Does not chang the fact that they chose the Bridge ...
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-09
In Reply to: A couple of facts sure seem to throw JM's flock - into fits and tizzies. amfm
over Katrina victims. FACT.
Of course, the Obama flock only sees the "good" in such a decision...
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
As to the bridge to nowhere...
she changed her mind...kinda like Biden did when first he said Obama could not be effective President as it did not lend itself to on-the-job training...now that he is on the ticket Obama is the best thing since sliced bread. If Palin is a liar...Joe Biden is a bigger one. So she got some earmarks for her city...Obama got one for his wife's employer right after they DOUBLED her salary. At least wasilla got the earmarks Palin went after...not her husband's business. Obama comes out on the wrong side of that one too.
Messy little facts about Obama/Biden...Palin still way ahead.
yah - and I have a bridge for sale
Sure, she cares about you and me. And I've got a bridge for sale too. I'll send you my address and you just send me the money order. I hope she doesn't get elected. She has no shame. She thinks if its not working one way, lets get rid of the oponent "permanently". I don't think she's smart. Somewhere someone came up with that lame-brain idea "oh but she's the smartest woman on the planet" pullease. She's not smart, she's manipulative, devious, lying and deceitful. I have read about her life and her career and never found where she looked out for the underprivaleged. It's always been me, me, me, and my rich friends. Why everyone bows down to those two ninny's I have no idea. They are a couple of trailer trash who bought their way into the political scene. Calling Hillary a socialist is a plain and simple fact. Hillary, like Karl Marx envisions the world to be a "utopia" where the "authority" takes the wealth from many and redistributes it according to the whims and principles of a few (yes I just copied that statement from an article I read - and a pretty darn good one that really gets to the truth and I could have not said it any better). And who does she believe should lead this? Herself of course.
Believe me...she is manipulative and will stop at anything to get what she wants (even if it means eliminating your oponent - and I'm not the only one who took her statements that way - half of America and half of the media who used to support and defend her took it that way too). I don't call this energetic, I call it evil. Plain and simple. She and her lobbyist friends and colleagues who are all for putting her in charge need to read the Declaration of Independence, and if they have read it they need to re-read it and follow it. This is just not a document some people wrote up for her to change at her will. This is a roadmap our forefather's drew up for America to follow. Not for Hillary & Bill to change to read how they want to rule.
A bridge to Nowhere? Really? for sale? nm
x
The fact that an article was written does not make it fact. I hope you know that. nm
.
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.
MCcAIN cited bridge to nowhere
as one reason for collapse of bridge in Minnesota. Mini-Maverick probably threw a hissy.
Don't cross a bridge that isn't built yet, if ever
I didn't vote for Obama, but I'm not upset that he won.
Back Under The Bridge, Troll
nm
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:
![](http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/images/bullet.gif") |
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.
If you really think I care about you and the country I also have a bridge for sale.
x
Obama and Biden voted for the bridge to nowhere....twice....
Hmmm....after all that castigating of Bush for Katrina...Obama and Biden had chance to shift funds for the Bridge to Nowhere to Katrina relief...and voted AGAINST it in favor of the bridge.
Now that Alaska is front and center in the news again, it is a good time to catch up on a favorite story, The Bridge to Nowhere, using the Washington Post US Congress Votes Database.
Though Gov. Palin originally supported the earmark spending on the Ketchikan bridge (“to nowhere), she eventually killed the project, choosing to spend Federal money on other infrasturcture programs.
However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn (R), who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.
Sen. McCain did not vote on the Coburn Amendment, though he is on record as opposing the Ketchikan bridge earmark.
Link to votes record below.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/1/votes/262/
If bridge builders cannot afford the cost........ sm
of a movie ticket, then what good does it do to provide/create more jobs in that genre?
Folks are hurting and they can't afford their own homes, much less movie tickets and popcorn. I say let the movie industry take a little pay cut here and there and bring their multimillion dollar projects down to a more reasonable figure and bring the films in under budget.
Please see enclosed, guess CNN will buy bridge for me, you were so enlightening.......SM
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace
September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."
President Clinton announces that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 is the largest in U.S. history
Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.
This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."
"Like our Olympic athletes in Sydney, the American people are breaking all kinds of records these days. This is the first year we've balanced the budget without using the Medicare trust fund since Medicare was created in 1965. I think we should follow AL Gore's advice and lock those trust funds away for the future," he said.
In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
"The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.
The president's news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year begins October 1, and work has been completed on only two of the 13 annual spending bills, as the Republican-led Congress and the White House remain at odds over spending allocations.
