Original post is not true - see link for truth!
Posted By: The truth shall set you free... on 2008-09-19
In Reply to: A couple of quotes from Obama books to consider - DNH
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
By the way, we have not heard peep from the original poster since the quotes she posted were proven to be, at best, grossly inaccurate and completely out of context, and, at worst, downright lies!
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
Re-red the original post with the CBS link/article on his
At least it wasn't Fox covering it, so you should believe eyewitnesses, shouldn't you?
I meant to post this link in the original message
Really connects the dots
http://patterico.com/2008/09/25/the-annenberg-foundationobamafactcheckbrady-center-connection/
Please see original post, link for video included..nm
x
Was referring to original link about OOPE.
I did take look at her section about alleged McCain attack, where Obama was contrasting his tax policy to McCain's and simply stated the truth. This is not attack. It is a statement of the obvious.
Malkin is the poster child for PMS, trite and petty. That's what makes her articles so easy to overlook.
Where does it say that in the original post?
Please read the post again, and show me where it says that I am sick of hearing about anything.
The original post was about the judiciary...
committee wanting to talk to Scott McClellan about the Plame case and whether or not perjury or obstruction of justice happened. There is all kind of crap rolling around out there, but what the judiciary committee is looking at that had everyone so excited is about the Plame case and nothing else. THAT was my point and that is what the thread was about.
You are the one who made the innocent until proven guilty comment. And now you have to backpedal because you don't actually believe nor adhere to what you yourself posted. That is the truth, and if that is nasty, so be it.
Well, I don't know how you define morality,piglet. You will have to tell me. Being for the law and innocent until proven guilty for only people who espouse your beliefs...in my book that does not equal particularly high moral values. My opinion, just as it is yours to call me nasty. As if you have never been nasty. But I digress.
And like I said...over and over again. IF and when either of them is impeached, and if they are proven guilty, I will be the first to say they should be removed from office...as I have said over and over today. We all know because we witnessed it that Clinton did the crime. Just because the Congress did not have the guts to convict does not make him any less guilty. If they impeach Cheney and I see evidence that convinces me he is guilty I will say so whether or not Congress has the guts to. Again...difference betweenou and me.
They can list charge after charge after charge. Until they prove it, they are innocent, according to your own post (which you don't believe across the board, but I do).
So we will wait and see. And I still say that the reason Pelosi and the hierarchy are against is because they don't want to open Pandora's box. At that point they will not be able to control what comes out. Give me another good reason why, if she really felt like they were guilty, she would not go forward with impeachment.
Actually, it was your own typo in your original post...nm
nm
What the original post stated
is that one of the issues that should be foremost on people's minds is why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? At the time the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11 as justification for going to war with them. He lied. He knew the people of this Country were vulnerable after 9/11 and he used that vulnerability. Look at what his lie has cost us. Not only should the people in this Country be outraged, they should be asking why.
John McCain supported this war, as did many others at the time. Barack Obama did not. He knew the facts, understood the situation and made the right choice, though it wasn't a popular one at the time. Why didn't John McCain?
Read Bob Woodward's books. He got his information directly from interviews with Bush and his admininstration. Remember the 9/11 Commission Report? These are not opinions - they are facts.
People are being diverted from the issues for a reason. John McCain doesn't want people to think about his lack of sound judgment at such a crucial time.
I did not post the original comment -
and I do not feel that way. I was on the fence myself about which way to go until McCain picked Palin. That toppled me right off...
I was speaking of the original post
My response was to the original post.
As to the Palin thing (no where does it mention McCain, who was also implicated in the original post), did they expect the campaign to make no references to O's shady past? Maybe they should have handled him with kid gloves, like the media did. If O can't handle the scrutiny, maybe he shouldn't have run for office.
post the link only, not the whole article and the link. See rules for posting.
x
Part of the original post by Anon.
If memory serves, the poster did advocate looting and was encouraging it.
My source was cited in the original post
I'm not being presumptuous because I don't assume anything. What I am waiting for is the debates. I want to see how they all equal against each other.
so, just like I thought, the original post was pointless!
nm
I didn't post the original message
just love how people don't post facts, whether McCain or Obama supporter.
