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

feel free to chose the sources

Posted By: bootscraper on 2008-09-10
In Reply to:

you want to believe -- Wall Street Journal versus "websites".  As the McC campaign stated ' this election will not be based on facts.  They are going personality whole-hog.  OMG.  I just offended someone somewhere.


 




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

My sentiments exactly. Feel free to
nm
Feel free to keep clinging to them.
He has stated repeatedly that he won't take them away.
Feel free to start your own on the threads
on the conservative board. Seems to me that most of the conservatives have an inability to start their own conversations and can only respond to liberal threads. Be proactive and start something.
Feel free to direct your concerns to the Administrator. sm
You can reach the adminstrator at Admin@MTStars.com.  As far as deleting, since the incident of several weeks ago, I have made a concerted effort on BOTH boards to keep the bashing to a minimum. 
George's mistakes - feel free to add to the list.sm

When Democrats accuse George W. Bush of being a liar, Republicans -- and until recently, the media -- have responded that Bush is a man of integrity whom you can trust at his word. It was the evil Bill Clinton who lied. Remember him wagging his finger at us? That bastard!


Well, yes, Bill Clinton did indeed lie to us. He lied to us about oral sex. It sure is good that we spent nearly $100 million to find out how semen reacts on a cotton blue dress from the Gap. Of course, it turned out that he was telling the truth to us about Whitewater and filegate and travelgate and campaign finance-gate and gate-gate and more. I'm sure we could find better uses for that money today. But, Clinton certainly did lie about that hummer. Imagine that, a man lying about sex. In America no less.


Of course, unlike another president, Clinton's lies didn't kill anyone.


Anyway, I decided to put just a short list together of lies by George W. Bush. These are not banal lies about one's sex life, these are big lies, whoppers and tall tales about his own record, who he is, what he's done and what he stands for.


1. The Iraq War.


We could really start and end with this one, since this lie has killed and wounded thousands of American soldiers and countless Iraqi men women and children. But this one certainly does not stand alone.


Let's break this out into subcategories as well, such as:



a) The smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud. Iraq didn't even have shitake mushrooms.


b) Saddam would not let the inspectors in. Bush has now made this claim twice. It came as quite a surprise to the hundreds of U.N. inspectors that were in Iraq in 2003 and were told by the U.S. to get out or get bombed.


c) Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. All right, I cut them some slack on this one as EVERYONE thought that he still possessed some WMD capability. The difference is that no one else felt that Hussein was any sort of credible military threat to the rest of the region, much less the United States. And, by no one else, I mean C.I.A., the U.N. and anyone else not named Wolfowitz, Rice, Libby, Rumsfeld, Cheney or Pearle.


d) We know exactly where they are. So said Rumsfeld shortly after the war ended. I wonder if he's shared that bit of information with his boss yet?


e) The laundry list. Both Bush in his 2003 State of the Union speech and Colin Powell at the United Nations read through a laundry list of horrors that was quantified down to the milliliter. Powell called these charges facts that were unassailable. Yet we have still not found a drop.


f) We believe that, in fact, Saddam Hussein has reconstituted nuclear weapons. Dick Cheney said this on Meet the Press in 2003. Even as Bush and others were careful of going overboard, Dick Goebbels Cheney kept going for not just the Big Lie, but the Grandaddy of them all.


g) Drones that could attack the United States. True, if they were launched from Padre Island. The truth is that little Timmy down the block has a more sophisticated remote control airplane than Saddam did.


h) Yellow cake uranium. The Italian press thought those documents were fake. Let me repeat that: the ITALIAN PRESS thought they were forgeries!


i) We will be welcomed as liberators. Those are bullets, roadside bombs and RPGs, not roses fellas.


j) Imminent? Who said imminent? Well, Ari Fleischer, Donald Rumsfeld and others. But, apparently Bush never said the words himself. He just used every other phrase he could think of to scare the crap out of us. And, as a point of order, isn't it the Bush Administration? When someone is speaking for the administration, don't they speak for Bush?


k) Al Qaeda and Saddam had close ties. Well, both he and bin Laden are Sunni Muslims, they both have moustaches and, to quote Cliff Clavin, neither of them have ever been in my kitchen. They must be like brothers.


l) We have found WMDs in Iraq. Bush and others have made this claim regarding an ever so dangerous weather tracking truck.


m) They could have been destroyed by Saddam. Or moved out of the country. I know Bush doesn't read the papers or watch the news, but does he even listen to his own staff? David Kay, his hand-picked inspector, said there obviously weren't any weapons in the first place. But, what if Bush is right and they were moved, shipped out of the country? Well, then the whole purpose of the war -- to keep Hussein from giving his WMDs to terrorists -- was a failure. Well, George, which one is it?


I could go on and on, but we've got even more real hardcore, honest to goodness, Grade A lies to address.


2. Taxes (part 1)


Bush has consistently claimed that he is against tax increases. Yet, as Governor, his 1997 tax plan would have forced tens of thousands of business to pay franchise taxes that previously did not have to pay. According to the GOP School of Taxes playbook, that's a tax increase, no if ands or buts about it.


3. Taxes (part 2)


Throughout the 2000 campaign and through 2001, Bush claimed that his mega tax cut for the mega rich was actually a tax cut for the working folks. In fact, he said the vast majority would go to the bottom. As Al Franken has so ably pointed out, by far the vast majority usually means more than 14.7 percent that the bottom 60 percent received. Consider that fuzzy math.


4. Taxes (part 3)


In 2003, Bush claimed his latest sop to the uber-wealthy would create jobs. In fact, the special interest, Rockefeller tax cut was -- in true Orwellian fashion -- named the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. Someone wake me when those 2.6 million jobs Bush promised in 2004 start being created. He needs to create around 300,000 jobs a month through Election Day to reach his pledge.


