Subscribe by RSS
President-elect Obama gave his first lengthy post-victory interview last night with 60 Minutes. Many topics were covered including the war on terror, al-Qaeda and of course, the current economic bailout questions and other financial issues facing the nation.
Here is the entire 60 Minutes broadcast courtesy CBS News. This includes interviews with President-elect Obama and eventually Michelle Obama as well on their victory and the road forward:
Report on President-elect Obama’s interview, from Reuters:
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Barack Obama’s first television interview as president-elect was a ratings hit for CBS news program “60 Minutes,” drawing its highest viewership since 1999, the U.S. network said on Monday.
The interview was seen by 24.5 million viewers, according to preliminary estimates from Nielsen Media Research. Final audience numbers will be released on Tuesday.
“60 Minutes” correspondent Steve Kroft interviewed Obama, asking his views on a wide range of subjects from the current economic crisis to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the possibility of a U.S. college football playoff system.
The future first lady, Michelle Obama, joined her husband later on in the interview.
Obama last week gave his first post-election interview to Ebony, one of the oldest black-owned magazines in the United States. Ebony will publish the interview in its January issue.
Next, some raw video from the Associated Press on President-elect Obama’s meeting with his former opponent, Sen. John McCain:
Report from Yahoo News:
CHICAGO – President-elect Barack Obama and former Republican rival John McCain pledged Monday to work together on ways to change Washington’s “bad habits,” though aides to both men said it was unlikely McCain would serve in an Obama Cabinet.
The two men met in Obama’s transition headquarters in Chicago for the first time since the Illinois senator vanquished McCain in the presidential election Nov. 4. Obama said they wanted to talk about “how we can do some work together to fix up the country,” and he added that he would offer his own thanks to McCain “for the outstanding service he’s already rendered.”
Obama has said he is likely to invite at least one Republican to join his Cabinet, but McCain was not expected to be a candidate. The Arizonan is serving his fourth term in the Senate.
Obama and McCain sat together for a brief picture-taking session with reporters, along with Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s incoming White House chief of staff, and South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, McCain’s close friend. Obama and McCain were heard briefly discussing football, and Obama cracked that “the national press is tame compared to the Chicago press.”
When asked if he planned to help the Obama administration, McCain replied, “Obviously.”
After the meeting, the two issued a joint statement saying: “At this defining moment in history, we believe that Americans of all parties want and need their leaders to come together and change the bad habits of Washington so that we can solve the common and urgent challenges of our time.”
“It is in this spirit that we had a productive conversation today about the need to launch a new era of reform where we take on government waste and bitter partisanship in Washington in order to restore trust in government, and bring back prosperity and opportunity for every hardworking American family,” it said. “We hope to work together in the days and months ahead on critical challenges like solving our financial crisis, creating a new energy economy and protecting our nation’s security.”
Obama and McCain clashed bitterly during the fall campaign over taxes, the Iraq War, and ways to fix the ailing economy. Things got ugly at times, with McCain running ads comparing Obama to celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and raising questions about his relationship with a 1960s-era radical, William Ayers.
Obama’s campaign, meanwhile, labeled the 72-year-old McCain “erratic” and ran campaign ads deriding his economic views.
On Election Night, McCain paid tribute to Obama’s historic ascendancy as the nation’s first black president. The two agreed that night to meet after the election when McCain called Obama to concede defeat.
Both men espoused the spirit of bi-partisanship, however, there continues to be rampant speculation that Sen. McCain may be offered some type of cabinet position as one of the Republicans Obama hinted at including in his circle of advisers.
Meanwhile, speculation continues that Sen. Hillary Clinton may be offered a position such as Secretary of State, report from CBS News:
Hillary Clinton is well-liked by a lot of Democrats, I personally think it would be wise for Obama to bring her in. I also think bringing in John McCain would be a boon for him as well. Whether or not McCain would accept is another story, the same with Hillary Clinton.
Visit the You Decide Politics Store »
Loading ...
I think that this meeting between obama and McCain was a curtesy on both parts, and that we won’t see or hear of them together again.
Just my opinion.
Would have enjoyed it more if it was done at another party. Obama and McCain can both crack great jokes.
Just heard on news Hillary may not qualify for Secretary of State. Her husband might not pass security clearance.
