I just hope we don't have a repeat of the 2000 election...sm
Posted By: MQMT on 2008-10-09
In Reply to:
Whoever wins, let them win by a wide enough margin that the is no question. To this day I do not know how Bush et AL got away with that one. Talk about stupid democrats!
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
2000 election
Yes, Bush did win only one election. The first election was handed to him by the Supreme Court Five. If it had been handled properly and fairly, Gore would have won as he had the popular vote.
By trying to address 2000 and 2004 election corruption
nm
I'm so old I just hope I'm around next election. LOL
x
Repeat - Factcheck is not a reliable source, Repeat - no reliable
You keep citing Factcheck and we keep having to tell you Factcheck is not reliable. Why is it not reliable? Because it is funded by the Annenberg Foundation in which Obama is part of. AND because Obama was Chairman of the Board. It really is like talking to a wall. So let me repeat and read this nice and slow. Factcheck...not a reliable source. Cheese-o-Pete...you might as well just say you asked Michelle Obama and she said it's real. Additionally....the b/c they put up there was found to be a forgery. So...once again...factcheck not reliable...b/c submitted was a forgery.
So are you a fortune teller? You don't know if he will be elected or disqualified and neither do I. If the SC comes back and says he is legite I will drop the subject. If they find anything out of the ordinary then I will most likely say I told you so. If they say he's not legite but we'll change the constitution just for him, then I will be madder than a hornet and you'll hear from me. But all in all I will be satisfied with what the SC says. We won't know what their decision is until they make it.
If it comes back that he is ineligible and he lied, he better do some explaining to this country about why and he better calm his worshippers down. I think overall the country will be okay. For as many supporters that he has there are an equal number of people who don't support him and view him to be ineligibile. There are even people who support him, but are saying...wait a minute here, things are not adding up. Just show us the certificate and be done with it. In fact more so now since all this info came out and many people upset about it that they didn't know ahead of time.
As for what I think will happen. I really don't know. I do believe that quite possibly Hillary will step in and become President because she is the one that he wronged by campaigning when he knew he did not meet qualifications. So I believe probably she will become the next President and Biden will remain VP, or Biden will step in as President and she becomes VP.
I highly doubt the SC will just elect McCain because the republican party did not win and now that we have a congress/senate that's all democrat (or mostly democrat) they would prevent that somehow.
As for McCain? Heck no I didn't want him in there. I wanted one of the following - Chuck Baldwin from the constitutional party (but he had no chance whatsoever). I was also interested in Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. I really like Dennis Kucinich. I agreed with a lot of his ideas (especially impeachment of Bush) and I have agreed with a lot of what he has voted on in the past.
So maybe what I would really like to see happen is if the O is disqualified to have another "mini" campaign. All the candidates can run again and then the public decides after one or two months of campaigning. So, instead of having a President inaugerated in January they could be inaugerated in February or March. It would be different, but nothing like this has ever happened before.
I'll just say this on the whole b/c issues and this is why I say this and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
1. Let me first say I voted for Obama in the primaries. So in no way do I hate him or a racist or whatever else people want to throw out. I voted for him because he has some ideas I thought were good (thought is the key word).
2. After he was elected I read about the stolen election from Hillary (even though I was way so not supportive of her). I started learning about his lies to the people. His dealings with Ayers, ACORN, Wright, Farrakhan etc, etc.
3. He funds different groups who create websites to detract from the issues.
4. The media treated him like a prince while trashing McCain/Palin. I was no fan of theirs by all means but what happened to them was uncalled for.
5. The b/c he put up on the "factcheck" site was found to be a forgery.
6. We find out he's born in Kenya and legally goes and has the records sealed, along with his school records. He is hiding something and that is not very reassuring for over half the country here.
7. His grandmother was in the room when he was born along with his sister and brother.
8. His sister mentions multiple hospitals he was born at, while Obama mentions something totally different.
Those are only a few of the issues that are my concerns about his legitimacy.
On the other hand you have the issues/policies of his that I don't agree with and am finding out more and more how unsafe our country is going to be.
The incident in India has the you know what scared out of me and the thought of that happening here in our country is a real issue for me.
I was in the US Army. I spent 8 years in the service defending the country. It just makes me a bit upset to hear that people don't care if the Constition is not upheld, just so Obama gets in no matter what. All I want is the Constituion protected. That's all I'm asking for. Our founding fathers created it for a reason and we need to abide by it and not change it. I saw where Barney Franks tried to change it so that a foreign born could become president as long as they had been a citizen for 20 years (it was quite odd timing because not too much longer after that Obama decides to run and then we find there is a forged b/c. Timing of all this is just way too suspicious. All I say is let the supreme courts decide. That is what they are there for. I have read articles that say The Supreme Courts job is to protect the constitution and even if it means that a decision they make is not going to be popular, they are bound by their duty to defend the Constitution and they will.
