Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Huffington post? Not credible on anything they write

Posted By: Hannibal on 2009-03-26
In Reply to: Smile! - Bishop Bridger

You should know better.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
  • Smile! - Bishop Bridger
    • Huffington post? Not credible on anything they write - Hannibal

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

And as far as the Huffington Post goes....(sm)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/carlos-bledsoe-muslim-con_n_210045.html


That would be 2 lies.  Want to try for 3?


Hmm - from Huffington Post - probably

Joke's on you - it's from the Huffington Post
"Barack Obama's ads are now appearing in several sports video games, including the granddaddy of them all, Madden football.

The Obama campaign has purchased space in the popular Xbox 360 game "Madden NFL 09 and nine other titles by video game maker Electronic Arts, said Holly Rockwood, the company's director of corporate communications.

Only gamers playing online in 10 states can see the ads, which appear as stadium signage or billboards, Rockwood said. (The ads are downloaded when gamers log on to the Xbox Internet service.) Unsurprisingly, all 10 states are swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin. President Bush won all of those states in 2004 except for Wisconsin."


The Huffington Post and McClatchy..
x
Unlike Huffington Post I suppose...
LOL.
Oh, yes, the Huffington Post is "real" news.
Take your hate fest somewhere else. You're the only real terrorist here!
I did not the write the post, CNN did.
I am glad Obama succeeded in a human life. Hopefully Obama will succeed in the 2 wars of many and the economy, etc. I am glad the Captain was rescued by the SEALs.
M, did u write the post Vie is referring to?

just wondering


Another leftwing post - not credible
Again, you really need to stop posting Huffington post articles. All the leftwing nuts go there anyway. No need to post stupidity articles.

Not a credible source for anything they write. Just spews their garbage.
Huffington was a pub before she wised up
nm
Huffington has lost her mind. All you have to do is
nm
Got anything from Huffington, MediaMatters or Move Bowels.org today?
x
Funny - Huffington is one of those who wants to call real terrorists "criminals".
Acts of terrorism and acts of hatred are not necessarily the same thing. The defining characteristic of terrorism is the objective of instilling fear in the GENERAL POPULATION of a society in order to bring about some sort of desired change in policy, government, etc. Usually, this is accomplished by indiscriminate (as opposed to discriminate) acts or threats of violence involving innocent civilians.

The murder of Dr. Tiller does not fit any definition of terrorism that I've had occasion to study or deal with.

It's also ironic in the extreme that one of the nation's chief hate-mongers (who claims freedom of speech for HERSELF) is calling for "accountability" for hate speech, doncha think? That she does so by presuming to tell us what O'Reilly does or does not think only makes her all the more comical - or pathetic, whichever you prefer.

The nation doesn't need lessons on hate speech from the likes of Huffington - except perhaps as an exemplar of it.
If you were at all credible...

...in your Iraq stance you would be over there as part of the fight.  End of story.  No buts, no excuses.  You would be over there and not relying on teenage kids and reservists to do your fighting for you.


Likewise, our powers that be (no names mentioned) would have multiple family members over there also.  No buts, no excuses, no whining.  But of course, they don't.


But of course, your butt sits in your comfy chair in your house as well as our Washington bosses' butts.  And you sit in your chair belittling someone who does not support this war, or any war, and does what she can to help peace world-wide.  She is an activist, you are not.  You are merely a cheerleader for a violent cause as long as it does not involve you directly.   


My boyfriend says the ultra-rights are angry cowards.  What I have seen illustrated on the conservative board makes me think he is 100 percent correct. 


credible?

Until they make the "documents" public, as they should, I cant believe everything this lady says .


"Ms. MonCrief admits that she left after she began paying back some $3,000 in personal expenses she charged on an Acorn credit card. "I was very sorry, and I was paying it back," she says" 


Sorry, but she has reason to point the finger away from her.  If this is all true, where are the documents to prove it?  Where is the court transcript, where is the paper trail for the public to view.  This is reporting, just like reporting about the Keating 5 and other issues that arise on both sides.  Facts are NOT facts just because someone writes a news piece.