McCain seems almost servile with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They all think very much alike–the ends justify the means, big government, global warming . . .
McCain has never supported big government, Chris. Remember the Roe v Wade debate.
I don’t understand how Roe V. Wade is big government.
Can you explain?
Roe v Wade was used largely as a symbol of big government in the campaign by McCain. The debate with some was that McCain wanted to overturn roe v wade because he wanted to abolish abortion. What got lost along with way with some of these extremists was that it had nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with bigger government. McCain wanted to overturn roe v wade because he felt the federal government had no business in that debate, that it should be relinquished back to the individual states. Thus, bigger government vs smaller government. Follow?
I was really thinking of the bailout when I was talking about big government.
Babs – “that it should be relinquished back to the individual states.”
I follow you, I hadn’t thought of it that way (really it is for bigger state government and smaller national) but if California allows abortion and Texas doesn’t wouldn’t people just fly over to California to get the abortion? Much like they were doing when they went to Mexico to get it done back in the day.
I can see why this is a national issue.
Still, Roe v. wade says that women have the right to choose to abort or not to abort and for that reason state or national government can not encroach on that choice.
So in my eyes Roe v. Wade is for small government both state and national because it protects the rights of the individual.
Thoughts?
jd
your next to last paragraph must be a statement from one of the judges in favor. i can only guess because you do not give the source. kind of like giving part of a quote.
your saying “is for small government both state and national because it protects the rights of the individual “is not the meaning of what Babs describted
Roe v Wade was intended to address a woman’s individual rights, yes. But it mandates to states, whereas for the purpose of smaller government states should rule themselves on the issue, not big brother. Yes, women could simply travel to a state where it’s legal and obtain an abortion, and there’s nothing wrong with that system. Or move to that state if abortions are forseeably going to be multiple for that woman, as it is in many cases – a method of birth control, if you will. But the point remains that the states would mandate their own state abortion laws if R v W was overturned, instead of the Federal Government mandating a federal law over all states.
Interesting…
To my knowlege, Roe v. Wade did not state power to the national government or to the state government in any way. It stated that it is unconstitutional for either National or state to outlaw abortion.
It doesn’t give national government any rights over the state. It just states any law against abortion when the fetus is not “viable” (potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid) is against the constitution, specifically, the 14 amendment.
However, I would probably be fine with it being left up to the states but we must admit that the right for even the state to decide if a woman can have an abortion is encroachment by little brother (state governemnt).
I worry that the effects will be the same as if, you were to legalize marijuana in California.
If it is illegal to do it in Texas than wouldn’t I be braking the law if I smoked pot in California or failed a drug test even though I did smoke where it was legal?
This is definitely an issues where there is a clear, two sides to the coin.
Either way, I see the problem with abortion being the same even if it were put back on the states.
jd
constitution does not address abortion.
again you para-phrasing a court ruling. not constitution. that’s my guess, you give no source.
roe v wade denotes supreme court case
Bill,
The Supreme Court’s primary role in government is to uphold the consitution and ensure that the other governmental parties are not overstepping the consitution.
In RvW, the Supreme Court ruled that laws against abortions (except when the fetus is viable) is a violation of the consitutional right to privacy (Fourteenth Amendment).
You are correct in that RvW denotes a Supreme Court case, and therefore in the ruling of the Supreme Court is also a direct correlation to the constitution.
This is common knowledge, so I do not understand the need for a source.
Jereemy
Reason is jd is always saying that to me. And he has not answered comments that he has wrongly said against me
The Court decides cases such as Roe v Wade. But there is controversial aspects to that. There are those that say Supreme Court is not to legislate. And feel that is what the Court did.
Basicially I am saying what Babs said above.Interpretation of 14th is just that. A later Court could overturn. As other cases has been. Because abortion is not mentioned in Constitution.
“It stated that it is unconstitutional for either National or state to outlaw abortion.”
And there’s the Federal government via the Supreme Court micro managing a state’s authority. So now you get my point.
“Reason is jd is always saying that to me. And he has not answered comments that he has wrongly said against me”
People usually don’t ask for a source if something is easily researched or is common knowledge.
From my observation people ask for a source when someone makes a claim that is outrageous, totally unheard of or unavailable by means of a regular search through google.
