Obamas can't move into Blair House early
Associated Press Writer – Fri Dec 12, 4:28 pm ET
CHICAGO – President-elect Barack Obama asked the White House if his family could move to Washington earlier than normal, but aides say the White House couldn't give them the official guest house as early as his family wanted.
The Obamas had asked White House officials to move into Blair House about two weeks before the traditional date so their two daughters could start their new school when classes resume Jan. 5. Obama aides say the White House told them that the request cannot be met because the current administration still has plans for the historic government home across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.
Jimbo's comment: He!-HE!-he-he-he! I wonder if Bush's staff will remove the 'O's from the keyboards. Probably not - (probably won't steal the silverware, either) - conservatives could never stoop to liberal pranks. Or... maybe they just did! He!-HE!-he-he-he! You HAVE to love it! (I bet it was Laura's idea!) :-)
51 comments:
What childish a-hole you are.
Then again, I had a party when reagan died. He was an evil man.
Are you telling me, he can't afford to have them driven to this school from their present digs? Nothing new here, more liberals expecting special treatment.
Clinton sold nights at the Lincoln bedroom for a song. This may be a good opportunity to raise money for the presidential library - a night at Blair House. There is another story about $50K to see '0' be sworn in...
I would bet he could ask for the assignments up front so the girls could do some prep work at home. As both O's are lawyers, they shouldn't have any problems helping the kids with questions.
What childish a-hole you are.
Then again, I had a party when reagan died. He was an evil man.
Who attended your little soiree? Reagan, as former Democrat and the past president of SAG would have never come to power had the Democratic Party under Jimmy Crater not been so monumentally weak and directionless. Carter's foreign policy in Pakistan is the reason that country now has nuclear weapons, the blueprints for which Prime Minister Benazair Bhutto obtained from North Korea with the tacit approval of the US State Department. Had Carter responded with overwhelming military force against Iran immediately after the taking of the 51 hostages at our embassy there would have been no need for the State Department to panic at the loss of our only listening post in that area and turn their collective head as Bhutto journeyed to Pyongyang, returning with her briefcase full of nuclear blueprints.
Let 'em sleep in their car or maybe find a place in the hood!
Actually, unless the Bush administration has honest-to-God plans for Blair House, I don't see why they wouldn't allow the Obamas to move in early in order to allow their daughters to begin school on time. It seems petty.
so I'm guessing that the Bush's actually have plans to use Blair house during that time. lots of important people & foreign dignitaries stay there.
Obama can check into any hotel he wants or maybe he could stay at Pelosi's place.
Could it be that it has nothing to do with their kids, and everything to do with Yomama continuing to do whatever he can to create the impression that he's already the sitting president? He and his handlers have been doing this since his campaign started. Whether it's the prop-flags they always place behind him, or that fake "presidential seal", or that Pharaho-like set his Commiewood worshipers made for him at the convention, their motive has been very clear.
Then there is established protocol. Why should he be treated any different than any other incoming president? Or is it simply to maintain the overall illusion.
Correct Annie. It's petty.
That sums up the conservatives. Peety. Small-minded.
Obama wouldn't be pretending to be the President if the real President wasn't hiding under his bed waiting for his last day. But when your policies destroy the country, I guess hiding is all you can do.
the Blair Witch wants ti move into the Blair House early
maybe he needs a place for his Kwannzaa bush
I dunno there HLF, Bush seems to be taking the lead on the auto crisis.
did you know that 8 democrats either voted no or did nor vote on the senate bill?
Harry Reid voted no!!!!!!!!
Kerry & Fat Teddy did not vote
the bill that to save the auto industry that President Bush took the lead on
If those 8 Democrats had voted yes the senate bill would have passed
someone gots some 'splaing to do
for those interested in facts:
Senate Democrats Had Enough Republican Votes to Pass the Bailout
The UAW complained the GOP halted the bailout plan. One little known fact is Democrats had enough Republicans on their side to pass the bailout.
It didn't pass because the entire Democratic caucus didn't vote.
Eight Democrats bailed on the bailout (Reid, it should be noted, voted against it for procedural reasons, in order to bring it up for a vote again).
Four Democrats voted 'nay': Baucus, Tester, Lincoln, and Reid.
Four Democrats did not vote: Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, and Wyden.
(And, of course, the Democrats would have another member right now if Blagojevich had sold that Senate seat before he was busted.)
Nancy Pelosi is jumping on the bandwagon with the UAW and calling the Republicans irresponsible for failing to pass the bailout.
Don't confuse the Obama constinuency with facts! That's purposely picking on retarted people!
That's low. Really low.
testing links in comments
test
This may come as a surprise to people who always stay in lockstep but democrats can oppose their party leaders and don't all vote the same.
That's a habit of simple-minded cons.
That's a habit of simple-minded cons.
