Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Exactly, and the sources you mention actually...

Posted By: sam on 2008-09-28
In Reply to: the tide's-a-turnin' - Frannie May

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.

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


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



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:
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.
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.
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.:
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.
Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman
Ariana Huffington.
Bill Mahar.
Bill Moyers.
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?
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
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.
Or how many 100s legitimate sources you
Didn't check hundreds, but did check conservative figures on this before posting in an effort to be fair.
It's called credibility of sources...

fact checking, research.....get the idea yet?  Again, rumors started by a person who won't even identify themself is not fact the last time I checked.

Oh, and by the way, why is it okay for this person to stay anonymous and not okay for the source of the infamous tape you like to talk about so much?

Please note sources within this article...
You know, I'm all for alternative energy sources....sm
But there are unintended consequences to everything.

The windfarms that they have as an experiment here in eastern Montana, have killed hundreds of birds and over a thousand bats.

This is not good. It reminds me of all the honeybees that are disappearing around the world. I lean towards the cell phone tower theory on the bees, that somehow it is disorienting them, and killing them, before they can return to their hives....maybe even contributing to the fungus that some scientists say have killed the bees.

This year, we didn't think our bats were going to show up, and we wondered where they were. We usually have one or two that show up in June, and take up residence under our eaves, and behind our thermostat on the deck. We see them fly at sunset, and they eat upwards of 1200 insects an hour.....if the bats disappear, the insects will remain, and who knows what the unintended consequences may be....

Just food for thought.....

And you know this how? Cite sources. Give stats.
Status even as old as 10 days ago would not reflect the shift in POTUS since the Palin debaucle. Your Obama bash has nothing to do with POTUS. Supposed you explain what you are talking about now. What do you feel so compelled to blame his for this morning?
Uh..The sources refuting this are DNC officials.. like they'd tell the truth about it
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.


Check the sources/web site names..
Whenever you receive one of the forwarded political emails, or watch something political on You Tube, look in the address bar and see what web site or original email address it comes from. One of the greatest things about the internet is that anyone can create a web site or send emails. And one of the worst things about the internet is that anyone can create a web site or foward emails. You have to learn to research the source and take into consideration the bias and intention of the originator.
Right-wing websites are the only sources I'm finding.....
People from all over the world own property in the US....so, in that respect, it is nothing new. Whether or not they'll get "bailed out" is whole nother ball of wax.
Stop complaining about where she gets her sources - see messages
Especially since you only post from MSNBC. Who cares that someone posts from Fox, MSNBC, CNN or whoever. You have nothing to complain about the content of the information, just where she posts from. Personally I trust Fox over MSNBC, CNN, Huffington post or any of the far left liberal rags. At least we get the truth from Fox. If all Fox did was praise the annointed one up and down and all over and was giving us lies 24 hours a day like MSNBC, CNN and others you'd be praising them. You just don't like to hear the reality of what is happening.

Here's a hint - Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN all report the same exact news. They just have different commentator shows.

P.S. - Louis Farrakan called Obama the Messiah. I'm sure he's not a conservative (could be wrong, but I don't think he is). Also, Obama NEVER came out to say I am NOT the Messiah. He let people think this with all the miracles he was professing he would do once he got in. The liberals are the one who have said "Obama is the new Messiah". So, everyone just picked up on what the liberals were taughting (sp?) throughout the campaign. Unfortunately too many ignorant people believed it.

So please, enough with whining that someone posts an article from Fox.
Put up or shut up. Give examples, cite sources
Well surely Obama doesn't fund all sources
a name please of a source you would consider credible.
well now that you mention it....sm
Once Foley gets out of rehab, he should go back to his old position over the Missing and
Exploited Children Caucus just to be fair.

And since Studd had a 17-year-old page boyfriend 23 years ago, how dare anyone mention what Foley was doing online. Hassart and the rest of you interested republicans should continue to minimize Foley's actions and play partisan politics (even though this is no political matter and I don't look at it as such). Just so you know, it doesn't look good on you. Daniel Crane (republican, also having an affair with a 17-year-old page back in 1983) didn't resign either - he was voted out. I don't know how or why Studd continued be voted in, but he should have stepped down.

Frank and Clinton were dealing with adults, so I look at their situations completely different. And talk about outrage and hypocrisy, look at the people who were probing Clinton with their own hands in the cookie jar (or should I say intern jar). Still much different than pedophilia.
Now that you mention it
You totally missed the part where I said they were all wrong. They were ALL wrong. Studd did have an underage page boyfriend, physical sex with an underage boy and BRAGGED about it. Foley had internet sex and at least had the good sense to be ashamed of it instead of holding a press conference to DEFEND his behavior, or like Frank, throw out his gay roommate who was running a sex trade out of his apartment (I swear I didn't know he was doing that...YEAH RIGHT). You also glossed over the fact that Clinton, while in office, after an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, lied his rear off on TV in front of ALL of us on national television...this is not disputed, the man committed perjury. And somehow you excuse that kind of behavior, but want Foley's head on a platter? Yeah, that makes real good sense. Inever defended Foley; I don't care what party he is in, what he did was WRONG. I don't care what party Bill Clinton was in, what he did was WRONG. Studd was WRONG. Barney Frank was WRONG. All equally WRONG. I doubt if all the boys Frank's roommate was running through his apartment as prostitutes were all adults. Monica Lewinsky was 21...barely legal. So that somehow makes it okay for Bill to cheat on his wife in the White House and then commit perjury. Yeah, that makes perfect sense (in YOUR world maybe). You proved my hipocrisy point by saying you look Frank and Clinton completely different. I said they were ALL wrong. You continue to say what Foley did was somehow worse. At least he kept his perversion on line and his hands off... not like Clinton and Studd. Get a grip. They are ALL wrong. Mark Foley did not do what he did because he was a Republican; Clinton, Studd, and Frank did not do what they did because they are Democrats. They are all morally corrupt. Period, end of sentence.
not to mention all the

lobbyists on McCain's staff.


