How is a news story such as this attacking

• Pgh girl with B on cheek - Fiona
  • How is a news story such as this attacking - jd
    • How - Fiona
  • I doubt very seriously McCain told her to do this - NM
    • I agree - Fiona

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

really scared me was when Obama was in Germany and a German citizen stated, "He's the new Messiah." This was on the evening news when he was on his around the world blitz. He really had no reason to do all that traveling as if he was already the President. What was he trying to prove??? That he can charm the world? It won't work if he becomes President.

'Nuff said.

Unacceptable answer for word verbiage. Do people actually let you get away with that?

Posted By: ? on 2006-03-03,
In Reply to: Find it yourself... - Lurker

You must run in really tolerant debate circles.  Best stay in them.  This kind of behavior is not tolerated in most political circles I know of.  But it is a good example of how far we have slipped into the he said/she said atmosphere of debate in this country.  Just say anything and never have to prove it.  It works well for the MSM, of which you seem so fond.  Well, should have known better. I am off for greener pastures and debate fields where people actually have to prove what they say.  Imagine that!

Isn't he half white and half black?  I thought that was the case for Obama.  I am voting for Obama, but I know there are people saying that he will most likely need a lot of security.  The white suppremists (spelling??) are still around.  I just think he is much more suited and in better health to make decisions and not always "go with the good ole boys." 

Oh yeah back to the multicolored...  I remember being taught when there were references made like "I don't care if he's white, purple, orange, or black."  Well people don't come in orange or purple????   Know what I mean?  So what is multicolored (rainbow???)...  I'm not attacking, I just thought it was funny to hear someone say they don't care if he's "multi-colored." 

As far as McCain - he's out of his league.  The things we face and our children face need to be addressed by someone more in our age group.  As far as Palin, well she should be taking care of her family first.  She's a mother.  I am a mother first, a wife, then an MT. ....  get my drift?  I love my country, but I love my children more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  These are all my opinions and thoughts...

The poster didn't make one reference to you personally in his/her post.  All they did was express their opinion about the current administration without any personal references to you whatsoever.

Why are you so angry and hateful?

IMHO, You owe that poster an apology.

I know it's hard for you, but try to pay attention.  Sheesh!

It would be so nice if you weren't here. SM

[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Conservatives]

Posted By: Brunson on 2005-09-03,
In Reply to: They will never stop. Look at the post below where Brunson hopes that somebody is *hounded* off - Libby

all the time?  I don't need to grow any skin, thank you.  If people are just simply NICE and treat me with respect, they receive the same in turn.  It's called the golden rule.  Liberals on this board follow the golden rule.  It's the conservatives who must constantly attack, and frankly, it's tiresome.  You add nothing of value to this board.  NOTHING.

RFK Jr.: Bush, Barbour to Blame for Katrina

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is blaming Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, along with President Bush, for causing Hurricane Katrina.

As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2, Kennedy blogged Tuesday on HuffingtonPost.com. The influential Democrat's enviro-conspiracy theory had the sinister Gov. Barbour engineering Bush's energy policy on behalf of the president’s major donors from the fossil fuel industry.

Kennedy charges that in March 2001, the former Republican National Committee chairman issued an urgent memo to the White House on CO2 emissions.

With that, the president dropped his pro-environment campaign promise like a hot potato.

Because of Bush and Barbour's CO2 folly, said Kennedy: Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged.

RFK, Jr., even suggested that Katrina's last minute detour through Mississippi was a bit of Divine payback, declaring:

Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast.

I have done a little bit of poking around and read a few other tidbits here and there and formed my opinion.   

Everyone keeps saying that her water broke while she was in Texas, but it did not technically.  She was just leaking fluid, and she was not in labor.  She had had 4 kids and knew she was not yet in labor and discussed that with her doctor, who gave her the go-ahead to fly.  That is not that unusual to me. 

She waited a long time to announce her pregnancy.  Okay, but probably the reason she waited was because she already knew the baby had Down's (she reportedly found out in December) and knew that there was a higher chance that she would miscarry.  Rather than announce her pregnancy, then lose her baby, she chose to keep it private until she was more certain she would indeed carry to term.  I understand that.  I also think that she probably needed the time to process how her family would adapt to a special needs child, and wrap her mind around it, so to speak.  Not to mention the fact that a fifth child is not usually announced with the pomp and circumstance of a first baby.  That is typical.

As far as her not looking pregnant, that happens all the time.  I remember seeing Pamela Anderson on a talk show and she was 7 or 8 months' pregnant.  I was shocked at how tiny she was.  She looked barely pregnant, and her baby wasn't even extra small when it was born.  DIfferent women carry differently and Governor Palin was dressing in jackets and other clothing which would hide a bulge. 

I saw the picture of her daughter and that was completely unconvincing as well.  Girls wear shirts tight across the tummy like that all the time, even if they are chubby in the midsection.  It is very common.  If she was pregnant and trying to it it while posing for a family photo, wouldn't she choose different clothing?