FYI - her original post didn't contain *****, it was changed
x
you missed the point of the original post
The supreme court has not ordered him to produce the original; they are simply reviewing the lower court's ruling regarding Berg bringing the suit in the first place. There is no order to produce the document. This is simply a measure that Berg and the other attorneys requesting the writ are now hoping will bring pressure on the electors to force them to demand the document be presented. But at this point there is no order to produce.
The original post was about Bush not Clinton.
Bush is the one who is trying to claim that he has kept the United States safe from terrorist attacks, not Bill Clinton. You are right about one thing. I cannot stand George W. Bush. He he has been an embarrassment to the United States, destroyed our economy, and sullied our reputation throughout the world.
I picked up the quack word from the original post.
No double standard here...unless only Obama detractors are allow to use the quack word. Since you have a hard time talking about more than one thing at a time, let's not divert our attention to include the third subject of homosexual marriage, OK...just keep it simple so you can keep up.
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
Ain't that the truth! (mumbo jumbo lol) Thanks for the link :-) NM
x
If we as Christians believe we have the truth, and that following Christ is the true way......sm
why are so many Christians so insecure? Why so paranoid? Don't you think Jesus will take care of it all? Where does it say that "we" have to be "dominant", Christianity is a lifetime philosphy, a way of life, a calling for the soul, why do you think we must be the most populous in the country? When Christianity started out it was a tiny, obscure "and left wing" type of religion, even labeled an insane cult, but it cretainly thrived, even with rabid Roman prosecution....God even put His seat on earth, supposedly, in Rome, is that no irony, and does it not show the might of the Lord? Perhaps the percentages will change in the future between the major religions, but in the end, belief of a higher power, belief in goodness, honesty, truth, kindness, charity, love, equity, righteousness, morals....all fo that was not "copywrited" from the Christians. Jesus, his family, his followers were all Jews, Jesus NEVER renounced Judaism, just the hypocritcal sects that had grown up in the temples, and the apostes saw Christianity as an addition of rules and precepts from the Master IN ADDITION to their Jewish heritage.....If we are strong in our faith, we should not worry about what percent of population is Christian.
Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.
http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html
The original Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.
On September 8,1892, the Boston based The Youth's Companion magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.
At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words the Flag of the United States replaced my flag. In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.
It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!
In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words under God. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.
Here's the true link to the case against him
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
Post the direct link. I don't see the post you're referring to.
t
Okay, let's dig the truth out of this post....
first, Karl Rove had nothing to do with choosing her as VP. In fact, at first he didn't think it was a good choice.
Now to the other "stuff"...
number one, the man you refer to is NOT her pastor. He visited the Assembly of God church, and Palin has not been a member of that church since 2002. If you read exactly what she said about it, she did not say he laid his hands on her and she became governor. She said they prayed together (and this was a long time ago, not June of this year) and that him, not knowing what her plans were, prayed that God would open doors for her to "take the next step." And she became governor. Christians often pray for God's help in decisions. There is nothing whoohoo voodoo about that...ROFL. Good grief.
We are going to get into witch hunts? geeeezzzzzzzz.
As to that pastor going on wtich hunts...what does that have to do with Sarah Palin? We have been told for weeks on this board not to judge Obama by his "God dam* America pastor...who actually WAS his pastor for 20 years...and you want to judge Sarah Palin for knowing a pastor who has NEVER been her pastor, who visited a church she hasn't attended since 2002. Can we all say hypocrite three times? Sigh.
Forgot to post a link in 1st post. Sorry.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Not an iota of truth in this entire post, except
x
No need to post a link. I believe you. SM
I just wanted to know.
Hey, post the link gt....nm
x
Can you post a link?
I've somehow missed this one. Thanks!
Sorry, just had to post this link
This is why people are voting for the O.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8
So you post a link you don't believe
And you expect no one to comment on that? Really?
