For the record, Teddy/Taiga....
Posted By: Observer on 2007-12-01
In Reply to: As you asked, here's a few... - Taiga
the rest of the post said when it wasn't in response to what had been thrown at me first. Methinks you are very guilty of what you always accuse me of....cutting and pasting out of context. Teddy is taking over again.
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
Not even close Teddy/Taiga....
not EVEN close. lol.
Hi there Taiga! sm
I think both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are very intelligent and dynamic individuals. My only exception to Hillary was her yes vote regarding Iraq. As a woman I would be quite enthralled to see, for the first time in American history, a woman elected to the highest office in the nation. I'm old enough to remember when the political arena was strictly off limits to women, and if she gets elected this would be a historic first!!
Sheeeessshhhh, Taiga....
Do you like it better from Common Dreams? Pay special attention to the part out distancing himself from the antisemitic comments (McGovern).
Published on Saturday, June 18, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
John Conyers' Letter to the Washington Post
June 17, 2005
Mr. Michael Abramowitz, National Editor;
Mr. Michael Getler, Ombudsman;
Mr. Dana Milbank;
The Washington Post,
1150 15th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20071
Dear Sirs:
I write to express my profound disappointment with Dana Milbank's June 17 report, "Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War," which purports to describe a Democratic hearing I chaired in the Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post's only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even more egregious.
In an inaccurate piece of reporting that typifies the article, Milbank implies that one of the obstacles the Members in the meeting have is that "only one" member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or Senate. This is not only incorrect but misleading. In fact, just yesterday, the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, mentioned it on the Senate floor. Senator Boxer talked at some length about it at the recent confirmation hearing for the Ambassador to Iraq. The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently signed on to my letter, along with 121 other Democrats asking for answers about the memo. This information is not difficult to find either. For example, the Reid speech was the subject of an AP wire service report posted on the Washington Post website with the headline "Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight". Other similar mistakes, mischaracterizations and cheap shots are littered throughout the article.
The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that House Democrats "pretended" a small conference was the Judiciary Committee hearing room and deriding the decor of the room. Milbank fails to share with his readers one essential fact: the reason the hearing was held in that room, an important piece of context. Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.
In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to discredit the entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the witnesses as making an anti-semitic assertion and further describes anti-semitic literature that was being handed out in the overflow room for the event. First, let me be clear: I consider myself to be friend and supporter of Israel and there were a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were in attendance at the hearing. I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting Israeli control over U.S. policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11 tragedy disgusting and offensive.
That said, to give such emphasis to 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute hearing that included the powerful and sad testimony (hardly mentioned by Milbank) of a woman who lost her son in the Iraq war and now feels lied to as a result of the Downing Street Minutes, is incredibly misleading. Many, many different pamphlets were being passed out at the overflow room, including pamphlets about getting out of the Iraq war and anti-Central American Free Trade Agreement, and it is puzzling why Milbank saw fit to only mention the one he did.
In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank makes much of other lawmakers calling me "Mr. Chairman" and says I liked it so much that I used "chairmanly phrases." Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing unusual about my being referred to as Mr. Chairman.
To administer his coup-de-grace, Milbank literally makes up another cheap shot that I "was having so much fun that [I] ignored aides' entreaties to end the session." This did not occur. None of my aides offered entreaties to end the session and I have no idea where Milbank gets that information. The hearing certainly ran longer than expected, but that was because so many Members of Congress persevered under very difficult circumstances to attend, and I thought - given that - the least I could do was allow them to say their piece. That is called courtesy, not "fun."
By the way, the "Downing Street Memo" is actually the minutes of a British cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British officials - having just met with their American counterparts - describe their discussions with such counterparts. I mention this because that basic piece of context, a simple description of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank's article.
The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn't make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter-whether more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that viewpoint.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
FYI, I googled it because I had heard that Conyers tried to distance himself after the antisemitic rant of McGovern. The Front Page thing came up. First time I have ever read Front Page, had no idea it was a hard right wing site. From now on I will look for the far left wing sites, how's that? The truth is the truth, doesn't matter what "page" it is posted on. GEEEZZZ.
All righty then, Taiga....
we can finally put this to rest. You are posting as Taiga, and you close the post with:
"And if all this has grown tiresome why do you continue to read my posts and respond?"
