I seriously doubt the Dems would claim you,Zauber. You're another Howard Dean.
Posted By: Get real on 2005-09-05
In Reply to: That's yellow dog DEMOCRAT to you. - Zauber
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
Howard Dean is also an MD
so he's just a stupid "crat?" Who's stupid?
The media would be all over this if the nay sayers were dems...no doubt...nm
No doubt at all that you're an expert on the issue.
One of your heroes, Pat Robertson, is publicly making statements like a terrorist. I'm sure you know a lot about how terrorists think.
Get in the real world...........no doubt you're one
@@
Ron Howard. sm
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cc65ed650d
Zauber
Pat Robertson is not my spokesperson. As far as the rest of your unhinged leftist diatribe it doesn't justify a response.
Thank you, Zauber!
LOL Zauber!
Don't apologize. I love it! Was trying to think of another moniker, anyway, since *Libby* is the name of someone was involved in leaking the name of a CIA agent. I love my country and don't want to be associated with the treason committed by part of the Bush administration for the sake of *getting even* with a person for having the nerve to tell Americans the truth.
I thought of just turning the *bb* backwards, but then I become *Liddy* and I've never been arrested and don't want to be associated with that kind of corruption, either.
Just when I thought I wouldn't win, you came up with LILLY! I love it!
So don't apologize. Instead, please accept my thanks for the *handle*. 
Ummm....let's see....Howard Wolfson....
Lannie Davis, Bob Beckel, Susan Estrich, Greta Van Susteren, Geraldo Rivera...all of those are Democrats and all of those are liberals. Greta was at CNN before Fox. There are many others, I can't remember all their names. Fox has had the highest ratings during the democratic convention and they have covered the whole thing...so much for never reporting on issues important to Democrats. They covered Obama and McCain equally during the campaign season, and while I realize that to please this poster a network would have to be all Obama all the time, THAT is the definition of bias. And decidedly UNDEMOCRATic.
Fox has the highest news ratings in the country by a pretty hefty margin, so I am thinking that while "many" Democrats "despise" Fox News, many others don't mind seeing both sides of an issue. Imagine that!
You said a mouthful there, Zauber!
 If there's one thing I can't tolerate, it's a liar. There's no way I can trust a person who's lied to me, and most of them just don't have what it takes to "learn" to tell the truth. It's an inherent character flaw, from what I've experienced in my life.
Dang, Zauber!
Read your posts twice and am suddenly wondering if I know you and/or if you're my NEIGHBOR, because from your descriptions, I swear I've met the same people you've met! You flawlessly captured their essence very eloquently. And I agree with every single thing you said!
Maybe, Zauber, because you are not rational.
Your posts are all inflammatory, full of anger and rage, and you will only believe what you wish to. There is no reasoning with that. Why even try?
Have you heard the Howard Stern clip
circulating around. I no longer have it, but he sent his street reporter out and interviewed people in Harlem. They were asked who they were voting for, the ones that said Obama were then asked why? Reasons given to vote for him given by the interviewer were McCain's objectives - and they said yes that is why they were voting for him. They were also asked if they would be okay with Palin as the VP if Obama was elected - and they said yes. I think that says it all.
I need Howard Stern in the mornings! Not Sirius!
//
Oh, nooooooooo, Zauber. You got it wrong!
THEY are the poor innocent ones who are being ruthlessly attacked, completely unprovoked!
I'm thinking there's a LOT to be said for that "opposite side of the bring" thing mentioned above!!!
Hope you have a nice holiday weekend, and yes, it's much more pleasant here. I agree it's totally draining to even visit that board any more. I feel like I'm walking into a minefield.
Some of them actually do serve a valuable purpose, though. If I'm having a bad day when I'm upset, maybe making mistakes and feeling just generally stupid, I can always visit their board and instantly feel better, and I thank them for that.
James Dean? No way!
Did not know that
Send Senator Howard Carroll your suggestions. sm
He is retired now. No, I do not think a flight instructor is a small job, but it is a weenie job when compared to a soldier doing a tour in a war zone.
Bravo Zauber..well said and directly to the point..
I will never understand how people think that opposing an erroneous(in this case fictional and delusional) government policy is unpatriotic and a detriment to our troops. I don't want to see any more die for reasons that do not nor have ever existed.