CNN is much more credible than FOX and sm
the intelligent and educated people know this!!! That is what you don't seem to understand, that by admitting you listen to and believe Fox, is admitting you are a little lacking in the education or basic thinking skills. It's so obvious.


credible?
I have to be credible to you?  Please, like I care what you think of me or my opinion.  Besides that it is called sarcasm. 
How many did it take to write this note?
Just wondering.
I know you didn't write it. sm
Another obvious glaring error.  Bill Clinton.  Not on the list. 
They need to write a better bill
This is a mute point now, because the bill was vetoed by the Pres.and for good reason. Why do we have to accept bad bills? This was a poorly written bill, and that's the reason it was vetoed. Why all the vagueness? $83,000 per year is hardly poverty level. If this bill was truly going to help poor kids then write it that way. I don't understand why it has to be so vague. To me it reeks of dishonesty and pork.

Write a good understandable bill...what's the problem with that?
You need to write some more posts
on this board because you really seem to know what you are talking about. Maybe you can explain the popular vote versus the electorial vote to some of the people in posts further up that don't believe thier votes count.
Can't you still write in your vote for someone else?
because they don't like either candidate. Actually, I'm in that boat right now. I don't like either one of them. OTOH, I want to vote because it's my one chance to be "heard," even though I largely agree that the media and politicians have already chosen a president for us (look at Ron Paul--he was able to garner such a large following online where the media couldn't control the people that I think they were actually worried he'd throw a kink in their plan so he was basically shut out in the media). If they weren't trying to control our vote, why else do they shut out any coverage on certain candidates and cover every word said by others? Why wouldn't they just cover all equally and fairly? I'm looking into whether I can still write in a candidate other than the 2 yahoos the current media has chosen for us. Wouldn't it be wild if everyone wrote in someone else and that person won out over both of them? LOL I know, it's a dream, but still, it'd be really cool if that happened and showed the media and politicans of this country that USA is still run BY THE PEOPLE!
What possible write-in candidate has all the necessary
exists, then why were they not nominated?
Maybe he will just write a check... sm

That's what my son used to tell me to do when I told him I didn't have any money.  "Just write a check, Mommy,"     

Levity, people........... LEVITY!!!!


Interestingly, you write:

"Obama is flying on the premise that he is innocent until proven guilty..."


That's what the Constitution you claim to support so much demands:  Innocent until proven guilty (and not a word about "flying on the premise" of same).


I'm just curious.  Once this bogus b/c issue is "officially" revealed as such by the SC, you have promised to let this issue go.


What's next on your list to pound this man into the ground about?  Because it's obvious that you're never going to give him an honest, fair chance to be a good president.  (He hasn't even been sworn in yet.)


So what's the next bogus issue on the agenda that will be raised to continue to try to drag him (and the country) down?


My last question:  Did you complain as vigorously about George W. Bush's blatant contempt for the Constitution that you claim to love so much?


The one who is going to write a book
for our country and how he kept our country safe for the last 7 years from terrorists. He could not state it while he was in office, but now he can write a whole book about him being in office. I felt much more secure with Bush than I will with O as he still scares me.
I was just going to write that. No message
x
If you do not like what I write, MOVE ON.
Your own words. Stick to it and do as you preach.
My goodness - you'd better write and tell someone
Hardly quite that simple or people way smarter than you or I would have solved it. The studies on the effectiveness of preventive measures, incidentally, study people who DO participate in prevention - not those who don't.
you can write to the network
I did and let them know they should be embarrassed for pimping themselves out for this biased promotion instead of two-sided reporting on an issue and told them one less viewer would be looking to them for any attempt at fair reporting. There is a link on their website to contact them.
Credible site


What I would tend NOT to believe is government figures as to how many are out there.  I know for a fact that a friend of mine in 2000 received $2,000 per month from the VA, in addition to Social Security benefits of a few more hundred dollars, for his PTSD disability, along with free medication from the VA to the tune of 200 5-mg Valiums per month in addition to 200 15-mg Serax tablets per month. 