Why all the bitterness, HLF? The Party of Harry Truman won the election, obviously because of the electorate's dissatisfaction with the economic policies of the Bush administration. I should think that you'd be delighted with that turn of events.
Did you actually host a party when Reagan died?
No, but I did find him to be evil. He created much of the divisions we see and took us down the path of financial ruin.
I shed no tears for him.
As for the "bitterness", you must not be reading your posts of those of others. If we simp;ly celebrate our victory without keeping an eye out for the crap your side pulls, we'll see a repeat of the 90s. As it is there are attempts to hogtie Obama before he even takes office.
That's why if I was advising the democrats and Obama I would come out on Jan 21st with a very intense campaign of demonizing and crushing the conservatives. I would give non-stop speeches about how the republican policies and free-market ideology led us to this very bad place. I would incite hatred for conservatives so intense that no one dare claim to be a conservative.
Extreme? Hardly. That's exactly what conservatives have done since the 1930s to liberals, increasing their attacks in the 80s and beyond.
I am NOT a liberal who wants to sit down and reason with conservatives, talk it through and try and convince them to see things our way. No, I want outright warfare. Demonization. Hatred as far as they eye can see.
When you reach out a hand to conservatives as Clinton did it comes back bloody and mangled as Clinton's did.
We liberals have the perfect chance to exploit this crisis and drive a big, fat, splinter-coated stake through the heart of conservatism.
I hope to see that happen but will probably be disappointed.
yea but the liberal are to weak to do it,
They have Colin Powell attacking Rush. Come on, at least get someone who an foam at the mouth.
2010 looks very interesting for the republicans.
Obama & his minions will have accomplished exactly zero of his campaign promises & even the blacks will be voting republican
ooohh - I'd like to drive a big, fat, splinter-coated stake through HLF
Just wait. Everyone wants to play nice until Jan 21st. But as the crisis deepens expect the finger-pointing to intensify. That's when the dems will come out with the wtich hunts.
2010? LOL, this isn't 1992. You people will have the New Depression hanging around your neck like a VISE by then.
And go tell Stalin that liberals are weak. Or Castro.
Oh, you're in for some bitch-slappin, alright. The receiving end.
HLF it seems that you are doing and saying the same things that you are condemning the conservatives for doing. There is a word for that - hypocrit.
Are you saying that Stalin and Castro are kin to liberals?
Is that why Castro is praising the new president-elect?
I remember you saying that a certain man should be beaten with a tire iron. That's real compassion!
We tried workiing with conservatives for years and all we got was arrogance and obstacles. They have proven themselves unworthy of consideration or accomodation but instead should be given as much demonization as we can dish out.
This is a culture war and the left is winning. We'd win it faster if we got dirty. I am in that camp.
As for tire irons, I probably referenced that as a way for those damaged by the economic crisis to take out their aggressions in the wealthy republicans that caused it. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
But really, it's always conservatives that resort to violence. All of our domestic terrorism has been perpetrated by conservatives.
HLF said...
We tried workiing with conservatives for years...
THAT is a bald face f*cking lie.
You are a delusional LIAR.
That's why I rarely if ever read your crap. You're a worthless liar.
As for tire irons, I probably referenced that as a way for those damaged by the economic crisis to take out their aggressions in the wealthy republicans that caused it. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Wow, HLF! That's a fairly strong statement. Tell me good sir, is that your final solution? In your prgressive vision for the US of A, do the trains run on time?
This is a culture war and the left is winning. We'd win it faster if we got dirty. I am in that camp. But really, it's always conservatives that resort to violence. All of our domestic terrorism has been perpetrated by conservatives.
You surely did not intend to say that liberals could not compete in a "dirty" culture war, did you?
"It" has you guys going again, huh. (LOL) This is better than watching old Abbott and Costello re-runs!
Be Happy
An escaped convict breaks into a house to look for money and guns.
Inside, he finds a young couple in bed. He orders the guy out of bed and ties him to a chair. While tying the homeowner's wife to the bed the convict gets on top of her, kisses her neck, then gets up and goes into the bathroom.
While he's in there, the husband whispers over to his wife: 'Listen, this guy is an escaped convict. Look at his clothes! He's probably spent a lot of time in jail and hasn't seen a woman in years. I saw how he
kissed your neck. If he wants sex, don't resist, don't complain..do whatever he tells you. Satisfy him no matter how much he nauseates you. This guy is obviously very dangerous. If he gets angry, he'll kill us both. Be strong honey. I love you!'
His wife responds: 'He wasn't kissing my neck. He was whispering in my ear. He told me that he's a gay liberal, thinks you're cute, and asked if we had any Vaseline. I told him it was in the bathroom. Be strong honey. I love you, too.'
