Evidently, pubs didn't care that McC directly denied
Posted By: McC campaign trying to blame O for Troopergate. s on 2008-10-11
In Reply to: From what I've seen on this board... - lil
tried to diffuse all the scare tactics fall-out. What I want to know is why would McC supporters and their campaign turn a blind eye to a frightened senile old woman and keep right on pushing agendas that will produce more such embarrassing moments for their own candidate? Is this the kind of leadership we can expect under a McCain regime? How disconnected is this candidate from his own campaign management and supporters? Is that really the picture you want to paint for him? How much more fuel do you guys intend to use to stoke the fires of ignorance, division and deceit?
McCain seemed really sad last night when he tried to reassure that shaking, frail, senile old woman, but instead of looking presidential, he just looked like a beaten down has-been. Congratuations on an utterly moronic campaign strategy. Enjoy the fall-out.
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
That should read: McCain directly denied
then continue reading the above post. time for another cup of coffee.
Well you evidently didn't -
read the article. Can't stand hearing that McCain and Obama are closing in on the polls can you. Not even when it's from CNN which is a liberal station.
Next you really need to change your name. If you are a Christian I am glad I am not one because all you are filled with is hate!
Evidently you didn't read the package.
Most of the money will not go to the people. So far, I have not come across anything that deals with foreclosures, etc. The item I posted last night from our local newspaper is the so-called stimulus package that will help foreclosures.
Read the doggone bill that they are trying to pass, please. Then you may see the light of day.
Evidently you didn't read the post....
no one said a black person wouldn't vote for anyone but Obama (HELLO.....Steele, etc., etc.).
You evidently didn't read my post - it was not a question
of if you think he's done harm. He has, it's a fact and no matter how much you want to cover it up you can't. You think bowing to our enemy, telling other countries we are selfish, and that we don't want our jobs so they can have them, tripling our deficit (nothing Bush had to do with -sorry can't pull that crap anymore), lining the pockets of his rich friends and CEOs, filling his cabinet with unqualified crooks and thieves, and the list goes on and on and on. And that's just the first 90 days. So the question was how many more years will it take to undo the harm. You can keep drinking the kool-aid thinking socialistm/communism is fine. It is not. Even the other countries keep telling him - "Don't go there, it is not a path you want to take", while other country leaders who are telling him not to go there are saying "why aren't you listening to us. We've been there and done that and it doesn't work".
Hence, how many more years will it take to undo the harm he has already done (and its only been less than 90 days). My guess is at least 2. It's going to be hard once he's out of office, but I do have faith the country will bounce back as long as we have some decent politicians in the office and take congress out from the control of the crats.
the pubs care more about "mericans than dems? hahahahahaha!
You ever hear of Halliburton?
Didn't say that. You did. It's the pubs who
JM's economic meltdown plan is exactly what now?
The pubs didn't cripple the economy?
You're snorting Kool-Aid not just swallowing it. How much has that war, based on lies and deception, cost us already? All you can blather about is abortion and welfare - famous republican diatribes to get the self-righteous fired up. I guess ignorance is bliss.
how do you know that? maybe they didn't care
mean they have to suddenly believe Obama is a wonderful person and will do wonderful things for this country.
On this board, anyone who likes Obama thinks anyone who doesn't MUST have been a McCain supporter. Never seems to phase you that they don't care for Obama because he is not the right guy for the job. NOT BY FAR!
Believe it or not, a lot of us old Democrats didn't care for him either. ..
.
She has not denied it...sm
From what I'm reading after she was criticized she offered Bush her help even though it was 'not her department.'
And just as many of his friends denied he was a racist. sm
so who do you believe? You believe the ones saying he is a racist because that fits the *mold* that the Republican party has been cast in. Never mind that all the members of the *black caucus* in the House are blatantly racist. I cannot name the number of times I have heard Maxine Waters use racist language. George Allen is a racist because some friends of his say he was in college. I say he is not because some friends of his say he wasn't. The truth is, neither of us knows for sure. Ford claims racism in the reason he was not elected, but I never heard Lynn Swan or Michael Steele use the phrase. Why is it that blacks cannot get behind black candidates who happen to be Republican? Michael Steele had a bipartisan group of pastors working for him. That should say something about the man. J. C. Watts made it to the Senate because Oklahoma is a very conservative state. Would he have made it in New York. I don't think so, not as a Republican. What exactly is racism? Observor's question about Robert Byrd is a valid one. I don't know that one can get more racist that a grand wizard with the KKK. So is racism okay only if one is a Democrat? Ponder that for a few minutes.