All that being said, even if it were to turn out to be true, I wouldn't hold it against her for claiming the child as her own in order to protect her daughter and the baby.  I don't see anything wrong in hiding a teenage pregnancy if it can be successfully hidden.  No one should be proud of being unwed and pregnant.  It's too bad that so many young girls think absolutely nothing of it, an actually get pregnant on purpose knowing full well that the baby's father will never be a part of its life.  That is part of what is wrong with our society today. 

We must be nearly the same age because I know several women who were pressured into giving their children away and they are still haunted by that decision to this day. You are correct about the damage Palin is doing to her daughter. 

Back in the early 70s, I was a single mom, going through a divorce, and no job. My son was only 1-1/2 years old. I needed help and had no one. I went to Welfare to see if they could help me. I got some money for an apartment and food stamps.

After 5 months, I found a job, told welfare I was going off it because I didn't need the help anymore. Well, they absolutely begged me to stay on it for at least another year. Needless to say, it was harder to get OFF it than to get on it. I just couldn't get it through their heads that I didn't want their handouts. I had a standing invitation to come back anytime.

Well, fast forward 8 years. My new husband's job went down the tubes and we went through all our savings, living paycheck to paycheck on mine. Went back to welfare to see if we could at least get food stamps for our 2 kids now. Nope! I earned $11 too much. They told us to sell the cars and the house we were buying and then maybe, just maybe, we would qualify for everything. No way!

Needless to say, we had a friend who owned a bar and served sandwiches and soup. He let my husband work for him doing odd jobs around his property and paid him in leftover soup and sandwiches. Hubby was also able to pick up a few other odd jobs and that's how we survived for 2 years.  We had a woodburner and cut and split our own wood, had seeds given to us and grew our own garden in the summer. We survived, but it wasn't easy. The only thing nice about it was my children learned about survival and my husband and I never gained any weight.The kids ate first, then hubby because his odd jobs were tougher than mine, and I ate last.

To this day, I can't look at a plate of spaghetti, soup, or chili. LOL

...*Curious George* wants to know who's visiting porn sites.  Hmmmmmm... thought spying was only supposed to be used to catch *terrorists*....

U.S., Google Set to Face Off in Court

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business WriterTue Mar 14, 8:16 AM ET

The Bush administration will renew its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government.

Lawyers for the Justice Department and Google are expected to elaborate on their opposing views in a San Jose hearing scheduled Tuesday before U.S. District Court Judge James Ware.

It will mark the first time the Justice Department and Google have sparred in court since the government subpoenaed the Mountain-View, Calif.-based company last summer in an effort to obtain a long list of search requests and Web site addresses.

The government believes the requested information will help bolster its arguments in another case in Pennsylvania, where the Bush administration hopes to revive a law designed to make it more difficult for children to see online pornography.

Google has refused to cooperate, maintaining that the government's demand threatens its users' privacy as well as its own closely guarded trade secrets.

The Justice Department has downplayed Google's concerns, arguing it doesn't want any personal information nor any data that would undermine the company's thriving business.

The case has focused attention on just how much personal information is stored by popular Web sites like Google — and the potential for that data to attract the interest of the government and other parties.

Although the Justice Department says it doesn't want any personal information now, a victory over Google in the case would likely encourage far more invasive requests in the future, said University of Connecticut law professor Paul Schiff Berman, who specializes in Internet law.

The erosion of privacy tends to happen incrementally, Berman said. While no one intrusion may seem that big, over the course of the next decade or two, you might end up in a place as a society where you never thought you would be.

Google seized on the case to underscore its commitment to privacy rights and differentiate itself from the Internet's other major search engines — Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Time Warner Inc.'s America Online. All three say they complied with the Justice Department's request without revealing their users' personal information.

Cooperating with the government is a slippery slope and it's a path we shouldn't go down, Google co-founder Sergey Brin told industry analysts earlier this month.

Even as it defies the Bush administration, Google recently bowed to the demands of China's Communist government by agreeing to censor its search results in that country so it would have better access to the world's fastest growing Internet market. Google's China capitulation has been harshly criticized by some of the same people cheering the company's resistance to the Justice Department subpoena.

The Justice Department initially demanded a month of search requests from Google, but subsequently decided a week's worth of requests would be enough. In its legal briefs, the Justice Department has indicated it might be willing to narrow its request even further.

Ultimately, the government plans to select a random sample of 1,000 search requests previously made at Google and re-enter them in the search engine, according to a sworn declaration by Philip Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley who is helping the Justice Department in the case.

The government believes the test will show how easily it is to get around the filtering software that's supposed to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit material on the Web.

From an obscure site called Rogers Cadenhead.  The remainder of the stories, from the LA Times, etc., did not include anything about U.S. Troops protecting the Hezbollah sympathizers.