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

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

If you (and Snopes) take issue

Posted By: Mythbuster on 2009-03-29
In Reply to: That's false; Jefferson didn't say that. sm - ever heard of Snopes.com?

with the final quote on banks, NBD.  The othes are quite pithy enough.

Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

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

If you (and Snopes) take issue

with the final quote on banks, NBD.  The othes are quite pithy.

Just so you know about Snopes

It's part of the Chicago political machine and has a definite conflict of interest.

Research it for yourself if you don't believe me.  This is not directed towards you.  I'm just pointing this out for the rest of the readers here.

No fan of Obama, but per Snopes -

Sep 28, 8:09 PM EDT

Soldier's mother 'ecstatic' about Obama's bracelet

AP Photo/Charles Dharapak


Buy AP Photo Reprints


Latest Photos of Barack Obama

Audio Slideshow

On the Road with Obama

Latest News

Soldier's mother 'ecstatic' about Obama's bracelet

Obama calls McCain economic ideas 'out of touch'

Correction: Obama home-arrest story

Obama effigy found hanging from Ore. campus tree

Man arrested outside Obama home wanted job


Obama Picks Biden as Running Mate

A look back at the tumultuous 1968 Democratic convention

Iraq? Global Warming? Gay Marriage? See Where the Candidates Stand

Your Questions Answered

Ask AP: Hurricane reporters, property in Cuba

MILWAUKEE (AP) -- The mother of a Wisconsin soldier who died in Iraq says she was "ecstatic" when Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama mentioned during Friday's debate the bracelet she gave him in honor of her son.

Tracy Jopek of Merrill told The Associated Press on Sunday she was honored that Obama remembered Sgt. Ryan David Jopek, who was killed in 2006 by a roadside bomb.

Jopek criticized Internet reports suggesting Obama, D-Ill., exploited her son for political purposes.

"I don't understand how people can take that and turn it into some garbage on the Internet," she said.

Jopek acknowledged e-mailing the Obama campaign in February asking that the presidential candidate not mention her son in speeches or debates. But she said Obama's mention on Friday was appropriate because he was responding after Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, said a soldier's mother gave him a bracelet.

"I've got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant - from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, given to me in Green Bay," Obama said during the debate. "She asked me, 'Can you please make sure another mother is not going through what I'm going through?' No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided."

Jopek says Obama's comment rightfully suggested there's more than one viewpoint on the war.

She wouldn't directly say whether she wanted Obama to refrain from mentioning the bracelet again, but said she hopes the issue will just go away.

"I think these bracelets should be looked upon as an honor that both candidates wear them to respect the troops," Jopek said. "My request to both of them is that they honor the troops by lifting the conversation to the issues, and that they continue to live up to the standards our military deserves."

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

[GetClick here for copyright permissions!

Copyright 2008 Associated Press

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.
Snopes.com leans to the left

Snopes.com leans to the left

July 29th, 2008 · No Comments · General Politics, Politics

Like many others I have used Snopes.com to check things out and make sure what I am reading is actually true.  I never really questioned them before, but then the other day I was reading an item on AL Gore and I began wondering to myself, why are they trying to justify why Gore said this.

I then started to look at other items and found the same thing.  Even when accusations were found to be true about liberals, Snopes would try to either explain it away or defend the position.  Unbeknown to me, this has already been well documented by others for items on the Clintons, John Kerry, Gore, and Barack Obama.

I did a little research and found that the site is run by Barbara and David Mikkelson, a couple from California.  From all accounts I have read, they are Obama supporters, but then of course probably support other Democratic candidates as well.

Now I am not saying that Snopes.com is a completely useless site because they usually do a good job on hoax emails…especially outside of politics. But you should always read what they say with a critical eye and be wary when they don’t just give the facts and start to defend a position.  If you see this I would suggest you check out other fact checking sites to collaborate what they say.

Snopes leans to the left

I can see a blind conservative thinking that perhaps Snopes is politically motivated toward the left. However, just for fun, I looked up the issue of Osama Bin Laden’s family being flown out of the U.S. immediately following the 9/11 attacks, when most air traffic had been grounded. Snopes says this, too, was false. Here, it quotes heavily from the 9/11 commission. Members of the Bin Laden family, the commission concludes, were not flown out before air space were re-opened.

