[speechlesstx]

I agree still that the billions these unscrutinized czars have their hands on is still the bigger issue, but this guy is a racist, socialist, radical of an idiot that should never have gotten this far. The latest:

: "You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never. They always say, 'We can't believe it happened here. We can't believe it's these suburban white kids.' It's only them. Now, a black kid might shoot another black kid. He's not going to shoot up the whole school."

Buddy of William Ayers, apologist for Rashid Khalidi, mentored by Jeremiah Wright, employer of Van Jones... are Obots still oblivious to Obama's radical leanings, the guy who was supposed to heal this nation and usher in a post-racial era?

And by the way, no one in the administration knows what "green job" is anyway.

[excon]

Buddy of William Ayers, apologist for Rashid Khalidi, mentored by Jeremiah Wright, employer of Van Jones...are Obots still oblivious to Obama's radical leanings, the guy who was supposed to heal this nation and usher in a post-racial era?

Hello Steve:

Dude! I WISH he was as radical as you THINK he is... In fact, I thought he joined your ranks. He's caving on health care... He's acting like Bush in terms of the detainees.. He wants to EXPAND Elliot's war in Afghanistan...

What's not to like?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello Steve:

Dude! I WISH he was as radical as you THINK he is... In fact, I thought he joined your ranks. He's caving on health care... He's acting like Bush in terms of the detainees.. He wants to EXPAND Elliot's war in Afghanistan...

What's not to like?

Well at least he finally sucks for you, too.

[tomder55]

Ex
Steve's point was that despite the spin;Jones did not just slip through the vetting process. Key advisor to the President Valerie Jarrett has said, "So, Van Jones, we were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House; we were watching him. . .for as long as he's been active out in Oakland."
They knew what he was saying but were tone deaf to the possible fall out because in truth all he did was parrot what they believe. Looking at Jones is like seeing the real Obama through X-ray specs.

Anyway ,Jones has resigned... which means he was thrown under the bus.

The move makes sense. The President did not need the controversy that had made it into even the cheerleading dinosaur media. He wants to devote this week to indoctinating the kiddies and to his joint session of Congress where he will declare the sending in the Praetorian Guard into the health care debate .

[tomder55]

Dude! I WISH he was as radical as you THINK he is... In fact, I thought he joined your ranks. He's caving on health care... He's acting like Bush in terms of the detainees.. He wants to EXPAND Elliot's war in Afghanistan...

What's not to like?

Olberman and Eugene Robinson floated the idea of a progressive primary challenge to the President in 2012 on his show.What a maroon ! Middle America is rebelling against Obama's extreme radical leftism but Olbermann predicts a more liberal Democratic challenger . I think we may see the Clintonoid phoenix arise instead.

[excon]

He wants to devote this week to indoctinating the kiddies.

Hello again, tom:

Just like Ronnie Raygun did in 1988, but of course, Reagan was white.

excon

[tomder55]

Of course his race has nothing to do with it.

Is that what you are saying ? But Republicans do it too?? The Dems were very critical of GHW Bush when he did it.
Flashback 1991: Gephardt Called Bush's Speech to Students 'Paid Political Advertising' | NewsBusters.org


The truth is that neither Reagan or GHW Bush ever sent out Dept. of Education guidelines for teaching plans to accompany the speech in the way Obama did . http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf... some of which has been scrubbed by the Whitehouse after the criticism including this part :
Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

It IS true, that some of his staffers have this "bloom" about him that gets him in trouble... But, ultimately, he's going to talk about staying in school.

Raygun, on the other hand, tried to indoctrinate children into his tax philosophy. It was despicable...

Actually it wasn't. I don't believe in that indoctrination crap. I think it's just FINE that Reagan said what he said, even if I disagree with it.

I just said it, because if Obama gave ANY hints that he was going to talk about health care, you righty's would come unglued..

That's cool. I'm used to your hypocrisy.

excon

[tomder55]

But, ultimately, he's going to talk about staying in school

If the President wasn't talking policy and /or government function then why did he address the kiddies?. To stay in school ;work hard ,and do their homework ? (which was the essence of his 20 minute address )

With all due respect ;he has more important things to do . But maybe giving this address gave him the allusion that he accomplished something.

[excon]

If the President wasn't talking policy and /or government function then why did he address the kiddies ?

Hello tom:

He's THEIR president too.

Why was OK for Ronnie Raygun to indoctrinate the kids HE talked to?? He tried to INDOCTRINATE them into his tax policy. Obama didn't do that... That PROVES he's a BETTER man than Ronnie Raygun!

I mentioned your hypocrisy the other day. I'm going to do it again...

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello tom:

He's THEIR president too.

Why was ok for Ronnie Raygun to indoctrinate the kids HE talked to???? He tried to INDOCTRINATE them into his tax policy. Obama didn't do that... That PROVES he's a BETTER man than Ronnie Raygun!

