>
> Obama’s Clean Break: Obama issued new orders instructing all agencies to
> “adopt a presumption in favor” of FOIA requests. Obama is developing an
> “Open Government Directive” over the next four months.

Bullshit. CNN just nailed Obama on violating his own rule to hire a
lobbyist he wants to put on his staff. Obama has accepted tens of millions
of dollars in ear-mark spending and opposed John McCain's efforts to
eliminate earmarks. Obama is quickly confirming his reputation as a
hypocrite.
>
> REVOLVING DOOR
>
> The Bush Record: Many former Bush officials “joined the ranks of the
> companies they once regulated where they are highly compensated. In many
> instances, they have helped their new employers obtain lucrative
> government grants and contracts.”
>
> Obama’s Clean Break: Obama laid out stringent lobbying limits that will
> ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave his
> staff and will ban gifts from lobbyists to anyone in the administration.

As pointed out abouve, CNN just nailed Obama for violating his own rule to
hire a lobbyist he wants to put on his staff. He appointed a Secretary of
State whose husband is on record as accepting millions of dollars in
payments and kickbacks from foreign countries. Obama's economic advisor got
$90 million for running F-MAE and F-MAC in to the ground and Obama is
directly tied to the Tony Rezko corruption scandal.

>
> WOMEN’S RIGHTS
>
> The Bush Record: Bush reinstated the Global Gag Rule, which prohibited aid
> from going toward any organization that mentioned abortion as an option in
> family planning. Sixteen countries lost access to birth control.

Bush did not approve of American tax payer money going to fund abortions and
pro-abortion propaganda in foreign countries and there are tens of millions
of Americans who agree with him. Obama is the posterboy for Planned
Parenthood and they campaign for him and have kicked back tens of thousands
of dollars to his political treasure chest. Obama is the most pro-abortion
president in history and that only serves to further divide this country on
the abortion issue.
>
> Obama’s Clean Break: Obama overturned the Gag Rule on Jan. 23.

Obama dictated that American tax payer money will be used to murder unborn
children.

Summary:

Obama has gutted the defenses that have keep America safe from terrorist
attacks on our soil for the past seven and a half years. He has handcuffed
the CIA and greatly reduced America's intelligence gathering capability.
He will over see the biggest budget deficit in American history. He failed
to understand that the root cause of this economic disaster was forcing
financial institutions to make high risk loans to unqualified borrowers and
requiring F-MAE and F-MAC to buy them up. His stimulus package is nothing
more than a thinly disguised, massive welfare and give away program. It
will never be as effective as if he had cut income, business and corporate
taxes and eliminated the capital gains tax. Depending on which of speeches
you listen to, Obama has promised to save or create two, three or four
hundred million jobs in the next two years . He has never explained the
details of how this will be accomplished. What he has done is reduce
America's safety, hired a staff of Clinton hold-overs, insiders and hacks
and committed to spend a trillion plus dollars we don't have for a welfare
plan that will never produce the results he as promised.

Irish Mike

Very, very proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for
your Messiah.





  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 13:52:06
From: OrangeSFO
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
right on time Susan... the buzzing fly to Mike's pile of shit


   
Date: 25 Jan 2009 16:34:24
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"OrangeSFO" <intangible103@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:969316b8-20d2-4457-a877-fbfe01f398ce@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> right on time Susan... the buzzing fly to Mike's pile of shit

right on time orangie... .

your friend,
Susan Ashcraft




  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 12:09:44
From: gtech1
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Please list your sources for the following claims in your post:

1) Obama took some of the same kickback money but will never be
investigated by the liberal press

2) He was caught lying about having conversations with disgraced Democrat
Gov. Blago regarding filling his vacant Senate seat

3) Obama agreed to personally meet with any terrorist leader, without
pre-conditions

On Jan 25 2009 2:34 PM, Irish Mike wrote:

> "johnny_t" <nobodyis@home.com> wrote in message
> news:006873f7$0$10072$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> >
> >
> > REGULATIONS
> >
> > The Bush Record: In his final months, the Bush administration issued a
> > series of “midnight regulations” that gutted safeguards protecting health,
> > safety, the environment, and the public’s general welfare.
>
> Bullshit.
> >
> > Obama’s Clean Break: Hours after his inauguration, Obama ordered a freeze
> > on new regulations at all government agencies and departments and the
> > withdrawal of all final or proposed regulations not yet published in the
> > Federal Register.
>
> Obama appointed a tax cheat to head the IRS and a Secretary of State whose
> husband has been taking monetary gifts and kickbacks from foreign countries.
> He appointed a Secretary of Commerce who had to withdraw because he got
> caught taking kickbacks from businesses in exchange for state contracts.
> Obama took some of the same kickback money but will never be investigated by
> the liberal press. He was caught lying about having conversations with
> disgraced Democrat Gov. Blago regarding filling his vacant Senate seat.
>
> >
> > IRAQ
> >
> > The Bush Record: After using false intelligence to launch the war, Bush
> > “surged” 30,000 troops to Iraq in 2007 and vetoed all attempts to end the
> > war.
>
> And this strategy put America well on it's way to winning in Iraq. Had it
> been left to Obama, America would have retreated and surrendered and Iran
> and al queada would now control Iraq and its oil fields,
> >
> > Obama’s Clean Break: Two days into his presidency, Obama called on U.S.
> > military leaders to start to plan for a responsible withdrawal.
>
> Bush had already negotiated a responsible troop withdrawal plan with the
> Iraqi government. If Obama pulls out too soon, as part of his cut-and-run,
> retreat-and-surrentder strategy, he will have succeeded in snatching defeat
> from the jaws of victory.
> >
> > DIPLOMACY
> >
> > The Bush Record: In his first term, Bush — in contrast to President Bill
> > Clinton — “generally avoided robust efforts” to resolve the Middle East
> > conflict. Bush demeaned diplomacy with “terrorists and radicals,” likening
> > it to the “appeasement” of Nazi Germany.
>
>
> There are many effective ways to negoitate with an enemy and the CIA and
> other government agencies are well aware of them. Bush believed in
> negotiating but not with the full office and authority of the President of
> the United States, the most powerful position on the planet. When Obama
> agreed to personally meet with any terrorist leader, without pre-conditions,
> he diminished the office of the president and gave these terrorists groups a
> huge propaganda victory.
> It was an incredibly naive, arrogant and stupid thing to do.
> >
> > Obama’s Clean Break: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejected the
> > “rigid ideology” of Bush and pledged to exercise “smart power.” Stressing
> > diplomacy, Obama and Clinton “appointed high-level emissaries to handle
> > the Arab-Israeli issue and Pakistan and Afghanistan.”
>
> Hillary Clinton's husband has taken monetary gifts and kickbacks from many
> of the countries she is supposed to be negotiating with. President Bush had
> a host of people working on Arab-Israeli, Pakistan and Afghanistan issues.
> He had the leaders of these countries to the White House for meetings and
> discussions on numerous occassions. Because of Obama spending 20 years in a
> church that preached anti-Semitic ideaology, and his proposed retreat and
> surrender approach to terrorism in the middle east, he is not trusted by the
> Israelis. This greatly increases the threat of a shooting war between
> Israel and Iran.
> >
> > TORTURE
> >
> > The Bush Record: Torture began with the drafting of a secret legal memo
> > holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate anti-torture
> > laws. Bush’s senior-most officials approved torture that, in some cases,
> > lead to death.
>
> More bullshit.
> >
> > Obama’s Clean Break: Obama signed executive orders ending the CIA’s secret
> > prisons and ending torture by requiring interrogations to abide by the
> > Army Field Manual.
>
> The army field manual was written for the average soldier in the field, not
> highly trained CIA operatives and counter-terrorist interragators. It
> basically says that you cannot do any thing that makes a captured terrorist
> uncomfortable. There are many aggressive and highly effective
> interrorgation techniques that do not involve torture. Obama has now
> unilateraly taken these away from our agents. He has also announced to all
> terrorist organizations that he has totally handcuffed our operatives which
> makes it much easier for them to train their new recruits in how to exploit
> that situation. This, combined with the fact that Obama has put a totally
> unqualified, far left wing liberal in charge of the CIA will demoralize our
> agents and greatly reduce their effectiveness. No one is going to risk
> their life, or take a chance in the line of duty, when they know they've now
> got a boss who is just looking for an excuse to hang them.
>
>
> > GUANTANAMO
> >
> > The Bush Record: Bush created the “legal black hole” that is Guantanamo
> > Bay. He called the harsh treatment of detainees there “an absurd
> > allegation” and was rebuked time and again by the Supreme Court.
>
> Bullshit. Terrorists at Gitmo have d better living conditions and more food
> than they had when they were killing American soldiers and civilians.
> >
> > Obama’s Clean Break: On his first day, Obama signed an executive order
> > closing Gitmo in one year and suspended all military tribunals for six
> > months.
>
> He closed Gitmo without a clue about what to do with the 250+ existing
> terrorists detained there or the terrorists we may capture in the future.
> If we throw these terrorists in to our civilian court system it will further
> clog the system, drag out for decades and cost the tax payers tens of
> millions of dollars. So now when an American soldier is in a firefight with
> a terrorist, he has the added burden of reading the guy his Miranda rights.
> Again, Obama just handed the terrorists another huge propaganda victory.
>
> >
> > TRANSPARENCY
> >
> > The Bush Record: Two out of five FOIA requests filed in 2006 were not
> > processed. The number of exemptions increased 83 percent since 1998.
> >
> > Obama’s Clean Break: Obama issued new orders instructing all agencies to
> > “adopt a presumption in favor” of FOIA requests. Obama is developing an
> > “Open Government Directive” over the next four months.
>
> Bullshit. CNN just nailed Obama on violating his own rule to hire a
> lobbyist he wants to put on his staff. Obama has accepted tens of millions
> of dollars in ear-mark spending and opposed John McCain's efforts to
> eliminate earmarks. Obama is quickly confirming his reputation as a
> hypocrite.
> >
> > REVOLVING DOOR
> >
> > The Bush Record: Many former Bush officials “joined the ranks of the
> > companies they once regulated where they are highly compensated. In many
> > instances, they have helped their new employers obtain lucrative
> > government grants and contracts.”
> >
> > Obama’s Clean Break: Obama laid out stringent lobbying limits that will
> > ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave his
> > staff and will ban gifts from lobbyists to anyone in the administration.
>
> As pointed out abouve, CNN just nailed Obama for violating his own rule to
> hire a lobbyist he wants to put on his staff. He appointed a Secretary of
> State whose husband is on record as accepting millions of dollars in
> payments and kickbacks from foreign countries. Obama's economic advisor got
> $90 million for running F-MAE and F-MAC in to the ground and Obama is
> directly tied to the Tony Rezko corruption scandal.
>
> >
> > WOMEN’S RIGHTS
> >
> > The Bush Record: Bush reinstated the Global Gag Rule, which prohibited aid
> > from going toward any organization that mentioned abortion as an option in
> > family planning. Sixteen countries lost access to birth control.
>
> Bush did not approve of American tax payer money going to fund abortions and
> pro-abortion propaganda in foreign countries and there are tens of millions
> of Americans who agree with him. Obama is the posterboy for Planned
> Parenthood and they campaign for him and have kicked back tens of thousands
> of dollars to his political treasure chest. Obama is the most pro-abortion
> president in history and that only serves to further divide this country on
> the abortion issue.
> >
> > Obama’s Clean Break: Obama overturned the Gag Rule on Jan. 23.
>
> Obama dictated that American tax payer money will be used to murder unborn
> children.
>
> Summary:
>
> Obama has gutted the defenses that have keep America safe from terrorist
> attacks on our soil for the past seven and a half years. He has handcuffed
> the CIA and greatly reduced America's intelligence gathering capability.
> He will over see the biggest budget deficit in American history. He failed
> to understand that the root cause of this economic disaster was forcing
> financial institutions to make high risk loans to unqualified borrowers and
> requiring F-MAE and F-MAC to buy them up. His stimulus package is nothing
> more than a thinly disguised, massive welfare and give away program. It
> will never be as effective as if he had cut income, business and corporate
> taxes and eliminated the capital gains tax. Depending on which of speeches
> you listen to, Obama has promised to save or create two, three or four
> hundred million jobs in the next two years . He has never explained the
> details of how this will be accomplished. What he has done is reduce
> America's safety, hired a staff of Clinton hold-overs, insiders and hacks
> and committed to spend a trillion plus dollars we don't have for a welfare
> plan that will never produce the results he as promised.
>
> Irish Mike
>
> Very, very proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for
> your Messiah.

---- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 28 Jan 2009 15:21:25
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 28, 3:07=A0pm, "da pickle" <jcpick...@NOSPAMhotmail.com > wrote:
> "Kyle T. Jones"
>
> > I wasn't commenting on the "subject", I guess
>
> I'm sorry ... I misunderstood.

You need to wrap up this thread anyway. It's time to talk about
Obama's second hundred hours ;-}

- Bob T.


   
Date: 25 Jan 2009 18:09:09
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:8htu46xp2q.ln2@recgroups.com...
> Please list your sources for the following claims in your post:
>
> 1) Obama took some of the same kickback money but will never be
> investigated by the liberal press.
Was listed in the same story that nailed Richardson and caused him to resign
his cabinet position.
>
> 2) He was caught lying about having conversations with disgraced Democrat
> Gov. Blago regarding filling his vacant Senate seat.
David Axelrod, on national television. Of course that was before he
developed selective amnesia when Obama denied he talked to Blago.

> 3) Obama agreed to personally meet with any terrorist leader, without
> pre-conditions.

Barak Obama, check his campaign speeches. It was sandwiched in between all
the hope-I-can-believe-in-yes-we-can bullshit.

Irish Mike


>
> On Jan 25 2009 2:34 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
>> "johnny_t" <nobodyis@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:006873f7$0$10072$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > REGULATIONS
>> >
>> > The Bush Record: In his final months, the Bush administration issued a
>> > series of "midnight regulations" that gutted safeguards protecting
>> > health,
>> > safety, the environment, and the public's general welfare.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>> >
>> > Obama's Clean Break: Hours after his inauguration, Obama ordered a
>> > freeze
>> > on new regulations at all government agencies and departments and the
>> > withdrawal of all final or proposed regulations not yet published in
>> > the
>> > Federal Register.
>>
>> Obama appointed a tax cheat to head the IRS and a Secretary of State
>> whose
>> husband has been taking monetary gifts and kickbacks from foreign
>> countries.
>> He appointed a Secretary of Commerce who had to withdraw because he got
>> caught taking kickbacks from businesses in exchange for state contracts.
>> Obama took some of the same kickback money but will never be investigated
>> by
>> the liberal press. He was caught lying about having conversations with
>> disgraced Democrat Gov. Blago regarding filling his vacant Senate seat.
>>
>> >
>> > IRAQ
>> >
>> > The Bush Record: After using false intelligence to launch the war, Bush
>> > "surged" 30,000 troops to Iraq in 2007 and vetoed all attempts to end
>> > the
>> > war.
>>
>> And this strategy put America well on it's way to winning in Iraq. Had
>> it
>> been left to Obama, America would have retreated and surrendered and Iran
>> and al queada would now control Iraq and its oil fields,
>> >
>> > Obama's Clean Break: Two days into his presidency, Obama called on U.S.
>> > military leaders to start to plan for a responsible withdrawal.
>>
>> Bush had already negotiated a responsible troop withdrawal plan with the
>> Iraqi government. If Obama pulls out too soon, as part of his
>> cut-and-run,
>> retreat-and-surrentder strategy, he will have succeeded in snatching
>> defeat
>> from the jaws of victory.
>> >
>> > DIPLOMACY
>> >
>> > The Bush Record: In his first term, Bush - in contrast to President
>> > Bill
>> > Clinton - "generally avoided robust efforts" to resolve the Middle East
>> > conflict. Bush demeaned diplomacy with "terrorists and radicals,"
>> > likening
>> > it to the "appeasement" of Nazi Germany.
>>
>>
>> There are many effective ways to negoitate with an enemy and the CIA and
>> other government agencies are well aware of them. Bush believed in
>> negotiating but not with the full office and authority of the President
>> of
>> the United States, the most powerful position on the planet. When Obama
>> agreed to personally meet with any terrorist leader, without
>> pre-conditions,
>> he diminished the office of the president and gave these terrorists
>> groups a
>> huge propaganda victory.
>> It was an incredibly naive, arrogant and stupid thing to do.
>> >
>> > Obama's Clean Break: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejected the
>> > "rigid ideology" of Bush and pledged to exercise "smart power."
>> > Stressing
>> > diplomacy, Obama and Clinton "appointed high-level emissaries to handle
>> > the Arab-Israeli issue and Pakistan and Afghanistan."
>>
>> Hillary Clinton's husband has taken monetary gifts and kickbacks from
>> many
>> of the countries she is supposed to be negotiating with. President Bush
>> had
>> a host of people working on Arab-Israeli, Pakistan and Afghanistan
>> issues.
>> He had the leaders of these countries to the White House for meetings and
>> discussions on numerous occassions. Because of Obama spending 20 years
>> in a
>> church that preached anti-Semitic ideaology, and his proposed retreat and
>> surrender approach to terrorism in the middle east, he is not trusted by
>> the
>> Israelis. This greatly increases the threat of a shooting war between
>> Israel and Iran.
>> >
>> > TORTURE
>> >
>> > The Bush Record: Torture began with the drafting of a secret legal memo
>> > holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate anti-torture
>> > laws. Bush's senior-most officials approved torture that, in some
>> > cases,
>> > lead to death.
>>
>> More bullshit.
>> >
>> > Obama's Clean Break: Obama signed executive orders ending the CIA's
>> > secret
>> > prisons and ending torture by requiring interrogations to abide by the
>> > Army Field Manual.
>>
>> The army field manual was written for the average soldier in the field,
>> not
>> highly trained CIA operatives and counter-terrorist interragators. It
>> basically says that you cannot do any thing that makes a captured
>> terrorist
>> uncomfortable. There are many aggressive and highly effective
>> interrorgation techniques that do not involve torture. Obama has now
>> unilateraly taken these away from our agents. He has also announced to
>> all
>> terrorist organizations that he has totally handcuffed our operatives
>> which
>> makes it much easier for them to train their new recruits in how to
>> exploit
>> that situation. This, combined with the fact that Obama has put a
>> totally
>> unqualified, far left wing liberal in charge of the CIA will demoralize
>> our
>> agents and greatly reduce their effectiveness. No one is going to risk
>> their life, or take a chance in the line of duty, when they know they've
>> now
>> got a boss who is just looking for an excuse to hang them.
>>
>>
>> > GUANTANAMO
>> >
>> > The Bush Record: Bush created the "legal black hole" that is Guantanamo
>> > Bay. He called the harsh treatment of detainees there "an absurd
>> > allegation" and was rebuked time and again by the Supreme Court.
>>
>> Bullshit. Terrorists at Gitmo have d better living conditions and more
>> food
>> than they had when they were killing American soldiers and civilians.
>> >
>> > Obama's Clean Break: On his first day, Obama signed an executive order
>> > closing Gitmo in one year and suspended all military tribunals for six
>> > months.
>>
>> He closed Gitmo without a clue about what to do with the 250+ existing
>> terrorists detained there or the terrorists we may capture in the future.
>> If we throw these terrorists in to our civilian court system it will
>> further
>> clog the system, drag out for decades and cost the tax payers tens of
>> millions of dollars. So now when an American soldier is in a firefight
>> with
>> a terrorist, he has the added burden of reading the guy his Miranda
>> rights.
>> Again, Obama just handed the terrorists another huge propaganda victory.
>>
>> >
>> > TRANSPARENCY
>> >
>> > The Bush Record: Two out of five FOIA requests filed in 2006 were not
>> > processed. The number of exemptions increased 83 percent since 1998.
>> >
>> > Obama's Clean Break: Obama issued new orders instructing all agencies
>> > to
>> > "adopt a presumption in favor" of FOIA requests. Obama is developing an
>> > "Open Government Directive" over the next four months.
>>
>> Bullshit. CNN just nailed Obama on violating his own rule to hire a
>> lobbyist he wants to put on his staff. Obama has accepted tens of
>> millions
>> of dollars in ear-mark spending and opposed John McCain's efforts to
>> eliminate earmarks. Obama is quickly confirming his reputation as a
>> hypocrite.
>> >
>> > REVOLVING DOOR
>> >
>> > The Bush Record: Many former Bush officials "joined the ranks of the
>> > companies they once regulated where they are highly compensated. In
>> > many
>> > instances, they have helped their new employers obtain lucrative
>> > government grants and contracts."
>> >
>> > Obama's Clean Break: Obama laid out stringent lobbying limits that will
>> > ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave
>> > his
>> > staff and will ban gifts from lobbyists to anyone in the
>> > administration.
>>
>> As pointed out abouve, CNN just nailed Obama for violating his own rule
>> to
>> hire a lobbyist he wants to put on his staff. He appointed a Secretary
>> of
>> State whose husband is on record as accepting millions of dollars in
>> payments and kickbacks from foreign countries. Obama's economic advisor
>> got
>> $90 million for running F-MAE and F-MAC in to the ground and Obama is
>> directly tied to the Tony Rezko corruption scandal.
>>
>> >
>> > WOMEN'S RIGHTS
>> >
>> > The Bush Record: Bush reinstated the Global Gag Rule, which prohibited
>> > aid
>> > from going toward any organization that mentioned abortion as an option
>> > in
>> > family planning. Sixteen countries lost access to birth control.
>>
>> Bush did not approve of American tax payer money going to fund abortions
>> and
>> pro-abortion propaganda in foreign countries and there are tens of
>> millions
>> of Americans who agree with him. Obama is the posterboy for Planned
>> Parenthood and they campaign for him and have kicked back tens of
>> thousands
>> of dollars to his political treasure chest. Obama is the most
>> pro-abortion
>> president in history and that only serves to further divide this country
>> on
>> the abortion issue.
>> >
>> > Obama's Clean Break: Obama overturned the Gag Rule on Jan. 23.
>>
>> Obama dictated that American tax payer money will be used to murder
>> unborn
>> children.
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> Obama has gutted the defenses that have keep America safe from terrorist
>> attacks on our soil for the past seven and a half years. He has
>> handcuffed
>> the CIA and greatly reduced America's intelligence gathering capability.
>> He will over see the biggest budget deficit in American history. He
>> failed
>> to understand that the root cause of this economic disaster was forcing
>> financial institutions to make high risk loans to unqualified borrowers
>> and
>> requiring F-MAE and F-MAC to buy them up. His stimulus package is
>> nothing
>> more than a thinly disguised, massive welfare and give away program. It
>> will never be as effective as if he had cut income, business and
>> corporate
>> taxes and eliminated the capital gains tax. Depending on which of
>> speeches
>> you listen to, Obama has promised to save or create two, three or four
>> hundred million jobs in the next two years . He has never explained the
>> details of how this will be accomplished. What he has done is reduce
>> America's safety, hired a staff of Clinton hold-overs, insiders and hacks
>> and committed to spend a trillion plus dollars we don't have for a
>> welfare
>> plan that will never produce the results he as promised.
>>
>> Irish Mike
>>
>> Very, very proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote
>> for
>> your Messiah.
>
> ----
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
>
>




   
Date: 25 Jan 2009 14:51:00
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:8htu46xp2q.ln2@recgroups.com...
> Please list your sources for the following claims in your post:
>
> 1) Obama took some of the same kickback money but will never be
> investigated by the liberal press

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010603113.html
>
> 2) He was caught lying about having conversations with disgraced Democrat
> Gov. Blago regarding filling his vacant Senate seat

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9840497/Obama-Letter-to-Blago-120308
>
> 3) Obama agreed to personally meet with any terrorist leader, without
> pre-conditions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU




    
Date: 25 Jan 2009 14:08:52
From: gtech1
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Perhaps I misread the letter in your link in response to point no. 2.
Where does it say anything about the Senate seat?

