He did give her time to answer, but
Posted By: Backwards typist on 2009-02-12
In Reply to: My guess is that...(sm) - Just the big bad
she just kept avoiding the question. I saw it this morning (they have re-runs at 5 a.m.).
I did think he was a little harsh on Helen Thomas even though she is a liberal.
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
no, he does not give them time to answer
I always like Chris Matthews, always have but today I found him in meltdown phase. He did not give the republican guest time to answer the question "Do you believe Barak Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig". The guest got maybe 3 or 4 words out and mathews kept saying do you believe...., do you believe....the guest is trying to answer him which was "no I don't believe he called her a pig" and then went on to state how during these times the candidates need to be careful with their words, etc, etc. No, he was not as fair to the republican guest as he was to the democrat guest. If your a democrat sure you think this is great, but to the republicans and independents this is rude and unprofessional for the host of a talk show. What ever happened to letting a guest answer, if he didn't answer the question, then tell you you didn't not answer my question. Not keep interrupting him every 3 or 4 minutes with the same badgering. Come on - this is totally one sided.
BTW - the guest did answer his question about 4 or 5 times.
Can someone give me an answer here.
The price of gas is creeping up because companies have cut back the refining of oil. Now....why are they allowed to do this? It is merely for profit. They are just doing this to jack up prices and that benefits no one especially during this economic crisis here. So why are they allowed to do this?
Answer the question. Why do you give them a pass?
The ones responsible for this.
By the way, if the 92 Democrats who voted no had voted yes, it would have passed anyway.
You give me a direct answer. You dodge it like he does.
How can he give 95% of AMericans a tax cut if 30-40% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. Either he is lying about the 95%, or he is going to use refundable tax credits. How else can he do it? PLEASE, PLEASE, explain that to me. If I am wrong, all you have to do is explain to me HOW he is going to give tax cuts to 95% of people, 30-40% of whom DO NOT PAY federal income taxes, wITHOUT cutting them a check. Please, please explain that to me.
Sam understands the basic principles of socialism and Marxism just fine. Most of which Mr Obama taught me in his books and associations. Which you are willing to ignore.
So please...very simply. Explain to me how he is going to give tax breaks or cuts to 95% of Americans if 30-40% of that group don't pay taxes. You said yourself, he can't. So either he is lying about the 95%...or he is going to cut that 30-40% a check.
PLEASE explain his tax plan to me since you are such an expert on it. HOW is he going to do it without cutting checks? HOW?
His teleprompter didn't give him an answer
/
Your answer is below......take the time to look
@
Give them time to adjust. They are
They have spent the last few years with one that apparently could only concern himself with one portion of the job description at a time. Let's have some compassion for them while they go through this difficult adjustment period.
Why don't you give your time & money to the
She's obviously living your idea of the Model Life.
What a fine, upstanding woman that Nadya is. She's a real beacon of inspiration to the rest of us to 'go forth and propagate.'
You people are too blinded by your own sense of self-worth to ever be of any worth to anybody else.
Get a job. Put a low-income student through college. Pay some single mother's rent or buy some groceries for her kids. Go help out in an underdeveloped (and over-populated) 3rd-world country. Read books other than the bible. You might actually learn something of value that can be put to use in the real world, not the fantasy-world you live in.
He gave her plenty of time to answer
He talked and then he shut up and let her talk and answer the question. And all she said was I believe all woman have the right to run for office. He did tell her that if she can prove that she defended Palin he will apologize to her. My bet....she will not be able to prove it. She's a hypocrite pure and simple.
You know it's like listening to Chris Matthews and Chris Matthews came out when a question was thrown at him about not letting his guest speak. He told his guest. I will let you speak but if I think your giving me the "B" I'm going to keep drilling you until you speak the truth. No different than O'Reilly.
The public deserves the truth.
He gave her plenty of time to answer
the question and she just kept saying the same crap. She never directly answered his questions. Bill nailed her though on not sticking up for Sarah Palin. If you are going to stick up for women's rights.....stick up for all women and not just the liberal ones. That isn't fair or balanced either. That organization is hypocritical.
As for what he said about Helen....who cares. I'm sure she is a tough enough woman that she doesn't care what Bill O'Reilly says about her. And truly....what is up with the "so-called terrorists." They are terrorists...not so called ones. Who can really dispute how creepy that woman looks....I mean....come on. Helen has been around long enough that I'm sure she has thick skin and didn't give a rats behind what O'Reilly says about her. I mean....come on.