But Snopes, via the 9/11 commission citations, does show that the Bin Ladens were flown out September 20th. The FBI questioned them, but then let them fly out. The commission also says one of the FBI agents who questioned the family was a pilot for the flight, though the vagueness of the report could lead one to conclude that the FBI agent was a pilot in general and not the pilot of the flight. Which begs the question, why mention it at all unless they meant that an FBI agent was the pilot flying the Bin Laden escape plane in question…

Anyway, the point of the whole Bin Ladens leaving the States is that they were allowed to leave so effortlessly and with our government’s help. It sounds great to say the government flew them out when all air traffic was grounded, but that’s just icing. That Snopes claims the rumor is false while the underlying point that the U.S. flew the Bin Ladens out of the States is true shows that Snopes is no more left-leaning than right-leaning. It’s admirable. They seem to take the tack that “if part of statement is false, the whole statement is false.” Very mathematical.



I saw the snopes link first and have answered
I read this on Snopes, it is true and I found it very

interesting. It is written by a black Christian man stating why he won't vote for Obama. If you just type in Huntley Brown Snopes, it will come up, it's the first link.

I am a fence rider, can't decide who to vote for, since neither one of them has actually given a plan as to what they are going to do for America, just a lot of trash talk from both sides and name calling and schoolyard tactics. Neither one has had to answer any direct questions regarding anything of value to me.

I am neither anti-Obama or anti-McCain; I am sure they are both decent men. I just found this interestingl it's not going to sway be either way, but just thought I would share it.



Wikipedia & Snopes: kissin' cousins
And part of the Chicago/Obama machine.  See for yourself, as you probably wouldn't believe me. 
So because Snopes says so it is truth. Why not have a judge look at it and make the ruling?
You give a link that supposedly exposes snopes.com yet SM
that very link (which you apparently didn't take the time to read, or were not able to) disputes everything you say above. Good lord.
the link did not work. It gave me a "do you want to try snopes search engine" msg. nm
Why aren't you getting it - Snopes is not a credible source. They've been exposed - link inc
They are not credible for putting out truthful information. It is a site run by a couple from California, Barbara and David Mikkelson. They met at an alt.folklore.urban newsgroup. This by no means is a site to find out truth or fiction, especially since the couple is very liberal and choose to put their opinion up rather than fact, and site things as hoaxes when they are not. They are a very liberal couple and of course liberals love this as it always puts their viewpoint in a favorable light, but again this is in no way a credible source. It was recently found that snopes had many things listed as a hoax, when in fact they've been proven to be true. There is another site with better sources and it is called truth or fiction. Attached is an about.com link for info about snopes. But for your everyone's information, do not take snopes to be the truth. Research for yourself with many other links out there.


No issue is no issue. Denying that
There is no issue here.
What was the issue again?
For it - should not be an issue
It should not be an issue period. It does not affect me (or anyone else) if Joe & John or Mary & Sara want to get married. As human beings we all have that right.

Civil Union is not the same thing. Talk about discrimination big time. Yes, you love each other but sorry, your of the wrong sex?????

What's next you can only be white to be married or a black and white, hispanic and black or any other combination won't be able to marry.

This is one more issue that should not be political. People should be allowed to marry whomever they wish to and tell everyone else to mind their own business.
this is not a big issue

Your point of view has been expressed. Constant repetition only weakens your case.  If you felt strongly that this was true, you would be confident that you would be proved right and not have to beat a dead horse. Be a member of polite society and consider others' time and interests before you attempt to monopolize a free forum with only your one point over and over.


This is a big issue to some of us...

and we are not just repeating ourselves.  We are posting new info for others WHO CARE to read it.  If you are not interested and do not care, DON'T READ IT. 

Interesting post by someone on another site:

ladyplumber10:35AMDec 3rd 2008

When you have 4 different citizenships in question, American, British, Indonesian, and Kenyan, and multiple different names :Barack Obama, aka, Barry Soreto, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham...you folks who think this is a piece of cake to wade through are nuts. It's like untangling a badly knotted necklace.
There is a great interview with Alan Keyes on why he is suing Mr Obama in the CA Sumpreme Court in Essence magazine...
also it is known that Mr Obama's passport in 1981 at the age of 20 was Indonesian. Ever wonder WHY he has sealed all of his college records @ Columbia and Harvard...likely because he came in under Indonesian
citizenship and qulaified for foreign student grants.
For those of you who think that the certificate shown on his web site is sufficient:
"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's LONG LEGAL original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."