5. Taxes (part 4)


Bush, who tried to extend taxes to thousands of businesses and not call it a tax increase, now claims that if his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are not made permanent, that is a tax increase. Now, remember, the law as written says those taxes automatically phase out if nothing is changed. Bush now says if the law as written -- the law he signed -- is not changed, that is a tax increase.


6. I fulfilled my duty.


He didn't take his flight physical because his doctor was in Houston. The entire National Guard spin is falling apart before our eyes. The facts of the issue have remained the same, but the Bush Team's laughable responses become inoperable by the day. Despite their ever-angrier denials, the issue won't go away. Last Friday night's document dump and run still hasn't answered the key question: where were you during the war, George? At least 1972. You can say it's trolling for trash all you want, but you can't make the issue go away without some proof.


7. I'm a uniter not a divider


Bush's 2000 mantra -- bought hook, line and sinker by much of the media -- was that only he could come to Washington and end the partisan bickering. Within weeks, this proved to be completely untrue. His heavy-handed partisanship even cost him control of the U.S. Senate for a time, as Republican Jim Jeffords bolted the party.


In 2002, Bush showed his unifying skills by saying that Democrats who disagreed with his behemoth vision for the Department of Homeland Security -- a plan he had opposed for nearly a year -- didn't care about the security of the country. You know, guys like Senator Tom Daschle, who was actually a terrorist target. He then thanked Max Cleland and Mary Landrieu for their steadfast support by targeting them and backing opponents who questioned their patriotism and, in Louisiana, sent out mailers to black neighborhoods with the wrong election date.


Well, Bush is a uniter in one way: He has united the Democratic Party like never before, and is driving independents back to the Democratic Party in droves. Please, keep uniting us.


8. The 2004 budget.


From front to back, the latest Bush budget is one of the most fraudulent documents ever created by the U.S. government. Well, at least since the last budget. Like 2003, Bush doesn't count the cost of Iraq or Afghanistan into his fantasy land accounting. He also counts in billions of spending cuts that are flat out pipe dreams that even the GOP won't support. According to the White House, the deficit -- which has gone from hundreds of billions in the black to $518 billon in the red in just three short years -- will be cut in half. This from an administration that has overestimated growth and underestimated projected deficits each year. But, according to George, prosperity truly is just around the corner.


9. I won't run a deficit.


During the 2000 campaign, Bush responded to those who -- quite correctly -- said his voodoo economic plan would drive us right back into the gutter that he would not operate a deficit. He said that he was a governor. I believe in balanced budgets. Yes, the same way kids believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny.


10. I hit the trifecta.


Following our steady plummet back into deficit land, Bush used the handy excuse of the trifecta: war, national emergency and recession. He explained away his past statements that he wouldn't run a deficit by claiming he had made an exception for those three things. Of course, he never actually said that. Paul Begala, Al Franken, Paul Krugman, Joe Conason and others have all reviewed every statement printed during the 2000 campaign and Bush never made any such qualification. Of course, why should we hold them to what he actually said? As Larry Speakes, Ronald Reagan's press secretary once said, No it wasn't true, but it sure sounded good.


11. I released all my National Guard records in 2000.


On Meet the Press, Bush once again fell back to his standard behavior when confronted with an uncomfortable subject: he lied his ass off. Four years after reporters first asked him to release his records -- and a nearly a week after he promised to -- Bush finally followed in the footsteps of John F. Kennedy, John McCain, John Kerry, Bob Kerrey and Wes Clark and released his full military record.


12. I'm spending less than Bill Clinton.


On Meet the Press, an interview that will go down in history as one of the stupidest decisions Karl Rove has ever made, Bush claimed that government spending has actually dropped under his tenure. Even GOP stalwarts ran away from this one faster than Rush Limbaugh runs to a bowlful of Oxycontins. The truth of the matter is that federal spending has exploded under George W., just as spending exploded in Texas while he was governor. This fella just ain't your daddy's fiscal conservative.


Here is a great quote on Bush's spending:


His dramatic increase in the size and spending of the federal government with a record deficit. With his $2.23 trillion budget, his administration will complete the biggest increase in government spending since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The budget deficit predicted by the House Budget Office will hit a record $306 billion. Spending on government programs increased 22% from 1999 to 2003. A Washington Post report said, The era of big government, if it ever went away, has returned full-throttle under President Bush. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey commented that under President Bush, the federal government is out of control. The source? Liberal media publication Intellectual Conservative in an article entitled Why Christians Should Not Vote for George W. Bush, February 15, 2004.


13. Free Trade.


George W. Bush supports free trade. That's why he slapped tariffs on imported steel. Of course, had the potentially affected steel mills been located in New York instead of Pennsylvania -- a state he hopes to win in 2004 -- Bush would still be a pure free trader.


14. Outsourcing.


Last week, the Bush Administration claimed that the outsourcing of high-paying U.S. jobs to other countries is a good thing. N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote a report saying exactly that. He then reiterated his belief in the wonderful attributes of Americans losing their jobs at a press briefing on the report. Once again, Republicans are fleeing from this statement as fast as they can. So is George Bush, who immediately ran to Pennsylvania to promise 2.6 million jobs by the end of the year. Unfortunately, Mankiw is Bush's hand-picked employee -- and the president has already signed the report.


As Senator Tom Harkin said: Under George Bush, America has a new #1 export: jobs.