Sometimes, Zauber, you just leave yourself wide open.
Robert Bennett was CLINTON'S lawyer during several of his sexual harrassment lawsuits and the Monica fiasco. Yes, he is a real Republican partisan. Sheesh.
article from john dean
Was Pat Robertson's Call for Assassination of a Foreign Leader a Crime?
By John W. Dean
FindLaw.com
Friday 26 August 2005
Had he been a Democrat, he'd probably be hiring a criminal attorney.
On Monday, August 22, the Chairman of the Christian Broadcast Network, Marion Pat Robertson, proclaimed, on his 700 Club television show, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be murdered.
More specifically, Robertson said, You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.
We have the ability to take him out, Robertson continued, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
Robertson found himself in the middle of a media firestorm. He initially denied he'd called for Chavez to be killed, and claimed he'd been misinterpreted, but in an age of digital recording, Robertson could not flip-flop his way out of his own statement. He said what he said.
By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down: I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.
No one bought that explanation, either. So Robertson quietly posted a half apology on his website. It is only a half apology because it is clear he really does not mean to apologize, but rather, still seeks to rationalize and justify his dastardly comment.
From the moment I heard Robertson's remark, on the radio, I thought of the federal criminal statutes prohibiting such threats. Do they apply?
For me, the answer is yes. Indeed, had these comments been made by a Dan Rather, a Bill Moyers, or Jesse Jackson, it is not difficult to imagine some conservative prosecutor taking a passing look at these laws - as, say, Pat Robertson might read them - and saying, Let's prosecute.
The Broad Federal Threat Attempt Prohibition Vis-à-Vis Foreign Leaders
Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: Whoever willfully - (1) ... threatens ... a foreign official ..., [or] (2) attempts to... threaten ... a foreign official ... shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson attempted to threaten President Chavez.
Yet the statute was written to protect foreign officials visiting the United States - not those in their homelands. Does that make a difference?
It would likely be the precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that would answer that question; the Fourth Circuit includes Virginia where Robertson made the statement. And typically, the Fourth Circuit, in interpreting statutes does not look to the intent of Congress; it focuses on statutory language instead.
And in a case involving Robertson, to focus on language would only be poetic justice:
Robertson, is the strictest of strict constructionists, a man who believes judges (and prosecutors) should enforce the law exactly as written. He said as much in his 2004 book, Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court Is Usurping The Power of Congress and the People.
Still, since the applicability of this misdemeanor statute is debatable, I will focus on the felony statute instead.
The Federal Threat Statute: Fines and Prison for Threats to Kidnap or Injure
It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphases added.)
The interstate or foreign commerce element is plainly satisfied by Robertson's statements. Robertson's 700 Club is listed as broadcasting in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, not to mention ABC Family Channel satellites which cover not only the United States but several foreign countries as well. In addition, the program was sent around the world via the Internet.
But did Robertson's communication contain a threat to kidnap or injure Chavez?
First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to take him out, especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.
Then, Robertson said he was only talking about kidnapping Chavez. Under the federal statute, a threat to kidnap is expressly covered.
As simple and clear as this statute may be, the federal circuit courts have been divided when reading it. But the conservative Fourth Circuit, where Robertson made his statement, is rather clear on its reading of the law.
Does Robertson's Threat Count as a True Threat? The Applicable Fourth Circuit Precedents Suggest It Does
If Robertson himself were a judge (or prosecutor) reading this statue - based on my reading of his book about how judges and justice should interpret the law - he would be in a heap of trouble. But how would the statute likely be read in the Fourth Circuit, where a prosecution of Robertson would occur?
Under that Circuit's precedent, the question would be whether Robertson's threat was a true threat. Of course, on third reflection, Robertson said it was not. But others have been prosecuted notwithstanding retractions, and later reflections on intemperate threats.
Here is how the Fourth Circuit - as it explained in the Draby case - views threats under this statute: Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat is determined by the interpretation of a reasonable recipient [meaning, the person to whom the threat was directed] familiar with the context of the communication.
This is an objective standard, under which the court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the communications, rather than simply looking to the subjective intent of the speaker, or the subjective feelings of the recipient. So even if Robertson did not mean to make a threat, and even if Chavez did not feel threatened, that is not the end of the story.
