2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

....that would be Bush.

Jobs Saved or Created in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853)

After scanning that article its sad how they tout about saving 17 jobs by spending 17million dollars. That's a real success story in a district that does not exist.

Pretty remarkable that we've had these many exchanges and still don't eye to eye. The purpose of the White House blog is not to debunk baseless right wing theories as to the location of artwork. The White House has an entire office dedicated to that. So that, you know, the president and his staff can focus on governing.

White House Art | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/history/art)

Curator's Office - White House Museum (http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/floor0/curators-office.htm)


Haha, couldnt agree more.... at least thats one thing right?


What i find problematic is the way Pfeiffer handled the whole thing. I think everyone would agree Pfeiffer made a mistake and maybe even went a little rouge in what hes otherwise supposed to be “reporting” on.

But this isn’t some baseless right wing theory. It’s a well known thing, carried on by some ignored by others. Honestly before last week didn’t you think the artwork was returned a little hastily? I think Saden1 even thought that it was returned perhaps in an insisting way. And that’s the whole point. No one really cares whos correct in mentioning the exact whereabouts of the bust. The whole issue which has been and is still being ignore is how the bust got to where it is.


First to break the story of the Churchill bust being returned to the British Embassy was The Sunday Telegraph’s Tim Shipman (now at The Daily Mail), who wrote in February 2009 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html):
Barack Obama has sent Sir Winston Churchill packing and pulse rates soaring among anxious British diplomats. A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.
But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."



Two weeks earlier, in January 2009, The Times had revealed the bust had been removed from the Oval Office and placed in storage, in a piece headlined: "Churchill bust casts shadow over the Special Relationship" (no longer online, but available on news databases such as Lexis/Nexis). Significantly, The Times noted that the British government, led at the time by Gordon Brown, was keen for the bust to go back to the Oval Office:
Britain wants President Obama to put a bronze bust of Sir Winston Churchill back in the Oval Office, where it stood for the past eight years as a symbol of an enduring special relationship with America. The White House is not so sure.
Shortly before Mr Obama's inauguration, the Jacob Epstein bronze is understood to have been removed and placed in storage by White House curators. Recent photographs show that a bust of Abraham Lincoln, one of the new President's heroes, has been moved to take the position once occupied by Churchill.
The bronze was lent to George Bush by Tony Blair in 2001 from the Government Art Collection for the duration of his presidency. It is now due to be returned.
However, a spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington said yesterday: "We have made it clear that we would be pleased to extend the loan should Mr Obama so wish." He added that no response had been received; yesterday the White House declined to comment.

Churchill bust debacle: ‘amateurish’ Obama White House remains firmly in denial over snub to Britain – Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100173136/churchill-bust-debacle-amateurish-obama-white-house-remains-firmly-in-denial/)

Interesting...CPAC speech.

"I think that if you take...and apply it to the action of the son...these are the guys I call Obama's founding fathers...this isn't just a, kinda hit job on Obama...I'm a college professor and the film is a journey...if the american people really knew who Obama was they would see he is not an ordinary democrat."


Any idea if the movie a comedy or a tragedy?

Perhaps it falls in Shakespear's third category, a history?


I heard an interview about a month or so ago about this movie and it sounded pretty interesting. The director basically stated that conservitive documentries dont exist and that this is one form of media that liberals have used and done so well. He said a lot of his scripters/filmers/editors were all people that had experience with Moore or other liberal movie makers, and that in the process some of them turned conservative on many issues.......

But honestly, I watched the trailer to this thing this morning and it looks like it sucks pretty bad.

What the hell are you smoking today.

FD,
This has been posted several times. Keep up please.


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/)


NEXT.

FD,
This has been posted several times. Keep up please.


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/)


NEXT.

That article is putting Obama's 800 billion stimulas on Bush Because he passed it in 2009.

Next.

Perhaps it falls in Shakespear's third category, a history?


I heard an interview about a month or so ago about this movie and it sounded pretty interesting. The director basically stated that conservitive documentries dont exist and that this is one form of media that liberals have used and done so well. He said a lot of his scripters/filmers/editors were all people that had experience with Moore or other liberal movie makers, and that in the process some of them turned conservative on many issues.......

But honestly, I watched the trailer to this thing this morning and it looks like it sucks pretty bad.

A movie based on suppositions doesn't make for a quality movie. It looks like dog shit but if they can get people to go watch it and make some change then it was worth is. In any case, is there any particular liberal movie you would like to compare this to?


As for people turning, well, people don't turn conservative...plus these conservative and liberal labels don't mean much these days because there are so many facets to individuals. African American's by and large consider themselves conservative but they are no conservative in voting sense.

it is your responsibility to disapprove anything we say not the other way around.


Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.

Harry Reid: Bain Investor Told Me That Mitt Romney 'Didn't Pay Any Taxes For 10 Years' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003)

In case you are unaware of this story.

Does the U.S. government have the right to kill its own citizens? - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/does-the-us-government-have-the-right-to-kill-its-own-citizens/article4451256/)

In case you are unaware of this story.

Does the U.S. government have the right to kill its own citizens? - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/does-the-us-government-have-the-right-to-kill-its-own-citizens/article4451256/)


In my opinion yes , and in the example in the link remember it wasn't the US that put the child there it was his "radical" father.If any of you remember on 9/11 the AirForce was order to shoot down any planes in open US air space after a while and I agreed with that at the time so I won't throw this on Bush or Obama.

FD,
This has been posted several times. Keep up please.


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/)


NEXT.Of course this "shell game" post comes from an "unbiased" source......the writer's tagline: Rick Ungar, writing from the left on politics and policy.

How about some real perspective on the Obama Admin and lefties shell game.

Setting Obama's "Great Fiscal Restraint Record" Straight (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/setting-obamas-great-fiscal-restraint-record-straight/)

and before you simply discount the link beause it's from Heritage....read and understand the numbers. We're talking real dollars, not percentage increases....the Obama Admin is playing a semantics and shell game here, nothing more. Bottom line, Obama has done nothing to address the entitlement tsunami that is coming over the next decade and has racked up $5T + of REAL DOLLARS in National Debt in 3 years.

NEXT.