Not to mention s/m

Not to mention the half mil or so those execs spent on a luxury vacation just hours after they got the bail-out money.  This is INSANE.  I think to a large degree things are playing out just as dubya and his side-kick Cheney had planned.  Those two, in my humble opinion, are a couple of EVIL men.

I say no bail out for anyone.  What's done is done.  The idiots in Washington need to SHUT UP and in particular, the sensation-seeking talk shows need to also SHUT UP.  They all need to start talking about bringing jobs back to AMERICA and if there was no demand for credit from consumers, there would be no credit crunch.  Live without your means.  If you bought a $100,000 house you couldn't afford and it's now worth $50,000, tough toenails!  People who bought into the "home equity line of credit" BS deserve what they got.  I don't believe I would care to subsidize their stupidity.  Now it's about the seniors, TV ads for reverse mortgages for them.  Seniors who buy into that garbage, I'd like to sell them the Garden of Eden!!!!! 

I don't know the answer to immediately get rid of all these bums in the government.  I wish we could have a general election and fire every single one of them....DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN!!!!

With that I'm off to cook the trout we caught this morning.

What about it? Do you see any mention of O or B
There has been a lot of mention

of God being involved in this election.  I do think that God will be involved in this election.  However, our country has pushed Him out of our lives so much that it wouldn't surprise me if He let us fall flat on our faces.  I hate to say that, but you can't pray in schools.  People don't want to say the pledge to the flag because of His name being mentioned.  The 10 commandments are being removed from court houses.  Seriously....what have we become?  I understand the concept of keeping  church and state separate but it seems more to me like we are removing Him totally and that upsets me.  The mere mention of him by a candidate, particularly a repubican one, gets people in an uproar about religious fanatics and Bible thumpers, etc.  It is just sad. 

I hope that we pick the candidate who will get us out of this crisis, but maybe that just isn't in His plans.  Whatever may happen, I just pray that God gives us the strength to take on any challenge that may face us....because let's face it people....we are going to have major challenges if either candidate is president.

Not to mention, it's
You know, now that you mention it, I
is going to vote for, after all he doesn't think Obama has enough experience and he thinks McCain does, and he would be glad to run on a ticket anytime with McCain. Has he ever retracted those statements? Hillary said McCain has 30+ yrs of experience and Obama has a speech he made in 2000. Does she still stand by that statement, you betcha!
Sorry, I did not see any mention

WASHINGTON -- A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may -- may not, I hope not -- but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.

I don't see mention........... sm
of pilots being laid off, only that some of the leased jets are being returned to the leasing company. Apparently, they are retaining some of the jets and will therefore need pilots for them. My personal opinion is that ALL company jets should be returned as a part of their cost-cutting measures. SEVEN jets for 1 company seems just a little ridiculous. The pilots, though, will likely be able to find work with one of the major airlines if all the jets are returned.
Not to mention all of the
blatantly broken promises from the president.  The man who is actually the commander and chief of our country and they want to spend time talking about a teenager who got knocked up.  I guess it doesn't matter that Obama obviously bowed to the Saudi King and then turned around and lied about it and said he only leaned forward because the man was short.  Well....I do believe the queen is about as short as they come and I didn't see him bowing to the queen.  But hey....why focus on lies made by the president or the amount of money that he and his administration are spending when we could focus on important issues like Sarah Palin's daughter.  I guess as long as we drink the kool-aid and focus on the important issues we will truly hsee ow great Obama the all powerful really is.
Reminder to check out sources WorldNetDaily is conservative website
Since this is a liberal board, I wanted to point out that the website posted above by anon is to a website that is notoriously very right-wing conservative as well as at times inflammatory and slanderous.

Now, the specific article that the link takes you to about the Clintons, I have no argument with that...

Maybe others who went to this site already knew that it is right wing - but I didn't. And, in case others didn't, I wanted to point it out. We have to be careful what we feed our brains. I had never heard of it before, and saw a lot of awful inflammatory headlines there and wondered why.

I did a quick Google by searching "is worldnetdaily reputable" and the first link is very informative.


So, this email is for any of you who, wondered what this website was about. Hope someone found this helpful or informative.
i wish she would mention that little point
running to polls and voting for her.
Did I mention at any time anything about
SP pregnant child? At all? Anywhere? You keep injecting her into the conversation, a conversation where she was never mentioned, has nothing to do with her, or with any other politician really, but you get after everyone else for bringing up the fact that SP daughter is pregnant. How can we let it rest if you keep bringing it into the coversation.

I am an independent and it does bear looking at, but the whole article was just ridiculous to me. If someone is going to say that someone follows a communist give me something more substantial than rallies and cheers, etc.
I do believe you just insulted me....not to mention...sm
my husband.

Be that as it may, I come to expect it of certain posters on this board.

If you can't understand it, then I can't explain it to you. You'll only call me worse names, so why should I bother?