So, Teddy, tell me again how you do not post under different monikers. Can we please drop this whole liar thing now???
Yup, Taiga has come out of the closet
Where did I ever say I don't post under other monikers?
Taiga is the name I have used on the Medquist board for just about as long as this board has been in existence. I had always thought it wise to keep a political persona separate from a work persona but with all these accusations of fraud and "untruthfulness" I will no longer be using Teddy and will stick to Taiga from now on with any posting I do on the MTStars board.
Actually my original moniker on the political board, going back several years, even back to when both libs and cons were put together under one grouping was "Observer." When you began posting as "Observer" I switched to Teddy for obvious reasons. So in the end, there really are more than one of us elitist, snobbish jerks out there!!
Bottom line, Taiga....
did Murtha or did Murtha not say "The surge is working?" Yes, he did. Why did CBS choose not to print all the disclaimers? You got me, I don't know. As to Murtha adding the disclaimers, he probably suddenly remembered he is going to have to talk to Pelosi come Monday. I don't blame him, I would be backpedaling too. lol.
It does not matter who reported it, Taiga...
there are facts within it that are not in dispute. Take the Tim Russert thing for example. He had the pictures of the 747 fuselage at Salman Pak. He showed it on his TV show. He showed it to Cheney. Only at that time, it was RUSSERT who was saying to CHENEY "Can you honestly sit there and tell me you don't think there is a 9-11 connection?" That is a fact, Taiga. It happened. I can see why no one else would report it. And as to timely? You have to report it when it happened. And it did happen. All I am saying is...basically you can't believe ANYONE because the left wing and the right wing have been on both sides, top and bottom of this issue. They have all flip-flopped on it. So WHO do you believe? I tend to believe the picture. I have seen the picture. They showed the picture on TV numerous times (the Salman Pak picture). And as the article stated, none of those facts are in dispute, even from the 9-11 commission, except one.
As to the 9-11 Commission...don't get me started. Did you actually watch any of it while it was happening? Talk about a stacked deck and questions asked to get certain answers. What a JOKE that was. That being said, there is a lot of information that came out that never made it to the "assessment" they put out. I was watching it during the time George Tenet testified. He says in his book he never said slam dunk, but he darn well did, I HEARD him. And that never made it into the "assessment" either. I purposely watched as much of the 9-11 hearings as I could, because I knew a lot was not going to make the "assessment." Independent they were not. That was exceedingly obvious from the questioning.
I do not understand your penchant for "timely." If something happened, it happened. That is what I mean about selective memory. You remember it if it is germane to your discussion, and you dismiss it as "the past" (like it never happened) and use "timely" as an excuse. I really don't get that. But, I don't have to...whatever floats yer boat.
Your figures just further validate Taiga's post.
She said, "Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below." Your figures support that statement.
For Taiga...sorry I did not answer your post about CBS and Politico...
as to I should let CBS know that the Iraq link in their article went to Politico....this is from the CBS news site:
From Our Partner:
soooooo I'm thinking CBS knows that the link went to Politico...ya think?? You falsely accused me, and you were wrong. I DID get my article from CBS.
Just keeping the record straight.
Thanks Teddy :-)
I appreciate that and I hope someone can respond to the questions I raised.
Teddy
For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology
Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”
In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.
In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.
According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.
Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book.
Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on “Interpretation and Education (Director’s Order #6) which reinforces the posture that materials on the “history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.”
“As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,” Ruch added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. “We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job.”
Read the PEER letter to NPS Director Bomar
View the NPS admission that no policy review on the creationist book has occurred
See the 2005 NPS Director’s Order #6 on Interpretation
8.4.2 Historical and Scientific Research. Superintendents, historians, scientists, and interpretive staff are responsible for ensuring that park interpretive and educational programs and media are accurate and reflect current scholarship…Questions often arise round the presentation of geological, biological, and evolutionary processes. The interpretive and educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism. The facts, theories, and interpretations to be used will reflect the thinking of the scientific community in such fields as biology, geology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and paleontology. Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes. Programs, however, may acknowledge or explain other explanations of natural processes and events. (Emphasis added)
Trace how the creationist book controversy started and grew
Look at tax dollars used to support the Bush administration program of “Faith-Based Parks”
Teddy...sm
I've been on break from the board too. Seems the older I get the less patience for time for ad nauseum reposts. Life is too precious.
