• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

PARTY ON B.O.......................

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Sorry, hypocitexposer, I see you've posted this earlier.




By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

An organization that serves as a watchdog on the U.S. government for American taxpayers has launched a campaign to uncover exactly how much tax money is being spent on parties at the Obama White House.

The president has shown a penchant for lavish galas, such as the huge assembly orchestrated in Denver when he accepted his party's nomination for president – an outdoor gathering for some 75,000 featuring a stage with Greek columns. He also held a multimillion-dollar victory celebration in Chicago, and his fancy inauguration cost an estimated $170 million, according to ABC News.

Now, Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, told WND today he's seeking information about the partying in the White House since the Obamas moved in.

As WND reported this week, Freedom Watch is seeking information from the federal government on who had input into bailout legislation and whether they got anything in return.

Klayman said the reports of the partying at the White House, "with the likes of Steve Wonder and other high priced entertainment stars," will be the focus of document requests being submitted to the General Services Administration. The requests will seek to determine how much taxpayer money is being used.

"Barack and Michelle Obama have been throwing taxpayer funded parties nearly every night with their 'friends' and supporters, with Michelle Obama even exhorting them not to 'break' White House property," Klayman's announcement said.

"This party atmosphere sends the wrong message to the American people. As the Obama-Clinton crowd party on, the American people are suffering greatly," Klayman said.

"It was right to criticize corporate execs for using taxpayer bailout money on bonuses and corporate junkets. In the face of this criticism, it is an outrage for Barack and Michelle Obama to party on, as Rome burns. It's like throwing a party at a funeral," he said.

According to a report by the news and commentary website Politico, many of the parties have been just that – parties, not political and government meetings.

"Using one of the world’s most famous private residences as bait, President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama are unleashing a bipartisan charm offensive and exploiting every square inch of their new home to make friends and influence rivals. The social calendar suggests a return to the days of Camelot," the report said.

"Since moving into their new digs, the first couple has hosted a half-dozen gatherings – from bipartisan cocktail receptions to a public open house to the more intimate Super Bowl party ... ending many of their days past midnight," the report said.

"Most recently … the Obamas opened the White House doors to House caucus leaders from the moderate Blue Dog Democrats and the Congressional Black Caucus. White House aides say the couple hopes to make the Wednesday cocktail parties a tradition."

The report quoted White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers saying the Obamas want to "replicate the same kind of environment they had in Chicago."

"If there was a party or an event [in Chicago], they were there," the report quoted "a friend" saying.

But is anything of government value accomplished?

"You would have felt like a fool talking about politics at this party," said Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., said after one major event. "I was surprised how much of a social event it was and how little of a political occasion it was."

Insiders said in the report that the Obama social schedule is busier than any other previous occupants of the White House.

"We haven't seen this kind of entertaining in a really long time," Dee Dee Myers, former White House press secretary to Bill Clinton, said in the report.

According to an ABC report, many of the parties have been on Wednesdays, and the report confirmed one featured a Stevie Wonder concert.

"This is a pretty big house, so we get lonely," the report said Obama announced. "It's hard for me to move around out there some times so I got to bring the world to me." Published reports said the Jonas Brothers were on hand in the White House for a special event for the Obama daughters, Sasha and Malia, on inauguration night.

Dinners have featured lavish menus including "Celery Soup, Wild Mushroom Crisps, Steelhead Salmon with Citrus sauce, Crispy Spinach, Toasted Saffron Couscous Pearls, Baby Iceberg lettuce with Maytag Bleu Cheese and Yogurt ranch dressing and for dessert, Milk Chocolate velvet cake" – all served on gold-rimmed china.

Klayman has taken on the establishment in Washington several times, including when the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee interviewed Sen. Hillary Clinton for her appointment by Obama as secretary of state.

The senators, however, ignored the shady parts of her background involving "Chinagate" and "Filegate," he said.