I have no idea what today's monthly payments are to these veterans.  After repeated unsuccessful attempts to commit suicide on the pills the VA gave him (with the full knowledge of the VA), he finally succeeded in 2000 and is no longer with us.


I know firsthand what the effects of this disease are.  It's not conjecture.  It's fact.


As far as a credible site, how about this VETERANS site? 


http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&id=2468&NoMenu=1


Battling the Effects of War



Combat can wound the mind. New science helps vets from Iraq to cope



By Peg Tyre


Newsweek


December 6, 2004


 


It wasn't the gunshot wound in the arm that bothered Jose Hernandez when he returned home to Cincinnati after serving in Iraq. It was the lock on the front door. He couldn't relax until he secured it twice, three times and sometimes more. Even then he was still on edge. "I kept thinking about the things I saw over there—shooting on the streets, dead bodies and the terror in people's eyes. I couldn't get it out of my mind," says Hernandez, who served in the Army's 101st Airborne Division. He stopped sleeping, withdrew from friends and dropped plans to go back to college. His girlfriend finally demanded that he get help. A Veterans Administration psychiatrist diagnosed Hernandez with posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, a potentially crippling mental condition caused by extreme stress.




Hernandez says he was one of the lucky ones. With a combination of antianxiety medication and talk therapy, his symptoms have begun to fade. Many of the 170,000 men and women now returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may not be as fortunate. When they get home, tens of thousands of them will be grappling with psychological problems such as PTSD, anxiety, mood disorders and depression. Though scientists are learning just how trauma affects the brain—and how best to help patients heal—there are still many obstacles to getting the treatment to the people who need it most. For starters, no one knows how many soldiers will be affected or how serious their problems will become. Early in the war the Army surveyed 3,671 returning Iraq veterans and found that 17 percent of the soldiers were already suffering from depression, anxiety and symptoms of PTSD.



Experts say those numbers are likely to grow. A study of Vietnam veterans conducted in 1980 found that 30 percent suffered from an anxiety condition later dubbed PTSD. Experts say the protracted warfare in Iraq—with its intense urban street fighting, civilian combatants and terrorism—could drive PTSD rates even higher. National Guard members, who make up 40 percent of the fighting force, with less training and less cohesive units, may be more vulnerable to psychological injuries than regular soldiers. Last year 5,100 soldiers who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan sought treatment in VA clinics for PTSD. That figure is expected to triple.



PTSD, a specific diagnosis, is not the only psychological damage soldiers can sustain. And experts say that mental disorders can make the already rugged transition from military to civilian life a harrowing one. Soldiers can experience depression, hypervigilance, insomnia, emotional numbing, recurring nightmares and intrusive thoughts. And in many cases, the symptoms worsen with time, leaving the victims at higher risk for alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, homelessness and suicide. Sometimes families can become collateral damage. Christine Hansen, executive director of the Miles Foundation, which runs a hot line for domestic-violence victims in the military, says that since start of the Iraq war, calls have jumped from 50 to more than 500 a month.





Without treatment, some conditions such as chronic PTSD can be lethal. Five years after the Vietnam War, epidemiologists studying combat veterans found that they were nearly twice as likely to die from motor-vehicle accidents and accidental poisoning than veterans who didn't see combat. In a 30-year follow up, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine this year, the same combat vets continued to die at greater rates and remained especially vulnerable to drug overdose and accidental poisoning. "We had the John Wayne syndrome," says Vietnam veteran Greg Helle, who grappled with severe PTSD for decades. "We were men, we'd been to war. We thought we could tough it out." Doctors hadn't developed effective treatment for PTSD and besides, says Helle, seeking help was an admission of weakness.



Doctors now know that PTSD is the product of subtle biological changes that occur in the brain in response to extreme stress. Using sophisticated imaging techniques, researchers now believe that extreme stress alters the way memory is stored. During a major upheaval, the body releases massive doses of adrenaline which speeds up the heart, quickens the reflexes and, over several hours, burns vivid memories that are capable of activating the amygdala, or fear center, in the brain. People can get PTSD, doctors say, when that mechanism works too well. Instead of creating protective memories (ducking at the sound of gunfire), says Dr. Roger Pitman, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School, "the rush of adrenaline creates memories that intrude on everyday life and without treatment, can actually hinder survival."