This is petty. Get over it. More important things to discuss than whether or not Bill O'Reilly was overly rude by saying her voice sounded like the wicked witch on the Wizard of Oz.
Fair & balanced - they give both sides equal time
They let both sides speak. They have equal guests meaning 2 pubs & 2 crats, or 1 pub and 1 crat. Unlike the other liberal stations who have 5 crats and 1 pub.
They tell the news like it is. There is more to Fox News than O'Reilly and Hannity. I'm watching Shepard Smith and others who are reporting news stories. These are the same news stories I see on other channels. They are fair because they give a chance for the opposing side to explain themselves and they are balanced because they have equal number of people. What liberals don't like is that the conservatives have anything to say at all. The liberals want to control the country (getting one heck of a start too), which would be an economic disaster to the country (thank you Pelosi with your pet pig projects you keep hiding in the stimulus and Reid for slipping in a pig project that does nothing for the rest of the country). The liberals are trying to shut down anyone with opposing viewpoints than theirs, and they are having their lawyers re-write the laws and change to consitution. - Not good for America. The only thing this stimulus plan is good for is to get people re-elected into their position. Congress does not give a hoot about America....
Pelosi: "Hurry fellas lets vote, I'm off to Rome". Hey there Pelosi, have a good trip, while we all wait for our pink slips and food stamps. Have yourself a great time at our expense.
why do you answer so stupidly, the right answer
if you had any brains, would have been......
'well, she made a mistake.'
But telling me that I need a job, is so stupid, yes, stupid AND a very weak point.
Yep, but it was straight time. No time and a half
DHL is GERMAN OWNED. And, company was located on Snotsdale, I mean Scottsdale, AZ which means. Labor laws in Arizona suck. Right to work state. Basically a company can do whatever they want to do with you and if you do not like it, then quit and find another job.
I can answer that. The answer is no. nm
Answer
I was frequently banned on the old forum format, at least once a week during the weeks I was actually posting (I would then get disgusted and stay away for up to a month at a time). Have only been banned once since the new format so I would agree with your analysis.
Otherwise as to other folks banned, I remember lots and lots of complaints/comments but can offer no specifics. I also remember seeing a lot of interesting posts go poof! Used to really really be bad on the old religion board. But hopefully that's improved also.
I would have bet it all that you would answer this way.
I suppose you also believe that poverty causes crime.
You would not like my answer
so I won't even go there...
So the answer is yes,
Where did the soldier in the article lie?
I come from a family with multiple generations who served and continue to serve in the military, including Iraq, so spare me your little lecture about troop morale.
Have a lovely day.
This should answer...
at least one of your questions. I found this site: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/05_SCHIP%20Information.asp
Which states that in general, states can not permit the implementation of preexisting condition exclusions.
However, in states like South Carolina, where SCHIP is run through BCBS, they can implement preexisting condition exclusions, but only in so far as HIPAA rules allow - which I would assume (have not researched) is the 12 month waiting period.
As for your other question, I have a muscle disease (big time preexisting) and I can't even get health coverage privately. I have to struggle to work full time, even on the days I feel like my whole body is on fire, just to get group coverage. I had the 12 month preexisting condition thing, with which they are denying everything - saying that it's all related to the preexisting condition - and I pay $260 a month. I should also mention that this coverage is just for me - no children/spouse.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for the answer....
and you have a good one as well.
Right...there is no answer.
You want it your way or no way and want to squelch any kind opposition. Sounds more like the the old USSR than the old USA. There's that Marxist thing again.
answer...
Again you prove my point. And MSNBC, CNN, and the others are any different, except their slant is to the left? You really think people don't notice that? lol.
Dear...drop the condescencion. Demographics can have many meanings other than the one you describe.
I was talking about news outlets. I know there are other places to get the conservative view...but I want to get both sides. I don't watch the commentators much on either side...hard to find a point in the bashing, and that means both sides. Mostly I just turn them off.
you just know everything, don't you...have an answer for everything
no matter what anyone says, you (meaning the posters on here who continually try to bully everyone into their own way of thinking) will defend her - even if she was caught in bed literally with John McCain you would have an answer for that.