For example “Barack Obama is the president elect.”
Asking for someone to give a source to verify that claim isn’t necessary.
But if i say this. “Barack Obama had an extramarital affair”.
At this point no one has heard anything about this and a source would be needed for verification.
Now if someone says this “Barack Obama is an Arab”. I personally would like to see the source because i know most likely the source is from Rush Limbaugh or some conspiracy theorist website. And Rush is proven wrong often.
It also depends on who is saying it. If Babs or Stalin was to make the claim that Obama was an Arab i would immediately want to know why they came to that conclusion because they usually don’t make claims like that. Most of the time i do my own search on Google and lord behold there it is on Fox News, CNN or Msnbc. If i can’t find it i’ll ask them myself and they always provide the info. But if EricF is the one making the claim ( usually he always gives a link) I personally ignore it because i know where he gets his info from.
If the alleged fact isn’t known by anyone but the author then there is no sense in debating it.
Dreadson……….Even giving a source now a days doesn’t add any validity to a statement.I would question any statement made by MNSBC just as a liberal would question any statement made by National Review.Major media outlets have lost all substance of objectivity.
Thanks everyone for spelling that out for Bill, I had a class to attend last night so I didn’t get to respond to him.
First Bill, let me say that I shouldn’t have to give you a link because, as people have said, I thought you understood the workings of the supreme court.
However, I think your confusion comes from your understanding of Roe V. Wade. So let me give you some links for you to research.
ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.....p;page=113
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Babs – “Federal government via the Supreme Court micro managing a state’s authority.”
I get your point but it is also micro-managing the federal law.
Wikipedia is a perfect example of a source not to be trusted or put any validity on.I can go on that site and edit a piece.Lets stick with sources of more authority.
J.D I’m not commenting on the meat of your arguement only the source you use to back it up.
The source I gave was the case file for him to read. The Wikipedia link was just for general information.
Also, note, that Wikipedia does site its sources so if you are curious on where Wiki gets its information… check their source. Which is what makes it a good site, whether one agrees with them 100% or not.
Any way, D.D.Mao, the Case file is 100% relevant which was the first link i gave.
I understand what you are saying when you mention about Wikipedia and I usually, use Wiki as a general guide for background on issues. It does do a good job of giving a decent all around picture in most cases.
One can then dig deeper based on sited sources and general digging for more of an in depth look.
JD ….I have no problem with the case file being given as a source.It is wikipedia which can be edited by anyone that I don’t give any substance to. If you want to use the sources they list at the bottom and it’s from a official document or authoritive source fine.If you wish to use them as a general guide fine but just don’t use wikipedia as a major source of information.It is no more objective than MSNBC or the NEW YORK TIMES.
Dreadsen
Reason is jd is always saying that to me. And he has not answered comments that he has wrongly said against me”
People usually don’t ask for a source if something is easily researched or is common knowledge.
I am pleased that,as you have done recently, you did not re-write my quote and change my meaning. Again. However I gave 2 reasons . Did you narrow your response to only one ? Since , PREVIOUSLY, jd isn’t backing his statement against me because it is not in the coments as he said it was. ….. ok, I will
NO MORE ASK
Bill,
I am confused with your comment… *scratching head*
JD,
is it just me, or do we all spend more time debating each others ability to argue rather than debating the issues presented by Nate’s articles?
jd
Election 2008 is where you can find it
Kendale
I am not arguing over abilities. I am pointing out actuate quoting, not wanting mis-quotes at my expense.
Gov. Palin re-emmerges is where Dreadsen changed my quote. If he is wondering.
Kendale
I am pleased you will now be debatimg the issue.
Kendal – “is it just me, or do we all spend more time debating each others ability to argue rather than debating the issues presented by Nate’s articles?”
Yes, But I think it is because the amount of stuff Nate posts is declining. I am sure it is because he is preparing for the grand release of youdecidepolitics.com
So we end up going around in circles with each other from time to time and like all good conversations, they stray into other areas.
To be honest, It is going to be quiet on the political home front until after inauguration. Then we are going to see a fury of activity!
jd
I understand you can not back up your mistakes, and is good reason for you to ignore my last comment to you.. However, you asked for it. Don’t ask me for something you don’t want.. I proved my case that you twist things. Now, twist no more. You have seemed to stopped.
