Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I said "what about her" because she merely moderated a report by another guy relaying an assertion from a single anonymous source. It wasn't her report.
The point remains that the President's cabinet meets personally about once a week.
How somebody gets from 100 meetings to "zero contact" requires a certain amount of rhetorical liberality, don't you think?
I'll play the same game. I want 3 links from substantiated sources that the Obama cabinet meets every week.
I'm so sick of the stupidity in this thread. For G-d's sake, the President's calendar is PUBLIC INFORMATION!
I swear to Og, if someone rightwinger writes something down, even if it's filled with vague, unsourced and unconfirmed allegations, a whole bunch of you will just believe it without a single shred of evidence. And worse still you don't even bother to do your own verification. A simple web search puts the lie to this nonsense, yet most of you are so determined to hate the President, that you'd rather believe the worst than find out the truth. Well, here's the truth.
I think he thinks he's arguing with me. I also think he thinks that by posting the details from one of the meetings I linked to, that he has somehow "refudiated" it. It's odd, but there you have it.
How about you prove that one of these meetings didn't happen? Just show that one of the meetings on that list didn't happen.
I never inferred any of those meetings did not happen. Jill does not believe the OP. She demanded 3 referrences to support the claim.
She supplied a list to substantiate her position. I checked one item on her list at random. The item is nothing more than an article from the Wash Post. (remenber she will not accept anything from the other media source cited).
She even added "(All of them)" referring to the entire cabinent after the link.
The link states Expected attendees. Not every cabinent member is cited. we also don't know who actually did attend. certainly not the entire cabinent.
I think he thinks he's arguing with me. I also think he thinks that by posting the details from one of the meetings I linked to, that he has somehow "refudiated" it. It's odd, but there you have it.
It is not odd. You wanted 3 sources from others. But, when you cite a source it is expected to be taken as gospel. Well I randomly checked one of your sources and it is a bogus citing if it was meant to justify your position.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
