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
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I especially enjoyed the real refreshing lie I caught him in the other day...did you catch it?

Posted By: see inside on 2009-01-09
In Reply to: He's not campaigning...(sm) - Just the big bad

...no, guess not...no one in the media called him on it either.


Here, let me give you a hint. Obama said that all of the conservative and liberal economists agreed that his economy recovery plan was good (or would work, or something like that).


The lie being that "all the conservative economists" part.

That was one, big, fat, honking lie.....no one even blinked and took his word for it.


My DH says there's at least a half dozen conservative economists out there that don't agree with Obama...and yet....if Obama says they do....everyone believes him.


He lies and you don't even know it, he's so smooth about it.....



But some of us know he does...lie that is......he's getting real good at talking both sides of the issues, so that if something does or doesn't come to pass, he can say I told you so....or whatever needs to be said to save his you know whatsis.

I think he's learned a lot from the Clintons lately, don't you?


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

How refreshing...nm
x
What would be refreshing

is if politicians would stop this political party crap and do things that will better our country instead of holding off until someone in their party is pres so their party gets the credit.  That is just sad and makes me think less of the dems if that is truly what they are doing.  I highly doubt that this will ever happen but wouldn't it be nice if the politicians were actually out to make a better America instead of just getting elected and making major bucks while the country goes down the drain....and that goes for all political parties. 


This election is particularly scary because of our current circumstances.  People strictly voting for someone because of the color of their skin or someone blindly voting without research......it really scares the crap out of me regarding who and what the next President of the United States will bring.  Heck, we may be screwed no matter which moron we pick to be pres.


How refreshing
To come to this site and read a thoughtful, insightful post. 
It is actually quite refreshing to see this post...nm

I enjoyed that
I enjoyed reading your post.  I don't agree about the whole Obama thing....I think he is a huge mistake but that is just my opinion.  However, like you, I am thoroughly impressed by Palin and what she has accomplished.  I too like that she is not from "washington."  I personally believe that she will be the refreshing change that we need!  And like you said, Clinton had no experience and was just the governor or Arkansas and was deemed good enough to be pres and yet Palin isn't?  I think she would be WAY better than Clinton ever was if she had to step up and be pres.  Palin was an excellent choice whether McCain made that decision himself or not!!!
How sad you find ignorance refreshing.....
xx
I don't find ignorance refreshing

There was nothing ignorant in that post.  I agree with oldtimer that the hate being spewed at McCain's and Palin's rallies is scary.  And I don't like the fact that they are encouraging it.  I am afraid for Obama.  He's a good, decent, honest man and there are a lot of crazed people out there. 


What a powerful post. Refreshing, too.
Thanks so much for sharing this profound insight.
Refreshing to see he loves his wife, and isn't
And it's about time, too. Out with the old, and in with the new!

YAAAYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!
After all the Bush bashing this is refreshing....
just like Bush gave the left so much ammo, the great and powerful O is giving conservatives a lot of ammo...he's just gotta be him, and that is plenty of ammo. Good grief, with all due respect...he has only been in office 5 months and has completely turned is back on most of his campaign promises and is looking about as much like Bush as Bush...lol. He is Bush on steroids....we are only just realizing that Bush was Obama lite! What a hoot.
Enjoyed your post, GT.

Not sure why the other poster is so offended.  And it was more of a synopsis of Jewish beliefs than a lecture on Christianity. 


I also wanted to say that here in middle America I have friends who are Jewish and their beliefs are pretty much right where you're at also.  And it's not just them but their friends and relatives also.  I guess if the other poster only chooses to look at radical teachings - whether radical right-wing, evangelical Christian, radical Jew or even terrorist Muslims as speaking for all, then we can only hope they can educate themselves over time to what the rest of the world has to offer. 


I really enjoyed the discussion, as well.
It was nice to have a peaceful discussion with differing viewpoints. Peace to you, too. 
Enjoyed your post!

Thank you and your post talks about a lot of things I had already believed were true.


I know that in Minnesota the state offers a subsized health care plan with a sliding scale payment plan based on income.  It has problems though with coverage amount and asset limitations, but it seemed like a start in the right direction.  My thought is that ALL people should be able to purchase health care - I am more than happy to pay for it - my main problem is that a lot of jobs don't offer it so then you are completely out of luck unless you purchase it yourself which is ridiculously expensive.  A government-subsidized program which CHARGES for insurance but offers it to all is what I'd like to see.  And as a person who has relatives who work for a large insurance company (and these folks make an appalling amount of money) - I can't believe those money-making insurance companies have the best interests of American's health as their primary concern!!