(From Alan Keyes suite against the Sec of State of CA and demanding they hold back the 55 electoral votes)

For those of you who think that even if he was born to an American overseas..he is still a US Citizen...
NOT SO. for the law from 1952-1986 (Obama was born in 1961) states that to an American Citizen and one alien parent in wedlock, the American parent must have resided in the US for 5 years beyond the age of 14 (or the age of 19)Mr Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, so he wouldn't qualify.
For those of you who think that he has to have been checked out this far into the game...think again. I met with my DC House REP face to face who said that officials voted into office by the public, don't get checked out...my own rep never had been nor do US senators. The FBI doesn't get involved in political matters, and there is NO PRIOR legal precedent for a prez candidate that wants to keep his life "private". Remember Hillary was the first to challenge his citizenship...but took his short cert of live birth as his long legal birth certificate. This document is not offical enough to get him a passport. So whose job is it to approve a candidate...the candidates own party according to the FBI agent that I interviewed...can you say conflict of interest?! It is also the job of each individual sec of state. Personally, for the prez national election, I think it should be the job of the US Sec of State. Each state sec of state can certify state candidates. FOLKS-this has not resurfaced...it has never left.. but the Obama loving main stream media won't cover it, because they will wind up with egg all over their face. I think a few things are cool: one, that Alan Keyes is the one in CA suing, but no one can call the race card as he is black. Justice Clarence Thomas took the supreme court case, and again no one can call a race card. My DC rep feels that every court in the nation will find a loop hole to dismiss for fear of rioting. I told him that men are fighting and dying overseas to protect our freedoms and our constitution..why should they if we won't protect it from within? Also if the courts were afraid of rioting in the 1950s&1960s SEGREGATION might still be alive today! I would love to see a black man as prez, but not one who had to speak deceit and lies to get there. Let's NOT be in such a hurry to make history, that we are doing nothing to protect history...and to protect our constitution....


That's not the issue and you know it.
Constitution baby, constitution!
Well, now that's another issue...(sm)

I would argue that the New Deal actually did help the economy, but it wasn't large enough.  During the New Deal the GDP steadily grew with the exception of one period where FDR actually slacked off with his programs and instead did tax cuts.  Unemployment also went down during this period.  I know Fox is saying the New Deal didn't work, but the numbers don't support that theory.

See charts below:


EXACTLY!! This isn't a pub/dem issue.........
this is a BIG GOVERNMENT issue. The kind of government that thinks they own the citizens. Of course, Obama's spend spend spend plan is the most outrageous in U.S. history and that's an understatement, but both sides should be ashamed of themselves. I get so sick of seeing the democrats on this board sit idly by as if they are in the right and just point fingers at anyone they perceive as republicans. They forget.......WE ARE THE CITIZENS. I don't give a rat's butt WHO is in office.....NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE MY MONEY AND TAX THE CRAP OUT OF ITS CITIZENS. The government works for us but unfortunately too many in this country have become ignorant to that fact, either by choice or lack of proper education as to their history, constitution, and what that entails of its citizens. They feels no loyalty to this country and do not understand the government is not there to be their leader and caregiver. The government is supposed to work for us and us only, not the United Nations, not some stupid foreign country who has us in their pocket, the Americans of this country....... NOT ILLEGALS EITHER!

We have gotten so far away from the meaning of our constitution; it's not taught in our schools....should we be surprised. After all,our schools are bought and paid for by the government you pay for without any say in the school system, and a bunch of one-sided thinking lamebrains decide the curriculum, so what better than to destroy the constitution so the children never understand anything about loyalty or pride for their country. Instead, they grow up thinking their government is the be all and end all of their lives and without that, we would be nobodies. PLEEZE!!!!

For all those that continue to point at Bush.....HE'S GONE FOLKS!! GET OVER IT! NOW YOU CAN START POINTING FINGERS AT OBAMA!! He's spending and making fake money as fast as he can light up another cigarette.

Obama has no excuse for this disaster he is putting us in.