Clinton bent over backwards to accomodate the republicans and had republicans in his cabinet. Obama says he will do same thing.
When republicans take office they don't make that promise. In fact, they demonize the left and use them as their whipping boy and then blame them for all of conservatism's failures.
Just look at yourselves now. You got your way with supply-side economics in the 80s. You got your way with deregulation of the financial industry with the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the lack of oversight of the industry. You got your way even when Clinton was in office, badgering him with scandal and forcing him through the republican goons in the Congress to pursue even more deregulation and conservative fiscal policy. You REALLY got your way when bush took office and started outsourcing the government to his friends (makes the Illinois governor look like a choirboy) and turning the treasury into a free-for-all.
Now that the shit has hit the fan, who do you blame? CARTER! LOL, what stupid people!
So I post link after link of experts, analysts, bankers and many others who say it wasn't the CRA or Freddie, or Fannie or liberal "social engineering" (as the republiCONS like to say) but you insist it was the democrats whose policies we haven't pursued since 1964.
IT WAS THE POLICIES PUT IN PLACE BY REPUBLICANS THAT LED TO OUR CRISIS.
Take THAT, Jimbo. I know you're reading this.
Was that gay excaped convict story a joke or was it your secret fantasy?
I was in school when Carter's economic policies caused HEAL education loans to rise to 24%. And you wonder why health care costs went up?
and that was accruing immediately with no grace period. And interest on the loans was phased out as far as tax deductibilty.
HLF & his hate speech ia a prime example of why Obama & the democrats don't win over the hearts & minds of the republicans and others who oppose them.
Hate, hate, & more hate are all that spew from HLF & his ILKs mouths.
Will HLF will try to spin" the bombing of the Church in Wasilla as 'a good thing" done by liberal terrorists to threaten Palin never to exercise her rights of free speech and her right to run for office again?
or will HLF defend the domestic terrorists who bombed the church, just as his ILK have defended Ayers & the Weathermen?
"Was that gay excaped convict story a joke or was it your secret fantasy?"
No, it was simply a story about your parents.
HLF hasn't checked in this morning...
do you think IT went to church?
or went to bomb a church?
SRK-idiot,
The terms of student loans were changed by Reagan, not Carter.
Interest rates were raised by Volcker to curb inflation, a move praised by reagan and the cons.
Just for a fun tangent, here are unemployment rates for the years 70-84. Carter years in bold:
1970 4.9
1971 5.9
1972 5.6
1973 4.9
1974 5.6
1975 8.5
1976 7.7
1977 7.1
1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
Notice the steep increase BEFORE he took office and the steep increase under raygun.
Homo-fag:
Your telling me what I lived through would be like me telling you how to slather on the KY jelly.
Huge stretch to blame Palin's church fire on some liberals. You'd be hard-pressed to even find a liberal in that white trash, meth-head town!
You're simply projecting anyway. It's you people who resort to violence. Like when anti-government CONSERVATIVE McVeigh blew up a federal building full of people including a day care center. Then there's this:
Man Opens fire in Tenn Church
He was out to kill liberals. He did it during a child's play performance. Such charming people you are.
Don't project your hateful, violent urges on us. Conservatism has always been the refuge for the villent nutjobs. The KKK, abortion clinic bombers, McVeigh, Rudolph, etc.
You should all be on a list and your whereabouts monitored. Hopefully Obama will be making a case for that.
SRK has no way to refute facts so reaches for the gay weapon.
It doesn't bother me nor does it disqualify my post. Just knowing that I kicked your ass and you couldn't respond effectively makes my day. I LIVE to destroy conservatives and throw their ignorance in their faces.
PS. to Blue: 99% of hate groups are conservatives.
I guess that other 1% is the Democrat party lead by Pelosi & Read
So...are you saying the economy was best during the Viet Nam / Nixon and then Ford years? Low unemployment and very high inflation. Are you old enough to remember Nixon's wage/price freezes? By the way, I supported Humphrey back then, not Nixon. At least the discussions in the Presidential elections back then did not seem to favor one side over the other. We were asked to debate each side at various times. I think that was more educational than the obama posters up in the schools prior to this election.
in response to the "gay weapon", or, you "hit me with your purse", please don't insult us both by telling me you know what I went through economically and who's to blame.
By the way, I have a number of gay friends too. And I don't treat them with kid gloves either. They would not respect me for not being real with them either. We disagree, but at least they attracted hot women and weren't competition.
I WILL tell you who changed the student loan rules making them more of a burden.
REAGAN.
That's amazing! Reagan was elected in November 1980 and sworn in on Jan 20, 1989. In 1980 the HEAL interest rate went from 22% to 24%.
Jan 20, 1981
badgering him with scandal...
Um, Freakazoid--this dude was getting BJs in the Oval Office! And so on and so forth.
It's not badgering when you bring it on yourself.