JD,
Yea. Ah well. I can’t wait until Jan 20th.
SSSShhhhh, bill…, I’m hunting rabbits!
jd
Why arn’t you proving me wrong on..Elecion 2008 ? Can’t. Make your funnies. Beats trying to prove you are right, doesn’t it ? Fools no one. I am happy.
HowObamaGotElected.com
Good for a laught ? How affective/fair Main street news media was
Bill,
LoL thatis freaking funny!
Kendale
I thought so. No matter one’s politics, it is funny
Funny, is funny. If someone gets upset because you make fun of someone from their political party, they are an idiot.
If you make fun on me, and it’s actually funny, then dammit, it’s funny, LoL 
Kendale
I have only watched the preview. Am saving for later. It was privately funded. Attempt is to show bias of main street news media. By seeing if the person knows the facts or which facts. They were asked to do one with McCain’s voters.. I hope they do.
Well, I can’t take it seriously. Who is to say that did not pick those people because they didn’t know anything. Or, who’s to say that they did not ask those people to answer the way that they did. Hard to prove anything with those video’s. Especially since we know it’s a joke, they said they chose “The most informed Obama voters” and I know for a fact those people are hardly informed of anything.
Kendale
I just find it a entertaining clip. I take no stock in it
Kendale, I caught the author of the study on a news interview, and he said the people in the video were chosen by a third party who was also a democrat and an Obama supporter, I want to say a poll worker, but not sure I remember that right. Anyway, they didn’t choose or prescreen the people interviewed. Just FYI
http://www.youtube.com/wa.....tXFkXwaG7A
I wonder what how well McCain supporters know the issues… lets watch an interview from some friendly republicans.
lol.
Watch the link above.
Sounds like it is true. Republicans repeating Fox news and Dems repeating CNN.
Guess they just found a group of idiots. Oh well I’m sure a majority of our country has that very same problem.
I wont defend them. 
jd
Unfortunely the sound on my computer does not work properly. There are many news media and only one Fox. So I assume most people watch news other than Fox.
You said-”Sounds like it is true. Republicans repeating Fox news and Dems repeating CNN.”
Was each video asking if person interviewed watch Fox or CNN ?
Babs was kind enough to give a little background on my link. What is it on yours ?
jd
I fixed my sound
On my link, they were asked which news media they listened to. They varied for the Democrats interviewed. Your link on Republicans, did not mention which news media they watched.
So you have no evidence when you said..
“Sounds like it is true. Republicans repeating Fox news and Dems repeating CNN.”
Your link showed its bias by its comments on screen, mine did not. An example is every time Bill Ayers name was mentioned, a comment was written on screen.
Neither should be taken as a documentary, yours was obviously more bias. Mine should be watched for entertainment purposes only.
Bill,
Both of them are spoof, I’m sure. You’re stated that “They went out and found the ‘MOST INFORMED’ Obama voters”
That alone shows that it is a spoof. Plus, you have NO idea what went on behind the camera. We all know how editing of video and audio can make it look however the editor would like.
Both clips are for laughs, period.
We all know there are idiots that vote on both sides of the political spectrum.
We all know there is media bias, and that it is NOT a secret, it is very open and those who are bias, I’m sure most at least, admit to their bias.
Also, I am sure the, IDIOTS, who vote, don’t prefer one news outlet over the other one, that would presume that they even watch and read the news.
Most idiots browse the internet, or at least have an email account that they can check at work/school/library. or they watch other idiot television programs that incorporate political spoofs, which, as I can recall, were only shot at McCain/Palin. There may have been Obama spoofs, I just don’t recall them.
So trying to say that democratic idiots watch one station and republican idiots watch another is not a strong argument.
Also to try and say that “informed” votes are idiots is an oxymoron. Informed votes are expressions of their opinion, if you don’t like how they vote, that is your opinion.
Kendale
“Both of them are spoof, I’m sure. You’re stated that “They went out and found the ‘MOST INFORMED’ Obama voters” ”
Please give me thread, date, and time where you got my quote. I did not say the quote you assigned to me !!!!!!!!