In one Fourth Circuit case, the defendant asked if [the person threatened] knew who Jeffrey Dahlmer [sic] was. Then the defendant added that, he didn't eat his victims, like Jeffrey Dahlmer; [sic] that he just killed them by blowing them up. This defendant's conviction for this threat was upheld.
In another Fourth Circuit ruling, the defendant, an unhappy taxpayer, was convicted for saying, to an IRS Agent, that in all honesty, I can smile at you and blow your brains out; that once I come through there, anybody that tries to stop me, I'm going to treat them just like they were a cockroach; and, that unless I can throw somebody through a damn window, I'm just not going to feel good.
Viewed in the context, and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, it was anything but clear that any of these threats were anything more than angry tough talk. The same could be said of Robertson's threats. Yet in both these cases, the Fourth Circuit upheld the defendant's conviction, deeming the true threat evidence sufficient to do so.
For me, this make Robertson's threats a very close question. President Chavez publicly brushed Robertson's threats off, for obvious diplomatic reasons, yet I suspect a little inquiry would uncover that the Venezuelan President privately he has taken extra precautions, and his security people have beefed up his protection. Robertson has Christian soldiers everywhere. Who knows what some misguided missionary might do?
If you have not seen the Robertson threat, view it yourself and decide. Robertson's manner, his choice to return to the subject repeatedly in his discourse, and the seriousness with which he stated the threat, all strike me as leading strongly to the conclusion that this was a true threat. Only media pressure partially backed him off. And his apology is anything but a retraction.
Will Robertson be investigated or prosecuted by federal authorities? Will he be called before Congress? Will the President, or the Secretary of State, publicly chastise Robertson? Are those three silly questions about a man who controls millions of Republican votes from Christian conservatives?
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
Here is a synopsis of the Dean interview.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0714-25.htm
Them's strong words Mr Dean!
John Dean on MSNBC: Dik Cheney may be guilty of "murder"
Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s bombshell earlier this week that Vice President Dik Cheney controlled an “executive assassination ring” continues to reverberate throughout Washington, with Nixon aide John Dean going so far as to accuse the former VP of murder if the charges are true.
You still got the wrong Mr. Dean, Darwin
Identifying the CORRECT Mr. Dean since you don't know any better........no child left behind?
Howard Kaloogian is lying to the people of San Diego's face....sm
And yet he still is raking in the support. This tops all, and he still has this photo on his site representing Bagdad. Unbelievable.
I mean Dean is a real republican, not like the ones today.
Ummm...wrong Mr. Dean, Einstein
Howard Dean was the Vermont Governor who ran in the 2004 election. JOHN Dean was Richard Nixon's Aide - get it?
John Wesley Dean III (born October 14, 1938) was White House Counsel to U.S. President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973. As White House Counsel, he became deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and the subsequent Watergate scandal cover up, even referred to as "master manipulator of the cover up" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
More foreign political news...Australia..So long, John Howard..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071125/ap_on_re_au_an/australia_election
Mr. Dean talks thought the mouth of a horse
Yeah, like anything he has to say is valuable. This is the guy who screamed out all those states - HEEEEE-YAWWWWWW?
Mr. Dean is a spiteful crat to the bone and did not do his job properly. He didn't stand on the side of the people, who stood with the big money people.
If he's going to call anyone a murderer he best go back to Billy boy himself with those wars he started that he had no place involving the US troops. Lots of innocent people were slaughtered because of him back then and no he did not follow the Geneva code.
Jon Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
HNN History News Network Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.
12-20-04 An Interview with Jon Butler ... Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
By Rick Shenkman
Mr. Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University, is the author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People(Harvard University Press, 1990). This interview was conducted by HNN editor Rick Shenkman for The Learning Channel series, Myth America, which aired several years ago.
You hear it all the time from the right wing. The United States was founded as a Christian country. What do you make of that?
Well, first of all, it wasn't. The United States wasn't founded as a Christian country. Religion played very little role in the American Revolution and it played very little role in the making of the Constitution. That's largely because the Founding Fathers were on the whole deists who had a very abstract conception of God, whose view of God was not a God who acted in the world today and manipulated events in a way that actually changed the course of human history. Their view of religion was really a view that stressed ethics and morals rather than a direct divine intervention.