I've really enjoyed communicating with

you this week.  Even though we don't agree, I respect your views and I particularly enjoy reading your posts because you don't get personal and attack others, and it seems that you treat people as you would like to be treated.  All that does is increase my desire to read every single post you write because you write intelligently, and I feel I can learn a lot from you.


Please keep posting.


Ladies, I have SO enjoyed your posts...
like both of you, I have Native American ancestry (Cherokee and Choctaw), Swedish and Irish. But I am an American. Our ancestors who founded this country did not come here and call it England across the water. They wanted to come to a free land with freedom and tolerance for all peoples and religions. It was a wonderful, bold, beautiful dream, and for a long time, it worked. Then enter human nature, petty jealousy and the lot...typical. To use the old addage, has never been a perfect human but one and what happened to him? Hung on a cross.

But I digress. It distresses me to read the "we are citizens of the world" stuff. Excuse me. I am not a citizen of the world. I am a citizen of the United States of America, I am proud of her heritage and her beginnings, always have and always will be. As I said in a previous post...I have never, ever been ashamed of her, but I have been very ashamed of some of her citizens.

It is blatantly obvious to me why so many europeans speak many languages...good grief, most of them are bordered by 2-3 different countries with different languages like our states border one another. So in order to travel, do business and interact, they have to learn different languages. Luckily we don't have Texan, Oklahoman, Wyomingian, etc...we have English. Most of Canada speaks English. We have one country that borders us who have a different language.

And what is wrong with having a national language? France has one...it's French. Germany has one...it's German. Spain has one...its Spanish. Mexico has one...its Spanish. Do you think if suddenly half of Germany illegally "immigrated" to France, France would be interested in putting a press 1 for German on all their phones and putting everything in both languages? Uh...no. I don't see that happening. lol.

Yes, I am a proud flag waver. She flies on a 20-ft pole outside my house every day and she will continue to. I am an American. And I agree...people who immigrate here should do so to become citizens of this country. We are a country of "mutts" as you say...and I use that term very affectionately. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And in the not so distant past, it was being Americans that drew all us "Mutts" together and kept us strong and united as a country. How it pains me to see that start to go away.
I enjoyed a little laugh at my own joke. nm
x
Ditto, I always enjoyed your posts as well.
//
You said you enjoyed proving people wrong...
then provide your source. And provide some more current statistics. That is all I asked for. A simple request. If you can't, you can't. No biggie.
Hope you enjoyed your freedom/choices! sm
Sometimes what we thought was so bad starts to look better when we get something worse, especially when we did not see it coming.  Socialism is not going to be as great as you might think.
No, goofy. Republicans are REAL people, real
nm
If the real folks, with real hope, faith, and
and for our country's future who participate here on this forum were just a tad as healthy, wealthy and wise as this poster considers herself, we probably wouldn't be sitting in front of these silly computers trying to make a living!! Can't figure why she is here other than tell us how healthy, wealthy and wise she is and we are not!
catch - you know what I mean -

Iraq's Catch 22

Came across this earlier ~ My sentiments from another's pen.  Found on the Independent's web site.


Catch 22 in Iraq
Why American Troops Can’t Go Home


by Michael Schwartz


Every week or so, the Department of Defense conducts a video-conference press briefing for reporters in Washington, featuring an on-the-ground officer in Iraq. On November 15th, that briefing was with Col. Jeffrey Bannister, commander of the Second Brigade of the Second Infantry Division. He was chosen because of his unit’s successful application of surge tactics in three mainly Shia districts in eastern Baghdad. He had, among other things, set up several outposts in these districts offering a 24-hour American military presence; he had also made generous use of transportable concrete walls meant to separate and partition neighborhoods, and had established numerous checkpoints to prevent unauthorized entry or exit from these communities.


As Col. Bannister summed up the situation:



“We have been effective, and we’ve seen violence significantly reduced as our Iraqi security forces have taken a larger role in all aspects of operations, and we are starting to see harmony between Sunni and Shi’a alike.”