15. No one could have imagined them hijacking airplanes.


Of all the lies, this one might be the most annoying. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice made this claim repeatedly during the summer of 2002. Nevermind that Ramsey Yousef, one of the masterminds of the original attack on the World Trade Center, had his plot to hijack and crash 12 airplanes foiled by U.S. and foreign intelligence agents...in 1995. It was big news then, but apparently didn't make it all the way out to Stanford University. Rice's deceit was completely exposed in 2002 when details of the President's Daily Intelligence Briefing in August 2001 revealed that CIA and other sources warned the administration of just such hijackings. But she is never called on this or other lies when she makes her media rounds.


16. Air Force One was a target.


While everyone remembers and praises Bush's appearance with firefighters in New York City, the White House -- and the press -- conveniently ignore the actual timeline of events. That meeting took place on September 14, 2001. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, the entire New York congressional delegation and, of course, Rudy Gulliani, had been on the scene for days, Rudy and Bill since almost minute one. On September 11, 2001, after he was notified of both the first and second plane crashes, it took nearly an hour for Bush to depart Florida. But, he did not go to Washington, or even make a statement in Florida. No, first he flew to an Air Force Base in Louisiana; then, to the safety of a bunker in Nebraska. He told Americans it was safe, while he was entombed.


Many criticized his absence, most notably Peter Jennings who asked Where is the President. To combat such criticism, the Bush White House claimed that they zig-zagged across the country because of a credible threat against Air Force One. Nearly a year later, they were forced to admit that they had, in fact, received no such threat.


Now, I am not necessarily criticizing Bush's flight itinerary on 9/11/01. Keeping the President safe was the top priority and they rightly took steps to ensure his safety. So why not just say that and be done with it? Why did the White House have to put out another lie to try to make themselves look heroic? Because that's what they do.


17. Bill Clinton pillaged the White House as he walked out the door.


Well, according to the General Accounting Office in yet another investigation that spent our tax dollars, the allegations of looting just weren't true. Was there some damage and pranks? Of course, just as there are in every transition. But widespread damage? No, it wasn't true, but it sure sounded good.


18. Leave No Child Behind.


The president's key education initiative is a well-intentioned attempt to change education in the United States. It could lead to real changes, if Bush had actually funded the plan rather than treat it as a nice photo op to show he really cared.


According to Senator Edward Kennedy, the author of the legislation and Bush's main prop in 2001, in the two years since the No Child Left Behind Act was passed, the Bush Administration has cut its funding, reneged on promised resources for better teachers and smaller classes, and worked to divert millions of dollars to private school vouchers... President Bush's new budget for 2005 will leave over 4.6 million children behind. Still pending before Congress is President Bush's 2004 budget which provides schools with over $7.5 billion less than promised in the No Child Left Behind Act. And there is every expectation that the President will propose again not only to cut resources for public school reform, but to divert scarce public education dollars to private schools.


Enough said.


19. Cost of the Medicare Bill.


Oops! They must have forgot to carry the one...or they are just liars. In fall 2003, Bush sold his Medicare budget with some interesting numbers: it would only cost $400 billion over 10 years. Now keep in mind that passage of this plan was in extreme doubt, as Democrats opposed the plan as a joke that would cost too much and do too little, while Republicans complained that, well, it cost way too much. The Bush Team assured everyone that it would cost no more than $400 million and the plan passed the House by a razor thin margin.


Lo and behold, they snookered us again. Just a few months later, the plan now costs $540 billion, with more sure to be added as the plan actually begins the implementation process.


20. Ken Lay.


After the Enron scandal hit full force, Bush tried to downplay his relationship with Ken Lay by saying he gave money to my opponent Ann Richards. Suddenly Lay, whom Bush had previously called Kenny Boy, didn't' ring a bell. Despite the fact that Enron was Bush's #1 contributor from 94-00, the fact that Bush was flown around the campaign trail in 1998 on Lay's private plane, and Lay's status as a Pioneer (and serious contender for Commerce Secretary) Bush and he really weren't that close. Maybe that's why Martha Stewart is on trial and not Ken Lay.


(By the way, does it strike anyone as odd that Martha is being tried for almost exactly what George W. Bush did when he left Harken Energy?)


21. I'm against Nation Building.


Throughout the 2000 campaign, Bush assailed Clinton's successful military forays in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, saying he opposed nation building. Today, see Afghanistan; see Iraq. In fairness, when you look at the deteriorating situations in both countries, it is clear that Bush is not really doing any nation building right now. He has ignored the reconstruction of Afghanistan (famously forgetting to fund it in his 2003 budget. Sorry about that Mr. Karzai!) and he has, to put it diplomatically, completely screwed the pooch in Iraq by ignoring the possible resistance to a U.S. occupation, handing over the reconstruction to corporate cronies like Halliburton and the reigns of power to unpopular sycophants like Ahmed Chalabi. Disaster looms where we can least afford to fail.


22. I remember that sign from the Old West: Wanted Dead or Alive.


Following the 2001 terrorist attacks, Cowboy Bush repeatedly strapped on his star and gave us his best John Wayne impersonation, essentially guaranteeing that we would take out Osama bin Laden. Now, Bush says of capturing bin Laden: I have no idea (Meet the Press, February 8, 2004). What would John Wayne say?


23. We're safer now that Saddam is caught.


Howard Dean was ridiculed for questioning this platitude, but he is right. Hopefully we will be safer, but that outcome is certainly not assured. Not if Iran is stronger in the region and Iraq splits apart, divided into three warring factions, any of which could destabilize Turkey, Syria or Saudi Arabia. In the meantime, scores of Al Qaeda fighters have streamed into Iraq since the war began, an outcome we had sought to avoid by taking Hussein out.


For the present, I think we should ask the boys and girls being shot at if they feel more or less safe since December.