Also, are you saying that Obama has "taken kickback money" because his
campaign received a $1000 donation?

On Jan 25 2009 3:51 PM, Susan wrote:

> "gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:8htu46xp2q.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > Please list your sources for the following claims in your post:
> >
> > 1) Obama took some of the same kickback money but will never be
> > investigated by the liberal press
>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010603113.html
> >
> > 2) He was caught lying about having conversations with disgraced Democrat
> > Gov. Blago regarding filling his vacant Senate seat
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/9840497/Obama-Letter-to-Blago-120308
> >
> > 3) Obama agreed to personally meet with any terrorist leader, without
> > pre-conditions
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU

----- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



     
Date: 25 Jan 2009 16:25:28
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:kg4v46xsnq.ln2@recgroups.com...
> Perhaps I misread the letter in your link in response to point no. 2.
> Where does it say anything about the Senate seat?

OK Mike is as given to hyperbole as most politicians are. This is the
quote

"Obama said the following: "I had no contact with the governor or his office
and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Obama has stated
on other occasions that he has had "no contacts" with Blago at all, and has
disputed media reporting that has suggested otherwise

>
> Also, are you saying that Obama has "taken kickback money" because his
> campaign received a $1000 donation?

I'm saying that Richardson did not take the cabinet seat and Obama didn't
pull out. I like Richardson, and was sorry to see him pull out. Things
like this show up with every politician.

What bothered me more than either of the above was the Geithner deal (not
even so much the not paying taxes, though having him be in charge of the IRS
is just a wee bit troubling) but the glossing over of his having an illegal
in his employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004) when Bush tried to
appoint some woman (whose name completely escapes me) and was turned down
to be the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal housekeeper.




      
Date: 26 Jan 2009 10:40:59
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 25 2009 5:25 PM, Susan wrote:

> "gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:kg4v46xsnq.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > Perhaps I misread the letter in your link in response to point no. 2.
> > Where does it say anything about the Senate seat?
>
> OK Mike is as given to hyperbole as most politicians are. This is the
> quote
>
> "Obama said the following: "I had no contact with the governor or his office
> and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Obama has stated
> on other occasions that he has had "no contacts" with Blago at all, and has
> disputed media reporting that has suggested otherwise
>
> >
> > Also, are you saying that Obama has "taken kickback money" because his
> > campaign received a $1000 donation?
>
> I'm saying that Richardson did not take the cabinet seat and Obama didn't
> pull out. I like Richardson, and was sorry to see him pull out. Things
> like this show up with every politician.
>
> What bothered me more than either of the above was the Geithner deal (not
> even so much the not paying taxes, though having him be in charge of the IRS
> is just a wee bit troubling) but the glossing over of his having an illegal
> in his employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004) when Bush tried to
> appoint some woman (whose name completely escapes me) and was turned down
> to be the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal housekeeper.

The precedent for this silly "Nanny-gate" crap was set by the Republicans
when they stopped Zoe Baird from becoming Attorney General in 1993

_____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




       
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:07:07
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Discussrec.gambling.pokerHelp

Group
Previous
Next
Next New
Forward
Respond

Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 10:40am
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >


On Jan 25 2009 5:25 PM, Susan wrote:

"gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:kg4v46xsnq.ln2@recgroups.com...

Perhaps I misread the letter in your link in response to point no. 2.
Where does it say anything about the Senate seat?

OK Mike is as given to hyperbole as most politicians are. This is the
quote
"Obama said the following: "I had no contact with the governor or his
office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Obama
has stated on other occasions that he has had "no contacts" with Blago
at all, and has disputed media reporting that has suggested otherwise



Also, are you saying that Obama has "taken kickback money" because his
campaign received a $1000 donation?

I'm saying that Richardson did not take the cabinet seat and Obama
didn't pull out. I like Richardson, and was sorry to see him pull out.
Things like this show up with every politician.
What bothered me more than either of the above was the Geithner deal
(not even so much the not paying taxes, though having him be in charge
of the IRS is just a wee bit troubling) but the glossing over of his
having an illegal in his employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004)
when Bush tried to appoint some woman (whose name completely escapes me)
and was turned down to be the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal
housekeeper.


The precedent for this silly "Nanny-gate" crap was set by the
Republicans when they stopped Zoe Baird from becoming Attorney General
in 1993
______________________________________________


Uh, huh, all "this silly Nanny-Gate crap". Is there something about the
word "illegal" in the term "illegal immigrant" that you don't understand
that we can help you with...that's quite a principled stand. Next thing
you know, Jersrey Jerkoff will be in favor of appointing a tax cheating
Treasury Secretary.





        
Date: 26 Jan 2009 13:12:38
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26 2009 3:07 PM, Travel A wrote:

> Discussrec.gambling.pokerHelp
>
> Group
> Previous
> Next
> Next New
> Forward
> Respond
>
> Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
> Group: rec.gambling.poker
> Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 10:40am
> From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid>
>
>
> On Jan 25 2009 5:25 PM, Susan wrote:
>
> "gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:kg4v46xsnq.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> Perhaps I misread the letter in your link in response to point no. 2.
> Where does it say anything about the Senate seat?
>
> OK Mike is as given to hyperbole as most politicians are. This is the
> quote
> "Obama said the following: "I had no contact with the governor or his
> office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Obama
> has stated on other occasions that he has had "no contacts" with Blago
> at all, and has disputed media reporting that has suggested otherwise
>
>
>
> Also, are you saying that Obama has "taken kickback money" because his
> campaign received a $1000 donation?
>
> I'm saying that Richardson did not take the cabinet seat and Obama
> didn't pull out. I like Richardson, and was sorry to see him pull out.
> Things like this show up with every politician.
> What bothered me more than either of the above was the Geithner deal
> (not even so much the not paying taxes, though having him be in charge
> of the IRS is just a wee bit troubling) but the glossing over of his
> having an illegal in his employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004)
> when Bush tried to appoint some woman (whose name completely escapes me)
> and was turned down to be the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal
> housekeeper.
>
>
> The precedent for this silly "Nanny-gate" crap was set by the
> Republicans when they stopped Zoe Baird from becoming Attorney General
> in 1993
> ______________________________________________
>
>
> Uh, huh, all "this silly Nanny-Gate crap". Is there something about the
> word "illegal" in the term "illegal immigrant" that you don't understand
> that we can help you with...that's quite a principled stand. Next thing
> you know, Jersrey Jerkoff will be in favor of appointing a tax cheating
> Treasury Secretary.

You don't seem to care about the terms "legal" and "illegal" when it comes
to torturing detainees, but when it comes to hiring a nanny and failing to
pay their social security taxes, off with their heads!!

I love the principled positions of the extreme right!

______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



         
Date: 27 Jan 2009 10:35:55
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...


Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 1:12pm
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >


On Jan 26 2009 3:07 PM, Travel A wrote:



Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 10:40am
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >


On Jan 25 2009 5:25 PM, Susan wrote:

"gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:kg4v46xsnq.ln2@recgroups.com...

Perhaps I misread the letter in your link in response to point no. 2.
Where does it say anything about the Senate seat?

OK Mike is as given to hyperbole as most politicians are. This is the
quote
"Obama said the following: "I had no contact with the governor or his
office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Obama
has stated on other occasions that he has had "no contacts" with Blago
at all, and has disputed media reporting that has suggested otherwise



Also, are you saying that Obama has "taken kickback money" because his
campaign received a $1000 donation?

I'm saying that Richardson did not take the cabinet seat and Obama
didn't pull out. I like Richardson, and was sorry to see him pull out.
Things like this show up with every politician. What bothered me more
than either of the above was the Geithner deal (not even so much the not
paying taxes, though having him be in charge of the IRS is just a wee
bit troubling) but the glossing over of his having an illegal in his
employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004) when Bush tried to appoint
some woman (whose name completely escapes me) and was turned down to be
the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal housekeeper.


The precedent for this silly "Nanny-gate" crap was set by the
Republicans when they stopped Zoe Baird from becoming Attorney General
in 1993
______________________________________________


Uh, huh, all "this silly Nanny-Gate crap". Is there something about the
word "illegal" in the term "illegal immigrant" that you don't understand
that we can help you with...that's quite a principled stand. Next thing
you know, Jersrey Jerkoff will be in favor of appointing a tax cheating
Treasury Secretary.


You don't seem to care about the terms "legal" and "illegal" when it
comes to torturing detainees, but when it comes to hiring a nanny and
failing to pay their social security taxes, off with their heads!!
I love the principled positions of the extreme right!

______________________________________________


You defend terrorists, lie about torturing and ignore the will of the
people; as well as call the vast majority of the country who reject
communism: "extreme right". You're extreme ant-America and should be in
Gitmo with other terrorists.



          
Date: 27 Jan 2009 10:59:29
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 27 2009 1:35 PM, Travel A wrote:

> Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
> Group: rec.gambling.poker
> Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 1:12pm
> From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid>
>
>
> On Jan 26 2009 3:07 PM, Travel A wrote:
>
>
>
> Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
> Group: rec.gambling.poker
> Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 10:40am
> From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid>
>
>
> On Jan 25 2009 5:25 PM, Susan wrote:
>
> "gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:kg4v46xsnq.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> Perhaps I misread the letter in your link in response to point no. 2.
> Where does it say anything about the Senate seat?
>
> OK Mike is as given to hyperbole as most politicians are. This is the
> quote
> "Obama said the following: "I had no contact with the governor or his
> office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Obama
> has stated on other occasions that he has had "no contacts" with Blago
> at all, and has disputed media reporting that has suggested otherwise
>
>
>
> Also, are you saying that Obama has "taken kickback money" because his
> campaign received a $1000 donation?
>
> I'm saying that Richardson did not take the cabinet seat and Obama
> didn't pull out. I like Richardson, and was sorry to see him pull out.
> Things like this show up with every politician. What bothered me more
> than either of the above was the Geithner deal (not even so much the not
> paying taxes, though having him be in charge of the IRS is just a wee
> bit troubling) but the glossing over of his having an illegal in his
> employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004) when Bush tried to appoint
> some woman (whose name completely escapes me) and was turned down to be
> the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal housekeeper.
>
>
> The precedent for this silly "Nanny-gate" crap was set by the
> Republicans when they stopped Zoe Baird from becoming Attorney General
> in 1993
> ______________________________________________
>
>
> Uh, huh, all "this silly Nanny-Gate crap". Is there something about the
> word "illegal" in the term "illegal immigrant" that you don't understand
> that we can help you with...that's quite a principled stand. Next thing
> you know, Jersrey Jerkoff will be in favor of appointing a tax cheating
> Treasury Secretary.
>
>
> You don't seem to care about the terms "legal" and "illegal" when it
> comes to torturing detainees, but when it comes to hiring a nanny and
> failing to pay their social security taxes, off with their heads!!
> I love the principled positions of the extreme right!
>
> ______________________________________________
>
>
> You defend terrorists, lie about torturing and ignore the will of the
> people; as well as call the vast majority of the country who reject
> communism: "extreme right". You're extreme ant-America and should be in
> Gitmo with other terrorists.

What I like about you is that it takes so very little for you to reveal
your true colors. So many other right-wing wackos do everything in their
power to hide their dark motives, but you are refreshingly up front about
it.

----- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




           
Date: 27 Jan 2009 12:20:40
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...


Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 10:59am
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >


On Jan 27 2009 1:35 PM, Travel A wrote:

Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 1:12pm
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >

On Jan 26 2009 3:07 PM, Travel A wrote:



Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 10:40am
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >


On Jan 25 2009 5:25 PM, Susan wrote:

"gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:kg4v46xsnq.ln2@recgroups.com...

Perhaps I misread the letter in your link in response to point no. 2.
Where does it say anything about the Senate seat?

OK Mike is as given to hyperbole as most politicians are. This is the
quote
"Obama said the following: "I had no contact with the governor or his
office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Obama
has stated on other occasions that he has had "no contacts" with Blago
at all, and has disputed media reporting that has suggested otherwise



Also, are you saying that Obama has "taken kickback money" because his
campaign received a $1000 donation?

I'm saying that Richardson did not take the cabinet seat and Obama
didn't pull out. I like Richardson, and was sorry to see him pull out.
Things like this show up with every politician. What bothered me more
than either of the above was the Geithner deal (not even so much the not
paying taxes, though having him be in charge of the IRS is just a wee
bit troubling) but the glossing over of his having an illegal in his
employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004) when Bush tried to appoint
some woman (whose name completely escapes me) and was turned down to be
the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal housekeeper.


The precedent for this silly "Nanny-gate" crap was set by the
Republicans when they stopped Zoe Baird from becoming Attorney General
in 1993
______________________________________________


Uh, huh, all "this silly Nanny-Gate crap". Is there something about the
word "illegal" in the term "illegal immigrant" that you don't understand
that we can help you with...that's quite a principled stand. Next thing
you know, Jersrey Jerkoff will be in favor of appointing a tax cheating
Treasury Secretary.


You don't seem to care about the terms "legal" and "illegal" when it
comes to torturing detainees, but when it comes to hiring a nanny and
failing to pay their social security taxes, off with their heads!! I
love the principled positions of the extreme right!

______________________________________________


You defend terrorists, lie about torturing and ignore the will of the
people; as well as call the vast majority of the country who reject
communism: "extreme right". You're extreme ant-America and should be in
Gitmo with other terrorists.


What I like about you is that it takes so very little for you to reveal
your true colors. So many other right-wing wackos do everything in their
power to hide their dark motives, but you are refreshingly up front
about it.
-----=EF=BF=BD
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

.........................................................................=
.....

What dark motive? I'm always quite clear in my meaning. You're a
communist cocksucka. You need clarifcation?



         
Date: 26 Jan 2009 13:31:48
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26 2009 2:12 PM, JerseyRudy wrote:

> On Jan 26 2009 3:07 PM, Travel A wrote:
>
> > Discussrec.gambling.pokerHelp
> >
> > Group
> > Previous
> > Next
> > Next New
> > Forward
> > Respond
> >
> > Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
> > Group: rec.gambling.poker
> > Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 10:40am
> > From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid>
> >
> >
> > On Jan 25 2009 5:25 PM, Susan wrote:
> >
> > "gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:kg4v46xsnq.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >
> > Perhaps I misread the letter in your link in response to point no. 2.
> > Where does it say anything about the Senate seat?
> >
> > OK Mike is as given to hyperbole as most politicians are. This is the
> > quote
> > "Obama said the following: "I had no contact with the governor or his
> > office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Obama
> > has stated on other occasions that he has had "no contacts" with Blago
> > at all, and has disputed media reporting that has suggested otherwise
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, are you saying that Obama has "taken kickback money" because his
> > campaign received a $1000 donation?
> >
> > I'm saying that Richardson did not take the cabinet seat and Obama
> > didn't pull out. I like Richardson, and was sorry to see him pull out.
> > Things like this show up with every politician.
> > What bothered me more than either of the above was the Geithner deal
> > (not even so much the not paying taxes, though having him be in charge
> > of the IRS is just a wee bit troubling) but the glossing over of his
> > having an illegal in his employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004)
> > when Bush tried to appoint some woman (whose name completely escapes me)
> > and was turned down to be the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal
> > housekeeper.
> >
> >
> > The precedent for this silly "Nanny-gate" crap was set by the
> > Republicans when they stopped Zoe Baird from becoming Attorney General
> > in 1993
> >



TREASURY SECRETARY DESIGNEE HAS ILLEGAL NANNY PROBLEM
Tim Geithner joins a long list of nominees over the last two decades who
have seen their nominations jeopardized over having employed an illegally
present immigrant. The most famous case involved President Clinton's first
nomination for Attorney General, Zoe Baird. Ms. Baird's nomination was
derailed after it was learned that she had hired an illegally present
immigrant as a nanny to her children. Clinton's next nominee Kimba Wood
had her nominationed scuttled over the same issue (except that unlike
Baird, Wood paid taxes on her nanny's wages). The childless Janet Reno was
the third choice, though coming from South Florida, I suppose the odds of
her having employed a household worker with immigration problems might
have been high as well.

A few months after the Wood and Baird debacles, Clinton nominated Judge
Stephen Breyer for a US Supreme Court Justice seat and it was learned that
he too had employed an illegally present immigrant in his household. But
by this point, Congress was starting to figure out that if this was now
the standard for holding high office, the pool of qualified candidates
would shrink dramatically. So Breyer was confirmed.

The issue didn't pop up again until the Bush Administration's nomination
of Linda Chavez to be the Secretary of Labor during his first term in
office. Her nomination collapsed when it was learned she had an illegally
present immigrant living in her home.

And there are several others where the issue has arisen. It does seem that
one distinguishing point in teh various cases is whether the nominee would
have any direct responsibility for administering immigration laws. At the
time of the Baird and Wood nominations, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service was in the Department of Justice, the department overseen by the
Attorney General. And Chavez probably faced more problems because the
Labor Department plays an important role in employment-based immigrant
visa processing.

And that is why I think Geithner will be able to get past the nanny
question. Were we talking about DHS Secretary, I think the story might be
different.
BY
David Suskind


Apparently the problem arises when you still have one living with you.
The treasury secretary employed one from 04 to 05 but let her go after
discovering she had gone bad on him ( papers expired) for the last three
months of her employment.


I still think OBAMA blew this pick.




______________________________________________
> >
> >
> > Uh, huh, all "this silly Nanny-Gate crap". Is there something about the
> > word "illegal" in the term "illegal immigrant" that you don't understand
> > that we can help you with...that's quite a principled stand. Next thing
> > you know, Jersrey Jerkoff will be in favor of appointing a tax cheating
> > Treasury Secretary.
>
> You don't seem to care about the terms "legal" and "illegal" when it comes
> to torturing detainees, but when it comes to hiring a nanny and failing to
> pay their social security taxes, off with their heads!!
>
> I love the principled positions of the extreme right!

------ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




       
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:52:20
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"JerseyRudy" <a44f915@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:rmc156x7a2.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Jan 25 2009 5:25 PM, Susan wrote:
>
>> "gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:kg4v46xsnq.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> > Perhaps I misread the letter in your link in response to point no. 2.
>> > Where does it say anything about the Senate seat?
>>
>> OK Mike is as given to hyperbole as most politicians are. This is the
>> quote
>>
>> "Obama said the following: "I had no contact with the governor or his
>> office
>> and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Obama has
>> stated
>> on other occasions that he has had "no contacts" with Blago at all, and
>> has
>> disputed media reporting that has suggested otherwise
>>
>> >
>> > Also, are you saying that Obama has "taken kickback money" because his
>> > campaign received a $1000 donation?
>>
>> I'm saying that Richardson did not take the cabinet seat and Obama didn't
>> pull out. I like Richardson, and was sorry to see him pull out. Things
>> like this show up with every politician.
>>
>> What bothered me more than either of the above was the Geithner deal (not
>> even so much the not paying taxes, though having him be in charge of the
>> IRS
>> is just a wee bit troubling) but the glossing over of his having an
>> illegal
>> in his employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004) when Bush tried to
>> appoint some woman (whose name completely escapes me) and was turned down
>> to be the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal housekeeper.
>
> The precedent for this silly "Nanny-gate" crap was set by the Republicans
> when they stopped Zoe Baird from becoming Attorney General in 1993

OK I get it. It's not OK for Clinton, it's not OK for Dubya, but it is OK
for Obama.

Thanks





        
Date: 26 Jan 2009 11:36:28
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26 2009 1:52 PM, Susan wrote:

> "JerseyRudy" <a44f915@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:rmc156x7a2.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Jan 25 2009 5:25 PM, Susan wrote:
> >
> >> "gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:kg4v46xsnq.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >> > Perhaps I misread the letter in your link in response to point no. 2.
> >> > Where does it say anything about the Senate seat?
> >>
> >> OK Mike is as given to hyperbole as most politicians are. This is the
> >> quote
> >>
> >> "Obama said the following: "I had no contact with the governor or his
> >> office
> >> and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Obama has
> >> stated
> >> on other occasions that he has had "no contacts" with Blago at all, and
> >> has
> >> disputed media reporting that has suggested otherwise
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Also, are you saying that Obama has "taken kickback money" because his
> >> > campaign received a $1000 donation?
> >>
> >> I'm saying that Richardson did not take the cabinet seat and Obama didn't
> >> pull out. I like Richardson, and was sorry to see him pull out. Things
> >> like this show up with every politician.
> >>
> >> What bothered me more than either of the above was the Geithner deal (not
> >> even so much the not paying taxes, though having him be in charge of the
> >> IRS
> >> is just a wee bit troubling) but the glossing over of his having an
> >> illegal
> >> in his employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004) when Bush tried to
> >> appoint some woman (whose name completely escapes me) and was turned down
> >> to be the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal housekeeper.
> >
> > The precedent for this silly "Nanny-gate" crap was set by the Republicans
> > when they stopped Zoe Baird from becoming Attorney General in 1993
>
> OK I get it. It's not OK for Clinton, it's not OK for Dubya, but it is OK
> for Obama.
>
> Thanks

you're reading comprehension is staggering. I would ask you to explain
how you reached that conclusion from my posting, but why waste any further
time.

By the way, the Bush nominee for Secretary of Labor actually had an
illegal immigrant live in her house for two years. She also failed to
disclose this fact when she was initially vetted by the Bush
administration and the FBI. She also had a long record of opposition to
minimum wage and affirmative action laws which prevented her from
receiving much support when the controversy erupted. So the comparisons
are pretty weak. Sorry to introduce actual facts to the discussion.

_____________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



         
Date: 26 Jan 2009 13:43:08
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"JerseyRudy" <a44f915@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:suf156xat2.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Jan 26 2009 1:52 PM, Susan wrote:
>
>> "JerseyRudy" <a44f915@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:rmc156x7a2.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> > On Jan 25 2009 5:25 PM, Susan wrote:
>> >
>> >> "gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:kg4v46xsnq.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> >> > Perhaps I misread the letter in your link in response to point no.
>> >> > 2.
>> >> > Where does it say anything about the Senate seat?
>> >>
>> >> OK Mike is as given to hyperbole as most politicians are. This is
>> >> the
>> >> quote
>> >>
>> >> "Obama said the following: "I had no contact with the governor or his
>> >> office
>> >> and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Obama has
>> >> stated
>> >> on other occasions that he has had "no contacts" with Blago at all,
>> >> and
>> >> has
>> >> disputed media reporting that has suggested otherwise
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Also, are you saying that Obama has "taken kickback money" because
>> >> > his
>> >> > campaign received a $1000 donation?
>> >>
>> >> I'm saying that Richardson did not take the cabinet seat and Obama
>> >> didn't
>> >> pull out. I like Richardson, and was sorry to see him pull out.
>> >> Things
>> >> like this show up with every politician.
>> >>
>> >> What bothered me more than either of the above was the Geithner deal
>> >> (not
>> >> even so much the not paying taxes, though having him be in charge of
>> >> the
>> >> IRS
>> >> is just a wee bit troubling) but the glossing over of his having an
>> >> illegal
>> >> in his employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004) when Bush tried to
>> >> appoint some woman (whose name completely escapes me) and was turned
>> >> down
>> >> to be the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal housekeeper.
>> >
>> > The precedent for this silly "Nanny-gate" crap was set by the
>> > Republicans
>> > when they stopped Zoe Baird from becoming Attorney General in 1993
>>
>> OK I get it. It's not OK for Clinton, it's not OK for Dubya, but it is
>> OK
>> for Obama.
>>
>> Thanks
>
> you're reading comprehension is staggering. I would ask you to explain
> how you reached that conclusion from my posting, but why waste any further
> time.
>
> By the way, the Bush nominee for Secretary of Labor actually had an
> illegal immigrant live in her house for two years. She also failed to
> disclose this fact when she was initially vetted by the Bush
> administration and the FBI. She also had a long record of opposition to
> minimum wage and affirmative action laws which prevented her from
> receiving much support when the controversy erupted. So the comparisons
> are pretty weak. Sorry to introduce actual facts to the discussion.

I haven't stated anything that isn't fact.

Now tell us the FACTS about Geithner failing to pay his taxes, finally
paying 2 of the 4 years when he got caught, and then just last fall paying
the other 2.

Oh wait - I am bringing facts into the discussion.




          
Date: 26 Jan 2009 11:58:56
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26 2009 2:43 PM, Susan wrote:

> "JerseyRudy" <a44f915@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:suf156xat2.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Jan 26 2009 1:52 PM, Susan wrote:
> >
> >> "JerseyRudy" <a44f915@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:rmc156x7a2.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >> > On Jan 25 2009 5:25 PM, Susan wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "gtech1" <duanepritchett@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:kg4v46xsnq.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >> >> > Perhaps I misread the letter in your link in response to point no.
> >> >> > 2.
> >> >> > Where does it say anything about the Senate seat?
> >> >>
> >> >> OK Mike is as given to hyperbole as most politicians are. This is
> >> >> the
> >> >> quote
> >> >>
> >> >> "Obama said the following: "I had no contact with the governor or his
> >> >> office
> >> >> and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Obama has
> >> >> stated
> >> >> on other occasions that he has had "no contacts" with Blago at all,
> >> >> and
> >> >> has
> >> >> disputed media reporting that has suggested otherwise
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Also, are you saying that Obama has "taken kickback money" because
> >> >> > his
> >> >> > campaign received a $1000 donation?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm saying that Richardson did not take the cabinet seat and Obama
> >> >> didn't
> >> >> pull out. I like Richardson, and was sorry to see him pull out.
> >> >> Things
> >> >> like this show up with every politician.
> >> >>
> >> >> What bothered me more than either of the above was the Geithner deal
> >> >> (not
> >> >> even so much the not paying taxes, though having him be in charge of
> >> >> the
> >> >> IRS
> >> >> is just a wee bit troubling) but the glossing over of his having an
> >> >> illegal
> >> >> in his employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004) when Bush tried to
> >> >> appoint some woman (whose name completely escapes me) and was turned
> >> >> down
> >> >> to be the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal housekeeper.
> >> >
> >> > The precedent for this silly "Nanny-gate" crap was set by the
> >> > Republicans
> >> > when they stopped Zoe Baird from becoming Attorney General in 1993
> >>
> >> OK I get it. It's not OK for Clinton, it's not OK for Dubya, but it is
> >> OK
> >> for Obama.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >
> > you're reading comprehension is staggering. I would ask you to explain
> > how you reached that conclusion from my posting, but why waste any further
> > time.
> >
> > By the way, the Bush nominee for Secretary of Labor actually had an
> > illegal immigrant live in her house for two years. She also failed to
> > disclose this fact when she was initially vetted by the Bush
> > administration and the FBI. She also had a long record of opposition to
> > minimum wage and affirmative action laws which prevented her from
> > receiving much support when the controversy erupted. So the comparisons
> > are pretty weak. Sorry to introduce actual facts to the discussion.
>
> I haven't stated anything that isn't fact.
>
> Now tell us the FACTS about Geithner failing to pay his taxes, finally
> paying 2 of the 4 years when he got caught, and then just last fall paying
> the other 2.
>
> Oh wait - I am bringing facts into the discussion.

As usual, you appear to be arguing with yourself. Geithner's situation is
comepletely different from having an illegal immigrant live in his house
for two years and then failing to disclose that to the administration and
the FBI...which was one of the points I was trying to make - each
situation is different, so comparisons tend to be pointless. You were the
one who introduced the comparisons into this discussion.

This is a pretty good explanation of the Geithner situation, and not
surprising, it is much less clear-cut than you portray it (certainly much
less clear-cut than having an illegal immigrant live in your house for two
years and then failing to disclose that to the FBI):

"The Senate Finance Committee disclosed Tuesday that the Treasury nominee,
Timothy F. Geithner, had failed to pay more than $34,000 in taxes for
Social Security and Medicare when he was a senior official at the
International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2003, including a small payment
in 2004 after he left.

The I.M.F., like other international organizations, does not withhold
payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare from its American
employees’ paychecks. But it provides documents to help them understand
their tax obligations, including a tax booklet. The version of the booklet
released by the Senate committee explained, on Page 4, how to pay payroll
taxes.

Mr. Geithner acknowledged that he received all of the paperwork, according
to committee documents. And he is familiar with payroll taxes, because he
has paid them for household employees in the past, as well as for his
personal consulting business.

Still, several tax experts said, it is an easy mistake for an employee of
an international organization to make.

“This is not your normal situation between an employer and an employee,”
said Saul Brenner, a tax partner at Berdon, an accounting and advisory
firm. “Did he make a mistake? Absolutely. But it appears that both he and
his accountant made a mistake.”

American companies and their employees typically split payroll taxes for
Social Security and Medicare: each pays 6.2 percent of the employee’s
gross income to cover the Social Security piece, along with an additional
1.45 percent for Medicare.

But the I.M.F. is a tax-exempt organization. Its employees who are not
American citizens do not owe these taxes. Still, I.M.F. employees who are
American citizens must pay these taxes, just as if they were
self-employed.

Self-employed individuals are responsible for paying all of the taxes on
their own, and must file an additional form with their 1040 tax return
when they do so. The I.M.F pays its employees a tax allowance every three
months that covers the employer’s portion of the taxes, and routinely
provides employees with a quarterly breakdown of that allowance.

The Senate documents said that Mr. Geithner had prepared his own taxes in
2001 and 2002. However, an accountant reviewed his 2001 return and also
failed to catch the mistake. In 2003 and 2004, he used an accountant who
advised him that he was exempt from self-employment taxes.

The I.R.S. has noted that many employees of international organizations,
including foreign embassies and consular offices, have made mistakes in
filing their taxes. For example, an I.R.S. notice in 2006 said that up to
half of such employees had incorrectly filed their tax returns, making
errors like failure to pay self-employment taxes. The I.R.S. offered a
one-time settlement to resolve these issues.

“There was so much confusion about these and related rules that the I.R.S.
offered a settlement initiative,” said William Massey, senior tax analyst
in the tax and accounting unit of Thomson Reuters. “The error is not
uncommon, as the statutory provisions governing this situation are very
convoluted.”

“I have read that he relied on his accountant and that could have been an
easy mistake for the average accountant to make given the complexity of
the code sections involving exceptions to exceptions,” Mr. Massey said.

The Senate documents indicated that Mr. Geithner had used tax software in
the past, but did not make clear whether he had used it in 2001 and 2002
to prepare his returns. Even if he had used the software in those years,
tax experts said the software would probably not have warned him that he
was making a mistake.

“I do know on my software this is a mistake that could be made by an
inexperienced operator,” said Bill Gruen, a certified public account from
Washington who has I.M.F. employees as clients.

He said that income reported on W-2 forms usually had payroll taxes
withheld. But, he said, the W-2 forms sent out by the I.M.F. say simply
“none” on those lines. Since Mr. Geithner probably described himself as an
employee, the software would not have prompted him to file a Schedule SE,
which is used by the self-employed to file payroll taxes, Mr. Gruen said.

“That exposes the problem with that software, in my opinion,” Mr. Gruen
added."

______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




           
Date: 26 Jan 2009 14:27:23
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"JerseyRudy" <a44f915@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:09h156xc23.ln2@recgroups.com...

> As usual, you appear to be arguing with yourself. Geithner's situation is
> comepletely different from having an illegal immigrant live in his house
> for two years and then failing to disclose that to the administration and
> the FBI...which was one of the points I was trying to make - each
> situation is different, so comparisons tend to be pointless. You were the
> one who introduced the comparisons into this discussion.

The point I am making is that Geithner had an illegal IN HIS EMPLOY, while
Linda Chavez had a battered and abused woman staying with her, not working
for her. And they say that Conservatives are cold hearted.

>
> This is a pretty good explanation of the Geithner situation, and not
> surprising, it is much less clear-cut than you portray it (certainly much
> less clear-cut than having an illegal immigrant live in your house for two
> years and then failing to disclose that to the FBI):
>
> "The Senate Finance Committee disclosed Tuesday that the Treasury nominee,
> Timothy F. Geithner, had failed to pay more than $34,000 in taxes for
> Social Security and Medicare when he was a senior official at the
> International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2003, including a small payment
> in 2004 after he left.
>
> The I.M.F., like other international organizations, does not withhold
> payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare from its American
> employees' paychecks. But it provides documents to help them understand
> their tax obligations, including a tax booklet. The version of the booklet
> released by the Senate committee explained, on Page 4, how to pay payroll
> taxes.
>
> Mr. Geithner acknowledged that he received all of the paperwork, according
> to committee documents. And he is familiar with payroll taxes, because he
> has paid them for household employees in the past, as well as for his
> personal consulting business.
>
> Still, several tax experts said, it is an easy mistake for an employee of
> an international organization to make.
>
> "This is not your normal situation between an employer and an employee,"
> said Saul Brenner, a tax partner at Berdon, an accounting and advisory
> firm. "Did he make a mistake? Absolutely. But it appears that both he and
> his accountant made a mistake."
>
> American companies and their employees typically split payroll taxes for
> Social Security and Medicare: each pays 6.2 percent of the employee's
> gross income to cover the Social Security piece, along with an additional
> 1.45 percent for Medicare.
>
> But the I.M.F. is a tax-exempt organization. Its employees who are not
> American citizens do not owe these taxes. Still, I.M.F. employees who are
> American citizens must pay these taxes, just as if they were
> self-employed.
>
> Self-employed individuals are responsible for paying all of the taxes on
> their own, and must file an additional form with their 1040 tax return
> when they do so. The I.M.F pays its employees a tax allowance every three
> months that covers the employer's portion of the taxes, and routinely
> provides employees with a quarterly breakdown of that allowance.
>
> The Senate documents said that Mr. Geithner had prepared his own taxes in
> 2001 and 2002. However, an accountant reviewed his 2001 return and also
> failed to catch the mistake. In 2003 and 2004, he used an accountant who
> advised him that he was exempt from self-employment taxes.
>
> The I.R.S. has noted that many employees of international organizations,
> including foreign embassies and consular offices, have made mistakes in
> filing their taxes. For example, an I.R.S. notice in 2006 said that up to
> half of such employees had incorrectly filed their tax returns, making
> errors like failure to pay self-employment taxes. The I.R.S. offered a
> one-time settlement to resolve these issues.
>
> "There was so much confusion about these and related rules that the I.R.S.
> offered a settlement initiative," said William Massey, senior tax analyst
> in the tax and accounting unit of Thomson Reuters. "The error is not
> uncommon, as the statutory provisions governing this situation are very
> convoluted."
>
> "I have read that he relied on his accountant and that could have been an
> easy mistake for the average accountant to make given the complexity of
> the code sections involving exceptions to exceptions," Mr. Massey said.
>
> The Senate documents indicated that Mr. Geithner had used tax software in
> the past, but did not make clear whether he had used it in 2001 and 2002
> to prepare his returns. Even if he had used the software in those years,
> tax experts said the software would probably not have warned him that he
> was making a mistake.
>
> "I do know on my software this is a mistake that could be made by an
> inexperienced operator," said Bill Gruen, a certified public account from
> Washington who has I.M.F. employees as clients.
>
> He said that income reported on W-2 forms usually had payroll taxes
> withheld. But, he said, the W-2 forms sent out by the I.M.F. say simply
> "none" on those lines. Since Mr. Geithner probably described himself as an
> employee, the software would not have prompted him to file a Schedule SE,
> which is used by the self-employed to file payroll taxes, Mr. Gruen said.
>
> "That exposes the problem with that software, in my opinion," Mr. Gruen
> added."


Rudy Rudy Rudy - he says he had all the paperwork, he wants to be head of
the IRS but he can't read or understand it?

When caught he paid only half of it because the statute limitations had run
out? Then when speaking with the Obama team he decides to pay the rest?

Pickles is right - you are a dweeb Rudy.




            
Date: 26 Jan 2009 13:08:47
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26 2009 3:27 PM, Susan wrote:

> "JerseyRudy" <a44f915@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:09h156xc23.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> > As usual, you appear to be arguing with yourself. Geithner's situation is
> > comepletely different from having an illegal immigrant live in his house
> > for two years and then failing to disclose that to the administration and
> > the FBI...which was one of the points I was trying to make - each
> > situation is different, so comparisons tend to be pointless. You were the
> > one who introduced the comparisons into this discussion.
>
> The point I am making is that Geithner had an illegal IN HIS EMPLOY, while
> Linda Chavez had a battered and abused woman staying with her, not working
> for her. And they say that Conservatives are cold hearted.
>

and they say Liberals are naive! You really think that she had this woman
live in her house for two years out of some random act of charity? Because
even the Bush transition officials seemed to realize that it had all the
indicia of an employer-employee relationship:

"Her decision to withdraw her name came two days after Bush transition
officials said that for two years, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala,
Marta Mercado, had lived in Ms. Chavez's house, did some cleaning for her
and received at least $1,500 from her."


> >
> > This is a pretty good explanation of the Geithner situation, and not
> > surprising, it is much less clear-cut than you portray it (certainly much
> > less clear-cut than having an illegal immigrant live in your house for two
> > years and then failing to disclose that to the FBI):
> >
> > "The Senate Finance Committee disclosed Tuesday that the Treasury nominee,
> > Timothy F. Geithner, had failed to pay more than $34,000 in taxes for
> > Social Security and Medicare when he was a senior official at the
> > International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2003, including a small payment
> > in 2004 after he left.
> >
> > The I.M.F., like other international organizations, does not withhold
> > payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare from its American
> > employees' paychecks. But it provides documents to help them understand
> > their tax obligations, including a tax booklet. The version of the booklet
> > released by the Senate committee explained, on Page 4, how to pay payroll
> > taxes.
> >
> > Mr. Geithner acknowledged that he received all of the paperwork, according
> > to committee documents. And he is familiar with payroll taxes, because he
> > has paid them for household employees in the past, as well as for his
> > personal consulting business.
> >
> > Still, several tax experts said, it is an easy mistake for an employee of
> > an international organization to make.
> >
> > "This is not your normal situation between an employer and an employee,"
> > said Saul Brenner, a tax partner at Berdon, an accounting and advisory
> > firm. "Did he make a mistake? Absolutely. But it appears that both he and
> > his accountant made a mistake."
> >
> > American companies and their employees typically split payroll taxes for
> > Social Security and Medicare: each pays 6.2 percent of the employee's
> > gross income to cover the Social Security piece, along with an additional
> > 1.45 percent for Medicare.
> >
> > But the I.M.F. is a tax-exempt organization. Its employees who are not
> > American citizens do not owe these taxes. Still, I.M.F. employees who are
> > American citizens must pay these taxes, just as if they were
> > self-employed.
> >
> > Self-employed individuals are responsible for paying all of the taxes on
> > their own, and must file an additional form with their 1040 tax return
> > when they do so. The I.M.F pays its employees a tax allowance every three
> > months that covers the employer's portion of the taxes, and routinely
> > provides employees with a quarterly breakdown of that allowance.
> >
> > The Senate documents said that Mr. Geithner had prepared his own taxes in
> > 2001 and 2002. However, an accountant reviewed his 2001 return and also
> > failed to catch the mistake. In 2003 and 2004, he used an accountant who
> > advised him that he was exempt from self-employment taxes.
> >
> > The I.R.S. has noted that many employees of international organizations,
> > including foreign embassies and consular offices, have made mistakes in
> > filing their taxes. For example, an I.R.S. notice in 2006 said that up to
> > half of such employees had incorrectly filed their tax returns, making
> > errors like failure to pay self-employment taxes. The I.R.S. offered a
> > one-time settlement to resolve these issues.
> >
> > "There was so much confusion about these and related rules that the I.R.S.
> > offered a settlement initiative," said William Massey, senior tax analyst
> > in the tax and accounting unit of Thomson Reuters. "The error is not
> > uncommon, as the statutory provisions governing this situation are very
> > convoluted."
> >
> > "I have read that he relied on his accountant and that could have been an
> > easy mistake for the average accountant to make given the complexity of
> > the code sections involving exceptions to exceptions," Mr. Massey said.
> >
> > The Senate documents indicated that Mr. Geithner had used tax software in
> > the past, but did not make clear whether he had used it in 2001 and 2002
> > to prepare his returns. Even if he had used the software in those years,
> > tax experts said the software would probably not have warned him that he
> > was making a mistake.
> >
> > "I do know on my software this is a mistake that could be made by an
> > inexperienced operator," said Bill Gruen, a certified public account from
> > Washington who has I.M.F. employees as clients.
> >
> > He said that income reported on W-2 forms usually had payroll taxes
> > withheld. But, he said, the W-2 forms sent out by the I.M.F. say simply
> > "none" on those lines. Since Mr. Geithner probably described himself as an
> > employee, the software would not have prompted him to file a Schedule SE,
> > which is used by the self-employed to file payroll taxes, Mr. Gruen said.
> >
> > "That exposes the problem with that software, in my opinion," Mr. Gruen
> > added."
>
>
> Rudy Rudy Rudy - he says he had all the paperwork, he wants to be head of
> the IRS but he can't read or understand it?
>
> When caught he paid only half of it because the statute limitations had run
> out? Then when speaking with the Obama team he decides to pay the rest?
>
> Pickles is right - you are a dweeb Rudy.