So, once more I want to repeat that Factcheck is not reliable source because Obama/Annenberg Foundation and Factcheck are one in the same.
2000 dead: How many is
2000 Dead: How Many Is Too Many?
By Mike Hoffman
When I left for the Middle East in February 2003 with a Marine artillery unit, I was told Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, had been assisting Al Qaeda, was partly responsible for 9/11 and was an imminent threat to the United States and Iraq’s neighbors.
We destroyed Iraq’s under-equipped and demoralized military – the imminent threat to our nation -- in a little over a month. Since the invasion, no weapons inspection team has found evidence of any weapons of mass destruction and the claims that Saddam Hussein was working with Al Qaeda have been shown to be nonsense. When I left Iraq for home in May 2003, after President Bush told us “Mission Accomplished,” 139 Americans had died.
After the invasion was over and the occupation began, Iraqis didn’t throw flowers and candy at our feet. Instead roadside bombs and ambushes awaited us down every street. The administration said we were about to turn a corner. We were told that once Saddam and his sons were captured or killed the insurgents would give up, demoralized by the loss of their leader; peace would reign. By the time Saddam was captured in December 2003, 463 Americans had died in Iraq.
The capture of Saddam had no effect, and daily attacks against American forces and Iraqi security forces continued. It was during this time that the bloody Shiite Rebellion occurred. This was some of the fiercest fighting yet in Iraq. Even with this rebellion happening, we were told there was still hope. Sovereignty would soon be handed over to the Iraqis and another corner would be turned. But we needed to stay and provide the Iraqis security until we could “officially” turn the country back over to them. This would empower the Iraqis and end the Insurgency. By then, June 2004, 958 had come home in boxes.
Most Iraqis didn’t seem to care they had sovereignty, since we still occupied their country. They were still without electricity and faced an average unemployment rate of 70%. Every time US soldiers walked outside the wire they were still taking their lives in their hands. Then, we were told, elections would fix this. The Iraqis would have their own government in place and begin drafting a constitution. This would demoralize the terrorists and end the fighting. On the day of the elections, January 30, 2005, the U.S. death toll was 1,537.
What’s wrong with this picture?
The first time we were told the war was over we had lost 139 American; now we have lost 2,000 American lives in Iraq. Time and time again we are told things are getting better, that we have “turned a corner.”
In the Viet Nam War we didn’t “turn corners;” instead policy makers talked about the “light at the end of the tunnel.” We know now that by 1968 President Johnson knew there was no light at the end of the tunnel; he knew his war was lost. The Pentagon Papers showed this; Robert McNamara admits it today. Over 22,000 American troops died in Viet Nam after 1968 in a war our leaders knew was hopeless and just piling up American and Asian bodies.
Again, there is no light at the end of the tunnel, and we’ve turned so many corners we’re going in circles. Our leaders know they can’t win this war, but, like Johnson and McNamara, they refuse to admit it to the American people. Meanwhile, our troops remain a huge provocative force in the region and each individual soldier a prized target. Failure to face this reality is exacerbating the current chaos in Iraq and preventing real regional diplomatic solutions.
So the question falls to ordinary Americans: How many more brave men and women are we willing to sacrifice before we force our leaders to bring the troops home? I pray that it does not take another 56,000 like it did in Viet Nam.
Mike Hoffman was a lance corporal in a Marine artillery unit during the invasion of Iraq. He is a member of Iraq Veterans Against The War.
2000 yrs ago? Try 6000....
not looking for any kind of attention - you are awfully presuming/assuming for a public board/forum poster....you know nothing about me...
please do not respond to any of my posts if you don't like them - you DO have that choice.
I have never been called since 2000
to be included in a national poll. I'm Democrat. I answer all phone calls JUST to have my voice heard. Why haven't they called me?
Stolen, just like in 2000
I guess it is alright if the Republicans steal an election, but not the Dems???
The $2000 debit card sm
has provisions that state the card cannot be used for alcohol or cigarettes. They will get no cash back on any purchase.
The government has already thought of all these things. The card can only be used for food, personal items, etc.
I can't believe it matters. 2000 or 6000, what's... sm
The difference? It's still an ancient piece of fiction written by primitive, superstitious people from a corner of a long-dead empire. Why anyone in the present day would chose to believe any of it, let alone feel compelled to organize their life around it (or believe that it predicts the future, of all things!) is beyond me.