The reason the majority do not speak up against their tyranical government is because they have become so complacent and when you think about all those who stand or think they stand to come out ahead with this government, they have no problem with sitting back and letting it happen. The day we stop letting illegals vote and special interest groups run this country, we might actually get our country back but that's won't happen until our complacent LEGAL citizens get off their duffs and actually stand up for their country.

Most don't even care and that's what the government is betting on......everyone's lack of education (government schools!) or interest.

The issue is
that men shouldn't be marrying men and women shouldn't be marrying women. The parts don't fit together and it's immoral. Giving them that special "right" will take away the rights of those who believe this behavior is immoral and the right to say so. They should have NEVER been given such a ludicrous "right." And the religious community will keep fighting to right wrongs. :-)
The Rove issue

From the Christian Science monitor online-- an interesting commentary on the Rove issue. 

(I note per the Conservative board that Mr. Wilson is now being vilified.)

from the July 15, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0715/p09s02-cods.html

Rove leak is just part of larger scandal

By Daniel Schorr

WASHINGTON - Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.

In 2002 President Bush, having decided to invade Iraq, was casting about for a casus belli. The weapons of mass destruction theme was not yielding very much until a dubious Italian intelligence report, based partly on forged documents (it later turned out), provided reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy so-called yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger. It did not seem to matter that the CIA advised that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."

Prodded by Vice President Dick Cheney and in the hope of getting more conclusive information, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson, an old Africa hand, to Niger to investigate. Mr. Wilson spent eight days talking to everyone in Niger possibly involved and came back to report no sign of an Iraqi bid for uranium and, anyway, Niger's uranium was committed to other countries for many years to come.

No news is bad news for an administration gearing up for war. Ignoring Wilson's report, Cheney talked on TV about Iraq's nuclear potential. And the president himself, in his 2003 State of the Union address no less, pronounced: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Wilson declined to maintain a discreet silence. He told various people that the president was at least mistaken, at most telling an untruth. Finally Wilson directly challenged the administration with a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed headlined, "What I didn't find in Africa," and making clear his belief that the president deliberately manipulated intelligence in order to justify an invasion.

One can imagine the fury in the White House. We now know from the e-mail traffic of Time's correspondent Matt Cooper that five days after the op-ed appeared, he advised his bureau chief of a supersecret conversation with Karl Rove who alerted him to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and may have recommended him for the Niger assignment. Three days later, Bob Novak's column appeared giving Wilson's wife's name, Valerie Plame, and the fact she was an undercover CIA officer. Mr. Novak has yet to say, in public, whether Mr. Rove was his source. Enough is known to surmise that the leaks of Rove, or others deputized by him, amounted to retaliation against someone who had the temerity to challenge the president of the United States when he was striving to find some plausible reason for invading Iraq.

The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in a very large scandal - the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war.

Daniel Schorr is the senior news analyst at National Public Radio.

Why won't you debate the issue
because you can't back up what you are saying, I assume.  You just point fingers and call names like that's winning a debate.
It is really a much larger issue than you think. sm
There are 12,000 New York City resident signatures, as well as 15 NY legislators on this petion alone:

Preamble to the Complaint and Petition

We, the complainant signatories below, petition the Attorney General of New York, on behalf of millions of New Yorkers who also call for a fearless independent inquiry; for the sake of residents, workers, and business owners in New York—most particularly in and near Ground Zero; and also on behalf of other Americans who have lost employees, friends, and family members as well as health, business, and personal assets and civil, privacy, and other rights in the events of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath.

We approach your office as concerned citizens desiring to bring to light the truth about the events of 9/11. And where fault and liability may be found through your investigative action (by whatever means), we seek the recovery of billions of dollars of damages that have been sustained and continue to accrue, and a process by which the true perpetrators and aiders and abettors of the 9/11 attacks may speedily be brought to justice.

As we reported previously to your office, a representative poll published by Zogby International on August 30 of this year found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New Yorkers overall believe there was official foreknowledge and conscious acceptance of the 9/11 attacks, and that 66 percent of city residents and 56 percent overall want a new investigation. These findings are stunning and we believe they provide conclusive evidence that the people of New York are not satisfied that official investigations and mainstream news media have adequately addressed the truth of the events of that fateful day.