24. I was never arrested after 1972 -- unless you count that DWI. Err, those two DWIs.


Bush reportedly told the Dallas Morning News in 1999 that he was never arrested after 1972. Of course, as we all learned, he was arrested for drunk driving in 1978, with his younger sister and Australian tennis star John Newcombe, in the car. According to NBC News, Bush was also arrested for another DWI in Midland after 1972. Are his arrests the big deal? No, but his constant lying about them sure goes to character, don't you think?


25. I supported the Patient Protection Act.


During the 2000 presidential debates, Bush claimed he supported the Patient Protection Act and the Patient's Bill of Rights. I almost fell on the floor, especially since Al Gore, standing mere feet away, did not call him on one of the most obvious lies in campaign history. This one was actually well-explored by the media, but Gore let this meatball glide harmlessly over the plate without taking the bat off of his shoulder.


The truth is Bush vetoed the Patient Protection Act in 1995 and let the Patient's Bill of Rights -- landmark legislation that became the model for other states and the federal government --become law without his signature. So, if by support you mean opposed and tried to kill, then yes, you supported them.


26. I signed the hate crimes bill.


Another juicy whopper. Now Bush had won re-election mere months before with nearly 70 of the vote. If he wanted a bill passed, he got it. But, Bush ordered his legislative minions to kill the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act, less than one year after the most gruesome hate murder of the post-Civil Rights era. The guy who was the leader in killing the bill? State Senator David Sibley (R-Waco), a man who had supported the same legislation just a few years earlier. You might recognize Sibley; he's the guy you see driving Bush's golf cart whenever Bush is back in Crawford playing golf.


27. I want to get to the bottom of the Plame leak.


Following the sliming of Ambassador Joseph Wilson for exposing the Nigerian yellow cake lie, and the outing of his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA agent, Bush said it was a very serious matter and that he wanted to get to the bottom of it. But he never ordered his staff to do anything about it. Since very few members of the White House would have had the clearance to even know that Plame was an operative, and even fewer are even allowed to make eye contact with, much less to talk to the media, it shouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to find the culprit here. Instead, he actually lamented that we may never know who did it because Washington is full of leakers. Thankfully, after cajoling from Democrats forced Attorney General John Inspector Clouseau Ashcroft to recuse himself from the investigation, it appears that we may actually discover who is behind this act of treason. Scooter Libby, your lawyer is on the line.


28. I will fight the war on terror.


This claim, unfortunately, is also debatable. Just when we had smoked them out of their holes and got them on the run our intelligence services and our military were forced to change their focus from fighting Al Qaeda to invading Iraq, letting bin Laden off the hook. In addition, despite numerous reports on the vulnerability of our ports, little has been done to make them more secure from terrorism. Also, despite a serious congressional study, media scrutiny and an on-going non-partisan investigation, little has changed regarding how our intelligence is gathered and analyzed to avoid making the same mistakes. In fact, little has changed beyond making several bureaucracies into one huge bureaucracy under the banner of the Department of Homeland Security. And, in perhaps the most bizarre example of sleeping at the wheel, the 2004 Bush budget offers no funding for biothreat detection at Post Offices. This after the White House said they foiled a mail attack to the White House last year and days before Ricin was mailed to Senator Bill Cat Murderer Frist's office.


Well, that's my list. Please add to it, as it is far from all-inclusive.


Don't forget about free broadband, free gas, free healthcare, hey they are "rights" now YIP
xxx
Where is the line for free college, free healthcare...
mortgage paid for, free gas and ability to sit on my rear and let everyone else take care of me? Wow, now I see the light...this prez elect will be great!!
Free speech is alive and well, as is free will...

people can take anything out of context and do with it what they want; it still doesn't make it a McCain/Palin issue.


I don't know how any of them chose one,
but I think Bosnia had something to do with US connection to Russia or Germany (my history is rusty on this. Ie debated US involvement in Bosnia when it was going on.)

It's all anyone's guess.

Why did Bush chose Iraq in retaliation for 9/11?

Why do you think Clinton ignored Rwanda?

And nowhere did she say it was. She chose an
x
You certainly can chose with whom
you have sex.  You just cannot choose with whom you WANT to have sex.   Lucky for you that you want to have sex with a man, and that's more socially acceptable.   It's not to your credit, and it's not to a 'homo's' discredit that they feel the opposite. That's the hand God deals you, and just as immutable as race.  It is generally frowned upon for blacks to wish they were white, try to make themselves white, try to cure themselves of blackness, disassociate themselves from other blacks.  That would be considered a pathology. 
You certainly can chose with whom

you have sex.  You just cannot choose with whom you WANT to have sex.   Lucky for you that you want to have sex with a man, and that's more socially acceptable.   It's not to your credit, and it's not to a 'homo's' discredit that they feel the opposite. That's the hand God deals you, and just as immutable as race. (Funny you should mention race.) 


It is generally frowned upon for blacks to wish they were white, try to make themselves white, try to cure themselves of blackness, pray to God to remove their blackness, disassociate themselves from other blacks.  That would be considered a pathology.  That being said, being black should not prevent anyone from seeking the same RIGHTS as whites, from associating with whites, and it does not mean God loves them less for giving them a harder row to hoe. 


And that would be why she chose the word
x
He chose to be more black
He said so himself in his book.
Since you chose to go down this road...

...with me.  This is cut and pasted from the web site.  While this does not specifically name soft drinks, anything that rings up as taxable on the register is ineligible.  In Ohio, only foods for home consumption are nontaxable; restaurant food is taxable;  soft drinks are taxable; paper products, soap, etc. 


Okay, NOW you're excused!  And still not credible.  But thanks for playing! 


Households CAN use benefits to buy:


























Foods for the household to eat, such as:
  -- breads and cereals;
  -- fruits and vegetables;
  -- meats, fish and poultry; and
  -- dairy products.

Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.


In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.