The briefing seemed uneventful — very much a reflection of the ongoing mood of the moment among American commanders in Iraq — and received no significant media coverage. However, there was news lurking in an answer Col. Bannister gave to a question from AP reporter Pauline Jelinek (about arming volunteer local citizens to patrol their neighborhoods), even if it passed unnoticed. The colonel made a remarkable reference to an unexplained “five-year plan” that, he indicated, was guiding his actions. Here was his answer in full:



“I mean, right now we’re focused just on security augmentation [by the volunteers] and growing them to be Iraqi police because that is where the gap is that we’re trying to help fill capacity for in the Iraqi security forces. The army and the national police, I mean, they’re fine. The Iraqi police is — you know, the five-year plan has — you know, it’s doubling in size. … [We expect to have] 4,000 Iraqi police on our side over the five-year plan.


“So that’s kind of what we’re doing. We’re helping on security now, growing them into IP [Iraqi police]…. They’ll have 650 slots that I fill in March, and over the five-year period we’ll grow up to another 2,500 or 3,500.


Most astonishing in his comments is the least astonishing word in our language: “the.” Colonel Bannister refers repeatedly to “the five-year plan,” assuming his audience understands that there is indeed a master plan for his unit — and for the American occupation — mandating a slow, many-year buildup of neighborhood-protection forces into full fledged police units. This, in turn, is all part of an even larger plan for the conduct of the occupation.


Included in this implicit understanding is the further assumption that Col. Bannister’s unit, or some future replacement unit, will be occupying these areas of eastern Baghdad for that five-year period until that 4,000 man police force is finally fully developed.


Staying the Course, Any Course


A recent Washington Post political cartoon by Tom Toles captured the irony and tragedy of this “five-year plan.” A big sign on the White House lawn has the message “We can’t leave Iraq because it’s going…” and a workman is adjusting a dial from “Badly” to “Well.”


This cartoon raises the relevant question: If things are “going well” in Iraq, then why aren’t American troops being withdrawn? This is a point raised persuasively by Robert Dreyfuss in a recent Tomdispatch post in which he argues that the decline in three major forms of violence (car bombs, death-squad executions, and roadside IEDs) should be the occasion for a reduction, and then withdrawal, of the American military presence. But, as Dreyfuss notes, the Bush administration has no intention of organizing such a withdrawal; nor, it seems, does the Democratic Party leadership — as indicated by their refusal to withhold funding for the war, and by the promises of the leading presidential candidates to maintain significant levels of American troops in Iraq, at least through any first term in office.


The question that emerges is why stay this course? If violence has been reduced by more than 50%, why not begin to withdraw significant numbers of troops in preparation for a complete withdrawal? The answer can be stated simply: A reduction in the violence does not mean that things are “going well,” only that they are going “less badly.”


You can tell things can’t be going well if your best-case plan is for an armed occupation force to remain in a major Baghdad community for the next five years. It means that the underlying causes of disorder are not being addressed. You can tell things are not going well if five more years are needed to train and activate a local police force, when police training takes about six months. (Consider this an indication that the recruits exhibit loyalties and goals that run contrary to those of the American military.) You can tell things are not going well when communities have to be surrounded by cement walls and checkpoints that naturally disrupt normal life, including work, school, and daily shopping. These are all signs that escalating discontent and protest may require new suppressive actions in the not-so-distant future.


The American military is well aware of this. They keep reminding us that the present decline in violence may be temporary, nothing more than a brief window of opportunity that could be used to resolve some of the “political problems” facing Iraq before the violence can be reinvigorated. The current surge — even “the five year plan” — is not designed to solve Iraq’s problems, just to hold down the violence while others, in theory, act.


What Does the Bush Administration Want in Iraq?


What are the political problems that require resolution? The typical mainstream media version of these problems makes them out to be uniquely Iraqi in nature. They stem — so the story goes — from deeply engrained friction among Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, frustrating all efforts to resolve matters like the distribution of political power and oil revenues. In this version, the Americans are (usually inept) mediators in Iraqi disputes and are fated to remain in Iraq only because the Bush administration has little choice but to establish relatively peaceful and equitable solutions to these disputes before seriously considering leaving.


By now, however, most of us realize that there is much more to the American purpose in Iraq than a commitment to an elected government in Baghdad that could peacefully resolve sectarian tensions. The rhetoric of the Bush administration and its chief democratic opponents (most notably Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) is increasingly laced with references — to quote Clinton — to “vital national security interests” in the Middle East that will require a continuing “military as well as political mission.” In Iraq, leading Washington politicians of both parties agree on the necessity of establishing a friendly government that will welcome the presence of a “residual” American military force, oppose Iran’s regional aspirations, and prevent the country from becoming “a petri dish for insurgents.”