In the Chinagate scandal, documented on the website for Judicial Watch, which Klayman previously led, technology companies allegedly made donations of millions of dollars to various Democratic Party entities, including President Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, in return for permission to sell high-tech secrets to China.

"Filegate" developed when President Clinton and Hillary Clinton were accused of violating the privacy rights of their perceived political enemies by wrongly accessing and misusing the FBI files of staffers in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, among others.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Would you rather have them standing in front of a camera and calling each other names :???: Trying to further divide the country :???: Isn't this what we wanted- Administration and Congress- bipartisanly communicating- and actually talking to each other.... :???: Sociallizing and getting to know each other- and where each other is coming from :???: ...Learning whats happening in other parts of the country and the world rather than just their home Districts or D.C. :???:

Obama made it quite clear before he took office he was going to do this- to try and bring some bipartisanship back to D.C.... To try and close the gaps that the majority of the people in the country believe GW drove a wedge between...

This is the way the old Washington D.C. worked- before partisan politics got so inbedded...I remember Mansfield and some of the old Senators telling about how they'd go down to the corner Pub after a session adjourned for the day- and sit down with the opposition party- and work out the final compromise on legislation they differed on but thought was important for the country...And they did it without calling each other a bunch of evil spirited names...

I know it goes against the Rove/Rush style of fearmongering and hatemongering-- but haven't we had that long enough...
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
It's a big party, oT aT OUR EXPENSE.

Read on.....Dems are fighting amongst themselves :twisted:



By: David Rogers
March 5, 2009 07:58 PM EST

After an angry, swearing late night meeting among top Democrats, Congress voted Friday to give itself another five days to try to complete a long-overdue omnibus spending bill that had become a growing embarrassment for party leaders and President Barack Obama.

Senate Democrats had abruptly pulled back Thursday night after finding themselves one vote short of the 60 needed to cut off debate. The action infuriated Speaker Nancy Pelosi so much that the California Democrat wanted to abandon the $409.6 billion measure and instead push through a stripped-down continuing resolution to keep the government operating through Sept. 30.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and his deputy, Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D.-Ill.) were called to Pelosi’s office late Thursday night and ultimately prevailed in their argument that Democrats should try to salvage the bill, which includes critical spending increases for vital agencies. But the heated, sometimes profane, exchanges were described as “ugly” by Democrats on both sides of the Capitol. Staff, kicked out in the hall, could hear the yelling, and Pelosi herself seemed a little abashed the next day, joking that nothing her leadership could say to her now would match the night before.

The speaker’s anger was directed primarily at Senate Republicans, who withheld their support even when they had substantial interests in the measure. Pelosi feels that Republicans are gaming the Democrats, who have to be tougher in turn by forcing them to live with the consequences of what she sees as obstruction.

The speaker’s scorched earth alternative, killing the omnibus, was too much for some in her own leadership. But Pelosi’s anger is shared by many House Democrats along with the fear that the Senate debate is being dragged out by Republicans as part of a concerted campaign to pummel Obama even as the young president tries to keep the nation focused on his economic agenda and budget going forward.

With funding running out Friday, Pelosi finally called her members back to Washington to pass the five day extension on a 328-58 vote. Ironically enough, this came after a 218-160 vote in which Democrats killed a Republican alternative that would have cut about $17 billion from the omnibus and come closer to the stripped down alternative the speaker herself had been threatened.


By prior agreement, the Senate cleared the House bill immediately, but Reid still has a climb ahead as he works toward another attempt at cloture Tuesday night. He has promised Republicans about a dozen amendments, but his challenge is to defeat each so the omnibus measure can go straight onto the White House.

The whole episode left Obama exposed to another weekend of Republican calls on television news shows, demanding that he veto the package which contains thousands of parochial projects for members of both parties.

Thus far, the White House has refused to give in, citing the importance of the measure to major agencies, now frozen at last year’s spending levels. But going forward, Obama is under pressure to better spell out his policy toward earmarks, either in the form of tighter caps or singling out individual projects to be denied funding.