Households CANNOT use benefits to buy:































Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco;

Any nonfood items, such as:

  -- pet foods;
  -- soaps, paper products; and
  -- household supplies.

Vitamins and medicines.


Food that will be eaten in the store.


Hot foods.


Maybe that's why he chose the kid's playroom...
so he could have a See N Say shoved up his nether region - and the sheep says "Baaaa Baaaaa" ---- he could be a naughty, naughty little boy - instead of a stepford husband getting worked out like a tennis racket.
Those people chose to have that job...
The military gets paid very well. It is such honorable job. They get paid to fight wars so no one messes with the USA!!! Police officers die everyday here and it seems no one gives a CRAP!!! Add up all the firemen, police officers, etc and those numbers for the same years in this war is FAR FAR LESS. I wish people would stop complaining. IT IS THEIR JOB!!! My brother in law is in the Army and I wish he was sent over there. Maybe it would make him more of a man then a wife beater.
And Obama chose to be Christian,

is he's not trying to push his religion down everyone else's unwilling throats.


You want to be in everyone's bedrooms, whether it's for gay marriage, birth control, abortion, etc.


You want everyone to walk in lock step with you on social issues, and this is exactly why the Republicans are in the toilet.  Americans want to choose their own paths and not have these things forced upon us by a group that claims that only THEY hold the exclusive keys to heaven.


By the way, did you know that Muslims believe that Jesus was a messenger from God (via virginal conception) who had been sent to guide the children of Israel??


Not that you are owed any explanation for what we chose to post...sm
because anyone who wants to come on the liberal board and post liberally and respectfually can. From your tone, I would think you were not a liberal.

FYI, we have discussed the Gitmo decision, and you or anyone else is welcome to post *important legislation* coming up. I'm sure there will be in response to the Gitmo judgement.

The firing off of misses by North Korea is a few days old and I'm waiting to see how the government reacts. I mean we went into Iraq for so-called stockpiles of WMDs and yet N. Korea is test firing their missles and the White House says there is no threat, so this tells me one or two things. #1. There was equally no threat in Iraq. OR #2. We are more ambivalent to fight in N. Korea than we were in Iraq, especially since our troops are already spread out.

Thanks for your input new blood. Feel free to open a debate of your own if that's what you want to see happen, but if you are a conservative here to stir the pot spare us and yourself the annoyance.
Bush could have snagged 100 Taliban but chose not to.

I wonder if the neocons will make a movie about this, and I wonder how many thank you notes Bush has received from terrorists in the last five years.  :-(


U.S. Declines Taliban Funeral Target

Sep 13, 6:29 PM (ET)

By LOLITA C. BALDOR


WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. military acknowledged Wednesday that it considered bombing a group of more than 100 Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan but decided not to after determining they were on the grounds of a cemetery.

The decision came to light after an NBC News correspondent's blog carried a photograph of the insurgents. Defense department officials first tried to block further publication of the photo, then struggled to explain what it depicted.

NBC News claimed U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by an unmanned Predator drone but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.

In a statement released Wednesday, the U.S. military in Afghanistan said the picture - a grainy black-and-white photo taken in July - was given to a journalist to show that Taliban insurgents were congregating in large groups. The statement said U.S. forces considered attacking.

During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of (the) cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day, the statement said. A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time.

While not giving a reason for the decision, the military concluded the statement saying that while Taliban forces have killed innocent civilians during a funeral, coalition forces hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies.

The photo shows what NBC News says are 190 Taliban militants standing in several rows near a vehicle in an open area of land. Gunsight-like brackets were positioned over the group in the photo.

The photo appeared on NBC News correspondent Kerry Sanders' blog. Initially military officials called it an unauthorized release, but they later said it was given to the journalist.

NBC News had quoted one Army officer who was involved with the spy mission as saying we were so excited that the group had been spotted and was in the sights of a U.S. drone. But the network quoted the officer, who was not identified, as saying that frustration soon set in after the officers realized they couldn't bomb the funeral under the military's rules of engagement.

Defense Department officials have said repeatedly that while they try to be mindful of religious and cultural sensitivities, they make no promises that such sites can always be avoided in battle because militants often seek cover in those and other civilian sites.

Mosques and similar locations have become frequent sites of violence in the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have often been targets of insurgents and sectarian fighting in Iraq.


What is she chose Obama as running mate?
Do you think that would be beatable? Not sure either one would go for it, but sure would make an interesting race!
Does not chang the fact that they chose the Bridge ...
over Katrina victims. FACT.
Of course, the Obama flock only sees the "good" in such a decision...
Chose my words carefully, I knew you
over this one!! You are a real .. . . Oh well, you are still showing your colors blubbering about the shoe throwing crap above.
So people are poor because they chose to give tax cuts to billionaires?
Just today Cheney cast the deciding vote to cut back Medicare, Medicaid, and student loans. I guess as long as you're not the one who has a bit of misfortune and need a safety net, you really don't give a hoot, do ya? What about the billions spent in Iraq to turn it into a theocracy like Iran?
and I feel like makin *du du duu du du duu* feel like maaa-k-in love to YOU!
ARGH!!


You feel someone should be forced to do something they feel is wrong? sm
Sounds like communism to me.
sources

I got it from blogsforjohnmccain.com.  Not sure where you get your info.  In fact, I don't even know how I got that story, as I'd never been to this site.  Here's an interesting one, too:  informationvault.com.  The resources are endless.  It amazes me that the so-called news stations are in business with their pathetic, identical news coverage.  Judge for yourself.  They always have exactly the same stuff, and the exact, same attitude.