I'm just trying to figure out why you are so willing to accept Linda
Chavez' word that she had no idea the woman living in her house doing
cleaning work for her was an illegal immigrant, yet you can't seem to
grasp how Geithner failed to pay taxes on a payroll tax issue that even
accountants could not understand.

--- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




             
Date: 26 Jan 2009 15:45:34
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"JerseyRudy" <a44f915@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:vbl156x3q3.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Jan 26 2009 3:27 PM, Susan wrote:
>
>> "JerseyRudy" <a44f915@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:09h156xc23.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>
>> > As usual, you appear to be arguing with yourself. Geithner's situation
>> > is
>> > comepletely different from having an illegal immigrant live in his
>> > house
>> > for two years and then failing to disclose that to the administration
>> > and
>> > the FBI...which was one of the points I was trying to make - each
>> > situation is different, so comparisons tend to be pointless. You were
>> > the
>> > one who introduced the comparisons into this discussion.
>>
>> The point I am making is that Geithner had an illegal IN HIS EMPLOY,
>> while
>> Linda Chavez had a battered and abused woman staying with her, not
>> working
>> for her. And they say that Conservatives are cold hearted.
>>
>
> and they say Liberals are naive! You really think that she had this woman
> live in her house for two years out of some random act of charity? Because
> even the Bush transition officials seemed to realize that it had all the
> indicia of an employer-employee relationship:
>
> "Her decision to withdraw her name came two days after Bush transition
> officials said that for two years, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala,
> Marta Mercado, had lived in Ms. Chavez's house, did some cleaning for her
> and received at least $1,500 from her."
>
>
>> >
>> > This is a pretty good explanation of the Geithner situation, and not
>> > surprising, it is much less clear-cut than you portray it (certainly
>> > much
>> > less clear-cut than having an illegal immigrant live in your house for
>> > two
>> > years and then failing to disclose that to the FBI):
>> >
>> > "The Senate Finance Committee disclosed Tuesday that the Treasury
>> > nominee,
>> > Timothy F. Geithner, had failed to pay more than $34,000 in taxes for
>> > Social Security and Medicare when he was a senior official at the
>> > International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2003, including a small
>> > payment
>> > in 2004 after he left.
>> >
>> > The I.M.F., like other international organizations, does not withhold
>> > payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare from its American
>> > employees' paychecks. But it provides documents to help them understand
>> > their tax obligations, including a tax booklet. The version of the
>> > booklet
>> > released by the Senate committee explained, on Page 4, how to pay
>> > payroll
>> > taxes.
>> >
>> > Mr. Geithner acknowledged that he received all of the paperwork,
>> > according
>> > to committee documents. And he is familiar with payroll taxes, because
>> > he
>> > has paid them for household employees in the past, as well as for his
>> > personal consulting business.
>> >
>> > Still, several tax experts said, it is an easy mistake for an employee
>> > of
>> > an international organization to make.
>> >
>> > "This is not your normal situation between an employer and an
>> > employee,"
>> > said Saul Brenner, a tax partner at Berdon, an accounting and advisory
>> > firm. "Did he make a mistake? Absolutely. But it appears that both he
>> > and
>> > his accountant made a mistake."
>> >
>> > American companies and their employees typically split payroll taxes
>> > for
>> > Social Security and Medicare: each pays 6.2 percent of the employee's
>> > gross income to cover the Social Security piece, along with an
>> > additional
>> > 1.45 percent for Medicare.
>> >
>> > But the I.M.F. is a tax-exempt organization. Its employees who are not
>> > American citizens do not owe these taxes. Still, I.M.F. employees who
>> > are
>> > American citizens must pay these taxes, just as if they were
>> > self-employed.
>> >
>> > Self-employed individuals are responsible for paying all of the taxes
>> > on
>> > their own, and must file an additional form with their 1040 tax return
>> > when they do so. The I.M.F pays its employees a tax allowance every
>> > three
>> > months that covers the employer's portion of the taxes, and routinely
>> > provides employees with a quarterly breakdown of that allowance.
>> >
>> > The Senate documents said that Mr. Geithner had prepared his own taxes
>> > in
>> > 2001 and 2002. However, an accountant reviewed his 2001 return and also
>> > failed to catch the mistake. In 2003 and 2004, he used an accountant
>> > who
>> > advised him that he was exempt from self-employment taxes.
>> >
>> > The I.R.S. has noted that many employees of international
>> > organizations,
>> > including foreign embassies and consular offices, have made mistakes in
>> > filing their taxes. For example, an I.R.S. notice in 2006 said that up
>> > to
>> > half of such employees had incorrectly filed their tax returns, making
>> > errors like failure to pay self-employment taxes. The I.R.S. offered a
>> > one-time settlement to resolve these issues.
>> >
>> > "There was so much confusion about these and related rules that the
>> > I.R.S.
>> > offered a settlement initiative," said William Massey, senior tax
>> > analyst
>> > in the tax and accounting unit of Thomson Reuters. "The error is not
>> > uncommon, as the statutory provisions governing this situation are very
>> > convoluted."
>> >
>> > "I have read that he relied on his accountant and that could have been
>> > an
>> > easy mistake for the average accountant to make given the complexity of
>> > the code sections involving exceptions to exceptions," Mr. Massey said.
>> >
>> > The Senate documents indicated that Mr. Geithner had used tax software
>> > in
>> > the past, but did not make clear whether he had used it in 2001 and
>> > 2002
>> > to prepare his returns. Even if he had used the software in those
>> > years,
>> > tax experts said the software would probably not have warned him that
>> > he
>> > was making a mistake.
>> >
>> > "I do know on my software this is a mistake that could be made by an
>> > inexperienced operator," said Bill Gruen, a certified public account
>> > from
>> > Washington who has I.M.F. employees as clients.
>> >
>> > He said that income reported on W-2 forms usually had payroll taxes
>> > withheld. But, he said, the W-2 forms sent out by the I.M.F. say simply
>> > "none" on those lines. Since Mr. Geithner probably described himself as
>> > an
>> > employee, the software would not have prompted him to file a Schedule
>> > SE,
>> > which is used by the self-employed to file payroll taxes, Mr. Gruen
>> > said.
>> >
>> > "That exposes the problem with that software, in my opinion," Mr. Gruen
>> > added."
>>
>>
>> Rudy Rudy Rudy - he says he had all the paperwork, he wants to be head of
>> the IRS but he can't read or understand it?
>>
>> When caught he paid only half of it because the statute limitations had
>> run
>> out? Then when speaking with the Obama team he decides to pay the rest?
>>
>> Pickles is right - you are a dweeb Rudy.
>
> I'm just trying to figure out why you are so willing to accept Linda
> Chavez' word that she had no idea the woman living in her house doing
> cleaning work for her was an illegal immigrant, yet you can't seem to
> grasp how Geithner failed to pay taxes on a payroll tax issue that even
> accountants could not understand.

Maybe because he wants to be head of the IRS?

Maybe because he had all the papers in front of him?

Maybe because he stated it was an "oversight" - not that he didn't
understand them.

Maybe because once he was caught he tried to get away with only paying half?

Do you want someone who doesn't understand economics to be head of
economics? That would be like voting me in. I have no clue either.

Get it?




              
Date: 27 Jan 2009 07:57:02
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26 2009 4:45 PM, Susan wrote:

> "JerseyRudy" <a44f915@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:vbl156x3q3.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Jan 26 2009 3:27 PM, Susan wrote:
> >
> >> "JerseyRudy" <a44f915@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:09h156xc23.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >>
> >> > As usual, you appear to be arguing with yourself. Geithner's situation
> >> > is
> >> > comepletely different from having an illegal immigrant live in his
> >> > house
> >> > for two years and then failing to disclose that to the administration
> >> > and
> >> > the FBI...which was one of the points I was trying to make - each
> >> > situation is different, so comparisons tend to be pointless. You were
> >> > the
> >> > one who introduced the comparisons into this discussion.
> >>
> >> The point I am making is that Geithner had an illegal IN HIS EMPLOY,
> >> while
> >> Linda Chavez had a battered and abused woman staying with her, not
> >> working
> >> for her. And they say that Conservatives are cold hearted.
> >>
> >
> > and they say Liberals are naive! You really think that she had this woman
> > live in her house for two years out of some random act of charity? Because
> > even the Bush transition officials seemed to realize that it had all the
> > indicia of an employer-employee relationship:
> >
> > "Her decision to withdraw her name came two days after Bush transition
> > officials said that for two years, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala,
> > Marta Mercado, had lived in Ms. Chavez's house, did some cleaning for her
> > and received at least $1,500 from her."
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > This is a pretty good explanation of the Geithner situation, and not
> >> > surprising, it is much less clear-cut than you portray it (certainly
> >> > much
> >> > less clear-cut than having an illegal immigrant live in your house for
> >> > two
> >> > years and then failing to disclose that to the FBI):
> >> >
> >> > "The Senate Finance Committee disclosed Tuesday that the Treasury
> >> > nominee,
> >> > Timothy F. Geithner, had failed to pay more than $34,000 in taxes for
> >> > Social Security and Medicare when he was a senior official at the
> >> > International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2003, including a small
> >> > payment
> >> > in 2004 after he left.
> >> >
> >> > The I.M.F., like other international organizations, does not withhold
> >> > payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare from its American
> >> > employees' paychecks. But it provides documents to help them understand
> >> > their tax obligations, including a tax booklet. The version of the
> >> > booklet
> >> > released by the Senate committee explained, on Page 4, how to pay
> >> > payroll
> >> > taxes.
> >> >
> >> > Mr. Geithner acknowledged that he received all of the paperwork,
> >> > according
> >> > to committee documents. And he is familiar with payroll taxes, because
> >> > he
> >> > has paid them for household employees in the past, as well as for his
> >> > personal consulting business.
> >> >
> >> > Still, several tax experts said, it is an easy mistake for an employee
> >> > of
> >> > an international organization to make.
> >> >
> >> > "This is not your normal situation between an employer and an
> >> > employee,"
> >> > said Saul Brenner, a tax partner at Berdon, an accounting and advisory
> >> > firm. "Did he make a mistake? Absolutely. But it appears that both he
> >> > and
> >> > his accountant made a mistake."
> >> >
> >> > American companies and their employees typically split payroll taxes
> >> > for
> >> > Social Security and Medicare: each pays 6.2 percent of the employee's
> >> > gross income to cover the Social Security piece, along with an
> >> > additional
> >> > 1.45 percent for Medicare.
> >> >
> >> > But the I.M.F. is a tax-exempt organization. Its employees who are not
> >> > American citizens do not owe these taxes. Still, I.M.F. employees who
> >> > are
> >> > American citizens must pay these taxes, just as if they were
> >> > self-employed.
> >> >
> >> > Self-employed individuals are responsible for paying all of the taxes
> >> > on
> >> > their own, and must file an additional form with their 1040 tax return
> >> > when they do so. The I.M.F pays its employees a tax allowance every
> >> > three
> >> > months that covers the employer's portion of the taxes, and routinely
> >> > provides employees with a quarterly breakdown of that allowance.
> >> >
> >> > The Senate documents said that Mr. Geithner had prepared his own taxes
> >> > in
> >> > 2001 and 2002. However, an accountant reviewed his 2001 return and also
> >> > failed to catch the mistake. In 2003 and 2004, he used an accountant
> >> > who
> >> > advised him that he was exempt from self-employment taxes.
> >> >
> >> > The I.R.S. has noted that many employees of international
> >> > organizations,
> >> > including foreign embassies and consular offices, have made mistakes in
> >> > filing their taxes. For example, an I.R.S. notice in 2006 said that up
> >> > to
> >> > half of such employees had incorrectly filed their tax returns, making
> >> > errors like failure to pay self-employment taxes. The I.R.S. offered a
> >> > one-time settlement to resolve these issues.
> >> >
> >> > "There was so much confusion about these and related rules that the
> >> > I.R.S.
> >> > offered a settlement initiative," said William Massey, senior tax
> >> > analyst
> >> > in the tax and accounting unit of Thomson Reuters. "The error is not
> >> > uncommon, as the statutory provisions governing this situation are very
> >> > convoluted."
> >> >
> >> > "I have read that he relied on his accountant and that could have been
> >> > an
> >> > easy mistake for the average accountant to make given the complexity of
> >> > the code sections involving exceptions to exceptions," Mr. Massey said.
> >> >
> >> > The Senate documents indicated that Mr. Geithner had used tax software
> >> > in
> >> > the past, but did not make clear whether he had used it in 2001 and
> >> > 2002
> >> > to prepare his returns. Even if he had used the software in those
> >> > years,
> >> > tax experts said the software would probably not have warned him that
> >> > he
> >> > was making a mistake.
> >> >
> >> > "I do know on my software this is a mistake that could be made by an
> >> > inexperienced operator," said Bill Gruen, a certified public account
> >> > from
> >> > Washington who has I.M.F. employees as clients.
> >> >
> >> > He said that income reported on W-2 forms usually had payroll taxes
> >> > withheld. But, he said, the W-2 forms sent out by the I.M.F. say simply
> >> > "none" on those lines. Since Mr. Geithner probably described himself as
> >> > an
> >> > employee, the software would not have prompted him to file a Schedule
> >> > SE,
> >> > which is used by the self-employed to file payroll taxes, Mr. Gruen
> >> > said.
> >> >
> >> > "That exposes the problem with that software, in my opinion," Mr. Gruen
> >> > added."
> >>
> >>
> >> Rudy Rudy Rudy - he says he had all the paperwork, he wants to be head of
> >> the IRS but he can't read or understand it?
> >>
> >> When caught he paid only half of it because the statute limitations had
> >> run
> >> out? Then when speaking with the Obama team he decides to pay the rest?
> >>
> >> Pickles is right - you are a dweeb Rudy.
> >
> > I'm just trying to figure out why you are so willing to accept Linda
> > Chavez' word that she had no idea the woman living in her house doing
> > cleaning work for her was an illegal immigrant, yet you can't seem to
> > grasp how Geithner failed to pay taxes on a payroll tax issue that even
> > accountants could not understand.
>
> Maybe because he wants to be head of the IRS?
>
> Maybe because he had all the papers in front of him?
>
> Maybe because he stated it was an "oversight" - not that he didn't
> understand them.
>
> Maybe because once he was caught he tried to get away with only paying half?
>
> Do you want someone who doesn't understand economics to be head of
> economics? That would be like voting me in. I have no clue either.
>
> Get it?

I get that you didn't answer my question.

I already knew that you were against Geithner's nomination as Treasury
Secretary and the reasons why. My question was "why you are so willing to
accept Linda Chavez' word that she had no idea the woman living in her
house doing cleaning work for her was an illegal immigrant, yet you can't
seem to grasp how Geithner failed to pay taxes on a payroll tax issue that
even
accountants could not understand."

If you read my question, you will see that I am granting you the fact that
you are unable to grasp how Geithner failed to pay taxes on this payroll
issue. My question is why are you at the same time so willing to accept
Chavez' word that she had no idea the woman living in her house doing
cleaning work for her was an illegal immigrant? You didn't address this
question at all in your response. Your failure to respond leaves open the
impression that you might have a double standard when it comes to
Republican nominees as opposed to Democratic nominees. Get it?

______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



               
Date: 27 Jan 2009 10:46:36
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
"JerseyRudy"

> ... yet you can't seem to grasp how Geithner failed to pay taxes
> on a payroll tax issue that even accountants could not understand.

Yeah, Rudy, those self employment taxes are a bitch to understand. He
should have had "people."

And yet, someone who is being hired to solve the "financial crisis" might be
expected to understand something so difficult. Especially after it is
pointed out to him and he still "forgets" the same "issue" for previous
years. Yeah, an honest mistake.




                
Date: 27 Jan 2009 11:17:21
From: Kyle T. Jones
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
da pickle, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 1/27/2009
10:46 AM or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on
Usenet:
> "JerseyRudy"
>
>> ... yet you can't seem to grasp how Geithner failed to pay taxes
>> on a payroll tax issue that even accountants could not understand.
>
> Yeah, Rudy, those self employment taxes are a bitch to understand. He
> should have had "people."
>
> And yet, someone who is being hired to solve the "financial crisis" might be
> expected to understand something so difficult. Especially after it is
> pointed out to him and he still "forgets" the same "issue" for previous
> years. Yeah, an honest mistake.
>
>

Interesting. I'm adding this to the "Republicans and Democrats do *not*
act the same" file - first with the unbelievable amount of flak the
right gave Obama prior to him even assuming office...

And now with this appointments-under-the-(electron)microscope act. I
think that's a good thing, in a way... but you can't claim "turnabouts
fair play", right - as an easy example, we didn't hear about how grossly
underqualified "heck of a job" Brownie was until *after* Katrina - where
were y'all watchdogs, then? Did Orangie post anything?

I guess what I'm saying is I must of missed the outrage from you and
Susan back in 2003, when Mikey was appointed by Bush. I single you two
out, specifically, because you both profess some degree of objectivity.
I'm fairly unconvinced, of course.

Cheers.


                 
Date: 28 Jan 2009 09:07:07
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
"Kyle T. Jones"

> I guess what I'm saying is I must of missed the outrage from you and Susan
> back in 2003, when Mikey was appointed by Bush.

Where was the fourth estate when Mikey was appointed? Where were you?

You really believe it is the same thing?

When did you get into this "but Bush" posture?




                  
Date: 28 Jan 2009 09:18:02
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 28 2009 10:07 AM, da pickle wrote:

> "Kyle T. Jones"
>
> > I guess what I'm saying is I must of missed the outrage from you and Susan
> > back in 2003, when Mikey was appointed by Bush.
>
> Where was the fourth estate when Mikey was appointed? Where were you?

That's a funny question ("Where was the fourth estate when Mikey was
appointed?") coming from you. One of your constant themes is that the
fourth estate is biased against the right-wing. There were plenty of media
reports and newspaper articles going back to the beginning of the Bush
Administration on how the President had surrounded himself with "yes men"
and appointed lackeys and underqualified people to key posts. I am certain
that these reports and articles were dismissed by people like you based on
the "bias of the mainstream media."

Now you are asking where were they when this was happening? That's what
we in the northeast call "chutzpah"

---- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



                   
Date: 28 Jan 2009 13:36:44
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
It looks like JerseyJackass is gong to win the "But Bush! of The Month
Award". According to Jersey Jackass, there can be no mention of the
current President unless it's with gushing praise. Otherwise, It's
going to be "but Bush!" from Jerseyjackass.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


                    
Date: 28 Jan 2009 11:49:50
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 28 2009 2:36 PM, Travel wrote:

> It looks like JerseyJackass is gong to win the "But Bush! of The Month
> Award". According to Jersey Jackass, there can be no mention of the
> current President unless it's with gushing praise. Otherwise, It's
> going to be "but Bush!" from Jerseyjackass.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
> Visit www.pokermagazine.com

I'll start worrying when wackos like you agree with me...until then, I
will take pride in causing someone like you to foam at the mouth!

-------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



                     
Date: 28 Jan 2009 12:03:04
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...


Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 11:49am
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >


On Jan 28 2009 2:36 PM, Travel wrote:

It looks like JerseyJackass is gong to win the "But Bush! of The Month
Award". According to Jersey Jackass, there can be no mention of the
current President unless it's with gushing praise. Otherwise, It's going
to be "but Bush!" from Jerseyjackass.
______________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


I'll start worrying when wackos like you agree with me...until then, I
will take pride in causing someone like you to foam at the mouth!
--------=EF=BF=BD
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

.........................................................................=
.........

It seems it's you (and BobTeeHee) who's foaming at the mouth,
Jerseyjackass, lol. It's you who flamed the thread when you didn't like
hearing about Obama's Gitmo poll numbers.