“Discretion is the better part of valor,” Reid quipped when abruptly pulling back from the vote Thursday night.. But for a man so skilled at counting votes, there were ample warning flags that he was rushing events.

Behind the scenes, Reid had to struggle with one in his own leadership, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who was upset with Cuba-related provisions in the bill. Efforts were under way to try to win back the New Jersey Democrat with a letter from Treasury addressing his concerns, but these appear to have been unsuccessful.

The bigger dynamic was on the Republican side, where Minority Whip John Kyl (R.-Ariz.) appeared to play a greater than usual role in pulling back votes from the Democrats.

Reid complained privately that a last minute Republican switch left him exposed after announcing the 8:15 p.m. vote. But in an interview with POLITICO earlier in the day, Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran, the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee and someone working with Democrats to pass the bill, had predicted more time –and an extension—would be needed.

Part of the confusion may be explained by the fact that so many top senators, including Reid, spent so much of Thursday at a White House summit on health care reform. The normal face-to-face floor exchanges didn’t happen until the evening, and the episode reflects the strain on Democrats— so busy looking forward with Obama’s agenda that they can trip over their own.

In fact, a solid bloc of Republicans—including some in the party leadership—are prepared to help pass the bill but remain shy of voting with Democrats until their colleagues have had a chance to offer more amendments.

As agreed to Friday, about a dozen amendments will now be considered by Tuesday night. If any are adopted, it would mean that the House would have to take up the bill again, which is why the deadline was extended to Wednesday to allow some leeway.

“I know that it’s very difficult for people to understand the Senate sometimes,” Reid said on the floor Friday, as if alluding to the stormy meeting in Pelosi’s office. “For those of us who have served in this body for an extended period of time, it’s even difficult sometimes for us.”

“The House, they run every two years…their ears are in tune with the constituency like no one else,” Reid said. “We are, some say, the saucer that cools the coffee and sometimes we cool it for a long period of time. But that’s the rules…an individual senator has tremendous power. This isn’t anything new. This is the way it’s always been.”

Filling 1,132 pages, the sprawling bill is really nine bills in one, covering more than 12 Cabinet-level departments and agencies that represent the heart of the domestic budget this year, as well as U.S. contributions to global health and foreign aid programs overseas.

The total cost represents a nearly $20 billion, or 5 percent, increase over the Bush administration’s spending requests for many of the same accounts. Rather than engage in veto fights last fall, Democrats opted to postpone action until Obama took power in January.

Reid’s dilemma has been that to win over Republican support, he had to be willing to allow votes on amendments. But to meet Friday’s deadline, he had to be prepared to kill whatever the GOP offered so that the measure didn’t have to go back to the House for further consultation.

Thus, some otherwise popular initiatives, such as increasing funding for Native-American health programs, were scuttled. And Democrats had to rally behind sometimes embarrassing earmarks that had been negotiated between the two chambers back in December.

“The hang-up is the majority leader apparently doesn’t want to allow a vote that might win because the speaker doesn’t want the bill back,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). “Well, that’s the way Congress works. We have conferences. We have disagreements. I don’t see what the urgency is. I don’t see what the problem is.”

Not as a Republican. The party has been delighted -- on a daily basis -- in pounding the White House for not being willing to veto the bill.

Leading the charge has been Obama’s old rival, Sen. John McCain. Again Thursday, the Arizona Republican rose on the floor to lecture the president about the need to take a tougher stand against earmarks.

“The American people are fed up with this kind of system that breeds corruption,” McCain said, throwing in an allusion to Obama’s own earmarks in the past as a freshman senator from Illinois. “The president should veto this bill and send it back to Congress and tell ’em to clean it up.”