And when you use the term deists, define that. What does that mean?
A deist means someone who believes in the existence of God or a God, the God who sets the world into being, lays down moral and ethical principals and then charges men and women with living lives according to those principals but does not intervene in the world on a daily basis.
Let's go through some of them. George Washington?
George Washington was a man for whom if you were to look at his writings, you would be very hard pressed to find any deep, personal involvement with religion. Washington thought religion was important for the culture and he thought religion was important for soldiers largely because he hoped it would instill good discipline, though he was often bitterly disappointed by the discipline that it did or didn't instill.
And he thought that society needed religion. But he was not a pious man himself. That is, he wasn't someone who was given to daily Bible reading. He wasn't someone who was evangelical. He simply was a believer. It's fair, perfectly fair, to describe Washington as a believer but not as someone whose daily behavior, whose political life, whose principals are so deeply infected by religion that you would have felt it if you were talking to him.
Thomas Jefferson?
Well, Jefferson's interesting because recently evangelicals, some evangelicals, have tried to make Jefferson out as an evangelical. Jefferson actually was deeply interested in the question of religion and morals and it's why Jefferson, particularly in his later years, developed a notebook of Jesus' sayings that he found morally and ethically interesting. It's now long since been published and is sometimes called, The Jefferson Bible. But Jefferson had real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher. But he was not religious in any modern meaning of that word or any eighteenth century meaning of that word. He wasn't a regular church goer and he never affiliated himself with a religious denomination--unlike Washington who actually did. He was an Episcopalian. Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.
Where does he stand on Christ exactly?
Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, but he believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher and it was in Christ's moral and ethical teachings that Jefferson was particularly interested. And so that's what attracted him to the figure of Christ was the moral and ethical teachings as described in the New Testament. But he was not an evangelical and he was not a deeply pious individual.
Let's move on to Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Franklin was even less religious than Washington and Jefferson. Franklin was an egotist. Franklin was someone who believed far more in himself than he could possibly have believed have believed in the divinity of Christ, which he didn't. He believed in such things as the transmigration of souls. That is that human, that humans came into being in another existence and he may have had occult beliefs. He was a Mason who was deeply interested in Masonic secrets and there are some signs that Franklin believed in the mysteries of Occultism though he never really wrote much about it and never really said much about it. Franklin is another writer whom you can read all you want to read in the many published volumes of Franklin's writings and read very little about religion.
Where did the conservatives come up with this idea that the Founding Fathers were so religious?
Well, when they discuss the Founding Fathers or when individuals who are interested in stressing the role of religion in the period of the American Revolution discuss this subject, they often stress several characteristics. One is that it is absolutely true that many of the second level and third levels in the American Revolution were themselves church members and some of them were deeply involved in religion themselves.
It's also true that most Protestant clergymen at the time of the American Revolution, especially toward the end of the Revolution, very eagerly backed the Revolution. So there's a great deal of formal religious support for the American Revolution and that makes it appear as though this is a Christian nation or that religion had something to do with the coming of the Revolution, the texture of the Revolution, the making of the Revolution.
But I think that many historians will argue and I think quite correctly that the Revolution was a political event. It was centered in an understanding of what politics is and by that we mean secular politics, holding power. Who has authority? Why should they have authority? It wasn't centered in religious events. It wasn't centered in miracles. It wasn't centered in church disputes. There was some difficulty with the Anglican church but it was relatively minor and as an example all one needs to do is look at the Declaration of Independence. Neither in Jefferson's beautifully written opening statement in the Declaration nor in the long list of grievances against George the Third does religion figure in any important way anywhere.And the Declaration of Independence accurately summarizes the motivations of those who were back the American Revolution.
Some of the conservatives will say, well, but it does make a reference to nature's God and isn't that a bow to religion?
It is a bow to religion but it's hardly a bow to evangelicalism. Nature's God was the deist's God. Nature's God, When evangelicals discuss religion they mean to speak of the God of the Old and the New Testament not the God of nature. The God of nature is an almost secular God and in a certain way that actually makes the point that that's a deistical understanding of religion not a specifically Christian understanding of religion. To talk about nature's God is not to talk about the God of Christ.