Teddy...
You don't have to change anything unless, of course, you want to. This is the liberral board and you can post anything (except of course, anything derogatory about W). I meant to post this yesterday but just did not get around to it. It is difficult to be in the middle of a barrage of slams. I know I will try to answer a post, then get 2 more posts that are going on about something else and then I try to answer those and then they are telling me I never answered their posts, and then they talk about you to each other on the board and say **you didn't answer my question. That is what the left does.**It is hard to keep up and keep a civil tongue (keyboard) when you are alone amongst the opposition. However, do not give up or leave. Sometimes I find it necessary to take some time away from here, but at the very least I can say I kept up with them....rather than **I'm done with you. You are delusional. I am not talking to you any more.** I get a lot of that. You are not alone here.
Why Teddy...did not know you were such a fan...
why didn't you post what those posts were in REPLY to? Talk about your selective posting. LOL.
Whatever, Teddy, whatever...
you trot out the condescending prattle, I get really tired. Bottom line, I don't believe you. If you think that means I am calling you a liar, that is your problem. Why you cannot get a simple explanation is beyond me. Do you think if a person lies about one thing, that makes a person a liar? I save the term "liar" for a person I know lies continuously. Every one of us on this board has lied at one time about something. Does that mean we are all liars?? Get a grip.
Tired Teddy....
You need to get a new shtick. The condescending has passed onto obnoxious...in other words, its gettin' tired, Teddy.
Yep...believe it or not, I really do know there is a written record of all posts. I just don't know how I am going to sleep at night worrying about how you feel about my posts. <--that last sentence was meant to be facetious, just to help you recognize it.
If you are trying to come across as snooty, you nailed it.
Have a good night.
Pardon me, Teddy....
but just because someone posts here what they do, does not mean they do it. And if I do not choose to blow my own horn and brag about all the wonderful things I do, please do not interpret that to mean that I do not do something. I am retired and therefore can no longer serve, that does not mean I have never served or if I was able to serve I would not be right there. Please do not preach to me about involvement. And please to answer my question. Why do you not take this peacenik talk to the people who threaten the peace? Unless of course you are a terrorist apologist who thinks the United States is the big bad wolf who causes all the problems. If you believe that, then you should be on the first plane out.
Last time I looked, I and no other American had flown a plane into a building and killed 3000 people in one day. Last time I looked, I or any other American had not bombed embassies, bombed the Cole, downed the plane over Lockerbie, bombed the World Trade Center the first time...you are sooo typical of the angry liberal...and so typical...*my boyfriend says* *Michael Moore says* *Lurker says* Have you ever, my friend, had an independent thought while your butt is sitting there comfy in in YOUR chair??
And please to do the research...there are a great many in Congress who have children serving right now. I know people personally who are serving right now or have children serving right now. You might want to jump back down off that high horse and check out your rancid statements.
As long as we are on butts...you make mine hurt.
Have a good day!!
Dear Teddy....
you are So very angry, because you are so frustrated. And the way you post is far from *sassy.* I will leave it at that.
I am going to go out on a limb here, Teddy....
We both believe what we say, even though total opposition. We are both convinced we are *right.* We are both worried about the future of the country. You get frustrated, I get frustrated. You can't imagine why I believe what I believe, I can't imagine why you believe what you believe....and so it goes. You get frustrated and lash out and I become the enemy. I get frustrated and bite my knuckles.
Let me try to make you understand where I am coming from on Bush and on the military. First let me say...I give due respect to anyone holding the office of the Presidency while they are in office, and I will until they disgrace it...like Nixon did by breaking the law, like Clinton did by breaking the law. I condemn both and let neither slide. The point being...now Bush is President. Congress authorized use of force and he did it. We have soldiers fighting as we speak. I support our military. I support our military no matter WHO is President. I supported our military during Nam and we had a Dem President also during that time, and when John Kennedy sent more troops to Nam I supported him. It is not necessary that the President not be a Democrat for me to support decisions. Understand this about me if you do not understand anything else...even if I did not think Congress was correct to authorize use of force, even if I did not think Bush was correct to exercise that right and send troops, the fact remains, THEY ARE THERE, and I will support them AND their mission until they come home, because their morale and their safety and their ability to win is more important than my personal opinion of the Congress or the President, whoever he (or she) might be.