But Obama has other tools in his kit, including the power to recommend rescissions this April, when he is already scheduled to send Congress the details of his appropriations requests for the new fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

Such rescissions are still subject to approval by Congress but would allow the new president to separate himself more from past practices even as he presses for tighter spending caps on such projects in the future.

Given his ambitious agenda, Obama would have to proceed carefully. Former President Jimmy Carter badly hurt himself politically when he tried — after little or no consultation — to rescind energy and water projects favored by powerful lawmakers.

But rescissions would allow Obama to push the earmark issue back into the lap of Congress — free of the larger spending bill, which he feels compelled to sign. And while lawmakers are free to ignore his recommendations, the effort would put more punch behind Obama’s promise to impose tighter caps in the future.

The House and Senate Appropriations committees argue that the bill already represents a 50 percent reduction from earmarks in 2006, the last full-fledged year of spending bills under Republican control of the House and Senate. But Democrats fully expect Obama’s final 2010 budget to demand a still lower cap, and the administration has not ruled out seeking rescissions as well.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Would you rather have them standing in front of a camera and calling each other names :???: Trying to further divide the country :???: Isn't this what we wanted- Administration and Congress- bipartisanly communicating- and actually talking to each other.... :???: Sociallizing and getting to know each other- and where each other is coming from :???: ...Learning whats happening in other parts of the country and the world rather than just their home Districts or D.C. :???:

Obama made it quite clear before he took office he was going to do this- to try and bring some bipartisanship back to D.C.... To try and close the gaps that the majority of the people in the country believe GW drove a wedge between...

This is the way the old Washington D.C. worked- before partisan politics got so inbedded...I remember Mansfield and some of the old Senators telling about how they'd go down to the corner Pub after a session adjourned for the day- and sit down with the opposition party- and work out the final compromise on legislation they differed on but thought was important for the country...And they did it without calling each other a bunch of evil spirited names...

I know it goes against the Rove/Rush style of fearmongering and hatemongering-- but haven't we had that long enough...

Bipartisanship my arse. You need to see what the Republicans thought of bipartisanship when the porkulus bill was being drafted.

This guy has a history of saying one thing and doing another, but the libs don't seem to notice it. Must be something in the koolaid....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Would you rather have them standing in front of a camera and calling each other names :???: Trying to further divide the country :???: Isn't this what we wanted- Administration and Congress- bipartisanly communicating- and actually talking to each other.... :???: Sociallizing and getting to know each other- and where each other is coming from :???: ...Learning whats happening in other parts of the country and the world rather than just their home Districts or D.C. :???:

Obama made it quite clear before he took office he was going to do this- to try and bring some bipartisanship back to D.C.... To try and close the gaps that the majority of the people in the country believe GW drove a wedge between...

This is the way the old Washington D.C. worked- before partisan politics got so inbedded...I remember Mansfield and some of the old Senators telling about how they'd go down to the corner Pub after a session adjourned for the day- and sit down with the opposition party- and work out the final compromise on legislation they differed on but thought was important for the country...And they did it without calling each other a bunch of evil spirited names...

I know it goes against the Rove/Rush style of fearmongering and hatemongering-- but haven't we had that long enough...

Bipartisanship my arse. You need to see what the Republicans thought of bipartisanship when the porkulus bill was being drafted.

This guy has a history of saying one thing and doing another, but the libs don't seem to notice it. Must be something in the koolaid....

How did it pass then- since Dems don't hold enough of a majority in the Senate to pass anything :???:

As I remember it- 3 Republicans agreed something was needed for the good of the country- and "bipartisanly" worked with the Dems- worked out their disagreements on it- added and subtracted to the bill- and passed it while the rest of the Repubs acted like partisan obstructionists- completely opposing it from minute one- and so got little input...

You don't get compromise by saying "no F---ing way"....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
3 RINOs out of how many Republicans is now considered "bipartisan"?

OT, some of us are conservatives. We live in reality. We have fully functional BS meters. You're redlineing mine right now.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
3 RINOs out of how many Republicans is now considered "bipartisan"?