We'll start calling you JerseyButBush! from now on.



                      
Date: 28 Jan 2009 15:26:20
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"Travel A" <nine510@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:28286-4980B9F8-2886@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...


Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 11:49am
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >


On Jan 28 2009 2:36 PM, Travel wrote:

It looks like JerseyJackass is gong to win the "But Bush! of The Month
Award". According to Jersey Jackass, there can be no mention of the
current President unless it's with gushing praise. Otherwise, It's going
to be "but Bush!" from Jerseyjackass.
______________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


I'll start worrying when wackos like you agree with me...until then, I
will take pride in causing someone like you to foam at the mouth!
--------�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

..................................................................................

It seems it's you (and BobTeeHee) who's foaming at the mouth,
Jerseyjackass, lol. It's you who flamed the thread when you didn't like
hearing about Obama's Gitmo poll numbers.

We'll start calling you JerseyButBush! from now on.

"JerseyButBush". LOL. Now that is a perfect description! JerseyButBush it
is.

Irish Mike




                       
Date: 28 Jan 2009 12:59:27
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 28 2009 3:26 PM, Irish Mike wrote:

> "Travel A" <nine510@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:28286-4980B9F8-2886@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
>
>
> Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
> Group: rec.gambling.poker
> Date: Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 11:49am
> From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid>
>
>
> On Jan 28 2009 2:36 PM, Travel wrote:
>
> It looks like JerseyJackass is gong to win the "But Bush! of The Month
> Award". According to Jersey Jackass, there can be no mention of the
> current President unless it's with gushing praise. Otherwise, It's going
> to be "but Bush!" from Jerseyjackass.
> ______________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
> Visit www.pokermagazine.com
>
>
> I'll start worrying when wackos like you agree with me...until then, I
> will take pride in causing someone like you to foam at the mouth!
> --------�
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
>
>
..................................................................................
>
> It seems it's you (and BobTeeHee) who's foaming at the mouth,
> Jerseyjackass, lol. It's you who flamed the thread when you didn't like
> hearing about Obama's Gitmo poll numbers.
>
> We'll start calling you JerseyButBush! from now on.
>
> "JerseyButBush". LOL. Now that is a perfect description! JerseyButBush it
> is.
>
> Irish Mike

yep, with people like Mike and Travel giving up on making any kind of real
argument and resorting to 2nd grade name-calling, I must be doing
something right!

_______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



                  
Date: 28 Jan 2009 10:18:22
From: Kyle T. Jones
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
da pickle, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 1/28/2009 9:07
AM or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on Usenet:
> "Kyle T. Jones"
>
>> I guess what I'm saying is I must of missed the outrage from you and Susan
>> back in 2003, when Mikey was appointed by Bush.
>
> Where was the fourth estate when Mikey was appointed? Where were you?
>

I didn't comment on that until after it was clear that he was in over
his head. I won't comment on any of Obama's appointments until the same
standard is met.

It's called consistency. You should try it sometime.

> You really believe it is the same thing?
>
> When did you get into this "but Bush" posture?
>
>

It's not a "but Bush" posture, it's a simple illustration of the fact
that you, and Susan, have just as much a propensity toward partisan
hypocrisy as you both claim Orangie is always displaying.

Cheers.


                   
Date: 28 Jan 2009 18:36:23
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@realdomain.net > wrote in message
news:glq0gf$uhb$2@news.motzarella.org...
> da pickle, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 1/28/2009 9:07
> AM or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on Usenet:
>> "Kyle T. Jones"
>>
>>> I guess what I'm saying is I must of missed the outrage from you and
>>> Susan back in 2003, when Mikey was appointed by Bush.
>>
>> Where was the fourth estate when Mikey was appointed? Where were you?
>>
>
> I didn't comment on that until after it was clear that he was in over his
> head. I won't comment on any of Obama's appointments until the same
> standard is met.
>
> It's called consistency. You should try it sometime.
>
>> You really believe it is the same thing?
>>
>> When did you get into this "but Bush" posture?
>
> It's not a "but Bush" posture, it's a simple illustration of the fact that
> you, and Susan, have just as much a propensity toward partisan hypocrisy
> as you both claim Orangie is always displaying.
>
> Cheers.

The standard I refer to is not who is best qualified for the job. Someone
mentioned Lynn's qualifications. I'm sure he is quite qualified, as I'm
sure others are. But you and others seem to think that he is the only one
capable.

The standard I refer to is the lies and hypocrisy to get someone into the
job.

Can I assume that Mikey is *Brownie*? I don't think anyone mentioned him
before the shit hit the fan because I'm not sure anyone knew what special
qualfications were needed to do the job. Obviously his weren't right, but
did anyone mention someone else who would have been better?

In this day of internet access and 24 hour news stations closer scrutiny is
warranted because people do look for things to complain about.

I'm sure that Geithner knows a whole lot more about the economy than even
you do (certainly miles ahead of me). I'm sure there are equally brilliant
economic minds that pay their taxes and wouldn't be controversial.

You make it sound like there is only person for each job and with that I
totally disagree.




                    
Date: 29 Jan 2009 09:14:22
From: Kyle T. Jones
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Susan, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 1/28/2009 6:36 PM
or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on Usenet:

> You make it sound like there is only person for each job and with that I
> totally disagree.
>
>

Well, that certainly wasn't what I was attempting to communicate. My
point is that many claim this ultra-microscope, ultra-critical,
ultra-prejudged attitude toward Obama, and everything he does (even
everything he was doing before he actually assumed office - such as
cabinet choices) goes far beyond anything I've ever seen before.

The usual counter-claim is that the left treated Bush the same way in
2000-2001, but that's simply a claim of convenience and revision. As
I've invited everyone to do, it's simple to verify: just go read some of
your usual Usenet groups from that time-period (Nov 2000 - Feb 2001),
and compare to what you've seen over the same period this time.

It doesn't compare. Whether that's good/bad/indifferent, I'm not saying
- I'm just saying it isn't the same. It isn't... consistent.

Cheers.


                   
Date: 28 Jan 2009 11:08:01
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
"Kyle T. Jones"

>>> I guess what I'm saying is I must of missed the outrage from you and
>>> Susan back in 2003, when Mikey was appointed by Bush.
>>
>> Where was the fourth estate when Mikey was appointed? Where were you?
>
> I didn't comment on that until after it was clear that he was in over his
> head. I won't comment on any of Obama's appointments until the same
> standard is met.
>
> It's called consistency. You should try it sometime.


So, when Mikey was nominated and it was discovered that he had long
experience in FEMA policies and it was revealed that he make "simple
mistakes" that even you or me would not have made, and the Senate confirmed
him anyway, you were just sitting there holding your opinion until he
actually screwed up?


>> You really believe it is the same thing?
>>
>> When did you get into this "but Bush" posture?
>
> It's not a "but Bush" posture, it's a simple illustration of the fact that
> you, and Susan, have just as much a propensity toward partisan hypocrisy
> as you both claim Orangie is always displaying.

Orange's display is never anything but what it is ... are you actually
defending Orange?

I try and keep my comments on the subject. This subject is whether the
"mistakes" made by Geithner were "simple and honest" or not. I think not.
You apparently think that has something to do with partisanship ... I don't
... I think you are mistaken. I think that the "mistakes" were neither
simple nor has the "repair" of the errors been "honest."

I personally like Geithner, I hope he will be a great Sec of Treasury ...
but that does not change the FACT that he acted quite (at best) foolishly
with regard to his tax problems.

It would take a real "partisan" to miss that.




                    
Date: 28 Jan 2009 16:36:21
From: Kyle T. Jones
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
da pickle, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 1/28/2009
11:08 AM or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on
Usenet:

>>>
>>> When did you get into this "but Bush" posture?
>> It's not a "but Bush" posture, it's a simple illustration of the fact that
>> you, and Susan, have just as much a propensity toward partisan hypocrisy
>> as you both claim Orangie is always displaying.
>
> Orange's display is never anything but what it is ... are you actually
> defending Orange?
>

How could you read the above and think I'm defending Orange, pickle?

> I try and keep my comments on the subject. This subject is whether the
> "mistakes" made by Geithner were "simple and honest" or not. I think not.
> You apparently think that has something to do with partisanship ... I don't
> ... I think you are mistaken. I think that the "mistakes" were neither
> simple nor has the "repair" of the errors been "honest."
>

I wasn't commenting on the "subject", I guess - I was commenting on the
fact that everyone likes to pretend that the folks on the left and right
operate the same way (witness your "but Bush" comment, all the "but
Clinton" talk - all meant to reinforce the idea that both sides are
equally ridiculous) - but what I've been witnessing since Obama won is
*not* similar to what I saw when Bush won in 2000.

It really isn't. If you disbelieve, go back and read RGP from the
period of Nov 2000 to the end of January 2001.

I'm starting to think this is a myth - like the idea that Carter wrecked
the economy, and those 18-20% loan rates showed up when he was at the
helm (we all know they showed up three years earlier, during the Nixon
era, but what's a little truth between friends...)

Revision, revision, revision! It's enough to make an honest
Joe^H^H^HKyle SICK!

Cheers.


                     
Date: 28 Jan 2009 19:47:19
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
JerseyButBush! wrote:

"yep, with people like Mike and Travel giving up on making any kind of
real
argument and resorting to 2nd grade name-calling, I must be doing
something right!"

_______________________________________________________________________


No, you're doing nothing right. You've been destroyed on every one of
your 1st grade in retard school level "arguments."

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


                     
Date: 28 Jan 2009 17:07:20
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
"Kyle T. Jones"

> I wasn't commenting on the "subject", I guess

I'm sorry ... I misunderstood.




                      
Date: 28 Jan 2009 17:25:43
From: Kyle T. Jones
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
da pickle, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 1/28/2009 5:07
PM or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on Usenet:
> "Kyle T. Jones"
>
>> I wasn't commenting on the "subject", I guess
>
> I'm sorry ... I misunderstood.
>
>

If this is even the real pickle, that kinda shit *used* to be beneath you.

Cheers.


                 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 11:45:52
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@realdomain.net > wrote in message
news:glnfj3$b7d$1@news.motzarella.org...
> da pickle, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 1/27/2009 10:46
> AM or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on Usenet:
>> "JerseyRudy"
>>
>>> ... yet you can't seem to grasp how Geithner failed to pay taxes
>>> on a payroll tax issue that even accountants could not understand.
>>
>> Yeah, Rudy, those self employment taxes are a bitch to understand. He
>> should have had "people."
>>
>> And yet, someone who is being hired to solve the "financial crisis" might
>> be expected to understand something so difficult. Especially after it is
>> pointed out to him and he still "forgets" the same "issue" for previous
>> years. Yeah, an honest mistake.
>
> Interesting. I'm adding this to the "Republicans and Democrats do *not*
> act the same" file - first with the unbelievable amount of flak the right
> gave Obama prior to him even assuming office...
>
> And now with this appointments-under-the-(electron)microscope act. I
> think that's a good thing, in a way... but you can't claim "turnabouts
> fair play", right - as an easy example, we didn't hear about how grossly
> underqualified "heck of a job" Brownie was until *after* Katrina - where
> were y'all watchdogs, then? Did Orangie post anything?
>
> I guess what I'm saying is I must of missed the outrage from you and Susan
> back in 2003, when Mikey was appointed by Bush. I single you two out,
> specifically, because you both profess some degree of objectivity. I'm
> fairly unconvinced, of course.
>
> Cheers.

who's Mikey?




                  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:16:43
From: Kyle T. Jones
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Susan, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 1/27/2009 11:45 AM
or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on Usenet:

>> Cheers.
>
> who's Mikey?
>
>

http://www.verypink.com/Images/jingles2/life.jpg


               
Date: 27 Jan 2009 10:19:27
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"JerseyRudy" <a44f915@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:efn356xcpa.ln2@recgroups.com...

this was your question -

"I'm just trying to figure out why you are so willing to accept Linda
Chavez' word that she had no idea the woman living in her house doing
cleaning work for her was an illegal immigrant, yet you can't seem to
grasp how Geithner failed to pay taxes on a payroll tax issue that even
accountants could not understand."

I answered the second part of it. And no where have I said I didn't want
him to be confirmed.

The first part of your question re: Chavez I have already answered twice.




              
Date: 26 Jan 2009 15:57:23
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
"Susan"

> Get it?

He does not get it.




           
Date: 26 Jan 2009 14:14:55
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
"JerseyRudy"

> As usual, you appear to be arguing with yourself. Geithner's situation is
> comepletely different

You are such a dweeb, Rudy ... there is just no excuse for you at all.

What a goof.




            
Date: 26 Jan 2009 13:00:27
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26 2009 3:14 PM, da pickle wrote:

> "JerseyRudy"
>
> > As usual, you appear to be arguing with yourself. Geithner's situation is
> > comepletely different
>
> You are such a dweeb, Rudy ... there is just no excuse for you at all.
>
> What a goof.

I don't think this is the real Pickle. He usually insults me in a more
sophisticated manner.

________________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



             
Date: 27 Jan 2009 10:27:31
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...


Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 1:00pm
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >


On Jan 26 2009 3:14 PM, da pickle wrote:

"JerseyRudy"

As usual, you appear to be arguing with yourself. Geithner's situation
is comepletely different

You are such a dweeb, Rudy ... there is just no excuse for you at all.
What a goof.


I don't think this is the real Pickle. He usually insults me in a more
sophisticated manner.
______________________________________________


No, he usually extends some consideration. You're clearly beyond
consideration and require accuracy in blunt description.



      
Date: 25 Jan 2009 15:54:31
From: Bill T
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On 1/25/2009 14:25, Susan wrote:


<<<snip >>>
>
> What bothered me more than either of the above was the Geithner deal (not
> even so much the not paying taxes, though having him be in charge of the IRS
> is just a wee bit troubling) but the glossing over of his having an illegal
> in his employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004) when Bush tried to
> appoint some woman (whose name completely escapes me) and was turned down
> to be the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal housekeeper.
>


I think it is the other way around. Geithner's housekeeper was legal
when she was hired and slipped into illegal status a few years later.
It would be beyond the call of duty to re-check the immigration status
of your household help every few months.

But, it seems obvious to me that Geithner fudged his taxes. After his
audit told him that he owed self-employment taxes, he paid the amount
assessed, but not that shielded by the IRS statue of limitations.
Legal, but sleazy.

The Republicans had a real issue with his nomination hearings, but they
caved.



       
Date: 25 Jan 2009 19:42:57
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:497cfade$0$22985$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> On 1/25/2009 14:25, Susan wrote:
>
>
> <<<snip>>>
>>
>> What bothered me more than either of the above was the Geithner deal (not
>> even so much the not paying taxes, though having him be in charge of the
>> IRS
>> is just a wee bit troubling) but the glossing over of his having an
>> illegal
>> in his employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004) when Bush tried to
>> appoint some woman (whose name completely escapes me) and was turned down
>> to be the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal housekeeper.
>>
>
>
> I think it is the other way around. Geithner's housekeeper was legal when
> she was hired and slipped into illegal status a few years later. It would
> be beyond the call of duty to re-check the immigration status of your
> household help every few months.

I can tell you the immigration status of everyone of my employees. Its
called be a responsible business owner.

>
> But, it seems obvious to me that Geithner fudged his taxes. After his
> audit told him that he owed self-employment taxes, he paid the amount
> assessed, but not that shielded by the IRS statue of limitations. Legal,
> but sleazy.
>
> The Republicans had a real issue with his nomination hearings, but they
> caved.

He paid half of what was back owed (2 of the 4 years) and then just recently
paid the other 2 years.

I know next to zilch about economics, and hope he does the right thing and
gets us out of this mess. This has nothing to do with whether he is a
sleaze bag or not.




        
Date: 25 Jan 2009 18:31:04
From: Bill T
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On 1/25/2009 17:42, Susan wrote:
>
> I can tell you the immigration status of everyone of my employees. Its
> called be a responsible business owner.

Do you check on them month-to-month? In my neighborhood practically
everyone doing manual labor is Mexican/Central-American. I am pretty
sure that the guys handling my housekeeping and gardening are legal; I
also suspect that some of the guys/gals doing the actual work are
"undocumented"


>> The Republicans had a real issue with his nomination hearings, but they
>> caved.
>
> He paid half of what was back owed (2 of the 4 years) and then just recently
> paid the other 2 years.


Yeah, but I am sure that Geithner knew he owed for the other 2 years.
Since that amount was not collectible under the IRS statue of
limitations, he paid only because he wants to become Secretary of the
Treasury.

Geithner will get in because he is considered indispensable - i.e., too
big to fail.


>
> I know next to zilch about economics, and hope he does the right thing and
> gets us out of this mess. This has nothing to do with whether he is a
> sleaze bag or not.
>
>



         
Date: 25 Jan 2009 20:45:09
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:497d1f90$0$22972$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> On 1/25/2009 17:42, Susan wrote:
>>
>> I can tell you the immigration status of everyone of my employees. Its
>> called be a responsible business owner.
>
> Do you check on them month-to-month? In my neighborhood practically
> everyone doing manual labor is Mexican/Central-American. I am pretty sure
> that the guys handling my housekeeping and gardening are legal; I also
> suspect that some of the guys/gals doing the actual work are
> "undocumented"

When we hire them, we get all the paperwork. It doesn't take a genius to
know when a work permit or green card or legal status is over. Everything
is in both paper files and the computer.

Do you hire a company that does the gardening? Or hire individuals? I
think there is a difference - ie. who is responsible. I can't imagine that
you have to check the status of employees of a company you don't own.



>>> The Republicans had a real issue with his nomination hearings, but they
>>> caved.
>>
>> He paid half of what was back owed (2 of the 4 years) and then just
>> recently
>> paid the other 2 years.
>
>
> Yeah, but I am sure that Geithner knew he owed for the other 2 years.
> Since that amount was not collectible under the IRS statue of limitations,
> he paid only because he wants to become Secretary of the Treasury.
>
> Geithner will get in because he is considered indispensable - i.e., too
> big to fail.

I hope he works out and does whats best for us.






       
Date: 25 Jan 2009 19:50:50
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:497cfade$0$22985$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> On 1/25/2009 14:25, Susan wrote:
>
>
> <<<snip>>>
>>
>> What bothered me more than either of the above was the Geithner deal (not
>> even so much the not paying taxes, though having him be in charge of the
>> IRS
>> is just a wee bit troubling) but the glossing over of his having an
>> illegal
>> in his employ. I think it was in 2000 (maybe 2004) when Bush tried to
>> appoint some woman (whose name completely escapes me) and was turned down
>> to be the Sec. of Labor because she had a illegal housekeeper.
>>
>
>
> I think it is the other way around. Geithner's housekeeper was legal when
> she was hired and slipped into illegal status a few years later. It would
> be beyond the call of duty to re-check the immigration status of your
> household help every few months.

Bullshit. He's a government official and it was his responsibility to make
sure any one working for him was legal. I mean, how many servants does
Geithner have working in his house? It's not that hard to keep track of
provided you have any interest in the matter. And she didn't just "slip"
into illegal status. She was illegal for several years.
>
> But, it seems obvious to me that Geithner fudged his taxes. After his
> audit told him that he owed self-employment taxes, he paid the amount
> assessed, but not that shielded by the IRS statue of limitations. Legal,
> but sleazy.

He didn't "fudge" his taxes. He didn't pay them for four years, and when he
got caught he never made full restitution. Fine example for the head of the
IRS to set. Face it bucko, Obama hired a tax cheat and when he found out
about it he didn't withdraw the position. He just said, "It's no big
thing". If Geithner was a Republican his political career would have been
over. Of course the rules don't apply when you work for The Messiah. Now
that is change you can believe in.

Irish Mike




        
Date: 25 Jan 2009 19:32:18
From: Bill T
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On 1/25/2009 16:50, Irish Mike wrote:

>> I think it is the other way around. Geithner's housekeeper was legal when
>> she was hired and slipped into illegal status a few years later. It would
>> be beyond the call of duty to re-check the immigration status of your
>> household help every few months.
>
> Bullshit. He's a government official and it was his responsibility to make
> sure any one working for him was legal. I mean, how many servants does
> Geithner have working in his house? It's not that hard to keep track of
> provided you have any interest in the matter. And she didn't just "slip"
> into illegal status. She was illegal for several years.
>> But, it seems obvious to me that Geithner fudged his taxes. After his


The housekeeper was illegal for 3 months. I don't continually check on
the immigration status of my domestic workers.




> He didn't "fudge" his taxes. He didn't pay them for four years, and when he
> got caught he never made full restitution. Fine example for the head of the
> IRS to set. Face it bucko, Obama hired a tax cheat and when he found out
> about it he didn't withdraw the position. He just said, "It's no big
> thing". If Geithner was a Republican his political career would have been
> over. Of course the rules don't apply when you work for The Messiah. Now
> that is change you can believe in.


Yep. He scammed within the legal framework. The Republicans cave and
Geithner gets thru. If the Repubs had balls they would've made a stand
right here. The Repubs lose.





    
Date: 25 Jan 2009 15:57:01
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
The latest poll shows that 45% of the people are against closing Gitmo,
35% in favor and 20% "don't know".

Obama is already going against the will of the people.