I hope this somewhat clarifies where I come from at least on that issue.
No it doesn't Teddy. sm
I can see examples of not agreeing on the very first page and they are still there.
Bye, Teddy....until the next time....
you do a drive-by attack. Wish I could say it was good to see you again.  You have a GOOD day now!
You're a class act, Teddy.
I hope you decide to stay. 
Excellent post, Teddy!
Thank you for your eloquent post. Hopefully, the trolls won't come out to tell you that you are guilty of treason and should leave the country because YOU are not willing to avert your eyes and do not pretend we do not commit atrocities.
You are in good company:
*Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere* Martin Luther King
*The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it* Albert Einstein
Another wonderful post, Teddy.
Obviously, no human being on earth can say with any degree of credibility that agnostics call out to Jesus when the time is near. Nobody can possibly know what every other person on earth calls out, if anything.
For some, peace comes from religion. Others are able to find peace within themselves. Some never find it. Each person must follow their heart and brain and find the niche that works best for them.
I guess Islamic fascists aren't the only ones who try to force their religion on everyone else. The difference is that the United States isn't supposed to favor one religion over another. We're supposed to be a nation that has religious freedom.
This is especially dangerous during a time when war with religious fanatics is involved. To pledge undying, unquestioning loyalty and support of Israel in political matters (even if some feel they have acted badly) soley for personal religious reasons (to insure one's place in heaven) is very dangerous to the United States and the rest of the world. This is why politics and religion don't mix, and this is why the United States is becoming such a scary place. :-(
You started the condescending, Teddy...
read your post again. It was very condescending. You talked down to me, and I thought it might be fun to respond from down there where you put me. You talked down to me and you were rude. You know it and I know it. I was just giving it back to you. Now that we are past the kid stuff, could you please answer my question, and enlighten me as to what the *big picture* was that I missed and leave the condescending attitude out of it. As to being a dumb condescending Polack...your words, and not mine...it is so hilarious to me the parallels. My guy is of Polack/German ancestry and he is standing behind me as I type, and we are enjoying a good laugh, so thank you from this Choctaw/Cherokee/Irish gal and her dumb Polack guy. LOL. We are looking forward to the *big picture* point, though.
Sorry....I meant for the above to post under Teddy's...
post below titled Viet Nam and WWII...sorry.
Teddy, give it a rest already. sm
We have, through the years, LONG before you were posting here, made a distinct difference between liberals and leftists. If you would actually read the posts, instead of reading Ann Coulter, which for some reason you feel a Clockwork Orangish type of inescapability to read, you would see that. But instead in post after post after post you go on and on with a litany of wrongs against the poor liberals on the conservative board. Give it a rest already. As far as your assertion that Vietnam and Korea were civil wars, well, I am not quite sure how to address that gigantic historial distortion. I won't even try.
Teddy, you are not the board moderator. sm
And liberals are posting on the conservative board and do you see us ordering them off? You really have no tolerance. And by the way, the little article about dissention in the ranks, it seems all isn't what it appears to be. Shocker there.
http://newsbusters.org/
And Teddy Roosevelt is turning over in his sm
grave about the so-called Republicans nowdays...
If anyone knows who Lifelong Democrat is, Teddy...
it would certainly be YOU. Funny how the posts and attitude are so SIMILAR. If anyone cares to, they can go back and compare. The alter egos all like to do the same thing....hide behind different monikers and take pot shots. It is easy to tell, looking at all the postings here, what is going on. As to sarcasm, accusation and putdown...anyone who reads my initial post and then those of LLD and now this one can tell who is the queen of that mode. I would invite anyone to check out the LLD and Teddy posts, among others, and they will know the truth. Most of the posters here on the Liberal board are not of that mindset.
I never said all the posters on the liberal board were one person, and I did not say it last night. Funny how when it was mentioned *Teddy* showed up. I know its you and you know its you. Most of the other posters know its you. And for some reason you have a real problem with me and love to swoop in and attack, and the posts are always the same. Condescending, holier-than-thou....it's like a signature. Methinks she doth protest too much.
Yes, I did, Teddy....read the whole post.