“Also to try and say that “informed” votes are idiots is an oxymoron. Informed votes are expressions of their opinion, if you don’t like how they vote, that is your opinion. ”
Where in the world did you get this from in my comments ? Please give thread,date,and time
Kendale
“Also, I am sure the, IDIOTS, who vote, don’t prefer one news outlet over the other one, that would presume that they even watch and read the news.”
I don’t understand why you are telling me this. I did not say they did,,,, jd sad…
“Sounds like it is true. Republicans repeating Fox news and Dems repeating CNN.”
You know what this is an old trick.
BBC did the same thing. They went around asking Americans simple questions about Political Candidates and about their own country and of the SELECTED videos they presented USA looked like they didn’t know their ass from third base. People didn’t know who Obama or McCain was and didn’t know Iraq was a country,etc.
Watch Jay Leno’s “Jay Walking”. They only present the dumbest people out of all of the ones they have questioned.
I know certain people like to use this video’s as a way of attacking a certain group. But if they can’t see how easily the outcome of these can be manipulated then they are just grasping for straws.
Bill, I was not qouting you at all, Once again you misunderstood what I said…
the VIDEO say the people chosen were the best informed Obama voters
The second qoute was me talking, not qouting you
Calm u F’in nerves, Jesus
I know JD said that, I was just killing two birds with one post, you are very difficult man….calm down I am not attacking you, JD, or anyone, just giving my opinion one what I read here, next time I wont start off with any names, then u can be at ease
Dreadsen,
Thank you, apparently, some of the people on this website don’t seem to understand that. Why, is beyond me man. Like I said before, some people live in a bubble.
Hey, Dreadsen, what’d you do, leave the country when obama was elected? I see your flag sign now is Japan. *LOL*
Kendale said
You’re stated that “They went out and found the ‘MOST INFORMED’ Obama voters” ”
if you don’t like how they vote, that is your opinion
………………………………………………..
When you place my name at begining of your comment, then say you…. in quotes, that is quoting me.
Dreadsen mis-quoted me. No sorry ! So yes, I get hot being misquoted.
Bill Hedges Nov 19th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Kendale
I just find it a entertaining clip. I take no stock in it
…………………………………………..
This was and still is my opionion of the clips
I mean to type “Yours” as in your link, I am F’in sorry, I knew your stand, I read your post, lets move on now, please
As you may have seen in my past comment, I gave treads where Dreadsen mis–quoted me and jd twisted things trying to make me wrong. Well I am wrong at times and don’t need twisting. You should look at those two treads and you might understand my feelings.
But anyhow. No problem.
I think we’re going to see a ton of backlash with Hillary being Sec. of State!!!
Christopher
I don’t know what to think. Last night the talk on Fox was Hillary would not get that job. I just know till Obama says it, I can’t see it. Pesonally, neither has foreign policy experience. Usually a inexperienced President will pick an expert. And one he can trust.
But then, Obama is not his own boss, either. He does the bidding of the Council on Foreign Relations, which even is involved in putting in the stooges of presidential administrations. I think it’s a big mistake concerning popularity of the next administration for Hillary to be Sec. of State.
Christopher
Bidding of the Council on Foreign Relations needs to be proven. Their power and control needs to be documented. Otherwise, it is just a think tank to me. So feel free to do so in your comment. Not interested in reading a lot of links. But I will keep a open mind. Stay logical.
Bill
“Well I am wrong at times and don’t need twisting. ”
When have you ever been wrong?
And i notice a pattern. You view 3 people as twisting and misquoting you.
Why is it that those 3 people chose only to do this to you and not anyone else?
All because someone uses “quotation marks” doesn’t mean that it is a quote. In some cases it means that the person is emphasizing a point. If everyone made these charges there would be claims of misquoting all over the damn place and nothing but turmoil here.
Babs
haha good one! I laughed hard at that one.
Yes i had to jump ship. The damn KKK has opened up an office in Detroit Michigan now.They are targeting the laid off workers. Hate crimes have risen, Hate recruitment is through the roof. People who were moderate closet racist are now proud and out in the open aggressive bigots. I just hope their numbers only go from about 5000 members to 6000. IF this snow balls the minorities will have a big problem on their hands. ( how’s that for a boogieman Obama election fear eh?)