As for FNC, that's why it constantly leaves all the rest in the dust.  While I like Alan Colmes okay as a lib, his remark about Sarah was what I thought to be out of character for him after watching Hannity & Colmes all these years.  I'll be writing Roger Ailes/FNC to remind them that FNC is way above those tacky networks, and that this won't be tolerated.


Susan Estrich, another FNC lib I like, has gone after the libs for what they've done to Palin.  She's a fair lib.  She's wrong on politics, but behaves with class while debating.


 


your sources
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/mccain-does-nothing-as-cr_n_132366.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/is-palin-trying-to-incite_b_132534.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVFWahLTdUo

Need more?
There are other sources...........sm
that are equally as reliable and accurate. All news web sites are going to put their own spin on the news. Factcheck, regardless of what news media uses it, I don't feel is reliable. They are said to have actually touched and examined Obama's birth certificate yet state they can't get their hands on the vault copy. If Obama wanted to produce it, he could. I wouldn't doubt that it may be proven at some point in time that the document that Factcheck holds is a forgery produced by one of his own workers who gained access to the necessary insturments to produce it. Corruption exists at every level of government and money is a powerful motivator. Just as the LA Times what they are doing with their newly acquired 3 million dollars.
It's in other sources too -
I do read and listen to more than just liberal articles and stations.
After looking at other sources...(sm)
...here's my opinion:

1. WBC is a pathetic fringe group that sometimes does nothing more than try our commitment to the principle of free speech (which is always most challenged when people say things we abhore), but sometimes the group steps over the line into illegal activity.

2. When they have stepped over the line, they have been charged and/or sued. This is where such matters belong.

3. Michael Moore knows how to shoot fish in a barrel and make some believe he's provided some important insight. Big whoop. I guess we can expect a piece on the churches that practice snake-handling to be next. My question is: Where's his piece on the other groups that have picketed the funerals of fallen soldiers in order to desecrate their memory?

I'm not holding my breath.
You may want to check your sources.

Actually this may be more accurate:


Katrina Victims Welcomed in Massachusetts


Massachusetts to take about 2,500 refugees from hurricane” – The Associated Press


“Massachusetts will take in about 2,500 Hurricane Katrina refugees in coming days, sheltering them on Cape Cod for up to two months and likely resettling some permanently in the Bay State, Gov. Mitt Romney said Sunday.


Romney said federal emergency officials told him Sunday to prepare for the evacuees, who will arrive in two to three days, and will be temporarily housed at Camp Edwards on Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod.


Otis has many amenities to accommodate the large numbers, including beds, a school, medical facilities, a gymnasium and a movie theater, he said.”


Check your sources
Get your facts straight. Obama was sworn in using a bible. It was another congressman, Keith Ellison, who was sworn in using the Koran.
Uh...you might want to check your sources on that one.
Can't get around to the rest of the post this p.m., 'cause it took a little time to get the response together for the first sentence:
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/071708.html:
On July 17, 2008, John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced the committee would be holding a hearing on the Imperial Presidency of George Walker Bush and possible legal responses. The hearing convened on July 25, 2008.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9689
Here's some video (July 25, 2008 through August 14, 2008). As you can see, it is ongoing. I included the link above because that is the day Vicent Bugliosi was there.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4333.html:
May not have heard about this on your mainstream media outlets because there has been a media blackout. Of course, for those out there who find this in the least bit interesting, try some alternative media sources. Pacifica Foundation (Pacifica.org) publicly funded, listener sponsored radio outlets (not NPR) would be a good place to start. Their most popular show, Democracy Now!, has put out some fairly interesting stuff on this hearing and it surrounding issues. Here are a few links.:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/14/after_ron_suskind_reveals_bush_admin
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/13/the_way_of_the_world_ron
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/28/house_judiciary_committee_hold_historic_hearings
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/17/former_senator_mike_gravel_calls_for
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/despite_opposition_from_his_own_party
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_renowned_attorney_vincent
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/22/pentagons_pundits_a_look_at_the
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/20/to_impeach_or_not_to_impeach
The ones from 06/13, 06/17 and 07/28 have more on Bugliosi.

The grounds for impeachment are WAY too long to get into here, but you could always Google "Article of Impeachment GW Bush 2008" for the details.

So far, the committee has heard from these guys:
Robert Wexler, D-Rep Florida
Dennis Kucinich D-Rep Ohio
Sheila Jackson-Lee D-Rep Texas
Tim Johnson D-Rep S. Dakota
Tammy Baldwin D-Rep Wisconsin
Keith Ellison D-Rep
Maurice Hinchey D-Rep NY
Elizabeth Holtzman D-Rep NY
Rocky Anderson former mayor of Salt Lake City
Eliott Adams, President of Board Veterans for Peace
Bob Barr, former R-Rep from Georgia

So much for lack of interest in impeachment hearings. Who knows where this will all end up, but Bugliosi reminds us that there is no statue of limitations on murder. Tune it out if you like...or not.

Uh, you might want to check your sources ....
there are two sides to every story:

They lined up by the hundreds to be a witness to history at the Judiciary Committee's unofficial impeachment hearings of George W. Bush today.

It wasn't called that of course. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-S.F.) had balked at a real impeachment hearing. Something about fearing a voter backlash from the public, already in a bad mood about Congress' inaction on core issues.

But today's hearing by the House Judiciary Committee -- billed as an inquiry to the Bush administration's use of executive power -- was ripe with opportunity for those who want to evict the president from office.

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) accused the administration of diminishing legislative power "beyond recognition" and cited "a litany of wrongful actions," accusing the White House of "a dangerous consolidation of power."

Rep. Maurice "Mo" Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said of the White House, "I think this is the most impeachable administration in the history of our country."

But Republicans (except for one, Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, an outspoken Bush foe) defended the White House.