I heard an interview by Jodie Foster where she stated she literally hates weakness of any kind, in any thing. She said if there was a bird fallen out of a nest (to that affect) on the sidewalk in front of her she would want to kick it. That is the majority of what I see on these boards. Nastiness, aggressiveness, women toward women. Do you think kindness is a weakness, because I know most men do. I personally do not want to be a man.
That is okay, Jesus has said the weak shall inherit the earth - I will follow Jesus' teachings before I would ever follow people who think killing over 1 million innocent people is a good thing and are blood-thirsty for even more lives and souls, a majority of which comes right from the pulpits. I think I read somewhere those people will suffer most at the end of the world - as for me I am making sure I am not one of them.
Might is right, bigger is better - you can have all of it and women can get as aggressive as they want but you will find out it was wrong when men do it and it is wrong for women to do it.
here's the answer
I, too, am in a quandry about this election, but I do know that opening up drilling for oil in Alaska is just a temporary solution. We are spending 10 billion ($$$) a month for the war in Iraq. Why are we there? For oil. Think how far that money would go towards developing new alternative energy sources in this country in order to free ourselves from our addiction to foreign oil. Even in Dubai, where they currently have plenty of oil, they are cuttng edge in the development of alternative energy sources. Even they realize the oil is not going to last forever!!. The powers that be in this country are so ignorant and greedy that they refuse to see that this is the ONLY SOLUTION to this madness!!! Wake up, people. This is a change that will garner HUGE improvements in all matters of economy and environment, and showing the rest of the world that the US can be an example in leading the way to making these changes!!!
That's really the best answer
Don't talk to them about it. Judging by this board, things can get very heated and nasty and really, has anyone changed their minds after reading any of this stuff? I think at this point most of us know who we are going to vote for and arguing is just pointless.
Answer. sm
I realize what trouble we are in. That is why it frightens me that this bimbo is literally 1 heartbeat away from the presidency.
See answer above. Aha. nm
nm
Answer
The same number of Democrats as Republicans.
Looking for a serious answer...
I am looking for a REAL answer to this. Not a snide remark from either dems or pubs.
Why are the presidents, leaders, etc of nations we aren't "friendly" with supporting Obama?
Just real answers please. I think we are up to our ears in sarcastic remarks on this board.
Thank you for the answer - nm
nm
Got my answer
It doesn't matter and our vote will be counted.
You don't have to answer
Is it PA. That is the way it is here, God is still very much present in our schools and out, and that is a good thing.
answer this
BLACK? that's what i thought... uh... no and let me make this perfectly clear... I AM NOT INSINUATING THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS WILL RIOT.
Your answer is in the
x
Yes, see your answer above. nm
x
answer
into poverty, but you don't want the money it takes to care for these children to come out of your pocket???? Am I on the mark?
Answer: First of all, I wouldnt be forcing anyone to have a baby born into poverty. That would be THEIR choice. Yes, it is a CHOICE to get pregnant or not. If you dont want to get pregnant you should use BIRTH CONTROL, given out FREE to anyone who cannot afford it. Of course, you cannot actually shove it down someone's throat and make them swallow it, I guess. Second, I already DO pay for these unwanted children. It is called WELFARE.
I guess this is another so-called way to sling mud at Obama. The rich republicans can't have it both ways. You either care for the unborn (welfare for their mothers) or you allow the mother the choice... Which is it? Answer: First, I am not slinging mud at Obama. I would be against abortion no matter who was running for office. Second, I am not a rich republican but a poor democrat. Sorry to dissappoint! Third, I believe that education about birth control and sex should be funded more, there should be more support out there for teens on how to NOT GET PREGNANT in the first place. Second, there are NO unwanted children in the world. If the natural mother did not want the child, there should be, and I am sure there are, government funded programs to allow these girls to adopt out their babies to the MILLIONS of people who want to adopt. Also, our government should help fund would be parents to be able to adopt w/o having to spend thousands of dollars to do it. So that way people in the good ole' USA could adopt w/o having to go to third world countries to do it. Another thing, the government should reevaluate their priorities in that it costs almost nothing to have an abortion and commit murder versus spending thousands on adoption. Go figure that one!
Not all abortions are a form of birth control, ya' know. I knew a very religious lady that aborted her child due to hydrocephalus. The child would been born deformed/a vegetable. This would have put this lady at high risk. She prayed about it and soon after aborted the child. She had to live with that.