Let’s be clear about those “vital national security interests.” America’s vital interests in the Middle East derive from the region’s status as the world’s principle source of oil. President Jimmy Carter enunciated exactly this principle back in 1980 when he promulgated the Carter Doctrine, stating that the U.S. was willing to use “any means necessary, including military force,” to maintain access to supplies of Middle Eastern oil sufficient to keep the global economy running smoothly. All subsequent presidents have reiterated, amplified, and acted on this principle.


The Bush administration, in applying the Carter Doctrine, was faced with the need to access increasing amounts of Middle Eastern oil in light of constantly escalating world energy consumption. In 2001, Vice-President Cheney’s Energy Task Force responded to this challenge by designating Iraq as the linchpin in a general plan to double Middle Eastern oil production in the following years. It was reasonable, task force members decided, to hope for a genuine spurt in production in Iraq, whose oil industry had remained essentially stagnant (or worse) from 1980 to that moment. By ousting the backward-looking regime of Saddam Hussein and transferring the further development, production, and distribution of Iraq’s bounteous oil reserves to multinational oil companies, they would assure the introduction of modern methods of production, ample investment capital, and an aggressive urge to increase output. Indeed, after removing Saddam via invasion in 2003, the Bush administration has made repeated (if so far unsuccessful) efforts to implement this plan.


The desire for such an endpoint has hardly disappeared. It became increasingly clear, however, that successful implementation of such plans would, at best, take many years, and that the maintenance of a powerful American political and military presence within Iraq was a necessary prerequisite to everything else. Since sustaining such a presence was itself a major problem, however, it also became clear that America’s plans depended on dislodging powerful forces entrenched in all levels of Iraqi society — from public opinion to elected leaders to the insurgency itself.


American ambitions — far more than sectarian tensions — constitute the irresolvable core of Iraq’s political problems. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis oppose the occupation. They wish the Americans gone and a regime in place in Baghdad that is not an American ally. (This is true whether you are considering the Shiite majority or the Sunni minority.) As for a “residual” American military presence, the Iraqi Parliament recently passed a resolution demanding that the UN mandate for a U.S. occupation be rescinded.


Even the issue of terrorism is controversial. The American propensity to label as “terrorist” all violent opposition to the occupation means that most Iraqis (57% in August 2007), when asked, support terrorism as defined by the occupiers, since majorities in both the Sunni and Shia communities endorse using violent means to expel the Americans. Hillary Clinton’s ambition that the U.S. must prevent Iraq from becoming a “petri dish for insurgency” (like the President’s stated fear that the country could become the center of an al-Qaedan “caliphate”) will require the forcible suppression of most resistance to the American presence.


As for opposition to Iran, 60% of Iraqi citizens are Shiites, who have strong historic, religious, and economic ties to Iran, and who favor friendly relations with their neighbor. Even Prime Minister Maliki — the Bush administration’s staunchest ally — has repeatedly strengthened political, economic, and even military ties with Iran, causing numerous confrontations with American diplomats and military officials. As long as the Shia dominate national politics, they will oppose the American demand that Iraq support the United States campaign to isolate and control Iran. If the U.S. insists on an ally in its anti-Iran campaign, it must find a way in the next few years to alter these loyalties, as well as Sunni loyalties to the insurgency.


Finally there is that unresolved question of developing Iraqi oil reserves. For four years, Iraqis of all sectarian and political persuasions have (successfully) resisted American attempts to activate the plan first developed by Cheney’s Energy Task Force. They have wielded sabotage of pipelines, strikes by oil workers, and parliamentary maneuvering, among other acts. The vast majority of the population — including a large minority of Kurds and both the Sunni and Shia insurgencies — believes that Iraqi oil should be tightly controlled by the government and therefore support every effort — including in many cases violent resistance — to prevent the activation of any American plan to transfer control of significant aspects of the Iraqi energy industry to foreign companies. Implementation of the U.S. oil proposal therefore will require the long-term suppression of violent and non-violent local resistance, as well as strenuous maneuvering at all levels of government.


Foreigners (Americans Excepted) Not Welcome


This multidimensional opposition to American goals cannot be defeated simply by diplomatic maneuvering or negotiations between Washington and the still largely powerless government inside Baghdad’s Green Zone. The Bush administration has repeatedly gained the support of Prime Minister Maliki and his cabinet for one or another of its crucial goals — most recently for the public announcement that the two governments had agreed that the U.S. would maintain a “long-term troop presence” inside Iraq. Such an embrace is never enough, since the opposition operates at so many levels, and ultimately reaches deep into local communities, where violent and nonviolent resistance results in the sabotage of oil production, attacks on the government for its support of the U.S. presence, and direct attacks on American troops.