Here's a story from then about how REAGAN made borrowing for college more expensive:
Making College More Costly
Since 1978, every U.S. college student, regardless of family income, has been eligible for a Government guaranteed student loan. Not surprisingly, these loans swiftly grew into the nation's major source of student aid, contributing heavily to college budgets. This year they total about $5 billion.
Now the Reagan Administration is trying to cut back drastically on such student loans. Its motto is: "Families and students—not the Federal Government—should be the first source of funds for education expenses." Its goal: to tighten standards of loan eligibility and require larger family contributions to college costs.
Under President Reagan's proposed plan, the Government will guarantee loans only to students who have actually proved "financial need," in very much the same way that colleges now determine eligibility for scholarship funds. Students and parents will be expected to contribute a certain amount of money to education each year on the basis of the family's adjusted gross income. The borrowing limit will be the difference between the required family contribution, plus any college scholarships and work-study assistance a student has been granted, and the total cost of the education. In short, applying for a loan will be more like applying for a grant or a scholarship. Borrowing the maximum, $2,500 a year, will be possible only for very low-income families. All along the line, families will have to contribute more toward their children's school bills.
More proof:
After 1972, new initiatives such as the Middle-Income Assistance Act of 1978, which widened Pell Grant eligibility, further catered to the middle class. Already a gap was becoming apparent between the availability of federal aid and access to institutions as tuition began to rise steadily. President Reagan cut spending significantly during the 1980s though demand for loans continued to rise, though less rapidly than before.
AAAANNNNND finally, from May 13, 1981:
Panel Bars Reagan Plan To Alter Student Loans
The House Appropriations Committee today sought to assure college students and lending institutions that there would be no changes in federally guaranteed student loans for the academic year starting this fall.
The Reagan Administration is seeking broad changes in student loan programs to reduce the cost to the Government, including a formula that would take into account family income and assets. The Administration has also proposed halting Federal payments of interest on the loans while a student is in school.
The House Appropriations Committee, in approving a supplemental money bill for the current fiscal year, noted that it did not include the Administration's proposals.
Once again, the man with the 151 IQ has a problem with historical facts.
CT,
What business is it of yours where the President has sex? HE LIVES IN THAT HOUSE.
The mock outrage is hilarious considering what pigs we men are. You sound like a bunch of church ladies with your judgement of another guy's sex life. It rings hollow.
Are you forgetting I'm one of you? I know how we are.
That was just the GSL, a loan which is a tiny fraction of the cost of an education. It was one sixteenth of my initial loan amount. And it is only for 4 years of undergraduate study, not four years of dental school. Your democratic Congress decided to rescind the deductiblity of the interest during Reagan's years. I was a registered democrat during that time. It was significant in my losing faith in that party.
sigh.
You're typical of the conservative who, when backed into a corner, facts starting him in the face, will attempt to deflect and obfuscate.
The democratic Congress was not dmocratic under Reagan. The Senate was republican for the first 6 of the 8 awful reagan years. As my linked stories indicated, the reagan admin was hot to screw education borrowers, the Congress wanting to stop him. The admin sets the budget, by the way.
See, you people try and have it both ways. When soemthing bad happens, it's a democrat's fault even if there's only one democrat left. If it's good, you rush to grab credit. It's how you are in the working world too.
You lost your faith in liberalism because you never had any. You were probably born with the bad genes of conservatism and suppressed up to a certain age.
Reagan was right: Families and students—not the Federal Government—should be the first source of funds for education expenses
Why is it wrong for those who can afford it to pay for their children's education?
Following that should be "AID" for college students. NOBODY is owed and education. Reality check: there will always be those that don't want it and dare I say, don't deserve it. There is such a thing as throwing your money down the toilet. Those that truly want an education will find a way to get it.
I don't believe the Obamessiah has a "right" to the Blair house at this point.
It may be petty if there is not a legitimate use for the building at that time. ON the other hand, the out-going administration owes nothing to the incoming regime. I really will be surprised if the same shinanigans happen that took place when the democrats left the White House the last time.
I know that when I sell my current house, I will feel no obligation whatsoever to vacate any portion of said premises until the deed is signed. And I don't think that is petty or childish.
The Obamessiah is not god (or president) yet. When he ascends to the Presidency, I will support his Constitutionally legal decisions to the best of my ability. I do not however, feel a need to kowtow to his every whim because a little more than 1/2 of the American people bought into his charisma. (much like people buy into the charisma of so many historical fascist dictators and are willing to worship is every word.)
Anybody look at how the words of former and present day leaders of some of the most derisive peoples of the world were worshipped as canonized scripture for so long.
Alan's post:
Seething resentment hiding behind pious judgment. Sprinkled liberally with self-righteousness.
Dude, you're a walking cliche'.
Post a Comment