"I am concerned, frankly, about the size and last-minute nature of this year's congressional spending spree, where they seem to be loading up the spending bills with special projects for special interests, but can't seem to find the time to raise the minimum wage, or pass a patients' bill of rights, or drug benefits for our seniors through Medicare, or tax cuts for long-term care, child care, or college education," Clinton said.
"These are the things that need to be done and I certainly hope they will be and still make the right investments and the right amount of tax cuts," Clinton said.
Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the GOP wants 90 percent of the surplus used for the debt. In a CNN interview, he said the other 10 percent should be used to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus."
That approach would be in lieu of tax cuts, which "we can't do this year because the president vetoed it," Watts said.
Clinton unveiled the new numbers in a statement at the White House before departing for fund-raising events in Dallas and Houston.
"This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for real Americans." It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs."
It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.
The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.
Hope you have a real nice bridge
picked out to live under. Can't have mine!
Hope you have a real nice bridge
picked out to live under.
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??
Wanna' buy the Oakland-Bay Bridge? I'll sell it
Psst! Wanna buy a BRIDGE? A real pretty
For $700 billion extra, we'll even deliver it for ya.
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!
feel free to chose the sources
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.
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?
Fact is, since I'm not
etc., you wouldn't believe it - no matter how strong the evidence - so why would I supply you with more?
Fact is fact ???
The economy is growing. I don't care if it is exploding. The fact here is that more and more people are becoming more and more desperate. I think going to college is fine but what jobs are these people going to get when they get out of college. You mentioned something about trades...please, all the manufacturing jobs are gone. Small business...only a handful ever succeed. My guess is that most people wiped out of good paying jobs with benefits are supposed to go to Wal-Mart and just pretend everything is okay, and here in Florida, join the service industry. Money, the real god of our times, is what is killing a lot of people here in Florida. As an example, in my town, there are hundreds of small mobile home parks inhabited primarily by the elderly. The big money developers are coming in here, buying the parks and the people are out on the street. The owners of the park get millions of dollars and the people are usually offered a flat fee that would pay rent for about 2 years, or given 60 days to find a place to move their homes, On fixed income this, of course, cannot be done. Many of these folks lived all their lives doing the right thing, playing by all the rules. They moved to Florida, own a little bit of property and now they are expected to rent again and work again. An apartment 1 BR 1 BA that is decent would be around $1000. You do the math. Even those communities that are owned by the homeowners themselves have no say. Eminent domain comes into play and then they are really in trouble so...being elderly, forced out of your home, having Medicare screwed up beyond belief is okay because the economy is strong. I don't care about words or pie charts. I care about what I see and know to be true by looking at it with my own eyes. Just who is it benefitting from this growing economy?? Oh well, the market will straighten everything out, just wait.
Another thing is that everyone is not college material, even these days when a degree doesn't mean all that much anyway. It surely won't guarantee you a job and if you went to college after the 1970s you don't even have to be smart to get in; not that smart people are not in college, you just don't have to be anymore. You don't even have to know how to read..but that is for another day. How many middle management degreed people have lost their jobs...quite a few. Airlines, GM, drug companies, utility companies...all these places hire degreed people. That old sheepskin won't save you anymore.
You say the poor will always be with us and I believe that as well. I do not believe that it is okay to walk over the additional bodies that greed has produced and there are legion. You call it lack of motivation on the part of the poor. I call it greed.
By the way, I see that the Iraq election is mysteriously mirroring the US election, split right down the middle.
Oh, and the drilling in Alaska. Why don't they drill in Detroit and make some cars that use some other form of fuel. It just never ends.
Debacle...absolutely.
So is the fact sm
that Saddam's son-in-law said the WMDs were moved to Syria before the U.S. got involved. But that always gets overlooked. There are a lot of facts out there. Suffice it to say, people believe the set that fits their overall world view.
While I still do not buy the fact that....
the US has made "constant intrusion" in the middle east for oil (if that were the case, you would think that when it has not netted results in the 40+ years posters here say it has been happening, they could see the handwriting on the wall)...in fact, I don't believe it. The reason we started importing so much oil is that the lovely Democratic congresses so taxed the oil industry in this country that drilling became too expensive, they stopped building refineries because not only taxation but environmentalists raising all kind of cane, yada yada. Our own government has done it to us. Overtaxation is the cause of multiple problems and is the MAIN reason for outsourcing. People want the cheapest they can buy, so in order for businesses to meet that demand they have to offshore...because their own government has taxed them to death. Sad, but true.