When people start to realize that they're not as safe with the Obama
policies, you'll see his approval ratings drop. There aren't many
people out there in the country who approve of being "politically
correct" to terrorists.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


     
Date: 26 Jan 2009 10:36:44
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 25 2009 4:57 PM, Travel wrote:

> The latest poll shows that 45% of the people are against closing Gitmo,
> 35% in favor and 20% "don't know".
>
> Obama is already going against the will of the people.
>
> When people start to realize that they're not as safe with the Obama
> policies, you'll see his approval ratings drop. There aren't many
> people out there in the country who approve of being "politically
> correct" to terrorists.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
> Visit www.pokermagazine.com

"politically correct" under your definition means complying with the
law...very telling.

His approval ratings are sky-high, so I'm sure they will drop a little as
he begins to govern.

The funniest part of this post is that Obama is being critcized for not
following the will of the people on this issue, as reflected by a poll.
President Clinton was constantly criticized by the right-wing for
governing based on polls.

Make up your mind...do you want them to govern based on polls or not? or
do you want them to govern based on polls only when you agree with the
majority of those being polled...there's a principled stand!

_____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



      
Date: 26 Jan 2009 23:29:32
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26 2009 1:36 PM, JerseyRudy wrote:

> On Jan 25 2009 4:57 PM, Travel wrote:
>
> > The latest poll shows that 45% of the people are against closing Gitmo,
> > 35% in favor and 20% "don't know".
> >
> > Obama is already going against the will of the people.
> >
> > When people start to realize that they're not as safe with the Obama
> > policies, you'll see his approval ratings drop. There aren't many
> > people out there in the country who approve of being "politically
> > correct" to terrorists.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
> > Visit www.pokermagazine.com
>
> "politically correct" under your definition means complying with the
> law...very telling.

Nailed it.

------ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



       
Date: 27 Jan 2009 10:42:40
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
"politically correct" under your definition means complying with the
law...very telling.

Nailed it.
------=EF=BF=BD


Right, he nailed it: he's proven that he's an idiot; and of course you
identify.



      
Date: 26 Jan 2009 11:58:10
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...


Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 10:36am
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >


On Jan 25 2009 4:57 PM, Travel wrote:

The latest poll shows that 45% of the people are against closing Gitmo,
35% in favor and 20% "don't know".
Obama is already going against the will of the people.

When people start to realize that they're not as safe with the Obama
policies, you'll see his approval ratings drop. There aren't many people
out there in the country who approve of being "politically correct" to
terrorists.

______________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


""politically correct" under your definition means complying with the
law...very telling."

..
Huh? Complying with what law? There's a court order to release
terrorists prisoners of war being held at Gitmo? They're lucky they
weren't shot on the battlefield.

You couldn't put more effort into defending terrorists, than other
terrorists...very telling.





"His approval ratings are sky-high, so I'm sure they will drop a little
as he begins to govern."
.......
They are? Aren't they in the 60's? And it's from polls taken before he
even took office or very shorty afterwards.



"The funniest part of this post is that Obama is being critcized for not
following the will of the people on this issue, as reflected by a poll.
President Clinton was constantly criticized by the right-wing for
governing based on polls."
...
And you've just pointed out Obama's arrogance and recklessness, and
Clinton's inability to govern. How about trying sound policies that
represent the will of the people and then the polls would automatically
fall smoothly into place





"Make up your mind...do you want them to govern based on polls or not?"

.....
I didn't say anything about governing based on the polls, you did. Are
you and BobTeehee long-time companions? You seem to think alike; where
you make up your own convenient questions and then answer them yourself,
as it suits your dishonesty.

The truth of the matter JerseyJackass is that, the polls show the
majority of the people don't want Gitmo closed, and you can't stand it.

Do you have a problem with the people's freedom of speech? Yes, you do.
That's quite a principled stand.

Also, the polls were taken right after the inaugural and at the peak of
Obama's "honeymoon period"; and with the help of massive support for the
Gitmo closing from the communist, left wing media.

Obma's disapproval rating on the Gitmo closings are only going to get
much worse; the 20% who "don't know" are going "to know" when the
reports of the -62 Gitmo released terrorists who are back terrorizing-
sinks-in.





       
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:40:11
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26 2009 2:58 PM, Travel A wrote:

> Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
> Group: rec.gambling.poker
> Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 10:36am
> From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid>
>
>
> On Jan 25 2009 4:57 PM, Travel wrote:
>
> The latest poll shows that 45% of the people are against closing Gitmo,
> 35% in favor and 20% "don't know".
> Obama is already going against the will of the people.
>
> When people start to realize that they're not as safe with the Obama
> policies, you'll see his approval ratings drop. There aren't many people
> out there in the country who approve of being "politically correct" to
> terrorists.
>
> ______________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
> Visit www.pokermagazine.com
>
>
> ""politically correct" under your definition means complying with the
> law...very telling."
>
> ...
> Huh? Complying with what law?

If I were you, I would spend a few minutes reading the Geneva Conventions,
and the US Supreme Court decisions on the GITMo detainees. That should
clear up your confusion.
>
>
"His approval ratings are sky-high, so I'm sure they will drop a little
> as he begins to govern."
> ........
> They are? Aren't they in the 60's? And it's from polls taken before he
> even took office or very shorty afterwards.
>
yes, they are "in the 60s." And the latest Gallup poll was taken from his
first 3 days on the job:

Barack Obama’s latest job approval rating, 69%, continues a strong start
to his presidency. His initial approval rating of 68% (reported Saturday)
is better than the debut ratings of his four immediate predecessors, and
ranks among the best for a newly elected president since World War II."
>
> "The funniest part of this post is that Obama is being critcized for not
> following the will of the people on this issue, as reflected by a poll.
> President Clinton was constantly criticized by the right-wing for
> governing based on polls."
> ....
> And you've just pointed out Obama's arrogance and recklessness, and
> Clinton's inability to govern. How about trying sound policies that
> represent the will of the people and then the polls would automatically
> fall smoothly into place
>
>
> Given that he was elected based on the policies that he is now implementing
(such as closing GITMO), that is actually sound advice.
>
>
> "Make up your mind...do you want them to govern based on polls or not?"
>
> ......
> I didn't say anything about governing based on the polls, you did. Are
> you and BobTeehee long-time companions? You seem to think alike; where
> you make up your own convenient questions and then answer them yourself,
> as it suits your dishonesty.
>
> The truth of the matter JerseyJackass is that, the polls show the
> majority of the people don't want Gitmo closed, and you can't stand it.
>
> Do you have a problem with the people's freedom of speech? Yes, you do.
> That's quite a principled stand.
>
> Also, the polls were taken right after the inaugural and at the peak of
> Obama's "honeymoon period"; and with the help of massive support for the
> Gitmo closing from the communist, left wing media.
>
> Obma's disapproval rating on the Gitmo closings are only going to get
> much worse; the 20% who "don't know" are going "to know" when the
> reports of the -62 Gitmo released terrorists who are back terrorizing-
> sinks-in.

The 62 GITMO released terrorists that you refer to were released under the
Bush administration system that Obama is committed to overhauling. If
there is evidence against these people, they should be tried in civilian
or military court. When you torture prisoners you end up with tainted
evidence that cannot be used in a real court. When you imprison people
without evidence in inhuman conditions you create the kind of hatred that
leads to terrorism. Both of these were the result of the Bush
administration system. Obama's job is to take this messed-up system that
has proven itself to be an immense failure (as even you recognize by
citing all the released prisoners who went on to fight against us), and
try to come up with a system that at least complies with the law and does
not stain the reputation of this country.

I have no doubt that if it were up to you we would just take all the
remaining prisoners at GITMO and shoot them. Just dump their bodies in the
sea and the problem is solved. When you don't care about laws it is so
easy to solve these problems!

______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




        
Date: 27 Jan 2009 10:07:51
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

I wrote:

Also, the polls were taken right after the inaugural and at the peak of
Obama's "honeymoon period"; and with the help of massive support for the
Gitmo closing from the communist, left wing media.

Obma's disapproval rating on the Gitmo closings are only going to get
much worse; the 20% who "don't know" are going "to know" when the
reports of the -62 Gitmo released terrorists who are back terrorizing-
sinks-in.




Jerseyjackass wrote:

"The 62 GITMO released terrorists that you refer to were released under
the Bush administration system that Obama is committed to overhauling.
If there is evidence against these people, they should be tried in
civilian or military court. When you torture prisoners you end up with
tainted evidence that cannot be used in a real court. When you imprison
people without evidence in inhuman conditions you create the kind of
hatred that leads to terrorism. Both of these were the result of the
Bush administration system. Obama's job is to take this messed-up system
that has proven itself to be an immense failure (as even you recognize
by citing all the released prisoners who went on to fight against us),
and try to come up with a system that at least complies with the law and
does not stain the reputation of this country.
I have no doubt that if it were up to you we would just take all the
remaining prisoners at GITMO and shoot them. Just dump their bodies in
the sea and the problem is solved. When you don't care about laws it is
so easy to solve these problems!"

..............................................

Here it is, again. The same old JerseyJackass, fact-twisting, dishonest,
double talk rant, of which he's already been destoyed countless time
already.



        
Date: 27 Jan 2009 09:58:29
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...


JerseyJackasswrote:
"The funniest part of this post is that Obama is being critcized for not
following the will of the people on this issue, as reflected by a poll.
President Clinton was constantly criticized by the right-wing for
governing based on polls."
...

I wrote:
And you've just pointed out Obama's arrogance and recklessness, and
Clinton's inability to govern. How about trying sound policies that
represent the will of the people and then the polls would automatically
fall smoothly into place



JerseyJackass wrote:
"Given that he was elected based on the policies that he is now
implementing
(such as closing GITMO), that is actually sound advice."
..................................................................................

Lol, Obama's "policies" were the last thing on which his election was
based. His votes were based on media hype, Bush (but not the fact that
GITMO exists), McCain being a crap candidate and the timing of the
financial crisis.

The only voters who voted for Obama for his policies, were blacks and
the left wing. And certainly, the closing of GITMO had absolutely
nothing to do with the election. In fact, the closing of GITMO as a poll
issue is rejected by the majority of the American people.



         
Date: 27 Jan 2009 10:25:18
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 27 2009 12:58 PM, Travel A wrote:

> JerseyJackasswrote:
> "The funniest part of this post is that Obama is being critcized for not
> following the will of the people on this issue, as reflected by a poll.
> President Clinton was constantly criticized by the right-wing for
> governing based on polls."
> ....
>
> I wrote:
> And you've just pointed out Obama's arrogance and recklessness, and
> Clinton's inability to govern. How about trying sound policies that
> represent the will of the people and then the polls would automatically
> fall smoothly into place
>
>
>
> JerseyJackass wrote:
> "Given that he was elected based on the policies that he is now
> implementing
> (such as closing GITMO), that is actually sound advice."
>
..................................................................................
>
> Lol, Obama's "policies" were the last thing on which his election was
> based. His votes were based on media hype, Bush (but not the fact that
> GITMO exists), McCain being a crap candidate and the timing of the
> financial crisis.
>
> The only voters who voted for Obama for his policies, were blacks and
> the left wing. And certainly, the closing of GITMO had absolutely
> nothing to do with the election. In fact, the closing of GITMO as a poll
> issue is rejected by the majority of the American people.

Here's everything anyone needs to know about you:

you continually cite this one gallup poll in which 45% of the respondents
said they opposed the idea of closing GITMO (45% is not a majority, but at
least you are closer than usual to being correct), but yet you dismiss the
exact same polling group which showed Obama's high approval ratings as
"left wing inflated poll numbers."

Any information that supports your right-wing biases is solid, and any
information which goes against your right-wing biases is dismissed as part
of some left-wing conspiracy. You are like the poster boy for the
existence of Fox News!!

____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




          
Date: 27 Jan 2009 21:15:00
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 27 2009 1:25 PM, JerseyRudy wrote:

> On Jan 27 2009 12:58 PM, Travel A wrote:
>
> > JerseyJackasswrote:
> > "The funniest part of this post is that Obama is being critcized for not
> > following the will of the people on this issue, as reflected by a poll.
> > President Clinton was constantly criticized by the right-wing for
> > governing based on polls."
> > ....
> >
> > I wrote:
> > And you've just pointed out Obama's arrogance and recklessness, and
> > Clinton's inability to govern. How about trying sound policies that
> > represent the will of the people and then the polls would automatically
> > fall smoothly into place
> >
> >
> >
> > JerseyJackass wrote:
> > "Given that he was elected based on the policies that he is now
> > implementing
> > (such as closing GITMO), that is actually sound advice."
> >
>
..................................................................................
> >
> > Lol, Obama's "policies" were the last thing on which his election was
> > based. His votes were based on media hype, Bush (but not the fact that
> > GITMO exists), McCain being a crap candidate and the timing of the
> > financial crisis.
> >
> > The only voters who voted for Obama for his policies, were blacks and
> > the left wing. And certainly, the closing of GITMO had absolutely
> > nothing to do with the election. In fact, the closing of GITMO as a poll
> > issue is rejected by the majority of the American people.
>
> Here's everything anyone needs to know about you:
>
> you continually cite this one gallup poll in which 45% of the respondents
> said they opposed the idea of closing GITMO (45% is not a majority, but at
> least you are closer than usual to being correct), but yet you dismiss the
> exact same polling group which showed Obama's high approval ratings as
> "left wing inflated poll numbers."
>
> Any information that supports your right-wing biases is solid, and any
> information which goes against your right-wing biases is dismissed as part
> of some left-wing conspiracy. You are like the poster boy for the
> existence of Fox News!!


l
o
l

THIS IS YOUR REBUTTAL ? to this ???? why can't you address facts ?

If I were you, I would spend a few minutes reading the Geneva
Conventions, and the US Supreme Court decisions on the GITMo detainees.
That should clear up your confusion.
.............................................

It's you who's confused, based on the fact that you're an idiot.

Under the Laws Of War, these "unlawful enemy combatants" can be held
idefinitely with out charges.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the prisoners should have the
benefit of habeas corpus; but that has ZERO to do with closing Gitmo. It
has to do with trials, moron.


Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with trials, you moron. Habeas Corpus
has to do with providing detainees with basic rights, which include
having a neutral judge review the charges against them to determine if
they are being properly held. The Bush Administration denied this basic
right to the detainees at Gitmo, and the Supreme Court ruled that this
was unlawful. That's why "complying with the law" is important, and
should not be dismissed as "politically correct"

The 15,000 prisoners being held in Iraq do have the benefit of legal
protection under the Geneva Conventions; there was an actual war in
Iraq.
There is no court order to close Gitmo. That was your assertion and
you're wrong. Closing Gitmo is not following the law (as you stated).


I never said that there was any court order to close Gitmo. That is you
putting words in my mouth because you can't argue your indefensible BS
any other way.
Following the law is following the law - it is complying with the laws
regarding providing prisoners basic rights. Closing Gitmo is part of a
comprehensive plan by the new administration that will lead to
compliance with the law when it comes to the detainess (something that
was lacking under the departed administration). The important thing is
not so much whether Gitmo is closed or not (that is mostly symbolic);
the important thing is whether prisoners are treated lawfully and
provided with basic rights under the law. Gitmo was set up in the first
place as a prison to deny basic rights to detainees - if you recall the
first Supreme Court case, the Bush administration argued that because
Gitmo was outside the jurisdiction of the United States, the laws of
this country did not apply
- this was rejected by the Supreme Court, who recognized the fact that
the Bush administartion could not evade the law simply by setting up a
prison in Cuba. Closing Gitmo is not sufficient if the goal is to follow
the law, but it is necessary symbolically given the stain on this
country that Gitmo represents.

______________________________________________


I didn't say that habeas corpus, specifically, had to do with trials,
you illiterate fucking idiot. I know exactly what habeas corpus means;
most people who would even post on the subject would. It's too bad that
you don't, and had to Google that lame rant, above. I didn't think
including a difinition of the term was needed, but I guess I forgot that
I was destroying an idiot. I said the habeas corpus RULING by the
Supreme Court had nothing to do with closing down Gitmo and had to do
with the -trials of prisoners- issue. The issue itself, as a whole, has
to do with trials and not closing down Gitmo. Wake up, moron.

In my post, I went on to emphasize the meaning of habeas corpus and
application with an example of the 15,000 prisoners who have had
undisputed rights to legal protection against being held without
charges. Once there are charges, there's a trial, "get it".

Also, I had this to say about the Afghan/Taliban terrorists being held
at Bagram prison in Afghanistan: "Under the Laws Of War, these "unlawful
enemy combatants" can be held idefinitely with out charges." And then
qualified the remarks with the Supreme Court RULING comments as
previously mentioned.


Not that it would help you much, but you really should learn how to read
before trying to be Obama's no. 1 buttboy communist.

You stated that closing down Gitmo wasn't being politically correct to
terrorists because it was following the law. You said that not following
the law was the definition of politically correct for anyone who opposes
the closing of Gitmo; that's the majority of the people of America, btw.
You were trying to say that closing Gitmo was on the side of the law and
to be against closing Gitmo was to be in favor of ignoring the law.
Well, of course, you're wrong. Obama's not acting on the side of the law
by closing Gitmo, and and anyone who's against closing Gitmo isn't
ignoring the law.

I think you've squirmed your way into your own weasel trap once again,
jackass.
I am not sure what age you are but you really need to stop arguing like a
junior high special needs student. You get confused and you dont like
Bush,we understand that. Please try to make sense.
Atheism is drawing dead

------ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




          
Date: 27 Jan 2009 12:14:51
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...


Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 10:25am
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >


On Jan 27 2009 12:58 PM, Travel A wrote:

JerseyJackasswrote:
"The funniest part of this post is that Obama is being critcized for not
following the will of the people on this issue, as reflected by a poll.
President Clinton was constantly criticized by the right-wing for
governing based on polls."
...
I wrote:
And you've just pointed out Obama's arrogance and recklessness, and
Clinton's inability to govern. How about trying sound policies that
represent the will of the people and then the polls would automatically
fall smoothly into place



JerseyJackass wrote:
"Given that he was elected based on the policies that he is now
implementing
(such as closing GITMO), that is actually sound advice."


.............................................

Lol, Obama's "policies" were the last thing on which his election was
based. His votes were based on media hype, Bush (but not the fact that
GITMO exists), McCain being a crap candidate and the timing of the
financial crisis.
The only voters who voted for Obama for his policies, were blacks and
the left wing. And certainly, the closing of GITMO had absolutely
nothing to do with the election. In fact, the closing of GITMO as a poll
issue is rejected by the majority of the American people.


Here's everything anyone needs to know about you:
you continually cite this one gallup poll in which 45% of the
respondents said they opposed the idea of closing GITMO (45% is not a
majority, but at least you are closer than usual to being correct), but
yet you dismiss the exact same polling group which showed Obama's high
approval ratings as "left wing inflated poll numbers."

Any information that supports your right-wing biases is solid, and any
information which goes against your right-wing biases is dismissed as
part of some left-wing conspiracy. You are like the poster boy for the
existence of Fox News!!

______________________________________________


All anyone has to know about you jackass is that, like BobTeehee, if the
facts aren't left wing supporting, you laughably try to change reality
and set yourself up as a pinata.





        
Date: 27 Jan 2009 09:41:28
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

JerseyJackass wrote:
"His approval ratings are sky-high, so I'm sure they will drop a little
as he begins to govern."
.......

I wrote:
They are? Aren't they in the 60's? And it's from polls taken before he
even took office or very shorty afterwards.


Jersey Jackass wrote:
"yes, they are "in the 60s." And the latest Gallup poll was taken from
his
first 3 days on the job:
Barack Obama=EF=BF=BDs latest job approval rating, 69%, continues a
strong start to his presidency. His initial approval rating of 68%
(reported Saturday) is better than the debut ratings of his four
immediate predecessors, and ranks among the best for a newly elected
president since World War II."

......................................

The 60's isn't "sky high", imbecile. And of course you're using the most
left wing inflated poll numbers.

No need to use "since World War ll". Obama ranks far and away number one
in the history of the world for the media being in the tank for a
candidate and hyping his campaign and evey move he makes. It's all
artificial and it will crash.



        
Date: 27 Jan 2009 08:30:03
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
In Iraq, there was an actual war with an identifiable army/military.



        
Date: 27 Jan 2009 08:22:19
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
JerseyJackass Wrote:

www.pokermagazine.com


""politically correct" under your definition means complying with the
law...very telling."

..
Huh? Complying with what law?


If I were you, I would spend a few minutes reading the Geneva
Conventions, and the US Supreme Court decisions on the GITMo detainees.
That should clear up your confusion.
......................................................

It's you who's confused, based on the fact that you're an idiot.

Under the Laws Of War, these "unlawful enemy combatants" can be held
idefinitely with out charges.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the prisoners should have the
benefit of habeas corpus; but that has ZERO to do with closing Gitmo. It
has to do with trials, moron.

The 15,000 prisoners being held in Iraq do have the benefit of legal
protection under the Geneva Conventions; there was an actual war in
Iraq.

There is no court order to close Gitmo. That was your assertion and
you're wrong. Closing Gitmo is not following the law (as you stated)

Now stop being a dweeb/weasel and STFU.




