And what do you suppose that Obama would have done in light of 9-11? Pulled a Clinton and bombed another empty training camp or a chemical plant? Or pulled out like he did in Somilia, Kenya and other places including Monica?
What a cop out statement. He calls the folks that were doing what he is doing only on a smaller scale fools. What does that make of his actions? Yeah, that's what I thought.
At least he went on a political program to explain his position. Obama, his wife goes on Letterman and Leno, which I guess is appropriate since they are comedy shows.
The Quote of the Decade:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
It was so nice of him to give us this great quote for posterity
Hey dip stick, I am trying to get past the Yahoo censors here, like it or not it was originaly writing. If you don't like it, don't read it, but don't call it something about which you have zero knowledge, oh I forgot that is nearly everything isn't it.
Why things won’t change within our government!
If you are elected to represent the people of the United States in our Federal government or even a local or state government there are certain expectations that you are demanded to be devoted to, other than the legal rules around age, residence, etc.
You must honestly represent your thoughts and principles about how you think the government should operate, what laws, fiscal strategies, foreign affairs, and other convictions you support or do not support. You must share what your intentions are with regard to voting for or against these issues.
If you alter your position, you must justify the change and ask if the people that elected you desire you to step aside. If you change your position on a particular matter in order to gain a trade off for a position or positions you have committed to support, you must weigh the decision a determine if the position you’re giving up balances the scales with the new one you supported. Did your trade off result in an equal or higher benefit to the people of the United States and particularly the constituents that elected you? If you did so to gain any personal or career advantages, then you should resign or be recalled.
You must SAY WHAT YOU MEAN AND MEAN WHAT YOU SAY. If you ‘misstated’ your views during the election or substantially change them after winning, then you must explain to the voters the logic behind your change in position or you are guilty of fraud and should be removed from office and punished if necessary. To do otherwise you are not ‘representing’ your electorate in the manner you described to them during your campaign.
You must commit that no outside influence, other than those of the people who elected you and the citizens of the United States will temp you to change your stated positions. If tempted, you must refuse the temptation.
The most significant problem in our government is that there are no, or a very small number of such people in our government. If you do not represent the people who elected you in the manner you described in your campaign, then you are a criminal, a fraud, and a cheat.
If instead of all this finger pointing and threatening of the American people, they would just stop all payments to the members of Congress, their staff, the President and his staff, including cabinet members, this circular firing squad nonsense would be resolved almost overnight.
The wrong people are being threatened and the wrong people will suffer for the actions and inactions of these fools.
How's that good old liberal tolerance working for you? LOL
A West Virginia political science professor prohibited her students from citing Fox News as a source for research papers because, she told them, the network "makes her cringe."
Stephanie Wolfe, who works at West Liberty University, instructed students to filter out two potential research sources: Fox News, which many Democrats say is slanted to the right, and The Onion, a satirical news source, NBC affiliate WTOV reports.
Wolfe's syllabus said:
DO NOT use
1) The Onion — this is not news this is literally a parody
2) Fox News — The tagline “Fox News” makes me cringe. Please do not subject me to this biased news station. I would almost rather you print off an article from the Onion
Wolfe, a visiting assistant professor who has a one-year contract with the university, was filling in for another instructor who was on leave, The Daily Caller reports.
On her syllabus, Wolfe does not prohibit any other news sources, such as MSNBC, which some consider is an overtly progressive news organization.
Parents and students contacted the university to object to Wolfe's ban, prompting a response from Robin Capehart, the school's president.
"One of our values at West Liberty is to encourage students to go out and inquire and gather information and look at as many different sources as possible on any side, before you reach your opinion," Capehart told WTOV. "Any attempt to limit the breadth of a student's ability to investigate is obviously something at which we have a concern."
Wolfe declined to comment on the issue, WTOV reports. She is still teaching, but no longer imposes any limitations on where students get their information from.