These Zogby Poll findings point to the immediate consituency for our Complaint and Petition; but we also note here that a burgeoning nationwide movement also holds to the same belief about 9/11 as do these native New Yorkers. Fifteen legislators who are members from New York in the US House of Representatives, New York State Senate and Assembly, and New York City Council have responded to these results by also expressing support for a new investigation by the Attorney General or Congress.

If this belief of millions of citizens is borne out by a legitimate investigation, then it may follow that the responsible officials are guilty of both mass murder and treason, as well as conspiring to inflict untold suffering upon the people of New York and violating a host of New York State laws, in addition to federal terrorist, treason, and other laws.

Clearly, this Complaint and Petition concerns a supremely serious matter. Yet we the complainants contend that no independent official investigation into these alarming yet plausible allegations, for which we present compelling evidence herein, has ever been held or is now contemplated.

When citizens of New York widely suspect appalling criminal activity within our government and by bad actors doing business in the State of New York—activity that has caused us grievous harm—we believe we are well within our rights as sovereign citizens to demand the legal and investigative means to address these concerns. If indeed there exists such a widespread belief that our own government intentionally allowed such a catastrophe to occur on our own shores, then we submit that this is prima facie evidence of a deep crisis of trust in government. We were therefore inspired to read the Attorney General‘s 2002 Law Day address in regard to this issue of restoring public trust in our institutions. You focused then on financial markets, charities, and churches, but we believe your words aptly address the collapse of faith in government that the 9/11 Zogby Poll reveals today:

It is important that we understand that this crisis exists, that it has already damaged important institutions, and that we must take immediate action to restore the faith of a betrayed public…The process of restoring a shattered trust is a lengthy one. Unfortunately, we do not have time to wait…Too much will be lost during the time that this process naturally unfolds; the skepticism and distrust that exists will continue to exact a tremendous cost…Our system of law can provide—indeed, can itself be—the solution to the crisis created by the betrayal of their trust. [2]

And it is precisely in this same spirit—that of invoking the legitimacy of a lawful solution to the issue of 9/11—that we request your intervention in order to swiftly address the grave concerns outlined below, enforce accountability, and restore the public trust.

As Attorney General, you hold ultimate responsibility for enforcing public safety, criminal, and investor protection laws in the State of New York. As indicated in the Zogby Poll, a clear majority of your constituents desires a full investigation of still unanswered questions either by Congress or your office. We provide herein evidence to prove that Congress and the 9/11 Commission have shown themselves incapable of such an inquiry. We are left with no alternative but to turn to you to take up the case we have put forth in this Complaint and Petition.

We therefore respectfully request that you immediately invoke your powers to open one or more urgent investigations into apparent crimes before, during, and after September 11, 2001. This could be accomplished by your office alone or in conjunction with other state and local legal and enforcement offices with jurisdiction (which might include, for example, other state attorneys general and the Office of the Manhattan District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau).

We firmly believe that we are able to show probable cause for convening a grand jury and that we present herein the necessary facts and lines of inquiry that would lead reasonable persons to believe that numerous still-unsolved crimes have taken place.

In this Complaint and Petition, we submit compelling evidence constituting probable cause that some or all of the following crimes and possible additional crimes have been committed and that you have jurisdiction and prosecutorial discretion to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of such crimes: murder, criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter; assault; reckless endangerment; official misconduct; criminal offenses relating to public safety; enterprise corruption; obstruction of justice and the infliction of emotional distress, including causing untold suffering and billions of dollars in damages on the citizens, businesses, and institutions of and upon the State of New York itself and cities, counties, and other jurisdictions within New York; and the criminal facilitation or solicitation thereof and conspiracy or accessorial conduct in connection therewith.

In summary, we submit that available evidence demonstrates that the requisite state of mind exists, pointing to (1) negligence as would be appropriate for assigning civil liability, and (2) an intentional, knowing, or reckless state of mind as would be required for assigning criminal liability.

You are making it an issue
You are trying to defend Merv Griffin when no one said anything bad about him or that he was not a conservative.  All that was stated was what he commented about the vote, nothing more or less.  You are reading much more into it than I ever intended.  Dont waste your time looking up more information about Merv, who cares?  His comment is what his comment was.  Goodness, LOL.  Dustin Hoffman also made a comment on Letterman that the democrats taking over the House and Senate was a historic day.  It was a comment nothing more.  I must state, though, that the audience also clapped, whistled, cheered when Dustin said that.
We will never agree on this issue.