John Patrick Diggins has advanced the argument that not only were the Founding Fathers not particularly religious but in fact they were deeply suspicious of religion because of the role that they saw religion played in old Europe, where they saw it not as cohesive but as divisive. Do you agree?
The answer is yes and the reason is very simple. The principal Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin--were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion. They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion. Ministers who were paid by the state and paid by the government didn't pay any attention to their parishes. They didn't care about their parishioners. They could have, they sold their parishes. They sold their jobs and brought in a hireling to do it and they wandered off to live somewhere else and they didn't need to pay attention to their parishioners because the parishioners weren't paying them. The state was paying them.
In addition, it corrupts the state. That is, it brings into government elements of politics and elements of religion that are less than desirable. The most important being coercion. When government is involved with religion in a positive way, the history that these men saw was a history of coercion and a history of coercion meant a history of physical coercion and it meant ultimately warfare. Most of the wars from 1300 to 1800 had been religious wars and the wars that these men knew about in particular were the wars of religion that were fought over the Reformation in which Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other, stuffed Bibles into the slit stomachs of dead soldiers so that they would eat, literally eat, their words, eat the words of an alien Bible and die with those words in their stomachs. This was the world of government involvement with religion that these men knew and a world they wanted to reject.
To create the United States meant to create a new nation free from those old attachments and that's what they created in 1776 and that's what they perfected in 1789 with the coming of the federal government. And thus it's not an accident that the First Amendment deals with religion. It doesn't just deal with Christianity. It deals with religion with a small r meaning all things religious.
What about the conservatives' belief that we need to go back to the religion of the Founding Fathers?
If we went back to the religion of the Founding Fathers we would go back to deism. If we picked up modern religion, it's not the religion of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, we are probably more religious than the society that created the American Revolution. There are a number of ways to think about that. Sixty percent of Americans belong to churches today , 20 percent belonged in 1776. And if we count slaves, for example, it probably reduces the figure to 10 percent of the society that belonged to any kind of religious organization.
Modern Americans probably know more about religious doctrine in general, Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, than most Americans did in 1776. I would argue that America in the 1990s is a far more deeply religious society, whose politics is more driven by religion, than it was in 1776. So those who want to go back would be going back to a much more profoundly secular society.
What do you make of the politicians who take the opposite point of view. It must make you go crazy.
It doesn't make me go crazy. It makes me feel sad because it's inaccurate. It's not a historically accurate view of American society. It's a very useful view because many modern men and women are driven by a jeremiad, that is jeremiad lamenting the conditions in the wilderness. We tend to feel bad when we hear that we are not as religious as our fathers or our grandfathers or our great grandfathers and that spurs many of us on to greater religious activity. Unfortunately in this case the jeremiad simply isn't true. And I don't think that those who insist it is true would really want to go back to the kind of society that existed on thee eve of the American Revolution.
Americans do become religious in the nineteenth century, don't they? That's what you say in your book.
The American Revolution created the basis for new uses of religion in a new society and that was conveyed in the lesson taught by the First Amendment. If government was no longer going to be supporting religion how was religion going to support itself? It would have to support itself by its own means. Through its own measures. It would have to generate its measures. And this is what every one of the churches began to do. As soon as religion dropped out of the state and the state dropped out of religion, the churches began fending for themselves. And they discovered that in fending for themselves that their contributions were going up, they were producing more newspapers, more tracts, they were beginning to circulate those tracts, they created a national religious economy long before there was a secular economy. You could trade more actively in religious goods than you could in other kinds in the United States in 1805, 1810.
What happened in the United States is that the churches actually benefited from this separation of church and state that was dictated by the First Amendment. In addition to which America became kind of a spiritual hothouse in the nineteenth century. Not only did the quantity off religion go up but so did the proliferation of doctrine. There became new religions--the Mormons, the spiritualists--all created in the United States. New religious groups that no one had ever heard of before, that had never existed anywhere else in western society than in the United States.
I don't claim to no everything about him.