I do agree with what you said about Obama not knowing squat about foreign affairs....you are right, he does not. And who he has advising him should scare the knickers off ALL of us.
Obama is a figurehead with big money backers and politcos behind him...a marionette with a hand up his back. When he is not giving "hope" and "change" speeches that have been written for him, when he has to think on his feet, he is not as "eloquent." That being said, it is the hand up his back and the people he surrounds himself with that concern me. THAT tells the tale.
I look at his voting record...one of the most liberal in the US...THAT is the real Barack Obama. He is trying to move to the center now as he doesn't think there are enough of the far left (like he really is) to get him elected. Like I said in the other post...beware the wolf in sheep's clothing. I don't trust him, I don't believe him. "Hope" and "change" are buzz words. Yeah, he wants to "change" things...but to what is the question.
It was me; I said, in fact, you were the one who had the...
inside track to what Obama thinks...I believe it was because you posted "Obama thinks" and went on to say what he thought... ;)
What I said in this post was common sense...if Obama is as smart as everyone says he is, he has sat on boards with Ayers and Ayers hosted a political fundraiser for him, so I can't imagine he doesn't know what Ayers is about. It is not exactly a secret...I wasn't very old when Ayers was doing his bombing but I know he still holds the same beliefs..he has said so on numerous occasions. So if little old me knows it, I cannot imagine Barack Obama does not know it. I never hinted what Obama THINKS about Ayers, what I said was that he knows Ayers and knows that Ayers still holds anarchist views and is not a bit bit sorry for what he did in the past. It should be obvious to anyone he knows what Ayers is about. Now what he personally thinks about Ayers...that is another story entirely. I don't know. Maybe the stuff Columbia University released will shed some light. Maybe it won't. We shall see.
The fact is
The teen was raised in that family, but as a human being she made her own decisions that her mother can't always control. Just because she didn't fully coincide with her mother's platform of abstinence, she is with her pro-life stance and keeping her baby, marrying the dad.
Fact is fact whether you want to believe it or not
Your hatred for one candidate blinds you to the truth of what your candidate is all about and who supports him.
Obama's plans for America WILL turn our country into a socialist country. They will take your hard earned money to support their programs. That is not a scare tactic, that is the truth and his website even supports those facts (the website lists all his programs he supports). If you think it's fair that I have to work 60 hours a week to support my family, but when Obama gets in there I'll now have to work 80 hours a week because the extra 20 hours I get paid for is going to go the the people who benefit from me working (when they don't). That is not free enterprise, that IS most definitely socialism. What part of that don't you understand. I learned that in grammar school. You make it sound so innocent "help our fellow American's in need". That is not helping them. That is stealing from people who work pretty darn hard at their jobs, but now have to work more hours so the government can steal it from us and give it to people who are not working and who will benefit from all these programs. That is redistrubution of wealth. That is socialism. I don't know if its communism, not sure what the difference between the two are, but I do know that a lot of the people who influenced Obama when he was growing up were communists. And if I want to "help my fellow American in time of need" I will donate to the charity I want to donate to and I will donate how much I want to. Right now I work from 7:30 am to 10:30 pm just to earn enough money to live (and have maybe an extra $10 left over at the end of a couple weeks. Now when Obama gets in I'm going to have to work from maybe 6am to 12 am if not more with the extra taxes I will have to pay. That is the cold hard truth and it doesn't sound too comforting to me.
The only thing rediculous about this post was asking if Jesus was a socialist, and then giving a sermon in the post (again that place is the faith board). Socialism was not around when Jesus lived. I also think if this was happening when he was alive people would give what they could to help out others, but Jesus would not go out and tell them you have to work double time now and give to those while they do nothing.
People seem to think they know what Jesus would do but they don't. They don't do enough researching to find out what this man was about. They just repeat what they've heard their church leader spout and then try and make others feel guilty if they don't give (but then again that is for another post).
I don't think the fact that I don't like
Obama's view on united healthcare, pro-choice, tax plans and foreign policy make me ignorant. I have a different idea on where I would like this country to be and that just isn't it. Just because it's not your viewpoint does not mean that it's ignorant.
I totally understand that conservatives are not going to be able to convince liberals to take their viewpoint and vice versa because they want different things! How hard is that for people to understand?
The sad fact is
it is so possible for it to get that bad here, for another civil war to break out. Only this time, we have bigger and better guns and equipment which will kill so many more. And don't forget, the whole world is watching us, and don't think for a second that these unfriendly countries wouldn't pounce on us in a second if they saw we were at war with ourselves.