I think all children deserve free or at least affordable health care right now.  I think that should be this country's #1 priority, and sadly, it is not.  I don't care what facts you throw at me, the truth is many children are going without health insurance because many families have to choose between buying groceries and paying the enormous premiums, and sometimes you just have to choose what is most important to survive right now.

I'm disgusted every time someone has to have a fundraiser when their kid gets cancer just to pay the medical bills.  I'm disgusted that families lose their houses every day because they have to sell them to pay off medical bills.  This bill may not have solved all of those problems, but it would have been a step in the right direction.

So go ahead and spout your pro-life "every baby deserves a chance to live" speeches, and then when that same child gets diabetes and can't afford healthcare, go ahead and look away and act like that child no longer matters.

Why is gay marriage an issue?

Can someone explain to me why gay marriage is an issue in politics?  I don't think it's ever been explained.  I have heard the religious people say they want to keep the sanctity of marriage preserved to be between a man and a woman, and I can understand that.  On the other side, I've heard gays and lesbians say that they've lived their lives with another person who happens to be the same sex as they are and they just want to be able to have the same rights as married people if something should happen to their partner, and I certainly do understand that too.  I guess I don't understand why it is a political issue.  To me if John and Jack or Mary and Sue want to get married that doesn't affect what I do with my life on a day to day basis or how I live my own life (at least I don't think it would have an impact).  So just wanted to know why I'm always hearing this issue during campaigns.  - Thanks.

You are the one making an issue (sm)

out of his middle name.  So what if someone posts his middle name?  What do YOU have to be worried about?  It appears that she cut and pasted an article written by someone else.  Had you not written a huge post about the name *Hussein,* many would not have even given it a second thought.

It would not be an issue if he had not made it one. nm
Experience issue will not go away soon.
Whether or not a candidate is "ready" to lead is the voter's prerogative to investigate...or not. I hate nasty politics too and often will turn a blind eye to it. On the other hand, checking into it from time to time does give one a better perspective on just how divided our country has become and what issues flames the fires of discontent the most. Voters also decide whether malcontents should be left to stew in their own juices or if they are addressing legitimate, common concerns in an inappropriate manner that require attention from our highest leadership.

Beyond that, judgments must be made as to which candidate, party, issues, policies, etc. best represent not only the individual's best interests and their vision of what America is or is not, but also the best interest of the nation as a whole...another purely subjective and biased concept, depending on who you talk to. It's the nature of the beast.

What I believe about research is that it is much more valuable as a process, rather than a final destination. If one is able to come out of their comfort zone and expose themselves to many sides of the same issue, it is their own reactions and gut instincts that will help them better identify, define, prioritize, express and embody their own personal political beliefs. If the objective of research is a drive-by pot shot, the insight gained will be as fleeting and as memorable as chat room archives.
I see you did not issue the same warning for ...
BDayes...but then, why would you? Hitch up your skirt, your double standard is showing.
character issue

McSame was unfairly attacked by Bush machine when they ran in primaries together.  Bush people insinuated he had a black child out of wedlock.  They even claimed he was mentally unstable due to his time as a POW.  McSame was deeply wounded by the attacks.  But now he is willing to use same diversion techniques against Obama.  That, my friends, speaks of the character of the man.


Both sides of this issue.....sm
The emotional part of me, that loves wildlife, absolutely and completely hates this practice. The governor before Gov. Palin did this, as well.

Intellectually, however, my husband and I talked about this last night. I have to realize that things are different in the state of Alaska, and we down here in the lower 48 can't judge them for this, as we don't understand all the facts. Sam posted them down below. It's a different mindset, when it comes to predator control versus the herd availability for the people of Alaska who are subsistence hunters, and need that caribou to make it through the winter.

I would much rather to let nature take its course, and let the predator and prey take each other out, the way nature intended it. However, throw humans in the mix, and it does change things.

All that taken into account, I still don't have to like it. But I can respect Alaska's decision to do this, even if I disagree.
how about the honesty issue?