Why some people get PTSD and others don't remains a mystery. Recent studies suggest that a predisposition to the disorder may be genetic and that previous traumatic experiences can make soldiers more vulnerable to it. Once a soldier has it, though, says Dr. Matthew Friedman, executive director of the Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for PTSD, the good news is that the medical community now knows that "PTSD is very real and very treatable."



The challenge, says Friedman, is getting help—counseling or drug treatment—to veterans who need it most. As the Iraq war continues, officials at the Department of Defense and the VA are scrambling. After a rash of suicides among soldiers, they've increased the number of psychiatrists and psychologists in combat areas. Social workers trained to spot PTSD and other mental disorders are assigned to military hospitals around the country. Primary-care physicians at VA clinics and hospitals are now able to access combat records to see if their patients might be at risk for PTSD. Doctors are issued wallet-size reminders on how to spot PTSD and refer patients for further treatment. The VA has recently hired about 50 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan to do outreach in the Vet Centers, a system of 206 community-based mental-health clinics around the country. But their resources are limited: Congress has set aside an additional $5 million a year for three years to deal with the new mental-health problem.



VA officials admit they're not catching everyone who needs help. National Guard members often do many tours and can be exposed to more combat than regular soldiers. But instead of rotating back to military bases where they can be monitored, they often return to their hometowns where readjustment problems can become a family crisis. If they begin to exhibit signs of PTSD or other psychological problems, they need to get help quickly. The VA will provide mental-health benefits for them for only two years following their service [The article is incorrect: Vet Center benefits are available for the remainder of a combat veterans life, not just two years; however, some physical care benefits are available for only two years].



Regular soldiers get mental-health benefits indefinitely.



Help came too late for Marine reservist Jeffrey Lucey. In July 2003, he returned home to Belchertown, Mass., from Iraq and gradually sank into a deep depression. His family looked on in anguish as he began drinking too much and isolating himself from their close-knit clan. By spring of 2004, he'd stopped sleeping, eating and attending college. When his sister Debra Lucey tried to have a heart-to-heart, "he'd describe the terrible things he'd seen and done," she says, "and he'd always end by saying 'You'll never be able to understand'." Frantic, family members had him committed to a psychiatric hospital but he was soon released. A few weeks later he crashed the family car, and the following month a neighbor found him wandering the streets in the middle of the night dressed in full camouflage with two battle knives he'd been issued in Iraq. Last June, Jeffrey Lucey hanged himself in the basement of his family home.



Shortly before he died, Lucey talked to an Iraq vet turned counselor at his local Vet Center. "He said he'd found someone who could really understand," says Debra. But before he could keep his next appointment, his demons took hold. Now Debra is telling her brother's story in the hope that others find the help they need in time. Psychological problems, she says, are an enemy that no soldier should face alone.



About as credible as her claiming that she was
I'll tell you where I haven't been...that would be listening to Failin/Bailin/Palin excuse herself for her latest (but not her last) gaffe. PULEEZE.
Snopes is not credible
Especially since it's highly likely that the couple that runs snopes are Obama supporters. There has been no credible evidence on snopes to prove anything.

That's like saying Louis Farrakan or Ayers, or Rev. Wright verified it so we should just believe them.

Let the supreme court judge handle it. We want the truth.

The supreme court judges are there to uphold the constitution. I will listen to their decision.

If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to defend as you are most likely wrong about this.
Not a credible source

Can you point me to somewhere on Obama website that gets anywhere close to what this guy is talking about?  The youtube was made by some obscure person, NOT showing the alleged speaker at any time.  I have found no credible source for "barracks and uniforms" anywhere.


Personally I would support an addition to school curriculums that required community service as part of social studies. A local 4-H club leader called me the other day and asked if I could help her find community service opportunities for her 22 kids.  I could and I did.  I think before this economic mess is done we'll all help each other or we won't survive.  There are a lot of opportunities for input on the Obama website.  Time might be better spent flooding that site with your thoughts and concerns rather than posting here.  I can promise you that I'm doing my part to flood the suggestion boxs, are you?