         
Date: 27 Jan 2009 09:21:48
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 27 2009 11:22 AM, Travel A wrote:

> JerseyJackass Wrote:
>
> www.pokermagazine.com
>
>
> ""politically correct" under your definition means complying with the
> law...very telling."
>
> ...
> Huh? Complying with what law?
>
>
> If I were you, I would spend a few minutes reading the Geneva
> Conventions, and the US Supreme Court decisions on the GITMo detainees.
> That should clear up your confusion.
> .......................................................
>
> It's you who's confused, based on the fact that you're an idiot.
>
> Under the Laws Of War, these "unlawful enemy combatants" can be held
> idefinitely with out charges.
>
> However, the Supreme Court ruled that the prisoners should have the
> benefit of habeas corpus; but that has ZERO to do with closing Gitmo. It
> has to do with trials, moron.

Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with trials, you moron. Habeas Corpus has
to do with providing detainees with basic rights, which include having a
neutral judge review the charges against them to determine if they are
being properly held. The Bush Administration denied this basic right to
the detainees at Gitmo, and the Supreme Court ruled that this was
unlawful. That's why "complying with the law" is important, and should not
be dismissed as "politically correct"
>
> The 15,000 prisoners being held in Iraq do have the benefit of legal
> protection under the Geneva Conventions; there was an actual war in
> Iraq.
>
> There is no court order to close Gitmo. That was your assertion and
> you're wrong. Closing Gitmo is not following the law (as you stated).

I never said that there was any court order to close Gitmo. That is you
putting words in my mouth because you can't argue your indefensible BS any
other way.

Following the law is following the law - it is complying with the laws
regarding providing prisoners basic rights. Closing Gitmo is part of a
comprehensive plan by the new administration that will lead to compliance
with the law when it comes to the detainess (something that was lacking
under the departed administration). The important thing is not so much
whether Gitmo is closed or not (that is mostly symbolic); the important
thing is whether prisoners are treated lawfully and provided with basic
rights under the law. Gitmo was set up in the first place as a prison to
deny basic rights to detainees - if you recall the first Supreme Court
case, the Bush administration argued that because Gitmo was outside the
jurisdiction of the United States, the laws of this country did not apply
- this was rejected by the Supreme Court, who recognized the fact that the
Bush administartion could not evade the law simply by setting up a prison
in Cuba. Closing Gitmo is not sufficient if the goal is to follow the
law, but it is necessary symbolically given the stain on this country that
Gitmo represents.

____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



          
Date: 27 Jan 2009 11:38:39
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...


Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 9:21am
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >


On Jan 27 2009 11:22 AM, Travel A wrote:

JerseyJackass Wrote:
www.pokermagazine.com


""politically correct" under your definition means complying with the
law...very telling."

..
Huh? Complying with what law?


If I were you, I would spend a few minutes reading the Geneva
Conventions, and the US Supreme Court decisions on the GITMo detainees.
That should clear up your confusion.
.............................................

It's you who's confused, based on the fact that you're an idiot.

Under the Laws Of War, these "unlawful enemy combatants" can be held
idefinitely with out charges.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the prisoners should have the
benefit of habeas corpus; but that has ZERO to do with closing Gitmo. It
has to do with trials, moron.


Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with trials, you moron. Habeas Corpus
has to do with providing detainees with basic rights, which include
having a neutral judge review the charges against them to determine if
they are being properly held. The Bush Administration denied this basic
right to the detainees at Gitmo, and the Supreme Court ruled that this
was unlawful. That's why "complying with the law" is important, and
should not be dismissed as "politically correct"

The 15,000 prisoners being held in Iraq do have the benefit of legal
protection under the Geneva Conventions; there was an actual war in
Iraq.
There is no court order to close Gitmo. That was your assertion and
you're wrong. Closing Gitmo is not following the law (as you stated).


I never said that there was any court order to close Gitmo. That is you
putting words in my mouth because you can't argue your indefensible BS
any other way.
Following the law is following the law - it is complying with the laws
regarding providing prisoners basic rights. Closing Gitmo is part of a
comprehensive plan by the new administration that will lead to
compliance with the law when it comes to the detainess (something that
was lacking under the departed administration). The important thing is
not so much whether Gitmo is closed or not (that is mostly symbolic);
the important thing is whether prisoners are treated lawfully and
provided with basic rights under the law. Gitmo was set up in the first
place as a prison to deny basic rights to detainees - if you recall the
first Supreme Court case, the Bush administration argued that because
Gitmo was outside the jurisdiction of the United States, the laws of
this country did not apply
- this was rejected by the Supreme Court, who recognized the fact that
the Bush administartion could not evade the law simply by setting up a
prison in Cuba. Closing Gitmo is not sufficient if the goal is to follow
the law, but it is necessary symbolically given the stain on this
country that Gitmo represents.

______________________________________________


I didn't say that habeas corpus, specifically, had to do with trials,
you illiterate fucking idiot. I know exactly what habeas corpus means;
most people who would even post on the subject would. It's too bad that
you don't, and had to Google that lame rant, above. I didn't think
including a difinition of the term was needed, but I guess I forgot that
I was destroying an idiot. I said the habeas corpus RULING by the
Supreme Court had nothing to do with closing down Gitmo and had to do
with the -trials of prisoners- issue. The issue itself, as a whole, has
to do with trials and not closing down Gitmo. Wake up, moron.

In my post, I went on to emphasize the meaning of habeas corpus and
application with an example of the 15,000 prisoners who have had
undisputed rights to legal protection against being held without
charges. Once there are charges, there's a trial, "get it".

Also, I had this to say about the Afghan/Taliban terrorists being held
at Bagram prison in Afghanistan: "Under the Laws Of War, these "unlawful
enemy combatants" can be held idefinitely with out charges." And then
qualified the remarks with the Supreme Court RULING comments as
previously mentioned.


Not that it would help you much, but you really should learn how to read
before trying to be Obama's no. 1 buttboy communist.

You stated that closing down Gitmo wasn't being politically correct to
terrorists because it was following the law. You said that not following
the law was the definition of politically correct for anyone who opposes
the closing of Gitmo; that's the majority of the people of America, btw.
You were trying to say that closing Gitmo was on the side of the law and
to be against closing Gitmo was to be in favor of ignoring the law.
Well, of course, you're wrong. Obama's not acting on the side of the law
by closing Gitmo, and and anyone who's against closing Gitmo isn't
ignoring the law.

I think you've squirmed your way into your own weasel trap once again,
jackass.








     
Date: 25 Jan 2009 17:29:46
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 25, 3:17=A0pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:

<snip >
>
> The blood of the Americans who die in the next terrorist attack will be o=
n Obama's hands.

Just like the blood of thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 are on
Bush's hands?

> =A0So will the blood of any American soldiers killed because we lacked th=
e information we would have had
> through agressive interrogation techniques.

Somehow your approval of torture does not suprise me.

- Bob T.
>
> Irish Mike



      
Date: 26 Jan 2009 05:13:48
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26, 3:36=A0am, Travel <nine...@webtv.net > wrote:
> "Bob T." =A0 Usenet Poster
> b...@synapse-cs.com =A0Post #17 of 23 (2 views) Copy Shortcut =A0Jan 25,
> 2009, 8:29 PM =A0
> Re: Obama's first 100 hours... - NEW =A0 Reply =A0
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> On Jan 25, 3:17 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote: =A0
>
> <snip>
>
> > The blood of the Americans who die in the next terrorist attack will
>
> be on Obama's hands. =A0
>
> Just like the blood of thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 are on
> Bush's hands? =A0
> ....................................................................
>
> No, like on Clinton's hands.

Oh, I get it. If there's a terrorist attack it doesn't matter who is
president now or who was president previously - it's always the
Democrat's fault.

We all admire your ability to twist logic to suit your partisanship,
Travel.

- Bob T.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums athttp://www.pokermagazine.com
> Visitwww.pokermagazine.com



       
Date: 26 Jan 2009 11:00:50
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...


Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 5:13am
From: Bob T. <bob@synapse-cs.com >


On Jan 26, 3:36=EF=BF=BDam, Travel <nine...@webtv.net > wrote:

"Bob T." =EF=BF=BD Usenet Poster
b...@synapse-cs.com =EF=BF=BDPost #17 of 23 (2 views) Copy Shortcut
=EF=BF=BDJan 25, 2009, 8:29 PM =EF=BF=BD
Re: Obama's first 100 hours... - NEW =EF=BF=BD Reply =EF=BF=BD
----------------------------------------------
---------

On Jan 25, 3:17 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
=EF=BF=BD

<snip >


The blood of the Americans who die in the next terrorist attack will be
on Obama's hands. =EF=BF=BD
........


BobTeehee wrote:

"Just like the blood of thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 are on
Bush's hands? =EF=BF=BD
.............................................

I wrote:

No, like on Clinton's hands.



BobTeehee wrote:

"Oh, I get it."


I wrote:

Acually, you've demonstrated that you never "get" anything.



BobTeehe wrote:

"If there's a terrorist attack it doesn't matter who is president now or
who was president previously - it's always the Democrat's fault."


I wrote:

You said that, not me. In fact. I've criticized Bush on a lot of issues.
Unlike a pathetic weasel as yourself who never saw a left wing hack he
didn't want to go camping with.


And, you're saying that it's all Bush's fault, so what are you talking
about, TeeHee.

Clinton was in a position to prevent 9/11 and he didn't. There's a
better case to put the blame at Clinton's feet than Bush.




        
Date: 26 Jan 2009 11:23:10
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26 2009 2:00 PM, Travel A wrote:

> Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
> Group: rec.gambling.poker
> Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 5:13am
> From: Bob T. <bob@synapse-cs.com>
>
>
> On Jan 26, 3:36�am, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> "Bob T." � Usenet Poster
> b...@synapse-cs.com �Post #17 of 23 (2 views) Copy Shortcut
> �Jan 25, 2009, 8:29 PM �
> Re: Obama's first 100 hours... - NEW � Reply �
> ----------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> On Jan 25, 3:17 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> �
>
> <snip>
>
>
> The blood of the Americans who die in the next terrorist attack will be
> on Obama's hands. �
> .........
>
>
> BobTeehee wrote:
>
> "Just like the blood of thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 are on
> Bush's hands? �
> ..............................................
>
> I wrote:
>
> No, like on Clinton's hands.
>
>
>
> BobTeehee wrote:
>
> "Oh, I get it."
>
>
> I wrote:
>
> Acually, you've demonstrated that you never "get" anything.
>
>
>
> BobTeehe wrote:
>
> "If there's a terrorist attack it doesn't matter who is president now or
> who was president previously - it's always the Democrat's fault."
>
>
> I wrote:
>
> You said that, not me. In fact. I've criticized Bush on a lot of issues.
> Unlike a pathetic weasel as yourself who never saw a left wing hack he
> didn't want to go camping with.
>
>
> And, you're saying that it's all Bush's fault, so what are you talking
> about, TeeHee.
>
> Clinton was in a position to prevent 9/11 and he didn't. There's a
> better case to put the blame at Clinton's feet than Bush.

yeah, I know what you mean...as soon as he got that Daily Intelligence
Briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States" he
should have stopped the attack immediately!

________________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




         
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:55:47
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26 2009 12:23 PM, JerseyRudy wrote:

> On Jan 26 2009 2:00 PM, Travel A wrote:
>
> > Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
> > Group: rec.gambling.poker
> > Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 5:13am
> > From: Bob T. <bob@synapse-cs.com>
> >
> >
> > On Jan 26, 3:36�am, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Bob T." � Usenet Poster
> > b...@synapse-cs.com �Post #17 of 23 (2 views) Copy Shortcut
> > �Jan 25, 2009, 8:29 PM �
> > Re: Obama's first 100 hours... - NEW � Reply �
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> >
> > On Jan 25, 3:17 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > �
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > The blood of the Americans who die in the next terrorist attack will be
> > on Obama's hands. �
> > .........
> >
> >
> > BobTeehee wrote:
> >
> > "Just like the blood of thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 are on
> > Bush's hands? �
> > ..............................................
> >
> > I wrote:
> >
> > No, like on Clinton's hands.
> >
> >
> >
> > BobTeehee wrote:
> >
> > "Oh, I get it."
> >
> >
> > I wrote:
> >
> > Acually, you've demonstrated that you never "get" anything.
> >
> >
> >
> > BobTeehe wrote:
> >
> > "If there's a terrorist attack it doesn't matter who is president now or
> > who was president previously - it's always the Democrat's fault."
> >
> >
> > I wrote:
> >
> > You said that, not me. In fact. I've criticized Bush on a lot of issues.
> > Unlike a pathetic weasel as yourself who never saw a left wing hack he
> > didn't want to go camping with.
> >
> >
> > And, you're saying that it's all Bush's fault, so what are you talking
> > about, TeeHee.
> >
> > Clinton was in a position to prevent 9/11 and he didn't. There's a
> > better case to put the blame at Clinton's feet than Bush.
>


No he wasn't you right wing hack, Bush did nothing to defend this
country of ours, UBL wasn't even the mastermind of the 911 attacks.
Sheik khalid was , but don't let the facts get in the way of defending the
WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA.









> yeah, I know what you mean...as soon as he got that Daily Intelligence
> Briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States" he
> should have stopped the attack immediately!

------ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



          
Date: 27 Jan 2009 10:22:15
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...


Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 12:55pm
From: RGP Loner <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid >


On Jan 26 2009 12:23 PM, JerseyRudy wrote:

On Jan 26 2009 2:00 PM, Travel A wrote:

Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 5:13am
From: Bob T. <bob@synapse-cs.com >

On Jan 26, 3:36=EF=BF=BDam, Travel <nine...@webtv.net > wrote:

"Bob T." =EF=BF=BD Usenet Poster
b...@synapse-cs.com =EF=BF=BDPost #17 of 23 (2 views) Copy Shortcut
=EF=BF=BDJan 25, 2009, 8:29 PM =EF=BF=BD
Re: Obama's first 100 hours... - NEW =EF=BF=BD Reply =EF=BF=BD
----------------------------------------------
---------

On Jan 25, 3:17 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
=EF=BF=BD

<snip >


The blood of the Americans who die in the next terrorist attack will be
on Obama's hands. =EF=BF=BD
........


BobTeehee wrote:

"Just like the blood of thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 are on
Bush's hands? =EF=BF=BD
.............................................

I wrote:

No, like on Clinton's hands.



BobTeehee wrote:

"Oh, I get it."


I wrote:

Acually, you've demonstrated that you never "get" anything.



BobTeehe wrote:

"If there's a terrorist attack it doesn't matter who is president now or
who was president previously - it's always the Democrat's fault."


I wrote:

You said that, not me. In fact. I've criticized Bush on a lot of issues.
Unlike a pathetic weasel as yourself who never saw a left wing hack he
didn't want to go camping with.


And, you're saying that it's all Bush's fault, so what are you talking
about, TeeHee.

Clinton was in a position to prevent 9/11 and he didn't. There's a
better case to put the blame at Clinton's feet than Bush.




No he wasn't you right wing hack, Bush did nothing to defend this
country of ours, UBL wasn't even the mastermind of the 911 attacks.
Sheik khalid was , but don't let the facts get in the way of defending
the WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA.




------=EF=BF=BD



Uh, you must have me mistaken with someone who talks to morons.

Jerseyjackass may be as high as a boderline idiot, but you're definitely
a full moron.



           
Date: 28 Jan 2009 07:14:15
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 27, 2:46=A0pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid >
wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:18:02 -0800 (PST), "Bob T."
>
> <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 27, 10:22=A0am, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:
>
> >> Uh, you must have me mistaken with someone who talks to morons.
>
> >No, you're the moron. =A0We're the ones talking to a moron.
>
> >- Bob T.
>
> No, Bob, Travel's more of a psychotic than a moron.

Good point, I concede.

- Bob T.


            
Date: 28 Jan 2009 13:26:46
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"Bob T." Usenet Poster
bob@synapse-cs.com Post #83 of 86 (1 views) Copy Shortcut Jan 28,
2009, 10:14 AM
Re: Obama's first 100 hours... - NEW Reply

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

On Jan 27, 2:46 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid >
wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:18:02 -0800 (PST), "Bob T."
>
> <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 27, 10:22 am, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:
>
> >> Uh, you must have me mistaken with someone who talks to morons.
>
> >No, you're the moron. We're the ones talking to a moron.
>
> >- Bob T.
>
> No, Bob, Travel's more of a psychotic than a moron.

Good point, I concede.

- Bob T.

.......................................................................
..................

Neither one of you losers have ever made a good point. I guess you two
jokes have a need for a group hug for two.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


             
Date: 28 Jan 2009 22:22:22
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:26:46 -0600, Travel <nine510@webtv.net > wrote:

>
>"Bob T." Usenet Poster
>bob@synapse-cs.com Post #83 of 86 (1 views) Copy Shortcut Jan 28,
>2009, 10:14 AM
>Re: Obama's first 100 hours... - NEW Reply
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------
>
>On Jan 27, 2:46 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:18:02 -0800 (PST), "Bob T."
>>
>> <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 27, 10:22 am, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:
>>
>> >> Uh, you must have me mistaken with someone who talks to morons.
>>
>> >No, you're the moron. We're the ones talking to a moron.
>>
>> >- Bob T.
>>
>> No, Bob, Travel's more of a psychotic than a moron.
>
>Good point, I concede.
>
>- Bob T.
>
>.......................................................................
>..................
>
>Neither one of you losers have ever made a good point. I guess you two
>jokes have a need for a group hug for two.

I stand corrected. Travel *is* a moron in addition to being
psychotic.


              
Date: 29 Jan 2009 08:47:12
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
PeePee Baboon wrote:

>..................
>
>Neither one of you losers have ever made a good point. I guess you two

>jokes have a need for a group hug for two.

"I stand corrected."
.......................................................................
............

As an idiot, you stand corrected with each of your worthless posts.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


               
Date: 29 Jan 2009 13:33:09
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:47:12 -0600, Travel <nine510@webtv.net > wrote:

>PeePee Baboon wrote:
>
>>..................
>>
>>Neither one of you losers have ever made a good point. I guess you two
>
>>jokes have a need for a group hug for two.
>
>"I stand corrected."
>.......................................................................
>............
>
>As an idiot, you stand corrected with each of your worthless posts.

Travel, what does it feel like to be retarded?


                
Date: 30 Jan 2009 12:46:49
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
This is obviously a quiz. If I guess right, then I know how you feel
being a retard.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


                 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 23:14:58
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:46:49 -0600, Travel <nine510@webtv.net > wrote:

>This is obviously a quiz. If I guess right, then I know how you feel
>being a retard.

This is obviously a retard's interpretation of the question.


                  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 09:56:36
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
A retard's question can only be interpreted one way: retarded.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


                   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 20:55:39
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:56:36 -0600, Travel <nine510@webtv.net > wrote:

>A retard's question can only be interpreted one way: retarded.

Sorry you have this limitation.


                    
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:06:34
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
As a retard, you have no recognition of limitations. You obviously
heard the term on a cartoon show.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


                     
Date: 01 Feb 2009 22:35:03
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:06:34 -0600, Travel <nine510@webtv.net > wrote:

>As a retard, you have no recognition of limitations. You obviously
>heard the term on a cartoon show.

When you grow a brain, then perhaps you'll be in a position to judge.
But probably not, since you're psychotic in addition to being very,
very stupid.


                      
Date: 02 Feb 2009 09:46:31
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
It's no surprise that you've given up trying to deny your retardation.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


                       
Date: 03 Feb 2009 00:51:29
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:46:31 -0600, Travel <nine510@webtv.net > wrote:

>It's no surprise that you've given up trying to deny your retardation.

It's no surprise that you're stupid enough to come to that conclusion.


                        
Date: 03 Feb 2009 13:26:28
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
In the northeast it's called: intelligence. It's no surprise that you,
a retard, would be surprised.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


                         
Date: 04 Feb 2009 00:15:29
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:26:28 -0600, Travel <nine510@webtv.net > wrote:

>In the northeast it's called: intelligence. It's no surprise that you,
>a retard, would be surprised.

You, like this little pissing contest, are a waste of bandwidth. While
having the last word won't fix your defective brain, no doubt it will
sooth that frail ego of yours that desperately needs it. So, knock
yourself out, Einstein.


           
Date: 27 Jan 2009 11:18:02
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 27, 10:22=A0am, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:

>
> Uh, you must have me mistaken with someone who talks to morons.

No, you're the moron. We're the ones talking to a moron.

- Bob T.


            
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:46:02
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:18:02 -0800 (PST), "Bob T."
<bob@synapse-cs.com > wrote:

>On Jan 27, 10:22 am, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:
>
>>
>> Uh, you must have me mistaken with someone who talks to morons.
>
>No, you're the moron. We're the ones talking to a moron.
>
>- Bob T.

No, Bob, Travel's more of a psychotic than a moron.


            
Date: 27 Jan 2009 12:25:42
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...


Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 11:18am
From: Bob T. <bob@synapse-cs.com >


On Jan 27, 10:22=EF=BF=BDam, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:


Uh, you must have me mistaken with someone who talks to morons.

No, you're the moron. We're the ones talking to a moron.
- Bob T.
........................................................................


Oooo, that wasn't even a good one Teehee. Teehee's a moron, and morons
don't even talk to him.