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee, belittled Democrats' attempts to turn the proceedings into an impeachment forum. If last month's hearing with former White House spokesman Scott McClellan amounted to a "Book of the Month Club," he said, today's is "an anger management class. Nothing is going to come out of this hearing on impeachment."

And Rep. Steve King of Iowa argued that after 45 hearings -- with such witnesses as Vice President Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, McClellan and former Ambassador Joe Wilson -- there was no evidence that the Bush administration had committed any high crimes and misdeameanors. King also claimed that a recently declassified CIA document proves the president's controversial 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from Niger are corroborated by Wilson's report.

Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) reminded them both that "to the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing."

I think the words "this is not an impeachment hearing"
tell the tale. More like an anger management class, sounds like. I wuld also be interested in the recently declassified document about the Niger incident.

They wouldn't convict a President that we all know FOR SURE committed felony perjury...don't think anyone would vote to convict even if he was impeached...and the Democrats would be basically saying "yeah, we were stupid, we believed every word he said" if they do impeach him. The same Democrats who call him ignorant, an imbecile, stupid, etc.; they are going to go on record saying this guy who is so dumb he can't tie his own shoes fooled all of us, the American people, and the whole world? And all the stuff left over from the Clinton Admin on Iraq would all come out too. Pandora's box big time. In an election year? Don't hold your breath...lol.
Progressive new sources
On reviewing the posts below, I see someone has supplied you with a number of conservative sources to investigate. For the sake of balance, here is a list I prepared a few days back of progressive sources that will also give some insight into the Obama camp and their beliefs. You could Google around with this list, but don't be overwhelmed. In my personal opinion, the Democracy Now! Amy Goodman is a nice all-round overview of all the others. Here's that link and the list.
http://www.democracynow.org/
Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman
Ariana Huffington.
Bill Mahar.
Bill Moyers.
Indymedia.
Independent Press Association (IPA)
Chris Matthews
Keith Olberman
Richard Dreyfuss
Helen Thomas
Jim Hightower
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
Naomi Klein
Al-Jazeera English
Jeremy Scahill
Robert Scheer
Nir Rosen
Allan Nairn
James Steele
John Ghazvinian
Seymour Hersh
Scotter Ritter
The Nation
Rolling Stone
Mother Jones
The American Prospect
Greg Palast

Let's put some lipstick on sources, please...
where did these "facts" come from?
Exactly, and the sources you mention actually...
back up their facts that are easily checked, not just commentary or their personal spin on things. THAT is what people need to look at. Even if they are watching those other things, when they hear something, don't take it at face value. Research it, look for facts, not statements. Trust YOURSELF.
Never heard of this - you have sources?

/


The sources as you should be reminded come from
You could get smart and educate yourself. You can look all of this up; you will find it to be fact. The paper trail is there. Heck, even Obama's own "slip ups" came out of his own mouth but I suppose you're gonna tell me they had a double in there and he didn't say anything that should be a disturbing revelation to you.
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 could site sources that say there were...
WMDs in Iraq, but would only be dismissed because they did not come from liberal media. Propaganda works both ways. At any rate, I am finished arguing with you people. I suggest we agree to disagree.
To ok, sorry, no link, too many sources

I believe we would be better off in the long run not to let government tinker around in our free market system.  Now that they have a foothold, we will never get them out.  They will infest everything from here on out.  I apologize in advance for being so windy with this post, but this is something I feel strongly about. 


 


I read a LOT of books and a lot of internet material.  I stay away from the mainstream media because it is so biased and trivial that I become annoyed and scream at the TV. Once in a while I’m exposed to it accidentally and this only confirms my opinion.


 


I can’t link you to the source of my New Deal information.  My most recent reading on this topic is:  New Deal or Raw Deal?  By Burton  Folsom.  You’ll have to hit the library.  And reading this is truly ‘déjà view all over again.’ 


 


All of the programs that FDR tried willy-nilly over his 12 years (3 terms)  had noble stated purposes, and very bad unintended consequences.  You cannot adjust a single item in our social and monetary system without it causing a cascade of effects.  (And by the way, FDR was the only president to serve three terms, at the end of which is own party introduced a bill to limit presidential terms to two!) 


 


In the earlier post I mentioned the NRA (National Recovery Act) which set wages and prices in an attempt to ‘put more money in the pocket of the working man.’  There were higher minimum wages legally mandated for workers in various industries and higher prices set for goods to support those higher wages.  The result was that smaller family-owned businesses which had competed on a local level with larger companies through lower prices could no longer do this.  Their workers were willing to stay at lower wages to remain in their small towns with these small companies, but that became illegal – treasonous, even.  Raising wages and prices made it impossible for the smaller companies to compete against national companies with their purchasing power and distribution systems. Defying the mandates sent men to jail.  Businesses closed.  Workers were put out of work, and had to move to large cities for jobs, or go on government relief. Wham!  A generation of nomads and dependents. 


 


To benefit female workers in Washington, DC, a minimum monthly salary was legislated, but it applied only to women.  The result of this was that women lost their jobs to men who were willing to work for the lower wage.  It was now illegal to pay these women their former lower salaries.  Women were put out of work, another unintended consequence.


 


Tariffs on imports resulted in a drop in our export business.  Then we had too much farm product being grown, not enough being sold, and prices dropping like a stone. 


 


The AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act) was designed to support crop prices and curb overproduction.  Since we had begun taxing imports, fewer countries were buying our exports, so our farm products were rotting in the silos.  The government had to destroy tons of it.  So farm subsidies were instituted:  If a farmer had 1000 acres, he might be offered money to take 10% of that out of production.  The choice of which part of his land to designate as out of production was up to him.  Most farms have wooded areas or poorly drained areas, etc.  So the farmer would choose his poorest acreage - that had never grown a crop. Then he would take the subsidy money and buy fertilizer or use it to irrigate other poorly producing acreage.  He would then start producing the crops that the government was guaranteeing good prices for (corn, wheat, cotton) and stop producing his other crops.  Suddenly, production of corn, cotton and wheat went up, not down.  And now we actually had to import some of the products which our farmers were no longer growing.  The consequences were the exact opposite of the intent.    