Just like SP and the Bush Doctrine.  Why can't either of them say, I don't know what you mean, or I am confused about what we talking about here, can you clarify?  I bet the FOLKS would be a lot kinder to them if they would.  I do not want someone bluffing because they are afraid to show vulnerability.  Its a dangerous trait to have in world leaders.


Important issue

Dealing with our enemies - I read an article and was going to post the link, but the article is positioned on the page odd and I had to scroll down to the bottom and words went off the screen so I cut and pasted some of it here.  If you still wish to see the article let me know and I'll provide a link..

Obama is described as “eloquent and dazzling. In writing, he sounds like the candidate for class president pledging no more homework and free pizza”.  – (pretty good description I'd say)

His position on Iran – “If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation”.  – That, that’ll show them.

While other candidates have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps, Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because “the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons”.  Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years.  “This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear material”. – Does he really believe the most vicious people will be thwarted that easily?

People should remember that no matter how eloquently offered it is not always for the better.

Socialism IS an issue. nm
On this issue, maybe....but they are diametrically....
different in every other way.

I certainly think maybe it should have been done a different way...however, it has gone so far I think they have to do something or the economy will indeed tank and we will pass recession and go right into depression. Even if they pass it, we are still going into a recession.
Here's the link for the first issue

This one should work.


The most important issue.....

this election is freedom. On November fourth we will determine which path our government will take, liberty or Marxism. I will choose liberty.

McCain/Palin 2008 

Well, like it or not......race is an issue with some
about the abortion issue
At least that explains why u are for McCain. What I don't understand is pro choice people voting for McCain. Nobody said it's murder or not murder. I personally think it isn't and you personally think it is. Why are there no funerals for fetuses of miscarriages? yes, it is a moral issue but I will not dictate to someone that if they are raped OR whatever the reason is.. that they cannot have an abortion. That said, it does explain why you vote for McCain. The other people are a mystery.

The source is not the issue
the voting record is.
Ummm....they do, actually, just as they take issue with
and ran with it.
Its not a legal issue

its a mental issue.  Supreme Court does not rule in that arena.


BC issue already verified
and there are plenty of places to research this. Seems like you'll just come up with something else
We discussed the same issue...
he is just another man elected to be president who just happens to be half black. Big deal. Also, for the state of the economy, there is certainly a lot of money being spent for this charade. A low key celebration would be fine, not the 150 million dollar price tag we are footing some of the bill for. He will never live up to the hype he has generated. The bloom will be off the rose before long and we will have a front row seat for the further decline of our economy, not to mention the terrorists who are anxiously awaiting an Obama administration.
every once in a while the issue about abortion
comes up, leads to a lot of insulting and flaming comments back and forth, with no resolve.

Can we just stop discussing this issue?????

BTW, I am pro-choice, up to the end of 3rd month, it is my body and my life and my right to decide how many children I want to have, because I want to be able to care for ALL of my children, without needing support from charity organizations, the government or other people and I am AGAINST adoption.

This Octomon should have had my attitude, then she would NOT be in this miserable situation.

Please, NO REBUTTALS AND NO INSULTS following my post!
every once in a while the issue about abortion
comes up, leads to a lot of insulting and flaming comments back and forth, with no resolve.

Can we just stop discussing this issue?????

BTW, I am pro-choice, up to the end of 3rd month, it is my body and my life and my right to decide how many children I want to have, because I want to be able to care for ALL of my children, without needing support from charity organizations, the government or other people and I am AGAINST adoption.

This Octomon should have had my attitude, then she would NOT be in this miserable situation.

Please, NO REBUTTALS AND NO INSULTS following my post!
What's your issue with sharia?
They're a country founded on Islamic beliefs, and maintaining a government system built around those religious beliefs. You don't detect a certain degree of hypocrisy in the fact that it's okay here but not okay there?

Or are you one of those people that believes only Lutherans (Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, whatever) are going to make it through the pearly gates? Which, really, means you might as well let the guys marry since there's probably a bunch of them that don't have your religious affiliation that will burn in perpetuity whether they're gay or straight just for not believing in your "One True Way".

And if anti-gay marriage folks can pick and choose bible passes to support their point of view, I see no reason not to be able to pick and choose to refute their point. Or is this a case of that icky hypocrisy thing rearing its ugly head again?