I worry more about the Clintons continued involvement in the government....like Ole Bill's "Foundation."  .


According to you nothing is a credible source
and other liberal outlets who go ga-ga for the O while they sip the kool-aid.

Luckily there are plenty of other sources and articles about this. If you don't like an article that's one thing.

You should have said "I don't agree with what Obama said in the video. I don't believe he is saying it himself. I don't think he's a credible source because it goes against everything he's been telling us".

Get off the credible source issue. This argument has become a lame excuse therefore is laughable when we read that.
Source not credible
This is an article published by msnbc. We all know msnbc is a left-wing liberal rag. They have a lot to lose if the O is found ineligible, hence, they "use" their positions in the media to lie and try to sweep the issue under the rug.

The judge that ruled against the case was from Philadelphia. This judge was also afraid to rule against Obama. Judge R. Barclay Surrick is also a Clinton appointee. Hence, he wants a democrat president. Additionally, this was not Judge Surrick's decision to dismiss the case. Judge Surrick was faxed the ruling. On this faxed copy from Judge Surrick, the senders information is blank. That way the sender's identity could not be seen. But wait...this gets better. Judge Surrick received the fax from none other than a former law clerk of his, Christopher B. Seaman (they forgot to remove the fax number at the top of the fax page that shows where it came from). Christopher B. Seaman now works as an attorney for Sidley Austin LLP, and Sidley Austin LLP is the same firm that employed Michelle Obama, Bernadine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack met Michelle. This is a clear case of "Conflict of Interest". It is most obvious that the order to Judge Surrick was written by DNC laywers. My my...what a small world.

The case is being brought to the Supreme Court to include the above reasons. Additionally, Berg stated...

What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

Additionally, the people in Hawaii who keep claiming they've viewed Obama's bc and "it is okay (take my word for it, I've seen it)" are none other than Obama supporters and backers.

I for one am glad this is going to the Supreme Court. If they determine it is not okay and the O is ineligible, you will still have a democrat as President, so what is everyone whining about.
Credible source

I have read and researched everything about the birth certificate, his association with Ayers and everything else that was lobbied against him.  I have found nothing to hold against him with the exception of preacher Wright and time will tell about that.  After looking at the "evidence" on Factcheck, I am convinced his b/c is as credible as my own.  I do not believe the Health Department of Hiawaii would have certified it if it were not so. 


You can rest assured that I read everything about a subject which troubles me and Obama DID trouble me.  Having heard him have news conferences and getting right down to business gives me somewhat more faith in him although I am still not convinced that he can undo what has been done the past 8 years and starting even before that, even if his intentions are squeeky clean.  We are in for a VERY rocky road IMHO and we need to move on past the issues that have already been settled.  The b/c on Factcheck leaves no doubt it is the real deal and the SC isn't going to find any differently...if they even hear the case.  You are aware that they did not order him to produce the b/c by Dec. 1?  They actually ordered him to answer...which of course he will do, to do otherwise would cause the complainant to win by default and he is not going to let that happen.  It is customary in any court to give the defendent X number of days to answer a complaint.  I should think you would know that.  They can't "order" him to produce the b/c until there has been a hearing.  I expect they will turn these frivilous suits back to the lower courts and refuse to hear any more about it.


There are also other far more credible sites...sm
which give valid information as to why it is not real.

The whole point to this, GP, is not JUST the birth certificate. This plays into a much larger picture in which Obama appears to be unqualified in terms of foreign policy and experienced in so many other areas. It has to do with past associations and shady current assoociations, who is backing him, how he rose through the ranks so quickly, some if not all of his campaign platform and plans for this country, some of the statements he has made that sound positively socialist if not marxist and the way the American people have been so capitivated by him. It's not even about McCain being POTUS because I can tell you that, even though I voted for him, I have some doubts about him just as you do about Obama. It is about the safety of our nation, laws being upheld on EVERY level (yeah, I know all about Bush, this isn't about him) and the future of our nation. The BC is just the tip of the iceberg.
Credible sources

I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following.  I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources.  So...