Here is the lastest immigration law, 2000. sm
http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=80
Then you'll just have to do what the dems did since 2000
Suck it up, tune him out and go on about your business.
Then you'll just have to do what the dems did since 2000
Suck it up, tune him out and go on about your business. He's not going anywhere anytime soon.
Another look at the 2000 Bush v. Gore debate.
I wonder if Bush would still have won if voters knew the extent to which he blatantly lied during this debate. To find the TRUTH, all someone has to do is take just about EVERYTHING Bush said, REVERSE IT (with the possible exception of the comment: "I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place." I didn't understand it in 2000 and still don't know what it means. And why did he only focus on "our friends in the Middle East?") I know this isn’t new news, but I found it interesting to take a second look at this. Hindsight being 20/20, I'm amazed at how good Gore is suddenly starting to look!
From www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute.
GORE: I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I've set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there.
BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.
Pot meets kettle. You mean like Tom Delay's 2000-2001
We are still dealing with the aftermath. But hey, he was just trying to help out the shrub and the rest of the GOP good ole boys.
This person was talking about the 2000 debit cards and calling them handouts...sm
Now is not the time to be talking about handups in the midst of a national disaster like the one in NO. In a time like this it is too late for that and inappropriate. But enlighten me, what kind of handup has the republican party offered the displaced NO citizens?
These people NEED HANDOUTS AND YESTERDAY, until they can regain some type of normal existence and then handups would be good. Some people can't stand to see a person get anything. I've learned that's just how some people are. Even though they are cush in front of their computers posting away, they think if I'm not getting 2000 dollars from the government neither should they. And then there's the, I got mine croud. They feel that these people should have educated themselves, worked harder and they wouldn't be in this position, so let em' stay in the astrodome until they can figure something out.
I don't agree and think these compasionate conservative Christians who think this way should ask themselves WWJD?
repeat - sm
If checking the adoption records is part of the normal background check, then the only reason this is a problem is because the media is making it one.
Again, and I repeat. sm
This is NOT how MJF is every day! I thought I explained this above. I am not diminishing the disease. My mother-in-law died of it a year and a half ago. It's a terrible disease. But he controls much of the symptoms with medication, which he did not take, or so the word was last night. Now I am reading that he actually had overmedicated himself. Now, having said that, you have proved my point about apologies. I didn't hear anyone on the left mentioning when the famous leftie Ben Affleck, made fun of people with cerebral palsy. He never apologized either, that I know of. But, of course, that's different. It's only bad when conservatives do it. It's bad all the way around, I say.
repeat after me
fair and balanced . . . fair and balanced . . . fair and balanced . . . obama is a muslim . . . economy is fundamentally strong . . . fair and balanced . . .
Anything.... I repeat - ANYTHING! is better
Biggest embarrassment this country has ever had in office. Time for Retardo to HIT THE ROAD.
Let me repeat myself
Because you're not getting it.
"Where did I say in my post to watch Fox News"
Where??? It didn't.
"Better to stay silent and remain a food, then to speak and remove all doubt" - Benjamin Franklin
Looks like I have to repeat AGAIN -
Snopes.com is not a credible site to verify truths/falses. They have been noted time and time again to say something is false when it's true and vice versa. It is a site run by two very liberal people. So if I go and create a website with a relative of mine and we put up a bunch of false claims as long as it veers in the positive towards the viewpoint we like your going to start telling us that we are credible? I don't think so. If you want to believe Snopes, then you might as well tell people to go read it in the National Inquirer, Star or any of those other sites you can access on line.
Here's a repeat one more time for those that do not get it.... do not come back here and tell us that something is truth or fiction because it said so on Snopes. Research many many sites. Do not judge things just by a liberal or a conservative site. Read, read, read and judge for yourselves. Find out who is behind these websites and what agenda are they fulfilling. Then make up your mind.
I could care less that the article has to say right now. What I am telling you and others is that Snopes has been wrong about many issues time and time again. Do not believe them, or if you do pull up their site pull up other sites as well to verify information, but don't come here and try and tell us something is or is not true because Snopes said it was or wasn't. Okay, got it now???
I'm not judging. All I did was repeat what she herself said.
I don't wrap myself in the Bible and the flag and justify my actions by saying that Jesus doesn't care if I act like a hateful person because he forgives me for every single thing I do, giving me free rein to act like a thug. I take responsibility for my own actions.
I repeat...have as much right to be here and post as you do...