I have never claimed that. Did I vote for him....no. Have I given him a chance? What chance is there to give him? Look at what he has done in this short time. I don't want to wait another term in office before I see the huge mistakes that are happening now. And please correct me if I am wrong but I do recall many of you putting Bush down for every little thing that he ever did. I didn't vote for Bush either and I do believe he made some huge mistakes as well. You people have no problem cutting people down and not giving them a chance unless we are talking about Obama and then all of a sudden we are all horrible for opposing government spending MORE of our money. That makes us instantly prejudice.
You ridicule Bush for the war in Iraq and Obama said he would pull our troops out ASAP. We are still there and Obama has pushed back the time line to pull them out. Now we are in Afgan fighting the Taliban....which are the same terrorist freaks we ran out of Iraq. Gitmo is still open with no plan of where to put these terrorists. The usual rules in bankrupcty were changed in Chrysler's dealings so that the unions came out top dog....which is not supposed to happen like that. Obama has spent more money than Bush ever did and he wants to spend more. He promised no taxes of any kind to 95% of Americans and yet he wants to institute cap and trade which will tax everyone. The jobs that he claims will be created with the spendulous package are not sustainable jobs. Only 1 out of 10 green jobs are sustainable long term. He is capping what CEOs can make. He has done nothing but apologize for the US wherever he goes and yet he fails to comment on all the good things that we have done for other countries or how much we gave relief to people after natural disasters. A man who gives abortion rights but takes away the rights of doctors and hospitals to deny performing a procedure they don't believe in when those patients could easily go elsewhere for that particular procedure. Our government is getting bigger and taking over too much. What right does our government have to cap pay for anyone? What right does our goverment have to okay bonuses for AIG and then turn around and demand the bonuses be taken away. I don't agree that they should get bonuses but congress approved it in the first place. Did you sleep through all of this? They are talking about taxing health care benefits to help pay for universal health care when Obama ridiculed McCain during the campaign stating how ridiculous it is for McCain to want to tax someone's benefits.....hello?
ARE YOU LISTENING? How much more time should I give him because I can say that he sucks?
You did not claim to have a right to
smoke anywhere but you did mention nonsmokers not being content with banning you from smoking in public places and this is a constant argument I had with my dad for many years. A lot of smokers are very inconsiderate. More often than not you see them smoking at ball parks that have no smoking signs just because they think it is their right to smoke no matter how many children are around them at the time. I've been in my car at a stoplight and my car filled with a smell of smoke and I looked over to see the person in the car next to me smoking. Smokers just do not realize how far their smoke carries and how really harmful it is to nonsmokers. Parents who continually take their kids to the doctors for ear infections or respiratory problems and yet continue to smoke around them. My dad used to smoke in the car with all three of us kids in the back but he thought we would be fine because the window was cracked. All that did was blow unwanted ashes back towards us. Amazingly none of us three kids smoke. We all vowed never to pick up the habit and none of us married a smoker either.
I wasn't trying to be rude.....but smoking is a very sore subject with me. Not only did I lose one grandpa to lung cancer and another grandpa to emphysema but I lost my dad 2 years ago to emphysema and I just absolutely HATE cigarettes. To think of the years those stupid things robbed me of my 2 grandpas and my dad.....I just loathe cigarettes.
uranium claim
This morning I was thinking this Rove thing over and the main issue is the deception by this administration over the wanting to buy uranium claim. When Wilson went to check it out and reported back that the claim was incorrect, it still was included in the State of the Union address, to scare the American people into war. That is the main issue, the lies for going to war.
This is getting better every minute, MT. You claim to know who's AGAINST you when you can't
even figure out who's WITH you, as evidenced by the little hissy fit above between you and another CON!!!
Please keep posting. You're getting whackier with each post and revealing yourself for the nut case you truly are!!!
Plus, I'm intrigued by all the different voices in your head who surface at different times. I guess tonight TM is doing the talking, and TM seems to be even more rude and angry and hateful than you usually are.
Why so angry, MT? Roberts was confirmed today. Why aren't you happy? Or do you just have a terminal case of chronic bitterness, no matter what? Have you ever been nice to ANYONE?
PLEASE keep posting. You're quite entertaining, even if in a pathetic sort of way.