I said show some that were not responses to baits or barbs thrown at me by piglet primarily. That is exactly what I said. Again, out of context.
As to Teddy/Taiga...I knew you only as Teddy (and a few other monikers by style of posting), and I do lean back toward that moniker when the posts lean in that direction, because under that moniker is when you were more likely to bait, demean, and ridicule. In short, "Teddy" seemed to be more "cranky" more often than does "Taiga."
As to posting as Observer....I don't know about that. No one was posting as Observer when I started posting using that moniker. Which has been quite some time now.
As to when someone does it first, why respond in kind? For a long time I did not. But I guess, like you, after a prolonged period of being baited, demeaned, and ridiculed, I got "cranky" too and responded in kind. So I guess we have that in common. Like I said...I am learning at the feet of the masters.
Some who post here tho, do not appear to be "cranky." Baiting, demeaning, and ridiculing seem to be in their nature (hence the Ann Coulter of the liberal board comment). I don't appreciate Ann Coulter's brand of humor either, by the way. I don't find baiting, demeaning, and ridiculing amusing. By anyone, on any side of any aisle.
Brunson...remember Teddy?
Teddy and Taiga are one in the same, though she adamantly denied it until she tripped herself up and finally had to admit it. However, the truth eventually catches up and she just had to be her...if you know what I mean. Would not surprise me if she was the one hounding you. The Teddy side of the personality definitely has/had a mean streak.
Maybe because she is not Teddy Roosevelt and it isn't 1900?
How Obama is like Teddy Roosevelt.
1. Attended both Harvard and Columbia.
2. Shared interest in and promotion of civil service.
3. As an author: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/13/081013taco_talk_editors "Not since Theodore Roosevelt has an American politician this close to the pinnacle of power produced such a sustained, highly personal work of literary merit before being definitively swept up by the tides of political ambition."
4. Candidate of change/reform. http://obama4usa.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/major-endorsements-for-barack-obama/October 19, 2008, Bryan College Station Texas Eagle newspaper endorsement: "Every 20 or 30 years or so, a leader comes along who understands that change is necessary if the country is to survive and thrive. Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan — these leaders have inspired us to rise to our better nature, to reach out to be the country we can be and, more important, must be. Barack Obama is such a leader.” http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/331720/barack_obama_following_the_foot_steps.html?page=2&cat=8 "Barack Obama Following the Foot Steps of Theodore Roosevelt Who was a Reformer"
5. Champion of worker's rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_endorsements#Labor_unions to check out Labor union and union leadership endorsements. http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/obama_wrights.cfm to find a nifty summary of Obama's initiatives and policies on worker's rights.
6. Advocate of "ordinary citizen." Obama's appeal to the middle class is legendary and the current bone of contention on the McCain Joe the Plumber campaign trail. 'Nuff said.
7. Obama on Trustbusting: http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/archives/files/aai-%20Presidential%20campaign%20-%20Obama%209-07_092720071759.pdf
8. On corporate corruption: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/
9. On regulation: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-27-economy-speech_N.htm "Fix Markets Regulations." Specifically relative to interstate commerce, the following are bills either sponsored or co-sponsored by Obama: Senate Bill (SB) 767 and SB 768 on fuel economy, SB 1306 on product safety and hazardous materials, SB 2132 on product safety prohibiting lead content . Regulation in E-commerce, credit card, banking, mortgage lending sectors.
10. Universal health care and national health insurance. Well known support, as is his support for conservation and the environment.
11. Judicial reform that would restore integrity of judicial discretion.
Teddy wrote books about something other than himself!
You can hardly compare Obama's narcissistic biographies with Teddy's books where he researched and wrote about something other than himself!
Applauding your fantastic post Teddy. (NT)
:-)
Teddy...dear....please read your own posts...
You were bashing ME by saying that talking to me was like trying to talk to your mother who had a personality disorder...thereby also bashing your mother. Again...YOU said it, YOU brought it up. I did not say anything about mental illness or any disease...this is a politics board...why do you find it necessary to make personal attacks and use your mother's mental illness as a vehicle to do so? The post is there for all to see, and they can read. Let each reader decide who was bashing who and who used whose mother to do so. They can also see who among is the most miserable. Don't you have a pink hat and boa you could be wearing and a meeting you could be attending?