And until this becomes Venezuela North, I will exercise it. You can have all the opinions you want, and so can anyone else, along as they agree with you. If you have issues that are important to you, post them, defend them....don't spend so much time trying to silence me and put forth those issues that you are concerned about. No one is stopping you from doing that.
Will history repeat?
If Senator McCain is elected, wonder what excuses will be used to keep him away from the convention in 2012?
I repeat....there was no surplus...
that was just clever use of word. It was a "projected" surplus, and it was contingent upon a cap on federal spending for 15 years, and no added federal programs. There was no real "surplus" sitting around.
Mea culpa on the borrowing. I have already said Bush spent like a drunken sailor. Spending needs to be curbed. Neither candidate is willing to say what I think needs to be done...no more new programs and stop the ones that are not working. When we get back in the "black" again, then we can look at increasing programs. Throwing more money at stuff is obviously not the answer.
again why do i have to repeat this over and over WHO SAID IM CHRISTIAN!
IVE NEVER said that and in fact in my first post said "not all people against gay marriage are christian".
sacred to me means something i believe strongly in no matter what "faith" has to do with it, sorry you have nothing like that
Then I repeat...why doesn't your guy....
the prez candidate on the other ticket...go to a venue where actual Americans ask the actual questions and communicate with "us" directly??
Could you repeat the question?
Cause I can see Russia over there and they aren't too happy about having to loan Iceland money I can tell ya.
GP - how many times do we have to repeat
It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Obama, Bill Ayers, and Factcheck.org all have ties to the Annenberg Foundation.
Obama has ties to Factcheck.org. In 1995 Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge - A branch of the Annenberg Foundation.
Factcheck.org is part of the Annenberg Foundation. Factcheck was also chosen by the Obama campaign as the arbitrar of Obama's birth certificate.
Anyone can put two and two together and see that Obama and The Annenberg Foundation pays Factcheck.org to put out the false information.
Factcheck claims it has "verified" the O's bc, but other sites has found several inconsistencies which call into question whether the certificate is authentic.
Before you tell anyone they should quit reading blogs that have any useful information, you should not be citing a website that is clearly misleading people and feeding them false information, and that is paid for by the Annenberg Foundation which = Obama.
Disregard this repeat.
x
I repeat - take it offline if you want to
Otherwise, any post on this board is fair game for anyone to read and reply to.
...and how could I have guessed that an individual's qualifications to post on a particular topic (in this case, terrorism, 9/11 and related intelligence matters) would be meaningless to you? Well, because you've already proven that you're the kind who's invited to a steak dinner and prefers to eat out of the garbage can.
Good for Joe! I hope so. And I hope he sues...
the governor of the state of Ohio from now to next week. He should. They BIG time violated his civil rights. If this situation was reversed and he was a Dem who had asked McCain a question and a state had had him investigated, the ACLU would be all over this like ugly on an ape. Liberals only care about other liberals...they could care LESS what happens to conservatives. But yeah, they are all about civil liberties. Geez. Pull the other leg awhile.
If you can repeat yourself a zillion times..
Hearings where grounds for impeachment are the only topic of discussion are accurately referred to as imjpeachment hearings. Your attempts to distract do not change anything. The issues and evidence are up there for you to read. The links are provided. Dennis Kucinich can do this better than any of them. Watch the CSPAN interview and then come back and tell me there's nothing there.
This video is propaganda. Repeat...
nm
Stand down. If you respond, she will repeat herself
an over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Oh I see....just drive by and repeat the same opinions over and over.
Thank you for clarifying that for me.
Repeat: DNC phenomenal success.
nm
Yes I have. I repeat, he is a patriotic American first..sm
I also think that McCain is a patriotic American and have no desire to stomp on him and drag him through the mud just because he is not what I want for president.
Brainwashed. Rinse. Repeat.
xx
Whew - guess it's not a repeat then.
I don't always keep up with this board, but I thought this was interesting.
She did not repeat O's words, but that is is plan.
nm
I see he couldn't even repeat the oath...
of office without it being repeated for him twice. Get the teleprompters ready!
"Socialism!" Boo, Hiss, Repeat......
The government pays for police departments, other law enforcement agencies and the military, so I guess we have socialized security. The government pays for public schools, so I guess we have socialized education.
The government pays for cleaning the streets and waste disposal, so I guess we have socialized sanitation. With any luck, someday, the government will take on the responsibility of truly providing health care for everyone in the country, so I guess if that’s socialized medicine, I can hardly wait.
If conservative Republicans are trying to make a fear of socialism their rallying cry to upset the Obama administration’s efforts to deal with our economic crisis, that pitiful effort will only make them look even more ridiculous in the eyes of the general public.