          
Date: 26 Jan 2009 18:07:42
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:55:47 -0800, "RGP Loner"
<aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>No he wasn't you right wing hack, Bush did nothing to defend this
>country of ours, UBL wasn't even the mastermind of the 911 attacks.
>Sheik khalid was , but don't let the facts get in the way of defending the
>WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA.
>

So where did Sheik Khalid get the money, manpower and resources to
mastermind the 911 attacks if not for AQ and UBL?

Hmm?

Riddle me that, Batman.



           
Date: 26 Jan 2009 17:11:07
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26 2009 5:07 PM, FL Turbo wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:55:47 -0800, "RGP Loner"
> <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >No he wasn't you right wing hack, Bush did nothing to defend this
> >country of ours, UBL wasn't even the mastermind of the 911 attacks.
> >Sheik khalid was , but don't let the facts get in the way of defending the
> >WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA.
> >
>
> So where did Sheik Khalid get the money, manpower and resources to
> mastermind the 911 attacks if not for AQ and UBL?
>
> Hmm?
>
> Riddle me that, Batman.


Saudi Arabia, Iran, sadam, CIA, ubl, israel, pakistan, who really knows?


Remember, there was practically a coverup of the biggest crime in the
history of the US. Most top officials in the previous administration were
dead set against an investigation of any kind. And when public opinion
and common sense were brought to bear, some refused to cooperate and/or
agreed only to testified in private, not under oath, with no transcripts
being taken and with another member of the administration holding hands.

________________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



         
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:24:14
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...


Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 11:23am
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >


On Jan 26 2009 2:00 PM, Travel A wrote:

Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 5:13am
From: Bob T. <bob@synapse-cs.com >

On Jan 26, 3:36=EF=BF=BDam, Travel <nine...@webtv.net > wrote:

"Bob T." =EF=BF=BD Usenet Poster
b...@synapse-cs.com =EF=BF=BDPost #17 of 23 (2 views) Copy Shortcut
=EF=BF=BDJan 25, 2009, 8:29 PM =EF=BF=BD
Re: Obama's first 100 hours... - NEW =EF=BF=BD Reply =EF=BF=BD
----------------------------------------------
---------

On Jan 25, 3:17 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
=EF=BF=BD

<snip >


The blood of the Americans who die in the next terrorist attack will be
on Obama's hands. =EF=BF=BD
........


BobTeehee wrote:

"Just like the blood of thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 are on
Bush's hands? =EF=BF=BD
.............................................

I wrote:

No, like on Clinton's hands.



BobTeehee wrote:

"Oh, I get it."


I wrote:

Acually, you've demonstrated that you never "get" anything.



BobTeehe wrote:

"If there's a terrorist attack it doesn't matter who is president now or
who was president previously - it's always the Democrat's fault."


I wrote:

You said that, not me. In fact. I've criticized Bush on a lot of issues.
Unlike a pathetic weasel as yourself who never saw a left wing hack he
didn't want to go camping with.


And, you're saying that it's all Bush's fault, so what are you talking
about, TeeHee.

Clinton was in a position to prevent 9/11 and he didn't. There's a
better case to put the blame at Clinton's feet than Bush.


yeah, I know what you mean...as soon as he got that Daily Intelligence
Briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States" he
should have stopped the attack immediately!
______________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

.........................................................................=
......

Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden before he became a serious
problem. Clinton pretty much neglected the terrorist threat. It didn't
have to based on confirmed, specific 9/11 intel.

But thanks for the lame sarcasm attempt, anyway. It's always fun when
you reveal the depth of your "capability".



          
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:53:01
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26 2009 3:24 PM, Travel A wrote:

> Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
> Group: rec.gambling.poker
> Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 11:23am
> From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid>
>
>
> On Jan 26 2009 2:00 PM, Travel A wrote:
>
> Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
> Group: rec.gambling.poker
> Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 5:13am
> From: Bob T. <bob@synapse-cs.com>
>
> On Jan 26, 3:36�am, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> "Bob T." � Usenet Poster
> b...@synapse-cs.com �Post #17 of 23 (2 views) Copy Shortcut
> �Jan 25, 2009, 8:29 PM �
> Re: Obama's first 100 hours... - NEW � Reply �
> ----------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> On Jan 25, 3:17 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> �
>
> <snip>
>
>
> The blood of the Americans who die in the next terrorist attack will be
> on Obama's hands. �
> .........
>
>
> BobTeehee wrote:
>
> "Just like the blood of thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 are on
> Bush's hands? �
> ..............................................
>
> I wrote:
>
> No, like on Clinton's hands.
>
>
>
> BobTeehee wrote:
>
> "Oh, I get it."
>
>
> I wrote:
>
> Acually, you've demonstrated that you never "get" anything.
>
>
>
> BobTeehe wrote:
>
> "If there's a terrorist attack it doesn't matter who is president now or
> who was president previously - it's always the Democrat's fault."
>
>
> I wrote:
>
> You said that, not me. In fact. I've criticized Bush on a lot of issues.
> Unlike a pathetic weasel as yourself who never saw a left wing hack he
> didn't want to go camping with.
>
>
> And, you're saying that it's all Bush's fault, so what are you talking
> about, TeeHee.
>
> Clinton was in a position to prevent 9/11 and he didn't. There's a
> better case to put the blame at Clinton's feet than Bush.
>
>
> yeah, I know what you mean...as soon as he got that Daily Intelligence
> Briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States" he
> should have stopped the attack immediately!
>
................................................................................
>
> Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden before he became a serious
> problem. Clinton pretty much neglected the terrorist threat. It didn't
> have to based on confirmed, specific 9/11 intel.
>

yeah, like when Clinton tried this and was immediately criticized by the
right-wing for trying to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal (you
need to realize that people have access to the internet and can freely
call you on your bullshit):

August 21, 1998
Web posted at: 5:10 a.m. EDT (0910 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- American cruise missiles pounded sites in Afghanistan
and Sudan Thursday in retaliation for the deadly bombings of U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7.

"Let our actions today send this message loud and clear -- there are no
expendable American targets," U.S. President Clinton said in a televised
address to the American people Thursday evening. "There will be no
sanctuary for terrorists. We will defend our people, our interests and our
values."

U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a
network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed
supporters of millionaire Osama bin Laden.

An official of the Taliban, Afgahanistan's Islamic rulers, reported 21
were killed and 30 were injured in the missile strikes in eastern
Afghanistan.

In the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, the El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries
factory -- which U.S. officials say also has ties to bin Laden and
produces chemicals that can be used to make deadly VX nerve gas -- was
heavily damaged.


August 21, 1998
Web posted at: 5:10 a.m. EDT (0910 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- American cruise missiles pounded sites in Afghanistan
and Sudan Thursday in retaliation for the deadly bombings of U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7.

"Let our actions today send this message loud and clear -- there are no
expendable American targets," U.S. President Clinton said in a televised
address to the American people Thursday evening. "There will be no
sanctuary for terrorists. We will defend our people, our interests and our
values."

U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a
network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed
supporters of millionaire Osama bin Laden.

An official of the Taliban, Afgahanistan's Islamic rulers, reported 21
were killed and 30 were injured in the missile strikes in eastern
Afghanistan.

In the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, the El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries
factory -- which U.S. officials say also has ties to bin Laden and
produces chemicals that can be used to make deadly VX nerve gas -- was
heavily damaged.

----- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




           
Date: 27 Jan 2009 10:16:48
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...


Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 12:53pm
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >


On Jan 26 2009 3:24 PM, Travel A wrote:

Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 11:23am
From: JerseyRudy <a44f915@webnntp.invalid >

On Jan 26 2009 2:00 PM, Travel A wrote:

Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 5:13am
From: Bob T. <bob@synapse-cs.com >

On Jan 26, 3:36=EF=BF=BDam, Travel <nine...@webtv.net > wrote:

"Bob T." =EF=BF=BD Usenet Poster
b...@synapse-cs.com =EF=BF=BDPost #17 of 23 (2 views) Copy Shortcut
=EF=BF=BDJan 25, 2009, 8:29 PM =EF=BF=BD
Re: Obama's first 100 hours... - NEW =EF=BF=BD Reply =EF=BF=BD
----------------------------------------------
---------

On Jan 25, 3:17 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
=EF=BF=BD

<snip >


The blood of the Americans who die in the next terrorist attack will be
on Obama's hands. =EF=BF=BD
........


BobTeehee wrote:

"Just like the blood of thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 are on
Bush's hands? =EF=BF=BD
.............................................

I wrote:

No, like on Clinton's hands.



BobTeehee wrote:

"Oh, I get it."


I wrote:

Acually, you've demonstrated that you never "get" anything.



BobTeehe wrote:

"If there's a terrorist attack it doesn't matter who is president now or
who was president previously - it's always the Democrat's fault."


I wrote:

You said that, not me. In fact. I've criticized Bush on a lot of issues.
Unlike a pathetic weasel as yourself who never saw a left wing hack he
didn't want to go camping with.


And, you're saying that it's all Bush's fault, so what are you talking
about, TeeHee.

Clinton was in a position to prevent 9/11 and he didn't. There's a
better case to put the blame at Clinton's feet than Bush.


yeah, I know what you mean...as soon as he got that Daily Intelligence
Briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States" he
should have stopped the attack immediately!


.............................................

Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden before he became a serious
problem. Clinton pretty much neglected the terrorist threat. It didn't
have to based on confirmed, specific 9/11 intel.


"yeah, like when Clinton tried this and was immediately criticized by
the right-wing for trying to distract attention from the Lewinsky
scandal (you need to realize that people have access to the internet and
can freely call you on your bullshit):"


No, they can freely see through your bullshit without even using the
internent. If they use the internet they find proof of your bullshit.







........................
August 21, 1998
Web posted at: 5:10 a.m. EDT (0910 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- American cruise missiles pounded sites in
Afghanistan and Sudan Thursday in retaliation for the deadly bombings of
U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7.

"Let our actions today send this message loud and clear -- there are no
expendable American targets," U.S. President Clinton said in a televised
address to the American people Thursday evening. "There will be no
sanctuary for terrorists. We will defend our people, our interests and
our values."

U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a
network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed
supporters of millionaire Osama bin Laden.

An official of the Taliban, Afgahanistan's Islamic rulers, reported 21
were killed and 30 were injured in the missile strikes in eastern
Afghanistan.

In the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, the El Shifa Pharmaceutical
Industries factory -- which U.S. officials say also has ties to bin
Laden and produces chemicals that can be used to make deadly VX nerve
gas -- was heavily damaged.


August 21, 1998
Web posted at: 5:10 a.m. EDT (0910 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- American cruise missiles pounded sites in
Afghanistan and Sudan Thursday in retaliation for the deadly bombings of
U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7.

"Let our actions today send this message loud and clear -- there are no
expendable American targets," U.S. President Clinton said in a televised
address to the American people Thursday evening. "There will be no
sanctuary for terrorists. We will defend our people, our interests and
our values."

U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a
network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed
supporters of millionaire Osama bin Laden.

An official of the Taliban, Afgahanistan's Islamic rulers, reported 21
were killed and 30 were injured in the missile strikes in eastern
Afghanistan.

In the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, the El Shifa Pharmaceutical
Industries factory -- which U.S. officials say also has ties to bin
Laden and produces chemicals that can be used to make deadly VX nerve
gas -- was heavily damaged.

-----=EF=BF=BD
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
.........................................................................=
....................



Oh, the selective left wing write-ups. What a surprise. As if you're
convincing anyone. There's a ton of evidence that Clinton has to take
plenty of responsibility for 9/11.




       
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:02:34
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com > wrote in message
news:8a766f2c-2c95-4658-98f6-85ec433ebfe9@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 3:36 am, Travel <nine...@webtv.net > wrote:
> "Bob T." Usenet Poster
> b...@synapse-cs.com Post #17 of 23 (2 views) Copy Shortcut Jan 25,
> 2009, 8:29 PM
> Re: Obama's first 100 hours... - NEW Reply
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> On Jan 25, 3:17 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The blood of the Americans who die in the next terrorist attack will
>
> be on Obama's hands.
>
> Just like the blood of thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 are on
> Bush's hands?
> ....................................................................
>
> No, like on Clinton's hands.

Oh, I get it. If there's a terrorist attack it doesn't matter who is
president now or who was president previously - it's always the
Democrat's fault.

We all admire your ability to twist logic to suit your partisanship,
Travel.

- Bob T.

Responsibility for the American blood shed on 9/11 is shared by Bush and
Clinton. But in fairness,
9/11 was the first attack on American soil by muslim terrorists.
That doesn't excuse it but it does make it more understandable. However,
President Bush has taken the lead in fighting the war on terror and there
has not
been a terrorist attack on American soil in seven and a half years. Knowing
what we know now, there is absolutely no excuse for another terrorist attack
to occur here. Obama has declared that the war on terror is over and he has
chosen to gut America's defenses, close terrorist holding facilities,
cripple the CIA and handcuff our intelligence gathering capability. If
there is another attack on American soil it will be the sole and total
responsibility of Barak Obama and the left wing Democrats he caters to.

Irish Mike




        
Date: 26 Jan 2009 16:01:13
From: Patrick Karl
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
Irish Mike wrote:
> "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
> news:8a766f2c-2c95-4658-98f6-85ec433ebfe9@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> Responsibility for the American blood shed on 9/11 is shared by Bush and
> Clinton. But in fairness,
> 9/11 was the first attack on American soil by muslim terrorists.

You keep saying that (I've seen it at least twice now), but ISTC the
first attack on the Twin Towers was also carried out by muslim terrorists.


         
Date: 26 Jan 2009 23:30:55
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 26 2009 5:01 PM, Patrick Karl wrote:

> Irish Mike wrote:
> > "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
> > news:8a766f2c-2c95-4658-98f6-85ec433ebfe9@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Responsibility for the American blood shed on 9/11 is shared by Bush and
> > Clinton. But in fairness,
> > 9/11 was the first attack on American soil by muslim terrorists.
>
> You keep saying that (I've seen it at least twice now), but ISTC the
> first attack on the Twin Towers was also carried out by muslim terrorists.

Thank you for stating the obvious. It needed to be said.

------- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



         
Date: 26 Jan 2009 14:45:41
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:01:13 -0600, Patrick Karl <jpkarl@gmail.com >
wrote:

>Irish Mike wrote:
>> "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>> news:8a766f2c-2c95-4658-98f6-85ec433ebfe9@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Responsibility for the American blood shed on 9/11 is shared by Bush and
>> Clinton. But in fairness,
>> 9/11 was the first attack on American soil by muslim terrorists.
>
>You keep saying that (I've seen it at least twice now), but ISTC the
>first attack on the Twin Towers was also carried out by muslim terrorists.

Facts and logic are of no concern to Mike.


      
Date: 26 Jan 2009 05:36:54
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
"Bob T." Usenet Poster
bob@synapse-cs.com Post #17 of 23 (2 views) Copy Shortcut Jan 25,
2009, 8:29 PM
Re: Obama's first 100 hours... - NEW Reply

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

On Jan 25, 3:17 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:

<snip >
>
> The blood of the Americans who die in the next terrorist attack will
be on Obama's hands.

Just like the blood of thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 are on
Bush's hands?
....................................................................

No, like on Clinton's hands.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


      
Date: 25 Jan 2009 20:59:42
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com > wrote in message
news:383551ca-7172-4c41-91b1-de9e50c1c77c@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 25, 3:17 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:

<snip >
>
> The blood of the Americans who die in the next terrorist attack will be on
> Obama's hands.

Just like the blood of thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 are on
Bush's hands?

That blood is shared by Bush and Slick Willie Clinton. But in fairness,
9/11 was the first terrorist attack on American soil by muslim terrorists.
It doesn't excuse it but it does make it more understandable. However,
President Bush has taken the lead on the war on terror and there has not
been a terrorist attack on American soil in seven and a half years. Knowing
what we know now, there is absolutely no excuse for another terrorist attack
to occur here. Obama has declared that the war on terror is over and he has
chosen to gut America's defenses, close terrorist holding facilities,
cripple the CIA and handcuff our intelligence gathering capability. If
there is another attack on American soil it will be the sole and total
responsibility of Obama.


So will the blood of any American soldiers killed because we lacked the
information we would have had
> through agressive interrogation techniques.

Somehow your approval of torture does not suprise me.

You are a fool Bob and I don't approve of torture. But there are very
effective interrogration techniques that do not involve torture. Obama has
taken those tools and techniques away from our counter-terrorism agents.
Those interrogration techniques have saved American lives in the past and
would have saved more in the future. The blood of any American who dies
because we now lack that information is the sole and total esponsibility of
Obama. He made the decision to risk American lives to cater to the demands
of the left wing of the Democrat party.
The majority of Americans did not want that just as the majority of
Americans did not want Gitmo closed. Obama has ignored the wishes of
mainstream Americans to cater to the whims of the left.


- Bob T.

Irish Mike




     
Date: 25 Jan 2009 17:05:31
From: OrangeSFO
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 25, 3:17=A0pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:


> First, Obama caters to the left wing
> of the Democrat party.


LOL...Mike you are misinformed



     
Date: 25 Jan 2009 17:04:26
From: OrangeSFO
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 25, 2:04=A0pm, "Susan" <sdbrat...@netscape.net > wrote:


> don't worry - orangie will still love him and never believe he can do
> anything wrong.


I didnt even vote for him in the primary you stupid cooz



     
Date: 25 Jan 2009 18:17:58
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"Travel" <nine510@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:1232921790.29761@pokermagazine.com...
> The latest poll shows that 45% of the people are against closing Gitmo,
> 35% in favor and 20% "don't know".
>
> Obama is already going against the will of the people.
>
> When people start to realize that they're not as safe with the Obama
> policies, you'll see his approval ratings drop. There aren't many
> people out there in the country who approve of being "politically
> correct" to terrorists.

Your post makes two excellent points. First, Obama caters to the left wing
of the Democrat party. He doesn't give a shit about the wishes of
mainstream Americans. Second, this is now Obama's war. He declared Bush's
war on terror is over, He dismantled all the safe guards President Bush
used to prevent a terrorist attack on American soild for seven and a half
years. He has crippled the CIA and handcuffed America's intelligence
gathering capability. The blood of the Americans who die in the next
terrorist attack will be on Obama's hands. So will the blood of any
American soldiers killed because we lacked the information we would have had
through agressive interrogation techniques.

Irish Mike




      
Date: 25 Jan 2009 17:36:03
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...
On Jan 25 2009 6:17 PM, Irish Mike wrote:

> "Travel" <nine510@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:1232921790.29761@pokermagazine.com...
> > The latest poll shows that 45% of the people are against closing Gitmo,
> > 35% in favor and 20% "don't know".
> >
> > Obama is already going against the will of the people.
> >
> > When people start to realize that they're not as safe with the Obama
> > policies, you'll see his approval ratings drop. There aren't many
> > people out there in the country who approve of being "politically
> > correct" to terrorists.
>
> Your post makes two excellent points. First, Obama caters to the left wing
> of the Democrat party.

No he doesn't. A true left-winger would withdraw all of the troops from
Iraq and Afghanistan and immediately push for more regulation on Wall
Street. Obama will do nothing of the sort. Even his purported "withdrawal"
of Iraq will still leave tens of thousands of American troops on the
ground there.

> He doesn't give a shit about the wishes of mainstream Americans.

Says who, you? Can you see into his soul, Mike?

> Second, this is now Obama's war. He declared Bush's war on terror is over,

No he didn't. Editorialists at the Wash Post did.

> He dismantled all the safe guards President Bush
> used to prevent a terrorist attack on American soild for seven and a half
> years.

No he didn't. For instance, he supported the FISA revisions. Bush was
using these so-called "preventative" measures to spy on American
journalists and citizens, all Obama did was reign in policies that were
clearly illegal:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/nsa-whistleblow.html

All he's done is bring our surveillance and interrogation policies in line
with the, you know, law. What a crazy left-winger, eh?

> He has crippled the CIA and handcuffed America's intelligence gathering
capability.

Don't be a drama queen. He's done nothing of the sort.

> The blood of the Americans who die in the next
> terrorist attack will be on Obama's hands. So will the blood of any
> American soldiers killed because we lacked the information we would have had
> through agressive interrogation techniques.

You mean torture. As Brigadier General David Irvine -- someone who taught
prisoner interrogation and military law at the Sixth Army Intelligence
School for nearly two decades -- has clearly stated, torture is not an
effective method of interrogation and rarely yields actionable
intelligence:

http://www.alternet.org/story/28585/why_torture_doesn%27t_work/

If you're going to trash Obama -- and there will be plenty to trash him
about -- at least find something that's more than just a fantasy in that
silly little head of yours. 'Kay?

________________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



     
Date: 25 Jan 2009 16:04:00
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Obama's first 100 hours...

"Travel" <nine510@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:1232921790.29761@pokermagazine.com...
> The latest poll shows that 45% of the people are against closing Gitmo,
> 35% in favor and 20% "don't know".
>
> Obama is already going against the will of the people.
>
> When people start to realize that they're not as safe with the Obama
> policies, you'll see his approval ratings drop. There aren't many
> people out there in the country who approve of being "politically
> correct" to terrorists.

don't worry - orangie will still love him and never believe he can do
anything wrong.