That is the child that God gave her. I dont have all the answers about why that would be, but murder is still murder. So does that mean because the baby was deformed that he was less of a baby, a human life? Not our call to make. As far as her having to live with that, this is true. However, as a Christian, we also have to live with whoever we put into office. They represent us, our beliefs. We have to answer for who we give the power to. We are all responsible.
Not all situations are the same. Furthermore, you can't force your child to have a baby or to have an abortion. Either way, it's her body.
In the OT of the Bible God speaks about the children of Israel. They were worshipping an idol and offering their children to it. He spoke about innocent blood be shed and he was angered by it. He speaks quite clearly that it is murder. Also, if anyone supports abortion, I think they should go to the faith board and click on the post not for everyone and find the link in there to a video, copy and paste and watch what happens to an aborted fetus. At 19 weeks what a baby looks like and see what happens to them when the are killed. I mean, after all, if you can condone it, then you should be able to watch it. |
answer s/m
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being Roman Catholic. There is something wrong when priests or pastors start threatening their parishoners with he11 fire if they don't do as they say. They need to stick with God's business and leave politics out of it.
Answer
When I first answered Amanda her post said that anchor babies by virtue of being born on American soil are american citizens. I said I was fine with that. The reason I am fine with that is because the 14th Ammendment of the Constitution, section 1 says -
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I have not yet found anything in the Constitution that talks about the parents of the child needing to be US Citizens.
There is a lot of info out regarding this subject. I did find an article from the Seattle newspaper that the republican party is talking about no automatic citizenship for kids born to illegal immigrants. Here's that article.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004450665_gop01m.html
Here's another article that I just found interesting. This one talks about the people who knowlingly break our laws just to have their kids born in America.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4435.html
All I say is that if it is in the Constitution we need to follow it. The Constituion and Bill of Rights were written with a purpose.
If an child is born in America to illegal parents, and the constitution says that baby is a US Citizen then that child should be allowed to run for President just like all the other people born in America. If the person is born outside of US soil then no they are not eligible.
Obey the Constitution and stop trying to change it (no, not you personally, that's just my motto).
Answer...(sm)
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Orderly-bankruptcy-option-auto-firms/story.aspx?guid=%7B86C06032-FA65-4B0A-AC3C-EBA0CA835D11%7D
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/orderly-bankruptcy-option-auto-firms/story.aspx?guid=%7B86C06032-FA65-4B0A-AC3C-EBA0CA835D11%7D&siteid=yhoof
There are numerous other articles about the bankrupcy thing. Just Google *orderly bankrupcy.*
As far as the ethics bill (keeping in mind that I have not been able to read the actual bill yet--can't wait to get hold of that one) employers are not allowed to reprimand employees for exercising thier rights under this bill. So, while some might be able to fire people *at will* others can't.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28304676
As soon as I find the bill itself I'll post it or post a link.
I already know the answer to that one...
nm
Sometimes no answer is all the answer
rhetorical questions seem to throw them into a real tizzy, so I'm not expecting anything more insightful than "whichever way our winds blow."
A serious answer
First of all, when you say that you don't ..."sit back and expect Obama to take care of putting gas in your car and making your mortgage payments" you imply that people who voted for Obama DO. You're entitled to express your opinion, but if this is all you got, then you deserve to be flamed. The "American Spirit" is NOT confined to the Republican party. If you actually listen to what Obama says, he has repeatedly stressed personal responsibility time and time again. There are millions of Democrats in the same financial boat you're in who believe in the same American Spirit and personal responsibility that you do.
Second of all, many of the promises Obama made on the campaign trail have to be put on the back burner because of the financial crisis he inherited that is far, far worse than what's been reported and is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, regardless of what Obama does or doesn't do.
Closing Gitmo has nothing to do with protecting the US from future terrorist attacks. Closing Gitmo is the right thing to do. Not torturing people is the right thing to do. Staying within the rule of law is the right thing to do.
Obama's support didn't happen in a vacuum, you know. People who feel like they've been living under a slimy rock for the past eight years can suddenly see a light at the end of the tunnel and are inspired again. That's a powerful thing that you can't quantify, and the only people who were truly inspired by the last administration are the people who are responsible for the financial mess we're ALL in and are now laughing all the way to the bank. What do you think Cheney's copay is?