Michael Spielman
"Socialism!" Boo, Hiss, Repeat......
The government pays for police departments, other law enforcement agencies and the military, so I guess we have socialized security. The government pays for public schools, so I guess we have socialized education.
The government pays for cleaning the streets and waste disposal, so I guess we have socialized sanitation. With any luck, someday, the government will take on the responsibility of truly providing health care for everyone in the country, so I guess if that’s socialized medicine, I can hardly wait.
If conservative Republicans are trying to make a fear of socialism their rallying cry to upset the Obama administration’s efforts to deal with our economic crisis, that pitiful effort will only make them look even more ridiculous in the eyes of the general public.
Michael Spielman
Will this then be a repeat of Sodom and Gomorrha?....nm
nm
To answer this I would only repeat my prior statements..nm
Geez....I repeat....Clinton had the exact same...
intelligence that Bush had...Bush inherited most of it from the CLinton administration along with Richard Clarke and George Tenet...and all the democrats were on board for it then, believed it then, LONG before Bush took office. That is fact. So if Bush lied, it is because Clinton lied first and Bush believed him. And one air force colonel is not going to change my mind on this. Do you have any sources but this colonel's book?
It is not weapons grade uranium, correct...yet. But it certainly could be enriched. Don't tell me Saddam kept 500 metric tons for peaceful purposes?
As far as the niger/yellowcake thing...Plame and her husband were right in the middle of that, and she claimed and it is documented that there was no evidence of yellowcake in Iraq at that time. Which we know is a lie, because they just exported 500 metric tons of it last week. So please...I don't buy what the Colonel is selling. You can if you like.
I do not dispute that abortion is legal in this country. I do dispute that the Supreme Court has the write to strike down a perfectly good state law and replace it with an "opinion." If you will check the constitution, it says only the congress can enact law. Not the Supreme court. Issue an opinion, yes. Strike down a law and replace it with the opinion of activist judges...no. It is unconstitutional and should be struck down. But then it would have to go to Congress to be voted into law, and so far congress has not been willing to legislate abortion. So activist judges did. They imposed their will on all of us. That is unconstitutional no matter how you look at it. Suppose conservative judges overturned Rowe vs. Wade, the same as liberal activist judges overturned the state law prohibiting abortion? Would you be as strongly behind that decision or would you be screaming you can't legislate from the bench like I am? LOL.
What is fact that in poll after poll after poll, over 50% of this country are against abortion. Those activist judges took the will of the people and said, basically, up yours, and forced their opinion on all of us. Unconstitutional, unfair, and so much for the majority will of the people.
You are right, it is not my choice. You speak for the right of the mother to choose, I speak for the right of the child to live...and I feel has as much right to life as any human being. Period. And I will fight for it, through legal channels, and hope that some day we may have a conservative majority to overturn Roe Vs. Wade and then put the question on state ballots where it belongs. Let the people decide, because Congress will not touch it with a 10-foot pole.
Geez, listen to ya. Morality is already legislated. We have laws against murder. We have laws against theft. We have laws against pornography. We have laws against child molestation. We have laws against rape. Hellooo....legislating morality. And you better be glad we DO legislate morality. What a statement...we can legislate morality when the American theocracy is established. Good grief!!! If it is all about choice, then why can't we choose to just take whatever we want, no matter who owns it. Why can't we just shoot people who annoy us or get in our way or hurt us. Why can't NAMBLA just grab up all the little boys they want? Because we legislate morality...that's why.
Good grief, we have laws against cruelty to animals, but it is okay to murder millions of babies in the name of "choice." Perhaps that all works in your mind...does not in mine.
As to Bush's contempt
I repeat...she mentioned upholding the Alaskan...
constitution twice. If she was one of "them" that is NOT what she would have said. Dailykos is a swamp with no bottom. They broke the nastiness about Palin's youngest child actually being the daughter's and ran with it, and the stuff there was vile. If that is "liberal opinion," and that is what you want to identify with, fine by me. Obama repudiated it...but he took their money.
Oh my, their leader was MURDERED. How many unexplained deaths surround the Clintons? Do we really want to go there?
Obama consorted with a known unapologetic anarchist/terrorist, William Ayers. And took money from him at a fundraiser at Ayer's house. So if you are going to blame Palin for making a video speech to this group, and not blame Obama for going to the house and taking the money of a man who bombed the Pentagon and police stations and caused deaths...does the term double standard ring any bells here?
I repeat...religious fanatics scare me!
I don't care what religion they are. If they are fanatic about their chosen religion, they are not independent thinkers, and I find that frightening.
Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
*
|