Dreadsen
You are not man enough to admit your mis-quoting. You left the thread. I showed my proof against you and stated it in other thread, and you still don’t respond to that tread. Although I have not checked today.
I back my comment with evidence. With your own statements. Kendale was man enough to say he was sorry. You and the other guy cannot. But don’t go back and face my evidence in the tread. Make your funnies. Great proof. Thats how to agrue
You should look up the meaning of vulgarity. Prehaps you would refame. Although it adds to your logic ?!
Here is a post obama victory response by the Black Uhuru Movement, Against Obama. These people have heckled him in a town hall meeting less than 2 miles from my house. These people are black people, totally against Obama. I thought you all would find this pleasing. Though The Uhuru Movement is complete ignorance. Idiots being mentally controlled by a hateful person.
Omali Yeshitela
“What about the Black Community Obama?” This is the video of a Uhuru member questioning Obama at the town hall meeting where I live.
Second Part of the video Followed by my 5 or so comments
Dreadsen
Your laughter and exaggeration is a feeble way to insult Babs. Lack of mental ability.
School yard children play that game. No wonder you can not face my charges of mis-quoting. You can not agrue against the truth. You must argue as a child. Insult and cuss as a child
.
blah blah blah Wah Wah Wah
Kendale
That’s real conversation. I’m finished with you
White Power in Black Face Interesting Article about Obama
I told you that I didn’t take you seriously, that you were a joke. AKA I was through with you long ago.
“Kendale Sturdivent Nov 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I mean to type “Yours” as in your link, I am F’in sorry, I knew your stand, I read your post, lets move on now, please”
Please……………You had your please
Dreadsen ask “Why is it that those 3 people chose only to do this to you and not anyone else?”
Because I will point out anyone who mis-quotes me if I notice it.
And you failed to include some of my meaning in quote .
“As you may have seen in my past comment, I gave treads where Dreadsen mis–quoted me and jd twisted things trying to make me wrong. Well I am wrong at times and don’t need twisting.”
The partial quote you gave did not give my meaning to “twist” within the paragraph. I believe quotes are to engulf the meaning within the context. Not fragment.
All you need to do, Bill, is look at who dictates Obama’s policies: his top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski and David Rockefeller, whose protege Richard Haas runs the CFR, work very well together and talk about how they use the media and government to create a world government. They talk about how most people in the world don’t deserve to live (”useless eaters”, to use H. G. Wells’s terminology). The other person with equal importance is Henry Kissinger.
Also, Bill, I intentionally didn’t post links because you said you’d prefer I not list them.
Christopher
I am not into conspiracy. Have not looked into it either. I guess I am neutral on your idea. I remember some of the history of Rockerfellas, Ford, Kennedys, and Carnegie. Especially Carnegie loaning government money in Great Depression. They say he was the most hated man at the time..
Carnegie was dead by the Great Depression, though . . .
Christopher
My mistake. Sorry. He died in 1919. Who was it that loaned the government money ? I seem to remember somebody did.
The Federal Reserve??
Christopher
I must remember wrong. Can’t find it on internet.
LoL @ Bill
Kendale
Very eloquent observation.
No need to be eloquent to find you humorous.
Why are any of you even talking to Bill????
There is a simple solution. Read his comments, think about his comments, but for god’s sake, do not talk to him, comment about him, or even respond to him unless he makes a legitimate statement or rebuttal, PERIOD. He rarely does, so this should cut out 90% of the crap.
Don’t get me wrong, I like how he makes his side look and thank god there are some conservatives on here that can make up for Bill’s heavy short comings
But
BOYCOTT BILL!!!!… or at least do your best to…
JD,
Point taken, I’ll ignore him from now on, unless he says something that isn’t stupid.
Twiddle Dee & Twiddle Dumb
*LOL* Point for Bill.
Babs
I now will insult them freely. Should not be a one way sreet. Logical conversation is laughted at by them. Hopefully when new site comes, the report comment will end it. I perfer not to insult, but jd, kendale, and dreasen like it. It is funny in one tread kendale got upset because I insulted last night
I think it’s just boredom on their part, Bill. With Nate taking a break from posting articles, they’re having trouble with normal conversation, that’s all. Just consider the source and move on.
Babs
Is your opionion I should just ignore.