Ok, answer me this
If terrorists and/or plotters as I like to call them are not Americans, why should they be tried as if they were? They are not afforded the same rights as Americans for they are not such. I uinderstand there are "innocents" at Gitmo, but if their own countries do not want them back, does that not make you stop to wonder why? And, what should be done if Bin Laden were to be caught? One of the whole points of Gitmo is so that enemies of this country are not on the mainland. I believe the UN should be responsible for trying these terrorists under the name of whi8chever country they terroroized.
I am going to answer this last little bit and then...
I am finished indulging you. I bought it three years ago. I moved in August. I rented it this month after my sale fell through because the buyer could not get financing. Yes, mobile homes do depreciate in value, but the five acres that it sits on have appreciated greatly and, like I said, I bought it way under market value. My husband is in the military, so we move frequently. Is there anything else that you think I am lying about, or are you finished?
I don't know the answer to this.
One big concern I have is giving money to people who got us here in the first place. From your post I am going to assume (and please correct me if I'm wrong) but you and your husband would be fine if he had not have gotten laid off and you didn't have medical issues keeping you from work. That sucks and I get that. However, people who can work and won't......people who ran up their credit bills and got loans they couldn't pay. These are the people that government will help.
They won't help people like us who have worked and supported ourselves for so long and because of the irresponsible people....we are now suffering and struggling. If my husband's dealership would be closed by his boss, I have no clue what we would do. He makes most of our money. The only thing we owe money on is our house. We have everything else paid off through years of hard work. If by chance my husband loses his job and we can't pay for our house, government won't help us. They will take everything else we have busted our rears to pay off. Yet there are people sitting on their lazy butts, popping out more children, smoking their cigarettes, drinking their beer and they are getting government checks to keep up that wonderful lifestyle. They are rewarding irresponsible behavior and I just cannot stand for that.
I don't know that I agree with more government spending as I think that is what has largely got us in this situation to begin with, but I do know that having increased government spending AND tax cuts in the same bill just isn't going to do anything. This stimulus package will not work. If it does, I will gladly eat crow, but I just don't think it will.
You know the answer to that......... sm
She HATES Fox News! 
For the record, though, I do believe that BB usually does post her opinions, whether agreed with or not, from an honest perspective. Not sure what happened this time. 
her answer to that --
she said that she paid for all the eggs to be fertilized at one time and then had some stored up for later. She had a lot of eggs to begin with.
her answer to that --
she said that she paid for all the eggs to be fertilized at one time and then had some stored up for later. She had a lot of eggs to begin with.
Can I answer, even though I do not ............ sm
consider myself to be either, dem or pub?
Granted, most of my political views lean more conservative, thus generally more in line with the Republican viewpoint, but I vote by candidate and not along straight party lines.
That being said, I do agree with Obama's plan to do away with tax cuts for companies who offshore work, particularly as this might apply to the area of MT (naturally, lol). Even though the company I currently work for does not offshore, I know the industry as a whole and health care for individuals whose records are offshored is compromised.
Regarding the matter you mentioned, I agree that he should not have been held without charges for almost 6 years now. There were charges of conspiracy to commit terroristic acts that could have been brought against him, but what are the chances that he would have been out on parole by now or at some not-too-distant future date and right back at his old ways. Maybe he was being held without charges until Osama could have been found and the whole gang brought to justice? Who knows.....but holding him without charges and refusing him counsel has kept him out of society and from being harmful to the American people.
What is the answer then?
We're all ears.
And so your answer is ...(sm)
for us to lower our standards so we can be just like them? It's been proven numerous times that torture does not help in the process of interrogation, so that's pointless...especially when done 183 times (that was to one person). It only serves as a recruitment tool for more terrorists, just like Gitmo has. Revenge never has and never will be the answer.
What you guys don't get is this: If these prisoners had actually had trials and were proven guilty, then fine...put them in prison, execute them, or carry out whatever the punishment would be according to our laws.
However, we are talking about torturing people who have not had any kind of trial, much less even had charges brought against them. Guess why some of them can't be tried now? BECAUSE THEY WERE TORTURED!!!! So, thanks to Bush's and Cheney's infinite wisdom we have a bunch of people who can't be tried, can't be let go, and can't be brought to the US. As well, we have the world looking at us and saying that we don't practice what we preach. Nice goin TEX.
Who was it that said we would be treated as "liberators" in Iraq? Besides the fact that that has been proven to be one of the worst lies in the last 10 years, how far do you think that's going to fly when they know we are torturing their citizens (some presumably innocent)?
|