Have a good evening.
Just for the record
I felt the same way about the war before he was killed. It is wrong, its based on lies, and its immoral. So okay to lie about reasons for going to war, not okay to lie about sex, okay to let the perps of 09/11 go free, not okay to try the perps of the first World Trade bombing and let em rot in jail after a trial as that is not tough enuf on terror, okay to spy without warrants on Americans..okay to sit and eat cake and play guitar while New Orleans drowns, Then tell Brownie heckuva job while people die in the Superdome...I mean whats it gonna take?
And yes, I did rather explode at the Xmas isnt treating me nice comment..that hit a nerve bigtime for me.
And also for the record, I would be just as upset were Bush a dem or green or libertarian..this administration has done more damage to this country than I thought was possible. This isnt about political parties,this is about America and our constitution, our ideals and everything this country is built on.
For the record, neither am I....
Just an American married to an Iranian refugee who fled political persecution under the current regime. If I misunderstood your post, I apologize.
This post is not "news" but rather a brief yet accurate description of the complex nature of Iranian politics. No sources you can try to attack. Sorry about that.
Not quite sure what you mean when you say you "know" politics every which way and that you "kick butt at it."
It comes as no surprise that you would not be interested in any viable information on this subject, since you seem to be perfectly comfortable in characterizing US-Iranian diplomatic initiatives as dealing with madmen who hate America for its freedoms (gag me). Sounds like sound byte mentality to me...again nothing new under heaven, coming from an Ann Coulter wannabe who thinks that former POW patriots are automatically qualified to be president.
By the way, throwing around a bit of sarcasm about radical Islam and infidels does not exactly qualify as a total butt kick. So I'm like you...not interested in futher pursuit of this nonsense.
Thank you so much...I will...and for the record....
I don't care what you think, nor do I care if anybody cares what I think. The babies need a voice. And why that irritates all of you so much....hmmmm.
For the record -
While I am a supporter of Obama, I want to emphasize that I am not a coldhearted murderer, that I do not advocate watching babies die, that I do not go out and actively support abortions of any kind (early or late).
I also do not feel that Obama is sitting there right now saying to himself, I wonder how many babies I can let die today. I think that the relationship he has with God is worked out between him and God and if he has worked this issue out in his own mind and feels comfortable with his decision, then that is his personal decision. I do not think that he is the be all and end all in the decision making process for the rest of us. I think that he has just decided that it should be an individual choice for a woman to decide what to do with her own body...
I do not want to see abortions once again be illegal in the United States. How many young, naive, and stupid girls (children mostly) died when they chose to have an illegal abortion rather than go to their families and admit that they had made mistakes and ask for help? How many women died or were permanently mutilated and could never have children again because after they were raped and became pregnant, they could not face having that child, and they chose to have an illegal abortion?
I don't believe in abortion, I didn't choose to have an abortion when I got pregnant at 15, but I do believe that every woman should have the right to choose what she does with her own body - if she does not want to carry a child, then she should not be forced to by the government.
Now, I think we can go on and on about this forever, and we will never agree, or we can remember that abortion will not be outlawed by any president that is elected, and go on to argue the issues that will be on the front burner for the next couple of years and decide who will serve us best there.
For the record........... sm
I do have filtered internet access at home for my kids, and I have taught them that looking at pictures of naked women/men is unacceptable, but what happens when my 12-year-old son goes to the public library to check out a book and happens to walk behind someone who is accessing p*rn on the free access library computer? How do I protect my child against that? And what happens if that person happens to be a pervert who exposes himself to my child? Am I supposed to lead my child around the library with a blindfold on his eyes? Whose rights are being trampled on there?
Behavioral problems? No, friend. It is natural curiosity of a 12-year-old to learn about the opposite sex, what they look like unclothed and that is nothing new. Naturally, they won't cop a look at mom getting out of the shower because that would be wrong on so many levels for a young boy, but they will look at anonymous women on the internet, given the chance. We need to take that chance away from them until they are more grounded in their moral beliefs and can control such urges themselves. If the government allows free access to objectionable material at school (where I can't hold his hand all day) or in the public library (where he should be able to check out a book without fear of glimpsing something objectionable) then I really have to wonder at the moral base of our government. As someone pointed out, they work for me, not the other way around.