OT, some of us are conservatives. We live in reality. We have fully functional BS meters. You're redlineing mine right now.

So what are you going to call the Democrat Senators that won't allow the Assault weapon ban to go thru- or few if any gun laws that the Pelosi/Reid crew want :???:

Going against your party- to do what you thought was good for the country- and working out a compromise- used to be the everyday way in D.C.......

But like I said- it doesn't fit the current neocon Bush/Rove/Rush divide by Fear and Hate style...
When you were growing up- you must have got everything you ever wanted too- eh :???:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
3 RINOs out of how many Republicans is now considered "bipartisan"?

OT, some of us are conservatives. We live in reality. We have fully functional BS meters. You're redlineing mine right now.

So what are you going to call the Democrat Senators that won't allow the Assault weapon ban to go thru- or few if any gun laws that the Pelosi/Reid crew want :???:

Going against your party- to do what you thought was good for the country- and working out a compromise- used to be the everyday way in D.C.......

But like I said- it doesn't fit the current neocon Bush/Rove/Rush divide by Fear and Hate style...
When you were growing up- you must have got everything you ever wanted too- eh :???:

What does that have with whether or not Obama is being bipartisan?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
3 RINOs out of how many Republicans is now considered "bipartisan"?

OT, some of us are conservatives. We live in reality. We have fully functional BS meters. You're redlineing mine right now.

So what are you going to call the Democrat Senators that won't allow the Assault weapon ban to go thru- or few if any gun laws that the Pelosi/Reid crew want :???:

Going against your party- to do what you thought was good for the country- and working out a compromise- used to be the everyday way in D.C.......

But like I said- it doesn't fit the current neocon Bush/Rove/Rush divide by Fear and Hate style...
When you were growing up- you must have got everything you ever wanted too- eh :???:

What does that have with whether or not Obama is being bipartisan?

Quite easy- like I said in my first post- and the subject of the thread- you can't get bipartisanship without communication- and talking--- and I think its great that Obama is trying to bring this back by getting people together to socialize....

I don't remember too many folks complaining about the huge social events Nancy Reagan used to regularly throw in the White House- which included movie stars (Oh my God-Libs :roll: :wink: ) and many of the Legislative branch from both parties....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Quite easy- like I said in my first post- and the subject of the thread- you can't get bipartisanship without communication- and talking--- and I think its great that Obama is trying to bring this back by getting people together to socialize....

You mean you got to have a shin dig, to decide whether to vote yes or no?

Get Bent, if you are not already! All you need to do is decide if your constituents would vote yes or no, and then do the same!
 

Mike

Well-known member
I don't remember too many folks complaining about the huge social events Nancy Reagan used to regularly throw in the White House

I've got a notion that Nancy's entertainment didn't consist of sitting around sucking on ribs or neckbones either. :lol: :lol:

Wonder if they openly smoke pot in the whitehouse now? Or maybe a little line of "Blow" now and then?
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
So what are you going to call the Democrat Senators that won't allow the Assault weapon ban to go thru- or few if any gun laws that the Pelosi/Reid crew want :???:

Going against your party- to do what you thought was good for the country- and working out a compromise- used to be the everyday way in D.C.......

But like I said- it doesn't fit the current neocon Bush/Rove/Rush divide by Fear and Hate style...
When you were growing up- you must have got everything you ever wanted too- eh :???:

What does that have with whether or not Obama is being bipartisan?

Quite easy- like I said in my first post- and the subject of the thread- you can't get bipartisanship without communication- and talking--- and I think its great that Obama is trying to bring this back by getting people together to socialize....

I don't remember too many folks complaining about the huge social events Nancy Reagan used to regularly throw in the White House- which included movie stars (Oh my God-Libs :roll: :wink: ) and many of the Legislative branch from both parties....