Denied they had a "nightstick", then told it was on
nm
What you say is true, but if relevant evidence is denied sm
or falsified, an objective approach is impossible. This is what the family members faced. They had to force Bush to form that commission to investigate. Coulter is now attacking them for that. They had a list of 400 questions, and got no answers. I agree with you on the wacky theories. I became interested in doing some research on the issue after hearing things around the area I live - Colorado Springs. This is the neocon capital of the United States, and home to Norad and Space Command, Ft. Carson, USAFA, Peterson AFB, Falcon AFB. They live and breathe Bush & military. At first, I thought they were only rumors. Norman Mineta's testimony to the 911 Commission confirmed them to be true. The second question I had was about WTC building 7. This building only had small fires and was not hit by an airplane. It came straight down like the other 2 into a nice neat pile. The owner of the building Silverstein said they made a decision to pull it. This is a demolition term for demolishing the building. Well, this is something that takes careful planning weeks in advance, not several hours. I am also hearing bizarre stories from troops returning from Irag and their family members. Mineta's testimony was shown on C-Span and here is the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y&search=mineta
I never saw the movie The Siege. Not a Bruce Willis fan. Anything with Matt McConaughey in it, I have seen.
The other Obama B/C case is denied by SCOTUS.
I wonder how many more of these cases are out there. 
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES |
08A469 |
WROTNOWSKI, CORT V. BYSIEWICZ, CT SEC. OF STATE |
The application for stay and/or injunction addressed |
to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied. |
Actually, it CAN be denied; most rankings show it's CNN that's truly tanking.
nm
On 3/17, Specter denied planning to switch. Here's the quote:
(Link provided below)
In a March 17th interview with The Hill, Specter said he absolutely would not switch parties:
"[Democrats] are trying very hard for the 60th vote. Got to give them credit for trying. But the answer is no.
I'm not going to discuss private talks I had with other people who may or may not be considered influential. But since those three people are in the public domain, I think it is appropriative to respond to those questions.
I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That's the basis of politics in America. I'm afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That's a very important principle in the operation of our government. It's in the Constitution on separation of powers."
Thanks for the civics lecture, Arlen. Apparently this is just another one of those "inconvenient truths" that got to be more than you could actually live with, eh buddy?
Well point to the law that directly gives
our military authority over the U.N.? Where is the AGREEMENT that says we have to approve military action through the U.N.? It was not covered in my college political science class or the numerous classes I took between high school and college. We have consulted the U.N. before taking military action AND consulted and worked with the UN for YEARS on the Iraq situation. Iraq/S Saddam consistently and constantly thumbed his nose to the U.N. authorities and broke inspection agreements. I know that not every one in the U.N. supported the war, but if I'm remembering the correctly there was not enough opposition to put up a direct U.N. declaration to oppose the war.
I think we are reading different versions of history and the laws of the land.
Post directly above this
x
Huh? Two of the posters are directly below
_
Really? A lib posted directly under here
and presented an interesting challenge to sm about the Bloomberg article in "while analyzing those millions." Instead of claiming that liberals "always attack the messenger," talking about how they don't want to be educated, making wisecracks about mindreading and trying to belittle them for ALWAYS being on the attack, why don't you pitch in and help sm answer that little puzzler about the FDIC funds referred to in the article? So far, we see no one stepping forward to answer that challenge. It's not that hard. She gave 2 clues.
Well I actually do believe he was talking directly
about the O when he was addressing their failed PM. Two failures in charge of countries. I think if the PM can come sliming here begging for money, this guy should come over and explain to our congress (cos they don't evidentally get it) what they have done to the economy of the world. But the speach he gave might as well been talking right to the enlightened one.
It was a reply to the post directly above it...
"In his private career, seems like he did a lot of work for the poor and several civil rights cases. I guess that would make some conservatives a little afraid of him :-)"
It is the taunt I was replying to. Democrats have not in the past had a stellar reputation for championing the civil rights of African Americans and I pointed that out. And they became interested in the poor African American AFTER they finally got the right to vote. Coincidence?
Again, respectfully...replying the the taunt.
To answer your question directly
Would I accept less to save a MTSO, no I would not, but then we're not making near what the auto workers are making, apples and oranges. I feel I pesonally have to take a stand regarding ASR and pay for such. What they're asking us to take is ridiculous. Regardless of global economy, we still live in the good ole US of A and have a certain standard of living to uphold. As long as it is possible I will not do ASR nor will I edit reports being typed abroad. I left MQ last year, refusing to put up with their nonsense. Thankfully I only have a few years til retirement.