 


I won’t repeat all the information about the income tax.  Let me just say that it is happening all over again, only FDR’s top rate was 79%, and the Obama administration wants 90% of the AGI bonuses, a cap on executive salaries.  What’s next?


 


Excise taxes:  Lets tax alcohol more, or  tobacco, widgets, or electricity and gasoline to make everyone be “greener.”  Taxing us for actual miles driven in our cars, what a great idea!  It will be feasible as soon as everyone has a GPS tracker.  I’ve heard ideas floating around about taxing internet usage, if they can figure a way to measure it


 


The WPA (Works Progress Administration) was another way to funnel money to supporters of the administration.  If you could bring in the votes, you got to administer WPA funds in proportion to your usefulness.  And in turn you could dole out  jobs to those who were useful to you.  This is in large part how FDR managed to get himself elected to three terms despite an unemployment rate around 20%.  He controlled  the money and the jobs.  He had the ability to squeeze money out of any segment of society he chose.  What terrible  power to put in the wrong hands.  Hiring and firing of WPA workers were cyclical, adding workers in the months before an election, dumping them shortly after, year after year, and it seems nobody caught on.  They just agreed to vote whichever way would guarantee them a little work.  And those who could not get work had to turn to the government for relief. 


 


The ERA (Emergency Relief Act) supported by the new higher taxes had the unintended consequence of  choking off the charitable contributions which had always gone to help the poor.  A business owner being taxed at 79% is not feeling very charitable.  So the government got to take this over, and become everyone’s benefactor. And these funds were given to governors to administer.  Naturally, those states with the right sort of governor and constituency got the lion’s share of ‘relief.’  Both the WPA and the ERA were political patronage systems pure and simple.


 


And let’s not forget the voter fraud in FDR’s elections.  Precincts recorded as 100% for FDR, when republicans in the precinct swore they had voted against him.  Precincts recording more votes than registered voters living there.  Seems they had an Acorn equivalent even then. 


 


Someone on this board asked what possible purpose this administration could have for bringing down the wealthy.  The answers should be obvious.  Power.  Envy.  Covetousness.  Revenge.  And that favorite word of the new administration:  Greed.  Got news, though, if you try to take away from me something I have worked for and earned, you are the greedy one, not I.


 


To some, life is a zero-sum game.  The amount of ‘stuff’ available to them is directly reduced by the amount I have. Therefore, I must give them half to level the playing field; maybe a little more than half to make up for the sins of my father and grandfather.  It’s like a pie with only so many slices, and they deserve exactly what I have; it’s only fair.  But life in America has never been that way.  For centuries people have arrived here with nothing but the clothes on their back, taken a menial job, struggled, scrimped, persevered, and ended up owning the company.  Others, who were born and raised here, feel they just can’t catch a break and wait passively for somebody else to give them the advantages they feel others have deprived them of. 


 


So when I see this administration starting to take over businesses,  cap salaries,  tax ‘excess’ profits, legislate personal behavior, and all of the other intrusions that are yet to be disclosed, I am severely creeped out.  The un-level playing field is exactly what caused the striving and competition and sparked all the energy and invention this country is known for.  Smooth the playing field, give everybody a trophy, and a B on their report card, and I’m not sure what we end up with, but it sure as hades (oh, for the love of pete, the language police won't let me use the other H word)  won’t be America. 


 


Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.  Ben Franklin


It's the sources you use for your research
and accept as gospel truth. Worse yet are the sources you refuse to accept as truthful and reliable sources to help you distinguish between propaganda and fact.
Most non-partisan sources would not agree with you

But you would have to read something other than far-right-wing propaganda, which you probably don't.  Try getting a more global perspective and you will be less naive and less gullible. Unfortunately, if you had a more non-partisan world view you would also probably stop attributing all the problems of the world to the leftists.  And then who would you have left to insult?


Part of the fault lies with lack of follow-through in Afghanistan but the major problem lies with Pakistan which has been the major breeding ground of the Taliban and terrorists for years.  The U.S. pretty did a cut-and-run in tracking down bin Laden. 


What is the answer to all this?  I don't know.  However, I do know that Pakistan's support of terrorism and the Taliban has been in place for a long, long time and is not the result of the Iraq peace movement in the United States, despite what your extremely partisan sources may insist. 


Can you post the sources for this information?
On the face of it, it does just look like rhetoric, he said she said...that is why I would like to check the sources. Also...as far as reform...she did get the good ol' boys (governor and many commission heads) booted out. That is fact. That is plenty of reform, taking on your own party and cleaning out corruption. Would that more on both sides would have that courage. :)
andyou know this how? Please cite sources
nm
Could you please cite your sources? No fear here.
Don't you think you are being just a little presumptuous? There is nothing to fear from Saracuda. O will not be addressing her seriously because he is running against the tin man...you know, the silenced sidekick whose mouth has rusted shut that tags along behind her? How presidential do you think that he is looks when he behaves like that? Dems have BTDT 24 years ago. Geraldine Ferraro surged polls up to the sky for a week or 2, yet ended up being the same kind of sideshow JM has become when it was time to come back to earth and address campaign issues. Hype and hysteria is no substitute for substance.
If you want to know the truth, sources and dates...
are provided with this information. It is easily checked for accuracy, unlike the post above. Of course, you actually have to be interested in the truth for that to matter to you. "Nuff said.