We need to be able to debate about this without resorting to name calling, fighting, death threats, cheating, blowing things out of proportion, etc. I believe this election has thrown us way back in terms of racism and segregation. From BOTH sides! I live in Georgia and you would swear we were back in the 1930s. The animosity and tension that is growing is ridiculous.
I think our biggest problem is that we have two candidates that, for the most part, have followers who are 100% FOR them or people who are 100% against them. It's not like we are choosing who we think is the better of the two. We are choosing by saying we don't want the other guy. I'm just as guilty as everyone else. So therefore, whoever wins, there will be quite a few people who still don't agree with him and will watch his every move and be ready to point out the slightest mistake. So we are in for at least four years of being torn apart. THAT isn't going to fix anything!
We have to wake up. We have to stop getting so EMOTIONAL about this election. We have to remember that half of what these POLITICIANS say, no matter how "great" we think they are or are not, half of what they say they aren't going to do. And half of what they are saying they won't do, they will.
Either way, we need to all start living within our means and working together and helping each other, not expecting government to do it for us. That's just humanity, not politics.
No...it has to do with the fact
that some of the associations he has had in his lifetime condone terrorist attacks on our country and others condone racism by spouting hate messages from the pulpit. It has nothing to do with his name or his color. It has to do with who he associates with. If you want to know a true person.....look who they hang with. Birds of a feather, my friend.
But putting all sketchy associations aside, the bottom line is that there are issues that I just don't agree with Obama on. That is why I'm not voting for him. I do not condone abortion. I want to keep my guns. I do not want to raise taxes for anyone. I don't want to give welfare checks to people who are too lazy to get an education and work. I want to stop government spending. I want smaller government. There are just so many issues where Barrack Obama and I do not see eye to eye that I really don't even have to use his race or associations as a reason to not vote for him.
Fact
It is a fact that he did not vote for it because there was already legislation in place to protect the infant in this case.
More scare tactics.
It has nothing to do with the fact that
it is Obama's plan. It has everything to do with the fact that holding these prisoners indefinitely without processing them goes against everything our democracy stands for. I would applaud the Bush administration for doing the same thing and have written members of the current administration and Congress saying just that.
You POV is not a fact.
You give way too much importance to yourself. It's of no consequence to me anyway. In fact, I encourage O haters to continue on the same track they were on before the election and are still on. All that fear mongering, prognostications of gloom and doom, Armageddon, those witch hunts, smears and scandal vigils will do nothing more than insure O's re-election in 2012. Keep up the good work, dear.
Given the fact............ sm
that the magazine would have to procure his permission to print that photo, I would say that his permission alone verifies the fact that he is pleased with his rock-star image and America's infatuation with him.
And what you won't see anywhere is the fact....
...that there will an astronomical amount of interest piled on all this play money he keeps printing while saying out of the opposite side of his mouth that everything will be okay if consumers start spending again? I'd be happy if they would just give me back the near 2 million $ that I paid into S.S. that I probably won't ever see! But bless those illegals - they get it without a question or a hitch! This situation is not even going to get better this year - don't care WHICH station you listen to. People aren't working, gas is going back up (I guess to punish those of us who are still working????) and groceries are getting utterly ridiculous. "Share the wealth," he said? Methinks he really meant, "You are all gonna be poor except us govt officials who are gonna take every dime you have now and ever hope to have in the future".....of course, smiling that what was characterized as a "charismatic" smile? Yeah, I remember that smile - from a friend of mine who then proceeded to stab me squarely in the back - looked about the same to me.
And I do know this to be fact......
nm
And this has WHAT to do with the fact that the majority..sm
of jobs paying minimum wage are not held by teenagers looking for extra money to buy ipods.
I'm waiting scarecrow with a brain....
You might want to go even further back, or in fact. SM
I didn't say I was not a conservative. I didn't say what I was as a matter of fact. It was the FACT that the poster ASSUMED I was something that frosted me. This has nothing to do with the posts we are talking about, but you sure spent a lot of time looking for that didn't you? How about finding the original posts that actually ARE being talked about? It might take awhile, but they are there. I know you either have a lot of time, or have printed off every post and have them neatly arranged in a three ring binder.
That's what I figured. In fact,
it truly was a rhetorical question. 
The fact is the war is not illegal
It went through all appropriate channels, and we have NEVER agreed with the U.N. to approve all military actions through them. We do have agreements, but we have NEVER given the U.N. the authority to tell us whether we will go to war or not. The congress has ultimate authority to approvate any military action we pursue, period. They approved it, so it's completely legal.
|