I did address it directly. In the post above....
and you proved my point about the attacking. Typical dem.
Took your advice - went directly to the source -
Okay, went to the source. Says the same thing - Obama 49, McCain 47 with likely voters.
Drudge shows the facts. You were okay with them when they favored your candidate.
What I am hearing is if Obama was so much better than McCain he would certainly have a much larger lead (like 20 points or more), but he doesn't, which goes to show that it is a very close race and you need to prepare yourself that either candidate could win.
Thanks for that info. I did go directly to this man's site...
and he talks about his email there also. I don't put much stock in any web-based sites; too much can be fabricated through the guise of anonymity.
I am talking Palin directly
That person who protrayed herself to be so righteous, so godly, Miss Goody-Goody has lots of skeletons in her closet yet to be all shaken out. It was really, really important when all just held onto every little word or piece of clothing that did not belong to her in the first place discussed. I am glad to see her falling off that high horse, yes I am.
Bravo Zauber..well said and directly to the point..
I will never understand how people think that opposing an erroneous(in this case fictional and delusional) government policy is unpatriotic and a detriment to our troops. I don't want to see any more die for reasons that do not nor have ever existed.
If someone ever posts something directly about one of Obama's children...
like that nastiness posted about Sarah Palin's daughter, I would be criticizing that as well. THere is absolutely NO reason for bringing a candidate's children into the political battleground. I have seen nothing posted here about lies about Obama's family other than some posters taking shots at the way the two women dress, and Cindy McCain got it as bad as Michelle Obama. I think that is pretty silly on both sides. I saw someone post what Michelle said about being proud of her country. It went away pretty quickly. I saw a lot of worse things about cindy Mcain winning her battle over prescriptin drug addiction, but the posts were much more hateful, mean, and personal.
Michelle Obama was out stumping for her husband and she said something in public people thought she should explain.
Barack Obama used drugs in his youth and was open about it. No one here condemned that. yet they tore the hide of Cindy McCain in strips because she admitted an addiction to prescription drugs because of an injury. do you find that fair? At ALL fair?
Why can't we at the very LEAST leave minor children out of this???
The moderator asked you to stop directly below this post.
You don't know the meaning of the word *respectful.* You want to come here and censor this board and lay down the law about what is *newsworthy* and what isn't, the same way you people want to control every aspect of every American's life. How ya makin' out in that regard? Not too well, eh? 
You and your other sidekick(personality?) below don't come here to debate.
You come here to incite, and regardless of your promises, you'll never leave. Nobody is bothering you on your board, and you have to release your evil vile hatred somewhere or else you will explode, so you come here.
If you want to see vicious, consult the nearest mirror.
Typical pub. Can't address a single issue directly.
nm
who could possibly care? War, financial ruin, health care needs.
nm
You should but evidently you don't.
Did you bother reading it before you posted?
Evidently everybody here gets this
except you. It will never fly. Will be looking forward to your retraction on this stupidity.
Yes, the chips exist honey. I was speaking directly to the hysteria evoked
It shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the world and the peoples who inhabit it.
As to those that perpetuate this mythos...well, if you allow anyone to prey on your fears, you give them power over you. People need to investigate all sides of an issue, not just the perspective they agree with or the one spoonfed to them.
Not to mention that the "Jihaad" holy war itself was caused directly from Daddy Bush having to
rush in with Desert Storm in order to secure the oil wells, securing the oil for all his oil baron friends and himself. Bin Laden himself said that when we rushed in, we had "tainted" Muslim soil and felt he had to retaliate. Of course, these are the ravings of a madman, but Bush policies directly inflamed the already hostile Taliban fighters. Also, the Bush and Bin Laden families have a long history in the business world, and the night of September 11th, the government made it pssible for Bin Laden family members in this country to flee and not face retaliation........please look it up in the newgroups, I have seen many amazing documentaries about these facts on Discovery, History Channel, Military Channel, and some of the news channels.
You evidently don't know what a NeoCon is.
She is not one of them. Why do you think Bush & Cheney and other NeoCons are upset by this pick.
Is this what the democrat party has turned into...hateful, mean-spirited, sour, and jealous. Your comments are about the lowest I have seen in a long time.