If what you post is true, then...sm
Those people who say that Islam is a religion of "peace" had better get up off their prayer rugs and get out and make their voices heard and stand up for themselves. Because, by not denouncing the radical Islamic jihadist message, they are a part of the problem.
The Inquisition is mentioned along with the Crusades...at least they eventually got the message that what they were doing was wrong. Along with the witch hunts in the 1600s.
I also beg to disagree with you on another point..I happen to believe that there is only one true God, and his messenger was NOT Mohammad, but his son, Jesus Christ, who died to save us from our sins.
But then again, this is only my opinion.
Show me the post. Link please. sm
We may have in the past, but not lately, Teddy. Lies? Gosh, you like that word. A lie is an untruth. You just ordered someone from the board. That is a board moderator's job, not yours. Hardly a lie. A factual observation I would say.
link didn't post
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/30/palin_pity/
I tried to post the corroborating link...
but it didn't work.
Here it is, dated June 24, 2008, entitled "Terror Strike Would Help McCain, Top Adviser Says":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062301979.html
Sorry, the link didn't post.....
In a nutshell, Hawaii has passed "Islam Day" law....
Where is their "Christianity Day"?
Where's the loud mouth ACLU on this?
This country is heading to he!! in a handbasket!
What a refreshingly true post.
Some aspects of your post are true...
whites were also held in servitude. And the fact of the matter is, it was other Africans who enslaved their own people and sold them to Dutch traders who in turn brought them to America. White America did not invent slavery. That being said, slavery is a horrible institution, wrong, wrong, wrong. But, we should all remember, thousands of young white American men gave their lives on Civil War battlefields for the freedom of those slaves. "Religious wackos" as one person above called them, stood up and called it the wrong that it was. And the Republican President Abraham Lincoln (another "religious wacko") took up that cause. The rest is history.
I will probably get flamed, too, but that fact is often lost in race conversations. While some white Americans did hold slaves (not all) and some white Americans did abuse those slaves (but not all), other white Americans righted that wrong by shedding their blood on civil war battlefields. Quite a few of my ancestors died fighting for the Union in that war. No one can change the fact that some Africans sold other Africans into slavery. No one can change the fact that some white Americans bought those slaves. Other white Americans did what they could, however, spoke against slavery and worked to have it abolished, and ultimately died on civil war battlefields by the thousands to in fact abolish it. I think that is a fact that should be remembered as well. There are always going to be the "bad" and the "good" segments in any race. But to focus on only the "bad" to the exclusion of the "good" in any race just fosters continued racism. Including all "white America" in one group and all "black america" in one group is just wrong, in my opinion...no matter which race does it.
Wow, thanks so much for that post, really thoughtful and true!!.....nm
nm
click on the link previous post
It's alive, it's alive..Why, Dr. Frankenstein, it's alive!
Oops, meant to post link also
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700898_pf.html
You should check your facts before you post - see link
Anyone looking for Barack Obama's real sentiments about whites, blacks and Muslims won't find them in this scurrilous collection of falsified, doctored and context-free "quotations." The e-mail claims to feature words taken from Obama's books, "The Audacity of Hope" (2006) and "Dreams from My Father" (1995, republished in 2004). But we found that two of the quotes are false, and others have been manipulated or taken out of context.
We have received many inquiries about this from readers whose suspicions were aroused, with good reason. Aside from the fact that the e-mail incorrectly cites the title of Obama's book as "Dreams of My Father," rather than "Dreams from My Father," you may have noticed that none of the quotes in this e-mail contain page references. This should be a sign to any reader that the author is trying to pull a fast one, betting that you won't take the time to read through all 806 pages of Obama's books to get to the facts.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
Well, then post a link to YOUR local news!
Can you post the link again? I couldn't bring it up.
I'm from coal country and I heard about this but want to see it with my own eyes.
I'm just sort of in shock. I'm not even going to post a link. nm
x
Oh boy. WAKE UP. Follow the link before you post.
Both bills referred to here involve Equal/Fair pay remendies for WOMEN, not Congress.
true, your post has nothing inside it. Your point please?
??
You can click on any of the brown places in the post and it will take you to the link.nm
x
|