Nor can the pursuit of these goals be transferred — any time soon — to an American-trained Iraqi army and police force. All previous attempts at such a transfer have yielded Iraqi units that were reluctant to fight for U.S. goals and could not be trusted unsupervised in the field. The “five year plan” Colonel Bannister mentioned is an acknowledgement that training an Iraqi force that truly supports an American presence and would actively enforce American inspired policies is a distant hope. It would depend on the transformation of Iraqi political attitudes as well as of civic and government institutions that currently resist U.S. demands. It would involve a genuine, successful pacification of the country. In this context, a decline in the fighting and violence in Iraq, both against the Americans and between embittered Iraqi communities, is indeed only a first step.


So surge “success” doesn’t mean withdrawal — yes, some troops will come home slowly — but the rest will have to embed themselves in Iraqi communities for the long haul. This situation was summarized well by Captain Jon Brooks, the commander of Joint Security Station Thrasher in Western Baghdad, one of the small outposts that represent the front lines of the surge strategy. When asked by New Yorker reporter Jon Lee Anderson how long he thought the U.S. would remain in Iraq, he replied, “I’m not just blowing smoke up your ass, but it really depends on what the U.S. civilian-controlled government decides its goals are and what it tells the military to do.”


As long as that government is determined to install a friendly, anti-Iranian regime in Baghdad, one that is hostile to “foreigners,” including all jihadists, but welcomes an ongoing American military presence as well as multinational development of Iraqi oil, the American armed forces aren’t going anywhere, not for a long, long time; and no relative lull in the fighting — temporary or not — will change that reality. This is the Catch-22 of Bush administration policy in Iraq. The worse things go, the more our military is needed; the better they go, the more our military is needed.


Yes, but missed it. Will try to catch it during
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
did anyone catch how she said "nucular" ? --- OMG
Just gave me that warm McBush feeling all over...
catch ya later, babe.
nm
Anyone else catch the first dance?
Have you ever seen so much love between 2 people? 
He's not "my boy". I only catch him

a couple times a week early in the morning if I can't sleep.


I don't have stocks or bonds, so it's really a moot point. I just need some laughs once in a while over how upset he gets over some things.


I caught that too.. Don't know if he
intended for it to come across the way I took it, but it felt like a dig to whites. Disappointing.
I caught that
I just can't stand to watch Keith talk about anything because he always misses the point.  That was my point, which you missed, just like Keith.
Not sure his karma will catch up with him any time soon....
Remember he's got the power that he created backing him.  And yes, I did read that what he did, if he did it as claimed, could be punishable in the extreme.  But of course I think nothing will happen.  I am following this with great interest.  Here's from the AP:

WASHINGTON - For the better part of two years, the word coming out of the Bush White House was that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a female CIA officer's identity and that whoever did would be fired.




But Bush spokesman Scott McClellan wouldn't repeat those claims Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledging the political operative spoke to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, one of the reporters who disclosed Valerie Plame's name.


McClellan repeatedly said he couldn't comment because the matter is under investigation. When it was pointed out he had commented previously even though the investigation was ongoing, he responded: "I've really said all I'm going to say on it."


_____________


Could it be that the White House has told a LIE????  How many is that now?


So anyway, if you hear any more interesting news on this please share.


 


If anyone can catch Hardball tonight

on MSNBC, there's a wonderful interview with parents of one of the Marines who was killed in the last couple days in Iraq.


These people gave the ultimate sacrifice, and IMHO their voices are very important.


Already been discussed on both boards. Catch up. nm
x
wow did anybody catch the daily show

depended on it.


 


Deliverance, anyone?


Evidently, she did't quite catch your drift.
nm
Hazel is that catch-all eye color,
not brown, not green, not gray, sort of indeterminate (too long a word to put on the driver's license, so they invented hazel.)
She wasn't *caught* in anything.
Stop lying.  You lose all credibility when you do that.
Biden Caught In A Lie

Biden caught in a lie





This really couldn’t have come at a worse time for Joe Biden. Speaking on Fox and Friends, Sen. Biden, the Democrat VP nominee denied reports from ABC news that if elected, he planned on pursuing criminal charges against the Bush Administration.



“That’s not true. I don’t know where that report’s coming from,” Biden told Fox & Friends.


Here you go Joe. See if this jogs your memory just a bit.