The only thing I can think of is that you thought because Bush was such a horrible president and everyone hates him that Barack and Joe would just be able to waltz in and take over. Now the republicans have a good VP candidate and there is more and more discussions about how JM has just elevated his chances of winning. The more people are learning about her the more they are like her and all reports for both conservative and liberals are in agreement with one thing...this is an amazing lady and definitely qualified to become the first woman president in history.
You are just grasping at straws trying to invent things that are not true and just stir up trouble.
Your comments are so juvenile. I just say thank goodnes at least I'm not in grammar school anymore.
Evidently you are not following your own thread
The rational people are the Obama folks who will not engage in the foolishness of the conspiracy theory to nowhere and the brick wall...well, that would be you, "Everyone should be interested!"
She has it right - evidently you don't know what it means
In Wikipedia: In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation.
Dictionary.com: 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
For sure Obama is committing treason.
Whether he gets in or not Hillary Clinton should file a law suit against him. She understand the country better than he does and would make our country a better. We all know whose skeletons are in Hillary's closet. Obama's are just starting to come out.
If they lose I truly hope to hear of a lawsuit as Obama's lies will be what causes them to lose and the democrats a chance of getting in.
So you say, but evidently the courts
I have a tendency to agree with them....so do an overwhelming majority of rational citizens who are just as disgusted as I am over the mental illness that is the driving force behind this lunacy.
Evidently, she did't quite catch your drift.
nm
Evidently these tiresome accusations
Ever get the feeling you are being tuned out? Boy cries wolf once too often?
Evidently, better than you do. I'm backing the winner,
Better luck next time. Do us all a favor and nominate Failin/Bailin/Palin in 2012.
Different strokes for different folks, but evidently....
I respect your opinion, but do not share it...not on any level.
Evidently not. It's 2930 more days until 01/17/17.
x
Evidently, this is nothing new - check date
Recently, one of the most irksome members of the Senate, Joe Lieberman (I-Clowntown) expressed openness to one of the boldest and most effective climate-change policies possible. Some background,
A cap-and-trade system begins by placing a cap on carbon emissions and distributing permits (permission to emit a certain amount of CO2) equal to the capped amount. The notion is that permits will be bought and sold, allowing market forces to determine where emission reductions can be made fastest and easiest. The question is how to distribute those initial permits.
When the EU carbon trading system was established, permits were given away based on emissions, meaning the biggest polluters got the most permits. The idea was that those polluters most needed the money because they had the biggest reductions to make, but in practice it was an enormous financial windfall for their shareholders and prompted very little action on their part to reduce emissions.
The alternative is to sell the permits at auction. This would, in effect, put the proceeds in government coffers rather than in the pockets of utility shareholders. The question then becomes: what should the gov't do with all that money (up to $50B a year)?
The Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade proposal, released early this year, was widely seen as the "moderate" bill that could get some support from Senate Republicans. One of the biggest criticisms it faced is that it would auction only 20% of the permits -- 80% would be given away to polluters.
But an intriguing item in Politico indicates that Lieberman may be open to changing that:
Lieberman, following a forum sponsored by the Progressive Policy Institute Wednesday, said such a change to his legislation was possible. "We've heard [calls for a 100 percent auction] from some stakeholders and heard that from some of our members. We're thinking about it. Warner and I haven't closed our minds to that. It's on the table," he said.
This could be huge news. The L-W proposal is viewed as the middle of the road. If it moves to 100% auctioned credits, that will effectively sanctify it as the new baseline. The policy and political implications are both huge.
Prove it - You evidently have done your research
I just went back through the last three pages to when I first began posting. Never once did I start off badgering posters calling them names. Not to Mrs. B or anyone else on this board. I have even posted that I was wrong on some issues. I'm never disrepectful of posters. Just because I have a difference of opinion with someone doesn't mean anyone should be disrespectful and I'm not.
So seeing as you are acusing me of having a nasty attitude I want you to find the post and prove it. I've just gone through every single post. I have not been the one initiating anything. But call me Newton, and yes I'll reply by calling you Einstein. So I guess that makes me the nasty name calling and not her?
Telling someone I think they are wrong and explaining why is not having a nasty attitude. Calling someone names for no reason is.
My pardons to you, then. It was evidently picked up by
Fox and of course had the 'ole Fox spin put on it, riling up once again the unstable.
Evidently you hadn't heard the latest.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
and
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76933
Evidently, some rich folks have a conscience
for the sake of COUNTRY FIRST.
|
Posted September 20, 2007 | 05:06 PM (EST)