I mentioned your hypocrisy the other day. I'm gonna do it again...

excon

Ahhh... but when Reagan and Bush 41 did it, the libs were all over it like stink on poop. They didn't stop criticizing it for weeks afterwards. In fact, Gephardt actually opened investigations against Bush 41 claiming that his speech to the kiddies was a waste of taxpayer money, that is was a use of taxpayer money for personal political gain, and demanding a look at the expenses for the event and who got paid. (Turns out the entire event cost about $26,000, and Gephardt's investigation cost about twice that much.)

So for the Dems to support such a speech after slamming both Reagan and Bush 41, and after starting investigations over it, seems rather hypocritical. I don't see anyone demanding investigations into the Obama admin over this speech... and certainly none of the Dems who were so vehemently against Bush 41 and Reagan.

If you think that Bush and Reagan were wrong for making their speeches to kids in school, you SHOULD be against Obama doing the same thing.

But apparently only Bush and Reagan are wrong, and Obama is a saint for making a speech to kids. I don't see you calling for any investigations into Obama's use of taxpayer money for personal political gain.

Your hypocrisy is showing, excon.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

It IS true, that some of his staffers have this "bloom" about him that gets him in trouble... But, ultimately, he's gonna talk about staying in school.

Raygun, on the other hand, tried to indoctrinate children into his tax philosophy. It was despicable...

Actually it wasn't. I don't believe in that indoctrination crap. I think it's just FINE that Reagan said what he said, even if I disagree with it.

I just said it, because if Obama gave ANY hints that he was gonna talk about health care, you righty's would come unglued..

That's cool. I'm used to your hypocrisy.

excon

Your hypocracy is showing, excon.

Hello again, El.

Nope. The only thing showing is your lack of reading skills.

excon

[speechlesstx]

We keep swerving from the point here, the furor was not over Obama speaking to students, it was over the lesson plan asking kids to make pledges to Dear Leader. Obama validated those concerns by scrapping the lesson plan, just like he validated the concerns over Van Jones by throwing him under the bus.

This seems to be a habit of this president, instead of sticking to his guns he's swaying with the political winds.

[excon]

This seems to be a habit of this president, instead of sticking to his guns he's swaying with the political winds.

Hello again, Steve:

Or, he's acknowledging his mistakes... Something the dufus NEVER could manage to do... So, I understand your puzzlement..

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Or, he's acknowledging his mistakes... Something the dufus NEVER could manage to do... So, I understand your puzzlement..

When did he acknowledge either of these "mistakes?" Acknowledging them requires some form of communication, Obama is dodging.

[excon]

When did he acknowledge either of these "mistakes?" Acknowledging them requires some form of communication, Obama is dodging.

Hello again, Steve:

He doesn't owe either one of us a mia culpa. It don't work that way. He hired the wrong guy. The wrong guy is gone. I'm sure he communicated with the guy, though.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Steve:

He doesn't owe either one of us a mia culpa. It don't work that way. He hired the wrong guy. The wrong guy is gone. I'm sure he communicated with the guy, though.

excon

What does he owe us?

Does he owe us a vetting process for those he picks to be high-level staffers in his administration? Because he seems to be the LEAST capable president of such a vetting process.

Does he owe us the following of the Constitution? Because by appointing 40+ "czars" with cabinet-level powers without letting go through the regular Congressional confirmation process, he's violating the Constitution.

Does he owe us a statement of what his policies are? Because he hasn't even gone that far... nobody knows what his policies are, which leaves him free to drift with the winds of popularity rather than taking a principaled stance on an issue and either winning or losing on the issue.

What exactly does the President owe us, excon?

Or does he owe us nothing at all?

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El.

Nope. The only thing showing is your lack of reading skills.

excon

I read it just right. You just have no response for what I wrote.

The Dems are great at criticizing, crucifying and launching investigations of Republicans, but when their Dem buddies do exactly the same thing, they not only remain silent, they SUPPORT them.

Ain't nothing you can say to deny it, 'cause it's true and has been proven over and over again.

Elliot

[excon]

I read it just right. You just have no response for what I wrote.

Hello again, El:

I don't know what happens to your short term memory, and I'M the one whose smoking something...

It's all written for you to peruse, but here's the short version... I posted that I thought it was just fine for Ronald Reagan to have addressed the kids.. You then accused me of hypocrisy because I WASN'T OK with Reagan's speech, but I'm fine with Obama's. I said, huh?

I again, question your reading skills, your short term memory, your ability to present a cogent argument, and your grasp of the issues.

excon

[ETWolverine]

My apologies, excon.

Now that I look back to post # 31, I see that I did use the term "you" there. I usually try not to do that. I messed up this time.

My accusations was INTENDED for Democrats and liberals in general, not you in specific. I apologize for pointing the accusation towards you in specific.

Still, my point remains.

If Dems had an issue with Reagan and Bush making such speeches... and they clearly did... then they should be equally as much against Obama doing it. But they aren't.

Do you agree that that constitutes hypocrisy on the part of Dems?

Elliot