I think he's going for the record for...(sm)
number of lies in one speech
For the record
1. I'm not a Republican, but a conservative who votes for the candidate of either party I think will do the job properly. This often is a Republican, but not always.
2. I did not realize board space was rationed, or that any of us was taking more than our share. Please explain these guidelines.
3. When you see a post under a moniker that usually upsets you, feel free to skip reading it. That way you will not be offended. And if you don't read it, you will not respond to it and maybe the thread will die out.
4. When something is broadcast that I feel will raise my blood pressure, I use one of those little on/off/channel thingies to eliminate the threat. I don't holler that it has no business on the airwaves. Try to think of this board in the same way.
5. However, if you wish to debate an issue, bring it on. That's my understanding of what this forum is for.
How Palin pales in comparison to Teddy Roosevelt.
Let's start by describing Roosevelt's accomplishments by age 42:
1. Graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard in 1880, 22nd out of 177, after which he enrolled in Columbia Law School. He was reputed to have a photographic memory.
2. New York Assemblyman 1881, where he served for 3 years, distinguishing himself as an ardent reformer. Wrote more bills than any other state legislator.
3. At age 23, published his first book, The Naval War of 1812, establishing him as a respected author. He would go on to pen 35 books, 4 of which were written before age 42, including an exhaustive 4-volume historical account of westward expansion.
4. Appointed by President Harrison to Civil Service Commission (age 31), later to become its president, 1889-1895.
5. Director of NY Police Department, 1894-1897.
6. Assistant Secretary of the Navy under President McKinnley, 1897 in preparation for the Cuban War.
7. Went to Cuba as lieutenant colonel of a volunteer cavalry where he became famous as the leader of the Rough Riders, returning as a Spanish-American War hero.
8. Governor of State of New York, 1898, which was not avast wilderness, even at the tturn of the century.
9. Vice President, 1900.
10. Succeeded to presidency after McKinley assassination.
More striking differences become apparent when examining what KIND of republican reformer he was:
1. He was a PROGRESSIVE reformer in regard to workers' rights and ordinary citizen in general.
2. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved 44 corporate monopolies....can you say trust busting regulation? Was never accused of being a SOCIALIST. We could use a healthy dose of a modern version of that traditional American approach in the 21st century.
3. Square Deal advocated FAIR negotiations between workers and business/industry and REGULATION of interstate commerce.
4. First US President to call for UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE and NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE. Nope, he was not a communist either.
5. Promoted conservation movement and not once tried to block endangered species designation.
6. Sought judicial reform with regard to their bias against labor unions (gasp).
7. Fractured republican party via Bull Moose party to the point that democrat Woodrow Wilson won the presidency in 1912.
8. Nobel Peace Prize recipient 1906.
When attempting to compare Palin to a great American leader, you might want to choose someone a tad less like Obama next time.
Not at all. Just trying to set the record straight. sm
 As to what the board monitor REALLY said, since the left sometimes has comprehension problems and all.
Record speaks for itself.
Been there, done that, and agree with OP - Cons have been grossly hypocritical about demanding dissenters leave their board, then sneaking over here to post nasty comments.
He's trying to break a record you know.
Cutting his vacation short due to the Katrina disaster could have affected his record! Must be nice to have over a year of vacation time in only 7 years, and a war-time president at that. I'm not surprised though. I almost don't want to talk smack about him anymore because it is just too easy. It helps to vent though, I suppose.
Voting Record
Since everyone is at least a bit familiar with John McCain’s record when it comes to strolling through a market in Baghdad with hundreds of his closest guards, or how he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (except when he flip flops on that).
But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops. And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.
This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments. I present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military. Feel free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the "Double Talk Express". But here is a very quick statement - John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.
In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq. However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor. I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.
September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments. At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.
July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq. At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.
March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year. Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible. This number has not moved significantly since then.
February 2007: For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it. However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn. This number has since gone up to around 70%.
June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.
May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.
April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.
March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes. Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.
October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.
April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.
August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
So there it is. John McCain is yet another republican former military veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military. Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military. If he can’t even see his way to actually doing what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn’t have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief?
Maybe cuz it's the same old "broken record"?
Yup, it's that same old broken record.
X
|
![](http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2007/09/14/image3260970.gif")