Yes, Bill. As a general rule, when someone posts something aimed at me as a personal insult I just ignore the post. Commenting on it or arguing about it just fuels the fire, and accomplishes nothing.
Babs
You are right. I did get off a couple of goodies and had two more ready. I’ll ignore. Can’t wait for new site and “report comment” to work.
Sweet looks like we are all in agreement. Ignore stupid, respond to the points.
Too bad it took all this to get us here.
Babs – “think it’s just boredom” … lol. That is a good observation because you hit the target dead on. I checked youdecidepolitics.com last night and there was nothing there. lol.
So what are your thoughts on the following appiontments?
1. Clinton as Secretary of State
2. Gen. Jones as National Security Adviser
3. Gates for Defense
4. Napolitano for Homeland Security
5. Holder for AG
6. Susan Rice as U.N. Ambassador
I like Napolitano, because that gives Arizona a Republican Govenor now, and a real Lady. Arizona doesn’t have a Lt. Governor, so Sec. of State Brewer will step up. Decades of experience.
Gates is good, and will be obama’s token republican in his cabinet.
Never heard of Holder before now.
Clinton, pay back I guess, but it will be interesting to see the reaction from both sides on that one. There were a lot of Clinton haters/obama lovers on one side, and the opposite on the other. Myself, I would rather have seen Bill get it before Hillary, but that’s just me.
Russia-Venezuela exercises begin
Looks like Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and good ole Hugo Chavez want to test the waters, dancing around the the carribean near the US. This could lead to something very interesting, you think?
I have been searching, but as of yet, I do not see any news about Ahmadinejad responding to Obama appointing Clinton as Sec. of State. I can’t wait to see what he says about it. That or Russia’s response to the appointment.
Obama names Clinton to top role in his team
Defense Secretary Gates to stay on; Holder, Napolitano, Jones, Rice tapped
Well, here we go. Time for people like myself, who are not familiar with the history of the names that have been chosen to be in charge of the defense of our country, to do some research. Nice video attached on this article.
Eric H. Holder Jr.
The first black Attorney General, appointed by the first black president.
Holder Will Make it Democrat ‘Politics As Usual’ at Justice Department
Another article saying that Obama is not going to bring change, yet bring the same old players. I heard on msnbc today or yesterday, was not watching. Obama stated “I am the change of this new administration, not the people I elect.” It appears that Obama is bringing about the same people, yet he is saying that simply because these are the same people, doesnt mean they are calling the shots, he is.
It looks like Holder is a bit against the Second Amendment. He says he is against allowing everyone to have a gun for personal use, which I can agree with. Bearing arms during the conception of the constitution was a lot different then the way we see bearing arms today. Today it is less necessary for every US citizen to own a gun. Though there are tough neighborhoods in our country, it is not a excuse to own a weapon for protection. This is why we have police. Plus of you are attacked by someone with a gun, a shoot out is not the best way to handle the situation. Non-deadly protection is just as effective in an attack. Such as Mace, Peper Spray, Stun Guns. This have proven to be very effective weapons for the average attack. As far as owning a gun for sport, I don’t see a problem. But when people turn around and use these sporting weapons to kill people, there inlies the problem
So, people are hating on Eric Holder because he advised Bill Clinton to Pardon Marc Rich, a man who was indicted on Tax Evasion and traded with Iran. I can’t say I hate Eric Holder for that. Even if Denise Rich donated a bunch of money to the democratic party. All of the hating on Eric Holder in this case is hearsay. I would not say that makes him any less capable of being a good Attorney General.
Who Is Obama Attorney General Pick Eric Holder?
This article has a qoute from holder, not showing who he is, but what is in agreement with what I have been saying about conservatives on this site *cough*Babs*cough* LoL, only a joke, dont hate me for it:
“The nation must be reminded that the word liberal is more than a conservative slur. The nation must be reminded that it was the progressive, liberal tradition that brought about the social and economic changes that were necessary many years ago. The nation must be convinced that it is a progressive future that holds the greatest promise for equality and the continuation of those policies that serve to support the greatest number of our people.”
I like this guy so far, more research to do though
I am reposting this submission with the links typed out with spaces, my last one had a problem, and it is awaiting moderation, because commonly links are flagged for possible spam
Eric H. Holder Jr.
http:// http://www.cov.com /eholder /
The first black Attorney General, appointed by the first black president.