One way to claim innocence
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_22/b3986068.htm
Every bit as substantiated as your claim that
xoxoxo
and would you be 1 of those people that claim the
nm
when you claim you are so smart
it gives quite the opposite impression. When you brought up your intelligence, claiming to have an abundance, you opened it up for discussion, and my fellow MT, i take issue with you lording it over me and others.
socialists won't claim him -
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28645
turned down claim
My husband went through that too, what you need to get is an attorney who only gets paid, if he gets disability. We did and finally thank God, we finally got it and boy did we ever need it. You also get a retroactive amount from the first time you applied, so there was some money involved and now every month it goes into his account by direct deposit and each year it goes up a little more.
Just think about it, his claim to fame sm
is that he did all this damage in just a little over two months! What a guy! NOT!!!!!!!!!!
Especially the ones who claim they can read...
...your mind, claim to know how well you "scan," etc. They're the scariest of all.
Have fun, kids. I need another break from the board for a while.
I wonder how Gourd Painter is doing. Looks like she was chased away by the bullies. Too bad. I enjoyed her perspectives. 
Please provide substantiation for your claim.
After all, you are not GW who can manipulate the truth as he pleases. But anyway, please provide the "burn in hell for eternity" quote that seems to appear over and over. I notice that this "quote" also changes slightly each time it is "quoted."
Saying it don't make it so. Back up your claim
Put up or shut up.
Fact check on Sam's claim that
For those who can read and decide for themselves. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html
well richard morris would claim
that made her well rounded!!!
Reply to pub claim that O's accomplishments
When a senator sponsor a bill, he originates the concept, surveys the landscape for support or lack thereof, identifies targets for persuasion, and works for bipartisan consensus. This would involve extensive research on the content of the bill, assessment of benefits versus cost, knowledge of past voting records of constituents and fashioning persuasive arguments using pros and cons, according to who his individual target is and where he or she is coming from. He determines constitutionality, legality and any possible conflict of interests. He authors the bill. He introduces the bill, debates the bill in the chambers, takes and answers criticism, compromises, rewrites and so forth until passage is achieved. He then turns around and goes through much the same process to promote the bill in the house. Then he holds his breath and hopes the president from his opposition party does not wipe out all his hard work with the stroke of a veto pen. When he cosponsors a bill, he does much the same thing with a partner or partners.
The accomplishments I listed under the state experience section actually were Obama's initiatives. The US senate list does not just reflect legislation. It also demonstrates varied committee membership, which reflects a completely different type of experience, much along the lines of study groups and research focused on strategy building of national and internation consequence.
Two final observations. Every single item listed under O's experience indicates the issues he takes most seriously and aligns consistently with the platform he now proposes on a national level in the presidential campaign. Thus, this addresses the trust issue so often raised by his detractors. O obviously has been a quick study, or he would not have been able to successfully seize the nomination of his party.
I do not understand how SP's so-called executive experiences trumps this record. In fact, my question would be where then DID she get her consensus-building experience from if she was so totally in charge of people she expected to simply fall in line. Lastly, I am still wondering exactly how SP's record is comparable in this regard...or in words of one syllable...how does she stack up?
Apparently NOT. Your claim. Your citation.
no credibility. Got it? Just wondering what other verifiable examples you can come up with to support you claim of "Christian discrimination."
The math is based on Sam's claim
If Sam is talking 80% approval rating in Alaska, that would imply that she is talking about people who actually are familiar with her policies, programs, credibility, how she conducts herself and soforth...in other words, approval rating among those who actually know her/voted for her. That is what a governor's approval rating is.
The math shows us how much of an overall approval rating of these same factors she has nationwide. SP was only in the governor's office for 20 months. She is still an unknown quantity here and will remain so. The only people who can rate her job performance are the one from her state, since she is not known in the lower 48. The math merely points out exactly what that means within the context of a national approval rating of job performance, since the rest of the 49 cannot possibly be included in that figure. Thus on a national level, that 0.182% means next to nothing.
Al Qaeda did claim responsibility for 9-11 sm
and I believe they were. However, AL Qaeda was not in Iraq until we invaded. Rather, they were in the mountains of Afganistan and Pakistan. Invasion of Iraq gave them a venue to distract from where Islama Bin Ladin was and keep him safe.
Those who claim to have 'come to Jesus' as
Or else brainwashed.
Or both.
Yeah! Could I rob and bank and claim to be
nm
|