Poor old Joe. I expect the “Dump Biden” movement to pick up steam in the next few days.


h/t FreeRepublic


yeah, i caught that too.
x
I caught this last night. Wow,
Obama would be wise to find a place somewhere for Mr. Pickins as an energy advisor -- he's got it all figured out!!
Hmmm....why are you so caught up in what's on
--
Well, at least you have a new catch phrase. Don't wear it out now, ya hear? nm

By any chance, you catch Larry King?
To begin with, I was a pregnant teen and most definitively will be voting for Obama. The other unwed mother poster is voting for Obama too in case you hadn't noticed. Bully, fear and threat tactics are not effective.

His candidacy is alive and well and has nothing to do with this issue and how it is going to play out. Tonight, Larry King's panel were talking this subject up one side and down the other. Every single issue that was raised today in these posts on this board were touched upon....every single one. SP is in the political arena now. Unfortunately, she has put her daughter there too. The issues surrounding this will be politicized. You can't stop this train.
Didn't quite catch the drift of this post.
su
I caught the nasty racist

little dig there.  I got that you were saying that Obama is ahead but his being black will doom him.  I didn't miss your sneaky way of signalling your fellow Rothschilds.


 


Corrupt Obama caught in the act.

How's this for abuse of power? 


While in the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama sure seems to have played footloose and fancy free with the taxpayer's money, to the benefit of his own circle of family and friends. 


A $25,000 grant to his first cousin.


$100,000 for a garden for one of his campaign workers   


$100,000 for Father Pflager to badmouth Hillary Clinton from his pulpit.


$75,000 to FORUM, a group who helped Obama pay off the debt from his failed 2000 Senate race.


Yeah, THIS is the guy I'm going to trust with 'changing' the way government does business. 


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6BA619B2-88A2-4245-8617-AA0A07F47068


Obama caught red handed.....

He finally said the words "SPREAD THE WEALTH" when asked by a plumber about raising his taxes.  THe plumber told him he could not afford to have his taxes raised because that would keep him from being able to expand his business, EMPLOY more folks, etc.  Obama told him yes he would but ONLY to help "spread the wealth" and make it fairer for others.  That man couldn't care less about small businesses.  If that isn't about the most ignorant/self-absorbed/SOCIALIST thing I have ever heard.  Anyone who still thinks he's a good deal needs a reality check. 


Even the Wall Street Journal says his policies are going to put businesses OUT OF BUSINESS because they cannot afford these ridiculous policy mandates.  This man is looking out for only one people and definitely NOT the country.   Now, he is going back and asking his "advisors" to REDO ANOTHER ECONOMIC POLICY so the one everyone is jumping on as WONDERFUL NEWS...be advised, it is changing again!!!


He is now wanting MORE money to give to MORE people so we can keep MORE PEOPLE on the welfare roll.  KEEP IT UP BUDDY.....SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM!!


 


I caught this deceit during the last debate
When Obama was asked if he would sign the ban against partial-birth abortion he responded he would if there was a clause allowing it in cases where the mother's health was at risk. Those of us who lived through the ྂs will recall this jargon effectively legalized second-into-third-trimester abortions under any circumstances--A physician had only to sign a form stating the woman's mental health was in jeopardy. I remember the actual coercion involved as it happened to someone very close to me, and--hate to admit it--I worked in an abortion clinic for a short time. Planned Parenthood and other "pro-choice" organizations are in reality pro-killing mills that are allocated federal and state funding according to the number of abortions they perform. It's to their obvious benefit that they "counsel" women towards the termination of their pregnancies.

Obama is slick and tried to slide that one through unnoticed. Beware.
I think I hit a nerve because you get caught in errors often
...if you want to succeed in this business
excuse my typos today...I catch them after I post... :) nm

Anyone catch John Kerry's speech last night?

Scathing against McCain.  Fabulous speech.  He echoed some of my thoughts on McCain, about how much he has changed to pander to the base and get the nomination.  Here is a snippet:


 


Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once denounced as immoral. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain’s own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote. Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you’re against it.


 


I'm a left-leaning independent who thought I may vote Republican this time around if McCain ran.  Well, he did, and as time went on I could see how much he has changed his positions to pander to the far right and I have lost most of my respect for him.  I'll give him credit for being a veteran and a POW (a point that while it was once a powerful emotional point for him is now abused by him as an excuse for just about everything is sadly becoming a joke of his own making), but candidate McCain is NOT the same as Senator John McCain.  Anyway, great speech by Sen. Kerry.