What makes a credible source?


Why is MSNBC/CNN more credible than Fox News?


Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?


Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.


Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.


Why is World Net Daily not credible but The Progressive and The New Yorker are?


Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.


Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.


Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.


So, just curious about this. 


Credible sources

I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following.  I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources.  So...


What makes a credible source?


Why is MSNBC/CNN more credible than Fox News?


Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?


Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.


Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.


Why is World Net Daily not credible but The Progressive and The New Yorker are?


Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.


Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.


Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.


So, just curious about this. 


About Credible Sources
Fox News presents itself as fair and balanced news reporting, when it's clearly not. Olbermann's show and Maddow's show are opinion and present themselves as such. Just check who's on the talking heads Sunday shows on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Conservative pundits still far outnumber liberal pundits on all of them. Again, you have to separate opinion programming from actual news reporting on all networks.

As for Rense, et al, it speaks for itself and needs no explanation. Lovell, Borman, and Aldrin saw things outside of their experience while in space. That's a far cry from what Rense believes in. World Net Daily, NewsMax, and others clearly have an agenda and make no effort to hide it. Fair enough. But how credible are THEIR sources? What are their sources' agendas?

Here's an intersting tidbit for those who believe in a "liberal media." Here are some former high-level Bush administration officials who've gone on to prominent positions in the so-called liberal media:

* Michael Gerson was picked up as a columnist for the Washington Post.

* Sara Taylor, who was integrally involved in the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal and the politicization of federal agencies, became a pundit for MSNBC.

* Karl Rove became a Fox News "analyst," a columnist for Newsweek, and a columnist for the Wall Street Journal.

* Tony Snow went from the White House briefing room to a gig on CNN.

* Frances Townsend also went from the White House to CNN.

* Nicole Wallace went from Rove's office to CBS News before she left to work on McCain's campaign.

* Dan Bartlett is an "analyst" for CBS News.
I find them to be a bit more credible
anonymous mtstars forum polls where the same guy can post over and over again. The report is not just on their own poll....it includes results from the others as well. It's the closest thing we have to a barometer on this plan and anybody who reads it can take it or leave it, but placing any credence in this thread is really grasping at straws.
Another credible source...


wingnut - not credible
v
Relax, I didn't write it.
It was simply for amusement and speculation, not of scientific value.
The Democrats did not write this book.

A man who calls himself a **Christian conservative** did. He was I believe the #2 man on the **faith-based initiative program.** His name is David Kuo. He is a Republican. I think he will be on 60 minutes tonight. I have seen a couple of recognizable names from the Christian right denounce the white house after hearing some of the things Kuo writes. I am anxious to hear what Kuo himself says.


I am a Christian and I do not feel stiffled at all about voting.


Exactly...well, they did manage to write and get passed...
one piece of legislation...the "reform" bill that was supposed to straighten out Fannie/Freddie...instead was the straw that broke the camel's back...forced them to offer those floating rate mortgages to low and moderate income people and the creditworthiness of said people was not to be an issue. The floating rates went UP, and a bazillion people went into foreclosure, and if the Bush admin had not stepped in and taken over, the economy could very well have collapsed. The "reform" bill, plus the crooked Dems at the top of Fannie/Freddie, just about did us in this time. Other than that piece of legislation, they have not done a blessed thing in the year they have been in charge. That is why their approval rating is in the tank.
Not voting for Obama either. Will write someone in instead. nm

//


Well, then explain to us how voting for a write-in
Nobody ever agrees completely with ANY candidates full agenda. You pretty much have to look for the main ideas that matter to you most, at that particular point in history. Sometimes you have to vote for those, and let other principles ride for a while. Not easy, and I HATE letting anything slide in order to vote for what is a more pressing issue to me. But the 'perfect candidate' has not, does not, and never will exist. So we've gotta do the best we can with what we've got to work with.
Boy, that never gets old. Never. You should write Osamabama's speeches.
nm
Don't worry, I'll still write. nm
x