"You would have felt like a fool talking about politics at this party," said Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., said after one major event. "I was surprised how much of a social event it was and how little of a political occasion it was."

Insiders said in the report that the Obama social schedule is busier than any other previous occupants of the White House.


You need to read the whole story, oT
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Obama seems to like the Roman themes, maybe it's just a big "Bi-partisan" orgy type of thing!

Barney Fwank, is probably Obama's replacement for Larry Sinclair!

'I took drugs, had homo sex with Obama", Larry Sinclair.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hanta Yo said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
What does that have with whether or not Obama is being bipartisan?

Quite easy- like I said in my first post- and the subject of the thread- you can't get bipartisanship without communication- and talking--- and I think its great that Obama is trying to bring this back by getting people together to socialize....

I don't remember too many folks complaining about the huge social events Nancy Reagan used to regularly throw in the White House- which included movie stars (Oh my God-Libs :roll: :wink: ) and many of the Legislative branch from both parties....



"You would have felt like a fool talking about politics at this party," said Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., said after one major event. "I was surprised how much of a social event it was and how little of a political occasion it was."

Insiders said in the report that the Obama social schedule is busier than any other previous occupants of the White House.


You need to read the whole story, oT

So what- at least they are talking ...Actually realizing that they all are humans- that many also have wives and families like they do- and lives besides politics-- and not as Mike and the Klan bunch do that they are all Devils...

I wonder how much politics was discussed at Nancy's gala events.. :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
mbo_2.jpg


OT wrote:
Actually realizing that they all are humans

MBO.jpg
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
So what are you going to call the Democrat Senators that won't allow the Assault weapon ban to go thru- or few if any gun laws that the Pelosi/Reid crew want :???:

Going against your party- to do what you thought was good for the country- and working out a compromise- used to be the everyday way in D.C.......

But like I said- it doesn't fit the current neocon Bush/Rove/Rush divide by Fear and Hate style...
When you were growing up- you must have got everything you ever wanted too- eh :???:

What does that have with whether or not Obama is being bipartisan?

Quite easy- like I said in my first post- and the subject of the thread- you can't get bipartisanship without communication- and talking--- and I think its great that Obama is trying to bring this back by getting people together to socialize....

I don't remember too many folks complaining about the huge social events Nancy Reagan used to regularly throw in the White House- which included movie stars (Oh my God-Libs :roll: :wink: ) and many of the Legislative branch from both parties....

My point is that no matter what Obama is doing or saying, THERE WAS NO BIPARTISANSHIP IN CRAFTING THE PORKULUS BILL! That tells me that there is no bipartisanship in any other legislation. He can wine and dine all he wants, but the Republicans aren't getting anything other than lip service.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
What does that have with whether or not Obama is being bipartisan?

Quite easy- like I said in my first post- and the subject of the thread- you can't get bipartisanship without communication- and talking--- and I think its great that Obama is trying to bring this back by getting people together to socialize....

I don't remember too many folks complaining about the huge social events Nancy Reagan used to regularly throw in the White House- which included movie stars (Oh my God-Libs :roll: :wink: ) and many of the Legislative branch from both parties....

My point is that no matter what Obama is doing or saying, THERE WAS NO BIPARTISANSHIP IN CRAFTING THE PORKULUS BILL! That tells me that there is no bipartisanship in any other legislation. He can wine and dine all he wants, but the Republicans aren't getting anything other than lip service.

Well the Repubs can't expect to get everything- or to even lead like they did for 12 years....Don't you remember- in both 2006 and 2008-- the voters of this country said they didn't like the direction they were leading them to- and handed them their heads in a waste basket...And they said they were tired of a Repub lead direction....

And part of that was over partisan obstructionism, especially in 2008, after they/Congress had done nothing because of a huge record number of Republican filibusters...

And now in this time when many folks are counting on their government to help get them out of the Bush Bust-- partisan obstructionism ain't gonna help them get back in power...
 
Top