Holder Will Make it Democrat ‘Politics As Usual’ at Justice Department
http:// http://www.humanevents.com / article.php?id=29563
Another article saying that Obama is not going to bring change, yet bring the same old players. I heard on msnbc today or yesterday, was not watching. Obama stated “I am the change of this new administration, not the people I elect.” It appears that Obama is bringing about the same people, yet he is saying that simply because these are the same people, doesnt mean they are calling the shots, he is.
It looks like Holder is a bit against the Second Amendment. He says he is against allowing everyone to have a gun for personal use, which I can agree with. Bearing arms during the conception of the constitution was a lot different then the way we see bearing arms today. Today it is less necessary for every US citizen to own a gun. Though there are tough neighborhoods in our country, it is not a excuse to own a weapon for protection. This is why we have police. Plus of you are attacked by someone with a gun, a shoot out is not the best way to handle the situation. Non-deadly protection is just as effective in an attack. Such as Mace, Peper Spray, Stun Guns. This have proven to be very effective weapons for the average attack. As far as owning a gun for sport, I don’t see a problem. But when people turn around and use these sporting weapons to kill people, there inlies the problem
So, people are hating on Eric Holder because he advised Bill Clinton to Pardon Marc Rich, a man who was indicted on Tax Evasion and traded with Iran. I can’t say I hate Eric Holder for that. Even if Denise Rich donated a bunch of money to the democratic party. All of the hating on Eric Holder in this case is hearsay. I would not say that makes him any less capable of being a good Attorney General.
Who Is Obama Attorney General Pick Eric Holder?
http:// http://www.politicususa.com / en / Obama-Attorney-General-Eric-Holder
This article has a qoute from holder, not showing who he is, but what is in agreement with what I have been saying about conservatives on this site *cough*Babs*cough* LoL, only a joke, dont hate me for it:
“The nation must be reminded that the word liberal is more than a conservative slur. The nation must be reminded that it was the progressive, liberal tradition that brought about the social and economic changes that were necessary many years ago. The nation must be convinced that it is a progressive future that holds the greatest promise for equality and the continuation of those policies that serve to support the greatest number of our people.”
I like this guy so far, more research to do though
“I have been searching, but as of yet, I do not see any news about Ahmadinejad responding to Obama appointing Clinton as Sec. of State. I can’t wait to see what he says about it. That or Russia’s response to the appointment.”
I’m still waiting to hear whether or not obama responded to Ahmadinejad’s post-election letter.
Seems there may be a glitch or two getting Holder confirmed.
I would like to see Obama’s response as well. His response if VERY important for a number of reasons, I’m sure you’ll agree.
AGreed. That’s why I questioned his abilities again after hearing him at his first press conference responding to a question about it. He didn’t even acknowledge reading the letter at that point, and only made the comment that there was only one president at a time. That wasn’t an answer, the letter wasn’t sent to Bush, it was sent to obama.
Perhaps he is doing what he should have done after his first meeting with President Bush. Keep his mouth closed about matters that are not meant to be public knowledge. Perhaps there has already been a response, and perhaps there is a plan of action, yet when the leaders of a government allow their plans to be public knowledge than those plans are not going to work.
Specifically with governments war plans. Perhaps everyone’s plan was/is to get out of Iraq, or send troops to Afghanistan. Yet when you give war plans on television, then you are simply telling the enemy what you plan to do about them. I suppose my analogies are not thought out, but I figure you get my point.
Should Obama go on television and tell everyone what he plans on doing about Ahmadinejad? So that Ahmadinejad knows out right how Obama feels and can calculate his moves accordingly?
If this is the case, we may as well go back to wearing bright colors, opposite of the colors of our enemies, line up in a wide open field, point our guns at each other as we meet in the middle, and kill ourselves.
Though it would be appealing to know where I president stands on Ahmadinejad, I am not sure if it is smart for him to make his intentions public.
What do you think Babs?
I think you’re right about not tipping an enemies hand in the press. That being said, though, I think that in view of the fact that he took questions specifically on the letter in the press conference, he should put out some kind of statement that he has dealt with it. How is not important, he just gave the impression he completely brushed it off in the press conference.